Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFirst Christian Church Remodel and Expansion - Public Hearin lJr � ��,�litiJ Council/Agency Meeting Held 0 S 0 Deferred/Continued to 4App oved ❑ ConditionaWproved ❑ Denied C Cle s Sign t re Council Meeting Date 10/15/2007 Department ID Number PL07-35 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY PEN PEDCULB�-GA FT City Administrator PREPARED BY SCOTT HESS Director of Planning SUBJECT APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 FOR THE EXPANSION AND RECONSTRUCTION OF FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH (Appeal of Planning Commission's approval) E ment 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 City Council Member Debbie Cook of the Planning Commissions approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Variance No 07-001 These applications represent a request by First Christian Church to permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex and to allow joint use parking In addition a variance is requested to allow temporary joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site The mitigated negative declaration analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project The Planning Commission approved the project on September 11 2007 with conditions based on findings that the project is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood complies with applicable codes will not have a detrimental impact and is consistent with General Plan goals and policies Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that the City Council approve the request with recommended findings and suggested conditions of approval (Recommended Action) based on the following - General Plan goals objectives and policies encourage the establishment of uses that support the needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents when compatible with adjacent uses - Project provides for modernization and expansion of an existing community serving use - Project complies with applicable zoning regulations with the exception of the requested variance - Divergent hours of operation between the church and adjacent schools allow for joint use parking —i ) -= 3 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 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 including the Public-Semipublic zone permitted uses minimum parking requirements with the exception of the requested variance to the Joint Use Parking requirements maximum building height maximum floor area ratio and minimum building setbacks 4 The granting of Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public — Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) on the subject property In addition it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element Objective LU 9 4 Provide for the inclusion of recreational institutional religious educational and services uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods Oblect►ve LU 13 1 Provide for the continuation of existing and development of new uses such as governmental administrative public safety human service cultural educational infrastructure religious and other uses that support the needs of existing and future residents and businesses Policy LU 13 1 1 Allow for the continuation of existing public and private institutional cultural educational and health uses at their present locations and development of new uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy LU 7 1 1 Policy LU13 12 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new religious facilities in any land use zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval Public Facilities and Public Services Element Policy PF 4 3 2 Investigate the feasibility of permitting and/or providing child or elderly day care services at public and private institutional facilities such as churches temples other religious buildings hospitals and schools Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 provides for the continuation and expansion of existing religious educational and pre-school services which support the needs of the surrounding community The proposed joint use parking and associated variance ensure that adequate parking is provided to serve the proposed use FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -VARIANCE NO 07-001 1 The granting of Variance No 07-001 to allow joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification Properties which are being redeveloped in the City of Huntington Beach are typically allowed to continue to operate with reduced parking availability during construction with approval of a parking management plan or other mechanism to ensure adequate parking is provided and adverse impacts to surrounding properties are minimized The applicant is proposing shuttle service between the joint use parking lot and the subject property as its mechanism to ensure no detrimental impacts will result from the distance between the two properties Other examples of similar privileges enjoyed by other properties include commercial centers which are permitted to operate with reduced parking for limited periods of time while a portion of the available parking is displaced by Christmas tree displays or parking lot sales and other churches which are permitted to operate with reduced parking on site during festivals which encumber parking areas 2 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property including its location and surroundings the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification The special circumstances applicable to the subject property includes its location in proximity to a use (Huntington Beach High School) which underutilizes its on-site parking coincident with the peak parking demands of the subject property Without the granting of the variance the subject property would be required to provide parking on-site which generally (excepting a single day each week) exceeds its parking demand and would thereby be deprived of the privilege to provide parking at a rate which corresponds to its typical parking demand and the privilege to continue to operate until such time as construction of required on-site parking can be completed 3 The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights The requested variance is necessary to allow the church to meet its parking requirements and continue to operate during its construction phase 4 The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification The church will provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot and the project site in order to mitigate the distance between the two properties and support the use of the joint use parking 5 The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public — Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) on the subject property including the following objectives and policies Land Use Element Objective LU 8 1 Maintain the pattern of existing land uses while providing opportunities for the evolution including intensification and re-use of selected sub areas in order to improve their character and identity Policy LU 9 4 3 Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin on another in order to maximize the use of property minimize the cost of development and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community Circulation Element Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1 The project shall provide (1) on-site attenuation of increased storm water flow and/or (2) construction of upsized storm drain facilities in Main Street per the City adopted 2005 Drainage Master Plan 2 A 7-ft tall noise barrier (masonry wall) shall be constructed along the southerly side of the children s play areas CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-035/ VARIANCE NO 07- 001 1 The project plans received and dated June 28 2007 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications a The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property) for a minimum depth of 20 feet b All freestanding low walls planter walls handrails benches and other similar improvements within the hardscape and courtyard areas shall be designed to deter skateboarding c The outdoor dining area shall not exceed 400 sq ft and shall be depicted on the site plan d The proposed parking structure shall be eliminated and replaced with surface-level parking designed in accordance with HBZSO standards e The project shall provide approximately 450 surface-level parking spaces (including 49 off-site parking spaces at Smith Elementary School) f The combined seating capacity and/or assembly area for the three assembly buildings (Worship Center Chapel Multi-Purpose Building) shall be limited based on available on- site surface level parking and the 49 off-site (Smith Elementary School) parking spaces (to approximately 1 450 seats or equivalent assembly area) pursuant to HBZSO parking requirements g A seven foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed along the northerly side of the Tidal Plaza 2 Incorporating sustainable or green building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged Sustainable budding practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U S Green Budding Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http//www usgbc org/DisplayPage aspx?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green s Green Budding Guidelines and Rating Systems (http//www builditgreen org/index cfm?fuseaction=guidelines) 3 At least 14 days prior to any grading activity the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number Prior to issuance of the grading permit a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department 4 New structure(s) cannot be occupied and the final budding permit(s) cannot be approved until an as-built photometric study has been submitted to the Planning Department demonstrating that all on-site lighting has been designed installed and shielded so as to not produce glare or adverse impacts on adjacent properties consistent with conceptual photometric study referenced in Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 5 The use shall comply with the following a Only the uses described in the project narrative received and dated July 10 2007 shall be permitted b Hours of operation for the various uses shall be consistent with the project narrative received and dated July 10 2007 except that outdoor dining shall be permitted only between the hours of 9 00 a m and 6 00 p m daily c Concurrent attendance/ seating capacity for church services shall not exceed 1 450 persons at any time The church shall submit floor plans to the Planning Department which depicts the proposed/modified seating configuration during concurrent use of the three assembly buildings and demonstrates how the 1 450 capacity limit will achieved d Permanent outdoor sound system(s) of any kind shall be prohibited at all times e Use of parking areas for uses other than parking shall be prohibited at all times unless otherwise approved via a Temporary Activity Permit or Temporary Use Permit f Joint Use Parking at Huntington Beach High School (HBHS) shall terminate within 30 months of commencement of construction Church services shall be suspended and/or restricted based upon the availability of parking on-site and at Smith School pursuant to applicable HBZSO parking standards Upon (or prior to) termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS the church shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval a parking area plan and an amended schedule for church services that demonstrates compliance with applicable parking requirements Following termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS all church services shall be suspended until such time as the Planning Department has approved a plan and schedule demonstrating compliance with applicable parking requirements At any time the church may also file an Entitlement Plan Amendment application to the Planning Commission to request approval for Joint Use Parking at HBHS beyond the initial 30 month period g The church shall provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot at Huntington Beach High School and the church property before and after church services on Sundays The frequency of the shuttles shall be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the demand h The church shall regularly encourage church members and parents of children attending pre-school to utilize on-site and authorized joint use parking lots and shall discourage on- street parking i Bus drop-off and pick-up shall occur only in the designated area of the parking lot southwesterly of the Worship Center INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner and each of their heirs successors and assigns shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents officers and employees from any claim action or proceedings liability cost including attorneys fees and costs against the City or its agents officers or employees to attack set aside void or annul any approval of the City including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council Planning Commission or Design Review Board concerning this project The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof J J HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE AUGUST 7, 2007 PROJECT NAME FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH ENTITLEMENTS MND 06-008/ CUP 06-035/VAR 07-001/ DRB 06-025 PLANNING APPLICATION NO 2006-0150 DATE OF PLANS JUNE 28, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNER RON SANTOS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL 714-536-5561 / RSANTOS(cD-SURFCITY-HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-374-1692/SBOGART(aD-SURFCITY-HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS IN CONJUCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH THE PROJECT INCLUDES EXPANSION/ RENOVATION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING MODULAR BLDGS AND A REQUEST FOR JOINT USE PARKING PURSUANT TO HBZSO 231 06 The site plan received and dated June 28 2007 shall be the conditionally approved layout except for 1 The following improvements shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan for the project a Existing curb and damaged sidewalk along the Main Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) b Damaged existing sidewalk along the Loma Avenue frontage (approximately 141 feet from the curb return at Main Street) shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) c Damaged existing sidewalk along the 17th Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) d Damaged curb and gutter along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works sidewalk along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) e The existing 5-foot sidewalk (approximately 220 feet) and non-ADA compliant sidewalk sections along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) f The existing driveway approaches on Adams Avenue shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant driveway approaches per City Standard Plan No 211 (ZSO 230 84) g Any other existing obstructions (i a stepping stones shrubs backflow devices etc) in the public right-of-way shall be removed from the parkway areas along the property frontages 10 Secured Vehicle Entries shall utilize KNOX@ activated access switches (Knox switches for automated gates Knox padlocks for manual gates) and comply with City