Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Hearing - Appeal filed by Catellus Group to Planning
f- (3) 02/22/99—Council/Agency Agenda— Page 3 The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach .will regularly convene in joint session for the purpose of considering the following City Council-Redevelopment Agency Agenda Items. The Huntington Beach Parking Authority, Civic Improvement.Corporation,and the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority are also agencies on which Council serves as members. On each Agenda these Agencies may have items scheduled. On 1/25/99 the City Council made a motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01. It failed by 3-4 vote. D-1 B. (City Council) Public Hearing Opened & Closed On 1/25199 With Decision Continued From 1/25199 On Appeal Filed By Cattellus Group To Planning Commission's Approval Of.Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (Meadowlark Residential Development) Public hearing opened and closed on 1/25/99 with decision continued to this date. Proiect Applicant/Appellant: Bruce D'Eliscu/Catellus Residential Group Proiect Request: To permit subdivision and development of 48.4 acres with 313 detached single family dwellings on small-lots in conjunction with public park, open space/recreation and infrastructure improvements. Appeal Request: To have the City Council consider Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 /Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 to ensure that project findings and conditions of approval are in compliance with the proposed amendment(s) to the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01/Negative Declaration No. 97-21. (*) This Negative Declaration Will also be considered by the City Council. Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. (*) Notice is hereby given that an initial environmental assessment for the above items (Negative Declaration No. 97-21)was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental quality Act. It was determined that the above items, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department. Recommended Action: Staff Recommendation: Motion to: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No.1)to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999; [Approved 7-0)] and 2. Overturn the Planning.Commission approval and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with revisions to reflect staff's recommendation (Attachment No. 3)to the Request for 02/22/99-Council/Agency Minutes — Page 5 A motion made by Garofalo, seconded by Julien, to: (1) approve Negative Declaration No. 97- 21 with findings and mitigation measures, and (2) approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97- 04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions based on Alternative#3 on the Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix dated 2-18-99 (Attachment 4 of Request for Action dated 2-22-99), and (3) to adopt Ordinance No. 3411 with revisions to reflect Alternative#3. The following modifications to Alternative#3 include: Issue 1.c. Spine Road Width (Curb Modify 43 parking spaces to "additional" to curb) parking spaces Issue 11 Tandem Parking Allowed in PA 4 for 20 additional spaces in PA 4 Issue 2.a. Park size Catellus Proposal of 3.2 ac. (2.4 ac. Land dedication) plus park improvements & in-lieu fees at$500,000/ac. 4.a. Development Agreement Agree to process 3-year extension per developer's request And, any additional water hookup fees be waived, and that these items return to Council on March 1, 1999. Senior Planner Hess stated staff will return to Council with a new ordinance and new ordinance number and new draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. Ray Silver, City Administrator, stated that staff would return with changes to the ordinance as directed by Council for introduction.and then adoption. Councilman Garofalo stated that was the intent of his motion. In response to Councilmember Harman, the Fire Chief explained how Alternative No. 3 adequately addresses the fire issues for the project. An amendment to the main motion was made by Harman, seconded by Sullivan that in regard to the in-lieu park fee it should be $516,500 rather than $500,000 per acre. The motion FAILED by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff ABSENT: None An amendment to the main motion was made by Harman, seconded by Sullivan, that the developer be requested to provide block wall fencing on interior and rear yards as well as exterior and perimeter yards. The motion FAILED by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff ABSENT: None 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes— Page 6 Councilmember Garofalo clarified the intent of the motion to Paul D'Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney, to waive any additional fee required as a result of the sprinklers and therefore any requirement that might be imposed for a one-inch meter. The present Council passed a law to charge $2,500 for a%inch meter and $4,500 for a one-inch meter. He stated his motion included the waiving of that additional fee. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, stated that such action would require a legislative act. The water fee is adopted by ordinance; therefore, Council cannot waive the ordinance without amending the ordinance. Councilmember Garofalo stated he would, on the attorney's advice, withdraw the portion of his motion waiving the additional water hookup fees. Councilmember Garofalo stated he would be making a motion to have staff return to Council with a deed restriction on the property with strong language mandating a maintenance program for the wooden fencing as opposed to making it a part of the CC&R's so that homeowners in the future could not change it without Council approval. It is his intent to assure maintenance of the wooden fencing with a deed restriction. Scott Hess, Senior Planner, stated that since Council denied the Planning Commission's draft Specific Plan, staff has not had the time to go through it and make sure it is consistent. The amended main motion made by Garofalo, seconded by Julien, to (1) approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures and (2) approve the Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 for the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan with revisions based on Alternative#3 on the Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix dated 2-18-99 (Attachment 4 of Request for Action dated 2/22/99) and (3) staff to return to Council with an ordinance for introduction that reflects Alternative#3 with Council directed modifications: Issue 1.c. Spine Road Width (Curb Modify 43 parking spaces to"additional" to curb) parking spaces Issue 1.f. Tandem Parking Allowed in PA 4 for 20 additional spaces in PA 4 Issue 2.a. Park size Catellus Proposal of 3.2 ac. (2.4 ac. Land dedication) plus park improvements & in-lieu fees at $500,000/ac. 4.a. Development Agreement Agree to process 3-year extension per developer's request The amended main motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes— Page 7 A motion was made by Green, second Dettloff, for staff to return to Council on March 8, 1999. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman NOES: Bauer ABSTAIN: Sullivan ABSENT: None . A motion was made by Garofalo, seconded by Green, to (1) approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures, and (2) approve Alternative#3 Plan which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 or any appropriate Tentative Tract number that shall apply and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 or any Conditional Use Permit number that shall apply and return to the City Council with findings and conditions of approval on March 8, 1999. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None John Erskine asked that the motion on the tentative tract map and Conditional Use Permit be clarified that the conditions come back per Specific Plan and be consistent with the revisions that the map and conditions thereon would be consistent with the Specific Plan revisions Council made. Councilman Garofalo stated he would hope that staff would interpret it that way. MOTION REGARDING THE NEED TO TAKE EMERGENCY ACTION ON AN ITEM WHICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA -APPROVED CLOSED SESSION -CITY COUNCIL PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54956.9(a)TO CONFER WITH ITS ATTORNEY REGARDING PENDING LITIGATION WHICH HAS BEEN INITIATED FORMALLY AND TO WHICH THE CITY IS A PARTY. THE TITLE OF THE LITIGATION IS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V. POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Deputy City Attorney Scott Field read the following document into the record. The document was dated February 22, 1999 to Mayor and City Councilmembers from the City Attorney— Subject: Motion to agendize after the posting of the agenda City Council Meeting pending litigation February 22, 1999 pursuant to Government Code §54954.2(b)(2) 1. Motion to determine that there is an immediate need to take action and the need for action came to the attention of the City Council subsequent to the agenda being posted in that a letter was received from Mark Reed, POA Negotiator, which must be timely responded to relating to pending litigation entitled HBPOA v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 804949. A motion was made by Harman, second Sullivan to approved the above stated motion. The motion carried unanimously. A motion was made by Harman, second Sullivan to recess to closed session pursuant to Government 54956.9 (a) Pending Litigation HBPOA v. City of Hunting Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 804949. The motion carried unanimously. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes— Page 8 RECESS Mayor Green recessed the Council at 6:40 p.m. RECONVENE The Mayor reconvened the Council Meeting at 6:50 p.m. (CITY COUNCIL) SUBMITTAL OF BOLSA CHICA ANNEXATION STUDY- RECOMMENDATIONS APPROVED AS AMENDED (610.30) The City Council considered a communication from the Assistant City Administrator, Director Of Public Works, Fire Chief and Planning Director submitting for Council consideration the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Review of Options &LAFCO Fiscal& Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999. Assistant City Administrator Fallon presented a staff report. Earlier in the meeting, the City Clerk had announced that the following communications on this item had been provided to the City Council: Communication from Miriam Wedemeyer dated February 21, 1999 titled Annexation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa regarding a request for support for the efforts of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust to prevent development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Communication from Paul Horgan, Bolsa Chica Land Trust dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Item D-2A/February 22, 1999 transmitting the opinion of the 4,700 members of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust that a nature/wilderness park be developed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Communication from John Scandura dated February 22, 1999 expressing support for the annexation and restoration of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study regarding the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Communication from Aimee M. Toth dated February 22, 1999 supporting preservation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to the Bolsa Chica wetlands Dan Miller, Principal, RSG Associates, reported on portions of the slide show presentation titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—City of Huntington Beach—February 22, 1999. His presentation included Development Assumptions, Scenario A(Annexation Prior To Development—Key Assumptions), Property Tax Distribution, Current Bolsa Chica (Unincorporated) Property Tax Distribution, Potential Bolsa Chica Property Tax Distribution With Annexation, Scenario A (Annexation Before Development—Summary Findings), Scenario B (No Annexation—Key Assumptions), Scenario B (No Annexation—Summary Findings), Scenario C (Annexation After Development), and Scenario D (Annexation Without Development—Key Assumptions and Summary Findings). t 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes— Page 9 Assistant City Administrator Fallon reviewed the Study Conciusions set forth in the slide report as follows: In each scenario examined, annexation creates a beneficial fiscal impact to the city,- however, the city obtains the greatest benefits if annexation occurs prior to development. Assistant City Administrator Fallon reviewed the motions made by the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee on January 7, 1999 as well as presenting a review of Pages No. 5, 6, and 7 of the Request for Council Action which were also addressed in the slide report. Assistant City Administrator Fallon then reviewed the actions which the city staff are recommending. In response to Councilmember Garofalo, Laurie McKinley, Senior Partner, MNA Consulting, reported on annexation as it relates to the election process and the Local Agency Formation Commission. At the request of Councilmember Bauer, Assistant City Administrator Fallon reported on the Linear Park issue. Councilmember Bauer requested that staff make contact with the Coastal Commission regarding the wording about potential acquisition in the Hellman Ranch agreement to see if a similar wording option could be considered by Council. City staff stated that this could be included in Recommended Action Item No. 6 as well as the oil well issue. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding details that have to be worked out including the Edwards Thumb which could be another NEST-Accon dump situation in the making and how to address concerns from the community groups. In response to Councilmember Bauer, the Assistant City Administrator stated that staff was going to look at the 17 principles and the seven coastal issues, but there are subsequent issues that probably are not contained in those items. She stated that to the extent that staff understands Council's requests at this meeting such as the Hellman Ranch agreement provisions condition,_oil well barrel tax situation, and subsequent cleanup, staff will return at a subsequent date with answers to those questions. Councilmember Bauer stated that he had a long list. Further discussion was held. Councilmember Bauer spoke regarding the matter; that it should not be assumed that annexation by Council is going to take place as the balance, in the broadest sense, between environmental, financial, and recreational considerations must be of benefit to the residents of Huntington Beach before any preannexation is agreed to. Councilmember Harman questioned Recommended Action No. 3 as to the procedural aspect. Councilmember Harman stated that as suggested by the Mayor he would present a motion relative to his concern at the time of the motion on Recommended Action No. 3. Dan Miller, Principal, RSG Associates, responded to Councilmember Harman regarding his question as to the cost of residential development to the community. He responded to Councilmember Sullivan's questions regarding the financial analysis relative to the county Fire Authority tax if the city does not annex according to current discussion. Councilmember Sullivan stated his disagreement with Mr. Miller's response. Laurie McKinley, Senior Partner, MNA Consulting, responded to Councilmember Sullivan relative to LAFCO having the final say as to annexation should the City Council and citizens not want annexation but the developer does. Deputy City Attorney Scott Field reported on court cases. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes — Page 10 PUBLIC COMMENTS SHEILA KLICK addressed Council in opposition to the annexation. She spoke on behalf of keeping the area available for the pleasure of children and as a nature preserve. ELDA BARRY, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke on behalf of retaining the Bolsa Chica open space for the benefit of the children. MARGE ALLEN asked all those present to stand and applaud if they are here for the Bolsa Chica Mesa. She presented a history of how the plan for the Bolsa Chica has changed. DAVE CARLBERG, representing Amigos de Bolsa Chica, stated his organization's position on the Bolsa Chica including that if development has to occur that it would be an opportune time to address points involved in the restoration. He referred to a letter from Hearthside Homes (Koll Company)which he believes, notwithstanding, it is important to raise the points of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica. TERRY DOLTON, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, addressed Council regarding issues including the Edwards Thumb, Linear Park,Warner Avenue Pond and buffer, the bluff buffer around the project between the homes as well as down to the wetlands, the park designated in the General Plan southerly of Bolsa Chica Road as extended, and other park areas on the Bolsa Chica Mesa designated in the county plan. He stated they would like to see steps taken to have these areas irrevocably dedicated to public agencies. EILEEN MURPHY, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke in opposition to annexation. She displayed a chart titled Major General Fund Revenues Are Less Than Public Safety Costs. PAUL HORGAN, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, stated the organization's concern that it appears to be that the City Council believes it inevitable that development will occur. He spoke regarding the upcoming Public Utilities Commission meeting that will have persons including Senator Barbara Boxer in attendance who have concern. JOSEPH RACANO spoke regarding his witnessing a coyote that is a part of the Bolsa Chica. He spoke regarding the items that will be introduced into the Bolsa Chica including motor oil and Tidy Bowl cleaner. BOB TRAVER, Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce, spoke 'in support of the annexation stating the financial drawbacks of not annexing. CONNIE BOARDMAN stated that she sees the move to annex as a disturbing trend following the City Council election. She cited the example of the Crest View closed school site development approval. She spoke regarding losing the major bargaining chip of water if annexation occurs. LINDA MOON,Vice President of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica, spoke regarding a notebook of the Amigos de Bolsa Chica they have found which is a record from 1976 of the annexation effort and wherein they told the City Council that the Bolsa Chica is a precious gem. She stated it still is. She stated they are not advocating annexation but if annexation occurs that Council must ensure that there are proper buffers to protect from runoff pollution. She stressed the need for the Linear Park to be ensured as well as ensuring that the Bolsa Chica will be the city's precious gem for time to come. 43' tat ••i' ••• • •• • M 5-I'MIK 94'-10' •• •t• • •• .i4 •• •• • - • • V.... I •1J.. ................................ tJ ........ t . . . . �P DR.. -...-.-.....-j, 1 �...:�..;.... ..... 73' ; I ........... I I r.'ti X. 12.6 I _.............- r ...... vj _ I L - I ,;' I � I PLAN 3 - _ GARAGE: 393 S.F. STORAGE: 13 L.F. I , y� >Y t 1 i :tyr -SFti i N't tt RECEIVE® CATELLUS DEC 2 8 1998 OEPARTME -f k'' NT OF PLANNING Novembpl 19, 1998 Mt. SC(-it HVsJ ', Seuor='lamer =ti City of Huntington Beachs Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - Ref: Parking Issues Dear Mr. Hess We are providing the following supporting documentation and correspondence of several issues that have been previously raised by the staff and/or planning commissioners. We Would appreciate if these documents could be included in the City Council staff report. �T- Specifically to the issues of parking, we are also forwarding for your reference an analysis and expanded Parking Plan which also has been prepared by our engineers in response to direction that all possible parking spaces in the masterplan be identified. This analysis identifies 34 additional parking spaces above and beyond those which have previously been discussed and considered. -:r Meadowlark Parking Analysis and Parking Plan Rear Yard Setback Exhibit-PA-3 , Park Acreage Compliance Exhibit Keystone Pacific Letter; Regarding Parking Enforcement Woodbridge Village Association Letter;Regarding Parking Enforcement Jackson,DeMarco &Peckenpaugh Letter w/enclosures Sincerely, CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP Bruce D'Eliscu Vice President cc: Ray Silver John Erskine CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 5 PARK PLAZA,Surm 400,IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 251-6100 FAX(949) 251-8837 MEADOWLARK PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-1 (LOTS 52-113) PROPOSED TOTAL SINGLE FAMILY S'rAND kRT) REQUIRED PROVIDED ADDITIONAL PROVIDED Enclosed spaces(2/Unit:0-4 Bedrooms) 124 124 0 124 Enclosed spaces(3/Unit:5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Spa:.e.-(3,Un'.t:'0-4 Badyooms) 124 124 0 124 (GitP�t:'�1i,-Strect)' 31 51 6 57 Open Spaces(3 Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 279 299 6 305 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-2 (LOTS 1-51) SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED TOTAL ADDITIONAL . PROVIDED Enclosed spaces(2/Unit:0-4 Bedrooms) 102 102 0 102 Enclbsdd spaces (3/Unit:5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Spaces(2 Unit:074 Bedrooms) 102 102 0 102 (Guest: On-Street) 26 35 1 36 Open Spaces(3 Unit:5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 230 239 1 240 :w, PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-3 (LOTS 201-313) `«5 SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROVIDED Enclosed spaces (2/Unit: 0-4 Bedrooms) 226 226 0 226 . Enclosed spaces (3/Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Spaces(2 Unit:0-4 Bedrooms) 226 .226 0 226 (Guest: On-Street) 57 69 24 93 '. Open Spaces(3 Unit:5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 509 521 24 545 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-4 (LOTS 114-200) SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED TOTAL = ADDITIONAL PROVIDED Enclosed spaces(2/Unit:0-4 Bedrooms) 174 174, 0 174. Enclosed spaces(3/Unit:5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Spaces(2 Unit:0-4 Bedrooms) 174 174 0. 174 (Guest: On-Street) 44. 50 3 53 Open Spaces(3 Unit:5 Bedrooms) 0 - 0 0 0 392 398 3 . 401 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PRIVATE PARK(LOT 320) REQUIRED PROVIDED Open Space -- 10 PARTING ANALYSIS FOR PARK SITE(LOT 314) REQUIRED PROVIDED Open Space 16 16 b� --- --- ---- PiIVAIE SIRIEi IDlfel�e� `J \ l-Il.M r+eranes.rsar - 1 1 h�-Y913 FOR PA-2 O.019 1-61) L_C.—a-.- y-��),•. -MA-1-1_ �®a-,i}p®(f1�.-�"._iJY ` ....a rn.rY. .rY.n BMLIM IDm� ,OC�1lL W 1,1 -W �`"" _T.`-":'.1_'-r_� '� � Im•was{�N�«YRiR-n m L°if%ll Yl' ••1�— � _ _ _ r nnl OY.•m laaa M«inu� r r 1 , CIA- Tom •� •ITi TiS _ a f 13 3 f3 •� I �,�• + - as - - 1 a e n r r a t'i PARIQKI ANALY9B FOR PA-1 O-019 62-113) 3' 3m3� �mm 30� r4•,aY• hA•/I N Yw-q IN M .�Y..••� r � _ c.� a IWA \ naps r-a•a11 i. •. 34 lam pi ttii ry gj� r PARKfYO ANALV96 FOR PARK 9rtE(LOT 314) q IF�O ' , _•6��G � r' r p CEOMl ® Rom.-...rY1 ' ' I � ,-� F _� —'"--- t � �° ,, •T,a .� o :o!u li`' � ly�'= '..::: Si` • PAnk _ ne AM 14.5 AdJ Peon ��\� n '1 l� -v� -4 - PARE 1/ a G ' 1 n u a n n '• rr -, - 7 f l 1 �.. I rr fE ... YATCHM I—! TR�Et ��� ° �........... + "S SHECI.2 , .4 PA�11 , •1 ('..,..t .. ,•� �+ '•j':.i��__..i .`. SEC SHEET 2 �...� vr�arr►AAP �� n a SNME FAMLY N -51 .-_ _y�-�.� MEADOWLARK LARK A EMM WFA00 PLANNING AREAS 1-4 SW FAb�Y OM TRACT NO. 15469 >m , OWNE APPLICANT k DEVELOPER P� . .. PARKING PLAN m_ w-full,no feWoull,IMFNDS CATELLUS CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA "_' � '"' SHEET 1 OF 2 v 3 _ _ �SHEowl IN' �i�ill Kim Eml-oi- I ' WINES'� � �■I s i i i.i i � � ��■�I '�I��I t ti�L��■ Ia�a ��I us■ ��I I■a 1 � I 1 •►_;;n��;■�la�`���R,d��-h Ida �C��'.�aa ����;. RIroll ■ fr■IL�.I■ �� YiR■1 ., ■■ .�•�� _WE MRS 1' 7 I. ha ■■I� I�ia � ` •� --� 1. � �. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ i 1 I 1 1 � 1 1 1 1 ■a� �� ' - ,, � "�� arc i• is • c z a o m r . I EXISTING RESIDENCE j 13.5' 1 10' 13' MIN (MIN. PER THE 15' H.B.Z.S.O.) 1 PLAN 1 4 I III Lail WH It 1 I EXISTING Fm RESIDENCE j 14' 1 10' (13' MIN.) 1(MIN. PER THE 15' 1 H.B.Z.S.O.) PLAN 2 PLANNING AREA 3 MEADOWLARK REAR YARD SETBACK EXHIBIT CITY Of WNTINGTON BEAU "- 7 \ ;� STREET 52 AREA 'A' 4m sr- r.. V AREA 'C' SF ►� LOT 314 PARK r as (DETENTION BASIN) 80 PROPOSED PARK: A583 SF. (2.33 ACJ AREA'A': 485 SF. 81 AREA V: 670 SF. AREA'C= 18i0 SF. TOTAL- 104548 S.F. (2.40 ACJ AREA Ty em 8F 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 n. n �R ff- w- ne 'RB' = r. P. r. r. P. 1 - v. v' v. e. \ •r. r .r• r. - AIADOWLARK SCALE: =60' _ PARK fX�il�l� CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH Keystones Pacific Property Management, Inc. !)-!rec1her2, 1993 Mr.•grace D'Eiinu =- Vic0.Presiden- Ma 11.`s Resicential Group 5 Pa:k Plaza,Suite 400 Irvine,CA 92714 Re: Nteadlowlark proposed parking Dear Bruce: Thank you for providing me with the tentative parking and improvement plans for the Meadowlark residential community. As you had requested,I reviewed them with th,e intent of providing feedback on the proposed parking restricticns. It is my understanding that parking within this community will be limited,to one side of the street as the streets within the community will be appronimately 32 feet in width. As a professional management company,Keystone Pacific manages more than 130 homeowners associations. A majority of those associations are in Orange County,it cluding a number in Huntington Beach. It'might be helpful to know that many of those associations do have parking limited to one side of the street,and in many cases,no on street parking at all. Enforcement of these restrictions can be done - most easily when the restrictions are clearly and consistently spelled out,and are enforced in an even- handed manner. Parking enforcement on private streets can be readily accomplished by a homeowners associa:ion and need not become an obligation of the police department. By way of reference,the. California Vehicle Code 63es allow homeowners association to tow frcm all properly posted frelanes. Ibis would be done by a towing or patrol service,hired by the associat.on to enforce the approved firelanes within a private community. You might be interested to know that I live in a homeowners association that has a combination of no on street parking,and parking on one side only. We have enforced the parking restrictions through the governing documents and through the use of a)atrol service,without the police or fire authority being required to do so. An important function of any homeowners association is the establishment and enforcement of the rules. The riles are adopted to govern and benefit those owners who have vo:untarily chosen to live in a planned ' community. A primary and preferred location for these rules would be in the CC&R's(Covenants, . Conditions and Restrictions)that each owner agrees to abide by. As ycou are aware,each owner must sign a disc:osure stating that they have read and agree to.the restrictions established in the governing documents for the community. In order for the parking restrictions to be most easily enforced,the following are suggestions for your consideration: • Clear,concise,and comprehensive language in the CC&R's de fining the parking restrictions to street parking • Restrictions contained.within the CC&R's which either restrict the total number of vehicles that an o%vrer may have or spells out where any vehicles within their control must park • Language in the CC&R's prohibiting the conversion of garage space for uses other than for parking • Language in the CC&R's prohibiting the parking of boats,trailers..RV's etc.on the street,and to prohibit parking of prohibited vehicles on a private driveway or w.thin a garage t A� A separate disclosure that each owner must sign acknowledging Lte parking restrictions W b CORPORATE OFFICE:4100 Newport Place,Ste.350•Newport Beach,CA 92660•(949)833-2600 FAX (949)833-0919 c ; 0 CARLSBAD OFFICE:703 Palomar Airport Rd.,See.225-Carlsbad,CA 92009• (760)603.8600 (800)704-9029 FAX(760)603.8700 Meadowlark proposed parking December 2, 1998 3` Page-Two • The appropriate placement of s'enage,red curb or other devices as specified by the fire authority to establish firelares,no narking;and parking areas. These devices should be in place prior to the closing of die first escrow in the development and installed in each subsequent phase prior to each new phase closing • Cooperation and planning by the developer in conjunction with city staff and fire agency in designing a parking plan which meets the needs of the community. The parking plan would fit in with the overall aesthetics and curb appeal of the community through the location cf parking adjacent to walkways and in designing landscaping compatible with vehicle entry and exit points. • Reinforcement of the education process through the association newsletters,special mailing,and homeowner welcome packets as distributed through the management company • Consistent and repetitive strict enforcement of the firelanes via a patrol or towing service instituted to begin enforcement upon the first escrow closing in die development • Inclusion in the homeowner association budget, the cost to.administrate a patrol service • implementation of fines or special assessments levied to perpetual violators consistent with an adopted violation and fining procedure,adopted by the board ofdirectors and disseminated to the membership When these items are taken into consideration,it has been my e..xperien::e.that firelanes can be kept open for fi:e,police and health providers with no additional involvement or patr•3lling by these agencies. We always welcome the input of these agencies in looking for ways to provide and maintain access to any community that we manage. ir.summary, I believe that the Meadowlark residential community parking plan could be implemented and - enforced with minimal enforcement involvement by the City of Huntin:st on Beach or its police or fire departments. Asa professional management firm,we would be pleased to work with you and Huntington Beach in designing and implementing the proper documents and enforcement mechanisms needed for this community. i will be in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing;on December 3, 1998. In the event that you would like me to be available to provide any additional information in regards to this issue,I would be pleased to do so. I trust that this information will provide the requested information you were seeking on parking guidelines for this community. Should you have any additional questions or need additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me nt your convenience. 1 can be reached at Ext.218. Sincerely, Keystone Pacific Property Mgt. Kerry Leavitt Director of Training and Development CORPORATE OFFICE 4100 Newport Place,Ste. 350•Newport Beach,CA 92n60• (714)833-26CO FAX(7 3.0 k 0 CARLSBAD OFFICE.703 Palomar Airmort Rd.,Ste.225 •Carlsbad,CA 92009•(619 603.8600 (8C0)704.9C29 F 1 )l7Co ,.. i Woodbridge Village Association : i ...Achievement`;;' 1997 Dec&n1iei-'2, 1998 American(rstin... - oiArchirec: Craa,e a-m-, Aaardai=xce.'.e = l Nei;hit;nc��dF'ac� - Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu Catellus Residential Group f 5 Park.Plaza, Suite 400 coreiry Irvine, CA 92614 Asscciationinsrir2e . - HonciaEle�!eatien Association of the Yea, Dear Mr. D'Eliscu: l.ocalChapier I Neuslerrer'OfTheYiar` I appreciate your considering me for a consulting role in conjunction with your proposed Meadowlark project. Though my employment agreement with the 199+ =w Woodbridge Village Association does not allow me to accept outside compensation, I LrbanLandlnsri._t:' can provide you with my personal opinion and observations without charge. These Nademil Lar;e•��a;eAesic'e.^. ai ;.•.;• perspectives are offered on the basis of more than 33 years in association management I'eee!oFment including my current position as Executive Director of the Woodbridge Village AuaaaofExc tents Association for 23 years. I have performed a cursory review of your.Meadowlark project layout and site plan ;a�n u from the standpoint of your concerns with parking on the streets. I have several �' e .•rirtFest Garrntc•:is - thoughts on the issue you raised regarding the enforcement of Homeowners Association CC&R's and specifically restrictive parking. I am providing you with the State of California Vehicle code, Chapter IV, No. 22658.2, Removal of,Vehicles from j Common Interest Development. This section of the Code covers enforcement of 1990 .private streets and specifically the Homeowners Association ability to remove C`"1R1unirf Associationlasdarr. vehicles parked in fire lanes and unauthorized parking areas. AssocarionOfTheYe3r ' The Woodbridge Village Association has a wide variety'.of both private and public` streets throughout our community.and we have numerous restricted parking areas. 1990 i The association has been very diligent and successful in our policing of those areas. Among the methods we have employed to control parking violators are towing, and %la)Issue ticketing by outside security patrols. Those homeowners who fail to abide by the. parking rules and regulations are fined and assessments can be assessed to the members monthly dues statement. Where dues and fines become delinquent, the association 1989 has the ability to lien the property, which serves as a significant factor in motivating southern Califota3 corncompliance, although this is seldom needed Once the membership s aware that the Water a Cou rre P g P i Orange count; Water Awareness Am= 31 Creek Road Irvine, California 92604-4799 Main Office (714) 786-1800 FAX (714) 786-1212 Page 2 Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu December 2, 1998 Ass6dat'-Gn Xaaintaii►s,a strict parking policy which is closely monitored, and illegally parked cars are towed, parking concerns are almost non-existent. w` I hope this info ation is helpful to you and the success of your Meadowlark project. f'tY Sincerely Robe igeira, CCAM, PCAM E cutive Director/Secretary Woodbridge Village Association - - JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH A LAW CORPORATION LANCC A.AOAIR SNCRI L MARVIN 4 PARK PLAZA - IS " FLOOR VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE MARC O.ALCXANOCP STCPw1N O..ASON 01ANL P,EARLY PLAT.. POST OFFICE BOX 19704 280 N.WESTLAKE BLVO. + ,5 SRIAN W.c.*&c.LY C_o A Oa5[NTJf.K su1rE 200 JowN e,eoNb.a TNo.w:.5 D.'FCCKCNPAV4N IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92623-9704 WESTLAKE VILLAGE.CALIFORNIA 91 JAMLS R.OCMARCO JONw P[TRASICN 382 _ STCVCN J.0210A CAR"K.RYNAL (949) 752-93SSS 48051 230-0023 -�iY•" 3_ ROGER M.FRANKS ANOPCW C.3CNVT= FAX:(BOSI 230.0087 - NCLCNC C.FPANSC OAVIO c.SMITH FAX: (949) 752-0597 COWAPo A.OALLOWAY JAY P.STCINMAN POOCR A.GRAD MI:I A:L L.•TIOVb I 1 - PCX A.Me KITTRICK r WILL—M.NLNSLc WI_L1AM J,TLLVI( G December 2, 1998 PCTIPLO --- F.scorn JACKSON PAJL C.V..N NOOMIS SIN r - - ANORCW V.LcITOM KAIS f[N L WALKCR WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: • M,ALIM MAUK M1�NACL'V,MI►PLOP ' (949)851-7427 INTERNET: fsj037@jdplaw.com OUR FILE NUMBER: 00027 Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu :f Catellus Residential Group, Inc. 5,Park Plaza,4th Floor Via Messenger Irvine, California 92614 Re: Meadowlark Parking Restrictions Dear Bruce: Pursuant to your request, we have prepared and are enclosing proposed parking _ restrictions for the Declaration of CC&R's, as well as parking rules and regulations for your Meadowlark planned development in Huntington Beach,•Califomia. The enclosed restrictions and regulations are a bit more stringent than we typically draft for communities in Southern California. However,we drafted similar restrictions and regulations for a development in San Diego County, and such restrictions and regulations are consistently enforced by the associations to ensure compliance with their provisions. We have also provided a right, without obligation, for the City to enforce the restrictions and to be reimbursed for its expenses in so doing. 7. We have created Declarations of CC&R's for more than 1,000 community associations in the State of California during the past 27 years. In our opinion,the enclosed restrictions and regulations are fair,reasonable and enforceable by law. Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosures or the foregoing.. _ Sincerely, F. Scott Jackson FSJ/plw • ^ closure \�� 0304834.01 Proposed Parking Restriction for CC&R's _ `Perkin, and Vehicular Restrictions. (a) Designation of Parking Areas. The parking areas in the Project are di,.ided' ntc'th=ee categories: (i)parking areas in the garage portion of the Dwelling Units ("Garages"), (ii)parking areas located in the driveways adjacent to the Dwelling•Units depicted on Exhibit"A" attached hereto ("Driveway Parking Spaces"), and(iii)parking areas on the Common Area('*Common Parking Areas"). (b) Categories of Vehicles. - i (1) Authorized Vehicles. The following vehicles are Authorized Vehicles: standard passenger vehicles, including without limitation automobiles, passenger vans designed to accommodate ten(10) or fewer people, - motorcycles and pickup trucks having a manufacturer's rating or payload capacity of one (1)ton or less. Authorized Vehicles may be parked in any portion of the Property intended for parking of motorized vehicles,subject to the restrictions in this Declaration. c. ' i (2) Prohibited Vehicles. The following vehicles are Prohibited Vehicles: (i)recreational vehicles(e.g.,motorhomes, travel trailers, camper vans, boats, etc.), (ii) commercial type vehicles(e.g.,stakebed trucks,tank trucks,dump trucks, step vans, concrete trucks, etc.), (iii)vehicles with commercial signage that cannot be removed(iv)buses or vans designed to accommodate more than ten (10)people, (v) vehicles having more than two (2)axles, (vi)trailers, inoperable vehicles or parts of vehicles, (vii) aircraft, other similar vehicles' or any vehicle or -, vehicular equipment deemed a nuisance by the Board. As a general rule, Prohibited Vehicles may not be parked, stored or kept on any public or private street within, adjacent to.or visible from the Property or any other Common Property parking area except for brief periods for loading,unloading, making deliveries or emergency repairs. Prohibited Vehicles may only be parked in Garages if(a)they do not cause Authorized Vehicles to be parked in areas outside of Garages, and (b) if they are authorized by the Board. (c) General Restrictions. (1) Garages. Owners must park their vehicles in their Garages, except as provided in sections (c)(2) and(c)(3)below. Owners may use portions of their Garages for storage, subject to regulation by the Board, so long as the storage does not interfere with use of any of the parking spaces in the Garage. ' -1- CAD OCs1Fs1037=027\00 71\\04 .01 1212/98 (2) Driveway Parking Spaces. The Driveway Parking Spaces s may only be used in connection with the Dwelling Unit to which they are a^,= assigned: Some Driveway Parking Spaces are designated for guest use only. These Driveway Parking Spaces may only be used by guests of the Owners of the _ designated Dwelling Units. Driveway Parking Spaces that are not restricted to Z est Lse o_iiy,may be used by the Owner of the designated Dwelling Unit or the .Orvner's,guest,. : " .1� (3) Common Parking Areas. Common Parking Areas may only be used in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the Board. Common Parking Areas are intended to be reserved primarily for use by guests of residents in the Project. Owners are generally prohibited from parking in the Common Parking Areas. The Board has the power to make exceptions to this restriction allowing Owners to park their vehicles in the Common Parking Areas for limited periods of time in specific situations such as when an Owner is moving into or out of the Project. Such exceptions may only be made in a modification of the parking Rules and Regulations. . (d) Parking Regulations. The initial parking regulations for the -- : Common Parking Areas are attached hereto as Exhibit`B." The Board may modify the regulations for the Common Parking Areas so long as the regulations do not conflict with this Declaration,with the prior written approval of the City of Huntington Beach(the"City"). The Board shall enforce all parking and vehicle use regulations applicable to the Properties, including removing violating vehicles from the Properties pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22658.2 or other applicable ordinances.or statutes. If the Board fails to enforce any of the parking or vehicle use regulations, the City may enforce such regulations in accordance with applicable laws and ordinances. Proposed Enforcement Provision of CC&R's: (a) General Provisions. (1) Enforcement of Restrictions. All disputes arising under the Restrictions,other than those described in Section 15.11 or regulated by Civil Code Section 1375, shall be resolved as follows: i. Violations Identified by the Association. If the Board determines that there is a violation of the Restrictions, or the Architectural Committee determines that an Improvement which is the maintenance . responsibility of an Owner needf installation, maintenance, repair, restoration or painting, then the Board shall give written notice to the-responsible Owner identifying (i)the condition or violation complained of, and(ii)the length of time the Owner has to remedy the violation including, if applicable,the length of time too C:\DOCS\FS1037\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 �/ 12/2/98 the Owner has to submit plans to the Architectural Committee and the length of time the Owner,has to complete the work proposed in the plans submitted to the Arcbicecturai Comgdttee. If an Owner does not perform such corrective action as is required by the 13mad mid the:Architectural Committee within the allotted time, the Board, after Notice;and Hearing, may remedy such condition or violation complained of, and the'lost'thereof shall be charged to the Owner as a Special Assessment. r . If the violation involves nonpayment of any type of Assessment,then the Board may collect such delinquent Assessment pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article V. ii. Violations Identified by an Owner. If an Owner alleges that another Owner,his family, guests or tenants, is violating the Restrictions (other than nonpayment of any type of Assessment),the complaining Owner must first submit the matter to the Board for Notice and Hearing before the 'complaining Owner may resort to alternative dispute resolution, as required by Section 1354 of the California Civil Code, or litigation for relief. _ iii. Alternative Dispute Resolution. If a dispute exists between or among any Owner, and another Owner, or the Association,and any Owner, including any claim based on contract, tort, or statute, arising out of or =i relating to the rights or duties of the parties under the Restrictions(excluding disputes relating to the payment of any type of Assessments), if the disputing parties agree and subject to Section 1354 of the California Civil Code,the matter will be submitted to alternative dispute resolution. iv. Legal Proceedings. Failure to comply with any of the terms of the Restrictions by an Owner, his family, guests, employees, invitees or tenants, is grounds for relief which may include, without limitation, an action to recover sums due for damages, injunctive relief, foreclosure of any lien,or any combination thereof;provided,however,that the procedures established in Section 1354 of the California Civil Code must first be followed, if they are applicable. V. Additional Remedies. The Board shall adopt a schedule of reasonable fines or penalties which, in its reasonable discretion, it may assess against an Owner for the failure of such Owner, or of a resident of or visitor to such Owner's Dwelling Unit,to comply with the Restrictions. Such fines or penalties may only be assessed after Notice and Hearing. After notice and hearing,the Board may direct the officers of the Association to record a notice of noncompliance against a Lot owned by any Member of the Association who has violated any provision of this Declaration. The notice shall include a legal C:\DOCS\FSJ037\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 12Q V description of the Lot and shall specify the provision of the Declaration that was violited, the violation committed, and the steps required to remedy the 1 oncoml,lia,ice.'Once the noncompliance is remedied or the noncomplying O �r'has taken such other steps as reasonably required by the Board, the Board shall direct the officers of the Association to record a notice that the - '= no,icon�Plja,icz has been remedied. ri • r 1 vi. No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision hereof does not waive the right to enforce that provision, or any other provision hereof. vii. Right to Enforce. The Board and any Owner may enforce the Restrictions as described in this Article, subject to Section 1354 of the California Civil Code. Each Owner has a right of action against the Association •for the Association's failure to comply with the Restrictions. Each remedy provided for in this Declaration is;cumulative and not exclusive or exhaustive. viii. Attorneys' Fees. Any judgment rendered in any action or proceeding pursuant to this Declaration shall include a sum for ° attorneys' fees in such amount as the court or arbitrator,as applicable,may deem - reasonable, in favor of the prevailing party, as well as the amount of any delinquent payment, interest thereon,costs of collection'and costs of court or alternative dispute resolution, as applicable. (2) City Enforcement. The City is a third-party beneficiary of these provisions, and the City is entitled to enforce them in accordance the enforcement provisions of this Declaration and applicable laws. These remedies - are cumulative, not exhaustive. Neither this Section nor.the Section of this . _ Declaration entitled"Parking and Vehicular Restrictions"may be amended without the written consent of the City. The City shall be entitled to enforce these ' restrictions by fine,towing or legal or equitable action, at the City's discretion,in any manner authorized by law. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. \� _4 C:\DOCS\FSJ03T00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2/98 EXHIBIT"A" `h.c�PlftION OF DRIVEWAY PARKING SPACES - r ' r fr r r.r r f ! 