Specification#403 Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates&Buildings Reference compliance in the plan notes (FD) 11 Exit Signs And Exit Path Markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code Reference compliance in the plan notes (FD) 12 Decorative Materials shall be in conformance with HBFC sec 1103 3 3 and shall be flame resistant (FD) 13 Posting Of Room Occupancy is required Any room having an occupant load of 50 or more where fixed seats are not installed and which is used for assembly purposes shall have the capacity of the room posted in a conspicuous place near the main exit per HBFC sec 2501 16 1 (FD) 14 Egress Illumination/Emergency Exit Lighting with emergency back-up power is required Provide means of egress illumination per HBFC 1211 1 and UBC 1003 2 9 (FD) 15 Gates and barriers shall be openable without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort Gates and barriers in a means of egress shall not be locked chained bolted barred latched or otherwise rendered unopenable at times when the building or area served by the means of egress is occupied and shall swing in the direction of travel when required by the Building Code for exit doors (FD) 16 Food Preparation Fire Protection System required for this project Plans(three sets)shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits and Fire Department approval Reference compliance with City Specification#412 Protection Of Commercial Cooking Operations in the plan notes (FD) 17 Cold storage rooms or walk-in freezers doors shall be openable without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort Doors shall not be locked chained bolted barred latched or otherwise rendered unopenable at times when the building or area served by the means of egress is occupied (FD) 18 Elevators shall be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney Minimum interior dimensions are 6 feet 8 inches (80 )wide by 4 feet 3 inches (51 )deep Minimum door opening dimensions are 3 feet 6 inches (42")wide right or left side opening Center opening doors require a 4 feet 6 inches(54 )width Reference compliance to these dimensions in the plan notes (FD) 19 Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification#428 Premise Identification Number sets required on front the structure (FD) 20 GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements For specific requirements contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department at(714)536-5531 (FD) s 21 All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the Building Department plans (FD) 12 ATTACw� y - 7 THE STRUCTURE(S) CANNOT BE OCCUPIED, THE FINAL BUILDING PERMIT(S) CANNOT BE APPROVED, AND UTILITIES CANNOT BE RELEASED UNTIL THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN COMPLETED 1 Automatic Fire Spnnkler System in-service per City Specification#420-Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems (FD) 2 Fire Access Roads shall be installed and maintained in compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access (FD) 3 Fire Lanes posted marked and maintained per City Specification#415 Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private Residential Commercial and Industrial Properties (FD) 4 Fire Sprinkler System Controls access provided utilizing a KNOXO Fire Department Access Key Box (FD) 5 Food Preparation Fire Protection System provided (FD) 6 Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification#424 (FD) 7 Address Numbers installed to comply with City Specification#428 Premise Identification Number sets are required on front and rear of the structure (FD) 8 Decorative Materials shall be in conformance with HBFC sec 1103 3 3 and shall be flame resistant (FD) 9 Egress Illumination/Emergency Exit Lighting with emergency back-up power provide per HBFC 1211 1 and UBC 1003 2 9 (FD) 10 Exit Signs And Exit Path Markings provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code section 1212 2 and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code (FD) 11 Gates and barriers openable without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort Gates and barriers in a means of egress shalt not be locked chained bolted barred latched or otherwise rendered unopenable at times when the building or area served by the means of egress is occupied and shall swing in the direction of travel when required by the Building Code for exit doors (FD) 12 Cold storage rooms or walk-in freezers doors operable without the use of a key or any special knowledge or effort Doors shall not be locked chained bolted barred latched or otherwise rendered unopenable at times when the building or area served by the means of egress is occupied (FD) i 13 Elevators sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney per minimum interior dimension requirements (FD) 14 GIS Mapping information provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements (FD) 15 Discovery of sod contamination or underground pipelines etc must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and an approved work plan developed accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION 1 Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification#426 Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites (FD) OTHER ` 1 Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines etc must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Sod Clean-Up Standards (FD) 2 Outside City Consultants The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant developer or other responsible party (FD) S\Prevention\1-13evelopment\CUP s1Mam 1207 First Christian Church PA#2006-0150 doc ik- �y- HraCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUILDING & SAFETY DEPT. HuunNGTON MACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION From Daniel Lee Ext 5679 Date 7119/06 To Ron Santos Project Location 1207 Main Street Re 1st Christian Church of Huntington Beach PETITION File No 2006-0150 The following are comments to the file (petition) identified above This list is not a plan check correction list General information is provided to help facilitate the development by giving you up front information on building code issues, City policies, and other codes or laws as they apply to your project Please review the comments below before you submit for plan check Allow 20 working days for first corrections If you incorporated the information below, you must next submit for plan check of structural and building code requirements You may obtain all required forms and I information for plan check review and permit applications on the 3rd floor of City Hall ANE/P plan checking is a separate plan check process Please include the following issues in the design of your project to reduce plan check corrections and improve turn around time Note to Planner Please remind applicant to attach a copy of this list to the Plan Check Submittal Documents to help expedite plan check response and reduce corrections Special Conditions The following items need to be made apart of the Conditions of Approval for this project for plan check submittal documents • A corrosion report must be prepared by a qualified person who will determine the suitability of buried pipe and recommend a method to protect buried pipe when corrosive soil is encountered Reproduce the recommendations of the report on the plans • A copy of the approved "Grading Plan"by Planning and Public Works must be attached to the approved sets of construction plans prior to issuance of budding permits Code Issues General 1 Plan submittal documents must include "Conditions of Approval" G\BUILDING\DRR Dev Review Request\DRR 2006\2006-0150-801 doc Condibonal Use Permit No Error'Reference source not found ATTC Page 1 of 3 � 2 Although the local Building Department has neither the responsibility nor the authority to enforce ADA regulations the Architect or Designer is strongly advised to include such requirements in the building design 3 Contact Fire Department for possible Methane Barrier requirements 4 Plans must be prepared and stamped and wet signed by a California licensed Architect and Engineer 5 The engineer of record shall make "Structural Observation visits to the lobsite at significant construction stages and as specified per C B C Section 1702 Include the stages on the plans 6 All new areas must meet the energy standards of the State of California Building Code 2005 edition Energy forms must be provided and reproduced on the plans See California Building Code-20010 section 310 11 for areas requiring heating 7 Electrical permit and inspections will be required for electrical work and generator or temporary power pole installations 8 Plumbing shall be per 2001 CPC Use Table 4-9 for minimum number of fixtures 9 Provide building permit application and completed drawing(s) for architectural and structural information and required documents for plan review Information on Plans 10 Provide Building Code analysis on the plans (Title Sheet) to show compliance with California Building Code© 2001 edition for 101 Occupancy requirements (Chapter 3) 10 2 Allowable Area (Chapter 5) 10 3 Type of Construction 11 Occupancy classification and occupant loads of all areas need to be stated on the plans 12 Provide on the plans required wall and opening protection and fire resistance of wall and parapet due to location on property See California Building Code © Section 503 and Table 5-A 13 Clearly show distance to all property lines and centerline of streets 14 Show clear distance to other buildings on the same property and overhangs 15 Site plans must show final surface drainage elevations and finish floor elevation building address distance between buildings on the same property easements all required disabled access features and signage etc 16 Separate permits are required for signs fences retaining walls trash enclosures pole mounted yard lighting foundations as applicable i 17 Direction of door swing shall be per 1003 3 1 5 G\BUILDING\DRR-Dev Review Request\DRR 2006\2006-0150-601 doc Conditional Use Permit No Error'Reference source not found Page 2 of 3 Note on the Plans 18 Provide the following note on the plans 181 "This project must comply with Huntington Beach Security Ordinance Code n 19 All newly constructed buildings and facilities shall be made accessible to persons with disabilities as required California Budding Code©T24 Sec 1101 B 1 41 1(1) 20 Show on the plans access for the disabled is provided and meets current code Required access features or facilities not meeting the current requirements must be upgraded Provide a complete disabled access plan and list all required items and status of meeting current compliance standards Structural (General) 21 Structural calculations shall be prepared to comply with the California Budding Code 2001 edition 22 Roof or floor mounted equipment weighing 400 pounds or more must be shown on the structural framing plans and must be include in the structural analysis and provide a design for anchorage to the building frame 23 Submitted documents must be complete and deferred submittals are not acceptable To avoid delay in plan check submit calculations and drawings at first submittal 231 "Roof Truss" drawings and calculations when used must be submitted with plan check documents and must not be a deferred item 232 Stair and landing structural framing and design of railings and handrails must be included in the design drawings of the plans and must not be a deferred item 233 Storefront style framing or window walls must be included with the structural drawings at plan check submittal and must not be a deferred item Soils Report Requirements 24 Reproduce the recommendations of the report on the plans 25 Soils report required for this site and must include 251 Liquefaction analysis and recommendations 252 Show distance to fault(s) and classify fault type and soil type used by the California Building Code©for seismic design 253 Report for protection of buried pipe due to corrosion Recommendations must provide specific method to install protective materials or devices 254 Seismic parameters and allowable soil beanng G\BUILDING\DRR-Dev Review Request\DRR 2006\2006-0150 B01 doc conditional Use Permit No Error'Reference source not found �e 3 of 3 14TTA � �g HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE AUGUST 7,2007 PROJECT NAME FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH ENTITLEMENTS CUP 06-35/EPA 06-03/ DRB 06-25 PLANNING APPLICATION NO 2006-0150 DATE OF PLANS JUNE 28, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNER RON SANTOS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-536-5561 /RSANTOS(a)-SURFCITY-HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-374-16921 SBOGART(a-)SURFCITY-HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS IN CONDUCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW PARKING STRUCTURE, EXPANSION/RENOVATION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING MODULAR BLDGS AND A REQUEST FOR JOINT USE PARKING PURSUANT TO HBZSO 23106 The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed protect based on plans as stated above The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach s Municipal Code (HBMC) Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book) the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP) and the City Arboncultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of protect permitting implementation and construction if you have any questions regarding these requirements please contact the Plan Reviewer ATTA V NO ` -� Page 2 of 7 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT 1 Applicant shall provide a consulting arbonst report on all the existing trees Said report shall 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 (Resolution 4545) a Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13-14 of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8-9 of brown trunk) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT 1 The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan (ZSO 230 084A) a A 13-foot radius right-of-way dedication for pedestrian access and public utilities at the intersection of Adams Avenue, Main Street and 14'h Street per City of Huntington Beach Standard Plan 207 2 A Legal Description and Plot Plan of the dedications to City to be prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer and submitted to Public Works for review and approval 3 A Precise Grading Plan prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval (MC 17 05/ZSO 230 84) The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan a Existing curb returns at the southwest comer of Main Street and Adams Avenue and at the northwest comer of Main Street and Loma Avenue and shall be removed and replaced with ADA compliant access ramps per the latest edition of Caltrans Standard Plan A88A (ZSO 230 84 ADA) b The existing ADA access ramp at the southeast corner of 17th Street and Adams Avenue shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant access ramp per the latest edition of Caltrans Standard Plan A88A (ZSO 230 84 ADA) c A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the main in Adams Avenue or Loma Avenue If the new sewer lateral is not constructed at the same location as the existing lateral then the existing lateral shall be severed and capped at the main or chimney (ZSO 230 84) d All existing non-conforming water appurtenances (including meter boxes and backflow protection devices) serving the development shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards (ZSO 255 04E) e The existing domestic water services currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if they are of adequate size conform to current standards and are in working condition as determined by the Water Inspector f Alternately a new separate domestic water service(s) meter(s) and backflow protection device(s) may be installed per Water Division Standards and shall be sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC) The new domestic water service shall be a minimum of 2-inch in size (ZSO 230 84) TVI G%nVneenng Mvision\ELLIOMCondwons 20071CUP 06-35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06-25 PA2006-0150(1207 Main Fast Chnstian Church)Dev Req 8-07 07 doc Page 3 of 7 g The existing imgation water service(s) currently serving the existing development may i potentially be utilized if they are of adequate size conform to current standards and are in working condition as determined by the Utilities Division If the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service(s) all non-conforming water meters and backflow protection devices shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards Alternatively a new separate irrigation water service(s) meter(s) and backflow protection device(s) may be installed per Water Division Standards The new irrigation water service shall be a minimum of 1-inch in size (ZSO 232) h A separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards The water service shall be a minimum of 1-inch in size (ZSO 232) i Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water Division Standards for domestic irrigation, and fire water services serving the new building(s) (Resolution 5921 and Title 17) J All existing domestic water facilities (including water services meters backflow protection devices etc) that are not utilized shall be abandoned and removed per Water Division Standards (ZSO 255 04E) k if fire sprinklers are required by the Fire Department for the proposed development a separate dedicated fire service line shall be installed (ZSO 230 84) 1 The existing fire backflow protection device shall be removed and replaced with a backflow protection device that conforms to the current Water Division Standards (ZSO 230 84) 4 A water utility easement shall be dedicated to and accepted by the City of Huntington Beach covering the public water facilities and appurtenances located within the protect site The easement shall be a minimum total width of 10 feet clear (5 feet either side of the water pipeline or appurtenance) unobstructed paved or landscaped surface pursuant to Water Division Standards Where access is restricted or impacted by structures, walls curbs etc the easement width shall be 20 feet to allow for equipment access and maintenance operations No structures parking spaces trees curbs walls sidewalks etc shall be allowed within the easement No modifications to the water facilities and pavement located within the easement shall be allowed without proper notification and written approval from the City in advance Such modifications may include, but are not limited to, connections to the water system pavement overlay, parking lot re- striping and parking lot reconfiguration Utilities Division personnel shall have access to public water facilities and appurtenances at all times (ZSO 230 84) 5 The Property Owner(s) shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach for maintenance and control of the area within the public water pipeline easement which shall address repair to any enhanced pavement etc, d the public water pipelines and/or appurtenances require repair or maintenance The Property Owner(s) shall be responsible for repair and replacement of any enhanced paving due to work performed by the City in the maintenance and repair of any water pipeline The Special Utility Easement Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&R s (Resolution 2003-29) 6 A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments (ZSO 232 04) 7 All landscape planting irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboncultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications (ZSO 232 04B) t T - y 20_ G lEngtneenng Dtvision�EI OT[\Condi�ans 2007\CUP 06 35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06 25 PA2006-0t5fl(1207 Maze ust C H V 17 han Church)Dev Req 8-07 07 doc Page 4 of 7 8 Landscaping plans should utilize native drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible (DAMP) 9 The Consulting Arbonst (approved by the City Landscape Architect) shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain Said Arbonst report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architects plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements The report shall include the Arbonst s name certificate number and the Arbonst s wet signature on the final plan (Resolution-4545) 10 A final hydrology and hydraulic study for the runoff from this project and its impact to the existing downstream storm drainage system shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval This project shall be responsible for mitigating the increased storm water runoff from this property based on the net difference between a pre-project condition and the proposed developed condition for 10 25 and 100-year storms under current County and City criteria Possible mitigation measures to manage increased storm water runoff may include on-site attenuation and/or construction of downstream drainage improvements per the adopted Public Works Department 2005 Drainage Study The study and the proposed drainage improvements shall include on-site privately maintained clarifiers or other devices to control the quality of run-off water from the development (ZSO 230 84) 11 Storm Drain Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval (Drainage Area Management Plan DAMP) a A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the protect is completed The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de-watering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction (DAMP) b The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California s General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number (DAMP) 12 A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and acceptance and shall include the following a Discusses regional or watershed programs(if applicable) b Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas maximizing permeability minimizing directly connected impervious areas creating reduced or"zero discharge"areas and conserving natural areas c Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan ( DAMP) d Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP e Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs ATTACPB,AP,'T NO 111t G\Engineering DivisionNHUOT31Condihons 20071CUP 06 35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06-25 PA2006-OM(1207 Maui First Christian Church)Dev Req 8-07 07 doe Page 5 of 7 f Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the ( Treatment Control BMPs g Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs h Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs i After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works three final WQMPs (signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record) shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance After acceptance two copies of the final report shall be retuned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes i) The 11"by 17" Site Plan in TIFF format (400 by 400 dpi minimum) ii) The remainder of the complete WQMP in PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet, owner s certification sheet, Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility sheet appendices attachments and all educational material 1 The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file 13 The locations of Water Quality Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be indicated on the Grading Plan consistent with the Project WQMP The WQMP shall conform to the City of Huntington Beach Project Water Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006 The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan 14 A suitable location as approved by the City shall be depicted on the grading plan for the (` necessary trash enclosure(s) The area shall be paved with an impervious surface designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area and screened or wailed to prevent off-site transport of trash The trash enclosure area shall be covered or roofed Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited (DAMP) 15 A detailed soils and geologicaVseismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading overexcavation engineered fill, dewatering settlement protection of adjacent structures chemical and fill properties liquefaction, retaining walls streets, and utilities (MC 17 05 150) 16 If soil remediation is required, a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No 431-92 and the conditions of approval The plan shall include methods to minimize remediation- related impacts on the surrounding properties, details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site, and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment (MC 17 05150/FD Spec 431-92) 17 The applicants grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD s Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control (AQMD Rule 403) 18 The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments In addition clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity He/She will be responsible for ensuring &C R4�K+T NO ti 22 G\Engmeenng DrvisionlELLdOTACondihom 2007\CUP 06 35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06 25 PA2006-0150(t207 Ma t han Church)Dev Req 8-07 07 doc Page 6of7 compliance with the conditions herein specifically grading activities truck routes construction hours noise etc Signs shall include the applicants contact number regarding grading and construction activities and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No 403 19 The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS 1 An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City s nght-of-way (MC 12 38 010/MC 14 36 030) 2 Existing street tree(s)to be inspected by the City inspector during removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof Tree replacement or root/tree protection will be specified upon the inspection of the root system (Resolution 4545) 3 The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes it shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works (MC 17 05 210) 4 Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations l (California Stormwater BMP Handbook Construction Wind Erosion WE-1) 5 All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8 00 a m or leave the site no later than 5 00 p m and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only (MC 17 05) 6 Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded in the late morning and after work is completed for the day (WE-1/MC 17 05) 7 The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible (California Stormwater BMP Handbook Construction Erosion Control EC-1) (DAMP) 8 All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas (DAMP) 9 Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets (DAMP) 10 Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403 particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas (AQMD Rule 403) 11 Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site (DAMP) 12 Remediation operations if required shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to minimize the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas 13 All construction materials, wastes grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates soil amendments etc shall be properly covered stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind rain tracking tidal erosion or dispersion (DAMP) Mid" h1r) 23 G\Engm=ng avaion\ELUOT1�Condihons 2007ACUP 06 35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06-25 PA2006-01510(1207 Main rust Chnshan Church)Dev Req 847 07 doe Page 7of7 P THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRiOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT 1 A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued (MC 17 05) 2 Traffic impact fees shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance The current rate of$151 per net new added daily trip is adjusted annually The rate is subject to an annual adjustment on December 1st (MC 17 65) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 1 Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY 1 Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and landscape plans (MC 17 05) 2 All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect (ZSO 232 04D) 3 Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images (in City format) and CD (AutoCAD only) copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped "Permanent File Copy" prior to starting landscape work Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record 4 Prior to grading or building permit dose-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy the applicant shall a Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications b Demonstrate all drainage courses pipes gutters basins etc are dean and properly constructed c Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP d Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers 5 All new utilities shall be undergrounded (MC 17 64) 6 The Water Ordinance#14 52, the`Water Efficient Landscape Requirements"apply for projects with 2500 square feet of landscaping and larger (MC 14 52) 7 All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council Resolution 2006-47 (ZSO 240 06/ZSO 250 16) ATTACHHVENIT NO '4 N G\Eapneermg Division\ELLIOT11Condihons 2007\CUP 06 35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06-25 PA2006-0150(1207 Maui Fust Chnstian Church)Dev kA_r_07_ - 07 doc ❑�® Kimley Horn and Associates Inc ■ March 7 2007 S 41400 7%TheC4Dnve Mr Art Cueto 0rdW.Cddbr a Visioneenng Studios 92s6B 5 Peters Canyon Road Suite 330 Irvine CA 92623 Subject First Christian Church—Huntington Beach Trip Generation Study Dear Mr Cueto Based on your request,this letter report has been prepared to provide a summary of the estimated traffic to be generated by the proposed renovation and expansion project for the First Christian Church—Huntington Beach This information will be used to determine if additional traffic analysis i e a Traffic Impact Study will be required for the project. PROJECT(DESCRIPTION Existing Facilities First Christian Church Huntington Beach (FCCHB) is located at 1207 Main Street,on the southwest comer of Main Street and Adams Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach The Church property consists of a 7 5-acre campus with seven (7) existing buildings and 431 on-site parking spaces The existing site facilities consist of a total of 55 410 square feet of church,office classroom,and meeting space A copy of the existing site plan is provided on Figure 1 The church holds three church services each week—one on Saturday night(6 00 PM) and two on Sunday morning(9-00 and 10 30 AM) Services are presented live in the main sanctuary where a Traditional Service is