1 I r r ( 1 n C:\DOCS\FSJ037\00027\ 0\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2J98 'B" EXHIBIT INITIAL, COMMON PARKING AREA REGULATIONS t♦ r r ♦ r -I 1l0 -6- �� C-\ROCS\FS103T0002T000\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2/98 PARKING RULES & REGULATIONS "THREE DAY RULE" No Vehicle sMl be parked in the Common Property for more than three(3)days during any thirty '10)day period ur,less that vehicle has a valid, properly displayed temporary parking permit issued•by the Association. = i TEMPORARY PARKING PERMITS A temporary parking permit may be issued by the Board of Directors or its designee to accommodate residents' needs while they move into or out of the Properties, occasional guests (where the vehicle cannot be parked in the garage of the Dwelling Unit which the guest is visiting) Whose stay is expected to exceed three(3)days,vehicles belonging to contractors for residents while the contractors perform services at the Properties, and other temporary conditions. The permit must be displayed on the rear view mirror or dashboard of the vehicle for which the permit has been issued with its information clearly visible to casual inspection. The term of each temporary parking permit shall not exceed seven(7)days. Permits may be renewed by the Board. The term of the temporary' parking permit shall run concurrently with any days of parking allowed by the"Three Day Rule"that are remaining when the permit is issued. Temporary parking permits do not guarantee that parking spaces are reserved or available for permittees. COMMON AREA PARKING.ONLY IN DELINEATED SPACES ' No person shall park any vehicle in any portion of the Common Area controlled by the Association except in a single parking space delineated for such use by the Association. ANY VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THIS RULE SHALL BE TOWED AWAY AT THE VEHICLE OWNER'S EXPENSE WITHOUT NOTICE. - NO PARKING LONGER THAN 72 HOURS _ No person shall park any vehicle in a single Common Area parking space for longer than seventy-two(72) consecutive hours unless written permission to do so has been granted by the Board of Directors or its designee. DEBRIS AND FLUIDS No person shall allow any material,except clean water,to fall,leak,seep, spill,or otherwise be deposited from any vehicle parked on or traversing over any portion of the Common Area controlled by the Association. i 1*7 -7- V• CAD0CS\FSJ037T00027T000\C \0304936.01 12/2J98 C_. AUTHORIZED VEHICLE AND CC&R RESTRICTIONS ' 1�Y Nothing in th,:se roles shall in any way abridge the definition of"authorized vehicle" or .3irr,inish tie Parking aria VrIiicular Restrictions as set forth in Article , section of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservations of Easements for Meadow?irk,mcorc?ed on , 1999 as Instrument No. of Offi6al Records of Gra-ige County. Generally,an"authorized vehicle"is any motorized land vehicle designed and used primarily rr for noncommercial passenger transport, such as automobiles, passenger vans .designed to >' accommodate ten (10) or fewer people, two-wheel motorcycles, and pick-up trucks having a _ manufacturer's rating or payload capacity of one (1) ton or less. Any vehicle parked within the Common Area which is not an"authorized vehicle"and for which a specific authorization to park in the.Common Area has not been granted by the Board of Directors, may be towed away at the vehicle owner's expense at the discretion of the Board of Directors or its designee. NOTICE AND PENALTIES Each Member is responsible for informing the Member's family, tenants, and guests of --.- - .parking regulations. Any vehicle found in violation of a parking rule shall be marked with a written notice of violation if it is the first instance of such violation by that vehicle, except violations of the "three day rule"shall not accumulate from one month to the next. Upon each subsequent violation r of the same parking rule by that vehicle, and at the discretion of the Board of Directors or its designee,the vehicle shall be towed away at the vehicle owner's expense. In addition to towing, the Board of Directors may assess the Member for all expenses incurred by the Association in connection with a violation by any vehicle owned, operated, or controlled by the Members and their family, their tenants or guests. -8- ,\ C:\DOCS\FSJO37\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 .f ;� .?;�:: . ' .:._`- �: ��lt. r`3 ��f. ��:,�5+. <: ��_.�� - - � .3, ' _. -''� ���s i'�"' � *^_ � �� �`i`� � ts» s+#x "sue° _ � � � �''��. .. ���r �"' °��a� � ' � ��# �zn ,;� ,�..,` 4,. � � � .gyp �°�; , t .���, ,,.m �- ' _ �'� So-. -` tea"` _ rt e� e : ISSUE STAFF ALT. #1 STAFF ALT. #2 1. Site Parking/Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers Provide throughout all res. units Provide throughout all res. _ units ; . b) Private Street Width (curb to 36'—parking on both sides 32'—parking on one side ;. curb) c) Spine Road Width (curb to curb) 32'—no parking on both sides 32'—no parking on both sides d) Pearce Street Width via"I" and 36'—parking on both sides 36'—parking on both sides "K"(curb to curb) e) Distribution of guest parking Will be evenly distributed Create additional"pocket" spaces throughout project guest parking spaces throughout the project f) Tandem Parking Permitted as approved by the PC Not permitted g) Interior Garage Dimensions Min. 18'X 19'with min.400 sq. ft. Min. 18'X 19'with min.400 as approved by the PC sq. ft. as approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication plus 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication improvements plus in-lieu fee of plus improvements plus in- $387,500) lieu fee of$387,500) - b) Park Use Neighborhood Park w/multi-use Neighborhood Park w/multi- field use field c) Park Parking 20 spaces 20 spaces d) Houses adjacent to the Park None None 3. Community Aesthetics -r a) Parkway Widths Min. 6' (PA 1 &2) Min. 6' (PA 1 &2) b) Sidewalk Widths Min. 6' (PA 3 &4) Min. 6' (PA 3 &4) c) Front Yard Setbacks(PA4) Same as PC Same as PC d) Rear Yard Setbacks(PA-3) Same as PC Same as PC �a, jya+ s s � �r�.. �`x 5 � s`F p,, .rF f � + 4s, � '+ � •�+•. ' -YF y.. � � �.._;_ .'', ill - - - 9 . � � r • I r f • I 1 r • ! r • I f • r b ' 4S. � �lq L' 'iti . __� � � '. _ _ � � �� _ ,; 9 . 9 ��' �, 9 . � _ . � Q i � - � _ RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department SUBJECT: CRG/ Meadowlark Development.Plan - TTM No. 15469/ CUP No. 97-80/ EA/ND No. 97-21 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 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 Attached (Explain) 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 Attached (Explain) Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached . _. .. EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Reports and other pertinent project background information and exhibits are included in PC/CC Meadowlark Project Data Binders REVIEWED RETURNED FO : DE,D Administrative Staff. Assistant City Administrator (Initial) A ) City Administrator (Initial) [City Clerk ( ) . .. .EXPLANATION -'FOR RETURN OF ITEM, (BelowOnly) RCA Author: HZ:SH:AW:kl i RECEI`,�E0 CIT`r CLI_RK CITY OF HUP T NGTON [::EACH. CA 19g9 FED - t E z?. ; LaserWriter 8 v8.6 User: v44e Application: Microsoft PowerPoint Document: City Council PP-2 Date: Friday, January 29, 1999 Time: 2:23 PM Printer: HP LaserJet 6P Pages: 1 P rile.4d�Wl�-�k G � � � ;ky 4 f,e 6.11 �;� 0� o�y veS orbs . � y � I D. BARTLETT ASSOCIATES LAND USE S PLANNING CONSULTANTS DAVE E. BARTLETT DIRECT DIAL:714.898.0600 FAx:714.894.2670 INTERNET:DABART@AOL.COM 6082 JADE CIRCLE, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92647 =�— _ W �7 � •a< �».�;~ -� ��. f .jam' � E'.+ POPE K a L;y' CateCCus �esicic�r.tlaC... S zve 6uiCcf fiontes for farniC es € �tivllq�� l��rig Project Locations ♦ Airport closure in return for Development Agreement with 600 4; units. DA basis for land economics. / �� �`1 SITE�� "� �•, 3 f yp i Ilu1ltin ton Bet, 3 E4" z f ,A FmI R History of Meadowlark Response to City Staff i Significant Benefits Cin:arlp Fa�rnly S �a pup to 12 dulac W dled upsto v 2ao au_s� g 240 dins Commercial] Small Lot Examples " p z t� i Small. Lot Examples em � i 1 iz= .W i --- — ... _ Typical Steetscenes Mal • � .a .,9 t,}i i'iPl"tn tlt i i14t,l.r,�n �. .°. , t I i 4 t,-.. ITTM I � I 2,237-2,445 sq. ft. 3-4 bedrooms; 2.5 baths r - - - i SjICCit�ic flan (CatellLls) 1996-1998 ` � k+ i 345 Unit i Slinde Family Residential Concept Flan (St.11:)111iUCCI Oct. `96) � R Lj Alternative t0 600 Unit Specific Plan .1 LIly 1998 Direction by the 3 Pl,,:innina Commission Create 2.4 acre public park fir ' FIE; $ 1 .2 million in park fees $700,000 school fees $650,000 in afford. housing 345 homes to 319 homes __j Planning Commission Testimony i� E 3� { E Fire department F 4 < indicates no outstaningP. problems or issues with p I parking or proposed 32' streets F [[[[ 3 l� x v_ "":,.cam ....... ...�..z_ ..��_... '.._._.. .........._ ..�..... ._...., k Ne(yotiated Park Fees fig. iI City Ordinance: $ 1. 82,000 per acre Catellus/Cit Agreement: $500,000 per acre based on �€ 3 319 home plan o $ l .2 million 3 E 3 V Perceived Public, SaletY ISSUes E. E E Adequacy of overall € parking in the community � �a Tandem parking in home f? I. driveways 1 E ; E Widen Spine Road E , E ; Remove cul-de-sacs Revise lot layout in several areas a Reduction in number of lots Additional off-street parking Eliminate flag lots Revise pai-king at public park i E ' Add buffer adjacent to existing E E L neighborhoods 4.88 spaces per home provided E E 157 required guest spaces 265 provided guest spaces Exceeds parkin g ' g p g requirements by more than 70% ( 108 spaces) : People want to p ii-k on their own property 4 � ;= Longer driveways S RR` � � a plus in peak s ; 4 demands �k 4 ON, Reduction of long ,�. driveway homes to �I - 43 f ' 4 F� i Strictly enforced . , , • 1 Fines of , to $, ,'; Towing Proven complianceother communities NX R .A.W.PA Traffic Enguteering,tnc. _aw�+c awm�erAtm s ,�+ iz jaws' . s =Private�Street Standards m Newport Beach 32'Parkingaone side Costa Mesa I32' -Id-i g one side ive- Fountain Valle�r 32' P,arWnIgone side R Westminster 32' ParWngone side Garden QfQ,' O 33' Parkingione side �Anahe Ld �m 30� Parking oneside Fullerton 32 Parking one side „isnmnic Mx- � a La Habra 30' :Parking one side �Arsm a � �a § Huntington Bach_32' Pa�rk ng one sidemx Rio Typical Streetscenes �►�� � � 3 ig t. J i 1 t ��l �r�' �rh3�.,�r��'`A...r.... .�,..., �r .: r W 2� r, �� � ' J- JJJJJJJJ i -�i� �an J i 2,616-2,891 sq. ft. 3-4 bedrooms; 3 baths Hi3 Standard Street Sections ' 24- �� } D 32 � i - j 40' COIR1iti0ns exist IhI'Ou`�hc>ut Se.►cliff Some w/parking on hoth sides . � ___� . SUbstantial Proposed Changes to Plan Ii Deduced tandurn parking from 79 ` to 43 homes Devised Spine Road to accommodate 44 overflow spaces ' 157 guest spaces required 0 309 provided p , � I I I` PlalIIIIII(T COIIIIIIISSIOII Approved Specific Plant } ?� e .• 4s 13 sin �31,3 gle family homes ' 48% reduction from E� 1 �. permitted density • • , I distinctive residential nei;,hborhoods Up to 45 different plans AI-Chitectllral variety 2 t Nei-Iihorhood r parks/open spade I i r w t 1 Cypress 1 i lT— f 1i f" �5 � �•� '1�.:�t� .r1 t'� .-' �.• � — �1 � of �. I 1 s � � 171 tl Cypresstw p 1 p � i ggjj(( E Ir„ Detached homesSO n Creative planning and architecture . Affordable home prices Corm„issiol, E3 Approved Specific Plan �t . ..-._..._ RPq Typical Streetscenes In s l E I ink 1 tx y 1 i, r , 2,237-2,445 s . t't. 3-4 bedrooms; 2.5 baths his Typical Streetsce es E 4 � 77 !ttir, ice--71 : °� a � doom- 1,890-2,165 sq. ft. 3 3-4 bedrooms; 2.5 baths S , l � �.",tirt>E�.'��161t �.,4T11111"llti7itl- Specific; I'l,111 Community Pool/Opens=� :�' Space r t € 5 1 eta 3 S.�'�1��i �'� � ���T q `rl 35� a ��• l I ea�m�m��maan�m. 8. q MWO I v war��r���mms��a59&!v q r 4 -®i®PieBm®u®�qe F` 3 3<. C Typical treetsce es F: A. o 3 i 38 1,602-1,970 sq. ft. ,, 4 3 3-4 bedrooms; 2.5 baths ' ip f I ? � "After eight months of work, 98% of the neighbors, the applicant, and the Planning Commission (five ' members) agree on the Specific Plan and the project." —Tom LIVENGOOD, 4 I PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIRMAN _ j I I i �tiA t i IS �k t i �•"•;Ir M§.g ��i•!»Sk±,pq�' .1r t ��� ,�#..� CrEnd Of COITIPLlICI- .Pl-CSCIIt�ttl()jl ��+`�ye E Council/Agency Meeting Held: /-A of- ff 'Ded/5 ioN , Gie#eged/Continued to: 1049 99 ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied 7 .y City Clerk's Signatur Council Meeting Date: January 25, 1999 Department ID Number: CD99-05 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director /AW7V4/ SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (Meadowlark Residential Development Plan) 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 Catellus Residential Group (CRG), applicant, of the December 3, 1998, Planning Commission's action to approve Tentative. Tract Map (TTM) No. 15469 -and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 97-80. The subject request is to subdivide 48.4 acres of land into small-lots and construct 313 single family detached dwellings, a public park, private open space/recreation facilities and infrastructure improvements. CRG's development proposal is associated with and contingent upon approval of the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendment (ZTA No. 97-04 and ZMA No. 97-01) which sets forth the framework for small-lot development within the Meadowlark property. On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission approved CRG's development request by a 5-2 vote (Recommended Action - A). Staff recommended denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 based upon project non compliance with the staff recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan and because there are on-site parking issues, emergency access issues, reduced park size, and reduced development standards such as minimal front and rear yard setbacks. The subject appeal has been requested by CRG in order to "assure that the findings and conditions of approval for the referenced actions conform with the City Council's final action on the Meadowlark Specific Plan". Staff is continuing to recommend denial of the proposal (Recommended Action - B) to the City Council for the same reasons when it was presented to the Planning Commission. In addition, staff has prepared two (2) alternatives for City Council consideration based upon specific revisions to the development proposal in order to address emergency access, on- site parking and reduced development standards. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999. DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No.. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)", and . 2. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO.1)." Planning Commission Action on December 3, 1998: THE MOTION MADE BY. KERINS, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE 'NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES- .,, LIVENGOOD,CHAPMAN, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER,.KERINS, BIDDLE NOES.. NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR DENIAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, BIDDLE NOES: LIVENGOOD,CHAPMAN, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY LIVEN GOOD, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING.VOTE: AYES: LIVEN GOOD,CHAPMAN, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED CD99-05 -2- January.22, 1999 10:45 AM 9,00 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: ' CD99-05 B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)", and 2. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings of denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 6)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s).. A. To Approve Alternative 1 Plan: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)", and 2. "Approve Alternative 1 Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 9) which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings and conditions of approval." B. To Approve Alternative 2 Plan: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)°, and 2. "Approve Alternative 2 Plan ,(ATTACHMENT NO. 9) which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional 'Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings and conditions of approval." C. To Continue: 1. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and direct staff accordingly." CD99-05 -3- January 22,1999 10:45 AM� (4) 02/22/99 — Council/Agency Agenda — Page 4 Council Action dated February 24 1999 and return to the City Council with findings and conditions of approval. [Approved as modified 6-1 (Sullivan: no)] Motion to determine need to hold closed session per G. C 54954.2(b)(2), H. B. Police Officers Association vs. the City of Huntington Beach. [Approved 7-0)] Motion to recess to closed session on above item. (Approved 7-0)] Recess: 6:40 p.m. Reconvene: 6:50 p.m. (5) 02/22/99—Council/Agency Agenda— Page 5 B. PUBLIC COMMENTS The City Council Welcomes Public Comments On All Items On This Agenda Or Of Community Interest. We Respectfully Request That This Public Forum Be Utilized In A Positive And/Or Constructive Manner. Please Focus Your Comments On The Issue Or Problem That You Would Like To Bring To The Attention Of The City Council. Negative Comments Directed At Individuals Are Not Acceptable. 3 Minutes Per Person, Time May Not Be Donated To Others No Action Can Be Taken By Council/Agency On This Date Unless Agendized. This Is The Time To Address Council Regarding Items Of Interest Or On Agenda Items OTHER Than Public Hearings. Complete The Attached Pink Form And Give To The Sergeant-At-Arms Located Near The Speaker's Podium [I. Thirty two speakers.regarding the Bolsa Chica Annexation: 28 were opposed; one Chamber of Commerce representative was in favor; one was neutral and one was undecided. D-2A. (City Council) Submittal Of Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Communication from the Assistant City Administrator, Director of Public Works, Fire Chief and.Director of.Planning submitting for Council consideration the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study— Review Of Options & LAFCO Fiscal & Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999. Recommended Action: Motion to: 1. Receive and file the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study— Review Of Options & LAFO Fiscal& Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999 (Attachment No. 1) to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999. and 2. Direct the City Administrator to develop a strategy that could result in annexing the Bolsa Chica to the City of Huntington Beach prior to development of homes in the Bolsa Chica; and 3. Direct the City Administrator to consult with the City Council Up to and including 3-15-99 to establish those parameters which should be addressed in any negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement for the Bolsa Chica; and '4. Authorize Staff to begin pre-annexation agreement discussions with Hearthside Homes based on the negotiation strategy presented on pages 4-6 of the RCA; and 5. Authorize Staff to communicate with all property owners within the Bolsa Chica regarding the possibility of annexation into the City of Huntington Beach; and `.1 (6) 02/22/99—Council/Agency Agenda— Page 6 6. Provide the City Council with a status report at a subsequent date addressing additional issues which are not related to the property owned by Hearthside Homes. [Recommendations 1, 2, 3 (as amended) Approved 7-0)] [Recommendations 4, 5, 6 Approved 5-2 (Harman, Sullivan: no)] D-213. (City Council) Approve Responses To Questions Asked By The Public_ Utilities Commission (PUC) In Relation To Water& Sewer Service For The Bolsa Chica Planned Community Communication from the Assistant City Administrator, Director of Public Works, City Attorney and Director of Planning transmitting for Council consideration a request to approve responses prepared by staff which address four questions asked of the City of Huntington Beach by the Public Utilities Commission in relation to water and sewer service for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. Recommended Action: Motion to: Approve the responses prepared by staff to the four questions asked by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in the February 2, 1999, Assigned Commissioner's Ruling Noticing Prehearing Conference. [Approved 7-0)] (7) 02/22/99— Council/Agency Agenda— Page 7 B. PUBLIC COMMENTS The City Council Welcomes Public Comments On All Items On This Agenda Or Of Community Interest. We Respectfully Request That This Public Forum Be Utilized In A Positive And/Or Constructive Manner. Please Focus Your Comments On The Issue Or Problem That You Would Like To Bring To The Attention Of The City Council. Negative Comments Directed At Individuals Are Not Acceptable.. 3 Minutes Per Person, Time May Not Be Donated To Others No Action Can Be Taken By Council/Agency On This Date Unless Agendized. This Is The Time To Address Council Regarding Items Of Interest Or On Agenda Items OTHER Than Public Hearings. Complete The Attached Pink Form And Give To The Sergeant-At-Arms Located Near The Speaker's Podium [I. Speaker regarding vote of School Board relative to sale of Gisler School and questioned if there was any Council discussion. 2. Speaker former tenant of Driftwood Mobile Home Park and procedure relative to whether a renter of the park can relocate to Ocean View Estates. COUNCIL/AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: To Monday, March 1, 1999, at 5:00 p.m., in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street-Second Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 Telephone: 714/536-5227 Internet: http:/h,vww.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us I MINUTES CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 5:00 P.M. —Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Monday, February 22, 1999 A videotape recording of the 7:00 p.m. portion of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Green called the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at'5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL Present: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan Absent: None CITY CLERK ANNOUNCES LATE COMMUNICATIONS WHICH PERTAIN TO ITEMS ON THE AGENDA Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings) Act, City Clerk Brockway announced the following late communications regarding agenda items which had been received following distribution of the agenda: Communication from Robert E. Wissman dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark Development regarding the impact on youth sports facilities and schools in the Meadowlark residential development Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark—City of Huntington Beach regarding the Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment and Appeal of Meadowlark Development Proposal Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix-Compromise Alternative No. 3 presented by Catellus Development (an additional alternate distributed during the City Council meeting by Catellus) Communication from Miriam Wedemeyer dated February 21, 1999 titled Annexation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa regarding a request for support for the efforts of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust to prevent development on the Bolsa Chica Mesa Communication from Paul Horgan, Bolsa Chica Land Trust dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Item D-2A/February 22, 1999 transmitting the opinion of the 4,700 members of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust that a nature/wilderness park be developed on the Bolsa Chica Mesa . &WO I 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes-Page 2 Communication from John Scandura dated February 22, 1999 expressing support for the annexation and restoration of the Bolsa Chica Mesa Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Bolsa Chica Annexation Study regarding the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study Communication from Aimee M. Toth dated February 22, 1999 supporting preservation of the Bolsa Chica Mesa adjacent to the Bolsa Chica wetlands Communication from the Assistant City Administrator correcting Page Three of RCA CD99-16 CLOSED PUBLIC HEARINGS - DECISIONS CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 26, 1999 (City Council) Public Hearing Closed On 1/25/99 (Decision Continued From 1/25/99)— Approved Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01 For Draft Meadowlark Specific Plan With Revisions Based On Alternative No. 3 (Attachment No. 4) And Revisions Made By Council—Approved Negative Declaration No. 97-21 With Findings And Mitigation Measures (Attachment No. 2 and 3) (Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment)— Staff To Return With Ordinance March 8, 1999 (450.30) Public hearing opened and closed on January 25, 1999 to consider the following: Project Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Project Request: To amend the Meadowlark Specific Plan to: 1. Consolidate and update the current Meadowlark Specific Plan document and the Meadowlark Property Conceptual Master Plan into a single document; modify the Meadowlark Specific Plan to permit single family dwellings on small lots; and incorporate development standards for small lot development within the revised Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment); and 2. Update Conceptual Master Plan Exhibit II to reflect a reduction in densities within the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan; establish the boundaries for four residential planning areas with densities ranging between 9.5 dwelling units per net acre and 13.8 dwelling units per net acre; and incorporate said exhibit within the revised Specific Plan (Zoning Map Amendment). Negative Declaration will also be considered by the City Council - an initial environmental assessment for the above items (Negative Declaration No. 97-21)was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above items, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department. Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. On January 25, 1999, the City Council made a motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01. The motion failed. 02/22/99=Council/Agency Minutes — Page 3 (City Council) Public Hearing Opened & Closed On 1125/99 With Decision Continued From 1126/99 On Appeal Filed By Catellus Group To Planning Commission's Approval Of Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 (or appropriate numbers)— Approved With Alternative No. 3 And Council Directed Modifications - Negative Declaration No. 97-21 —Approved With Findings And Mitigation Measures (Meadowlark Residential Development) (420.60) Public hearing opened and closed on January 25, 1999 with decision continued to this date. Project Applicant/Appellant: Bruce D'Eliscu/Catellus Residential Group Project Request: To permit subdivision and development of 48.4 acres with 313 detached single family dwellings on small-lots in conjunction with public park, open space/recreation and infrastructure improvements. Appeal Request: To have the City Council consider Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 to ensure that project findings and conditions of approval are in compliance with the proposed amendment(s)to the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01/Negative Declaration No. 97- 21 will also be considered by the City Council: an initial environmental assessment for the above items (Negative Declaration No. 97-21) was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that the above items, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department.) Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. A copy of the City Clerk's draft minutes of the January 25, 1999 public hearing on this matter had been distributed to Council. City Administrator Silver presented a brief report. Earlier in the meeting, the City Clerk had announced that the following communications on this item had been provided to the City Council: Communication from Robert E. Wissman dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark Development regarding the impact on youth sports facilities and schools in the Meadowlark residential development Slide show presentation from the Planning Director dated February 22, 1999 titled Meadowlark—City of Huntington Beach regarding the Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment and Appeal of Meadowlark Development Proposal Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix-Compromise Alternative No. 3 presented by Catellus Development (an additional alternate distributed during the City Council meeting by Catellus) Senior Planner Scott Hess presented a slide report. 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes—Page 4 City Administrator Silver stated that the public hearings had been closed; however, those persons in the audience wishing to speak on the matter would have an opportunity to do so. Discussion was held on the staff matrix titled Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix— February 18, 1999, Senior Planner Hess reported on issues set forth in the matrix including fire sprinklers, private street widths curb to curb, Spine Road widths curb to curb, Pearce Street widths, the "I" and "K"•curb to curb, distribution of guest parking spaces, tandem parking, and interior garage dimensions (PA 3 or 4). Discussion was held between Senior Planner Hess and the Councilmembers. Senior Planner Hess reviewed the portion of the staff matrix relative to Public Park. Senior Planner Hess continued his report covering the portion of the matrix relative to Community Aesthetics. Issues regarding Community Aesthetics included parkway widths, sidewalk widths, front setbacks (PA 4), rear setbacks (PA 3), fencing exterior/perimeter, and interior/rear. Senior Planner Hess also reviewed Item No. 4 of the matrix titled Administration a) Development Agreement. Item No. 4 had been added since the public hearing was held on this issue. John Erskine, representing Catellus Development, commented on the portion of the staff report with which they agree and do not agree. He referred to the matrix developed by his company which he had presented to the City Clerk. Community Services Director Ron Hagan responded to Councilmember Bauer that the park could be used for a sports field. He stated a regulation soccer field could fit in both directions on the park. He responded to Council's additional questions. Senior Planner Hess reported that such provisions would need to be added to the Specific Plan. In response to a presentation by Mr. Erskine relative to upsized meter connection fees not being charged if the project is entirely sprinkled, City Administrator Silver stated that the issue had not been presented to him or to staff until 4:00 p.m. this date. Bob Beardsley, Public Works Director, stated that there is an item regarding water meters not directly related to this matter but a citywide issue that will be under consideration in the future. Following further discussion Public Works Director Beardsley responded to questions regarding water meter sizes. The City Clerk announced that a revised-revised matrix had just been presented to her from Mr. Erskine. The revised-revised developer matrix was titled Meadowlark Outstanding Issues Matrix- Compromise Alternative No. 3 and dated February 22, 1999. This document was distributed to the City Councilmembers, Deputy City Attorney D'Alessandro, and City Administrator Silver. The City Administrator informed Council that it was the developer's third matrix. Discussion was held regarding the Development Agreement and when it would expire. Mr. Erskine commented on this issue. Discussion was held on the fencing issue. Further discussion was held regarding the Development Agreement, and Mr. Erskine reported on what he believed would be the merits of extending the Development Agreement and amending it as to park fee issues which the applicant does not believe is required. Mr. Erksine responded to Councilmember Sullivan regarding the tandem parking issue. Councilmember Dettloff thanked staff for coming up with Alternative No. 3. She spoke regarding what she believes to be the merits of this alternative. She reviewed the staff matrix. Councilmember Dettloff proceeded through the matrix and presented her preferences. 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes—Page 11 MARK SHELDON, California Democratic Party, 670 Assembly District Committee, and member of the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, spoke regarding the risk of liquefaction; that the area is prone to flooding; residents will be looking for disaster relief; and there will be lawsuits. BILL GREGORY, representing the Surf Rider Foundation, spoke in opposition to annexation of the Bolsa Chica. He stated that it is one of the greatest resources in Huntington Beach and could be a visitor attraction. He stated that the citizens request that Council help Koll Company to sell the land to the city and for the citizens not to be sold out to the Koll Company. LISA MURPHY informed Council that the vast majority of citizens want to preserve the Bolsa Chica. She stated her concern that annexation will lead to development of the Bolsa Chica. She stated that hundreds of persons visit the Bolsa Chica. STAN KRUTSICK stated that over the last two years their water bills have doubled and now there is a notice in the water bill regarding the proposed use of waste water because of increased water demands and the need for supplemental water for the future. He stated there will be an increased demand for water by new residents of the condominiums if annexation occurs; water bills will go up, and people will be drinking waste water. He stated that Bolsa Chica transcends bookkeeping and other issues as it is about the quality of life and a legacy. KIM BENEDICT stated her experience of city problem children benefiting from being taken to nature areas and requested that Council take steps to keep the Bolsa Chica open. KIMBERLY COOK relayed a story regarding three boys which relates to the Bolsa Chica if the Bolsa Chica is developed. She stated that the priority of the city is to do what is best for its people and questioned why the city would wish to develop the Bolsa Chica. RUDY VIETMEIER, representing the Sierra Club Preserve Bolsa Chica Task Force which had been formed pursuant to the Sierra Club's wetlands policy, informed Council that the Task Force is convinced by the science that has been brought to bear on the Bolsa Chica issue that the mesa is an integral part of the Bolsa Chica ecosystem and to fragment it or to build on its environs is to threaten it. He stated the contradiction the Task Force sees in the City Council's stated objective to seek acquisition of the mesa. BOB WINCHELL, representing Huntington Beach Tomorrow, informed Council of his disagreement that receiving money from the Orange County Fire Authority will make the difference in the Bolsa Chica development making revenue for the city. He stated his opinion that developers will change and that the developers staying in business should not be relied upon. Mr. Winchell stated his disagreement with the promise that money will be made because the housing will be so expensive. He requested that Council look very carefully at the financial considerations. He spoke regarding the quality of life that must be considered for the children and their children's children. Mr.Winchell stated that there used to be community meetings; that he believes the Council should get out and ask the people of the community as Council will find items which they should consider. Mr. Winchell stated the matter should not be discussed just among the Councilmembers themselves. JOE CUNHA, Huntington Harbour Bay Club Homeowners Association Board of Directors, stated their unanimous opposition to annexation of the Bolsa Chica; that it will facilitate the development of the mesa which they oppose. He stated that today between 7:30 and 7:45 a.m. he had counted the number of vehicles on Warner Avenue passing by the only entrance and exit to their complex and 553 vehicles passed their driveway. He stated what an increase in traffic from the Bolsa Chica development would mean. He stated that at times it is currently not only difficult but dangerous for 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes—Page 12 residents to enter or exit Warner Avenue at their complex and questioned what it will be like when they have to endure an additional 2,400 vehicles utilizing Warner Avenue as one of the main egresses for the proposed Hearthside home development. DEBORAH WALLIN stated that she brings her elementary school students to the Bolsa Chica and questioned where else can students come to see a complete ecosystem. DAVID FLYNN questioned what the development means to the members of the City Council; that if any Councilmembers wish to run for state office or reelection they should vote against annexation. ROBERT CRONK stated that the members of Crest View United support the people who want to preserve the Bolsa Chica. He stated that he had talked to a resident who is willing to have his taxes raised to preserve the Bolsa Chica. PAUL ARMS spoke in favor of the fence that surrounds the mesa. He stated that it would be great to go to the federal government to get the money to preserve it. Mr. Arms stated that he does not believe the Koll Company has realized the passion of the people of Huntington Beach to preserve their history. GAE TREECE stated the need to preserve areas such as the Bolsa Chica for children to explore. She reviewed the history of the Bolsa Chica stating the Amigos de Bolsa Chica were opposed to the marina project that once was considered and now is known to be wrong for the environment. She stated that Council is disregarding what has been learned regarding the effects of the development on the Bolsa Chica. Ms. Treece stated why she believes residential development will be a liability. She referred to the city's Quality Service Mission Statement. KEVIN MC EVOY, representing the Los Alamitos High School Ecology Club, informed Council of their work in the wetlands. He gave reasons why the wetlands should not be destroyed including preservation for his children and grandchildren so they can enjoy the magnificent creatures who live on the wetlands in their natural state. He spoke regarding their club's restoration work with the Bolsa Chica stewards. PAUL SLAVIK stated that he believes the Council needs to get their money's worth out of the consultants hired by the city. He stated that the ecosystem is valuable for tourism. STEVE MARION stated that he drives Pacific Coast Highway every day; that the mesa is gorgeous and there is not another like it. DEAN ALBRIGHT, Bolsa Chica Land Trust, stated that he had looked at the infrastructure as a member of the Infrastructure Advisory Committee. He stated the needs of the city in regard to infrastructure. Mr. Albright stated that more housing is not needed. He stated that the Holly- Seacliff project is not fully online, and it will have an impact on the infrastructure as well as the Meadowlark Project approved this meeting as it has been stated years ago there is not enough water in the north end of the city. DOUG KORTHOF stated that more and more of the coast is being taken away and that as good Republicans decreasing government should be worked toward. He spoke in favor of annexation if development does not occur. 02/22/99-Council/Agency Minutes — Page 13 MICHAEL FORREST, seismologist, stated that the residents love the Bolsa Chica; that to sell off this wetland would be greed at its utmost level. JAN VANDERSLOOT stated annexation represents a $15,000,000 gift to the developer. He spoke regarding the drawbacks of residential development. He requested that Council seek funds for purchase of the Bolsa Chica. BILL HALPIN stated that the voters had believed the Councilmembers favored preserving the Bolsa Chica. He stated that only two people had been loyal to the Bolsa Chica—Councilmembers Harman and Sullivan. He spoke regarding the agreement reached years ago between the Amigos de Bolsa Chica and the developer. JOEL SHELDON stated that he believed that if the city were to annex the Bolsa Chica the citizens could speak to the Council and have some control. He stated that the citizens do not want development of the Bolsa Chica. Mr. Sheldon spoke regarding the walk-a-thon scheduled next month and invited Council to walk with their constituents. Councilmember Sullivan spoke regarding his reasons for opposing building on the mesa. He addressed the water issue and stated that he believes the city should fight annexation. Councilmember Dettloff presented a step-by-step explanation as to the events leading up to this item being placed on the City Council agenda including the potential that if homes are built the property owner could annex to the city without Huntington Beach wishing annexation, the water issue, and the two pending lawsuits brought by the Bolsa Chica Land Trust; that the Public Utilities Commission will determine the water issue if the Koll Company goes to the Southern California Water Company for water. Councilmember Dettloff stated that Council representatives are going to Sacramento to explore this matter. She stated the City Council's position that the Bolsa Chica should be purchased. She reported that Mayor Green and she are leaving tomorrow morning to meet with Senator Boxer's aide in Washington, D.C. She stated that at this point the city did not have the resources to acquire the property. She read the proposed motion of the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee. A motion was made by Sullivan, second Harman that the Huntington Beach City Council oppose annexation and not enter into any discussions with the developer. Councilmember Garofalo spoke regarding Councilmember Sullivan's motion and why the Council would vote for it unanimously if it were a feasible motion. He asked Mayor Green why the state had not provided funds for the mesa, only the lowlands, and Mayor Green stated that it had not been considered as environmentally sensitive. A substitute motion was made by Garofalo, second Green to approve the following recommended action: 1. Receive and file the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Review Of Options &LAFO Fiscal & Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999 (Attachment No. 1)to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999. and 2. Direct the City Administrator to develop a strategy that could result in annexing the Bolsa Chica to the City of Huntington Beach prior to development of homes in the Bolsa Chica; 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes—Page 14 and 3. Direct the City Administrator to consult with the City Council up to and including 3-15-99 to establish those parameters which should be addressed in any negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement for the Bolsa Chica; and 4. Authorize staff to begin pre-annexation agreement discussions with Hearthside Homes based on the negotiation strategy presented on Pages 4-6 of the Request for Council Action; and 5. Authorize staff to communicate with all property owners within the Bolsa Chica regarding the possibility of annexation into the City of Huntington Beach; and 6. Provide the City Council with a status report at a subsequent date addressing additional issues which are not related to the property owned by Hearthside Homes. Deputy City Attorney Field was requested to rule on the appropriateness of the substitute motion. Councilmember Harman read from an article on the opinion page of the Los Angeles Times dated October 12, 1998 titled Business Drums For Basics, the tenor of which was that environmental uses and environmental causes are tied to good business and that the business community is beginning to realize this. He stated that the editorial states that business leaders must remain at the forefront of this campaign to overcome the myth that any effort to manage growth is antibusiness. He referred to the environmental impact report prepared in connection with the Bolsa Chica as it pertains to the portion stating the values of the bio-diversity park. Councilmember Harman read from the minutes of the 1997 Council meeting where Council adopted a resolution in favor of acquisition of the mesa. He commented on the statements of various speakers. Councilmember Harman read a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Hughes in support of preserving the Bolsa Chica. Deputy City Attorney Field informed Council that the substitute motion made by Garofalo, second Green is out of order. Councilmember Dettloff requested information relative to the environmental impact report procedure as well as to matters pertaining to the Southern California Water Company supplying water to Hearthside Homes. Assistant City Administrator Fallon responded to these comments. Councilmember Dettloff spoke regarding Councilmember Bauer's and Mayor Green's long-time commitment to the Bolsa Chica and the work they have performed on the issue. 02/22/99-Council/Agency Minutes - Page 15 The original motion made by Sullivan, second Harman failed by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Sullivan NOES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff ABSENT: None A motion was made by Bauer, second Green to approve the aforementioned items as recommended. A motion was made by Harman, second Green to amend Recommended Action Item No. 3 as follows: Direct the City Administrator to consult with the City Council up to and including 3-15-99 to establish those parameters which should be addressed in any negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement for the Bolsa Chica; and that Recommended Action Item No. 4 be approved as follows: Authorize staff to begin pre-annexation agreement discussions with Hearthside Homes based on the negotiation strategy presented on Pages 5-7-4-6 of the Request for Council Action. In response to Mayor Green, City Administrator Silver reported on the process he believes should be followed to provide answers and added information to Council as well as how to put additional issues on the table and to take additional direction from Council. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believes that staff should not enter into negotiations until the first round of full input is received from the Council and that this is what he understands was the direction from the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee. The motion to amend made by Harman, second Green carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Harman, Sullivan NOES: None ABSENT: None A motion by Bauer, second Green to approve the following recommended actions as amended: 1. Receive and file the Bolsa Chica Annexation Study—Review Of Options & LAFO Fiscal & Technical Review Procedures dated January 7, 1999 (Attachment No. 1) to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999. and 2. Direct the City Administrator to develop a strategy that could result in annexing the Bolsa Chica to the City of Huntington Beach prior to development of homes in the Bolsa Chica; and 3. Direct the City Administrator to consult with the City Council up to and including 3-95-99 to establish those parameters which should be addressed in any negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement for the Bolsa Chica; and 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes—Page 16 4. Authorize staff to begin pre-annexation agreement discussions with Hearthside Homes based on the negotiation strategy presented on Pages 4-6 of the Request for Council Action; and 5. Authorize staff to communicate with all property owners within the Bolsa Chica regarding the possibility of annexation into the City of Huntington Beach; and 6. Provide the City Council with a status report at a subsequent date addressing additional issues which are not related to the property owned by Hearthside Homes. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Bauer, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff NOES: Harman, Sullivan ABSENT: None (CITY COUNCIL)APPROVED AS AMENDED RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (PUC) IN RELATION TO WATER & SEWER SERVICE FOR THE BOLSA CHICA PLANNED COMMUNITY (440.60) The City Council considered a communication from the Assistant City Administrator, Director of Public Works, City Attorney and Director of Planning transmitting for Council consideration a request to approve responses prepared by staff which address four questions asked of the City of Huntington Beach by the Public Utilities Commission in relation to water and sewer service for the Bolsa Chica Planned Community. Ronald A. Van Blarcon, representing the firm of McNamara, Van Blarcon, McClendon and Liebold, PC, presented a slide report. The slide report is titled Public Utilities Commission Proceedings and is attached to the Late Communication from the Assistant City Administrator announced earlier in the meeting by the City Clerk. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Dettloff to approve the responses prepared by staff to the four questions asked by the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) in the February 2, 1999 Assigned Commissioners Ruling Noticing Prehearing Conference as set forth in the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999 and as corrected by the Late Communication from Assistant City Administrator Fallon correcting Page 3 of said Request for Council Action: 1. Does the city presently desire to itself provide water service or sewer service to the Planned Community? Response: The city is the most direct supplier of potable water to the Bolsa Chica area. No other water purveyor has facilities in as close proximity as the City of Huntington Beach. Only through the city's system can the project area be provided a reliable, looped service distribution network. By comparison, the proposed SCWC water system relies on a water supply source over six miles distant, with redundancy planned by use of wells in a zone of the water basin known to produce r 02/22/99— Council/Agency Minutes — Page 17 water of marginal quality. In addition, this dead-end system would require construction of a reservoir with four to seven days capacity to insure adequate supplies are available in the case of temporary cessation of service from the Cypress pipeline.. Because Huntington Beach is a city incorporated under California law, any extension of city services, either through contract or by annexation, is regulated by the Cortese-Knox Act and the Orange County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). The city may not provide water or sewer services outside its jurisdictional boundaries nor may it annex new territory into its jurisdictional boundaries without the approval of LAFCO. The city and/or a property owner must therefore work within the defined procedures established by the Cortese-Knox Act and the Orange County LAFCO in order to extend or receive municipal services. A request for annexation may be made to LAFCO by either the property owner or the city. In fact, a city may be compelled to annex and provide services to a property if a landowner requests annexation and it is approved by LAFCO. Bolsa Chica is within the LAFCO-adopted "Sphere of Influence"for the City of Huntington Beach. LAFCO Spheres of Influence are developed by the Commission to determine future service areas for each jurisdiction and, thus, where LAFCO expects that annexations will occur. Despite the ability to do so, Hearthside Homes has not submitted any application to LAFCO to annex the Bolsa Chica. The developer has indicated that it does not wish to initiate annexation without a pre-annexation agreement with the city. Such an agreement would set forth the terms and conditions of annexation and clarify the responsibilities and rights of annexation for both parties, including development rights, development standards, and infrastructure requirements. Understanding this, on January 20, 1998, the Huntington Beach City Council authorized its staff to prepare a detailed study concerning the implications of annexation of Bolsa Chica. The city obtained the services of specialized consultants and prepared the 56-page report previously submitted to the PUC on February 19, 1999. This report reviews for the City of Huntington Beach the pertinent LAFCO procedures and the potential fiscal impacts associated with the annexation of Bolsa Chica. The first draft of this report was completed in June, 1998 and presented to the City Council Bolsa Chica Subcommittee (a formal Council Committee comprised of three Council members) and the public at a noticed, public meeting on July 29, 1998. Due to considerable public response, subsequent noticed, public meetings of the Bolsa Chica Subcommittee were held on September 24, 1998 and November 30, 1998. As a result of the public input, including comments on the report from Hearthside Homes, the original draft report was refined and a final draft issued for subcommittee review and consideration on January 7, 1999. At the January 7, 1999 Bolsa Chica Subcommittee meeting, the Council Subcommittee members took action to recommend that the full City.Council direct the City Administrator to develop parameters for negotiation of a pre-annexation agreement with Hearthside Homes and that staff design a strategy for annexing Bolsa Chica into the City boundaries. This recommendation is scheduled to be discussed by the full City Council on February 22, 1999. (The staff report prepared for the February 22 hearing is attached.) 2. Does the City presently have surplus water or immediate access to water supplies sufficient to meet the stated requirements of the Planned Community? 02/22/99 —Council/Agency Minutes—Page 18 Response: If Bolsa Chica were annexed into the city, the city would have a statutory obligation to provide water service to the area. The City relies on two basic sources for its water supply: It produces local groundwater from the basin managed by the Orange County Water District (OCWD) and it obtains imported water from the Municipal Water District of Orange County (MWDOC). The Bolsa Chica has already been annexed into the service areas of OCWD and MWDOC. Details of the actual requirements for water and related supporting infrastructure, including delivery pipelines, storage reservoir(s) and booster station(s), are expected to be refined during pre-annexation negotiations with the developer. 3. If the city prefers annexation, is it able to immediately proceed with the annexation formalities to annex the Planned Community? Response: If the City Council approves the subcommittee recommendation on February 22, 1999, the city will immediately begin discussions with Hearthside Homes on a pre-annexation agreement. Once a pre-annexation agreement is completed and approved by the City Council, annexation may be initiated and application made to LAFCO. (Alternatively, if the property owner wishes to do so, Hearthside Homes may initiate an application with LAFCO at any time.) It should be noted that the LAFCO process requires prezoning of the property in question and necessarily involves full public disclosure, including noticed hearings at the City Planning Commission, City Council, and at LAFCO. 4. If the city is unwilling or unable to annex at this time but is now willing and able to provide water and/or sewer services to the Planned Community and desires to do so, is the city willing to expeditiously negotiate and execute a binding service contract or contracts for provision of water and/or sewer services to the Planned Community? Response: In March, 1997, Hearthside Homes' predecessor, Koll Properties, proposed a contract to provide extra-territorial water service to Bolsa Chica. While the City Council rejected the specific terms and conditions of that proposal, the city at no time has taken the position that it would never enter into such a contract under any circumstances. Any contract to provide such services outside of the city boundaries would require review and approval by LAFCO. Based on the recent action by the Bolsa Chica CounQil Subcommittee, the Council is not at this time considering a contract-service approach but is instead moving toward a strategy for annexation that would be beneficial to both the city and the developer. The motion carried unanimously. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Green announced that this was the time scheduled to hear public comments not pertaining to items on this agenda. 02/22/99—Council/Agency Minutes — Page 19 CAR[ SWAN addressed Council in opposition to the votes cast by two school board members relative to the proposed sale of Gisler School. KATHY VAUGHN, former tenant of the Driftwood Mobilehome Park, stated her objection to the procedure used to select renters who wish to move to the city-owned Ocean View Mobilehome Estates. ADJOURNMENT - CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY A motion was made to adjourn the adjourned regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to Monday, March 1, 1999 at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: City Clerk/Clerk Mayor/Chairman i CITY OFi HUNTINGTON BEACH , MEETING DATE: February 22, 199q DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05c r ►. i Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑Appr; ed 09 Conditionally A proved ❑;Denied 0e09-AIPy City Clerk's Signa ure Council Meeting Date: February 22, 1999 Department ID-Number: CD99-05c CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ REQUEST FOR ACTION —{ - SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS — --f -0 P car- �a� SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator�y ?> >-n PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director n �. 3> SUBJECT: APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (Meadowlark Residential Development Plan - Continued from the January 25, 1999.City Council Meeting)) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Env!ronmental_Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: On January 25, 1999, staff transmitted for City Council consideration an appeal by Catellus Residential Group (CRG), applicant,. of the December 3, 1998, Planning Commission's action to approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 97-80. CRG's development proposal is associated with and contingent,upon.approval of the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendment (ZTA No. 97-04 and ZMA No. 97-01) which sets forth the framework for small-lot development within the Meadowlark property. The Meadowlark Specific Plan proposal was presented to the City Council on January 25, 1999. After opening the public hearing and a lengthy discussion, a motion was made to approve the Planning Commission's recommendation;. it failed by a 3-4 vote, thus rendering the Planning Commission recommendation denied. The CRG development proposal trailed the aforementioned action and the item was continued. On January 25, 1999, staff recommended denial of the CRG development proposal based on the plan's inconsistency with the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan and its internal inconsistency with the General Plan. Since the Planning Commission recommended Specific Plan has been denied, staff recommends approval of CRG's proposal subject to CD99-05C -2- 02/18/99 3:20 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05c revisions and compliance with the staff recommended Specific Plan. .(Recommended Action). Staff prepared two project alternatives for City Council consideration at the January 25, 1999 meeting. These two alternatives were not acted upon due to City Council's action to continue the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendment proposal. Following the City Council meeting, CRG met with staff to discuss the project. As a result staff has added a third alternative to the previous two (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). This new alternative represents a "compromise" development plan option that meets minimum health and public safety requirements but, in staff's opinion, does not reflect the best planning solution. A development issues matrix has been developed to compare the applicant's development proposal, staffs recommendation and Alternative 1, 2 and 3 (ATTACHMENT NO. 3). Staff has included an alternative motion for Council consideration (Alternative Action - A). However, revised findings and conditions of project approval will need to be completed, based on whichever project alternative is approved by the City Council. The findings and conditions must be internally consistent and consistent with other Department regulations and the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. These will be transmitted to City Council at a subsequent meeting in conjunction with the revised Ordinance for the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendment. Fundinq Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with revisions to reflect staffs recommendation (ATTACHMENT NO. 3) and return to the City , Council with findings and conditions of approval." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): CD99-05C -3- 2/19/99 8:47 AM a REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05c A. TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE # 1. 2 OR 3 PLAN: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Approve Alternative # 1, 2 OR 3 Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 3) which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and return to the City Council with findings and conditions of approval." B. TO CONTINUE: 1. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and direct staff accordingly." C. TO DENY: 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." Analysis: PROJECT ALTERNATIVES The Meadowlark development proposal differs from traditional residential subdivision projects due to the proposed density and small-lot design concept. The small-lot design concept, intense by nature, does not accommodate major plan modifications in one area of design (site planning or building design) without impacting other project design aspects. This inherent project limitation has been the major project challenge for those associated with the design and review of the project. Staff has reviewed the subject Aevelopment proposal extensively and has concluded that the original staff recommendation still represents the best plan for the community. However, given the numerous outstanding issues that are yet to be resolved by the City Council, and in recognition of the complex and interlinked nature of any potential project modifications staff has included three project alternatives. These alternatives represent integrated groupings of design element solutions which take into consideration project revision impacts to site, parking /emergency access, public park, and to a certain extent, community aesthetics. Alternative 1 and 2 were previously included in the January 25, 1999 City Council staff report. Alternative 3 represents a new project option for consideration. The project design elements of the three alternatives are as follows: CD99-05C -4- 02/18/99 3:20 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT'ID NUMBER: CD99-05c IS-SUE STAFF ALT. #1 STAFF ALT. #2 . . 1.Site Parking /Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers Provide throughout all res. units Provide throughout all res. units Provide fire sprinklers in PA-3 and PA-4 b) Private Street Width 36'—parking on both sides 32'—parking on one side 32'—parking on one side with (curb to curb) approval by PW&red paint stripe on other side. c) Spine Road Width (curb 32'—no parking on both sides 32'—no parking on both sides 32'—with 43 parking spaces to curb) which includes 20 park parking spaces d) Pearce Street Width via 36'—parking on both sides 36'—parking on both sides 40'-parking on both sides by "I"and"K"(curb to curb) eliminating parkways e) Distribution of guest Will be evenly distributed Create additional"pocket"guest Pocket guest parking on Spine parking spaces throughout project parking spaces throughout the Road and 40'"1"&"K"with project parking along both sides of the street. 0 Tandem Parking Permitted as'approved by the PC Not permitted Allowed in PA-1 only(23 DUs); eliminate tandem in PA-4 g) Interior Garage Min. 18'X 19'with min.400 sq. Min. 18'X 19'with min.400 sq.ft. Min. 18'X 19'with min.400 sq. Dimensions ft. as approved bythe PC as approved by the PC ft. as approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 4.2 ac.(3:4 ac.dedication)plus 4.2 ac.(3.4 ac.dedication)plus 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac.dedication)plus improvements&in-lieu fees at improvements&in-lieu fees at improvements&in-lieu fees at $516,500/ac $516,500/ac. $516,500/ac OR Planning Commission Rec. b) Park Use Neighborhood Park w/multi-use -Neighborhood Park w/multi-use field Neighborhood Park w/multi-use field field c) Park Parking 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces d) Houses adjacent to the None None Permitted Park 3.Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths Min.6'(PA 1 &2) Min.6'(PA 1 &2) Min.5'(PA 1 &2),no parkways along"I"and"K" b) Sidewalk Widths Min.6'(PA 3&4) Min.6'(PA 3&4) Min.5'(PA 3&4) c) Front Yard Setbacks Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC (PA-4) d) Rear Yard Setbacks(PA- Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC 3) e) Fences . Exterior-perimeter Block wall Block wall Block wall Interior-side/rear Block wall Block wall Wood fencing 4.Administration a) Development N/A N/A Agree to process 1-year Agreement extension(•) NOTE: Items in bold(ref.to Alt.#3 column)denote new modifications/items (') Requires a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council CD99-05C -5- 02/18/99 3:20 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05c The primary differences between the original staff recommended project revisions and Alternative 1 and 2 are the proposed private street width (36'-Alt #1 / 32' -Alt #2) and provision of fire sprinklers throughout the project. In addition, staff Alternative 2 includes a provision for "pocket" guest parking throughout the project. This will address tandem parking and distribution of guest parking spaces. Alternative 3 differs from staffs recommendation insofar as it includes; ✓ fire sprinklers in only Planning Areas 3 and 4 ✓ 32 ft wide curb to curb private street widths with parking on one side in-lieu of 40' wide curb to curb street sections with parking on both sides (CRG proposal) ✓ provision of 43 parking spaces along the Spine Road (CRG proposal) ✓ provision of 40 ft wide curb to curb street section along "I" and "K' street by eliminating landscaped parkways ✓ allow up to 23 dwelling units to have tandem parking spaces to satisfy minimum parking requirements of PA-1 ✓ 5 ft wide sidewalks in Planning Area 3 and 4 (CRG proposal) ✓ inclusion of Planning Commission's recommendation for parkland dedication, improvements and in-lieu fees, as an option (CRG proposal) ✓ 18 ft wide by 19 ft deep (min. 400 sq. ft.) garages (CRG proposal) ✓ wood fences at interior side and interior rear property lines instead of block walls (CRG proposal) ✓ agreement to process a 1-year extension of the development agreement between the Nerio Family and the City of Huntington Beach for the Meadowlark site (CRG proposal). In conclusion staff recommends, if Alternative 3 is approved, the following items should be provided in conjunction with the development proposal: 1) Project.CC & Rs shall incorporate strong language to empower parking enforcement by Homeowners Association. 2) Restricted parking areas shall be adequately posted and shall have painted red curbs. 3) Developer shall develop a more effective parking distribution in Planning Area 3 and 4. This may include reversing or substituting model footprints to redistribute or combine driveways, determining which side of each street will have restricted parking areas and other possible solutions. CD99-05C -6- 2/19/99 8:47 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05c 4) The following shall apply to the design of parking on the Spine Road: • No parking shall be allowed within twenty ft from curb returns. • No parking shall be allowed at "T" intersections from the projection of.the curb returns to accommodate sight distance and pedestrian access. • A minimum 10 ft radius reverse curb transition in the curb shall be constructed for each end of the segments of pocket parking. • Street lighting levels shall be increased to improve pedestrian safety. • CRG shall submit a sight distance analysis for the entire length of the Spin_e Road pocket parking. • A maximum speed of 25 mph will be recommended for the Spine Road. • Developer shall perform all-way stop sign warrant studies for key intersections on Spine Road as directed by the Public Works Department. The above are suggested conditions. Once the specifics of an alternative are selected and the impacts of the design issues are analyzed, the final conditions of approval can be processed. SUMMARY CRG's proposal for the development of a small-lot single family residential community is currently inconsistent with numerous development standards and provisions of the staff recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan and the City's General Plan. Staff believes that, with modifications, project issues relative to design, emergency access, public park dedication and community recreation needs can be adequately mitigated and will be addressed. Staff recommends approval of the development proposal subject to revisions to comply with the staff recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan, based on the following: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of persons residing or working.in the project vicinity. The project will incorporate the necessary street infrastructure to ensure emergency access; provide adequate buffer areas between park and residential uses; parking for project residents and neighborhood park users; utilize design solutions to eliminate crime related activities. 2. The project is consistent with Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Recreation and Community Services Element goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, which foster development of high quality communities by means of creative design CD99-05C -7- 02/18/99 3:20 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05c solutions; ensuring provision of infrastructure and; addressing the recreational needs of the community. 3. The proposed residential development, as conditioned, 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. The proposed use will meet the staff recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan, HBZSO and applicable HBOC provisions. Environmental Status: Staff reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No.97-21 for twenty (20) days commencing on April 30, 1998 and ending on May 20, 1998. No comments, either verbal or written were received. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15469, it is necessary for the City Council to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with regard to the subject proposal. On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed Negative Declaration 97-21, with respect to Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No, 97-80, and forwarded the document to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Staff, in its initial study of the project is recommending that the Negative Declaration be adopted with findings and mitigation measures. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page NumberNo. Description 1 Negative Declaration No. 97-21 2 Findings for Denial 3 Development Issues Matrix with three alternatives 4 Public Works Department memorandum dated February 12, 1999 5 Request for Council Action Report dated January 25, 1999 CD99-05C -8- 02/18/99 3:20 PM (3) 02/22/99—Council/Agency Agenda— Page 3 The City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach will regularly convene in joint session for the purpose of considering the following City Council-Redevelopment Agency Agenda Items. The Huntington Beach Parking Authority, Civic Improvement Corporation, and the Huntington Beach Public Financing Authority are also agencies on which Council serves as members. On each Agenda these Agencies may have items scheduled. On 1/25/99 the City Council made a motion to approve the Planning Commission recommendation to approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04, Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01. It failed by 3-4 vote. D-1B. (City Council) Public Hearing Opened & Closed On 1/25/99 With Decision Continued From 1125/99 On Appeal Filed By Cattellus Group To Planning Commission's Approval Of Tentative Tract Map No. 15469/Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (Meadowlark Residential Development) Public hearing opened and closed on 1/25/99 with decision continued to this date. Proiect Applicant/Appellant: Bruce D'Eliscu/Catellus Residential Group Proiect Request: To permit subdivision and development of 48.4 acres with 313 detached single family dwellings on small-lots in conjunction with public park, open space/recreation and infrastructure improvements. Appeal Request: To have the City Council consider Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 /Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80/Negative Declaration No. 97-21 to ensure that project findings and conditions of approval are in compliance with the proposed amendment(s) to the Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-01/Negative Declaration No. 97-21. (*) This Negative Declaration will also be considered by the City Council. Location: 600 ft. east and north of the Warner Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street intersection. (*) Notice is hereby given that an initial environmental assessment for the above items (Negative Declaration No. 97-21) was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental quality Act. It was determined that the above items, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effect and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department. Recommended Action: Staff Recommendation: Motion to: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No.1)to the Request for Council Action dated February 22, 1999; [Approved 7-0)J and 2. Overtum the Planning Commission approval and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with revisions to reflect staffs recommendation (Attachment No. 3) to the Request for (4) 02/22/99—Council/Agency Agenda—Page 4 Council Action dated February 22, 1999 and return to the City Council with findings and conditions of approval. [Approved as modified 6-1 (Sullivan: no)] Motion to determine need to hold closed session per G. C 54954.2(b)(2), H. B. Police Officers Association vs. the City of Huntington Beach. [Approved 7-0)] Motion to recess to closed session on above item. [Approved 7-0)] Recess: 6:40 p.m. Reconvene: 6:50 p.m. Environmental Assessment No. 97-21 Please refer to RCA for Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-04 Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 � - \ /��«��� 2 � � \��\� � � m< y �. m _ �\����\�2 : �m \»��\ ^\d � � :��} � � ® =2 2\ .: . . �. . . . . .. :� « ±«« ��: �© �r���- - - � . m - - - my � � � � ` ?2 ��) �d� > :w � \3/ 2 ? f � ± :e a« � a . : : �����`�- . . �. � . .�} »� r � � �, Y : - � . . . � :a . . :\ � a��\ ��� _ - � v z . : ®* �����\ ©��v�i »:�����\\\ �����/ �° ���������\ \^ �������\l `���\ FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-801 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21: 1.., The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It Was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. The mitigation measuresmill be incorporated as part of a project's conditions of approval and will address a number of potential impacts including: affordable housing requirements, land use compatibility, noise impacts and hazardous materials. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 for the establishment of a 313 unit master planned residential community will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working/ residing in the vicinity. The proposed development does not provide adequate emergency access and on-street parking facilities. 2. The proposed project does not comply with the provisions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed development is inconsistent with setback, parking, storage and parkland dedication provisions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. The development proposal is inconsistent with the following Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Recreation and Community Services goals objectives and policies of the General Plan: Policy LU 9.1.2 Require that single family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character considering the following guidelines: Minimize the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. Policy LU 9.3.2 Require that the design of new subdivisions consider the following: . Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient, well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City. Objective CE 5.1 Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. Policy CE 5.4.1 Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use. Policy CE 5.1.2 Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural environment,the community image, or quality of life. Goal RCS 2 Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and = future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Objective RCS 2.1 Create an integrated park system that is complementary to existing and proposed development as well as the natural environment. Goal RCS 3 Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents' and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15469: Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 for the subdivision of 48.4 gross acres and establishment of a 313 unit residential subdivision is not consistent with the applicable draft Meadowlark Specific Plan(dated September 22, 1998) development standards and provisions. The Tentative Tract Map does not comply with parkland dedication requirements and would require substantial modifications to accommodate the proposed housing product type(s) and comply with health and safety related.project requirements. S ' ► a P - _ x �' �-' - m�v�-P.-.=max -_s��.�.&._' c�<`-' MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (February 18, 1999) 'ISSUE CATELLUS� .'7;;7".,'�,,[,...P.�k PLANNING .] ���.�,`�-'�STAFE.RECe,.,-:�-n, STAFF STAFF, COMPROMISE ALTERNATIVE 3; ALTERNATIVEii ALTERNATIVE PRO T 0 PROPOSAL �COMM.. -�_l �ALTERNAtii -!—. Site Parking/ Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers None None None Provide throughout Provide throughout all Provide fire sprinklers in PA-3 all res.units res.units and PA-4 b) Private Street Width 32'—parking on one Same as 40' 36'—parking on both 32'—parking on one 32'-parking on one side with (Curb to curb) side Catellus sides side approval by PW&red paint stripe on other side c) Spine Road Width 32'—no parking on Same as 32'—no parking on 32'—no parking on 32'—no parking on 32'- with 43 parking spaces (Curb to curb) both sides Catellus both sides both sides both sides which include 20 spaces for park parking d) Pearce Street Width 32'—parking on one Same as 40'—parking on both 36'—parking on both 36'—parking on both 40'-parking on both sides by via'I"and"K" (Curb side Catellus sides sides sides eliminating parkways to curb) e) Distribution of guest Project depicts Same as Will be evenly Will be evenly Create additional Pocket guest.parking on Spine parking spaces adequate guest parking Catellus distributed distributed pocket"guest parking Rd.and 40' "1"&"K"with parking space distribution throughout project throughout project spaces throughout along both sides of the street project f) Tandem Parking 79 units(PA1 &PA4) 79 units Not permitted Permitted as Not permitted Allowed in PA I only(23 DUs); have tandem spaces acceptable approved by PC eliminate tandem in PA-4 g) Interior Garage 113 units @ 20'x20'; Amend Min. 20'x 20'for all Min. 18'x 19'with Min. 18'x 19'with Min. 18'x 19'with min.400 sq.ft. Dimensions(PA 3 200 units @ min. M.S.P.to units min.400 sq.ft. as min.400 sq.ft.as as approved by the PC &4) 18'x1 9'w/400 sq.ft. permit approved by the PC approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 3.2 ac.(2.4 ac. land Same as 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac.(3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land dedication) dedication)plus park Catellus dedication)plus park dedication)plus park dedication)plus park plus park improvements& improvements& in-lieu improvements& improvements& improvements& in-lieu fees at$516,500/ac. fees at$500,000/ac. in-lieu fees at in-lieu fees at in-lieu fees at OR $516,500/ac. $516,500/ac. $516,500/ac. Planning Commission Rec. b) Park Use Neighborhood Park Same as Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park w/ Neighborhood Park w/multi-use Catellus w/multi-use fields w/multi-use fields multi-use fields fields c) Park Parking 16 spaces 16 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces Catellus d) Houses Adj.to Park 7 units next to park Same as None None None Permitted MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX(Cont.) �.PROPOSAL-, ALTERNATIVE COMM ,R G. TAFF REC ;;. STAFF: :STAFF; h COMPROMISE #1 ALTERNATIVE#2 '. AL,TERNATIV.E.`#.3 .r ISSUE CATELLUS �., PLANNING.: S , 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths 5'(PA 1 &2) Same Min.6'(PA 1&2) Min. 6'(PA 1&2) Min.6'(PA 1&2) Min.5'(PA-1 &PA-2),no parkways along"I"and"K" b) Sidewalk Widths 5'(PA 3&4) Same Min.6'(PA 3&4) Min. 6'(PA 3&4) Min.6'(PA 3&4) Min.5'(PA-3&PA-4) c) Front Setbacks Min. 15'; Amend M.S.P. Maintain min. 15' Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC (PA4) allow 2'2nd story to permit 2' setback without projections projections projections d) Rear Setbacks Min. 13'& 15'; Amend M.S.P. Maintain min. 13'& Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC (PA3) allow 2'2"d story to permit 2' 15'setback s projections projections without projections � e) Fencing -Exterior/perimeter: -Block Wall -Block Wall -Block Wall Same as PC Same as PC -Block Wall -Interior/rear: -Wood Fencing -Block Wall -Block Wall -Wood Fencing 4. Administration a) Development N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Agree to process 1-year Agreement extension NOTE: Items in bold lettering(ref.to Alt.#3 column)denote new modifications/items (*) Requires a Public Hearing before the Planning Commission and City Council CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH `} INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION TO: Scott Hess, Senior Planner x ; FROM: avid Webb, Deputy City Engineer 'ytry. -'t s SUBJECT: Proposed Meadowlark Small Lot Development DATE: February 12, 1999 This memo is in response to the applicant's request to allow parking along the Spine Road and expresses Public Works staff s thoughts related to the newly developed "Alternative No. 3." Regarding the applicant's request to allow parking on the Spine Road, staff has reviewed the proposal and has the following response: The general practice of this department and the City is to not allow any street parking on streets that function in the capacity of a collector between two major arterials when there are no homes that have street frontage. This.restriction applies in this case, based upon the following: • The Spine Road functions like a collector street. Residents in the Meadowlark community, as well as the public,will use Spine Road to access Heil Avenue and Warner Avenue. • Diminishes City's General Plan goals to provide adequate parking and access (LU 4.2.3) and ensure adequate emergency ingress and egress (CE 1.3)by adding to congestion on the collector street. • Design speed of street will be higher than local streets, or around 35 mph. • The reverse curve alignment and higher speeds create sight distance problems leading to possible pedestrian conflicts when parallel parking is added. This becomes an even greater concern along park frontage. • Distribution of parking on Spine Road does not alleviate the site parking distribution concerns in PA-3 and PA-4. • Pocket parking compounds street sweeping problems. • Homeowners and guests will still attempt to park, for convenience and security, in front of their homes rather than away from them. • The 6-foot walls along Spine Road will prevent residents from monitoring the security of their cars. • The aesthetic street appeal is compromised.. Regarding Public Works staff comments on Alternative No. 3, we conclude that our original recommendations are the superior design alternate. Staff did participate in the negotiation and formation of this new alternative to be considered by Council. As the alternative currently stands, some areas of the project are still marginal, while some of the concerns and issues originally raised by this department remain. Several of these minimum standards, when combined and implemented, could be perceived as.a detriment to the community at a future date. These minimal standards include narrow streets with allowance for parking on only one side of the street,reduced housing setbacks from the curb, narrow lots, allowance of tandem parking to meet parking requirements, and smaller garage sizes. Proposed Meadowlark Small Lot Development Memo February 12, 1999 Page two + These combined minimum standards could result in the following concerns: y ` (1) Areas of poor parking distribution in Planning Areas 3 and 4. (2) Potential obstruction of emergency evacuation routes from within the project. [=- (3) An increase of citizen complaints and a cause for heightened parking enforcement. (4) Blocking of sidewalks from oversized cars parked in driveways. (5) Competition for available parking spaces in front of homes. However, if Council selects Alternative No. 3 (which would includes parking on the Spine Road), Public Works staff recommends the following conditions be included within the developer's plan: ; (1) C C & R's incorporate strong language to empower parking enforcement by HOA. = l (2) Restricted parking areas are adequately posted and are red-curbed. (3) Developer will commit to work with City staff to develop more effective parking distribution in Planning Areas 3 and 4. This may include reversing or substituting model footprints,redistributing or combining driveways, determining which side of each street will have restricted parking areas, and other possible solutions. (4) The following requirements shall apply to the design of parking on the Spine Road: • No parking will be allowed within a minimum of twenty (20) feet from curb returns. • No parking will be allowed at "T" intersections from the projection of the curb returns to accommodate sight distance and pedestrian access. • A minimum 10-foot radius reverse curb transition in the curb shall be constructed for each end of the segments of pocket parking. • Street lighting levels shall be increased to improve pedestrian safety. • Catellus shall submit a sight distance analysis for the entire length of the Spine Road pocket parking. • A maximum speed limit of 25 mph is recommended for Spine Road. • Developer shall perform all-way stop sign warrant studies for key intersections on Spine Road, as directed by Public Works. Note: Staff estimates that compliance with the points stated above will provide approximately 43 additional parking stalls, including the 20 public park spaces. DAW:gd cc: Robert F. Beardsley, Director of Public Works Bob Eichblatt, City Engineer Terri Elliott, Associate Traffic Engineer Bob Righetti, Project Manager Amy Wolfe, Planner File ��u Council/Agency Meeting Held: =; Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: January 25, 1999 Department ID Number: CD99-05 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Planning Director lbw7a Apl� SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 (Meadowlark Residential Development _ Plan) f} 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 Catellus Residential Group (CRG), applicant, of the December 3, 1998, Planning Commission's action to approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit (CUP) No. 97-80. The subject request is to subdivide 48.4 acres of land into small-lots and construct 313 single family detached dwellings, a public park, private open space/recreation facilities and infrastructure improvements. CRG's development proposal is associated with and contingent upon approval of the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendment (ZTA No. 97-04 and ZMA No. 97-01) _ Which sets forth the framework for small-lot development within the Meadowlark property.. On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission approved CRG's development request by. a 5-2 vote (Recommended Action - A). Staff recommended denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 based upon project'non compliance with the staff recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan and- because there are on-site.parking issues, emergency access issues, reduced park size, and reduced development standards.such as minimal front and rear yard setbacks. The subject appeal has been requested by CRG in order to "assure that the findings and conditions of approval for the referenced actions conform with the City Council's final action on the Meadowlark Specific-Plan". Staff is continuing to recommend denial of the proposal (Recommended Action - B) to the City Council for the same reasons when it was presented to the Planning Commission. In addition, staff has prepared two (2) alternatives for City Council consideration based upon specific revisions to the development proposal in order to address emergency access, on- site parking and reduced development standards. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: r . A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings . and mitigation measures , (ATTACHMENT NO. Land 2)", and 2. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. .97-80 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO.1)..' ' Planninq Commission Action on December 3, 1998: =y: THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: °3'G AYES: LIVENGOOD,CHAPMAN, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER, KERINS, BIDDLE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED ; 4. THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP =t= NO. 15469 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS =_ FOR DENIAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, BIDDLE NOES: LIVENGOOD,CHAPMAN, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED - THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE ' TRACT MAP NO. 15469 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD,CHAPMAN, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: KERINS, BIDDLE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED CD99-05 -2- January 22,19991.0:45 AM P,00 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING'DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05_ B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)", and 2. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings of denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 6)." Alternative,Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): A. To Approve Alternative 1 Plan: • 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)", and 2. "Approve Alternative 1 Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 9) which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings and conditions of approval." B. To Approve Alternative 2 Plan: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 97-21 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1 and 2)", and 2. : :"Approve Alternative 2 Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 9) which modifies Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 with findings and conditions of approval." C. To Continue 1. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 97-21, Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and , Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and direct staff accordingly." CD99-05 -0- January 22, 1999 10:45 AMP REQUEST FOR ACTION .k MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 'yY Analysis: ' A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Yr. Applicant: Bruce D'Eliscu for Catellus Residential Group r=`' -S-Paf yo v o_ cc/ P lR4neCA=1_4 Location: Six hundred (600) ft north and east of the intersection Bolsa Chica Street and -yp. Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue. , Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 is a request to construct 313 single family detached, two- #_ story, dwelling units on small-lots (minimum sizes) ranging between 3,120 sq. ft. and 4,680 t .y sq. ft. (average lot size 4,125 sq. ft.) within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific =- Plan document. _a's Planning Area 1 is proposed to be primarily developed with zero-lot-line housing product type and lot layout, which involves provision of maintenance and drainage easements to fix; adjoining property owners(s). Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3 have been designed in accordance with a "conventional" small-lot layout concept, providing accessible side yards along both sides of the dwelling on each lot. Planning Area 4 incorporates a z-lot configuration design with use, drainage and maintenance easement provisions to adjacent r property owners. The following matrixes summarize product type floor plan information within each of the four planning areas of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area based on the k. October 19-21, 1998 CRG project development plan submittal. .Fr ;1 ��CD99-05 -4- January 22 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 J. PLANNING AREA 'I mNo 'T Units tePlan ;, W-0, s t F*w s.,b,rf,:7B zr_ s$:s- -..e.. .-.. .._. ..r_.':.c-.r... ._. .__._ ....._ _ _: ,'S�°Fcr .s .Y°._.,.f.._>. n:; s. .-..>.«;zx..•t...o,.it.r.;:•.,. :,=r 1 24 3,136 4 two car 2 2 23 3,199 5 two car . 2 3 15 3,858 5 two car 2 r TOTAL: 62 s s .PLANNING AREA 2 ,L: " PFan Type No ofYUnits *� Yx= Size s = r {No of > Garage Storiesz� x SA �l -� �tr� �•� �e_5r�r "� c-a� t4 .> � � S efts :, Bedrooms ' -� 1 15 2 992 4 two car 2 2 9 3,064 4 two car 2 2X 8 3,064 3 Two car & 2one sub- standard ' compact y _ 3 5 3,112 4 two car 2 `s, 3X 14 3,304 4 Two car & 2 one sub- standardf. tandem _P: compact TOTAL: 51 PLANNING AREA 3 µ , PIanType jNoof Urnts , Sizea � n =No offer ;Garage� Stories ry. INS, ""sN { . � ...<-o--r am: s ft� ,Bed o roms >r 1 43 2,401 4 two car 2 2 36 2,631 4 two car 2 3 34 2,764 4 two car 2 TOTAL: 113 PLANNING AREA 4 - u- _ 3 a ��,x: a. •.rx � . ,.�,, ,a i a � -- y Wit- s:'.e:s� £. ,�., "�v.;�:: PlanType No HofUnits � Siie�,� �- Noof Garage _ Stones rx �. x,:..1 - ""s .c. -_ t #s�",Ta#- 5 - ?? Bedrooms + 4BC- x ..•.� _: ?. ..y dha.S..,._+. 1 21 2,076 3 two car 2 2 24 2,198 3 two car 2 -- 3 20 2,447 4 two car 2 4 22 2,445 4 two car 2 TOTAL: 87 CD99-05 -5- January 22; 1999 10:45 AM • " .fib . . REQUEST FOR ACTION .sY. MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 r,. ^�f Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 represents a request to subdivide approximately 48.4 ` gross acres into 315 numbered lots; (313 residential lots, 1 public park and 1 private park); j 16 lettered open space lots and; 3 lettered common access (driveway)lots in order to -= establish a 313 unit residential development pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Meadowlark A - Specific Plan. The proposed overall project density is 9.8 dwelling units per net acre. Reduced street sections are proposed for the Spine Road and local private streets within .:.. . all planning areas as follows: y Spine Road: 60 ft. street section (typical) - 32 ft. curb to curb w/.14 ft. parkways on both sides/which includes 6 ft.sidewalks/ no.on-street parking (except along public park site street frontage) Planning Area 1: Private Streets-Typical . 50 ft. street section -32 ft. curb to curb w/5 ft. parkways and 4 ft. . sidewalks/ parking on one side. 1"Street (Private) `R- 54 ft. street section -36 ft. curb to curb w/5 ft. parkways and 4.ft. R sidewalks/ parking on one side. Pearce Street Extension(Public— West of Street W) 59 ft. street section -40 ft. curb to curb w/5 ft. parkways and 4 ft, =`s. sidewalks/ parking on both sides (public) %L Planning Area 2: _{ Private Streets-Typical 50 ft. street section - 32 ft. curb to curb w/5 ft. parkways and 4 ft. sidewalks/parking on one side. . _ Planning Area 3: -1=` Private Streets -Typical 42 ft. street section -32 ft. curb to curb w/ 5 ft. monolithic sidewalks -_ (sidewalks adjacent to curb)/ parking on one side. = Planning Area 4: Private Streets-Typical 42 ft. street section - 32 ft. curb to curb w/5 ft. monolithic sidewalks/ parking on one side. Roosevelt Lane 57 ft. street section -40 ft. curb to curb w/4.5 ft. parkways and 5.5 ft. sidewalks/ parking on both sides. 00 OD99-05 -0_ January 22,1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On December 3, 1998 the Planning Commission considered Tentative Tract Map 15469, Conditional Use.Permit No. 97-80 and Negative Declaration No. 97-21 associated with the development of 313 dwelling units in the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission evaluated 14 outstanding project issues where the project was inconsistent with.the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan, and conditioned the project to comply with the revised Meadowlark Specific Plan. Furthermore the Planning Commission, by minute action, suggested that the City Council consider modifications to the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan in order to accommodate the development proposal. Staff recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. C. APPEAL: On December 8, 1998, Catellus Residential Group submitted an appeal of the December 3, 1998, Planning Commission action to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80. The cited reason for the appeal is "to assure that the findings and conditions of approval for the referenced actions conform with the City Council's final action on the Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment". D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: CRG's development proposal (Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80) was evaluated for land use compatibility with surrounding land uses, tract layout, open space, hydrology, affordable housing, and residential development standards/ design provisions. Discussion of each of the aforementioned project elements, staffs recommendations and Planning Commission action on outstanding project issues presented to the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 follows. 1) LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The proposed subdivision of 48.4 acres of vacant.land and development of 313 residential lots/single family dwellings constitutes an infill project. The site is located within the urbanized area of northwest Huntington Beach and is primarily surrounded by residential uses. The subject property abuts the Meadowlark shopping center to the south and a church and Norma Gibbs park along a portion of its easterly property line. CD99-05 -7- January 22 1999 10:45 A REQUEST FOR ACTION 't=. MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 «_ The proposed development plan is comprised of four (4) planning areas with residential densities ranging from 7.8 dwelling units per net acre to 11.5 dwelling units per net acre (net s . acreage calculations includes open-space lots). The proposed densities provide a gradual y transition from the commercial and medium high density attached. residential uses (RMH) to y the south of the Meadowlark property to the existing low density detached residential uses a.�. (RL) to the north, east and west. The project incorporates a 100 ft wide lower density.area (single family detached homes at ' a density of 6.6 dwelling units per gross acre), along the existing single family residential development to the east of the project site and Planning Area 3, in accordance with :.., : _ .'g.!' Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions. The proposed grading along the project's periphery = % will result in street grades/pad elevations compatible with those of adjacent streets and - ; adjoining lots. The project has been found to be compatible in terms of land use with existing adjoining areas and in compliance with infill requirements. 2) TRACT LAYOUT _•_ •i i .l i i a �X� PA-2 PA-2 ; I a — I. �; + a 46 a e i i • �-------^ PUSUC �! f r— —� PARK — '-■S �lI II � �I1'.",' + aaaaasaa� I t1 I • .��� •,::,,~: j II PA-1 (aaaaaaa a ,l � / '� -J J� — � � s asaaas •�� _ .COMMON up■ I �'a • OPEN saiasasaaa i i a a a a -� SPACE + s a a a s s a PA-3 '- . PA-4 I a a s a a a , - a afi a am as �•r.y ... � s s ia-sa�• , «. ® a■m am ® am=apa Now ". m 8 �:m v m�—•• � � a•i sre amar �. — ... ! •�1a_�.raaaua ,- 0 i1 C D99-05 -8- 01/21/99 8:05 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 The Meadowlark tract has been designed as four distinct but interconnected neighborhoods = (planning areas). The Spine Road (Street "A") provides access to the property from Heil Avenue and from Warner Avenue at Plaza Lane. The Spine Road meanders through the subdivision, separating Planning Areas 3 and 4, Planning Areas 1 and 3 and dividing Planning Area 2. The northern terminus of the Spine Road at Heil Avenue aligns with Del }; Mar Lane. Local access to the four-planning areas is provided directly via the Spine Road. Access to Planning Area 1 and 4 are also provided from the Pearce Street extension and Roosevelt Lane respectively. The Pearce Street connection has been planned to limit traffic on said street to 2,500 average daily trips in compliance with Meadowlark Specific Plan limitations. The project does not propose any significant grade changes. The project site is generally K. flat with a 15 ft grade differential between the site's high point (appr. 30 ft elev.) at its southwest portion to the lowest elevation point along Heil Avenue (appr. 15 ft elev.). Proposed pad elevations are 29.5 ft at the southwest corner of the site and drop to 17.2 ft - along Heil Avenue. The density of the 313 unit project is 9.8 units per net acre and is well within the maximum - density of 11.3 units per net acre and maximum number units permitted (345 dwelling units) by the Meadowlark Specific Plan. 3) OPEN SPACE '41 The proposed project is.in compliance with common and private open space requirements set forth in the Meadowlark Specific Plan.- A total .of 0.79 acre of common open space area is required for the project exclusive of public parkland dedication. The CRG proposal provides 1.55 acres..of common usable open space of which 0.65 acres is proposed to be developed as a private mini-park site (Lot 315) with recreational amenities such as a pool, meeting rooms, tot-lot etc. which will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Private open space equal to or greater than four hundred (400) sq. ft. per residential lot has also been included as part of the subject development proposal. 4) HYDROLOGY The.applicant submitted a preliminary drainage study to evaluate existing conditions in the vicinity of the project and to. determine the impacts and required mitigation for ultimate buildout of the proposed development. Downstream constraints at the Sunset (C07) Channel, which is currently functioning at or near full capacity during major rain storms, resulted in City staff recommending to the applicant that an alternative method of drainage mitigation be explored. In response to this issue, the applicant has proposed detaining a portion of the project storm water runoff within the proposed neighborhood park site. The storm water is proposed to remain detained in the park site until the peak of the storm has passed. The water then will be conveyed to the Sunset Channel by means of a public storm. drain system in Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. CD99-05 -9- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION v MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID.NUMBER: CD99-05 'r � yy' �yX{: The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary drainage study and deemed it . acceptable as proposed mitigation for the project. Final design studies will be performed by the applicant's engineer to determine the actual sizing of the entire required storm drains facility to be constructed by the development. = 5) AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Meadowlark Specific Plan requires provision of affordable housing in conjunction with ==r* the development of the project site. Ten percent (10%) of the total units proposed are4 required to be affordable to low and moderate income level households (100% of the j Orange County Median Income) for a period of thirty years. If rental units are proposed to kr�Y satisfyaffordable housing requirements ,, the units are required to be for households earning 9 q q 9 between 50/o -80/o of the Orange County Median Income. .ems. CRG has agreed to satisfy the project's affordable housing obligation through provision of rental units. The developer proposes to enter into an agreement with Bridges Housing ' Foundation to maintain rental units off-site at a rental rate affordable to households earning . between 50% - 80% of the Orange County Median Income. A detailed description of the _ type, size, location and estimated rental rate will be submitted prior to recordation of the final tract map. F, 6) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/DESIGN PROVISIONS When the Planning Commission reviewed the development proposal, there were several inconsistencies between the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan development requirements and the project'design. Staff prepared a matrix of 14 items (ATTACHMENT NO. 3) that the Planning Commission needed to address prior to acting on ' the project. The Planning Commission conditioned the project to be redesigned to eliminate 9 of those items; 4 items are contingent upon City Council approval of the minute action request by the Planning Commission; and one item staff believes requires further review and redesign. The following is a discussion of the five remaining issues:' = a. Front Yard Setbacks— Planning Area 2 Issue: The amended Meadowlark Specific Plan requires a minimum fifteen (15) ft front yard setback for dwellings and permits patios and entry elements to be constructed at a twelve (12) ft setback from the front property line. In addition, the Specific Plan provides for consideration of average front yard setbacks and establishes an average of twelve (12) ft as the front yard setback with a minimum of ten (10) ft, only for high quality innovative design concepts which promote pedestrian oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene when proposed in conjunction with landscaped parkways. ,�CD99t� -10- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-06 CRG proposes five (5) wide landscaped parkways along street frontages within Planning Area 2 and has requested consideration and approval of "average front yard setbacks" average setback 13.9 ft, inclusive of garage frontage (min)-within the subject planning area. Staff reviewed the request and has determined that the proposed architectural design would be acceptable in conjunction with fifteen (15) ft setbacks with minor product design modifications (e.g. elimination of the three car garage product type Plan 2X), however, staff believes that consideration of"front yard averaging" warrants additional and more significant. product modifications (e.g. inclusion of housing product type(s) with garages within the rear half of thia lot or side entry garages). Staffs opinion is based on the belief that although the proposed building design, when viewed individually, appears to be of good quality, the overall site planning (plotting/ product mix) of the subject Planning Area does not necessarily promote an innovative design concept and is in conflict with the residential product design standards of the Meadowlark Specific Plan which promote "locating and designing garages so that they do not dominate --= the street scene", "minimizing the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access" and providing variable setbacks between dwellings on _- adjacent lots "to avoid a monotonous pattern of houses and create an interesting street- scene". Moreover, staffs position is also supported by the General Plan policy which ` > advocates increased front yard setbacks where reduced street widths are implemented. --_ This General Plan policy leads staff to believe that provision of parkways alone is not sufficient to accept front yard setback averaging for projects which do not achieve the level of innovative design and attain Specific Plan goals worthy of design standard deference. Staff Recommendation: Modify the architectural submittal for Planning Area 2 to - incorporate side entry garages and/or housing product type(s) which incorporate the garage within the rear half portion of the lot (front yard setback averaging option) or revise the proposed technical plan layout to comply with the fifteen (15) ft minimum front yard setback _r for dwellings and twelve (12)ft minimum for patios and entry elements in conjunction with eliminating Plan 2X from the proposed product mix. t Planning Commission Action: PA-2 design was determined to be creative/ innovative. Front yard setback averaging was approved as proposed by the applicant. b. Garage Design — Planning Area 3 - Issue: -'Garage dimensions and storage. In Planning Area 3 a maximum of ten percent (10%) garage area reduction (up to 40 sq. ft. yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area) is permitted for a non-cumulative twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units within each planning area, upon approval off-a conditional use permit. The Specific Plan states that when a reduction of garage area is proposed, a minimum area of eighteen (18) ft (width) by nineteen (19) ft (depth) should be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference between the garage area provided and the minimum required (400 sq. ft.) is required to be provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or CD99-05, -11- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM �\\ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 --fYSd1 other storage configurations) that do not impede the eighteen (18) by nineteen (19) ft automobile garage parking area. The proposed garage design data within Planning Area 3 is as follows: =:h' y, �,,.. '..s>-.rya- 3^ - °P y.s• :N�-.' k i-z y - r" `n -_,§_.<"& r= T Number of Y Size ; Garage sg. ft Stora e.area Stora a area E f,.•u-. d ';",� `�'-1�s.,i` .,fi �. �.Units� Plan 1** 43 18' X 22' 396 4 sq ft 0r : Plan 2** 36 18' X 20' w/ 356 sq ft. 40 sq ft 0 additional 9' X 5.75' 54.6 sq ft laundry Plan 3** 34 18' X 20' w/ 360 sq ft 40 sq ft 0 additional ` 8.5' X 6' 51 sq ft laundry - Total 113 - denotes non-compliance —refer to text for specific areas) Planning Area 3 garage design is not in compliance with the requirement for provision of twenty ft (20) by twenty (20) ft minimum interior garage dimensions in seventy-five percent Of units (85 garages). Moreover, Plan 2 is not in compliance with the minimum required dimension (18'X19') for automobile storage due to a design condition which introduces a hallway closet within said storage area and impedes use of the space. Finally the proposed garage/storage may not be in compliance with minimum storage requirements applicable to 25% of units with reduced garage areas. The applicant requests credit to be given towards fulfilling minimum garage area and storage requirements for laundry areas (Plan 2 and 3) adjoining the automobile storage _ area. These areas were previously presented to the Planning Commission and staff as _ separate laundry rooms adjacent to the garage and have been connected by removing the common wall between the garage and laundries. As modified, the proposed garages would technically satisfy minimum storage requirements. Staff Recommendation: Consider the applicant's proposal and approve/ or deny based on the intent of the Meadowlark Specific Plan storage provision requirements. Planning Commission Action: Incorporate a condition of project approval to ensure compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP Condition # 1. p). CRG garage/storage design presented on December 3, 1998 (400 sq. ft. garage design proposal and provision of storage areas—ATTACHMENT NO. 7) was accepted provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission approved Specific Plan. C. Garage Design — Planning Area 4 e \Z' C s -12- January 22,199910:45 AM 'q AV REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Issue: - Garage dimensions and storage,- In Planning Area 4 a maximum of ten percent ` (10%) garage area reduction (up to 40 sq. ft. yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area) is permitted for a non-cumulative twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units within each planning area, upon approval of a conditional use permit. When a.reduction of garage area is proposed, a minimum area of eighteen (18) ft (width) by nineteen (19) ft (depth) is required to be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference - between the garage area provided and the minimum required (400 sq. ft.) should be = provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or other storage configurations) _ that do not impede the eighteen (18) ft by nineteen (19) ft automobile parking area within the garage. CRG proposes the following garage design/storage areas for Planning Area 4: - - Y ,f '• 'a - ,x,a " �..zr^ �^- - a -b` -".`., --e"�*y br - a✓--":...--' ..y-��rs^..7'.. t �a Numbero � �� Size� Garage sq ft ?Storagearea Storage�area 3�.%"'z^ -_ Plan 1** 21 18' X 20' w/ 391 9 sq ft 60 sq ft storage alcove Plan 2**: 24 1-8' X 20' 360 sq ft. 40 sq ft 40 sq ft Plan 3** ' 20 18' X 20' w/. 399 sq ft 1.sq ft 13 sq ft storage alcove Plan 4** 22 18.8' X 20' w/. 398 sq ft 2 sq ft 40 sq ft storage alcove Total 187 (**denotes non-compliance — refer to text for specific areas) Planning Area 4 garage design is not in compliance with the requirement for provision of twenty (20) ft by twenty (20) ft minimum interior garage dimensions in seventy-five percent of units(65 garages). Moreover, Plan 1, 2 and 3 are not in compliance with the minimum . required dimension (18'X19') for automobile storage due to proposed cabinet storage area location. Staff Recommendation: Revise the architectural plans and /or tentative tract map and conditional use permit documents to comply with the.garage design/ storage provisions of _ the Meadowlark Specific Plan. _ Planning Commission Action: Incorporate a condition of project approval to ensure compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP Condition # 1.r). . CRG garage/storage design presented on December 3, 1998 (400 sq. ft. garage design proposal and provision of storage areas)was accepted provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission approved Specific Plan. CD99-05 -13- January 22, 1999 16:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION 3r, MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 w d. Rear Yard Setbacks - Planning Area 3 "" Issue: Dwellings within Planning Area 3 are subject to compliance with a fifteen (15) ft minimum rear yard setback with a maximum of up to fifty percent (50%) of the rear building Wall set at thirteen (13) ft. Fifty-one (51) dwelling units (Plan 1, 2 and 3 housing product types) in the subject planning area do not comply with the minimum rear yard setback = `t- requirements due to primarily.second floor projections and first floor configurations. r; Staff Recommendation: Revise the architectural submittal for Plan 1, 2 and 3 to comply "= with the Meadowlark Specific Plan requirements or modify the Tentative Tract Map and associated CUP documents to accommodate the proposed architecture. Plannirig Commission Action: Incorporate condition of project approval to revise project _ . /ensure"compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP Condition # 1.o). CRG's request to permit up to 24" projections within rear yard setbacks was accepted, provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. - e. 'Front Yard Setbacks - Planning Area 4 Issue: The Meadowlark Specific Plan requires a fifteen (15) ft front yard setback within Planning Area 4. The submitted development plans for said area does not comply with the applicable front yard setbacks. Specifically, Plan 4 (second floor) as designed encroaches 'f within the minimum applicable setback. This condition affects twenty-two units within the planning area. Staff Recommendation: Revise the architectural plans and /or.tentative tract map and conditional use permit documents to comply with the provision of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. Planninq Commission Action: Incorporate condition of project approval to revise project .( /ensure compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP Condition # 1.q). CRG's request to permit up to 24" projections within front yard setbacks was accepted, provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission ` approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. C099-05 -14- January 22,1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January'25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 E. REVISED SUBMITTAL On December 28, 1998 CRG submitted additional documentation on the subject proposal and requested that the documents be included in the City Council staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). The submitted information includes the following; _ Meadowlark Parking Analysis and Parking Plan Rear Yard Setback Exhibit— PA3, Park acreage compliance exhibit, a letter by Keystone Pacific Property Management Inc. regarding parking enforcement, a.letter by Robert N. Figeira regarding parking enforcement and a letter by Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh regarding Meadowlark project CC&Rs parking restrictions. F. STAFF ALTERNATIVES The Meadowlark development proposal differs from typical residential subdivision projects = due to the proposed density and small-lot design concept. The small-lot design concept, intense by nature, does not accommodate major plan modifications in one area of design (site planning or building design) without impacting other project design aspects. This inherent project limitation has been the major project challenge for those associated with the design and review of the project. Staff has reviewed the subject development proposal extensively and has concluded that :T the original staff recommendation still represents the optimum project solution, however, given the numerous outstanding issues that are yet to be resolved by the City Council and in recognition of the complex and interlinked nature of any potential project modifications staff . . has prepared two alternative project solutions. These alternatives represent integrated groupings of design element solutions which take into consideration project revision impacts to site parking /emergency access, public park, and community aesthetics. The project design elements.of the originally proposed staff recommendation for project modifications and the two alternatives are as follows: CD99-05 As- January 22, 1999 10:45 AIVI�� REQUEST FOR ACTION ''' MEETING DATE: January 25,.1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 ISSUE STAFF r :Ta rl� ORIGINAL =42 1.Site Parking /Emer enc Access a) Fire Sprinklers None Provide throughout all Provide throughout all res. units res. units b) Private Street Width 40' 36'—parking on both 32'—parking on one side curb to curb sides C) Spine Road Width 32'—no parking on both 32'—no parking on both 32'—no parking on both curb to curb sides sides sides d) Pearce Street Width 40'—parking on both 36'—parking on both 36'—parking on both via "I"and "K" (curb to sides sides sides curb e) Distribution of guest Will be evenly distributed Will be evenly distributed Create additional parking spaces throughout project throughout project "pocket"guest parking - spaces throughout the = project 0 Tandem Parking Not permitted Permitted as approved Not permitted by the PC g) Interior Garage Min. 20'X 20'for all.units Min. 18'X 19'with min. Min. 18'X 19'with min. Dimensions 400 sq. ft. as approved 400 sq. ft. as approved by the PC by the PC 2. Public Park " - a) Park Size 4.2 ac: (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication plus dedication plus dedication plus improvements plus in- improvements plus in- improvements plus in- "Y lieu fee of$387,500 lieu fee of$387,500 lieu fee of$387,500 b) Park Use Neighborhood park Neighborhood park Neighborhood park w/multi-use field w/multi-use field w/multi-use field '- c Park Parking 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces d) Houses adjacent to None None None the Park = 3. Community Aesthetics a Parkway Widths Min. 6' PA 1 &2 Min. 6' PA 1 &2 Min. 6' PA 1 &2 b Sidewalk Widths Min. 6' PA 3 &4 Min. 6' PA 3 &4 Min. 6' PA 3 &4 -'' c) Front Yard Setbacks Maintain min. 15' Same as PC Same as PC (PA-4) setback without -_ projections d) Rear Yard Setbacks Maintain min. 13'& 15" Same as PC Same as PC (PA-3) setbacks without projections CD99-05 -16- January 22, 1999 1:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 The primary differences between the original staff recommended project revisions and Alternative 1 and 2 are the proposed street width and provision of firesprinklers throughout the project. In addition, staff Alternative 2 includes a provision for"pocket" guest parking throughout the project. This will address tandem parking and distribution of guest parking spaces. G. SUMMARY The residential proposal for the development of a small-lot single family residential community.is inconsistent with numerous development standards and provisions of the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan. Staff believes that cumulatively, project issues,and inconsistencies of the proposed plan with respect to the Meadowlark Specific Plan are significant and warrant a recommendation for project denial. _ In addition, and even more importantly, staff believes that project issues relative to design, emergency access, public park dedication and community recreational needs have not been adequately mitigated and should be addressed in order to comply with General Plan goals, objectives and policies. In order to address outstanding project issues the submitted proposal will have to be r revised. Depending on the modifications decided to be made by the applicant, the nature of the overall project may be altered significantly. For this reason staff does not support conditional approval of the submitted plans and recommends denial of the project. Staff finds that the project is not in substantial compliance with the amended Meadowlark Specific Plan.and recommends denial of the development proposal based on the following reasons: ♦ The project is not consistent with Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Recreation and Community Services Element goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, which foster development of high quality communities by means of creative design solutions; ensuring provision of infrastructure and; addressing the recreational needs of the community. ♦ The project does not comply with five provisions and development standards of the - Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan. ♦ The project will be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of persons residing or working in the project vicinity. The project does not incorporate the _ necessary street infrastructure to ensure emergency access; provide adequate buffer areas between park and residential uses; parking for project residents and neighborhood park users; utilize design solutions to eliminate crime related activities. CD99-05 -17- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM , b REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Environmental Status: X Staff reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that.could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California.Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No.97-21 for twenty (20) days commencing on April 30, 1998 and ending on May 20, 1998. No comments, either 4`=_ verbal or written were received. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15469, it is necessary for the City Council to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 97- 21 with regard to the subject proposal. On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed Negative Declaration .97-21,.with respect to Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and `= Conditional Use Permit No, 97-80, and forwarded the document to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Staff, in its initial study of the project is recommending that the Negative Declaration be adopted with findings and mitigation measures: '' Attachment(s)• City Clerk's Page NumberDescription 1 Findings and Conditions of Approval (PC Recommendation) 2 Negative Declaration No. 97-21 3 Matrix of Project Issues dated December 3, 1998.(PC Matrix) 4 Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998 5 Letters in Opposition and/or Support 6 Findings for Denial (Staff Recommendation) 7 Revised PA-3 garage design proposal presented to PC on 12/3/98 8 CRG correspondence received/dated December 28, 1998 9 Alternative 1 and 2 Plan Revisions 1. ,\CD99-05 -18- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM ' I j. W7 Y#. .` 5 e.'• -'�' fs--`".;�.�.�"�r.`" a+X' zc :: ��,s* _ . §"., •rK,,fe iL+fi. '�.g,"'' - -'� .Xa -i - �x w FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL =r`; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/ ` TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-21s =; (MEADOWLARK) - r, FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the A California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. No comments were received during the = . comment period. 2: Mitigation measures for Negative Declaration No. 97-21 attached hereto shall become part of the project conditions of approval, (unless superseded by more restrictive TTM/CUP conditions), and will avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address a number of potential impacts including: affordable housing requirements, land use compatibility,noise impacts and hazardous materials. - - 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15469: 1. Tentative Tract Map No.15469 for subdivision of 48.4 gross acres for the purpose of developing a 313 unit residential community is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of M-sp (Mixed Use- Specific Plan) on the subject property and the amended Meadowlark Specific Plan, as approved,by the Planning Commission. Detached single family homes on small-lots'are a permitted use. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development at 9.8 units per net acre (6.5 units per gross acre). The site was previously approved for a higher intensity of land use (12.4 units per gross acre). The size,lot frontage, street sections and other design r features of the proposed subdivision,as proposed or conditioned,are in compliance with the amended Specific Plan. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project was evaluated in Negative Declaration No. 97-21 and will comply with appropriate mitigation measures. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements,for access or for use,will be provided. The subdivision; as conditioned,will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements. 1a . -\,9, (98CL1203-3) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 for the establishment of the 313 dwelling unit planned. r community 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 :rY. neighborhood. The proposed project as conditioned will provide the necessary infrastructure and site improvements to accommodate the needs of project residents and the adjoining ` `a community. 2. The conditional use permit request, as conditioned,will be-compatible-with surrounding residential and commercial uses. The proposed buffer areas between the existing easterly adjacent properties and PA3,project grading,site design and subdivision layout will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets,driveways and other adjacent structure and uses in a harmonious manner. 3. The proposed residential development, as conditioned,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. The proposed use will meet the approved Meadowlark Specific Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission,HBZSO and HBOC provisions,including, lot size, setbacks,density and parking. PA 2 is a creative layout and includes innovative architecture and design. 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 M-sp(Mixed.Use-Specific Plan)on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. L U 9.1.2: Require that single-family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality by considering the following guidelines: a. Modulate and articulate building elevation,facades and masses (avoiding undifferentiated "box-like"structures). d. Encouraging innovative and creative design concepts. B. L U 9.3.2: Require that the design of new residential subdivisions consider the following: b. Integrate public squares,mini-parks, or other landscape elements. i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more"intimate:relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. b� (98CL12034) �\ Y_y'J CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15469: _ 1. The tentative tract map received and dated October 19, 1998, as conditioned,shall be the conceptually approved layout. The plan shall be revised,to comply with the Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions and development standards. s . 2. The project shall comply with parkland dedication requirements. Developer shall dedicate a m;nimurn of 2.4 acres of park land and shall pay parkland dedication in-lieu fees to satisfy the remaining project parkland dedication obligation. In-lieu fees shall be assessed at a land value rate equal to $500,000 per acre. The proposed neighborhood public park shall be flat ' z and shall provide at a minimum three(3) acres of dry,usable park space. Developer shall >1 provide 16 parking spaces along the Spine Road frontage to serve park parking needs. 3. Retaining walls shall be setback a minimum of four(4)ft. from the back of sidewalks. No retaining walls shall be permitted within the"Spine Road" street ROW. 4. 'Lot "N"shall be reconfigured to provide a minimum of ten(10)ft. landscape buffer along Airport Circle and pedestrian access o_ybetween Roosevelt Lane and Airport Circle. The remaining portion of the subject lot shall be incorporated within the adjoining residential lots. 5. Wall and fence plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning,Building and Public , Works Department. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan shall be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan. and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. _ 5. 6. Decorative paving shall be provided at main project entrances(Heil Ave/Spine Road and Plaza Lane/Spine Road) and at all entry points to each of the Planning Areas. The type of enhanced paving materials"to be provided shall be subject_ to review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Department. 7. At least 60 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect and address the common driveway access easements,use easements, landscape easements, maintenance easements as well as maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowner's Association.Moreover the CC&Rs shall require use of the garages for automobile storage; a minimum of eighteen(18) ft..by nineteen(19)ft. shall be maintained clear of any obstruction for automobile parking. Furthermore the CC&Rs shall limit additions to and exterior modification of dwelling units within all planning areas in accordance with Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions. The CC&Rs shall include enforcement of"n�D-parking" areas. The CC&Rs shall be in recordable form prior to recordation of the`map. 8. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties. Drainage shall be accommodated per Public Works Standards. 9. Drainage flows from adjacent properties shall not be obstructed. Flows shall be accommodated per Public Works Standards. �\ (98CL1203-5) f 10. Street lighting shall be designed and constructed to comply with Meadowlark Specific.Plan provisions pertaining to decorative street lighting. 11.Fire hydrants locations shall be approved by the Fire Department. 12. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 shall comply with all mitigation measures of Negative Declaration No. 97721 (attached hereto and becoming a part thereon)unless mitigation measure(s) are superceded by more restrictive conditions of project approval. 13. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 shall comply with A.D.A. Standards. 14. Prior to recordation of the final map and unless otherwise stated,the following conditions shall be completed. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. a: An affordable housing plan shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach,in accordance with Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions. The plan shall provide for = affordable housing on-site or off-site. The contents of the affordable housing plan shall include the following: 1) Ten percent(10%)of the total units proposed shall be affordable to low and - moderate income level households(maximum 100%of the Orange County Median Income)for a period of thirty(30)years. 2) A detailed description of the type,size,location and phasing of the units being built. 3) If rental units are used to satisfy this condition,then the units shall be for households earning between 50%-80%of the Orange County Median Income. b. All vehicular access rights to all public and private streets within the proposed subdivision including Heil Avenue and Street "A"shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the City. (PW) c. A final sewer study shall be submitted for Public Works approval. The development shall design the sewer system required to serve the development. (PV ) d. A letter of acceptance for additional sewer flows shall be required from the Orange County Sanitation District. (PV ) F (98CL1203-6) �� e. The water improvements shall be designed as shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, and per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's Standard Plan, Specifications and Design Criteria. The Developer shall submit a final water system analysis with calculations with the projects first plan check to confirm appropriate sizing and layout. If the analysis shows that fire flow demands cannot be met with the City's current water pipeline infrastructure,the developer will be required to upgrade rr the City's pipeline system to meet the demands at no cost to the City. The City of Huntington Beach Water Division shall approve all changes or additions to pipeline infrastructure. Any new infrastructure constructed in the public right-of-way shall be :. dedicated to the City upon successful completion of the project,including bacteriological testing. (PV ) f. The applicant will work with the Fire Department to assure that the street name of "A" r . Street will be consistent from south of Warner through the north side of Heil Avenue. The applicant will be responsible for any modification to existing signage due to name changes..(PW) ,. g. Final hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off site facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. Drainage easements and lots = designated as detention areas shall also be shown on the Final Map as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage shall not be directed to = ---- adjacent properties,but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. Runoff from the site shall be restricted as directed by the Department of Public Works to e impacts to downstream facilities. If the detention facilities are proposed within park areas,all storm flows up to and including the 10 year event shall be contained below grade. Any surface water detention above the 10 year event shall not 1 be allowed to pond above grade for more than 2 hours. Porous soil'and an underdrain system will be incorporated in the park and field areas at the direction of the Public Works Department to insure these areas maintain the required drainage associated with t%r active park use. (PV ) h. The Developer shall design off-site drainage improvements as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate the impact of increase runoff, due to development, and pass through flows,to deficient downstream drainage systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. All storm inlets shall be gated. (PV ) i. Streets"B"through"L"shall be designed per Standard Drawing 104 with 50 ft. of right-of-way, and with a 32 ft. curb to curb. Sidewalk shall be 4 ft.wide minimum with a 5 ft.wide parkway adjacent to curb. Parking shall be restricted to one side. (PV ) -- j. All street grades shall be a minimum of 0.50%. (PV ) k. Streets"M"through"Z"and"AA'through"BB"shall be designed per Standard Drawing 104.(42'/32'). The sidewalk shall be 5 ft.wide minimum with "pop-out" sections around street furniture to comply with ADA requirements.Parking shall be restricted to one side. (PW). \0 (98CLI203-7) 1. A final parking layout plan shall be submitted as part of the street improvement plans for all private and public streets. This plan shall be used for parking control by the HOA. For streets with parking allowed on one side only,the opposite curb shall be painted red.and no parking fire-lane" signs shall be posted prior to any move-ins. (PW) m. The developer shall design and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Heil Avenue, Street"A" and Del Mar Lane. (PW) n. The southerly 29 ft. of existing Pearce Street and all of the new proposed Pearce Street to the intersection of"K"Street shall be dedicated to the public for street and public utility purposes per Standard Plan No. 104 (29'/20' half section). The sidewalk shall be 4 ft. wide minimum with a 5 ft.wide parkway adjacent to the curb. (PW) o. Street"A"shall be dedicated to the public for street and public utility purposes. The street section shall be designed per Standard Plan 104 modified(60'/32')with no parking on either side. A meandering 6' wide sidewalk shall be incorporated in the parkway on each side of the street. The intersection of"A' Street and Heil Avenue shall align with Del Mar Lane. If parking for the park is to be provided on Street"A",it shall be in addition to the required 32' of curb-to curb width and as shown in the approved parking layout plan. A queue length analysis shall be performed to provide adequate stacking for left turn movements from"A" Street to Heil Avenue. (PW) p. Those portions of the sewer and storm drain system which are in private streets shall be maintained by the HOA. (PW) q. All street intersections shall intersect at 90 degrees or radialy to curved streets. The developer shall perform sight distance analysis(using a design of 45 mph)for all -intersections along Street"A". (PW) r. The developer shall design signing,striping and street lighting in accordance with Public Works Standards and the Specific Plan. (PW) -= s. The southerly 18 ft of Heil Avenue shall be dedicated to the public for street and public utility purposes. (PW) t. Heil Avenue shall be designated per the City's Standard Plan No. 102,modified,, (100'/7w), including a 7 ft bike lane on the south side of Heil Avenue. The developer shall design protected left turn pockets,(150 ft.in length)in both directions on Heil_ Avenue,(design speed 50 MPH). The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way, if necessary,on Heil Avenue to permit installation of the protected left turn pockets as directed by the Department of Public Works. (PW) u. An additional 12 ft. of landscaping shall be required adjacent to the Heil Avenue right- of-way. Landscaping improvements shall be designed and installed per Public Works Standards. This landscaped area shall be contained within an easement for maintenance by the HOA. (PW) Z� (98CL1203-8) V. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded final map, along with digital `' graphic files of the recorded map per the City of Huntington Beach"CAD Standards Manual for Consultants", shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. (PW) w. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Map: 1) An easement over the private streets for Police,Fire Department, and utility maintenance access purposes. 2) A 2 ft.public utility easement adjacent to the street right-of-way, as shown on : said map (7 ft parkways or less). 3) The water system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans. 4) Access rights in, over, across,upon and through the private streets for the w` purpose of maintaining,servicing, cleaning, and replacing the water system. -: 5) The easements for sewer and storm drain purposes as shown on said map,with maintenance by the HOA. °Y 6) All perimeter, streetscape, community open space and greenbelt areas,Norma Gibbs Park extension and other required landscape improvements shall be - dedicated with the first phase of development. (PW) .•y7 x: The developer shall provide a 10 ft(minimum)wide decorative pavement section at the joint points of the public streets,excluding Pearce Street east of Street"K"per the =- City's direction. The decorative pavement section shall end at the curb returns in the private street portion. (PW) 'r' y. .A phasing map shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Public Works showing improvements to be constructed and right-of-way and easements to be ` dedicated with each phase. All required infrastructure including all public streets shall be designed with the first phase. (PW) 5¢ z. The Final Map and phased maps shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Map. (PW) aa. The engineer or.surveyor preparing the final map shall.comply with sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision ` Manual, Sub-article 18 for the following items; r 1) Tie the boundary of the map in the Horizontal Control System established by the _ County Surveyor 2) Provide a digital-graphics file of said map. (PW) _ bb. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance,Labor&Material and Monument Bonds)and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) - `= cc. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) Y : dd.All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) .\)D (98CL1203-9) ee. A cash payment in the amount of$35,000.00, in addition to any traffic impact fee due, shall be made to the City,for the developer's share of the future traffic signal at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Pearce Street as specified in the Meadowlark %=f Specific Plan. (PV ) =_ ff. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469(PA 4)shall be revised to accommodate the proposed architectural design and comply with minimum setbacks,inclusive of side yard setbacks. ` gg. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The CC&R's shall provide as a minimum: 1) The HOA shall be responsible for performing regular maintenance and monitoring of the storm water system in conformance with the Storm Water Quality Management Plan for the development. 2) All public fire hydrants within the development shall be kept clear of landscaping and improvements per City requirements and standards and painted as required. 3) The Huntington Beach Police Department shall not be restricted from enforcing All parking regulations and the citation of violations for any parking not permitted by the approved parking.plan for the project. 4) Red curb for"No Parking"zones shall be maintained yearly by the HOA. 5) Provisions shall be made in the CC&R's to prescribe street sweeping guidelines performed by the HOA. Guidelines shall be in conformance with City requirements. (PV ) hh. Rolled curbs shall be provided on all private streets. I Emergency vehicle access shall be provided at the end of the cul-de-sacs as deemed necessary by the Fire Department. (FD) _ r5 jj. The developer shall pay a proportional share for the signalization of the Heil/Graham intersection as determined by a traffic impact analysis approved by the Department of Public Works. (PV ) 15. The following conditions shall.be completed prior to issuance of grading permits.(PV ) a. A Grading Plan;prepared by a Registered.Civil Engineer,shall be submitted for review. and approval. The Grading Plan shall include design of the detention basin area within the proposed park site. This plan shall also include an erosion and silt control plan for all water runoff during construction and site preparation work. Final grades and elevations on the Grading Plan shall not vary by more than 1 ft.from the grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map. b. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soils sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading,chemical and fill properties,retaining walls, streets,and utilities. �1 (98CL1203-10) `b, c. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan,prepared-by a Licensed Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval by the Park,Tree and Landscape Division. The Developer shall submit irrigation demands to ensure r` proper irrigation service sizing. y d. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a"Water Quality.Management Plan"shall be "y prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. Water quality BMP and education information shall be included in the CC&R's. e. The Developer shall coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be approved by the Department of Public Works. 16-.The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. (PW) a. No combustible construction shall occur until the approved water system has been installed. b. The water system shall be located within vehicle travelways dedicated to the City where possible. Ground cover,hardscape and/or softscape over water lines shall be approved by the Water Division. The developer or any other subsequent HOA shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City,which shall address hr repairs to any enhanced pavement,walls, fencing, curb,gutter, landscaping, etc.by' -_ other than City forces (at no cost to the City),if City water mains require maintenance or repair. c. Construct off-site drainage improvements as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased run-off, due to development, or deficient, downstream drainage systems. Design all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation of all rainfall event frequencies up to 100-year frequency. 17.The following conditions shall be completed prior to final occupancy. (PV ) - a. Backflow protection is required and shall be installed per the Huntington Beach Water Division Standard Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. b. Each proposed dwelling unit shall require a separate domestic meter and service. All domestic water meters shall be sized in accordance with the UPC and the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Building Department and the Fire Department. c. All existing overhead utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with the City's Underground Utility Ordinance. In addition,all electrical transformers shall be . in stalled underground. .fib (98CL1203-11) d. The entire public park extension onto Norma Gibbs park shall be improved to Public Works Standards. The developer shall provide for a minimum of 16 parking stalls with direct access to a public street. Park parking shall be restricted to the park frontage along Street"A'. One space shall be ADA compliant. e. All public infrastructure improvements,perimeter, streetscape, community open space and greenbelt areas,Norma Gibbs park extension and other required landscaping •t improvements shall be completed prior to the first move in. Private infrastructure shall a: be constructed per the approved phasing plan. f. Soil tests for agricultural suitability,fertility and appraisal, from the site to be _- landscaped, shall be submitted for review and approval by Park,Tree and Landscaping `= Division of Public Works. Test results and corrective recommendations by the Testing Lab shall be included in the Landscape Plan Specifications for construction. g. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with a 36 box tree or palm equivalent. The Developer shall have a consulting Arborist quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain(if any)shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. -w_r h. All landscaping irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in compliance with the City approved landscape plans by the landscape architect-of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. i. All streets shall be fully improved per the conditions of approval. j. A block retaining wall'(solid grouted)shall be constructed along the southerly ' boundary of the property,as required to mitigate noise impacts. = k. A"Landscape Maintenance License Agreement"is required for the continuing `r landscaping maintenance along Street"A"and Heil Avenue by the Homeowners Association. 1. Street lighting for Heil Avenue and all other streats shall be owned by Southern California Edison Co. Street lighting shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards and Meadowlark Specific Plan requirements pertinent to provision of decorative lighting fixtures. m. The Developer shall install 150 ft left turn pockets at the intersection of Heil Avenue,. Street"A" and Del Mar Lane. n. Signing, striping and street lighting shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards. o. The Traffic Impact Fee shall be paid prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. . (98CL1203-12) �� 18. The project shall comply with Negative Declaration No. 97-21 mitigation measures << unless superseded by more restrictive conditions of approval. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP °_ . NO. 15469: 1. The Final Map shall not be accepted by the City Council until ZMA No. 97-1 and ZTA No. 97-4 are approved and in effect. Once complete,the Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council,recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Planning Department. 2. Park and Recreation Fees shall be paid prior to acceptance of the Final Map by the City < : Council. j 3. State Mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to map recordation. 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years from the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Director of.Planning pursuant to written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to the expiration date. {, 6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of 2 Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the '1 County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two days of the Planning Commission action. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-NO.97-80: 1. The Conditional Use Permit plans/documents received and dated October 19, -21, 1998,. shall be the conceptually approved plans with the following modifications: a. The Conditional Use Permit plans/documents shall be revised to comply with the Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions.and development standards and any other. applicable provisions of the HBZSO and HBOC,inclusive of public park dedication, building setbacks,building height,parking and storage requirements. b. Garage driveway widths shall be designed in accordance with HBZSO Section 231.18 - D.4. c. Depict all utility apparatus,such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison =_y, 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) I � (98CL1203-13) i I d. Depict all gas meters,water meters, electrical panels,air conditioning units,mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They a shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive,not interfere with ; = j sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. e. For zero lot-line construction,the maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two (2)inches., f. The southwest portion of Planning Area 4 shall be redesigned to provide at a minimum a ten(10)ft wide landscape buffer along Airport Circle, the remaining portion of Lot' shall be incorporated within the adjoining private residential lots. g. The Wall and Fence plans shall be revised to provide masonry walls at rear and-interior residential property line fence locations and"theme wall"design treatment along Lot"L" and front yard fence design. h. 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. i. Product mix modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. j. Planning Area 1,Floor Plan 2 and associated conditional use permit and tentative tract map documents shall be revised to comply with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan parking requirements. Redesign parlor so as not to constitute K' a bedroom by definition of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. k. Planning Area 1,Floor Plan 3 includes a master retreat adjacent to a master bedroom which shall not constitute a separate bedroom provided there is a wall opening of minimum.six(6)feet or that it is accessed through a master bathroom. No exterior stairways accessing either a dwelling,or balcony/deck shall be permitted. 1. The architectural plans for all dwelling units within PA-2 shall be revised to comply with Meadowlark Specific Plan maximum building height requirements(30 ft.maximum). m. .The dwelling unit on Lot 39 (PA-2) shall be re-plotted to comply with.the minimum 10. feet exterior side yard setback. n. Plan 2 and 2X(PA-2) shall be revised to comply with the minimum 20 feet(width)by 20 feet(depth) interior garage dimensions. Plan 2X and 3',�(PA-2) shall be revised to eliminate the excess substandard compact and tandem parking. Excess tandem/compact parking areas shall be allocated to alternate uses and shall comply with the Meadowlark Specific Plan parking requirements. (98CL 1203-14) �\� o. The second story projections in Planning Area 3 shall be revised to comply with minimum rear yard setback requirements of the Meadowlark Specific Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission(minimum 13 feet and 15 feet). _ p. Garage design and storage for dwelling units within Planning Area 3 shall be revised to x comply with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. a: q. Plan 4 of Planning Area 4 shall be revised to comply with minimum front yard setback requirements. r. Garage design and storage for dwelling units within Planning Area 4 shall be revised to comply with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: _ it. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the second page of all working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, - structural,electrical,mechanical and plumbing). b. Points of interest(architectural,landscaping,recreational and sculptural), seating areas and functional pavilions shall be incorporated within the overall pedestrian promenade/ - Spine Road design theme. A.detailed plan specifying the proposed design elements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Design Review Board. = c. Decorative street furniture and light fixtures shall be incorporated,within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area(PA 1-PA 4). Street furniture and light fixture specifications and locations shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Design Review Board. b. Names of streets shall be submitted to and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department in accordance with City Specification No.409:(FD) c. Submit three (3) copies.of the site plan and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. d. The Planning Department shall review and approve the following: 1) Enhanced architectural treatment for building facades visible from public right-of-. way, open space areas and parks sites. 2) Revised site plan and elevations as modified pursuant to Condition No. 1. e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD). b� (98CL1203-I5) i ; I f. Residential type structures on the subject property,whether attached or detached; shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of x submittal of an acoustical analysis report and plans,prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering,with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) g. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations,retaining walls, streets,utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) h.' An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) i. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits,blockwall/fencing plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of I adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings,a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location,type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to.remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. b� (98CL1203-16) �` c. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees. thaty, must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (Code Requirement) d. The Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council,recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Planning Deparment. (Code Requirement) e. The property owner shall sign,notarize, and record with the County Recorder a covenant assuring that the single family residences will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. f. The developer shall submit a separate utility plan showing water system improvements, including service connections to each building,fire hydrant,valves,backflow devices and other appurtenances in accordance with applicable U.P.C., City Ordinances,Public Works Standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by =- the Public Works Water Division and the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to any construction. (PW) g. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking aiid restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that - adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. => 'r h.. Submit a letter of map revision from FEMA declaring the lot(s) exempt from floodplain requirements or submit a copy of completed FEMA Elevation Certificate(s)for each unit to the Planning Department. ; 5. During construction,the applicant shall: Ft a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp _ enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: - Y. b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel(.05%)by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days(first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 6. Prior to final building permit inspection and approval of the first residential unit,the . following shall be:completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Department of Community Development. 7� X\19 (98CL1203-17) b. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein including. 1) Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No.415. (FD) 2) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers-will be sized a minimum of six(6)inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half(1-1/2) inches. (FD) 3) On-site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. (FD) c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and -verified by the Planning Department. = d.-- 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. e. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. (FD) f. The project.will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.0.85 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) 'w`s If the lots are not considered exem t b FEMA a second elevation certificate shall be ='' g• P Y submitted to the Planning Division for each unit"as built." 7. The use shall comply with the following: a. Security gates shall be designed to comply with City specification#403. (FD) .�a b. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification#401. (FD) 8. The.project shall comply with Negative Declaration No. 97-21 mitigation measures unless superseded by more restrictive conditions of approval. 9. The,Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (98CL1203-18) 00 10. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 is contingent upon approval of Zoning Text ^1 Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 by the City.Council, and shall become effective 30 days after the adoption of the Ordinance adopting the Meadowlark Specific Plan amendments and following the ten day project appeal period. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 shall become null and void unless exercised within one <` year of the date of final approval 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. 2. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions, Meadowlark Specific Plan, or applicable sections of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code,Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, or Municipal Code occurs. 3. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PV ) 4. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PV ) 5. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PV ) 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Building Department prior to occupy of building on the project site. '- Z Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to.approval of the Final Map by the City. 8. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 9. 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. 10.Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. f (98CL1203-19) i F i �s �usp(se -tom b Fog ZOtAttAk 19)t-r AoMeKOK&AT s 4 `' o m %T two 1 ul '.NOW f "•y`�'„`,'rgy "C a s � X t � � ;£°&fib �•, _ w,3 '4' s-? ,�.,.�a,+St'}" �yryry .vac cf� :. L_ "�, ��.� - ♦fib X r13+c 1 , :I I mW ti ` . fib' I. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE MATRIX 12/3/98 The following matrix identifies and compares the differences between the proposed Meadowlark TTM/CUP plan and the standards of the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. (* denotes potential straw vote item) > S 'ecific P1ariRe wrementci ��" ,. Pro osed= °TM/C'UP, ° . ' :` i >PCActiori = , r,,..r w' Y.f. .ram, Yv,.L.a �°,`". a? '.'�f?svt � 'f,..{..Wa�x' D�, A; ,;✓J'd 3:'' .��"'` &°; +.,^,q� r ! �.; :.7, .s?pR' t •�. ,�a•tlj'S, 4!{�'&°'„;* '? q.. 7 y, ' �,"s s'fi' i s, ''", .d ;>ty��'r S' xm 6 � 1"+.� �•ta: .�1,.-.'. In4'"�t�i.x,,�".,�'+.��'h- rµ`'� �"� s.:r4.4".�r�- \; . CKRecommendahon Q y .x Catellus�Pro osaURes onse A . , . f.:, 1�2/3/98 /i ,.., -/.w,• 1f, �,.v:�' `.,rf, ...Na .,?yid: '.J•'N,.( ..p J. .� 1^ ,�Y^' A( " 7r rn, u.,...,. ,, ., ,r-• a ., p h v. r .,.;,,, , .;•,$ p x.-;.�. �.. '�r"�•��. •rLy k x�� ,� 1. . ... �r �... „� r .,u •ay ,a�, g 1,, �,}� ri:, ?� '.,. ,r a. ,F«s 5 �? ;�' t� �,: � � > ,,.,, a y�y q�r` „� � c,t.',., "?.x:;7'. ) ...:,$,,.w-tp 3 '.,.: uS ?,i.. �, '.1,� ?'n e,.•.. ....�".A v. '(d:,.�' r� :^':fr').'.. .... � :". ,.{ �p:.i :W 'V.+' .`"� .,�,. �,,..r»,..: YY...'1. j ('Xl.. y �:AtK^. 1 ,.). f. i '^i l�,,t;r L 4 �a.'::." .. .. .. ..k:ti: "'::�'w. .�.'9 .nKu. t .•;a.. a'. ^, '+. i'Y .a Mr."3. ��.^. �% 'z�'(`.M`.. :'�,F,'.. .:'zs'':..sx�.M .Z:�C�;..r..:,,n.,r�z.4�s9� :w,'.�„�i..�,;w,.,.e';.ii;,aS4.:9�,•3l:'�,:�s:.�c.urn::v.4�.S��'�^r'c;«C:,.�"tr�.e;;:X�a„'r;'.�s..'..s�34.::':{;n...�e'�:ss.�::a.�.d,„..�. .`�3.,s�.«'1,�.:.. #,». :�..w<,,..»ss;A. ,,.ev:,.- �:•,e....c.�'trw?�i� a»t�l,:�`...:w..�te.�4.,�, ...''c.tak,w^^':�A Vie. ,.,rM.wa�+�r Planning Area 1 , I* a. Parking requirements. 0-4 bedrooms(2open/2enclosed) CRG will revise one floor plan(Plan 2)to eliminate characterization of living 5+bedrooms(3open/3enclosed) room as potential 5d'bedroom. Redesign of second floor plan(Plan 3) is being studied, but CRG requests of the Planning.Commission to make determination that Sec. 5.1,pg. 41 &HBZSO 231.04 the retreat is not a bedroom for purposes of parking based on the following condition: "No exterior stairways accessing either a dwelling, or balcony/deck shall be permitted. Master retreats adjacent to master bedroom with a wall opening of 6' Conditions minimum or accessed through master bath shall not be counted as a separate Addendum bedroom" 1 Cond. #1.k 2 b. Building heipht 30.ft(max) >30 ft CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP and HBZSO Conditions Sec. 4.5,pg. 21 &HBZSO 230.70 . Addendum Cond. #1.1 � g . ..,•. :; ,. ,^ �..".., •. r'..' li.,) •ex�c� ..'� ..,der• 3,. a ,2i 1n;.,:= 4 i V 6 ' ...... ,, ,,.�,.. .. .� ,,,.., •,,,,;a..-t.•A:r.. t n!.:.. ,s>:, a '';::=n 'x•. s,.„r;.asp ,Y^ L 'r..;ia�.ti;r .:_,•-. ,w.:..r,er :<' .;e.�r,: .,:� � f :�' %'�r" c Plan Re uirement ,r , �, t- , r 5 , 5,f v . F � a : ,; W,, �-A;� 4'. S ecifi .P. . .. ..�.... ,. ,-, ..9 .. _ .. :. � >s �.w� � F,�, �,.,.�,-� ���s ,� 'Pro osed�TTM/CUP�� $.�� �4 � PAC ,,,, ';x•� .,r f• s,;....,•,."ab. iP,,(�,'�i ,w 'Y .r t``.4,, r ..:-a, ...c -:fie r z,S 1•Y�, �,w, g k 7,x' �. Actlon .:,,•d., 4 ,eY 1,1 Y, °cau 3= •$.5 14 .r.; sYR F .,t .-''c^M P Ma'..^¢f w k 9y' tR,� .. .j.,. 1`.'a3 b +.!..:j t, g �:•-�.. 'br. O F:iy3'6 xe,:r.: ..x ¢ �ti �;.., "r ,t•S", :.,t:;ti;r y'�^t,' t s. a`-�::':` , e1 .�1. ,.x:�: «`^ „dx..ai:w+ .wr { M.,3�se •` a"I. >rc.^d4«'�.r5`i ¢ Y¢. C4Recommendahona g . � »� � r w��pp ;(Catellas.PronosaURes onse n >,.3 /fil p lip � l o)/ ,.r. : �.:; ..., t :x .,t e t',.-^_ �..,. .. .: a.': ,}i.., .•,.a. ,,t`-7 .. '7t.�. r.'.,�,..w, .F+^, r':,,.�. r ..r �� v'; >., .f ,t,e s ..9,' .� a, •i „,. s ,,.. ., ,., ,..t. �s x ., r x "i r.., s e"r '*'s`- 3." kYy3�' 3 ., a , .,�: �". ir... t.r „.. }..i."la'�.. ..w.4. ..s+?;.., ,..> ,. ., al .a.M',. n w<. <., ......,.,?.� �,, r,,., E�. �;..' .��• ¢,.Snr rt, r: '� °i• '�'Y.l"..'� 'x'�'c ..,,..,�,,,s�v.. ;, ��. .t � :+z .,.., � ?::,.w, .,�i: +e, ,+ •{. �. ..-p:'•,•:r..�',v, e, �",. ,1,•�"'it � t. '&:, .+',�gy"• n,�:c�r ;' � • .. .. K .,z�,K�✓ '�a.s. v ,. '.. r.,, .��.�i �Y�i....: >;• :.5, �,..�:' '�'. , ;>e��.....<. � ,..•W � .,b � ', 5.r�: ��` 7�,e.:: .s .�t.,,.�t."� *T'ik%',..; ,`4'+, f - fin; . k.3 y..x.;,5.¢�� c�"`. ,: .v:j" ,. ts,: s .t1g�t.....w ..�, ., ^s,,.s a:�' ro u,A,. ,q aa;'int, ..';„is:f k". .X,, „�.. �,:"�•'ti. w...' Itt. Aa,• 3�"� �k, '�� K''t= �• Cx.,�:,x n..„•r::.,, r�,,..,^..,db:,,,rro:,.w:,.�ak'r?.rr.,4r✓+.t4,,,l+eas,.wn. .:,•..,..� ...�.+:o .:..x.,e„...,.,..�::r•,:s+.G�r,.�„4e.::v,t.,..r�.�,k..�•.,<,.,�w. F.sta.�:"�:,. .....`S�, ,a�s,". 1 ,..$ . .�n. .f�. .:^£;„K Planning Area 2 3* a. Front yard setbacks 15ft(dwelling)& 12ft(patios/entry) Average 13.9 ft w/ 10 ft(min) or Average 12 ft w/ 10 ft(min) subject CRG disagrees with staffs opinion(PA-2 does not promote a creative/innovative to CUP and innovative development planning concept and design is in conflict with MSP provisions re: minimizing concepts with improved street scene paving in front yards and locating garages to not dominate street scene). CRG requests consideration of front yard averaging based on provision of parkways and Conditions building elevation design. CRG will pursue issue with CC, if PA—2 concept is Addendum. not found to be creative/innovative by PC.. 1 Cond. Sec.4.5,pg. 26&27 #l.m 4 b. Exterior side yard setbacks Conditions 20%lot frontage(10 ft-Lot 39) 8 ft Addendum 1 Sec. 4.S,pg. 27 CRG agrees to comply by re-plotting the home on Lot 39. Cond. #1.n S c. Parking requirements 20'(w)X20'(d)—int. garage 19'(w)X21'(d) dimensions CRG agrees to modify plans to comply with MSP Sec. 4.4,pg. 19 ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-standard compact and tandem CRG plan submittal includes sub-standard compact(10'X16' and 14'X16') and parking-not permitted. tandem as excess parking Conditions Addendum HBZSO 231.14 CRG agrees to designate additional garage areas as alternate use 1 Cond. #I.o I• a, I I I y.. i '° 'Y... '� .i*�, I 1 •t.. 1'V M' M;,, te.�� �!,`F'�1 tys.,�E.1e. ¢��.et ,a ,r e •'. � .r✓ ..'t i,:'s. i ..�" � 4.,�� r. ,•, �. ,.� r , n✓a. ."•i^ •'.:a^"7•: .. ;aC"ii^ ca�'!..)� y,?:"',�rf«+ ;7i. Svn.,...E ¢f...,;... ,. ' •,uo,.'..,.r:''r..r:,.r..;,.,.,.,?pr.aa•,':1y.'.�.=t.t'.r'•xry.z_�i,p�„,.3�a':M,..,r�rs..„.T,..,tS•.,�3,.!*,>W..n,,.r.-u.:.�,.' ',5�,.,sw:;k'S'.t,.,.r 1,..n.�JaL,,,.„,xlvi e.�!.•A.«�,.$::,..+..:w...9,,�.!,,,.!!�r!r•�X-'Yb*ji:",,r.�:.:.,'...,•,,,...<.3 ..w,:�•.5Y":.a'..,:fi,4,��.«.,a,,�k,�.:,'5,v.,�,,r x+,}.,mad�A!.,c��;��t•»!re,,�,'n,r.,.,s,•..,„:,¢.ruw..`..,.>r''w��,u.wc,',,.r-.„..r�-•x... ,b,,�$mse'.,,y.;,-� P�%•r�ouiremen :��..r•'o.¢,s.e'iv da• .� V'A�"...,."' /�aCgU w""icPanRe 7 ecif .•.,.�.„qr.�:�'"`'�t��.,,. r:.,"_:r:�....''.�.N�!-.x S..x"�.aYa�,.•t,zi.t+n.rc,•;.,,'a.K:4,•.:''3F�`**v a.t,*4s{�f i5"1C �Recommendat y'2.:,•%A;^�3';,�;..t.i�,/cc...9it t8< :} i i •x•,•;..:"�Y., .,,....k ,.. ,c �.. ;.st. w ::;,a �d�4. SC � :,., „ S;. .... ,1. �...Su�i$i..... � �.1,. .iN d^i.. ,, h..'`� �>�'..a.,,,.. r,r..,.'•;' f�. �A,' .�* ', z x 'a, dg, P ,�, .d.' N:'�. �: ..r�..«':.�.,. "rw��', ,.r..:-ra,( .�,Y.� .rr. ". e ;i..1�,,.�.,,� a ,,:5< .S`� �9 a:r:x. P' ,t 1�,fi-,^ ..Kjt'': ,4. �»�,�r i,a>g•:,:.�, �.'? i,jt.t:, �. .t ..,�r. :a„r �,'4x". •v:;.a,,:sr ,r<. k YY "C•, ,5 �?.. ^` ."'✓.."' a+ x,., ,!... w<,, '�' 1��.: 'r' •.-t a"A"•.r.. r •,;• „x.;' �:„�..„„,.,�- ,>a,x9'a ,P�. .�.7•�# ::, .. :,. 5, 'r'+.;,�.' e !�° ,a �a "°, S 3'�,rs w ,,.�, , ., .. .. # �,,, � x t... .�'.i�� ,n,t. .* !' ,,s:�.g,�.3t,,,f" �°,,'..,....,,. ...«�,.k , .r._".7 N:z•.a,.r<,a..:-.,.;'4X„.• 7.:�,,.,, ,..0 m::s•A�...�.•s.`. .r. � f1 -y .tr'r�.r �y�r �• d�..r5r ,t,�- t,�i�d'F '"^i.`Y ��'. c'c� .. ... �r�.....,'s-i�".At�'Y,..�..�.4�s t.k.,���F'..v s Ax�u ,•, ....G r�.-,,.,,r,.w;�.a.•,�, ,J.�:e,�`a k,.��,.rc�. H��;Y ,�,+�,:L+Mn,�f.��,,. •r+.ir�.�.:i�4,. «w�f,,:.�•..., !.�.�,, �.t 'e,.�a�.'•�`A'k.°F w.�.0 � d on Planning Area 3 6* a. Rear,Vard setbacks Second story projections vary from 12".to 24". CRG will revise plans to eliminate 15ft(50%min)w/up-to 50%at 13 ft projections if requested,but suggests that elimination of projections will diminish elevational variation and impair living space. CRG requests condition of approval by Planning Commission as follows: Conditions Sec.4.5,,pg. 31 "Second story projections no greater than 24"will be allowed to enhance Addendum architectural interest and elevational variation"---Conformance of Specific Plan I language would be required at City Council. Cond. 41.p 7* b. Garage-Use/Design PA 3 subdivision and homes are infeasible with minimum garage parameters in 20'X20'int. garage dim. (75%du) Specific Plan. CRG seeks condition of approval consistent with the Planning 18'X19' clear auto storage/360sq. Commission's(7-0) straw vote of 7/14/08 as follows: R. w/add. storage=400 sq. ft. (25% "In Planning Area 3 minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18'X19' so as .du) to accommodate design/storage as portrayed on schematic plans presented.to the Conditions Planning Commission on 12/3/98.---Conformance of Specific Plan language to Addendum o eliminate reference to 25/o cap would be required. 1 Sec. 4.4,pg.19 Cond. #I.q 8* c. On-street parking Will development is required to be CRG is unaware of PC recommendation regarding relocation of on-street parking harmonious and compatible with in PA-3. CRG contends proposed plan is most efficient and compatible design surrounding neighborhood. PC and subject recommendation will create HOA enforcement problem. CRG previous recommended placing on- requests straw vote action by PC to clarify issue. CUP street parking away from easterly conditions property line of PA-3. Att.12 pg.11 a HBZSO 230.22. Cond#lf *,.. ::,:n...,'.• ',v;. -.;,w;; ,, r....•ax.e»r�,»¢,:.:„ e � >' €.:�'::' a ',x.. a:;.. •„ 5 � {,, ,;y.., �y 4 �;' > ..5 ecific;'P1an:Re uirement7, „� Pr' osed ITT*?,/ ,�;fs t ^ .: zt..`'§s, xr ,'�3"'. ..s:w a. � ,§ 11JJ 1:i,1�s� .,r�'. .¢,. ,r'a. ry{w •n�Egri.:y �'z .xPCjActloQ,, .s,. .,.i.r.....F.,yam; :s �.?s...5.x.. zv,a.B ,_a.x .^., ... �� �; ,.',,,, � S�'.Sx•.*Y.. '...'�!,:. � 6r a.�:;e��" .: r 1.. b £.* er,�rrC .�.,$.;. Z:£s`.. +..z,. • ,..:- o'.' 'e t,-., +,�, :i,�r', $t ti.•:. S <+„r L'.''h�,..y. .f:.,,,.'y' k ,.,,,u� ,s .w.A•r.•s.l`.;. P w- ,. ,.. a.N' A�ta y�. ,f: --,d •�3,§.t Aci � J 1�."sr�f �. � ;-.ru t-,.�?'�c �s'�,`*Y°i�;.,,:"'�"',,�i�..w� '�r•;� ».,,�.�'w,�?� r ,c,. �,. C Recommendahon1 e, P =< a , R: � t,, CatellusPro„vosaUResDanse z= ¢qry`� � p ' > # '. \- ..1,,. p.. a,. / 0. of /' l •I'^, 4p ",! �'. ?•i.w,k• 'fa C. 4G�.z-Z.: '.�'..: - r Kl;na,, l-, a,e)i^:"� .y' m.^h+..,.,w,.'i.4&zy C�.r-t ah. '.(.., &..../.a F. �s's T�•''�a`a5K'j .'fie y. "ti 'e''f t<,a� s•.,�} � .. ,...� <"fpz,:: F,g,z., d.r�, � .�;. .3', i�"�'�: "�;.'.�w,.,x,y.. d, 'w.. .•�.`:h "S;f:,'si: ddL v�•..`;G''+'�@„pt^>a`t:::, +:za.u. :4ar'ars• �t,rd:,'•�ySq..k? F. "4 s..vr. `T.k..r,x... q �T d.ff��, ,y, ';�:g. ;x.,�, �".. f.?i A.. r, i' ::M: ''�'."S2 :�•.'Ptn'.'�' ,�t',h �'"�' .,� ,�. F.k' ,J,pjiv.»es: . �• -X Y 3%':bU y,.. �'4r r'�`•.• .. .F ,r� ..c. d.tr'.i,�' S*:.�r ,�.. Y, .�+k'' ;��''�, t :`v.. .i. 'a?..i ^S•kr' .s ...^.;; w5:: +;.. +:is':'vr [ :i,,, i`:• `x' � -..i ., e� .t ^,: +°x..�<^"'?�,rjv;' i<.. y.,;.�` ..°,�', ..? +�^z,�`.r.>.r t ,wk,. r.£ :.�'�s.rY'�"+ �a,. `� �:tf. a„ ,.�..,.�; •�•. s.� :'y?:�..`� '�''«;. Sid",.z �7 �»'�+«^�`�: � r .s.�;t8a.� r��.r'�a Jp,ys +� 'qs,::Msr.,k�; :4k� ..�x,j �v. b G;: :.��:'�.t'�"+ sb S' �' `+r `..'C�n� � V a.:. ., '^� ,c�`a??:d'�"r'`•.ct,Q.`.7'.sp,:•.�',.' k� `��' :d.'' ..0 �".��. .>,��r'�� a�:�',�w. -.:�.rd�.:a�Y�rr .:,i£ »«.���a¢� ` 3.FX'•_., +r'+':•3�.a:�'v .x�',':,.�..r: x,.� r,:„- .{.. !dE.��.d .ur, ::2;'a.,:, 1..,.r•...4 tk ,...r•.-s a ,&...a.. '..,x>a,s az,. ..a,. 'r{;.aP s'+�::r. 4. +'�u h�.,a �'., >„a4,'gym.<,. Planning Area 4 9* a. Front yard setbacks CRG will revise plans to eliminate projections if requested,but suggests that 15 ft(min) elimination of projections will diminish elevational variation and impair living space. CRG requests condition of approval by Planning Commission as follows: "Second story projections no greater than 24"will be allowed to enhance Conditions architectural interest and elevational variation ---Conformance of Specific Plan Addendum Sec.4.5,pg. 34 language would be required at City Council. 1 Cond. #1.r 10 b. Side yard setbacks Architectural plans comply with MSP, TTM inconsistent with architectural plans, Conditions 4 ft(min) do not comply with MSP. Addendum 2 Sec.4.5,pg. 35 CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP. Cond.#14.ff 11* c. Garage Use/Design PA 4 subdivision and homes are infeasible with minimum garage parameters in 20'X20'int. garage dim..,(75%du) Specific Plan. CRG seeks condition of approval consistent with the Planning 18'X19' clear auto storage/360sq. Commission's(7-0) straw vote of 7/14/98 as follows: ft. w/add. storage=400 sq. ft. (25% "In Planning Area 4 minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18'X19' so as Conditions du) to accommodate design/storage as portrayed on schematic plans presented to the' Addendum Planning Commission on 12/3/98.---Conformance of Specific Plan language to 1 Sec. 4.4,pg. 19 eliminate reference to 25%cap would be required. Cond#Ls 12 d. TTM design SW corner o� PA-4 MSP advocates high quality site Open space Lot-"N" lacks adequate connection/access; design lends itself o Att.12 planning;promotes project design potential undesirable activities. pg.3 which helps to create safe and Cond#4 pleasant living environment. CRG will revise plan to comply with staff recommendation and MSP. Pg.11 Cond.l.g Sec. 3.0,pg. 4 I J •,i. ..3 � ...'• :, .�; •r� ` �t �' � .,+'., 5f' jig '+T: r 4r�4� �; ^.:N 3^'� `y-"'r'Y; .b '^`';Y ✓,'S'h:i. -'^..r: :tt: ''ate 'K' T F.f, ,..,�'?�' �fls: a, .T.ri �5<' `' SS,'.tir v S,, F .:+ ^r•if' t, S�ecific:-Plan Reryuir"emean ' �, ,.3 Pro''osed,TTM/CiJr bPGAchonra; g P, F, C. (l xm, y, r X M:> r�, L K^ y :P 7, a's z�' .S n ::T e ..'.,,L'., hr: R1:1 Yi',. .., 'y tir; N.$ .:.'C' :.Cy.:�'}.•. 12:k .1'�' r£� ;T i t ?3�4'.-4.: (k�, �t '�T',�°' d3.'7. ,awr w- d- ss .'e: '. .t u .5 2,,..p* wA. .y. q tz + ,p sa £ c.^^ .,s{." 1;- .�•�.°°,�•ra �,�,i4ms�- r m,ftr`^Y;.' •:su' ;4:'z.::::�,:.t,,. ;'•,. ,-;• ,C.;s�_k:,�'r3,:,;„� ��...:": . ''�';a: 'y.,�< ..�.� ,r.,,� ,�,rg�", a ,:;:_�,r-�::'r ,..^.£. .c,...,- ....>r��,',.>,.c �..y,.... e.�.,•., }.•r..,:,�'� �3•�;t�`� . xr�. C Recommendahon � �P :� � x � „ ,Catellus Pro osal/Re on a .F yn .ta� k� x , a � (P � j3 ,a+, 't`a'Y',aty*tcr ' ::d `:°r� +v `•'�sf s,t r ,,3. •s1S '9u .35,",.x`•''' i :.�..,-b s�+ .,'lsw`'. }y°v a„t�, ,.�i' aP s't• Y." k;�,t; ,t• ,r x, _�, � _� •P i7� � r 'r';k"Yr� ..4w,.y.��i ppwi.�n: ,p •'�ii`�Y—Sid,+ �.p� ',� a�.s..- t'ry.,.� g' .��'p����� +��,'-'t'"'. ;.< .5..,.:':.+ a:5�tii. �ne,,`£� �F�tr� d3-':, ,,,,w�Vi�'. `�x.�;.«�" ';�`?3�.'su..a •*,'. � �''.. y g�•&. �Y°.�`� 3 ,iv, : .. >. £, .u. a ;.'.�, .�., a ., a.'°;'S ,.. .#': '.sw. ..,•rc.- n sM.,.Y�.=.a4.��.v`...Asf �.•..4#.k.�rrt.,�z.. z«:�..,..cbr,.<Aa ::•�,:..,.�:>sS ap ,, ...?,..�'. Other Project'-wideIssues 13 Public Park 2.4 ac Public Park dedication(min) 2.32 ac Public Park dedication. CUP CRG states CAD based calculation forproposed park site is 2:38 acres. CRG will conditions revise plan to comply with exact 2.4 acre parkland dedication requirement of Att.12 Sec. 3.4,P& 8 MSP: pg.11 Cond#l.a 14' Fences/Walls Masonry fences at interior and rear CRG submittal indicates wood fences at interior and rear residential property lines. residential property lines CUP CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP wall/fence requirement. conditions Att.12 Sec.4.5,pg. 24, 29, 33,36 pg,11 Cond#l.h ism .......... CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �- Inter Office Communication Planning Department :r TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members �A\� V f VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator FROM: Planning Commission Chairperson Tom Livengood and Planning Commissioners DATE: December 10, 1998 SUBJECT: MINUTE ACTION DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN On December 3, 1998,the Planning Commission discussed changes to their previous recommendation on September 22, 1998 relative to the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan t (Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1). They voted by minute action to recommend that the City Council consider three (3)revisions as follows: • Garage Use/Design (Planning Areas 3 and 4) -require a minimum garage area of 400 square feet to be provided for automobile and general household storage in Planning Area 3 and 4. Minimum interior garage tr dimensions shall be 18 feet wide by 19 feet deep. General household storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the plans presented by CRG to the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 (Vote: 4-3). - ` • Rear yard setbacks(Planning Area 3) -permit second story projections, no greater than 24 inches within the rear yard setback(Vote: 4-3). = = • Front yard setbacks(Planning Area 4) -permit second story projections no greater than 24 inches within the front yard setback(Vote: 5-2). The Planning Commission hopes that you will take these revisions into consideration when acting upon the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. xc: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Senior Planner Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner (KL9907) - b' r f. S qi Cr M �p2�g rP rya r"•,t�,h5 r.�. Wolfe, Amy. From: Legg, John Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 9:05 PM To: Wolfe,Amy - Subject: Meadowlark Developement Dear Ms Wolfe, - My name is John Legg and I live at 5102 Sisson Drive. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my opposition to the proposed development. I was aware that, at some time, the Meadowlark Airport property would be developed ,but thought that the homeowners surrounding the area to be developed would have been notified. I only became aware of the development by reading about the planning commission's meeting in the paper. I then called city hall to leave a message for the commission members, but was unable to do so. My opposition to the development is in regards to the lot sizes. If the average lot size in Huntington Beach is 60x100(6000 sq. ft.),_then I feel that any new homes should at least meet this standard.The proposed lot size is smaller, 3800 sq. ft. to 4500 sq. ft.. I think that any new homes should exceed existing standards, rather than fail to meet the average. My suggestion is that the lot sizes should be 75x125(9375 sq. ft.)This is only an increase of 25% in lot size. Another concern is of increasing the number of people per square mile in an already densely populated area. If you or any of the commission members were to drive the surrounding area, you would notice the number of multi-family homes, condos, and apartments. If 300 homes were added to this area, you would increase the number of automobiles by at least 300. In reality that - number is probably closer to 600 based upon every home being a 2 car family, like my own.Add to that number the number of people and vehicles that would result from any development on the Bolsa Chica, and you can see the reason . for my concern. In an ideal world, 1 acre lots with ranch style homes like the ones in Rancho Palos Verde would be perfect for either the Meadowlark or Bolsa Chica(if that ever happens) Development projects. This would raise the status of Huntington Beach _ as the premier place to live and raise a family. Smaller lot sizes only take away from and lower our reputation. Finally, if nothing else, there needs to be a way to reach and communicate with all commission members other than at their meetings. I would have liked to at least been able to speak with them or been able to leave a voice mail for them and have them call me back and not feel like I was ignored. Please feel free to call me at home 840.7949 or at work 536.5474 Thank you John Legg ps. please foward a copy of this letter to all the commission members. _ 1 u. �d lit - :-:".�L.rt°i"`,�w3:"• �`•�ah.'�st,tC+3�,a � n.�#�.r -e ' dw;.-�._. '" �.."��?S.. . . '0 .fib ATTACHMENT NO. 7 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/ : TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 16469 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21: 1.. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on-the environment will occur. The mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of a project's conditions of approval and will address a number of potential impacts including: affordable housing requirements, land use compatibility, noise impacts and hazardous materials. �4 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Y Planning Commission that the-project, as mitigated will.have a significant a : effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 for the establishment of a 313 unit master planned residential community will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working/ residing in the vicinity. The proposed development does not provide adequate emergency access and on-street parking facilities. 2. The proposed project does not comply with the provisions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed development is inconsistent with setback, parking, storage and parkland dedication provisions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. The development proposal is inconsistent with the following Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Recreation and Community Services goals objectives and policies of the General Plan: r�V. Policy LU 9.1.2 Require that single family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character considering the r following guidelines: Minimize the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. Policy LU 9.3.2 Require that the design of new subdivisions consider the z' following: . Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient, well designed and convenient on and off ' street parking facilities throughout the City. Objective CE 5.1 Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. Policy CE 5.1.1 . Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the a, present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use. Policy CE 5.1.2 Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural environment,the community image, K`= or quality of life: Goal RCS 2 Provide adequately sized and located active and passive `} parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and t; future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Objective RCS 2.1 Create an integrated park system that is complementary to v existing and proposed development as well as the natural environment. Goal RCS 3 Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and.sports facilities that meet the residents' and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 16469: Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 for the subdivision of 48.4 gross acres and establishment of a 313 unit residential subdivision is not consistent with the applicable draft Meadowlark Specific Plan (dated September 22, 1998) t= development standards and provisions. The Tentative Tract Map does not comply with parkland dedication requirements and would require substantial modifications to accommodate the proposed housing product type(s) and comply with health and safety related project requirements. ev\ .�. ,• �. �. 'L.. -i r a .}'4 ..\..a ...r d.'ey,C. Y..;. LS' i. .•F#.' .i'::r•1:: ".w 1t �' .. . ut.{ �-..;`;rf@•;).�..�.k.-y�€Sb'rd,'Al1i.:',:= ,tC'��,:.4 e;7V..;a.. Y.t��f .,��. ,t�.;s. i��'r' t e ��R .,i .-c .. s , , ,.;,.•= .'.' :i tJ.t �.„.,.2 b.:c, ;t. .SSE Tdr., xx.'.]. _ `-'. , .. s _ esya n,LA'4. a ret V iCPU : q R 43' i 1 • • • • • • • Syr *so see es 0 • • • • • • • • • • r------------- -,. •• •• • •• • • 009 • T IL ..... �......... .... Rry. MIT:' ... I I f..... . 10 73' :DINItiG '� I 1 I .. ....... - LIVING 9{s' • x t I -.--------- --- ... ... I PLAN 2- GARAGE: 413 S.F. §� I DEC. 14., 1998 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Bruce D'Eliscu for Catellus Residential Group 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92714 Location: Six hundred (600) ft north and east of the intersection Bolsa Chica Street and Warner Avenue, south of Heil Avenue. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 is a request to construct 313 single family detached, two- story, dwelling units on small-lots (minimum sizes) ranging between 3,120 sq. ft. and 4,680 sq. ft. (average lot size 4,125 sq. ft.) within the residential district of the Meadowlark Specific Plan pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan document. Planning Area 1 is proposed to be primarily developed with zero-lot-line housing product type and lot layout, which involves provision of maintenance and drainage easements to adjoining property owners(s). Planning Area 2 and Planning Area 3 have been designed in accordance with a "conventional" small-lot layout concept, providing accessible side yards along both sides of the dwelling on each lot. Planning Area 4 incorporates a z-lot configuration design with use, drainage and maintenance easement provisions to adjacent property owners. The following matrixes summarize product type floor plan information within each of the four planning areas of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area based on the October 19-21, 1998 CRG project development plan submittal. ��CD99-05 -4- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 PLANNING AREA 1 yp = ' ` No ofGarage� Stories PIan�T e , NoofUnits Size � - s ft. Bedrooms' N 1 24 3,136 4 two car 2 2 23 3,199 5 two car 2 3 15 3,858 5 two car 2 TOTAL: 62 PLANNING AREA 2 PIan�Type No ,ofUnits SizeNo of Garage Stories rQT Bedrooms 1 15 2,992' 4 two car 2 2 9 3,064 4 two car 2 2X 8 3,064 3 Two car & 2 one sub- standard -compact 3 5 3,112 4 two car 2 3X 14 3,304 4 Two car & 2 one sub- . standard tandem compact TOTAL: 51 PLANNING AREA 3 Plan Type No of Units SizeNo of Garage Stones = ,. 1 43 2,401 4 two car 2 2 36 2,631 4 two car 2 3 34 2,764 4 two car 2 TOTAL: 113 PLANNING AREA 4 Plan Types No of Units = Size Vr No, of _Garage Stories 1 21 2,076 4 3 two car 2 2 24 2,198 3 two car 2 3 20 2,447 4 two car 2 4 22 2,445 4 two car 2 TOTAL: 87 CD99-05 -5- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM�. I\ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 represents a request to subdivide approximately 48.4 gross acres into 315 numbered lots; (313 residential lots, 1 public park and 1 private park); 16 lettered open space lots and; 3 lettered common access (driveway)lots in order to establish a 313 unit residential development pursuant to Section 4.0 of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. The proposed overall project density is 9.8 dwelling units per net acre. Reduced street sections are proposed for the Spine Road and local private streets within all planning areas as follows: Spine Road: 60 ft. street section (typical) - 32 ft. curb to curb w/ 14 ft. parkways on both sides/which includes 6 ft.sidewalks/ noon-street parking (except along public park site street frontage) Planning Area 1: Private Streets -Typical 50 ft. street section - 32 ft. curb to curb w/ 5 ft. parkways and 4 ft. sidewalks/ parking on one side. "L"Street (Private) 54 ft. street section - 36 ft. curb to curb w/ 5 ft. parkways and 4 ft. sidewalks/ parking on one side. Pearce Street Extension(Public— West of Street "K') 59 ft. street section - 40 ft. curb to curb w/ 5 ft. parkways and 4 ft. sidewalks/ parking on both sides (public) Planning Area 2: Private Streets -Typical 50 ft. street section - 32 ft. curb to curb w/ 5 ft. parkways and 4 ft. sidewalks/ parking on one side. Planning Area 3: Private Streets -Typical 42 ft. street section - 32 ft. curb to curb w/ 5 ft. monolithic sidewalks (sidewalks adjacent to curb)/ parking on one side. Planning Area 4: Private Streets -Typical 42 ft. street section - 32 ft. curb to curb w/ 5 ft. monolithic sidewalks/ parking on one side. Roosevelt Lane 57 ft. street section - 40 ft. curb to curb w/ 4.5 ft. parkways and 5.5 ft. �. sidewalks/ parking on both sides. �\�99-05 -6- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On December 3, 1998 the Planning Commission considered Tentative Tract Map 15469, Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Negative Declaration No. 97-21 associated with the development of 313 dwelling units in the residential portion of the Meadowlark Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission evaluated 14 outstanding project issues where the project was inconsistent with the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan, and conditioned the project to comply with the revised Meadowlark Specific Plan. Furthermore the Planning Commission, by minute action, suggested that the City Council consider modifications to the Planning Commission approved Specific Plan in order to accommodate the development proposal. Staff recommended denial of the Conditional Use Permit and Tentative Tract Map. C. APPEAL: On December 8, 1998, Catellus Residential Group submitted an appeal of the December 3, 1998, Planning Commission action to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80. The cited reason for the appeal is "to assure that the findings and conditions of approval for the referenced actions conform with the City Council's final action on the Meadowlark Specific Plan Amendment". D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: CRG's development proposal (Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80) was evaluated for land use compatibility with surrounding land uses, tract layout, open space, hydrology, affordable housing, and residential development standards/ design provisions. Discussion of each of the aforementioned project elements, staffs recommendations and Planning Commission action on outstanding project_issues presented to the Planning Commission on December 3, 1998 follows. 1) LAND USE COMPATIBILITY The proposed subdivision of 48.4 acres of vacant land and development of 313 residential lots/ single family dwellings constitutes an infill project. The site is located within the urbanized area of northwest Huntington Beach and is primarily surrounded by residential uses. The subject property abuts the Meadowlark shopping center to the south and a church and Norma Gibbs park along a portion of its easterly property line. l CD99-05 -7- January 22, 1999 10:45 AI1Q � REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 The proposed development plan is comprised of four (4) planning areas with residential densities ranging from 7.8 dwelling units per net acre to 11.5 dwelling units per net acre (net acreage calculations includes open space lots). The proposed densities provide a gradual transition from the commercial and medium high density attached residential uses (RMH) to the south of the Meadowlark property to the existing low density detached residential uses (RL) to the north, east and west. The project incorporates a 100 ft wide lower density area (single family detached homes at a density of 6.6 dwelling units per gross acre), :along the existing single family residential development to the east of the project site and Planning Area 3, in accordance with Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions. The proposed grading along the project's periphery will result in street grades/pad elevations compatible with those of adjacent streets and adjoining lots. The project has been found to be compatible in terms of land use with existing adjoining areas and in compliance with infill requirements. 2) TRACT LAYOUT I • t3� M' a 1 a - PA-2 PA-2 ° I vsrrcelee ° a l + \ aaa + .�• . tadyte _ aaa ° — PUBLIC °y, a — --_ �,�. i i .I I; r---- PARK �ti g a a a a a a a w` Il,�, F 1 I PA-1 a � i I I �o r:.I , �, a aaaaaha amaasaa ���,°�• • JJ � asaaaaaaa 1 — COMMON s - - —I•I-- - OPEN aaaa:&sass SPACE a ,aaaa&&& a m a aa-s a s a I PA-3 Aa � a r — i s a a s PA-4 a &sassPUNA FM - ® CO-M am V� It � W�v�'T::::JS,�•410. �` C- D99-05 -8- 01/21/99 8:05 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING.DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 The Meadowlark tract has been designed as four distinct but interconnected neighborhoods (planning areas). The Spine Road (Street "A°) provides access to the property from Heil Avenue and from Warner Avenue at Plaza Lane. The Spine Road meanders through the subdivision, separating Planning Areas 3 and 4, Planning Areas 1 and 3 and dividing Planning Area 2. The northern terminus of the Spine Road at Heil Avenue aligns with Del Mar Lane. Local access to the four planning areas is provided directly via the Spine Road. Access to Planning Area 1 and 4 are also provided from the Pearce Street extension and Roosevelt Lane respectively. The Pearce Street connection has been planned to limit traffic on said street to 2,500 average daily trips in compliance with Meadowlark Specific Plan limitations. The project does not propose any significant grade changes. The project site is generally flat with a 15 ft grade differential between the site's high point (appr. 30 ft elev.) at its southwest portion to the lowest elevation point along Heil Avenue (appr' 15 ft elev.). Proposed pad elevations are 29.5 ft at the southwest corner of the site and drop to 17.2 ft along Heil Avenue. The density of the 313 unit project is 9.8 units per net acre and is well within the maximum density of 11.3 units per net acre and maximum number units permitted (345 dwelling units) by the Meadowlark Specific Plan. 3) OPEN SPACE The proposed project is in compliance with common and private open space requirements set forth in the Meadowlark Specific Plana A total of 0.79 acre of common open space area is required for the project exclusive of public parkland dedication. The CRG proposal provides 1.55 acres of common usable open space of which 0.65 acres is proposed to be developed as a private mini-park site (Lot 315) with recreational amenities such as a pool, meeting rooms, tot-lot etc. which will be maintained by the Homeowners Association. Private open space equal to or greater than four hundred (400) sq. ft..per residential lot has also been included as part of the subject development proposal. 4) HYDROLOGY The applicant submitted a preliminary drainage study to evaluate existing conditions in the vicinity of the project and to determine the impacts and required mitigation for ultimate buildout of the proposed development. Downstream constraints at the Sunset (C07) Channel, which is currently functioning at or near full capacity during major rain storms, resulted in City staff recommending to the applicant that an alternative method of drainage mitigation be explored. In response to this issue, the applicant has proposed detaining a portion of the project storm water runoff within the proposed neighborhood park site. The storm water is proposed to remain detained in the park site until the peak of the storm has passed. The water then will be conveyed to the Sunset Channel by means of a public storm drain system in Heil Avenue and Bolsa Chica Street. CD99-05 -9- January 22, 1999 10:45 A REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 The Public Works Department has reviewed the preliminary drainage study and deemed it acceptable as proposed mitigation for the project. Final design studies will be performed by the applicant's engineer to determine the actual sizing of the entire required storm drain facility to be constructed by the development. 5) AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Meadowlark Specific Plan requires provision of affordable housing in conjunction with the development of the project site. Ten percent (10%) of the total units proposed are required to be affordable to low and moderate income level households (100% of the Orange County Median Income) for a period of thirty years. If rental units are proposed to satisfy affordable housing requirements , the units are required to be for households earning. between 50% -80% of the Orange County_Median Income. CRG has agreed to satisfy the project's affordable housing obligation through provision of rental units. The developer proposes to enter into an agreement with Bridges Housing Foundation to maintain rental units off-site at a rental rate affordable to households earning between 50% - 80% of the Orange County Median Income. A detailed description of the type, size, location and estimated rental rate will be submitted. prior to recordation of the final tract map. 6) RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS/ DESIGN PROVISIONS When the Planning Commission reviewed the development proposal, there were several, inconsistencies between the.Plannirg Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan development requirements and the project design. Staff prepared a matrix of 14 items (ATTACHMENT NO. 3) that the Planning Commission needed to address prior to acting on the project. The Planning Commission conditioned the project to be redesigned to eliminate 9 of those items; 4 items are contingent upon City Council approval of the.minute action request by the Planning Commission; and one item staff believes requires further review and redesign. The following is a discussion of the five remaining issues: a. Front Yard Setbacks — Planning Area 2 Issue: The amended Meadowlark Specific Plan requires a minimum fifteen (15) ft front yard setback for dwellings and permits patios and entry elements to be constructed at a twelve (12) ft setback from the front property line. In addition, the Specific Plan provides for consideration of average front yard setbacks and establishes an-average of twelve (12) ft as the front yard setback with a minimum of ten (10) ft, only for high quality innovative design concepts which promote pedestrian oriented design principles and result in an improved street-scene when proposed in conjunction with landscaped parkways. CD99`4 -10- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 CRG proposes five (5) wide landscaped parkways along street frontages within Planning Area 2 and has requested consideration and approval of "average front yard setbacks" - average setback 13.9 ft, inclusive of garage frontage (min)- within the subject planning area. Staff reviewed the request and has determined that the proposed architectural design would be acceptable in conjunction with fifteen (15) ft setbacks with minor product design modifications (e.g. elimination of the three car garage product type Plan 2X), however, staff believes that consideration of"front yard averaging" warrants additional and more significant product modifications (e.g. inclusion of housing product type(s) with garages within the rear half of the lot or side entry garages). Staff's opinion is based on the belief that although the proposed building design, when viewed individually, appears to be of good quality, the overall site planning (plotting/ product mix) of the subject Planning Area does not necessarily promote an innovative design concept and is in conflict with the residential product design standards of the Meadowlark Specific Plan which promote "locating and designing garages so that they do not dominate' the street scene", "minimizing the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access" and providing variable setbacks between dwellings on adjacent lots "to avoid a monotonous pattern of houses and create an interesting street- scene". Moreover, staff's position is also supported by the General Plan policy which advocates increased front yard setbacks where reduced street widths are implemented. This General Plan policy leads staff to believe that provision of parkways alone is not sufficient to accept front yard setback averaging for projects which do not achieve the level of innovative design and attain Specific Plan goals worthy of design standard deference. Staff Recommendation: Modify the architectural submittal for Planning Area 2 to incorporate side entry garages and/or housing product type(s) which incorporate the garage within the rear half portion of the lot (front yard setback averaging option) or revise the proposed technical plan layout to comply with the fifteen (15) ft minimum front yard setback for dwellings and twelve (12) ft minimum for patios and entry elements in conjunction with eliminating Plan 2X from the proposed product mix. Plannin4 Commission Action: PA-2 design was determined to be creative/ innovative. Front yard setback averaging was approved as proposed by the applicant. b. Garage Design -- Planning Area 3 Issue: - Garage dimensions and storage. In Planning Area 3 a maximum of ten percent (10%) garage area reduction (up to 40 sq. ft..yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area) is permitted for a non-cumulative twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units within each planning area, upon approval of a conditional use permit. The Specific Plan states that when a reduction of garage area is proposed, a minimum area of eighteen (18) ft (width) by nineteen (19) ft (depth) should be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference between the garage area provided and the minimum required (400 sq. ft.) is required to be provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or CD99-05 -11- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM �\\ REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 other storage configurations) that do not impede-the eighteen (18) by nineteen (19) ft automobile garage parking area. The proposed garage design data within Planning Area 3 is as follows: K Size Garage sq ft_ Storage area Storage=£area Number of Units. F_ _ ... re uired_ rovided Plan 1** 43 18' X 22' 396 4 sq ft 0 Plan 2** 36 18' X 20' w/ 356 sq ft. 40 sq ft 0 additional 9' X5.75' 54.6sgft laundry Plan 3** 34 18' X 20' w/ 360 sq ft 40 sq ft 0 additional 8.5' X 6' 51 sq ft laundry Total 113 (** denotes non-compliance — refer to text for specific areas) Planning Area 3 garage design is not in compliance with the requirement for provision of twenty ft (20) by twenty (20) ft minimum interior garage dimensions in seventy-five percent of units (85 garages). Moreover, Plan 2 is not in compliance with the minimum required dimension (18'X19') for automobile storage due to a design condition which introduces a hallway closet within said storage area and impedes use of the space. Finally the proposed garage/storage may not be in compliance with minimum storage requirements applicable to 25% of units with reduced garage areas. The applicant requests credit to be given towards fulfilling minimum garage area and storage requirements for laundry areas (Plan 2 and 3) adjoining the automobile storage area. These areas were previously presented to the Planning Commission and staff as separate laundry rooms adjacent to the garage and have been connected.by removing the common wall between the garage and laundries. As modified, the proposed garages would technically satisfy minimum storage requirements. Staff Recommendation: Consider the applicant's proposal and approve/ or deny based on the intent of the Meadowlark Specific Plan storage provision requirements. Planning Commission Action: Incorporate a condition of project approval to ensure compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP Condition# 1. p). CRG garage/storage design presented on December 3, 1998 (400 sq. ft. garage design proposal and provision of storage areas —ATTACHMENT NO. 7) was accepted provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission approved Specific Plan. C. Garage Design — Planning Area 4 C t5 -12- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM I\V REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Issue: - Garage dimensions and storage - In Planning Area 4 a maximum of ten percent (10%) garage area reduction (up to 40 sq. ft. yielding 360 sq. ft. garage area) is permitted for a non-cumulative twenty-five percent (25%) of the dwelling units within each planning area, upon approval of a conditional use permit. When a reduction of garage area is proposed, a minimum area of eighteen (18) ft (width) by nineteen (19) ft (depth) is required to be provided clear of any obstruction for automobile storage in all garages. The difference between the garage area provided and the minimum required (400 sq. ft.) should be . provided in the form of storage areas (overhead, recessed or other storage configurations) that do not impede the eighteen (18) ft by nineteen (19) ft automobile parking area within the garage. CRG proposes the following garage design/ storage areas for Planning Area 4: Number of Sze Garage;sq ft: Storage"area Storage area s -. - _ its.Un M _ F_. =; re aired .:provide d Plan 1** 21 18' X 20' w/ 391 9 sq ft 60 sq ft storage alcove Plan 2**. 24 18' X 20' 360 sq ft. 40 sq ft 40 sq ft Plan 3** 20 18' X 20' w/ 399 sq ft 1 sq ft 13 sq ft storage alcove Plan 4** 22 18.8' X 20' w/ 398 sq ft 2 sq ft 40 sq ft storage alcove Total 87 (**denotes non-compliance — refer to text for specific areas) Planning Area 4 garage design is not in compliance with the requirement for provision of twenty (20) ft by twenty (20) ft minimum interior garage dimensions in seventy-five percent of units (65 garages). Moreover, Plan 1, 2 and 3 are not in compliance with the minimum required dimension (18'X19') for automobile storage due to proposed cabinet storage area location. Staff Recommendation: Revise the architectural plans and /or tentative tract map and conditional use permit documents to comply with the garage design/ storage provisions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. Planning Commission Action: Incorporate a condition of project approval to ensure compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP Condition # 1.r). CRG garage/storage design presented on December 3, 1998 (400 sq. ft. garage design proposal and provision of storage areas) was accepted provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission approved Specific Plan. /L CD99-05 -13- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 d. Rear Yard Setbacks - Planning Area 3 Issue: Dwellings within Planning Area 3 are subject to compliance with a fifteen (15) ft minimum rear yard setback with a maximum of up to fifty percent (50%) of the rear building wall set at thirteen (13) ft. Fifty-one (51) dwelling units (Plan 1, 2 and 3 housing product types) in the subject planning area do not comply with the minimum rear yard setback requirements due to primarily second floor projections and first floor configurations. Staff Recommendation: Revise the architectural submittal for Plan 1, 2 and 3 to comply with the Meadowlark Specific Plan requirements or modify the Tentative Tract Map and associated CUP documents to accommodate the proposed architecture. Planning Commission Action: Incorporate condition of project approval to revise project /ensure compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP Condition # 1.o). CRG's request to permit up to 24".projections within rear yard setbacks was accepted, provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. e. Front Yard Setbacks - Planning Area 4. Issue: The Meadowlark Specific Plan requires a fifteen (15) ft front yard setback within Planning Area 4. The submitted development plans for said area does not comply with the applicable front yard setbacks. Specifically, Plan 4 (second floor) as designed encroaches within the minimum applicable setback. This condition affects twenty-two units within the planning area. o Staff Recommendation: Revise the architectural plans and /or tentative tract map and conditional use permit documents to comply with the provision of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. Planninc 1 Commission Action: Incorporate condition of project approval to revise project /ensure compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan (ATTACHMENT NO. 1/ CUP . - Condition # 1.q). CRG's request to permit up to 24" projections within front yard setbacks was accepted, provided City Council approves modification to Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. �\b' D99-05 -14- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 E. REVISED SUBMITTAL On December 28, 1998 CRG submitted additional documentation on the subject proposal and requested that the documents be included in the City Council staff report (ATTACHMENT NO. 8). The submitted information includes the following; Meadowlark Parking Analysis and Parking Plan Rear Yard Setback Exhibit — PA3, Park acreage compliance exhibit, a letter by Keystone Pacific Property Management Inc. regarding parking enforcement, a letter by Robert N. Figeira regarding parking enforcement and a letter by Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh regarding Meadowlark project CC&Rs parking restrictions. F. STAFF ALTERNATIVES The Meadowlark development proposal differs from typical residential subdivision projects due to the proposed density and small-lot design concept. The small-lot design concept, intense by nature, does not accommodate major plan modifications in one area of design (site planning or building design) without impacting other project design aspects. This inherent project limitation has been the major project challenge for those associated with the design and review of the project. Staff has reviewed the subject development proposal extensively and has concluded that the original staff recommendation still represents the optimum project solution; however, given the numerous outstanding issues that are yet to be resolved by the City Council and in recognition of the complex and interlinked nature of any potential project modifications staff has prepared two alternative project solutions. These alternatives represent integrated groupings of design element solutions which take into consideration project revision impacts to site parking /emergency access, public park, and community aesthetics. The project design elements of the originally proposed staff recommendation for project modifications and the two alternatives are as follows: CD99-05 -15- January 22, 1999 10:45 AIV� REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 ORIGINALISSUE STAFF 1. Site Parking /Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers None Provide throughout all Provide throughout all res. units res. units b) Private Street Width 40' 36'—parking on both 32'—parking on one side curb to curb sides c) Spine Road Width 32'—no parking on both 32'— no parking on both 32'— no parking on both curb to curb sides sides sides d) Pearce Street Width 40'— parking on both 36'—parking on both 36'— parking on both via "I" and "K" (curb to sides sides sides curb e) Distribution of guest Will be evenly distributed Will be evenly distributed Create additional parking spaces throughout project throughout project "pocket"guest parking spaces throughout the project 0 Tandem Parking Not permitted Permitted as approved Not permitted by the PC g) Interior Garage Min. 20'X 20'for all units Min. 18'X 19'with min. Min. 18'X 19'with min. Dimensions 400 sq. ft. as approved 400 sq. ft. as approved by the PC by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication plus dedication plus dedication plus improvements plus in- improvements plus in- improvements plus in- lieu fee of$387,500) lieu fee of$387,500) lieu fee of$387,500 b) Park Use Neighborhood park Neighborhood park Neighborhood park w/multi-use field w/multi-use field w/multi-use field c Park Parking 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 s aces d) Houses adjacent to None None None the Park 3. Community Aesthetics a Parkway Widths Min. 6' PA 1 &2 Min. 6' PA 1 &2 Min. 6' PA 1 &2 b Sidewalk Widths Min. 6' PA 3 &4 Min. 6' PA 3 &4 Min. 6' PA 3 &4 c) Front Yard Setbacks Maintain min. 15' Same as PC Same as PC (PA-4) setback without projections d) Rear Yard Setbacks Maintain min. 13' & 15" Same as PC Same as PC (PA-3) setbacks without projections .\b CD99-05 -16- January 22, 1999 1:31 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 The primary differences between the original staff recommended project revisions and Alternative 1 and 2 are the proposed street width and provision of firesprinklers throughout the project. In addition, staff Alternative 2 includes a provision for "pocket" guest parking throughout the project. This will address tandem parking and distribution of guest parking spaces. G. SUMMARY - The residential proposal for the development of a small-lot single family residential . community is inconsistent with numerous development standards and provisions of the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific Plan. Staff believes that cumulatively, project issues and inconsistencies of the proposed plan with respect to the Meadowlark Specific Plan are significant and warrant a recommendation for project denial. In addition, and even more importantly, staff believes that project issues relative to design, emergency access, public park dedication and community recreational needs have not been adequately mitigated and should be addressed in order to comply with General Plan goals, objectives and policies. In order to address outstanding project issues the submitted proposal will have to be revised. Depending on the modifications decided to be made by the applicant, the nature of the overall project may be altered significantly. For this reason'staff does not support conditional approval of the submitted plans and recommends denial of the project. Staff finds that the project is not in substantial compliance with the amended Meadowlark Specific Plan and recommends denial of the development proposal based on the following reasons: ♦ The project is not consistent with Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Recreation and Community Services Element goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan, which foster development of high quality communities by means of creative design solutions; ensuring provision of infrastructure and; addressing the recreational needs of the community. ♦ The project does not comply with five provisions and development standards of the Planning Commission recommended Meadowlark Specific-Plan.. ♦ The project will be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety of persons residing or working in the.project vicinity. The project does not incorporate the necessary street infrastructure to ensure emergency access; provide adequate buffer. areas between park and residential uses; parking for project residents and neighborhood park users; utilize design solutions to eliminate crime related activities. CD99-05 -17- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM 1 , b REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: January 25, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD99-05 Environmental Status: Staff reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 97-21 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No.97-21 for twenty (20) days commencing on April 30, 1998 and ending on May 20, 1998. No comments, either verbal or written were received. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 and Tentative Tract Map No. 15469, it is necessary for the City Council to review and adopt Negative Declaration No. 97- 21 with regard to the subject proposal. On December 3, 1998, the Planning Commission reviewed Negative Declaration 97-21, with respect to Tentative Tract Map No: 15469 and Conditional Use Permit No, 97-80, and forwarded the document to the City Council with a recommendation for approval. Staff, in its initial study of the project is recommending that the Negative Declaration be adopted with findings and mitigation measures. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Findings and Conditions of Approval (PC Recommendation) 2 Negative Declaration No. 97-21 3 Matrix of Project Issues dated December 3, 1998 (PC Matrix) 4 Planning Commission Minute Action on December 3, 1998 re 5 Letters in Opposition and/or Support 6 Findings for Denial (Staff Recommendation) 7 Revised PA-3 garage design proposal presented to PC on 12/3/98 8 CRG correspondence received/dated December 28, 1998 9 Alternative 1 and 2 Plan Revisions w �\CD99-05 -18- January 22, 1999 10:45 AM ,\1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/ _ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469/ .NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-21 (MEADOWLARK) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. 2. Mitigation measures for Negative Declaration No. 97-21 attached hereto shall become part of the project conditions of approval, (unless superseded by more restrictive TTM/CUP conditions), and will avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures address a number of potential impacts including: affordable housing requirements, land use compatibility, noise impacts and hazardous materials. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15469: 1. Tentative Tract Map No.15469 for subdivision of 48.4 gross acres for the purpose of developing a 313 unit residential community is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of M-sp (Mixed Use- Specific Plan) on the subject property and the amended Meadowlark Specific Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission. Detached single family homes on small-lots are a permitted use. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development at 9.8 units per net acre (6.5 units per gross acre). The site was previously approved for a higher intensity of land use (12.4 units per gross acre). The size, lot frontage, street sections and other design features of the proposed subdivision, as proposed or conditioned, are in compliance with the amended Specific Plan. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The project was evaluated in Negative Declaration No. 97-21 and will comply with appropriate mitigation measures. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The subdivision, as conditioned,will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements. ,1O �`� (98CL1203-3) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 for the establishment of the 313 dwelling unit planned community 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 proposed project as conditioned will provide the necessary infrastructure and site improvements to accommodate the needs of project residents and the adjoining community. 2. The conditional use permit request, as conditioned, will be compatible with surrounding residential and commercial uses. The proposed buffer areas between the existing easterly adjacent properties and PA3,project grading, site design and subdivision layout will properly adapt the proposed structures to streets, driveways and other adjacent structure and uses in a harmonious manner. 3. The proposed residential development, as conditioned,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. The proposed use will meet the approved Meadowlark Specific Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission, HBZSO and HBOC provisions, including, lot size, setbacks, density and parking. PA 2 is a creative layout and includes innovative architecture.and design. 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 M-sp(Mixed.Use-Specific Plan) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. L U 9.1.2: Require that single-family residential.units be designed to convey a high level of quality by considering the following guidelines: a. Modulate and articulate building elevation, facades and masses (avoiding undifferentiated "box-like"structures). d. Encouraging innovative and creative design concepts. B. L U 9.3.2: Require that the design of new residential subdivisions consider the following: b. Integrate public squares,mini-parks, or other landscape elements. i. Consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate: relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. b� (98CL1203-4) �\ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15469: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated October 19, 1998, as conditioned, shall be the conceptually approved layout. The plan shall be revised,to comply with the Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions and development standards. 2. The project shall comply with parkland dedication requirements. Developer shall dedicate a minimum of 2.4 acres of park land and shall pay parkland dedication in-lieu fees to satisfy the remaining project parkland dedication obligation. In-lieu fees shall be assessed at a land value rate equal to $500,000 per acre. The proposed neighborhood public park shall be flat and shall provide at a minimum three (3) acres of dry, usable park space. Developer shall provide 16 parking spaces along the Spine Road frontage to serve park parking needs. 3. Retaining walls shall be setback a minimum of four(4) ft. from the back of sidewalks. No retaining walls shall be permitted within the "Spine Road" street ROW. 4. Lot `N" shall be reconfigured to provide a minimum of ten(10) ft. landscape buffer along Airport Circle and pedestrian access o_ybetween Roosevelt Lane and Airport Circle. The remaining portion of the subject lot shall be incorporated within the adjoining residential lots. 5. Wall and fence plans shall be submitted and approved by the Planning, Building and Public Works Department. Prior to construction of any new walls, a plan shall be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls next'to new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan. and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 6. Decorative paving shall be provided at main project entrances (Heil Ave/Spine Road and Plaza Lane/Spine Road) and at all entry points to each of the Planning.Areas. The.type of enhanced paving materials to be provided shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Department. 7. At least_60 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall.be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect.and address the common driveway access easements,use easements, landscape easements, maintenance easements as well as maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowner's Association. Moreover the CC&Rs shall require use of the garages for automobile storage; a minimum of eighteen(18) ft. by nineteen(19) ft. shall be maintained clear of any obstruction for automobile parking. Furthermore the CC&Rs shall limit additions to and exterior modification of dwelling units within all planning areas in accordance with Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions. The CC&Rs shall include enforcement of"rib-parking" areas. The CC&Rs shall be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. 8. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties. Drainage shall be accommodated per Public Works Standards. 9. Drainage flows from adjacent properties shall not be obstructed. Flows shall be accommodated per Public Works Standards. \� (98CL1203-5) 10. Street lighting shall be designed and constructed to comply with Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions pertaining to decorative street lighting. 11. Fire hydrants locations shall be approved by the Fire Department. 12. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 shall comply with all mitigation measures of Negative Declaration No. 97721 (attached hereto and becoming a part thereon)unless mitigation measure(s) are superceded by more restrictive conditions of project approval. 13. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 shall comply with A.D.A. Standards. 14. Prior to recordation of the final map and unless otherwise stated,the following conditions shall be completed. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. a. An affordable housing plan shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach, in accordance with Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions. The plan shall provide for affordable housing on-site or off-site. The contents of the affordable housing.plan shall include the following: 1) Ten percent(10%) of the total units proposed shall be affordable to low and moderate income level households (maximum 100% of the Orange County Median Income) for a period of thirty (30)years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the units being built.. 3) If rental units are used to satisfy this condition,then the units shall be for households earning between 50%-80% of the Orange County Median Income. b. All vehicular access rights to all public and private streets within the proposed subdivision including Heil Avenue and Street "A" shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the City. (PV ) c. A final sewer study shall be submitted for Public Works approval. The development shall design the sewer system required to serve the development. (PW) d. A letter of acceptance for additional sewer flows shall be required from the Orange County Sanitation District. (PV ) Z3 (98CL 1203-6) �� e. The water improvements shall be designed as shown on the approved Tentative Tract Map, and per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's Standard Plan, Specifications and Design Criteria. The Developer shall submit a final water system analysis with calculations with the project's first plan check to confirm appropriate sizing and layout. If the analysis shows that fire flow demands cannot be met with the City's current water pipeline infrastructure,the developer will be required to upgrade the City's pipeline system to meet the demands at no cost to the City. The City of Huntington Beach Water Division shall approve all changes or additions to pipeline infrastructure. Any new infrastructure constructed in the public right-of-way shall be dedicated to the City upon successful completion of the project, including bacteriological testing. (PV ) f. The applicant will work with the Fire Department to assure that the street name of "A" Street will be consistent from south of Warner through the north side of Heil Avenue. The applicant will be responsible for any modification to existing signage due to name changes. (PV ) g. Final hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off site facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. Drainage easements and lots designated as detention areas shall also be shown on the Final Map as directed and approved by the Department of Public Works. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties,but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. Runoff from the site shall be restricted as directed by the Department of Public Works to minimize impacts to downstream facilities. If the detention facilities are proposed within park areas, all storm flows up to and including the 10 year event shall be contained below grade. Any surface water detention above the 10 year event shall not be allowed to pond above grade for more than 2 hours. Porous soil and an underdrain system will be incorporated in the park and field areas at the direction of the Public Works Department to insure these areas maintain the require_d drainage associated with active park use. (PV ) h. The Developer shall design off-site drainage improvements as required by the Department of Public Works-to mitigate the impact of increase runoff, due to development, and pass through flows,to deficient downstream drainage systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. All storm inlets shall be gated. (PV ) i. Streets `B"through"L" shall be designed per Standard Drawing 104 with 50 ft. of right-of-way, and with a 32 ft. curb to curb. Sidewalk shall be 4 ft. wide minimum with a 5 ft. wide parkway adjacent to curb. Parking shall be restricted to one side. (PW) j. All street grades shall be a minimum of 0.50%. (PV ) k. Streets "M"through'Z" and"AA"through`BB" shall be designed per Standard Drawing 104 (42'/32'). The sidewalk shall be 5 ft. wide minimum with "pop-out" sections around street furniture to comply with ADA requirements. Parking shall be restricted to one side. (PV ) � " IV (98CL1203-7) 1. A final parking layout plan shall be submitted as part of the street improvement plans for all private and public streets. This plan shall be used for parking control by the HOA. For streets with parking allowed on one side only,the opposite curb shall be painted red-and no parking fire-lane" signs shall be posted prior to any move-ins. (PW) m. The developer shall design and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Heil Avenue, Street"A" and.Del Mar Lane. (PW) n. The southerly 29 ft. of existing Pearce Street and all of the new proposed Pearce Street to the intersection of"K" Street shall be dedicated to the public for street and public utility purposes per Standard Plan No. 104.(29'/20' half section). The sidewalk shall be 4 ft. wide minimum with a 5 ft. wide parkway adjacent to the curb. (PW) o. Street"A" shall be dedicated to the public for street and public utility purposes. The street section shall be designed per Standard Plan 104 modified(60'/32')with no parking on either side. A meandering 6' wide sidewalk shall be incorporated in the parkway on each side of the street. The intersection of"A" Street and Heil Avenue shall align with Del Mar Lane. If parking for the park is to be provided on Street"A", it shall be in addition to the required 32' of curb-to curb width and as shown in the approved parking layout plan. A queue length analysis shall be performed to provide adequate stacking for left turn movements from"A" Street to Heil Avenue. (PW) p. Those portions of the sewer and storm drain system which are in private streets shall be maintained by the HOA. (PW) q. All street intersections shall intersect at 90 degrees or radialy to curved streets. The developer shall perform sight distance analysis (using a design of 45 mph)for all intersections along Street"A". (PW) r. The developer shall design signing, striping and street lighting in,accordance with Public Works Standards and the Specific Plan. (PW) s. The southerly 18 ft of Heil Avenue shall be dedicated to the public for street and public utility purposes. (PW) t. Heil Avenue shall be designated per the City's Standard Plan No. 102,modified, (100'/70'), including a 7 ft bike lane on the south side of Heil Avenue. The developer shall design protected left turn pockets, (150 ft in length) in both directions on Heil Avenue, (design speed 50 MPH). The developer shall dedicate additional right-of-way, if necessary, on Heil Avenue to permit installation of the protected left turn pockets as directed by the Department of Public Works. (PW) u. An additional 12 ft. of landscaping shall be required adjacent to the Heil Avenue.right- of-way. Landscaping improvements shall be designed and installed per Public Works Standards. This landscaped area shall be contained within an easement for maintenance by the HOA. (PW) (98CL 1203-8) -v. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded final map, along with digital graphic files of the recorded map per the City of Huntington Beach"CAD Standards Manual for Consultants", shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. (PW) w. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Map: 1) 'An easement over the private streets for Police,Fire Department, and utility maintenance access purposes. 2) A 2 ft. public utility easement adjacent to the street right-of-way, as shown on said map (7 ft parkways or less). 3) The water system and appurtenances as shown on the improvement plans. 4) Access rights in, over, across,upon and through the private streets for the purpose of maintaining, servicing, cleaning, and replacing.the water system. 5) The easements for sewer and storm drain purposes as shown on said map, with maintenance by the HOA. 6) All perimeter, streetscape, community open space and greenbelt areas,Norma Gibbs Park extension and other required landscape improvements shall be dedicated with the first phase of development.