conducted Video from the service is piped into the A-Frame Chapel, where a smaller Contemporary Service is conducted and into the small chapel where a small Classic Service is held The church operates a pre school on weekdays with 200 enrolled students Church office hours are from 8 30 AM to 5 00 PM Monday through Friday and the church employs 25 full-time employees The church sanctuary and assembly facilities are used at times by others for weddings and funerals on weekdays and Saturdays during non service hours Functions are not scheduled at times when church services are being conducted or when other functions are taking place at the church ■ TEL 714 939 1030 FAX 714 938 9488 ATT MEN N i ® Krmley Horn and Associates Inc Mr Art Cueto March 7 2007 Page 2 Proposed Project The proposed master plan of improvements for the campus consists of the following 1 Demolition of four buildings (Children s Ministry Youth Ministry Small Chapel and Church School) 2 Removal of the modular buildings currently used for adult Sunday School classes 3 Construction of three new buildings (Children s Building Multi-purpose Building,Administrative/Cafe Building) 4 Renovation of the A-Frame Chapel 5 Expansion and renovation of the worship center s nursery and bathroom facilities 6 Construction of a tower element to serve as the church s new focal feature 7 Landscape/hardscape improvements designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places improve pedestrian circulation, and make the church campus more functional and welcoming to church members and visitors alike 8 Re-stnpmg of the existing parking lot to increase its capacity and improve circulation 9 Construction of a multi-level parking structure Existing and Proposed Square Footage A copy of the proposed site plan is provided on Figure 2 At completion the site facilities will consist of a total of 73 589 square feet, an increase in square footage of 18 179 square feet A summary of the existing and proposed buildings and associated square footages is provided on Table 1 Also shown on Table I is a brief discussion of the intended uses for each building As Table 1 indicates virtually all of the renovated and expanded building space will be used to accommodate functions and activities that already take place at the church The pre-school enrollment will not increase No increase of seating capacity for church services is proposed for the main sanctuary or the A-Frame Chapel in fact,the seating capacity in the A-Frame Chapel will decrease by 65 The small chapel will be demolished The Classic Service that takes place there currently will be relocated to the A Framed Chapel and the Contemporary Service will be moved to the large gathering room of the proposed new Multi-Purpose Building i ®_® Kimtey liom and Associates Inc Mr Art Cueto March 7 2007 Page 3 Existing and Proposed Seating Capacity and Sunday Service Attendance A summary of the existing and proposed assembly capacity for the church campus is provided on Table 2 Current seating capacity for Sunday services is 1 470 The seating capacity in the sanctuary will remain unchanged at 975 The seating capacity in the A-Frame Chapel will be reduced by 65 seats from 415 to 350 The Small Chapel(with 80 seats)will be removed Based strictly on square footage the assembly capacity of the new Multi-purpose Building will be 438 The building program will result in net increase in assembly capacity of 293 seats bringing the total number of seats to 1 763 seats during the peak Sunday Service times First Chnstian Church has indicated that they do not expect to experience this much growth in their membership and will agree to an attendance limit of 1 655 seats during Sunday services in order to reduce the potential for traffic impact during the peak Sunday morning times PROJECT TRIP GENERATION Trip generation estimates have been prepared to estimate the net change in traffic that will result from the proposed renovation and expansion Calculations have been prepared for both existing and proposed conditions The net difference represents the increase in traffic the proposed project is estimated to generate Trip generation estimates were developed for the project using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (TTE) Trip Generation Manual (7th Edition), the standard tool for estimating project trip generation_ The Trip Generation manual offers trip rates for a church (ITE code 560) based on total square footage of church facilities for weekday Saturday and Sunday operations The manual also offers a trip rate based on number of seats for Saturday and Sunday peak hour operations For this exercise trip generation estimates have been developed for weekday daily and peak hour operations based on total site square footage and have been developed for daily and peak hour operation on a Sunday based on the maximum allowed number of occupied seats Weekday trip generation rates and resulting tnp generation based on building square footage are summanzed on Table 3 Applying the rates to the entire increase in square footage the church renovation and expansion project is estimated to generate 165 new daily tnps on a typical weekday with 13 tnps in the morning peak hour and I 1 tnps in the evening peak hour ED ® IWey Hom ® and Associates Inc Mr Art Cueto March 7 2007 Page 4 Sunday peak hour trip generation rates and resulting trip generation based on occupied seats are summarized on Table 4 Applying the per-seat rate to the increase in attendance assuming a linut of 1 655 the project is estimated to generate 283 new trips on a Sunday with 60 inbound and 55 outbound tnps in the Sunday peak hour Based on this analysis we feel that a traffic impact analysis would not be needed for the First Christian Church renovation and expansion program Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or if you need additional information Sincerely, KIMLEY-HORN�AND ASSOCIATES INC Serene Ciandella AICP Vice President t a ATTA MLEI T 103 � \ t� I ME �� ����---�ii+�wr�rwwrww�►ru�wr��\�'����� '� \ ♦�"..�v.+�.�.\zs�...�,yt�• '� dY � \, mill' \`�.\•'�\\ e \p \\ \\`.\\\\ `\+��' ��, ,AIM ,,, ,� � •� � �`'i �i�' ���Alril�l•�iFMItG_ �IMKIY "'.: �� �►'t�..,'�' 141 gM MEN ,HERE ter �, . •.. I,F � , ! . OgdQ► � ii �I +CCOQ� ,��� • •� FF�t =S=tNe imPfqovWE= = DEMOIUSH WILDING //i OUSTING TO ReMIN III ♦ t .. wRS FOOTAGE • +�'Y��4:3'�Y���« Y�i�k-� ��w}�ri.l•� ,-vM �MF�-T �.���.►�� �., air• r �'��`. d�' r ........... - --- ----- - .......... low - ` l r •Iwlllw ■r�l Mlr�lrl••il .. '. Ir•■rly 1••AIf1AAlA I�r� IIIIiilYllll•�� �►� '""rr'"y ''�'"v"I� '" „�jF�.�a� � � 11 I/ aT�■ rr�• rug jf � •-'` � � /„� f� ►Y `��`Ir��.r! iir r✓iiiiririrrrrrii�,rir�irri�ir.�uairsirrw<ri�` �666�j�066���""„ 1/f, °;L �I'��- ►w l .1.IQ ram;�� '- i� r r:�ti':4�rrt.►ze . �rki« .I_,/'/�1►I�!'� '.jam '� ----------------- AN E/ IEIIII-l�11[1�i�111 /�III ►f�" �f �,,� .. �i.� `'ram. ir; y�'r� - - - c'�•� • w � � Yu. I I • - r. • rr • r . - � r � Elm" TABLE 1 FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH HUNTINGTON BEACH SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDING PROGRAM SQUARE FOOTAGE Existing New Net Size(SF) Size(SF) Size(SF) Building Gross* Gross* Gross* Notes A No changes proposed to main sanctuary or downstairs meeting room Adult Sunday and School classes to be relocated into Worship Center Nursery expansion and F Worship Center 25,500 26 572 1 072 renovation 1 072 SF New Children's building will have the same number of classrooms(three new large gathering rooms)used for Sunday School and Preschool classes and large groups as B Children's Building 14 760 17 411 2 651 the existing Children s Buildings which will be demolished New building will accommodate existing group activities Contemporary worship service and High School gathering to be relocated to Multi purpose Building from existing A Frame Chapel which will be renovated Jr High Sunday School Class to be C Multi purpose 10,268 10 268 relocated from modular classrooms which will be demolished Renovated Chapel will house Classic worship service Weddings and Funerals D Large A Frame Cha el 6 600 5 717 883 Contemporary worship service to be relocated to new Multi Purpose Building Administrative offices and kitchen to be relocated from Worship Center Cafd and E Administration 13 621 13 621 resource center to be added Youth building to be demolished Large group('Tek House)to be relocated Into the X Youth 3 850 3 850 new Children's Building Modular buildings to be demolished Jr High Sunday School class and Adult Sunday X Modular Buildings 3000. p 000 School to take place in the new Multi purpose buildings small gathering room Small chapel to be demolished Classic worship service to be relocated to the large A X Small Chapel 1 700 1 700 Frame chapel _ Total 55 410 73 589 18179 M Notes * Gross building size reflect total building size ®� A =New Building Label X =Building to be demolished 0 151*' 1/4/2007 TABLE 2 FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH-HUNTINGTON BEACH SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED BUILDING ASSEMBLY CAPACITIES (Sunday Service Assembly) Existing New Net Difference Assembly Capacity Assembly Capacity Assembly Capacity Budding Adults Children Adults Children Adults Children A Worship Center Sanctua!j_______ _� —_-975 — -- 975 Lower Level Gathenng Room Administration —� __ F Nursery 110 —�140 30 B Children s Building --____— _�_—_-- __— — Classrooms Classrooms +— ---- --- 120 120 - Large Gathering Rooms 175 300 125 C urpose t3ur7drng _ _ _ _ _- Large Gathenn�Room -_ —� �— -- _ 438 -�--� -- _�438 - — - - — --- - -- — ---- -- ----- Small Gathenns Room 95 - 95 Loft --'_ --� --- ------- - 60 ---_-- 60 D Large A-Frame Chapel 415 - 350 - (65) - E Admintstrahon - - Cafe - X Youth 275 - (275) X Modular Buildings - --------- ---- -- -- -------- Large Classroom _ 49 - _ (49) Small Classrooms 60 - - 60 X Small Chapel 80 - - (80) - Total Assembly Capacity 1 1 470 7891 1 763 715 293 E4) Notes Capacities on existing buildings are based on number of fixed seats or posted room capacities Capacities on new Children s Budding Muth-purpose Building and Cafe are estimated based on the room s net SF A =New Building Label X =Budding to be demolished 317/2007 Fr aY�r4 Table 3 Summary of Weekday Project Trip Generation Based on Trip Generation Rates per Thousand Square Feet (KSF) Trip Generation Rates Project Trip Generation ITE AM Peak PM Peak AM Peak PM Peak Land Use Code Unit Quant Daily In Out In Out Daily In Out In Out Existing Church Church 560 KSF 55 410 9 11 0 39 0 33 0 34 0 32 1 505 1 22 18 19 18 Proposed Church Church 560 KSF 73 589 9 11 0 39 0 33 0 34 0 32 670 29 24 25 23 Net Increase 166 7 6 6 5 Source Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) 6� Table 4 Summary of Project Trip Generation Based on Trip Generation Rates per Seat Trip Generation Rates Project Trip Generation ITE Sunday Peak Sunday Peak Land Use Code Unit Quant Daily In Out Daily in Out Existing Church Church 560 KSF 1,470 153 033 030 2,249 482 445 Proposed Church Church ' 1 560 KSF 1,655 153 0 328 0 302 2,532 542 500 Total Net Increase in Traffic Generation for Proposed Church 283 60 55 Source Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation (7th Edition) Z 6� d I ' I EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH Huntington Beach, CA April23 2007 Revised May 1, 2007 Prepared for Visioneenng Studios 5 Peters Canyon Road, Suite 330 Irvine, CA 92623 Prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 517 4t'Avenue, Suite 301 San Diego, CA 92101 �(®® Kimley-Horn ® and Associates, Inc City of Huntington Beach MAY 0 3 2007 ATTACHMENT N L- EXTERIOR NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH Huntington Beach, CA f Jef re Fuller, INCE REHS Se I Project Manager G Susumu Shirayama Project Acoustical Anjt Prepared for Visioneenng Studios 5 Peters Canyon Road,Suite 330 Irvine, CA 92623 OKimley Horn and Associates Inc 2007 094520000 Section 1 Introduction 1 11 Mitigation 1 12 Noise Background 1 Section 2 Applicable Noise Standards 3 21 City of Huntington Beach Noise Element 3 22 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code 3 Section 3 Existing Noise Environment 4 3 1 Sound Level Measurements 4 32 Vehicular Traffic 5 3 Section 4 Noise Assessment 6 41 Project Description 6 42 Vehicular Traffic 6 43 Project-Generated Traffic 7 44 Construction/Demolition 7 45 Children Play Area 7 46 Miscellaneous Activities 8 47 Parking Structure 8 Section 5 Mitigation 9 5 1 Vehicular Traffic 9 52 Construction 9 53 Children Play Area 9 Section 6 References 10 Tables Table 1 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments Table 2 Sound Level Measurements Table 3 Future Exterior Noise Levels(dBA Ldn) Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Sound Level Measurement Locations Figure 3 Site Plan Figure 4 Barrier Locations Appendices Appendix A Roadway Noise Calculations ��® Assoaa�.s.kc K\NOL%\O%S20000\Re00rt\F nal Report S 1 07\Fi st Chnshan Church Noise Analysts Report 050107AIOC � 3 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This report estimates potential noise impacts associated with the improvements of First Christian Church in Huntington Beach California (Figure 1) First Christian Church is located at 1207 Main Street on the southwest corner of Main Street and Adams Avenue in the City of Huntington Beach(City) The Church property consists of a 7 5-acre campus with seven (7) existing buildings and 431 on-site parking spaces The existing site facilities consist of a total of 55 410 square feet of church office classroom, and meeting space Aerial photography is presented on Figure 2 The primary noise source affecting the project site is vehicular traffic on 17th Street Adams Avenue and Main Street At the proposed exterior usable areas future exterior noise levels from vehicle traffic would be less than 60 dBA Ldn in compliance with the City s exterior noise standards 11 MITIGATION To minimize annoyance from construction noise the construction contractor should be required to comply with all provisions of the City s Municipal Code (Section 8 40 090(d)) r Hourly sound levels from the two children play areas would be approximately 58 to 60 dBA Leq at the ' adjacent property line and exceed the City s 55 dBA sound level limit Seven foot high noise barriers will be required adjacent to the play areas t The methodology and findings of this analysis are discussed in the following pages } 12 NOISE BACKGROUND Noise is generally defined as loud unpleasant unexpected or undesired sound that is typically associated with human activity and that interferes with or disrupts normal activities The human environment is ' characterized by a certain consistent noise level which varies by location and is termed ambient noise Although exposure to high noise levels has been demonstrated to cause hearing loss the principal human fresponse to environmental noise is annoyance The response of individuals to similar noise events is diverse and influenced by the type of noise perceived importance of the noise and its appropriateness in 3 the setting time of day and type of activity during which the noise occurs and sensitivity of the r individual t 1 Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a medium, such as air, and are sensed by the human ear Sound is generally characterized by several variables, including frequency and intensity Frequency describes the sound's pitch and is measured in cycles per second or r hertz(Hz) whereas intensity describes the sound's loudness and is measured in decibels (dB) Decibels t are measured using a logarithmic scale A sound level of 0 dB is approximately the threshold of human hearing Normal speech has a sound level of approximately 60 dB Sound levels above about 120 dB a begin to be felt inside the human ear as discomfort and eventually as pain at still higher levels The minimum change in the sound level of individual events that an average human ear can detect is about 3 dB The average person perceives a change in sound level of about 10 dB as a doubling(or halving)of the 3 � IGrrt8y�10tn and Assaaate:I� K\N01SE\094S2WW\Report\Fna1 Report 5 1 07\Rrs[Chnstwn Churd7 Norse An*sm Report 050107AM 1 ATTA I ?-` sound s loudness this relation holds true for sounds of any loudness Sound levels of typical noise sources and environments are provided in Table 1 Because of the logarithmic nature of the decibel unit sound levels cannot be added or subtracted directly and are somewhat cumbersome to handle mathematically A simple rule is useful however in dealing with sound levels If a sound s intensity is doubled the sound level increases by 3 dB regardless of the initial sound level Thus for example 60 dB +60 dB=63 dB and 80 dB +80 dB=83 dB The normal human ear can detect sounds that range in frequency from about 20 Hz to 20 000 Hz However all sounds in this wide range of frequencies are not heard equally well by the human ear,which is most sensitive to frequencies in the range of 1 000 Hz to 4,000 Hz This frequency dependence can be taken into account by applying a correction to each frequency range to approximate the human ear s sensitivity within each range This is called A-weighting and is commonly used in measurements of i community environmental noise The A weighted sound pressure level (abbreviated as dBA) is the sound level with the A weighting frequency correction In practice the level of a noise source is conveniently measured using a sound level meter that includes a filter corresponding to the dBA curve Because community noise fluctuates over time a single measure called the Equivalent Sound Level(Leq) is often used to describe the time-varying character of community noise The Leq is the energy-averaged i A-weighted sound level during a measured time interval It is equal to the level of continuous steady 1 sound containing the same total acoustical energy over the averaging time period as the actual time- varying sound Additionally it is often desirable to know the acoustic range of the noise source being 1 measured This is accomplished through the Lmax and Lmm indicators which represent the root-mean- square maximum and minimum noise levels obtained during the measurement interval The Lmm value i obtained for a particular monitoring location is often called the'acoustic floor for that location To describe the time-varying character of environmental noise the statistical noise descriptors L10, L50 and L90 are commonly used They are the noise levels equaled or exceeded during 10 50, and 90 percent of a stated time respectively Sound levels associated with L10 typically describe transient or short-term events whereas levels associated with L90 describe the steady-state(or most prevalent)noise conditions i ' Another sound measure known as the Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) is an adjusted average A- weighted sound level for a 24-hour day It is calculated by adding a 10 dB adjustment to sound levels during nighttime hours (10 00 p in to 7 00 am) This adjustment compensates for the increased sensitivity to noise during the typically quieter nighttime hours The Ldn is used by the City to evaluate t land-use compatibility with regard to noise t l i } C®�a as s tic x 1raLSElo94520000\weponlf rAM aevac s i 07VA7 nurc� e bkevo4 D*CV d& 2 !) 7 e� SECTION 2 APPLICABLE NOISE STANDARDS 2 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOISE ELEMENT The Noise Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan has established exterior and interior noise requirements for noise sensitive areas The policy requires in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) and an interior Ldn of 45 dB(A) that all new development of'noise sensitive' land uses such as housing health care facilities schools libraries and religious facilities include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that would reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable lirmts 2 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE _ The City Noise Ordinance Section 8 40 050 Exterior Noise Standards states (a) The following noise standards unless otherwise specifically indicated shall apply to all residential property within a designated noise zone y Exterior Noise Standards Noise Zone Noise Level Time Period 1 55db(A) lam — 10pm 50db(A) lOpm —lam 2 55 db(A) Anytime 3 60 db(A) Anytime 4 70 db(A) Anytime f j Note Noise Zone 1 All residential properties Noise Zone 2 All professional office and public institutional properties Noise Zone 3 All commercial properties with the exception of professional office properties ' Noise Zone 4 All industrial properties 1 t ' The City Noise Ordinance Section 8 40 090, Special Provisions states that the following activities shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter (d) Noise sources associated with construction, repair remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided a permit has been obtained from the City and provided said activities do not take place r between the hours of 8 p m and 7 a m on weekends including Saturday or at any time on t Sunday or a federal holiday f 3 I _ �®aid Asmaats,tic K XNOISEW94520000\ReportVinai Report 5 107\flnt Chn0an Ch f base Anaf 3 A TA � U. ?-� SECTION 3 EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT First Christian Church is located at 1207 Main Street on the southwest comer of Main Street and Adams Avenue The Church property consists of a 7 5-acre campus with seven (7)existing buildings and 431 on- site parking spaces The existing site facilities consist of a total of 55 410 square feet of church office classroom and meeting space Aerial photography is presented on Figure 2 The church holds three church services each week — one on Saturday night (6 00 p in) and two on Sunday morning (9 00 and 10 30 a m) Services are presented live in the main sanctuary where a Traditional Service is conducted The audio and video from the service is piped into the A-Frame Chapel where a contemporary service is held and to the existing small chapel where a traditional service is held The church operates a pre-school on weekdays with 200 enrolled students Church office hours are from 8 30 a in to 5 00 p in Monday through Friday and the church employs 25 full time employees The church sanctuary and assembly facilities are used at times by others for weddings and funerals on weekdays and Saturdays during non-service hours Functions are not scheduled at times when church services are being conducted or when other functions are taking place at the church First Christian Church is located within a portion of the City dominated by residential land uses Single family homes are located west of 17th Street north of Adams Avenue east of Main Street,and along San Nicolas Circle south of the site Worthy Park is located directly north of the intersection of Adams Avenue and 17th Street from the project site Agnes L Smith Elementary School is located adjacent to and south of the project site 3 1 SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS Four 30-minute sound level measurements were conducted at the project site during the morning peak traffic period to quantify the existing onsite acoustical environment due to vehicle traffic (Wednesday January 10 2007 from 7 00 a m to 9 00 a in) A Larson Davis Model 820 American National Standards r Institute (ANSI)Type I Integrating Sound Level Meter was used as the data-collection device The meter was mounted to a tripod roughly 5 feet above ground to simulate the average height of the human ear The sound level meter was calibrated before and after the measurement periods The measurement results are summarized in Table 2 and correspond to the locations depicted on Figure 2 A review of the table shows that the measured sound level was 64 3 dBA Leq at Measurement Location 1 (ML1) 66 1 dBA Leq at ML2 70 5 dBA Leq at ML3 and 55 3 dBA Leq at ML4 K N01SE045200001Repatlfinaf Report 510AFvst 4 3 2 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC The primary existing noise source affecting the project site is vehicular traffic on 17th Street Adams Avenue and Main Street All other roadways in the project vicinity contribute a negligible noise impact due to distance and intervening structures/terrain The existing Average Daily Traffic (ADT) volume is approximately 9 000 vehicles for 17th Street,4,800 vehicles for Adams Avenue and 8 000 vehicles for Main Street (City of Huntington Beach 2007) The posted speed limits are 35 miles per hour(mph) for 17th Street and Main Street and 25 mph for Adams Avenue However based on field observations all vehicles traveling on 17th Street and Main Street were estimated to be approximately 40 mph The following traffic mix was observed during the sound level measurements 2% medium trucks (MT) / 1% heavy trucks (HT) on 17th Street 3% MT 11% HT on Adams Avenue and 4%MT/ 1%HT on Main Street s y 6 S S i{ 3 1 >I t } t { 7 Cam® nwaa�s.Irc r,\NOLSE\0%520MRePat\F na[nepon 5 i O7\f"st Chunh Mole nna 5 ` TT�� �1T N ?-� SECTION 4 NOISE ASSESSMENT 4 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed master plan of improvements consists of the following 1 1 Demolition of four existing buildings(Church School Children s Ministry, Youth Ministry and Small Chapel) and the Large Chapel s existing restroom facilities 2 Removal of the existing modular structures currently used for adult Sunday School classes F 3 Construction of three new buildings(Children s Building Multipurpose Building Administrative/Cafe Building) 4 Renovation of existing A Framed Chapel 5 Expansion and renovation of the worship center s nursery and bathroom facilities 1 6 Construction of a new tower to serve as the church s new focal feature, 7 Landscape/Hardscape Improvements designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places improve pedestrian circulation and make the church campus more functional and welcoming to church members and visitors alike 8 Re striping of existing parking lot in order to increase its capacity and improve circulation and 9 Construction of a multi level parking structure Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan At completion the site facilities would consist of a total of 73 589 I square feet an increase in square footage of 18 179 square feet t Potential sources of noise assessed in this report include vehicular traffic construction and demolition the children play areas outdoor amplified music and the parking structure No other significant sources of noise are anticipated 4 2 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Noise from vehicular traffic on 17th Street Adams Avenue and Main Street would continue to affect the l project site in the future A 1% annual average growth rate was applied to the existing (2005) ADT to obtain the future (2030) ADT volumes (City of Huntington Beach 2007) Using this growth rate the € future ADT volumes would be approximately 11 542 vehicles for 17th Street 6 156 vehicles for Adams Avenue and 10 259 vehicles for Main Street The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Traffic Noise Model (TNM) version 2 5 was used to calculate future traffic noise levels at the onsrte receptors The modeling effort considered roadway alignments estimated average vehicle speed peak-hour traffic volume and vehicle mix The model was calibrated using actual traffic counts and sound level measurements Measured sound levels at ML1 and MLA vaned from modeled sound levels by less than 2 dBA At MI-3, the measured sound level was 2 dBA higher than the modeled sound level due to the congestion at the stop sign at Adams Avenue caused by student pick-up Future vehicular traffic calculations are summarized in Appendix A All current roadway parameters were assumed to remain constant in the future and were modeled accordingly The peak-hour traffic volume was assumed to be 10 percent of the ADT on each roadway The default ground type used in the model was hard soil K\M0M094s70WReportTfflW Report 5107VWst av sha Church apse Ara"Report OW107.aoc 6 a Calculations show that future exterior noise levels would be approximately 57 dBA Ldn at the Tidal Plaza 44 dBA Ldn at the Little Squirts Court 48 dBA Ldn at the Prayer Garden 52 dBA Ldn at the Children s Outdoor Play area between Buildings B and C and 54 dBA Ldn at the Children s Outdoor Play area west of Building B Refer to Figure 3 and Table 3 for more details 4 3 PROJECT-GENERATED TRAFFIC The Trip Generation Study(Kimley Horn and Associates Inc 2007) estimates that implementation of the project would increase the daily ADT from 505 vehicles to 670 vehicles (a 12 dBA Ldn increase) and ' would increase the Sunday ADT from 2 249 vehicles to 2 820 vehicles (a 10 dBA Ldn increase) Sound level variations of less than 3 dBA are not detectable by the average human ear Therefore the project generated traffic noise level increase is considered not significant 4 4 CONSTRUCTION / DEMOLITION G Construction and demolition activities at the proposed site would result in a short-term temporary increase in the ambient noise level The increase in noise level would be primarily experienced close to i the noise source The magnitude of the impact would depend on the type of construction activity noise level generated by various pieces of construction equipment duration of the construction phase and i distance between the noise source and receiver Sound levels of typical construction equipment range from approximately 65 dBA to 95 dBA at 50 feet from the source (U S Environmental Protection Agency[US EPA] 1971) Construction activity and delivery of construction materials and equipment would be limited to the hours between 7 00 a in and 8 00 p in Monday through Saturday A construction phasing plan has not been } developed at this time, therefore only a general estimate of construction noise levels can be provided The site is currently developed and is relatively flat and would not require significant grading Therefore, the primary noise from project construction would be from demolition concrete trucks loaders and miscellaneous trucks and power tools used for building construction The construction contractor would t be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code 4 5 CHILDREN PLAY AREA An outdoor children play area would be located on the east and west side of the Children s Building It is expected that up to 35 children will use each play area at one time during the daytime hours The number and distribution of children were provided by Visioneering Studios i The Cadna/A Noise Prediction Model was used to estimate the hourly sound level from children playing at the project property line The model uses industry-accepted propagation algorithms and accepts sound power levels (in decibels re 1 pico Watt) based on ISO 9613-2 standards ISO 9613-2 is an internationally recognized standard that establishes a method for calculating the attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors, in order to predict the levels of environmental noise at a distance from a variety of sources The method predicts the equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level t Noise from the children playing was modeled as an area source in the analysis The sound power level of the activity of one child in a recreational area was assumed to be 87 dBA (Probst 1994) Based on this ®❑�Y4brn r and Ate,ha X.