(PW) x. The developer shall provide a 10 ft(minimum)wide decorative pavement section at the joint points of the public streets, excluding Pearce Street east of Street"K"per the City's direction. The decorative pavement section shall end at the curb returns in the private street portion. (PW) y: A phasing map shall be submitted for approval by the Department*of Public Works showing improvements to be constructed and right-of-way and easements to be dedicated with each phase. All required infrastructure including all public streets shall be designed with the first phase. (PW) z. The Final Map and phased maps shall be consistent with the approved Tentative Map. (PW) aa. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Sub-article 18 for the following items; 1) Tie the boundary of the map in the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor 2) Provide a digital-graphics file of said map. (PW) bb. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance,Labor&Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) cc. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) dd. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) AV (98CL1203-9) f �- ee. A cash payment in the amount of$35,000.00, in.addition to any traffic impact fee due, shall be made to the City, for the developer's share of the future traffic signal at the intersection of Bolsa Chica Street and Pearce Street as specified in the Meadowlark Specific Plan. (PW ) ff. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 (PA 4) shall be revised to accommodate the proposed architectural design and comply with minimum setbacks,inclusive of side yard setbacks. gg. A copy of the CC&R's shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works.for review and approval. The CC&R's shall provide as a minimum: 1) The HOA shall be responsible for performing regular maintenance and monitoring of the storm water system in conformance with the Storm Water Quality Management Plan for the development. 2) All public fire hydrants within the development shall be kept clear of landscaping and improvements per City requirements and standards and painted as required. 3) The Huntington Beach Police Department shall not be restricted from enforcing all parking regulations and the citation of violations for any parking not permitted by the approved parking plan for the project. 4) Red curb for"No Parking"zones shall be maintained yearly by the HOA. 5) Provisions shall be made.in the CC&R's to prescribe street sweeping guidelines performed by the HOA. Guidelines shall be in conformance with City requirements. (PW) hh. Rolled curbs shall be provided on all private streets. ii. Emergency vehicle access shall be provided at the end of the cul-de-sacs as deemed necessary by the Fire Department. (FD) j j. The developer shall pay a proportional share for the signalization of the Heil/Graham intersection as determined by a traffic impact analysis approved by the Department of Public Works. (PW ) 15. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of grading permits. (PW ) a. A Grading Plan,prepared by a Registered.Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review_ and approval. The Grading Plan shall include design of the detention basin area within the proposed park site. This plan shall also include an erosion and silt control plan for all water runoff during construction and site preparation work. Final grades and elevations on the Grading Plan shall not vary by more than 1 ft. from the grades and elevations on.the approved Tentative Map. b. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soils sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties,retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (98CL1203-10) `b, c. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan,prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval by the Park,Tree and Landscape Division. The Developer shall submit irrigation demands to ensure proper irrigation service sizing. d. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a"Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. Water quality BMP and education information shall be included in the CC&R's. e. The Developer shall coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Division in developing a truck and construction vehicle routing plan. This plan shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to minimize construction related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be approved by the Department of Public Works. 16. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits. (PW a. No combustible construction shall occur until the approved water system has been installed. b. The water system shall be located within vehicle travelways dedicated to the City where possible. Ground cover,hardscape and/or softscape over water lines shall be approved by the Water Division. The developer or any other subsequent HOA shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City,which shall address repairs to any enhanced pavement,walls, fencing, curb, gutter, landscaping, etc. by other than City forces (at no cost to the City), if City water mains require maintenance or repair. c. Construct off-site drainage improvements as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased run-off, due to development, or deficient, downstream drainage systems. Design all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation of all rainfall event frequencies up to 100-year frequency. 17. The following conditions shall be completed prior to final occupancy. (PV ) a. Backflow protection is required and shall be installed per the Huntington Beach Water. Division Standard Plans for irrigation and fire suppression water services. b. Each proposed dwelling unit shall require a separate domestic meter and service. All domestic water meters shall be sized in accordance with the UPC and the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach Building Department and the Fire Department. c. All existing overhead utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with the City's Underground Utility Ordinance. In addition, all electrical transformers shall be in stalled underground. b 10 (98CL1203-11) d. The entire public park extension onto Norma Gibbs park shall be improved to Public Works Standards. The developer shall provide for a minimum of 16 parking stalls with direct access to a public street. Park parking shall be restricted to the park frontage along Street"A". One space shall be ADA compliant. e. All public infrastructure improvements, perimeter, streetscape, community open space and greenbelt areas,Norma Gibbs park extension and other required landscaping improvements shall be completed prior to the first move in. Private infrastructure shall be constructed per the approved phasing plan. f. Soil tests for agricultural suitability, fertility and appraisal, from the site to be landscaped, shall be submitted for review and approval by Park, Tree and Landscaping Division of Public Works. Test results and corrective recommendations by the Testing Lab shall be included in the Landscape Plan Specifications for construction. g. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2:1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent. The Developer shall have a consulting Arborist quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain(if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. h. All landscaping irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in compliance with the City approved landscape plans by the landscape architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect prior to the final landscape inspection and approval. i. All streets shall be fully improved per the conditions of approval. j. A block retaining wall (solid grouted) shall be constructed along the southerly boundary of the property, as required to mitigate noise impacts. k. A"Landscape Maintenance License Agreement"is required for the continuing landscaping maintenance along Street"A" and Heil Avenue by the Homeowners Association. 1. Street lighting for Heil Avenue and all other streets shall be owned by Southern California Edison Co. Street lighting shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards and Meadowlark Specific Plan requirements pertinent to provision of decorative lighting fixtures. m. The Developer shall install 150 ft left turn pockets at the intersection of Heil Avenue, Street"A" and Del Mar Lane. n. Signing, striping and street lighting shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards. o. The Traffic Impact Fee shall be paid prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. (98CL1203-12) ��� 18. The project shall comply with Negative Declaration No.97-21 mitigation measures unless superseded by more restrictive conditions of approval. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469: 1. The Final Map shall not be accepted by the City Council until ZMA No. 97-1 and ZTA No. 97-4 are approved and in effect. Once complete,the Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council , recorded with the Or County Recorder and a copy filed with the Planning Department. 2. Park and Recreation Fees shall be paid prior to acceptance of the Final Map by the City Council. 3. State Mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to map recordation. 5. Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years from the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Director of Planning pursuant to written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to the expiration date. 6. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two days of the Planning Commission action. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80: 1. The Conditional Use Permit plans/documents received and dated October 19, -21, 1998, shall be the conceptually approved plans with the following modifications: a. The Conditional Use Permit plans/documents shall be revised to comply with the Meadowlark Specific Plan provisions and development standards and any other applicable provisions of the HBZSO and HBOC, inclusive of public park dedication, building setbacks,building height,parking and storage requirements. b. Garage driveway widths shall be designed in accordance with HBZSO Section 231.18 DA 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) �\� (98CL1203-13) d. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels,air conditioning units, mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and.elevations. If located on a building,they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be ambitecturally compatible with the building.and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. e. For zero lot-line construction,the maximum separation between building wall and property line shall not exceed two (2) inches. f. The southwest portion of Planning Area 4 shall be redesigned to provide at a minimum a ten(10) ft wide landscape buffer along Airport Circle, the remaining portion of Lot"Y' shall be incorporated within the adjoining private residential lots. g. The Wall and Fence plans shall be revised to provide masonry walls at rear and interior residential property line fence locations and"theme wall" design treatment along Lot"L" and front yard fence design. h. 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.. i. Product mix modifications shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. j. Planning Area 1, Floor Plan 2 and associated conditional use permit and tentative tract map documents shall be revised to comply with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan parking requirements. Redesign parlor so as not to constitute a bedroom by definition of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. k. Planning Area 1, Floor Plan 3 includes a master retreat adjacent to a master bedroom which shall not constitute a separate bedroom provided there is a wall opening of minimum six(6) feet or that it is accessed through a master bathroom. No exterior stairways accessing either a dwelling, or balcony/deck shall be permitted. 1. The architectural plans for all dwelling units within PA-2 shall be revised to comply with Meadowlark Specific Plan maximum building height requirements (30 ft. maximum). m. The dwelling unit on Lot 39 (PA-2).shall be re-plotted to comply with.the minimum. 10 feet exterior side yard setback. n. Plan 2 and 2X(PA-2) shall be revised to comply with the minimum 20 feet(width)by 20 feet(depth) interior garage dimensions. Plan 2X and 3X(PA-2) shall be revised to eliminate the excess substandard compact and tandem parking. Excess tandem/compact parking areas shall be allocated to alternate uses and shall comply with the Meadowlark Specific Plan parking requirements. (98CL1203-14) \� o. The second story projections in Planning Area 3 shall be revised to comply with minimum rear yard setback requirements of the Meadowlark Specific Plan, as approved by the Planning Commission(minimum 13 feet and 15 feet). p. Garage design and storage for dwelling units within Planning Area 3 shall be revised to comply with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. q. Plan 4 of Planning Area 4 shall be revised to comply with minimum front yard setback requirements. r. Garage design and storage for dwelling units within Planning Area 4 shall be revised to comply with the Planning Commission approved Meadowlark Specific Plan. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the second page. of all working drawing sets used for.issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). b. Points of interest(architectural, landscaping, recreational and sculptural), seating areas and functional pavilions shall be incorporated within the overall pedestrian promenade/ Spine Road design theme. A detailed plan specifying the proposed design elements shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Design.Review Board. c. Decorative street furniture and light fixtures shall be incorporated within the Meadowlark Specific Plan area(PA 1-PA 4). Street furniture and light fixture specifications and locations shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval by the Design Review Board. b. Names of streets shall be submitted to and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department in accordance with City Specification No. 409.(FD) c. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Planning Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. d. The Planning Department shall review and approve the following: 1) Enhanced architectural treatment for building facades visible from public right-of- way, open space areas and parks sites. 2) Revised site plan and elevations as modified pursuant to Condition No. 1. e. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD). `�) (98CLI203-15) f. Residential type structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards set forth for units that lie within the 60 CNEL contours of the property. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report and plans;prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering,with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) g. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations,retaining walls, streets,utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) h. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the-issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) i. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits,blockwall/fencing plans shall be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development. Double walls shall be prohibited. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal. of any existing walls next to the new walls, and shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor,plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning Department. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments_of Public Works and Planning. The Landscape Construction Set shall include-a landscape plan prepared and.signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. `o. (98CL1203-16) �\ c. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (Code Requirement) d. The Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council,recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Planning Department. (Code Requirement) e. The property owner shall sign, notarize, and record with the County Recorder a covenant assuring that the single family residences will be maintained as one (1) dwelling unit. f. The developer shall submit a separate utility plan showing water system improvements, including service connections to each building,fire hydrant,valves,backflow devices and other appurtenances in accordance with applicable U.P.C., City Ordinances, Public Works.Standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by the Public Works Water Division and the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to any construction. (PW) g. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. h. Submit a letter of map revision from FEMA declaring the lot(s) exempt from floodplain requirements or submit a copy of completed FEMA Elevation Certificates)for each unit to the Planning Department. 5. During construction,the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfiir fuel(.05%)by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 6. Prior to.final building permit inspection and approval of the first residential unit,the following shall be:completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Department of Community Development. 7� b� (98CL1203-17) b. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein including. 1) Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD) 2) Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification�No. 428. The size of the numbers will be sized a minimum of six(6) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half(1-1/2) inches. (FD) 3) On-site fire hydrants shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department. (FD) c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. d. 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. e. The project will comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification Nos. 422 and 431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. (FD) f. The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) g. If the lots are not considered exempt by FEMA, a second elevation certificate shall be submitted to the Planning Division for each unit"as built." 7. The use shall comply with the following: a. Security gates shall be designed to comply with City specification#403. (FD) b. Fire access roads shall be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and City Specification#401. (FD) 8. The project shall comply with Negative Declaration No.. 97-21 mitigation measures . unless superseded by more restrictive conditions of approval. 9. The,Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (98CL1203-18) I\� 10. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 is contingent upon approval of Zoning Text Amendment No. 97-4 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1 by the City Council,.and shall become effective 30 days after the adoption of the Ordinance adopting the Meadowlark .Specific Plan amendments and following the ten day project appeal period. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REOUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval 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. 2. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use.Permit No. 97-80, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions, Meadowlark Specific Plan, or applicable sections of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code,Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, or Municipal Code occurs. 3. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. (PV ) 4. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PV ) 5. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PV ) 6. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Building Department prior to occupy of building on the project site. - 7. Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to approval of the Final Map by the City. 8. State-mandated school impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 9. 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. 10. Development shall meet all local and State regulations regarding installation and operation of all underground storage tanks. (FD) 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7� (98CLI203-19) I' NO - Aef:erA 'TO 4A FOP. ZOtAlkk jVVr ArMENO eNT No . 911 .,H � 70NI N O Moe? A04em0MeRT NCO. at 1 - I) b� i _ '� K $lb '0 I. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT DEVELOPMENT COMPLIANCE MATRIX 12/3/98 The following matrix identifies and compares the differences between the proposed Meadowlark TTM/CUP plan and the standards of the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan as approved by the Planning Commission. (* denotes potential straw vote item) S ecific Plan Re'"uirementk 'I E ' ;k "Pro osed'TTM%CUP5PCAction a e�C Recommendation . ,, �' Catellus'Pro osal/Res onse ; g 1'2'/3/98 /' r ) ( a•,• , p, z p;,s. ) ^ p +( wry,,�,"d'a.•.;�. r Planning..Area 4: 33' 1* a. Parking requirements 0-4 bedrooms(2open/2enclosed) CRG will revise one floor plan(Plan 2)to eliminate characterization of living 5+bedrooms(3 open/3 enclosed) room as potential 5t'bedroom. Redesign of second floor plan(Plan 3) is being studied, but CRG requests of the Planning Commission to make determination that Sec. 5.1, pg. 41 & HBZSO 231.04 the retreat is not a bedroom for purposes of parking based on the following condition: "No exterior stairways accessing either a dwelling, or balcony/deck shall be permitted. Master retreats adjacent to master bedroom with a wall opening of 6' Conditions minimum or accessed through master bath shall not be counted as a separate Addendum bedroom" 1 Cond. #1.k 2 b. Building height 30 ft(max) >30 ft CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP and HBZSO Conditions Sec. 4.5,pg. 21 & HBZSO 230.70 Addendum 1 Cond. #1.l 9 6 C Recommendation ,m � Catellus Pro osaVRes onse ,: d R� � ,y ,s• ••,�,' Pyr s , a.g 9g„�r � §+ .d •t E� �f•° �L'��d .''Gkr. :., a .»•m ..Y ..4 `Y.. A'Xt, rr.b :;t•,;e r;, x'�Y ,u.�." Planning:Area 2 3* a. Front yard setbacks 15ft(dwelling) & 12ft(patios/entry) Average 13.9 ft w/ 10 ft(min) or Average 12 ft w/ 10 ft(min) subject CRG disagrees with staff s opinion(PA-2 does not promote a creative/innovative to CUP and innovative development planning concept and design is in conflict with MSP provisions re: minimizing concepts with improved street scene paving in front yards and locating garages to not dominate street scene). CRG requests consideration of front yard averaging based on provision of parkways and Conditions building elevation design. CRG will pursue issue with CC, if PA—2 concept is Addendum. not found to be creative/innovative by PC. 1 Cond. Sec. 4.5, pg. 26 & 27 #I.m 4 b. Exterior side yard setbacks Conditions 20% lot frontage (10 ft—Lot 39) 8 ft Addendum 1 Sec. 4.5,pg. 27 CRG agrees to comply by re-plotting the home on Lot 39. Cond. #Ln S c. Parking requirements 20'(w) X20'(d)—int. garage 19'(w)X21 V(d) dimensions CRG agrees to modify plans to comply with MSP Sec. 4.4,pg. 19 ------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sub-standard compact and tandem CRG plan submittal includes sub-standard compact(10'X16' and 14'X16') and parking-not permitted. tandem as excess parking Conditions Addendum HBZSO 231.14 CRG agrees to designate additional garage areas as alternate use 1 Cond. #1.o S ecific Plan Re `ifl ee' ent s '` `°' Pro osed'TTIVUC'UP �' a PC,AcNon .. ,: , • , , .j 12/319,8 / ,ndationomme . and #Recr 5111, o '. Planning Area 3 6* a. Rear yard setbacks Second story projections vary from 12"to 24". CRG will revise plans to eliminate 15ft(50% min)w/up to 50% at 13 ft projections if requested, but suggests that elimination of projections will diminish elevational variation and impair living space. CRG requests condition of approval by Planning Commission as follows: Conditions Sec.4.5,pg. 31 "Second story projections no greater than 24" will be allowed to enhance Addendum architectural interest and elevational variation"---Conformance of Specific Plan I language would be required at City Council. Cond. #Lp 7* b. Garage Use/Design PA 3 subdivision and homes are infeasible with minimum garage parameters in 20'X20'int. garage dim. (75%du) Specific Plan. CRG seeks condition of approval consistent with the Planning 18'X19' clear auto storage/360sq. Commission's (7-0) straw vote of 7/14/98 as follows: ft. w/add. storage =400 sq. ft. (25% "In Planning Area 3 minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18'X19' so as du) _ to accommodate design/storage as portrayed on schematic plans presented to the Conditions Planning Commission on 12/3/98.--- Conformance of Specific Plan language to Addendum eliminate reference to 25% cap would be required. I Sec. 4.4,pg.19 Cond. #I.q 8* c. On-street parking Infill development is required to be CRG is unaware of PC recommendation regarding relocation of on-street parking harmonious and compatible with in PA-3. CRG contends proposed plan is most efficient and compatible design surrounding neighborhood. PC and subject recommendation will create HOA enforcement problem. CRG previous recommended placing on- requests straw vote action by PC to clarify issue. CUP street parking away from easterly conditions property line of PA-3. Att.12 pg.11 a HBZSO 230.22 Cond#Lf 's \1 I S eci mSfcPnR Po osed'TTM/CUP: ,;PC Action,;. PC Reeomm`endation Catellu""s Pro osal/Res 41/3/98" (., ) .. w ( .,�P P ( ) " „ . Planning`Area 4 9* a. Front yard setbacks CRG will revise plans to eliminate projections if requested, but suggests that 15 ft (min) elimination of projections will diminish elevational variation and impair living space. CRG requests condition of approval by Planning Commission as follows: "Second story projections no greater than 24" will be allowed to enhance Conditions architectural interest and elevational variation" ---Conformance of Specific Plan Addendum Sec.4.5,pg. 34 language would be required at City Council. I Cond. #I.r 10 b. Side yard setbacks Architectural plans comply with MSP, TTM inconsistent with architectural plans, Conditions 4 ft (min) do not comply with MSP. Addendum 2 Sec.4.5,pg. 35 CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP. Cond.#14.ff I1* c. Garage Use/Design PA 4 subdivision and homes are infeasible with minimum garage parameters in 20'X20'int. garage dim. (75%du) Specific.Plan. CRG seeks condition of approval consistent with the Planning 18'X19' clear auto storage/360sq. Commission's (7-0) straw vote of 7/14/98 as follows: ft. w/add. storage =400 sq. ft. (25% "In Planning Area 4 minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18'X19' so as Conditions du) to accommodate design/storage as portrayed on schematic plans presented to the Addendum Planning Commission on 12/3/98.--- Conformance of Specific Plan language to 1 Sec. 4.4,pg. 19 eliminate reference to 25%cap would be required. Cond#1.s 12 d. TTM design Q SW corner of PA-4 MSP advocates high quality site Open space Lot"N" lacks adequate connection/access; design lends itself o Att.12 planning; promotes project design potential undesirable activities. pg.3 which helps to create safe and Cond#4 pleasant living environment. CRG will revise plan to comply with staff recommendation and MSP. Pg.I I Cond.1.g Sec. 3.0,pg. 4 S ecifiPlan'xRe uirement`' ,R P.ro"osed TTM/CUP , Action `CPC`RecommendatiMA on ° Catellus Pro `osal/Res 'onse "' 12/3/98 n Other project=wide Issues 13 Public Park 2.4 ac Public Park dedication (min) 2.32 ac Public Park dedication. CUP CRG states CAD based calculation for proposed park site is 2.38 acres. CRG will conditions revise plan to comply with exact 2.4 acre parkland dedication requirement of Att.12 Sec. 3.4, pg. 8 MSP. pg.II Cond#1.a 14 Fences/Walls Masonry fences at interior and rear CRG submittal indicates wood fences at interior and rear residential property lines. residential property lines CUP CRG agrees to revise plans to comply with MSP wall/fence requirement. conditions Att.12 Sec.4.S,pg. 24, 29, 33,36 pg.I I Cond#1.h ��y a CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter Office Communication ~ Planning Department TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Ray Silver, City Administrator -.10\0V FROM: Planning Commission Chairperson Tom Livengood and Planning Commissioners DATE: December 10, 1998 SUBJECT: MINUTE ACTION DRAFT MEADOWLARK SPECIFIC PLAN On December 3, 1998,the Planning Commission discussed changes to their previous recommendation on September 22, 1998 relative to the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan (Zoning.Text Amendment No. 97-4/Zoning Map Amendment No. 97-1). They voted by minute action to recommend that the City Council consider three (3)revisions as follows: ♦ Garage Use/Design (Planning Areas 3 and 4) -require a minimum garage area of 400 square feet to be provided for automobile and general household storage in Planning Area 3 and 4. Minimum interior garage dimensions shall be 18 feet wide by 19 feet deep. General household storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the plans presented by CRG to the Planning Commission on,December 3, 1998 (Dote: 4-3). ♦ Rear yard setbacks (Planning Area 3) -permit second story projections, no greater than 24 inches within the rear yard setback(Vote: 4-3). ♦ Front yard setbacks (Planning Area 4) -permit second story projections no greater than 24 inches within the front yard setback(Vote: 5-2). The Planning Commission hopes that you will take these revisions into consideration. when acting upon the draft Meadowlark Specific Plan. xc: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Scott Hess, Senior Planner Amy Wolfe, Associate Planner (KL9907). b' z A a < -NIP' a IVA I\ Wolfe, Amy From: Legg, John Sent: Thursday, December 10, 1998 9:05 PM To: Wolfe, Amy Subject: Meadowlark Developement Dear Ms Wolfe, My name is John Legg and I live at 5102 Sisson Drive. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of my opposition to the proposed development. I was aware that, at some time, the Meadowlark Airport property would be developed ,but thought that the homeowners surrounding the area to be developed would have been notified. I only became aware of the development by reading about the planning commission's meeting in the paper. I then called city hall to leave a message for the commission members, but was unable to do so. My opposition to the development is in regards to the lot sizes. If the average lot size in Huntington Beach is 60x100(6000 sq. ft.), then I feel that any new homes should at least meet this standard. The proposed lot size is smaller, 3800 sq. ft. to 4500 sq. ft.. I think that any new homes should exceed existing standards, rather than fail to meet the average. My suggestion is that the lot sizes should be 75x125(9375 sq.ft.)This is only an increase of 25% in lot size. Another concern is of increasing the number of people per square mile in an already densely populated area. If you or any of the commission members were to drive the surrounding area, you would notice the number of multi-family homes, condos, and apartments. If 300 homes were added to this area, you would increase the number of automobiles by at least 300. In reality that number is probably closer to 600 based upon every home being a 2 car family, like my own. Add to that number the number of people and vehicles that would result from any development on the Bolsa Chica, and you can see the reason for my concern. In an ideal world, 1 acre lots with ranch style homes like the ones in Rancho Palos Verde would be perfect for either the Meadowlark or Bolsa Chica(if that ever happens) Development projects. This would raise the status of Huntington Beach as the premier place to live and raise a family. Smaller lot sizes only take away from and lower our reputation. Finally, if nothing else, there needs to be a way to reach and communicate with all commission members other than at their meetings. I would have liked to at least been able to speak with them or been able to leave a voice mail for them and have them call me back and not feel like I was ignored. Please feel free to call me at home 840.7949 or at work 536.5474 Thank you John Legg ps. please Toward a copy of this letter to all the commission members. t ' 1 a ,,� a s t � M p � r,, �0 .fib ' ATTACHMENT NO. 7 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21 DENIAL: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15469 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 97-21: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 97-21 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. No comments were received during the comment period. 2. Mitigation measures avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. The mitigation measures will be incorporated as part of a project's conditions of approval and will address a number of potential impacts including: affordable housing requirements, land use compatibility, noise impacts and hazardous materials. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-80: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-80 for the establishment of a 313 unit master planned residential community will be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working/ residing in the vicinity. The proposed development does not provide adequate emergency access and on-street parking facilities. 2. The proposed project does not comply with the provisions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The proposed development is inconsistent with setback, parking, storage and parkland dedication provisions of the Meadowlark Specific Plan. 3. The granting of the conditional use permit will adversely affect the General Plan. The development proposal is inconsistent with the following Land Use Element, Circulation Element and Recreation and Community Services goals objectives and policies of the General Plan: �% r� Policy LU 9.1.2 Require that single family residential units be designed to convey a high level of quality and character considering the following guidelines: Minimize the amount and width of the paving of front yards for driveway and garage access. Encourage innovative and creative design concepts. Locate and design garages so that they do not dominate the street frontage. Policy LU 9.3.2 Require that the design of new subdivisions consider the following: Consider an increase in front yard setbacks, sidewalk widths, and the inclusion of landscaped parkways, especially in neighborhoods where the street width is reduced. Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient, well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City. Objective CE 5.1 Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. Policy CE 5.1.1 Maintain an adequate supply of parking that supports the present level of demand and allow for the expected increase in private transportation use. Policy CE 5.1.2 Provide safe and convenient parking that has minimal impacts on the natural environment, the community image, or quality of life. Goal RCS 2 Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Objective RCS 2.1 Create an integrated park system that is complementary to existing and proposed development as well as the natural environment. Goal RCS 3 Develop park sites to provide diverse recreational and sports facilities that meet the residents' and visitors' active and passive recreational needs. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 15469: Tentative Tract Map No. 15469 for the subdivision of 48.4 gross acres and establishment of a 313 unit residential subdivision is not consistent with the �0 applicable draft Meadowlark Specific Plan (dated September 22, 1998) development standards and provisions. The Tentative Tract Map does not comply with parkland dedication requirements and would require substantial modifications to accommodate the proposed housing product type(s) and comply with health and safety related project requirements. v - =. 43' F- - - - - - - - - - - - I I in ••• ••• ••• • •• • 3•-I•MIN. 94'-10• 9'-I' •• •• • • r---- 0.0 Tt .�. I I I/x\ 1 j -~k I N, 1 73 .. I ..... ......... I I .. . ... ....... I ' L,-i�l�ir 1 I ------------ ---- I 1 PLAN 2 I m 0 GARAGE: 413 S.F. I I — DEC. 14., 1998 "/i r' • • • ••• • • •• K 3 i I r s .. ..:,:., ,...,., �„ w. ...:....... ....:.... ....... wv.e,,� ,�,�,,., v+,,m ae:„•'v« a,w�:ef+ra yrr:^,h.^a:�.e�-w :-MW+c`wia.. « ,,;� - �� a: a�aww.�r.w�.:..,,...,.:......__-` 43' I 3'-11 MIN. •• ••• • •• • • • • • • • • :77; I PWDR - - I 73' ------------------ --- I - - _ _--_- .... -_•.__.. I I I � • I PLAN 3 I , GARAGE: 393 S.F. STORAGE: 13 L.F. I n I j I *see •e** . •• . . . •• tppti !q 1 .,,.�. .......,.,..x.. .,,.,:,..,,.,. .. ,. ,.,.,,...:,. .,....,,,,... a..,..,..,..,,x., �--- 'nYwa'.x',.w.�esmaw.a✓rr..rw.e ,..rerrArry+.+w.N.ex�MW � � .�� �_ � � - � W � __ _ y ' � '` U RECEIVED CATELLUS DEC 28 1998 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Novembni 1S,'19y8`- Mr. Sa��ttHsc Seiiror-'Ian-ier City of Huntington'beach Community Development Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ref: Parking Issues Dear Mr. Hess We are providing the following supporting documentation and correspondence of several issues that have been previously raised by the staff and/or planning commissioners. We would appreciate if these documents could be included in the City Council staff report. -" Specifically to the issues of parking, we are also forwarding for your reference an analysis and expanded Parking Plan which also has been prepared by our engineers in response to direction that all possible parking spaces in the masterplan be identified. This analysis identifies 34 additional parking spaces above and beyond those which have previously been discussed and considered. Meadowlark Parking Analysis and Parking Plan Rear Yard Setback Exhibit- PA-3 Park Acreage Compliance Exhibit Keystone Pacific Letter; Regarding Parking Enforcement Woodbridge Village Association Letter; Regarding Parking Enforcement Jackson, DeMarco &Peckenpaugh Letter w/enclosures Sincerely, CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP Bruce D'Eliscu Vice President cc: Ray Silver John Erskine ♦ \110 CATELLUS RESIDENTIAL GROUP 5 PARK PLAZA,SUITE 400, IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92614 (949) 251-6100 FAX (949) 251-8837 MEADOWLARK PARKING ANALYSIS PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-1 (LOTS 52-113) SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROVIDED Enclosed spaces (2/Unit: 0-4 Bedrooms) 124 124 0 124 Enclosed spaces (3/Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Space.- (2 Uri',.t:'0-4&-,diooms) 124 124 0 124 (Gitest:,0i.-Street) 31 51 6 57 . Open Spaces(3 Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 279 299 6 305 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-2 (LOTS 1-51) SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROVIDED Enclosed spaces (2/Unit: 0-4 Bedrooms) 102 102 0 102 Enclosed spaces (3/Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Spaces(2 Unit:0-4 Bedrooms) 102 102 0 102 (Guest: On-Street) 26 35 1 36 Open Spaces(3 Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 230 239 1 240 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-3 (LOTS 201-313) SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROVIDED Enclosed spaces (2/Unit: 0-4 Bedrooms) 226 .226 0 226 Enclosed spaces (3/Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Spaces(2 Unit: 0-4 Bedrooms) 226 226 0 226 (Guest: On-Street) 57 69 24 93 Open Spaces (3 Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 509 521 24 545 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PA-4 (LOTS 114-200) SINGLE FAMILY STANDARD REQUIRED PROVIDED PROPOSED TOTAL ADDITIONAL PROVIDED Enclosed spaces(2/Unit: 0-4 Bedrooms) 174 174 0 174 Enclosed spaces(3/Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 Open Spaces(2 Unit: 0-4 Bedrooms) 174 174 0 174 (Guest: On-Street) 44 50 3 53 Open Spaces(3 Unit: 5 Bedrooms) 0 0 0 0 392 398 3 401 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PRIVATE PARK(LOT 320) REQUIRED PROVIDED Open Space -- 10 PARKING ANALYSIS FOR PARK SITE (LOT 314) REQUIRED PROVIDED Open Space 16 16 b �y I a a -- ---_ nunID�a d�llL 1 �$ '�'�• ]r - I I _I �•I 1 ` m v u w ` �' — III..—[J�-I ���`�• i! I I tN IR 3R ,r '� ®� soa air su �•LL I n n n n n• n "� 4• 27 AC.(.IK ) PA]w1Y ANALYYB rOR PA•�QDiH iN-IIYO) 1 I .iT tl n tl r a �\ �' �r_ 2(�ETBIf10N DA9B-0 _ PA �L.f E[A■QL J� lM"L %001� ` I I I ...•...�.:. _.— F1� (PRIVATE STREET). tl _ r r SEE SHEET I'-i i1=fi; c• pAi IgAN�ree rc]R aA.l n.mb es.,e. ;, I �,. _®.r -- "�=c �\Y,--- ------...---- ----- ,..S'.t r �x2WMYO Lacet>scrxau lgLl® 1�mm !®IIY PAJ MATCNLINC n —- -- - - — —_ -_•.' ' .v.o . . --- - --- ---- - ------ - SEE St ��..�® m „ ,� : ••° v\/) _ _ y•J mr ms ]w nl m ]u SNAICHLiNE ..I. �I I� 1 ✓ "L]m e 1 .,e - E� ... • p n tl ]R / r -- IBUM 0!= ul Im i �'a; •STREE -.. a ._. —N„ �PrrT,,�.. 4R 1'G nCc Im i Gi rl r` •" I 'v.,.�.I r" 11 �'x ; ; ;m ; T I ai tr EASTNO INME"IE IA�� ' bl� m 1s1 DS]r ai]1mi— I I SIAEET) F - 1 1 t g e PEAE.E cm!x�.. STREET • c : rrro,.iZ ' I b In •a In - a •=Im m m ,a 0ARK 7 AAG 1 I 11. Ir Ir 11 III Itl Itl IM Itl m W 1 � L - ] fY a E" - v. - I r ,• s n - °' r ar rR fu � rR m I I _ c Its sC�57REET 98�— .. _. - 1-•° 1 I l Ji pp I I ; •1v 6 C j lr,J ]m Im _ u'� ,b a _ I m 'rc m m c, y`I I _ - c, •.r'� - x-I • . rl. • r . N rc Itl rc IY �,l' -I\l�`- I . I- - I _ h rti In c .:;'a _ - ,rmrrt I• ' IMEAD w)CIRCLE �i, 'O1•, STRriT — .—.._—. ... ..:.. ... , STREET -'Y � //.. - >�. -- �— — y l - I CIE U I I R)e ..LOI'Y mm �-46 m la Ys.r n wti r D ...... .. .... ..—. _ .._,__ .._..... I_.._...._._ xyYxrl•It IIUYY1r,ffY[ S _ ro. - 1 ')i ° OVERLAND�DRIVE EMTNG MITI-FAMLY(R4) I , - )I 'MEADOWLARK RALPIIS LONGS 1j r PLANNING AREAS 1-4 MARKET DRUG 1� Ll TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 PARKING PLAN OWNER APPLICANT h DEVELOPER re. oori P.ri a s CATELLUS -� -�- CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 2 OF 2 NaleOx•uamgo-rw-•Is II-t. 2 3 - t PRIVATE STREET] _ L'1� - :H F n0 [l I,•� D Nl �e elrer r.noa - •'� 1 �� _ _ s_:�_�•wl 1 ' P (NO ANALY919 FOR PA-2(LOTS 1-6U RUN® mmmm eoomxlw FI In Dimanwl:s ro.one> a me o �', .�. — ,,,, r • r' -—..++ I pARKNO ANALY7 FOR PA-1 ROTS 52-M STREET) _ .�-, I G• >-J I, - I _ 1 Iwrr:s.m+o�l in xuo w M - ( � PARKNO ANALY39 EM PARK 9TTE ROT 314) ® ..,.r,avA..Ww..+..a Iw s,rAn STREET rfl�ir��.. —- - li � t I' ,;1.='4•P '•._"..-� a 9,1._ — Y,. '.rr � � _.T � ,rA I .. ST . 11 b r r fl r D r SS m � �•� ..' s1R[E7 y -- - v - w, I ¢ I� � RAi �i � 5{ . AC SU/ `CIRCLE ;y .. ........... ..�'... -' r- - r 1 . PARK a �, C AOS •' ;.C�- ;,f-��:1 / l I ' ' 24 AC(WO (. IE � ETE(DMION HASH) : 1 I t D 01 {/ rrU'CI - - .. Qn•� I .� r _ it ly1 ' T I.Ir,., I. ... �i•';r I I I / 1 YATCHUNEI I SEE SHEET"2 yr � v—'— 1W09 YAT HLINE I I � -` S l VK1fi_TY MAP — ,II,pp•' � LrrLL �� S n -��ly.�� �. i.no `i--u SEE SHEET 2 `0IIGELDING � L C CIRCLE;� EMY DUA OO SMEFALY STREET M � I 1' { �O MEADOWLARK MTV'MTAOO PLANNING AREAS 1-4 SME Fawav(RO TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15469 _ o A 'OMIIE APPLICANT 3 DEVELOPER ro i e o N8ax>•i�o PARKING /.i R K I N G PLAN HIM�mo �A��, -�- MSS �-�_ �•.� CATELLUS Y— °-� -- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA SHEET 1 OF 2 v`w � - i � � � � i ! � } l ( � ( � � � ( r � � � 1 � � , f .