\t0ZE 094520=\Re-0orW"Report 51 07015t cnrr"Ch mh NOW MaVAs Report 050107 dot 7 ATTA0H MF IT �1 7 10 measurement calculations were performed to estimate a source level for the maximum number of children allowed in each recreation area at any one time (LW = (87 + 10*log(N) dBA) where N = number of children This estimate is a worst case scenario grouping all children into one large group in a recreation area for a one-hour period The project site configuration was imported into Cadna/A from the project CAD files Because of the uncertainty associated with any computer model the site operating parameters were designed to evaluate a worst-case condition The results show that the hourly sound level would be approximately 58 to 60 dBA Leq at the adjacent property line and exceed the City s 55 dBA sound level limit 4 6 MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES Weddings church services meetings and daycare would be held within the various buildings There will s be no outdoor amplified music however there would be a localized speakers system that provides low volume background music Although a detailed plan showing the location of the speakers is not 1 available the speakers will be calibrated to emit 70 dBA or less at 3 feet from any speaker The resultant sound levels would be less than 50 dBA at any project property line and comply with the City s noise ordinance requirements a 4 7 PARKING STRUCTURE The proposed parking structure (#10 on Figure 3) would be built on the existing parking lot north of 1: Agnes L Smith Elementary School and west of existing residences The structure would include three levels of parking including the roof level Noise from parking structures typically consists of vehicles arriving and departing vehicle movement within the parking structure, wheel squeal, car alarms opening and closing of car doors, and peoples voices Quantification of parking structure noise is difficult to predict due to many variables Variation in sound levels would depend on such factors as parking structure design and the number of vehicles moving through the structure at any given time According to International Parking Design, the parking structure would not require mechanical ventilation to meet code (Visioneering Studios, 2007) therefore 1 no mechanical ventilation noise would occur The closest noise-sensitive area to the parking structure would be the residences to the east In order to minimize noise generated from the parking structure, the east facade would be constructed of solid concrete This would reduce noise generated by the parking structure to levels similar to the current condition 1 1 i t t►..,�a arWftsowles kn. V kN05t\0%520000\ReOwt\Fi 1 ReW 5 107\FvA Christm Church!lase Malys Report OM107.dm O ATT rH �E T t,1 � SECTION 5 MITIGATION 51 VEHICULAR TRAFFIC Future exterior traffic noise levels at exterior usable spaces would be in compliance with the City s Noise Element of the General Plan No mitigation is required 5 2 CONSTRUCTION To minimize unnecessary annoyance from construction noise the construction contractor should be required to comply with all provisions of the City's Municipal Code(Section 8 40 090(d)) } 5 3 CHILDREN PLAY AREA Acoustical calculations were performed using Cadna/A to estimate the height of a noise barrier that would 5 be required to reduce noise from the children outdoor play area to 55 dBA Leq or below The play area west of Building B has a 6-foot high noise barrier planned along the site perimeter Calculations show that the barrier height must be increased 7-foot A 7-foot high noise barrier will also be required at the children play area between buildings B and C Figure 4 shows the location height, and length of the proposed barriers The barrier must be solid construction without holes or gaps, and have a minimum mass of 3 5 pounds per square foot Materials such as masonry would satisfy this requirement �g i i s f Cam®a Vr- K\NOL%\0%520M mW++epod s i 07\r-vstOmsua Church riom Anahys Report 0so1107.aoc 9 AT NO SECTION 6 REFERENCES City of Huntington Beach 2007 Telephone Conversation with Bob Stachelski(City s Transportation Manager)regarding 2005 ADT and Annual Average Growth Rate Federal Highway Administration(FHWA) 1978 FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model Federal Highway Administration Report FHWA-RD-77-108 Hams Cyril M 1998 Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control Third Edition Acoustical Society of America Woodbury NY International Organization for Standardization(ISO) 1996a ISO 1996/1 Acoustics—Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise—Part 1 Basic Quantities and Procedures 1996b ISO 1996 2 Acoustics—Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise—Part 2 Acquisition of Data Pertinent to Land Use 1996c ISO 1996-3 Acoustics—Description and Measurement of Environmental Noise—Part 3 Application to Noise Limits Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc 2007 First Christian Church—Huntington Beach Trip Generation Study January 5 Visioneermg Studios 2006 Project Description Site Plan August 11 Visioneenng Studios 2007 Email Confirmation that Mechanical Ventilation is not required for Marking Structure per International Parking Design April 27 ��aN Ash.kc r V40IW0945200ookaeportTm1 Report 5 1 W\flrst Chmban Ch Ch 0-7 13� 6A " P A Table 1 Sound Levels of Typical Noise Sources and Noise Environments Human Judgment Noise Source A Weighted of Noise Loudness (at Given Distance) Noise Environment Sound Level (Relative to Reference Loudness of 70 Decibels*) Military Jet Takeoff Carrier Flight Deck 140 Decibels 128 times as loud with Afterburner(50 ft) k Civil Defense Siren(100 ft) 130 64 times as loud Commercial Jet Take off(200 ft) 120 32 times as loud Threshold of Pain ' Pile Driver(50 ft) Rock Music Concert 110 16 times as loud i Inside Subway Station(New York) Ambulance Siren(100 ft) 3 Newspaper Press(5 ft) 100 8 times Very Loud as loud oud Gas Lawn Mower(3 ft) i Food Blender(3 ft) Boiler Room Propeller Plane Flyover(1000 ft) 90 4 times as loud Diesel Truck(150 ft) Panting Press Plant Garbage Disposal(3 ft) Noisy Urban Daytime 80 2 times as loud Passenger Car 65 mph(25 ft) Reference Loudness Living Room Stereo(15 ft) Commercial Areas 70 Vacuum Cleaner(10 ft) Moderately Loud ) Normal Speech(5 ft) Data Processing Center 60 1/2 as loud E Air Conditioning Unit(100 ft) Department Store Large Business Office Light Traffic(100 ft) 50 1/4 as loud Quiet Urban Daytime t 3 Bird Calls(distant) Quiet Urban Nighttime 40 1/8 as loud Quiet Soft Whisper(5 ft) Library and Bedroom at Night 30 1/16 as loud i Quiet Rural Nighttime Broadcast and Recording Studio 20 1/32 as loud Just Audible i 0 1/64 as loud Threshold of Hearing Source Compiled by Kimley Hom and Associates Inc i !n i mn adAssmfes,br K\NOLSE\094520000\Report\Final Report 5 1 07\Ars[Chnsdan Church 11 3 El�� Table 2 Sound Level Measurements(dBA) ID Location Time Leq Win Lmax L10 L50 L90 Cars MT HT ML1 Adams Avenue 7 00 7 30 64 3 47 6 770 687 589 514 141 3 1 West of Shipley Street ML2 Main Street 730800 661 493 802 702 626 551 236 10 1 North of Loma Avenue ML3 17th Street 8 00-8 30 705 546 846 731 687 636 483 10 3 North of Veering Circle MI-4 South End Property Line 830900 553 495 660 576 542 519 296 4 3 Adjacent to School ' Table 3 Future Extenor Traffic Noise Levels(dBA Ldn) Location Noise Level Tidal Plaza 4956 Little Squirts Court 43 Prayer Garden 48 Children s Outdoor Play 4352 (Between Buildings B and C) Children s Outdoor Play 5054 (West of Building B) Y k ��® K.N0ISE\0"520000\Report\Final Report 5 107\1`irst Chnsban Church Noise Analysis Report 050107 doc T-2 r First Christian Church of Huntington Beach YkD Not to Scale r S f f �t� K J ! 1 l — / yve YoARown C.eaGiff W YgMom g ourttYyCl�ub r � rpas4� �(�$/ i5 ( m_ ALg�n w �111141111 I Beach I'll I r Park / tt /f' Varnoe Aver V') �d �;�tv //f/ $ f PL L x ( 6Zdhy W(Teem Ave ) ff-, Ave—r9 F Utrs Avr afk IL IWIJ I _ 1 t J I� i ( L_� 1 l� _k? p11W1(4d Ave rime Site I Adams Ave L�J E AOams Aver > <✓ h5 .k LomaAve �� Dr Putler�dGr c D—_—eanhAt Ave C \� Lake Ill Farquhar ^ Park Are g �y i �</ 4f /✓ / Knaxvtle l,�va; _'3 KrwxWe Ave Via} (� 7 � 1 A'� aul I eo4ee vs T desrt Aw ((r*11 rteb7nepole Aga yq� Mmrtlord Ave _ LiL lYenernA Ave / ✓/ / �q ( ry .f / Aeeod Are L frk�§O Ave 5 i 0 Figure 1 0 v ..�, Vicinity Map Y Yj q . Ill r " t � 333���w...www t � � R t � ° ,g.: a -. �� .' � �' � � �'t � � 'c•r r First Christian Church of Huntington Beach ADAMS STREET F > ` Not to Scale 'p Y< ,.4 K 9 % \' r 3 2 FWOF�SH�i a f tii twlKarfi}�arlwy \ ✓ r k r t ti f > NIX >� r r o Q \ 1< > / Apr Y � t Landscape/Hardscape Legend 1 VILLAGE GATEWAY �, —' =rr—� -- 2 CHAPEL GARDEN Building Legend 3 TIDAL PLAZA "r A WORSHIP CENTER(EXISTING) 4 LITTLE SQUIRTS COURT SCHOOL FIELD B CHILDREN S BUILDING 5 PRAYER GARDEN C MULTI PURPOSE/YOUTH 6 WAVE WALK D CHAPEL(EXISTING) 7 PORTAL GARDEN k a E ADMIN /CAFE 8 CHILDREN S OUTDOOR PLAY " F NURSERY EXPANSION 9 SURFACE PARKING G TOWER 10 FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE r y Figure 3 � aM..M rwM rye aarnrw awnw Y Site Plan First Christian Church of Huntington Beach HJUIVKr bt Mrr-1'4VVALL V / / Not to Scale \ }i=7 L=40 7 Proposed of a Bar r 00 r. rr rr ♦r L-20 O H=6 Planned Walls G e o/°po�� See g 8 Removab ?��� B011ardS FENCING FIRE ROUTE PROPERTY LINE i h o � n ` Existing Wall cjV �N J 0� ®EXISTING `v BLOCK A, v ' WALL e 2 8 N Figure 4 IUm*Hom .s «p� 91d ASOCIMA ftBarrier Locations INPUT ROADWAYS Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimley Hom and Associates Inc 8 February 2007 S Shirayama TNM 2 5 INPUT ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN Calibration of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway jPoInts Name Width jName No Coordinates(pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt On Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct? Affected ft ft ft ft mph % 17th NB 1 250 point13 13 3782 1 1416 000 Average point12 12 1858 5022 000 Average pomtl1 11 6361 100 000 Main NB 1 120 pomt48 48 1 425 5 1 347 6 000 Average point47 47 1 369 3 1 1744 000. Average pomt46 461 1 322 7 1 019 6 0001 Average point45 451 1 3148 9734 000 Average point44 441 1 3086 9102 006 Average point43 431 1 3121 8319 000 Average point42 421 1 3235 7609 000 Average point4l 411 1 3267 718 9 000 Average point40 40 1 3263 4728 000 Adams WB 2 12 0 pointl06 106 1 4126 3962 000 Signal 000 65 Average point33 33 1 3620 3965 000 Average point32 32 1 3262 3963 000 Average point31 31 1 264 7 3960 000 Average point30 30 1,192 3 3957 000 Average point29 29 6989 294 000 17th SB 2 25 0 pomt111 111 6690 869 000Vtop0 00 100 Average point4 4 6494 646 000 Average point3 3 6374. 507 000 Average pomt2 2 2082 4363 000 Average points 1 3947 1 1204 000 Adams EB 2 120 pomtl13 113 6044 838 000 000 100 Average point107 107 6374 507 000 Average K 10945200001TNM1cal 1 8 February 2007 INPUT ROADWAYS Huntington Beach First Christian Church point21 21 6562 318 0 00 Average point20 20 6809 71 0001 Average point19 19 1 164 7 -410 8 0 00 Average point18 18 1 212 8 414 7 0 00 Main SB 2 120 point115 115 1 264 3 325 3 0 00 Signal 1000 35 Average point57 57 1 264 3 3754 000 Average point56 56 1 2647 396 0 0 00 Average point55 55 1 265 0 4147 000 Average point54 54 1 2665 -494 2 000 Average point53 53 1 2665 7458 000 Average point52 52 1 266 5 764 4 0 00 Average point51 51 12666 828 4 0 00 Average point50 50 1 278 6 933 6 000 Average point49 49 1 410 8 1 349 0 0 00 J K 10845200001TNMIcal 2 8 February 2007 a INPUT TRAFFIC FOR LAe 1 h Volumes Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc 8 February 2007 S Shirayama TNM 2 5 INPUT TRAFFIC FOR LAeglh Volumes PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church RUN Calibration Roadway Points Name Name No Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V S V S V S V S V S veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph 17th NB 1 point13 13 524 40 4 40 2 40 0 0 0 0 point12 12 524 40 4 40 2 40 0 0 0 0 pointl1 11 Main NB 1 point48 48 278 40 14 40 2 40 0 0 0 0 point47 47 278 40 14 40 2 40 00 0 0 point46 46 2784 14 40 2 40 0 0 0 0 point45 45 278 40 14 40 2 40 0 0 0 0 pomt44 44 278 40 14 40 2 40 0 0 00 pomt43 43 278 40 14 40 2 40 0 0 0 0 point42 42 278 40 14 40 2 40—0 0 0 0 point4l 41 278 40 14 40 2 40 0-0-0-0 > po1nt40 40 Adams WB 2 point106 106 141 25 5 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 71 point33 33 141 25 5 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 point32 32 141 25 5 25 1-25-0 0 0 0 point3l 31 141 25 5 25 1 -25-0 0 0 0 71 pomt30 r29 141 25 5 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 point29 17th SB-2 point111 4424016 40 440 0 0 0 0 point4 442 40 16 40 4 40 0 0 0 0 point3 442 40 16 40 4 40 0 0 0 0 point2 2 442 40 16 40 4 40 0 0 0 0 NK X0945200001TNM1cal 1 8 February 2007 INPUT TRAFFIC FOR LAe 1 h Volumes Huntin ton Beach First Christian Church point1 1 Adams EB•2 pointl13 113 141 25 5 251 1 E25 0 0 0 0 pointl07 107 141 25 5 25 1 0 0 0 0 point21 21 141 25 5 25 1 0 0 0 0 point20 20 141 25 5 25 1 0 0 ol 0 pointl9 191 141 251 5 25 1 25 0 0 0 0 pointl8 18 Main SB 2 pomtl15 115 194 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 point57 57 194 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 point56 56 194 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 ol 0 point55 551 194 401 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 point54 54 194 40 6 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 polnt53 53 194 40 6 401 0 0 0 0 0 0 point52 52 194 401 6 40 0 ol 0 0 0 0 point51 51 194 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 point50 50 194 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 point49 49 I 'J K 10946200001TNM1cal 2 8 February 2007 43 i INPUT RECEIVERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimley Horn and Associates,Inc 8 February 2007 S Shirayama TNM 2 5 INPUT RECEIVERS PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church RUN Calibration Receiver Name No #DUs Coordinates(ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing Impact Criteria NR in Ground LAeg1h LAeg1h Sub I Goal Calc ft ft ft Ift jdBA dBA dB d8 ML3 1 1 4660 986 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y ML4 2 1 5886 5988 000 492 000 66 1001 80 Y ML1 3 1 8918 1193 000 492 000 66 1001801 Y ML2 41 1 1 350 7 7198 000 492 000 66 1001 801 Y r w K 10945200001TNMlcal 1 8 February 2007 N RESULTS SOUND LEVELS Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimsey Horn and Associates Inc 8 February 2007 S Shlrayama TNM 2 5 Calculated with TNM 2 5 RESULTS SOUND LEVELS PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church RUN Calibration BARRIER DESIGN INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use ATMOSPHERICS 68 deg F 50%RH of a different type with approval of FHWA. Receiver Name No #DUs Existing No Barrier I With Barrier LAe 1 h LAeg1 h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Cnt