� `'_. ty. `_ :SV I ��_ I �O 0 i Z 0 m EXISTING 19 RESIDENCE 1 13.5' 1 10' 13' MIN I (MIN. PER THE 15, H.B.Z.S.O.) j PLAN 1 CD i I Q Q I EXISTING 1 RESIDENCE 1 14' 1 10, (13' MIN.) I(MIN. PER THE 15' i H.B.Z.S.O.) PLAN 2 PUNNING AREA 3 MEADOWLARK REAR YARD SMACK EXHIBIT CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH , STREET 'H' 1 ' , AREA A 49 8F AREA 'C' W 8F f LOT 314 PAW arm / (DETENTION BASIN) 80 ! '/ PROPOSED PARK A583 SF. (233 AQ) AREA 'A': 485 SF. AEEA V: 670 SF. 8 t AREA V: IN SF. TOTAL: V4548 SF. (240 AW 4LAREA 'B' 6M 8F 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 .01 Rw 2 3RR. f a. n8 1 RB ti ti Fr- or. wile MEADOWLARK SCALE: 1"=fi0' z PARK WIN CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH � - e 9� 9 . . . � _ � Keystone: Pacific Property Management, Inc. )-�re6her 2, 1993 ' `lic4Presiden� �steiLs ResirezEial Group 5 Pa:k Plaza, Suite 400 Irvine, CA 92714 Re: Nleadlowlark proposed parking Dear Bruce: Thank you for providing me with the tentative parking and improvement plans for the Meadowlark residential community. As you had requested,I reviewed them with th,:intent of providing feedback on the proposed parking restricticns. It is my understanding that parking within this community will be limited to one side of the street as the streets within the community will be approximately 32 feet in width. As a professional manager:ent company,Keystone Pacific manages more than 130 homeowners associations. A majority of those associations are in Orange County,it eluding a number in Huntington - - Beach. It might be helpful to know that many of those associations do have parking limited to one side of the street, and in many caws,no on street parking at all. Enforcement if these restrictions can be done most easily when the restrictions are clearly and consistently spelled oc.t,and are enforced in an even- handed manner. Parking enforcement on private streets can be readily accomplished by a homeowners association and need not b!come an obligation of the police departmen:. By way of reference,the Cali°ornia Vehicle Code does allow homeowners association to tow from all properly posted frelanes. This would be done by a towing or patrol service,hired by the associat:.on to enforce the approved firelanes within a private community. You might be interested to know that i lip a in a homeowners association that has a combination of no on street parking,and parking on one side only. We have enforced the parking restrctions through the governing documents and through the use of a;)atrol service,without the police or fire authority being required to do so. An imporant function of any homeowners association is the establishment and enforcement of the rules. The ales are adopted to govern and benefit those owners who have vo:untarily chosen to live in a planned community. A primary and preferred location for these rules would be in the CC&R's(Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions)that each owner agrees to abide by. As you are aware,each owner must sign a disclosure stating that they have read and agree to.the restrictions established in the governing documents for the community. In order for the parking restrictions to be most easily enforced,the following are suggestions for your consideration: • Clear, concise,and comprehensive language in the CC&R's defining the parking restrictions to street parking • Restrictions contained within the CC&R's which either restrict the total number of vehicles that an owner may have or spells out where any vehicles within their control must park • Language in the CC&R's prohibiting the conversion of garage space for uses other than for parking • Language in the CC&R's prohibiting the parking of boats,trailers; RV's etc. on the street,and to prohibit parking of pr.3hibited vehicles on a private driveway or w.thin a garage • A separate disclosure that each owner must sign acknowledging t;te parking restrictions � CORPORATE . n� U C ORATE OFFICE:4100 Ni wport Place,Ste.350•Newport Beach,CA 92660) (949)833-2600 FAX (949)833-0919 c CARLSBAD OFFICE-703 Palomar Airport Rd.,Ste.295•Carlsbad,CA 92009- (760)603-8600 (600)704-9029 FAX(760)603-8700 M.r . Cw Meadowlark proposed parking December 2, 1993 Pagel-T�vo • The appropriate placement of signage,red curb or other devices as specified by the fire authorityto establish firelanes, no ?arkine,and parking areas. These devices should be in place prior to the closing of the first escrow in the development and installed in each subsequent phase prior to each new phase closing • Cooperation and planning by the developer in conjunction with cit'r staff and fire agency in designing a parking plan which meets the needs of the community. The parking plan would fit in with the overall aesthetics and curb appeal of the community through the location cf parking adjacent to walkways and in designing landscaping compatible with vehicle entry and exit points. • Reinforcement of the education process through the association newsletters,special mailing,and homeowner welcome packets as distributed through the management company • Consistent and repetitive strict enforcement of the firelanes via a petrol or towing service instituted to begin enforcement upon the first escrow closing in the development • Inclusion in the homeowner association budget, the cost to administrate a patrol service • i'mplementation of fines or special assessments levied to perpetual violators consistent with an adopted violation and fining procedure,adopted by the board ofdirectors and disseminated to the membership Wlien these items are taken into consideration,it has been my eaperien:e that firelanes can be kept open for fire,police and health providers with no additional involvement or patr)lling by these agencies. We always welcome the input of these agencies in looking for ways to provide and maintain access to any community that we manage. In summary, I believe that the Meadowlark residential community parking plan could be implemented and enforced will:minimal enforcement involvement by the City of Huntin;;ton Beach or its police or fire departments. Asa professional management firm,we would be pleased to work with you and Huntington Beach in designing and implementing the proper documents and enforcement mechanisms needed for this community. I will be in attendance at the Planning Commission hearing;on December 3, 1998. In the event that you would like me to be available to provide any additional information in regards to this issue, i would be pleased to do so. I trust that this information will provide the requested information you were seeking on parking guidelines for tiis community. Should you have any additional questions or need additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me at your convenience. I can be reached at Ext.218. Sincerely, Keystone Pacific Property Mgt. Kerry Leavitt Director of Training and Development 0 CORPORATE OFFICE:4100 Newport Place,Ste. 350•Newport Beach,CA 92n60• (714)833-26CO FAX(71 3.0 1I )� O CARLSBAD OFFICE: 703 Palomar Airoort Rd.,Ste.225 •Carlsbad,CA 92009 •1619,'603-8600 (8C0)704.9029 IV 1 700 ( ( _ i ! � i r � i �� w• '� �r g Woodbridge Village Association ...Achievement 1997 Dece'-nh&•2, 1998 American:ns.._.. orArchi eCt Crane C,ur.-: Aware;tEscei'zr.__ Nei_hit nccod Katzs Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu Catellus Residential Group 1956 5 Park Plaza, Suite 400 Community• Irvine, CA 92614 Assec:acioninstirse Honcrahle Ntendon Association of cre Year Dear Mr. D'Eliscu: LecllchaFter Neaslecrzr Of The Year I appreciate your considering me for a consulting role in conjunction with your proposed Meadowlark project. Though my employment agreement with the 191 Woodbridge Village Association does not allow me to accept outside compensation, I I Urban Land:nstinrz can provide you with my personal opinion and observations without charge. These Nade a! . Large•Sa;e Resic'en^ai perspectives are offered on the basis of more than 33 years in association management Ceve!oFmenc including my current position as Executive Director of the Woodbridge Village A ar-dEXceller:c Association for 23 years. I have performed a cursory review of your Meadowlark project layout and site plan = le� from the standpoint of your concerns with parking on the streets. I have several :n r.ine3zt l:.7rrr:.a+i�ts thoughts on the issue you raised regarding the enforcement of Homeowners Association CC&R's and specifically restrictive parking. I am providing you with the State of California Vehicle code, Chapter IV, No. 22658.2, Removal of Vehicles from Common Interest Development. This section of the Code covers enforcement of 19W Pprivate streets and specifically the Homeowners Association ability to remove Ccrrmuniry P Y ty. Assodarionlnsrture vehicles parked in fire lanes and unauthorized parking areas. AssociarionOf The Year The Woodbridge Village Association has a wide variety of both private and public streets throughout our community.and we have numerous restricted parking areas. 1990. :eaCU[21 The association has been very diligent and successful in our policing of those areas. Ga:c A c+ram Among the methods we have employed to control parking violators are towing, and ``aga:�ne' \!aV Issl:e ticketing by outside security patrols. Those homeowners who fail to abide by the parking rules and regulations.are fined and assessments can be assessed to the members monthly dues statement. Where dues and fines become delinquent, the association 1989 has the ability to lien the property, which serves as a significant factor in.motivating 30urhern caI[fernEa compliance, although this is seldom needed. Once the membership is aware that the Water committee P g P Orange counr; Warer Axareress A}ar4 31 Creek Road Irvine, California 92604-4799 Main Office (714) 786-1800 FAX (714) 786-1212 Page 2 Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu December 2, 1998 r , Ass(,c.iat;Gn (naintaiLs;a strict parking policy which is closely monitored, and illegally parked cars are towed,' parking concerns are almost non-existent. I hope this info mation is helpful to you and the success of your Meadowlark project. Sincerely Robe igeira, CCAM, PCAM E cutive Director/Secretary Woodbridge Village Association I\ r � .. a � r � r r r ` ' � � r t � r � r ( i � ; �� r � 1 b ' ,� .JACKSON, DEMARCO & PECKENPAUGH A LAW CORPORATION LANCE A.ADAIR SHER,L MARVIN 4 PARK PLAZA - 161- FLOOR VENTURA COUNTY OFFICE MARC D.ALCIANDCR- STEPq�N G.P ASON . DIANE P.C"R '- ` RUT;. R,MI,�JS;.OVIC C - POST OFFICE BOX 19704 280 N.WESTLAKE BLVD. BRIAN W.CA93ER1Y LAV,D A.OSSZNTJLK JONN C.CONGAS TNo." °. PEc.ceNPAudi; r rIRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92623-9704 SUITE 200 JAMES R.OCMARCO JONN PCTRi.SICN WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CALIFORNIA 91362 sr[VEN J.DiIOA CARLA K.RYNAL ' ' (9491 752-8505 1805)230-0023 ROOCR M,FRANKS ANDREW C.SCNUT2 FAX:(805)230-0087 NCLENC Z.FRANSZ DAVID C.SMITH FAX: (949) 752-0597 EDWARD A.GALLOWAY JAY R.STEINMAN - ROOCR A.GRAD MI-,-A mL"'noUS r i RCK A.MCKITTR,CK W ILLIAM M.MCN 9LCY r WI--LIAM J,TU-401', c December 2, 1998 PETIR°° F,SCOTT JACKSON ' PA—C.V-N NOOMISS_N r ANDREW V.LEITCN KR,Sf6N L..WALKER WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER: M.4LIM MALIK MII,:NAEL,.VYIPPLCR (949) 851-7427 INTERNET: fsj037@jdplaw.com OUR FILE NUMBER: 00027 Mr. Bruce D'Eliscu Catellus Residential Group, Inc. 5 Park Plaza, 4th Floor Via Messenger Irvine, California 92614 Re: Meadowlark Parking Restrictions Dear Bruce: Pursuant to your request, we have prepared and are enclosing proposed parking restrictions for the Declaration of CC&R's, as well as parking rules and regulations for your Meadowlark planned development in Huntington Beach, California. The enclosed restrictions and regulations are a bit more stringent than we typically draft for communities in Southern California. However, we drafted similar restrictions and regulations for a development in San Diego County, and such restrictions and regulations are consistently enforced by the associations to ensure compliance with their provisions. We have also,provided a right, without obligation, for the City to enforce the restrictions and to be reimbursed for its expenses in so doing, We have created Declarations of CC&R's for more than 1,000 community associations in the State of California during the past 27 years. In our opinion, the enclosed restrictions and regulations are fair, reasonable and enforceable by law. Please give me a call if you have any questions or comments regarding the enclosures or the foregoing. Sincerely, F. Scott Jackson FSJ/plw ^ closure 0304884.01 V / , Proposed Parking Restriction for CC&R's _ `Parking and Vehicular Restrictions. (a) Designation of Parking Areas. The parking areas in the Project are di ,ided"intc`three categories: (i) parking areas in the garage portion of the Dwelling Unity ("Garages"), (ii)parking areas located in the driveways adjacent to'the Dwelling•Units depicted on Exhibit"A" attached hereto ("Driveway Parking Spaces"), and (iii)parking areas on the Common Area("Common Parking Areas"). (b) Categories of Vehicles. (1) Authorized Vehicles. The following vehicles are Authorized Vehicles: standard passenger vehicles, including without limitation automobiles, passenger vans designed to accommodate ten(10) or fewer people, motorcycles and pickup trucks having a manufacturer's rating or payload capacity of one (1)ton or less. Authorized Vehicles may be parked in any portion of the Property intended for parking of motorized vehicles, subject to the restrictions in this Declaration. (2) Prohibited Vehicles. The following vehicles are Prohibited Vehicles: (i) recreational vehicles(e.g., motorhomes, travel trailers, camper vans, boats, etc.), (ii) commercial-type vehicles (e.g., stakebed trucks, tank trucks, dump trucks, step vans, concrete trucks, etc.), (iii) vehicles with commercial signage that cannot be removed (iv) buses or vans designed to accommodate more than ten (10) people, (v) vehicles having more than two (2) axles, (vi)trailers, inoperable vehicles or parts of vehicles, (vii) aircraft, other similar vehicles or any vehicle or vehicular equipment deemed a nuisance by the Board. As a general rule, Prohibited Vehicles may not be parked, stored or kept on any public or private street within, adjacent to or visible from the Property or any other Common Property parking area except for brief periods for loading, unloading, making deliveries or emergency repairs. Prohibited Vehicles may only be parked in Garages if(a) they do not cause Authorized Vehicles to be parked in areas outside of Garages, and (b) if they are authorized by the Board. (c) General Restrictions. (1) Garages. Owners must park their vehicles in their Garages, except as provided in sections (c)(2) and (c)(3) below. Owners may use portions of their Garages for storage, subject to regulation by the Board, so long as the storage does not interfere with use of any of the parking spaces in the Garage. J\ -1- C:WCS\FS1037\00027\00 R,s\\ .01 l2/2/98 (2) Driveway Parking✓Spaces. The Driveway Parking Spaces may-only be used in connection with the Dwelling Unit to which they are assigned: -Some:driveway Parking Spaces are designated for guest use only. These Driveway Parking Spaces may only be used by guests of the Owners of the designated Dwelling Units. Driveway Parking Spaces that are not restricted to zt est use o_ily;may be used by the Owner of the designated Dwelling Unit or the ' .ObVMer:`s.guest,. ; (3) Common Parking Areas. Common Parking Areas may only be used in accordance with rules and regulations adopted by the Board. Common Parking Areas are intended to be reserved primarily for use by guests of residents in the Project. Owners are generally prohibited from parking in the Common Parking Areas. The Board has the power to make exceptions to this restriction allowing Owners to park their vehicles in the Common Parking Areas for limited periods of time in specific situations such as when an Owner is moving into or out of the Project. Such exceptions may only be made in a modification of the parking Rules and Regulations. (d) Parking Regulations. The initial parking regulations for the Common Parking Areas are attached hereto as Exhibit`B." The Board may modify the regulations for the Common Parking Areas so long as the regulations do not conflict with this Declaration, with the prior written approval of the City of Huntington Beach (the "City"). The Board shall enforce all parking and vehicle use regulations applicable to the Properties, including removing violating vehicles from the Properties pursuant to California Vehicle Code Section 22658.2 or other applicable ordinances or statutes. If the Board fails to enforce any of the parking or vehicle use regulations, the City may enforce such regulations in accordance with applicable laws and ordinances. Proposed Enforcement Provision of CC&R's: (a) General Provisions. (1) Enforcement of Restrictions. All disputes arising under the Restrictions, other than those described in Section 15.11 or regulated by Civil Code Section 1375, shall be resolved as follows: i. Violations Identified by the Association. If the Board determines that there is a violation of the Restrictions, or the Architectural Committee determines that an Improvement which is the maintenance responsibility of an Owner needs installation, maintenance, repair, restoration or painting, then the Board shall give written notice to the responsible Owner identifying (i) the condition or violation complained of, and (ii)the length of time the Owner has to remedy the violation including, if applicable, the length of time 1'y -2- ,`� C:\DOCS\FSJ037\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2/98 the Owner has to submit plans to the Architectural Committee and the length of time the Owner,has+o complete the work proposed in the plans submitted to the Archicectura, Committee. If an Owner does not perform such corrective action as is required by the 136 Lid,-id the:Architectural Committee within the allotted time,the Board, after No ice,and Hearing, may remedy such condition or violation complained of, and the'cost thereof shall be charged to the Owner as a Special Assessment. If the violation involves nonpayment of any type of Assessment, then the Board may collect such delinquent Assessment pursuant to the procedures set forth in Article V. ii. Violations Identified by an Owner. If an Owner alleges that another Owner, his family, guests or tenants, is violating the Restrictions (other than nonpayment of any type of Assessment),the complaining Owner must first submit the matter to the Board for Notice and Hearing before the complaining Owner may resort to alternative dispute resolution, as required by Section 1354 of the California Civil Code, or litigation for relief. iii. Alternative Dispute Resolution. If a dispute exists between or among any Owner, and another Owner, or the Association, and any Owner, including any claim based on contract, tort, or statute, arising out of or relating to the rights or duties of the parties under the Restrictions (excluding disputes relating to the payment of any type of Assessments), if the disputing parties agree and subject to Section 1354 of the California Civil Code, the matter will be submitted to alternative dispute resolution. iv. Legal Proceedings. Failure to comply with any of the terms of the Restrictions by an Owner, his family, guests, employees, invitees or tenants, is grounds for relief which may include, without limitation, an action to recover sums due for damages, injunctive relief, foreclosure of any lien, or any combination thereof; provided, however,that the procedures established in Section 1354 of the California Civil Code must first be followed, if they are applicable. V. Additional Remedies. The Board shall adopt a schedule of reasonable fines or penalties which, in its reasonable discretion, it may assess against an Owner for the failure of such Owner, or of a resident of or visitor to such Owner's Dwelling Unit,to comply with the Restrictions. Such fines or penalties may only be assessed after Notice and Hearing. After notice and hearing, the Board may direct the officers of the Association to record a notice of noncompliance against a Lot owned by any Member of the Association who has violated any provision of this Declaration. The notice shall include a legal i C:\DOCS\FSJ037\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 description of the Lot and shall specify the provision of the Declaration that was violated, the violation committed, and the steps required to remedy the rioncom.plixiic Once the noncompliance is remedied or the noncomplying < < Ov:ncr'has taken such other steps as reasonably required by the Board, the Board shall direct the officers of the Association to record a notice that the no-ncon�pliaiice has been remedied. vi. No Waiver. Failure to enforce any provision hereof does not waive the right to enforce that provision, or any other provision hereof. vii. Right to Enforce. The Board and any Owner may enforce the Restrictions as described in this Article, subject to Section 1354 of the California Civil Code. Each Owner has a right of action against the Association for the Association's failure to comply with the Restrictions. Each remedy provided for in this Declaration is cumulative and not exclusive or exhaustive. viii. Attorneys' Fees. Any judgment rendered in any action or proceeding pursuant to this Declaration shall include a sum for attorneys' fees in such amount as the court or arbitrator, as applicable,may deem reasonable, in favor of the prevailing party, as well as the amount of any delinquent payment, interest thereon, costs of collection and costs of court or alternative dispute resolution, as applicable. (2) City Enforcement. The City is a third-party beneficiary of these provisions, and the City is entitled to enforce them in accordance the enforcement provisions of this Declaration and applicable laws. These remedies are cumulative, not exhaustive. Neither this Section nor the Section of this Declaration entitled"Parking and Vehicular Restrictions" may be amended without the written consent of the City. The City shall be entitled to enforce these restrictions by fine, towing or legal or equitable action, at the City's discretion, in any manner authorized by law. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to attorneys' fees and costs. AV -4 C:\DOCS\FSJ037\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2/98 EXHIBIT"A" f f f ! f f hEPICTION OF DRIVEWAY PARKING SPACES %f t l 1 ! r r 1 -5- C:\ROCS\FSJ037\00027\ 0\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2198 EXHIBIT`B" ; 1�ITIAL COMMON PARKING AREA REGULATIONS ( c rrr rr r rr rr ' r f r f . 1(p -6- �� C:\DOCS\FSJ037\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2/98 PARKING RULES & REGULATIONS "THREE DAY RULE" No vehicle shaall be parked in the Common Property for more than three(3)days during any thirty" 0) day period.ar,less that vehicle has a valid, properly displayed temporary parking permit issue'd'by the Association. TEMPORARY PARKING PERMITS A temporary parking permit may be issued by the Board of Directors or its designee to accommodate residents' needs while they move into or out of the Properties, occasional guests (where the vehicle cannot be parked in the garage of the Dwelling Unit which the guest is visiting) whose stay is expected to exceed three(3)days,vehicles belonging to contractors for residents while the contractors perform services at the Properties, and other temporary conditions. The permit must be displayed on the rear view mirror or dashboard of the vehicle for which the permit has been issued with its information clearly visible to casual inspection. The term of each temporary parking permit shall not exceed seven(7) days. Permits may be renewed by the Board. The term of the temporary parking permit shall run concurrently with any days of parking allowed by the"Three Day Rule"that are remaining when the permit is issued. Temporary parking permits do not guarantee that parking spaces are reserved or available for permittees. COMMON AREA PARKING ONLY IN DELINEATED SPACES No person shall park any vehicle in any portion of the Common Area controlled by the Association except in a single parking space delineated for such use by the Association. ANY VEHICLE IN VIOLATION OF THIS RULE SHALL BE TOWED AWAY AT THE VEHICLE OWNER'S EXPENSE WITHOUT NOTICE. NO PARKING LONGER THAN 72 HOURS No person shall park any vehicle in a single Common Area parking space for longer than seventy-two (72) consecutive hours unless written permission to do so has been granted by the Board of Directors or its designee. DEBRIS AND FLUIDS No person shall allow any material, except clean water, to fall, leak, seep, spill, or otherwise be deposited from any vehicle parked on or traversing over any portion of the Common Area controlled by the Association. 1� -7- /\ V• C:\DDCS\FSJ037\00027\000\C S\0304936.01 l2/2/98 AUTHORIZED VEHICLE AND CC&R RESTRICTIONS Nothin in these nlles shall in any way abridge the definition of"authorized vehicle" or ;,li.rninish foe.Parking and Ve;iicular Restrictions as set forth in Article , section of the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions and Reservations of Easements for Meadow!-?rk, mcordec?on , 1999 as Instrument No. of Offi :ial Records of Gra-ige County. Generally,an',.authorized vehicle"is any motorized land vehicle designed and used primarily for noncommercial passenger transport, such as automobiles, passenger vans designed to accommodate ten (10) or fewer people, two-wheel motorcycles, and pick-up trucks having a manufacturer's rating or payload capacity of one (1) ton or less. Any vehicle parked within the Common Area which is not an"authorized vehicle"and for which a specific authorization to park in the Common Area has not been granted by the Board of Directors, may be towed away at the vehicle owner's expense at the discretion of the Board of Directors or its designee. NOTICE AND PENALTIES Each Member is responsible for informing the Member's family, tenants, and guests of parking regulations. Any vehicle found in violation of a parking rule shall be marked with a written notice of violation if it is the first instance of such violation by that vehicle, except violations of the "three day rule" shall not accumulate from one month to the next. Upon each subsequent violation of the same parking rule by that vehicle, and at the discretion of the Board of Directors or its designee, the vehicle shall be towed away at the vehicle owner's expense. In addition to towing, the Board of Directors may assess the Member for all expenses incurred by the Association in connection with a violation by any vehicle owned, operated, or controlled by the Members and their family, their tenants or guests. Ott V -8- C:\DOCS\FSJO37\00027\000\CCRS\0304936.01 12/2/98 In _ ISSUE STAFF ALT. #1 STAFF ALT. #2 1. Site Parking/Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers' Provide throughout all res. units Provide throughout all res. units b) Private Street Width (curb to 36'—parking on both sides 32'—parking on one side curb) c) Spine Road Width (curb to curb) 32'—no parking on both sides 32'—no parking on both sides d) Pearce Street Width via"I"and 36'—parking on both sides 36'—parking on both sides "K" (curb to curb) e) Distribution of guest parking Will be evenly distributed Create additional "pocket" spaces throughout project guest parking spaces throughout the project f) Tandem Parking Permitted as approved by the PC Not permitted g) Interior Garage Dimensions Min. 18' X 19'with min. 400 sq. ft. Min. 18'X 19' with min. 400 as approved by the PC sq. ft. as approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication plus 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. dedication improvements plus in-lieu fee of plus improvements plus in- $387,500) lieu fee of$387,500) b) Park Use Neighborhood Park w/multi-use Neighborhood Park w/ multi- field use field c) Park Parking 20 spaces 20 spaces d) Houses adjacent to the Park None None 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths Min. 6' (PA 1 &2) Min. 6' (PA 1 &2) b) Sidewalk Widths Min. 6' (PA 3 &4) Min. 6' (PA 3 &4) c) Front Yard Setbacks (PA-4) Same as PC Same as PC d) Rear Yard Setbacks(PA-3) Same as PC Same as PC \10 From:Graham Family To:Connie Brockway Date:1/25199'Time:11:34:54 AM Page 2 of 3 f RECEIVED CITY CLERK CITY OF January 25, 1999 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA Huntington Beach City Council Members r�gg JAN 2S_ P 12: 3 1 City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: Meadowlark Development Plan Catellus Developer Scheduled for January 25, 1999 Council Meeting Dear Council Members: I would like you to think about the future,now. This is an opportunity to affect the future by enforcing our current building codes. You have the opportunity to keep the building codes at a high standard. Do not lower the building codes to a new minimum code. Lowering the building codes is what you would be doing if you vote to approve the 'Meadowlark Development Plan. Approving the Meadowlark Development Plan as it stand right now, would lower the quality of life for the surrounding existing neighborhoods. The plan will be lovely at first,but in just a few short years the overcrowded parking will affect the neighbors just as nearby Moody Circle already has. We will have more problems: drugs, crime,traffic congestion,pollution, etc. much as we have with Moody Circle. How will we get to this,you will ask? By approving new lower codes! To keep quality of life high in this city we need to keep the building code standards that currently are in effect. This plan establishes new lower requirements for smaU lots outside of the historic do,.vnto-vvn district. These proposed lots are greatly under the 6,000 square foot lots that are the existing minimum lot size. Proposed New Lower Muwnum requirements are: j 1) Lower Minimum Requirements for Front Yard Set Back 2) Lower Minimum Requirements for Rear Yard Set Back 3) Lower Minimum Requirements for Open Space 4) Tandem Parking Lower Minimum for Front Yard Set Back even includes counting floor space as part of the front yard. How can you allow the developer to reasonably count one area tv-vice? The same is for the i tandem parking. It is counted as off street parking and also as open space. It is one or the other,but not reasonably both!. Lowering the building codes in this city is unacceptable. Please keep the future in mind when reviewing this plan. There are at least two other areas in the city that this change would set precedent, 140 acres at Pacific Coast Highway and Pahn and the Bolsa Chica area. It is not in the best interest of J From:Graham Family To:Connie Brockway Date:1/25/99 Time:11:34:54 AM Page 3 of 3 • the current residents of this area nor for our city to lower any existing code. The developer is capable of a better plan to code. It is not the responsibility of the city to maximize the developer's profits at the expense of the current and the future residents. Again I ask you, do not to approve this plan as it stands. Sincerely, Sally Graham President Huntington Beach Tomorrow I i e j5T - 6 MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX A '"' COMPROMISE ALTERNATIVE #3 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg.Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) 1(a) Fire Sprinklers for PA-3 and PA-4 only,add PA-3 and PA-4 condktion only-new Condition#12 PA-3 and PA-4 condition only-Add new PA-3 and PA-4 (see Development Standard#11 on as follows: mitigation measure#15 re fire sprinklers as Staff language for Alt. pg. 33 and pg. 37 as follows: follows: #1 and#2,eliminate "All dwelling units within Planning Areas 3 and 4 requirement for PA-1 "All dwelling units within shall include automatic fire sprinklers. No "As an additional safety mitigation, all dwelling and PA-2). Planning Areas 3 and 4 shall additional water meter fee shall be required in units within.Planning Areas 3 and 4 shall include include automatic fire connection with increased water line size." automatic fire sprinklers. No additional water sprinklers." meter fee shall be required in connection with increased water line size." (b) Private Streets No revision to P.C.-approved No revision necessary. No revision necessary. documents necessary,but substitute"Red-Stripe"for "Red Curb"where referenced in document. (c) Spine Road Width Add to Section F. Parkins: Revise Condition 14L.to add recommended maintained but 43 February 12, 1999 Public Works conditions as parking spaces(20 for "Forty-three(43)parking follows(at end of paragraph): park parking). spaces(including 20 spaces for park parking)shall be "The following conditions shall apply to the design accommodated along the of parking on the Spine Road: 1 l Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) Spine Road subject to Public Works review of a final • No parking shall be allowed within twenty ft. parking plan and layout." from curb returns: • No parking shall be allowed at"T" intersections from the projection of the curb returns to accommodate sight distance and pedestrian access. • A minimum 10 ft. radius reverse curb transition in the curb shalhbe constructed for each end of the segments of pocket parking. • Street lighting levels shall be increased to improve pedestrian safety. • CRG shall submit a sight distance analysis for the entire length of the Spine Road pocket parking. • A maximum speed of 25 mph will be recommended for the Spine Road. • Developer shall perform all-way stop sign warrant studies for key intersections on Spine Road as directed by the Public Works Department. Note: Condition No. 7 requires City Attorney review of CC&Rs and all parking restrictions at least 60 days prior to Council action on final map. 2 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) (d) Pearce Street width via Revise Pg. 15,4.2A. Revise pg. D-1B.25, condition`W'by adding N/A "I"and"K"(curb to Residential District#PA-1, sentence"The remaining portion of"K" Street and curb)expanded from add to fourth sentence: all of"I" Street shall be forty(40)ft. curb to curb, 32'to 40' by "Private roads ....street,with with 5 ft.monolithic sidewalks and no parkway." eliminating parkways. the exception of streets"I" and"K"which will have a minimum of fogy(40)ft of pavement width allowing parking on both sides of streets"I"and"K"and a five (5) ft. adjacent sidewalk." Revise pg. 22, 7a)Front Yard Setbacks by adding new second sentence to asterisk as follows: "Homes fronting on streets"I" and"K"may be reduced to ten 0 0) ft. minimum setback." Revise pg. 8 first complete sentence: "... street,with the exception " I of streets oc Ie� «and K which shall include five(5 monolithic sidewalks and no parkways." 3 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan T IVVCUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) (e) Distribution of guest Same as 1(C). Same as 1(C). parking space modified to include 43 guest and park parking spaces on Spine Road and on both sides of 40 ft."I"and streets. (f) Tandem Parking Revise pg. 18 Section F. CUP conditions relative to Floor Plan 2 in PA-1 allowed in PA-1 (23 Parking second sentence as and Floor Plan 3 in'PA-4 parking requirements du's);and PA-4(20 follows: shall require compliance with City Council- du's)per CRG approved Specific Plan parking requirements. requested compromise. "Open off-street parking requirements for a maximum of giffty-(4$)-twenty-three(23) dwelling units in Planning . Area 1 and f fly five (45) twenty(20)dwelling units in, Planning Area 4 may be satisfied by on-site tandem parking." (g) Interior Garage Revise pg. 19 Section G. CUP Conditions 1 p: and r. (pg.DIb-32)shall be Dimensions Garage Use/Design per P.C. revised as follows: minute action third sentence as follows: p. "Garage design and storage for dwelling units within PA-3 shall ...comply with the "In Planning Areas 3 and 4.a I minimum garage area of 400 Council-approved Meadowlark Specific square feet is to be provided Plan." 4 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) for automobile and general household storage. - r. "Garage design and storage for dwelling if tea(1 o ,,, units within Planning Area 4 shall comply "esed-a., A minimum area with the of eighteen(18)ft. (width)by Council-approved Meadowlark Specific nineteen(19)ft. (depth) ..." Plan." Add final sentence: "General household storaize areas shall be provided in " accordance with the plans presented by CRG to the Planning Commission on December 3. 1998." 2, Public Park a) Park Size (2.4+ Same as P.C. Same as P.C. Revise Mitigation Measure 13 to read 2.4 acres, .80 plus rather than 2.1 acres relative to park size. $500,000/ac). b) Park Use. Same as P.C. Same as P.C. N/A c) Park parking No revision necessary; Revise Condition 17d., second sentence as follows: Modify Mitigation Measure No. 13, last sentence increased from Specific Plan silent on park to read: 16 spaces to 20 parking. "The developer shall provide for a.minimum of 4 spaces. 20 parking sths-spaces..." "Developer shall provide 20 peiimeter-SS2ine Road park parking sgpaces" 5 r Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg.Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) d) Homes adjacent Same as P.C. Same as P.C. N/A to park. 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parking Widths b) Sidewalk Widths c) Front Setbacks d) Rear Setbacks e) Fencing 6 MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX (February 18, 1999) /���� _ ,+.<rt, e�. � ear ,�,� .,wow U ;.,,� 'Y7✓,+, ara•a n p' :�.,. . „- STAFF., . �,. .. .. � �LANNING.=, ..STAFF,REC. , u. ��: STAFF V� s .A CATELLUS� :. � P .« ,.. , n 4 .. � �..r :�� �,f., . .• ..ea .� .�' iva;a. s., ai, ;;�• u ..xn4 .tea.^« a ��, . - w.r.,c.Y., a., "� :.»o .,.. ',. %. . ..y a+ .,:w �� ,,,a, .,...,. 3:g a. ,.�' :.........•. `.: .:.r... r .. ,: ,..,: ., ,�.;�. 'w^ y.'. n.,. h:, •. Y, , a ,hs : v. .., .. � ,., �..:4.,e. ,... e3..,. ,, m «�,.n.—'o-- i :.r,+. ,",n....., 4 ., ,,. RNATIUE...#3 ... * x ALTERNATIVE.;#1! ALT.ERNATNE#2 :ALT,E ,. . � �. ,� ,, ..PROP,OSAL ' .. . COMM. � .�, � ,x ,w «,,'...,'"�.o 3Ha ..., s`': r .. .,.: ,�, .. ... a. ,,,r.,:....,,w<.,....,....s,.nae:'s,k:.,:�::'s.�Y« �:�,. ':�`:. 'a:.s„ w., ,s.. .5:«. z:.s.:, .�..w.. .£�. r.., .:4!ye..h+a...a.6i,F.d,#...°��. !..,a,....Fw:r.....,...., wr 6w.�.� .,$:N ..-.w.. _ ..'...»..✓ 1. Site Parking/ Emergency Access a) Fire Sprinklers None None None Provide throughout Provide throughout all Provide fire sprinklers in PA-3 all res. units res. units and PA-4 b) Private Street Width 32' —parking on one Same as 40' 36' —parking on both 32'—parking on one 32' - parking on one side with (Curb to curb) side Catellus sides side approval by PW& red paint stripe on other side c) Spine Road Width 32'—no parking on Same as 32' —no parking on 32'— no parking on 32'—no parking on 32' -with 43 parking spaces (Curb to curb) both sides Catellus both sides both sides both sides which include 20 spaces for park parking 'd) Pearce Street Width 32'— parking on one Same as 40'—parking on both 36' —parking on both 36'— parking on both 40' - parking on both sides by via "I" and "K" (Curb side Catellus sides sides sides eliminating parkways to curb) e) Distribution of guest Project depicts Same as Will be evenly Will be evenly Create additional Pocket guest parking on Spine parking spaces adequate guest parking Catellus distributed distributed "pocket" guest parking Rd. and 40' "1" &"K"with parking space distribution throughout project throughout project spaces throughout along both sides of the street project f) Tandem Parking 79 units (PA1 & PA4) 79 units Not permitted Permitted as Not permitted Allowed in.PA 1 only (23 DUs); have tandem spaces acceptable approved by PC eliminate tandem in PA-4 g) Interior Garage 113 units @ 20'x20'; Amend Min. 20' x 20'for all Min. 18' x 19' with Min. 18' x 19' with Min. 18' x 19' with min. 400 sq. ft. Dimensions (PA 3 200 units @ min. M.S.P. to units min. 400 sq. ft. as min. 400 sq. ft. as as approved.by the PC &4) 18'x19' w/400 sq. ft. permit approved by the PC approved by the PC 2. Public Park a) Park Size 3.2 ac. (2.4 ac. land Same as 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land 4.2 ac. (3.4 ac. land dedication) dedication) plus park Catellus dedication) plus park dedication) plus park dedication) plus park plus park improvements & improvements & in-lieu improvements & improvements & improvements & in-lieu fees at$516,500/ac. fees at $500,000/ac. in-lieu fees at in-lieu fees at in-lieu fees at $516,500/ac. $516,500/ac. $516,500/ac. Planning Commission b) Park Use Neighborhood Park Same as Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park Neighborhood Park w/ Neighborhood Park w/multi-use Catellus w/multi-use fields W/ multi-use fields multi-use fields fields c) Park Parking 16 spaces 16 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces d) Houses Adj. to Park 7 units next to park Same as None None None Permitted Catellus MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX(Cont.) .r. •F. a Y ..m:ro: m:.. r i ..,a >,. .. c .:''ri: .,a" '':" y3.''':�' : :':.i. i.a:,.. zs.- a ^£,q..: a ,; TAFFY., :::. . I'M E PLANNING, ,. STAFF:REC. . ,;•:STAFF. :.x. ,, 5. S. ,, COMP OMISE ISSUE . CAT LLUS . .,w ,wx .. .,y ::uenx' '.,,.. ,a:°ap s7 ,.,w.a a ,a a. .air ,' c... s nµ. .,.... ,.,� NOR" Bra', ws ,u. •W.. „• .. ,, r.�...... •.,.... r n... ,r z: ., s ••".' .r... :,.ka. „.,.,; „ "5 ,. nii :,c q a.. x p °•' !yq 'u'��}, k �. . ,ERNATNE Z ERNATIU.Es#L,. �COMM.,REC,, , .. ALTERNATIVE:#1 ALT, ALT r?2 g �fid .,p�. ,. ,,Me•8...,. ..&...,,..max �...r� +..x..,n...3«" �x. v .'. .�w.., &b ST. 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths 5' (PA 1 & 2) Same Min. 6' (PA 1&2) Min. 6' (PA 1&2) Min. 6' (PA 1&2) Min. 5' (PA-1 & PA-2), no parkways along "1" and "K" b) Sidewalk Widths 5' (PA 3 &4) Same Min. 6' (PA 3&4) Min. 6' (PA 3&4) Min. 6' (PA 3&4) Min. 5' (PA-3 & PA-4) c) Front Setbacks Min. 15; Amend M.S.P. Maintain min. 15' Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC (PA4) allow 2' 2"d story to permit 2' setback without projections projections projections d) Rear Setbacks Min. 13' & 15'; Amend M.S.P. Maintain min. 13' & Same as PC Same as PC Same as PC (PA3) allow 2' 2"d story to permit 2' 15' setback s projections projections without projections ns e) Fencing. -Exterior/perimeter: -Block Wall -Block Wall -Block Wall ' Same as PC Same as PC -Block Wall -Interior/rear: -Wood Fencing -Block Wall -Block Wall ;Wood Fencing 4. Administration a) Development N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Agree to process -year Agreement extension 3 NOTE: Items in bold lettering (ref. to Alt. #3 column) denote new modifications/items * nil Hearin before the Planning Commission and City Council Requires a Public y ( ) q 9 9 MEADOWLARK OUTSTANDING ISSUES MATRIX COMPROMISE ALTERNATIVE #3 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) 1(a) Fire Sprinklers for PA-3 and PA-4 only,add PA-3 and PA-4 condition only-new Condition#12 PA-3 and PA-4 condition only-Add new PA-3 and PA-4(see Development Standard#11 on as follows: mitigation measure#15 re fire sprinklers as Staff language for Alt. pg. 33 and pg. 37 as follows: follows: #1 and#2,eliminate "All dwelling units within Planning Areas 3 and 4 requirement for PA-1 "All dwelling units within shall include automatic fire sprinklers. No "As an additional safety mitigation, all dwelling and PA-2). Planning Areas 3 and 4 shall additional water meter connection fee shall be units within Planning Areas 3 and 4 shall include include automatic fire required in connection with increased water meter automatic fire sprinklers. No additional water sprinklers." size." meter fee shall be required in connection with increased water line size." (b) Private Streets No revision to P.C.-approved No revision necessary,other than substitution of No revision necessary. documents necessary,but "red-stripe" for"red curb,"where referenced in substitute"red-stripe"for"red Conditions. curb"where referenced in document. (c) Spine Road Width Add to Section F. Parking: Revise Condition 14L. to add recommended maintained but 43 February 12, 1999 Public Works conditions as parking spaces(20 for "Additional parking spaces follows(at end of paragraph): park parking)are to be (including 20 spaces for park provided. parking) shall be "The following conditions shill apply to the design {r accommodated along the of parking on the Spine Road: Spine Road subject to Public Works review of a final • No parking shall be allowed within twenty ft. parking plan and layout." from curb returns. 02n2M Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) • No parking shall be allowed at"T" , intersections from the projection of the curb returns to accommodate sight distance and pedestrian access. • A minimum 10 ft. radius reverse curb transition in the curb shall be constructed for each end of the segments of pocket parking. • Street lighting levels shall be increased to improve pedestrian safety. • CRG shall submit a sight distance analysis for the entire length of the Spine Road pocket parking. • A maximum speed of 25 mph will be recommended for the Spine Road. • Developer shall perform all-way stop sign warrant studies for key intersections on Spine Road as directed by the Public Works Department. r Note: Condition No. 7 requires City Attorney review of CC&Rs and all parking restrictions at least 60 days prior to Council action on final map. (d) Pearce Street width via Revise Pg. 15,4.2A. Revise pg. D-1B.25,condition"N"by adding N/A "I"and"K"(curb to Residential District#PA-1,by sentence"The remaining portion of"K" Street and i curb)expanded from adding to fourth sentence: all of"I" Street shall be forty(40)ft. curb to curb, 32'to 40'by with 5 ft. monolithic sidewalks and no parkway." 02n2/99 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) eliminating parkways. "Private roads ....street, with the exception of streets"I" and"K"which will have a minimum of forty(40)ft of pavement width allowing parking on both sides of streets"I"and"K"and a five (5)ft. adjacent monolithic sidewalk." Revise pg. 22, 7a)Front Yazd Setbacks by adding new second sentence to asterisk as follows: "Homes fronting on streets"I" and"K"may be reduced to ten (10)ft. minimum setback." Revise pg. 8 first complete I- sentence: ... street,with the exception of streets"I"and"W'. which shall include five(5) ft. monolithic sidewalks and no pazkwaYS." oarzv99 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) (e) Distribution of guest Same as 1(C). Same as 1(C). N/A parking space,modified to include 43 guest and park parking spaces on Spine Road and on both sides of 40 ft. "I"and "K"streets. (f) Tandem Parking Revise pg. 18 Section F. CUP conditions relative to Floor Plan 2 in PA-1 N/A allowed in PA-1 (23 Parking second sentence as and Floor Plan 3 in PA-4 parking requirements du's); and PA-4(20 follows: shall require compliance with City Council- du's)per CRG approved Specific Plan parking requirements. requested compromise. "Open off-street parking requirements for a maximum of€",44 1y en , -three (23) dwelling units in Planning Area 1 and& ty five(4';) twenty(20)dwelling units in Planning Area 4 may be satisfied by on-site tandem parking-" (g) Interior Garage Revise pg. 19 Section G. CUP Conditions 1 p: and r. (pg. Dlb-32) shall be N/A Dimensions Garage Use/Desi per P.C. revised as follows: minute action,third sentence as follows: p- "Garage design and storage for dwelling units within PA-3 shall ...comply with the "In Planning Areas 3 and 4, Pjaiwifig itv Council- minimum garage area of 400 approved Meadowlark Specific Plan." j sic uare feet is to be provided S for automobile and general r. "Garage design and storage for dwelling N/A household storage. A units within Planning Area 4 shall comply I =2199 4 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) ° with the Planning Commission Cfty I pr-epesed a. A minimum area Council-approved Meadowlark Specific of eighteen(18)ft. (width)by Plan." nineteen(19) ft. (depth) ..." Add final sentence: "General household storage areas shall be provided in accordance with the plans presented by CRG to the Planninp,Commission on December 3, 1998." 2. Public Park a) Park Size(2.4+ Same as P.C. Same as P.C. Revise Mitigation Measure 13 to read 2.4 acres, .80 plus rather than 2.1 acres relative to park size. $500,000/ac). b) Park Use. Same as P.C. Same as P.C. N/A c) Park parking No revision necessary; Revise Condition 17d., second sentence as follows: . Modify Mitigation Measure No. 13, last sentence increased from Specific Plan silent on park to read: r� 16 spaces to 20 parking. "The developer shall provide for a minimum of 4-6 spaces. 20 parking stems-spaces..." "Developer shall provide 20 perimeter-SS. park parking spaces." I z, d). Homes adjacent Same as P.C. Same as P.C. N/A <i to park. i� 0va2/99 5 Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) 3. Community Aesthetics a) Parkway Widths Same as P.C. with adjustments Same as P.C. at 5' in PA-1 as indicated for streets"I"and and PA-2, but "K." no parkways on streets"I"and «K„ b) Sidewalk Same as P.C. with adjustments Same as P.C. Widths at as indicated for streets"I"and minimum of 5' "K." (PA-3 and PA-4) c) Front Setbacks Same as P.C. Same as P.C. N/A Incorporation of action item. d) Rear Setbacks Same as P.C. Same as P.C. N/A Incorporation of action item. . 7{ t f �V 02 2M 6 ,.:., h Planning Commission - Recommended Alternative#3 Specific Plan TTM/CUP Neg. Dec. Plan Component (Revision) (Condition) (Mitigation) e) Fencing- Revise pgs. 24, 29, 33 and 36, Revise CUP Condition lg. as.follows: N/A combination of item B. Fences,third bullet, as masonry and follows: "g. The wall and fence plans shall be revised to reinforced provide masonry walls on "return" fence wood. • "All interior side and rear locations visible from front sidewalks and yard fences may be of six side-on(end of block) street locations. All (6) ft_high wood other fencing for interior, side and rearward construction. " locations may be 6 ft. high wood per fence detail previously submitted by applicant." Add additional bullet: • "Side-on(end of block) and returns visible from front shall be of masonry construction." 5 OM2M