n Calculated I Crit n Impact LAeg1h Calculated 10oal Calculated Sub I Inc minus Goal dBA dSA dBA dB d6 JdBA dB dB d6 ML3 1 1 00 6851 66 685 10 Snd Lvl 68 5 0 0 8 80 ML4 2 1 00 564 66 564 10 -- 564 00 8 80 ML1 3 1 00 641 66 641 10 — 641 00 8 so MI-2 41 1 00 651 66 651 10 — 651 00 8 80 Dwelling Units #DUs Noise Reduction Min Avg Max dB dB dB All Selected 4 0 0 00 00 All Impacted 1 0 0 001 00 All that meet NR Goal 0 00 001 00 K 10946200001TNMIcal 1 8 February 2007 I N INPUT ROADWAYS Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimley Hom and Associates Inc 8 February 2007 S Shlrayama TNM 2 5 INPUT ROADWAYS Average pavement type shall be used unless PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church a State highway agency substantiates the use RUN Future 2030 of a different type with the approval of FHWA Roadway Points Name Width Name No Coordinates(pavement) Flow Control Segment X Y Z Control Speed Percent Pvmt Ion Device Constraint Vehicles Type Struct*? Affected ft ft ft ft mph % 17th NB 1 250 point13 13 3782 1 1416 000 Average polnt12 12 1858 5022 000 Average pointll 11 6361 100 000 Main NB 1 120, point48 48 1 425 5 1 347 6 000 Average point47 471 1 3693 1 1744 000 Average point46 461 1 3227 1 0196 000 Average point45 45 1 314 8 9734 000 Average point44 44 1 3086 9102 000 Average point43 43 1 3121 8319 000 Average point42 42 1 3235 7609 000 Average point4l 41 1 326 7 718 9 000 Average point40 40 1 3263 -472 8 000 Adams WB 2 120 point106 106 1 412 6 3962 000 Signal 000 65 Average point33 33 1 3620 3966 000 Average pornt32 32 1 326 2 3983 0 00 Average point3l 31 1 2647 3960 000 Average point30 301 1 1923 3957 0 00 Average potnt29 29 6989 294 000 17th SS 2 25 0 point111 111 6690 869 000 Stop 0 00 100 Average point4 4 6494 64 5 000 Average point3 3 6374 507 000 Average point2 2 2082 4363 000 Average pomtl 1 3947 1 1204 000 Adams EB 2 12 0 point113 113 604 4 838 000 Stop 0 00 100 Average point107 107 637 4 50 7 000 Average K 10945200001TNM\Copy of Future 2030 1 8 February 2007 N I INPUT ROADWAYS Huntington Beach First Christian Church point21 21 656 2 31 8 0 00 Average point20 20 680 9 71 0 00 Average point19 19 1 1647 4108 000 Average pointl8 18 1 212 8 -414 7 000 Main SB 2 120 point116 115 1 264 3 3263 0 00 Signal 0 00 35 Average point57 67 1 2643 3754 000 Average point56 56 1 264 7 3960 000 Average pomt55 55 1 2650 4147 000 Average point54 54 1 266 5 -494 2 0 00 Average point63 53 1 2665 745 8 0 00 Average point52 52 1,2665 764 4 0 00 Average point5l 51 1 266 5 828 4 000 Average point50 50 1 278 6 9336 000 Average point49 49 1 410 8 134 0 0 00 k a tJ �y K 10945200001TNM1Copy of Future 2030 2 8 February 2007 REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 10/15/2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL07-35 - The proposed building architecture/ design minimizes the visual bulk and mass of the buildings - The project (with mitigation) will have no significant adverse environmental impacts Funding Source Not applicable Recommended Action PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION Motion to Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Variance No 07-001 with suggested findings mitigation measures and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO 1) Planning Commission Action on September 11 2007 THE MOTION MADE BY SPEAKER SECONDED BY DWYER TO APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/ VARIANCE NO 07-001 WITH REVISED FINDINGS AND REVISED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES DWYER LIVENGOOD SHIER-BURNETT SHAW SPEAKER NOES NONE ABSENT NONE ABSTAIN FARLEY SCANDURA MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s) The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s) 1 Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Variance No 07-001 with findings 2 Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 06- 035/Variance No 07-001 and direct staff accordingly 2 10/1/2007 3 38 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 10/15/2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL07-35 Analysis A PROJECT PROPOSAL Applicant Art Cueto Visioneering Studios 5 Peters Canyon Road Irvine CA 92606 Property Owner First Christian Church 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Location 1207 Main Street 92648 (southeast corner of Adams Avenue and 17th Street) Conditional Use Permit No 06-20 as approved by the Planning Commission represents a request to permit the following pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Section 214 06 — PS District Land Use Controls and 231 06 —Joint Use Parking a Demolition of four existing buildings (Church School Children s Ministry Youth Ministry and Small Chapel) and the Large Chapel s existing restroom facilities b Construction of three new buildings (Children s Building Multipurpose Building Administrative/ Cafe/ Bookstore Building) c Renovation of the existing A-Frame Chapel including installation of a steeple and cross with an overall height of approximately 96 ft d Expansion and renovation of the worship center s nursery and bathroom facilities e Landscape/hardscape improvements designed to create outdoor gathering places improve pedestrian circulation and make the church campus more functional and welcoming to church members and visitors f Re-striping of the existing parking lot in order to increase its capacity and improve circulation and g Outdoor dining (less than 400 sq ft ) within the courtyard area adjacent to the Cafe/Bookstore In addition the applicant is requesting approval of joint use parking to allow shared use of 47 parking spaces existing at Smith Elementary School located adjacent and to the south of the project site and 298 parking spaces at Huntington Beach High School (HBHS) to meet the church s peak use parking requirements Use of parking spaces at HBHS is proposed only during the construction phase and only on Sundays The project narrative estimates that the project would be completed within approximately two years from commencement of construction Variance No 07-001 is requested pursuant to HBZSO Sec 241 02(B) — Variance Procedures to allow joint use parking (298 spaces) located approximately 570 ft from the project site (at HBHS) in-lieu of the 250 ft maximum distance permitted by HBZSO Section 231 06 — Joint Use Parking The church proposes to operate a shuttle between the project site and HBHS in order to mitigate the distance between the two properties 3 10/1/2007 3 38 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 10/15/2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL07-35 The table below describes the proposed buildings and planned modifications to existing buildings First Christian Church, Huntington Beach - Master Plan Scope Building Status Sizes Planned Use/Improvement A Worship Center Existing 25 500 No change to existing seating capacity The worship center will not be modified as part of this project scope B Children s Planned 17 411 Children s Sunday School (preschool —6th grade) and Building midweek preschool Preschool entrance will be relocated to be accessible via parking area instead of current access via Loma Avenue C Multi-Purpose Planned 10 268 Flexible meeting space for Jr High and High School groups and other large groups/functions D Chapel Existing 5 717 Remodel existing A-Framed structure into a traditional chapel suitable for classic worship services weddings and funerals E Administrative Planned 13 621 Church offices full service kitchen church resource center Cafe/Bookstore (kitchen 1 071 s f dining 1 746 s f/89 seats bookstore 943 s f F Nursery Planned 4 252* Expanded existing nursery and restroom facilities in the Expansion worship center Improvements include a combination of new construction and remodeling of existing facilities TOTAL 76,769 Existing Bldg Floor Area 54,410 s f ** *Note Nursery Expansion square footage includes 1 027 s f of new construction and remodel of 3 180 s f of existing nursery and restroom space in the Worship Center **Attachment A of the project narrative (Attachment No 3 of the Planning Commission staff report) includes floor area figures for existing buildings on the church campus The project will include outdoor public space and landscaping improvements in addition to the items listed above A new Tidal Court will serve as the main gathering area before and after church functions and will be open to the public The court will be located between the existing Worship Center and proposed Multipurpose Building A-Frame Chapel and Administration/Cafe Building The court will include chairs and tables to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings The outdoor areas will be enhanced by the use of decorative paving landscaping (including native drought-tolerant plant materials) and signage Additional project details are provided in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO 4) B PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission approved the project at a public hearing on September 11 2007 with conditions of approval to address concerns and potential impacts expressed by the surrounding neighbors The added conditions of approval included elimination of the proposed parking structure and a 1 450 limit on the total assembly capacity based on the estimated number of parking spaces to be provided without the parking structure In addition the Planning Commission required construction of a seven-foot tall sound wall on the north side of the Tidal Plaza courtyard restricted the hours of the proposed cafe to 9 00 a m - 6 00 p m daily and prohibited permanent outdoor sound systems The Planning Commission did not apply a suggested condition of approval that would require a Temporary Activity Permit or Temporary Use Permit for certain temporary outdoor special events on the -4 10/1/2007 3 38 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 10/15/2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL07-35 basis that the condition is unnecessary since such activities are already regulated by applicable provisions of the zoning code Staff concurs with this assessment Accordingly, the Planning Commission also opted not to incorporate into the Conditional Use Permit a list of six temporary outdoor events held each year by the church which were submitted for consideration as a late communication (ATTACHMENT NO 6), preferring that these events be permitted separately pursuant to the applicable codes The complete list of conditions approved by the Planning Commission and recommended by staff is provided as ATTACHMENT NO 1 The Planning Commission received comments at the hearing from the applicant 13 individuals in support of the project and nine individuals opposed to the project The applicant indicated that the church was agreeable to all of the Planning Commissions conditions of approval and that the church had already made numerous concessions from the original project proposal in order to address concerns of the surrounding residents C APPEAL On September 13 2007 City Council Member Cook filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the proposed project (ATTACHMENT NO 3) The appeal letter cites concerns regarding the project as conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and potential adverse impacts to surrounding residents as the basis for the appeal D STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION Staff is recommending approval of the project based on the suggested findings and subject to the suggested mitigation measures and conditions of approval as approved by the Planning Commission The suggested conditions of approval address the primary concerns of the residents of the surrounding neighborhood and provide for greater compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood by eliminating the parking structure reducing the overall assembly capacity restricting the hours of operation of the proposed cafe and requiring a sound wall to minimize potential noise impacts to residences located north of the project site A complete project analysis is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (ATTACHMENT NO 4) The report describes how the project furthers General Plan goals objectives and policies which encourage the modernization and expansion of uses that support the needs of Huntington Beach residents In addition the project complies with all applicable zoning regulations with the exception of the requested variance Divergent hours of operation between the church and the adjacent schools provides for joint use parking as a means to meet in part the projects parking requirements The proposed use of shuttles between the project site and the off-site parking lot mitigate the distance between the two properties and support approval of the requested variance Proposed buildings feature a contemporary design and architectural features which minimizes the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with surrounding land uses Finally the project (with mitigation) will have no significant adverse environmental impacts (see ATTACHMENT NO 5 for the projects environmental assessment/ mitigated negative declaration and associated public comment letters) 5 10/1/2007 3 38 PM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE 10/15/2007 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER PL07-35 Strategic Plan Goal Strategic Plan Goal Preserve the quality of our neighborhoods The proposed project will provide for the replacement of aging buildings and facilities with new structures designed to accommodate an expanding neighborhood-serving use and to maintain compatibility with surrounding land uses Environmental Status Staff completed an environmental assessment of the proposed project 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 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 (ATTACHMENT NO 5) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240 04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) The Mitigated Negative Declaration is supported by a Phase 1 environmental site assessment traffic noise geotechnical and air quality studies and identified the need for mitigation measures pertaining to hydrology/ water quality and noise Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No 06-035Nariance No 07-001 it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06- 008 Staff and the Planning Commission are recommending that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved with suggested findings and mitigation measures Attachments) City derk's Page Number No. Description 1 Planning Commission and Staff Suggested Findings Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval 2 Project Plans includes site plan floor plans and elevations 3 Appeal Letter From City Council Member Cook dated September 13 2007 4 Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 11 2007 5 Draft Negative Declaration No 06-008 includes Response to Comments 6 Letters in Support/ Opposition To The Request Late Communications 7 PowerPoint Presentation Slides SH HF RS 6 10/1/2007 3 38 PM City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street - Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK i JOAN L FLYNN CITY CLERK NOTICE OF ACTION MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/EXPANSION) October 24 2007 Mr Art Cueto Visioneermg Studios 5 Peters Canyon Road Irvine CA 92606 APPLICANT Art Cueto Visioneering Studios 5 Peters Canyon Road Irvine CA 92606 REQUEST REQUEST MND To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project CUP To permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex VAR To permit Joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site (at Huntington Beach High School) during the construction phase PROPERTY OWNER Senior Pastor Bruce Templeton First Christian Church 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 LOCATION 1207 Main Street 92648 (southeast corner of Adams Ave and 17th Street) PROJECT PLANNER Ron Santos On Monday October 15 2007 a Public Hearing was held to consider an appeal filed by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook of the Planning Commission s Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 for the First Christian Church Remodel and Expansion located at 1207 Main Street Sister Cities Anjo Japan - Waltakere New Zealand (Telephone 714 536 5227) The following action was taken by the Huntington Beach City Council Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 06- 035/Variance No 07-001 with suggested findings mitigation measures and conditions of approval Enclosed are the Findings Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval the Public Works Department Conditions of Approval and the Action Agenda from the October 15 2007 meeting If you have any questions please contact Ron Santos Associate Planner at (714) 536-5561 oan L Flynn i4CMC City Clerk JF pe c Scott Hess Director of Planning Herb Fauland Principal Planner Ron Santos Associate Planner Attachments Findings Mitigation Measures and Conditions for Approval - MND 06-008/CUP 06-035/ VAR 07-001 Public Works Department Conditions of Approval City Council Action Agenda for 10-15-07 FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 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 over twenty (20) days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 2 Mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project s effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur 3 There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project as modified by elimination of the proposed parking structure the addition of a sound wall along the northerly side of the Tidal Court the limiting of hours for outdoor dining restricting seating capacity to not exceed 1 450 persons designating bus pick-up and drop- off areas prohibiting permanent outdoor sound systems of any kind and further as mitigated through the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 will have a significant effect on the environment FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035 1 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 to permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex 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 A mitigated negative declaration was prepared which analyzed the projects potential to generate detrimental impacts on surrounding properties The study concluded that mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval avoid or reduce the projects effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur The Mitigated Negative Declaration is supported by a Phase 1 environmental site assessment traffic noise geotechnical and air quality studies The project will provide adequate parking in accordance with applicable code requirements on-site and via the use of joint use parking off-site 2 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will be compatible with surrounding uses because it provides for the continuation modernization and expansion of an existing long-standing (the site was developed for use as a church in the mid-1950s) community serving use which is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations Proposed buildings feature a contemporary design and architectural features which minimize the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with surrounding land uses All of the proposed buildings comply with the applicable height limit in the zone and provide adequate setbacks from adjacent residential properties The project was recommended for approval by the Design Review Board October 15, 2007 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 5 D PUBLIC HEARING Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing item is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant at Arms located near the Speakers Podium D-1 (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider Appeal by the Huntin n Beach Beer ompany of the Revocation of the Entertainment Permit for Huntingt Beach Beer C pany located at 201 Main Street Comm ication from the Chief of Police transmitting the following Statement of Issue NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on M day October 15th 2007 at 6 00 p m in the City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Hunti ton Beach the City Council will hold a public hearing to consider the appeal by HB Beer mpany Inc of the revocation of the Entertainment Permit for HB Beer Company Inc which located at 201 Main Street Suite E Huntington Beach Califor a 92648 ON FILE A copy of the propos request is on a in the City Clerk s Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 9264 for inspe ion by the public ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to end said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the request as outlined abov If y challenge the City Council s action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues y or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence d ivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing Direct your written communication to the City C rk ■ Staff report • City Council di ussion • Open public earing ■ Following blic input close public hearing Recommended ction Motion to Following th public hearing deny the appeal from the Huntington Beach Bee ompany 2 SPEA ERS CONTI UED TO 11/05/07 TO ALLOW CHIEF OF POLICE AND BUSINESS OWNER TO ARRIVE AT AN AGREEMENT FOR A CONDITIONAL ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT APPROVED 6-0-1 (CARCHIO ABSTAINED) D-2 (City Council) Public Hearing to Consider an Appeal by Mayor Pro Tern Debbie Cook of the Planning Commission's Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No 06-008/Conditional Use Permit(CUP) No 06-035 and Variance (VAR) No 07-001 for the First Christian Church Remodel and Expansion Located at 1207 Main Street Communication from the Director of Planning transmitting the following Statement of Issue NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday October 15 2007 at 6 00 PM in the City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items October 15, 2007 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 6 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07- 001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/EXPANSION) APPLICANT Art Cueto Visioneenng Studios APPELLANT City Council Member Debbie Cook REQUEST MND To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project CUP To permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex VAR To permit Joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site (at Huntington Beach High School) during the construction phase LOCATION 1207 Main Street 92648 (southeast corner of Adams Ave and 17th Street) PROJECT PLANNER Ron Santos NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for Item #1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act It was determined that Item #1 with mitigation would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted Prior to acting on the request the City Council must review and act on the Negative Declaration This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department or by telephoning (714) 536-5271 ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk s Office 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 for public inspection and comment A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties in the City Clerk s Office on Friday October 12 2007 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City Council s action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing If there are any further questions please contact the Planning Department at(714) 536 5271 and refer to the above item(s) Direct written communications to the Office of the City Clerk • Staff report ■ City Council discussion ■ Open public hearing ■ Following public input close public hearing **PowerPoint presentation titled First Christian Church is included in the agenda packet Recommended Action Motion to Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/ Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Variance No 07-001 with suggested findings mitigation measures and conditions of approval October 15, 2007 -Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 ASSISTANT CITY CLERK ROBIN LUGAR ANNOUNCED 3 COMMUNICATIONS 9 SPEAKERS APPROVED 6-0-1 (HARDYABSTA/N) -------------- -3 (City Council) Public Hearing to Adopt Resolution No 2007-71 Setting F h an ordable Housing In-Lieu Fee for New Residential Projects Consisting of Th ee to Nine Uni Commu cation from the Director of Planning transmitting the following Statement o Issue NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday Octo er 15 2007 at 6 00 p m in the City ouncil Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Bea the City Council will hold a public hea g on the following planning and zoning items AFFORDABLE HOU G IN-LIEU FEE Applicant City of Huntin on Beach 2000 Main Street H tington Beach CA 92648 Request To establish an affo able housing in-lieu fee r new residential projects that consist of three to nine u is Location Citywide Project Planner Mary Beth Broeren NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Items N is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Sec o 15061(b)(3) ON FILE A copy of the proposed requ sts are n file in the Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach Califo is 92648 or inspection by the public Copies of the staff reports will be available to inter sted parties a the City Clerk s Office on Thursday October 11 2007 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are vited to attend said hear g and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the applic bons as outlined above If y challenge the City Council s action in court you may be limited to rats g only those issues you or som one else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in witten correspondence delivered tot e City at or prior to the public hearing If there are any furt er questions please call the Planning epartment at 536-5271 and refer to the above items Direct our written communications to the City CI k • Staff rep rt • City C ncii discussion ■ Open ublic hearing ■ Foil ing public input close public hearing "PowerPoint pFesentation titled Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee is included the agenda packet Recommended Action Motion to 1) Adopt Resolution No 2007-71, A Resolution of the City Council of the ity of Huntington Beach Setting Forth an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee as Authonzed by Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 3687 Section 230 26 ATTACHMENT # 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-0081 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 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 penod of over twenty (20) days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 2 Mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval avoid or reduce the projects effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur 3 There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project as modified by elimination of the proposed parking structure the addition of a sound wall along the northerly side of the Tidal Court the limiting of hours for outdoor dining restricting seating capacity to not exceed 1 450 persons designating bus pick-up and drop- off areas prohibiting permanent outdoor sound systems of any kind and further as mitigated through the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07 001 will have a significant effect on the environment SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035 1 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 to permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex 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 A mitigated negative declaration was prepared which analyzed the projects potential to generate detrimental impacts on surrounding properties The study concluded that mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval avoid or reduce the projects effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur The Mitigated Negative Declaration is supported by a Phase 1 environmental site assessment traffic noise geotechnical and air quality studies The project will provide adequate parking in accordance with applicable code requirements on-site and via the use of joint use parking off-site 2 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will be compatible with surrounding uses because it provides for the continuation modernization and expansion of an existing long-standing (the site was developed for use as a church in the mid-1950s) community serving use which is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations Proposed buildings feature a contemporary design and architectural features which minimize the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with surrounding land uses All of the proposed buildings comply with the applicable height limit in the zone and provide adequate setbacks from adjacent residential properties The project was recommended for approval by the Design Review Board (G\PC\NOA\07\MND 06 08 CUP 06 35 VAR 07 01) Page 1 of 5 3 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 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 including the Public-Semipublic zone permitted uses minimum parking requirements with the exception of the requested variance to the Joint Use Parking requirements maximum budding height maximum floor area ratio and minimum building setbacks 4 The granting of Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public — Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) on the subject property In addition it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element Objective LU 9 4 Provide for the inclusion of recreational institutional religious educational and services uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods Objective LU 13 1 Provide for the continuation of existing and development of new uses such as governmental administrative public safety human service cultural educational infrastructure religious and other uses that support the needs of existing and future residents and businesses Policy LU 13 1 1 Allow for the continuation of existing public and private institutional cultural educational and health uses at their present locations and development of new uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy LU 7 1 1 Policy LU13 12 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new religious facilities in any land use zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval Public Facilities and Public Services Element Policy PF 4 3 2 Investigate the feasibility of permitting and/or providing child or elderly day care services at public and private institutional facilities such as churches temples other religious buildings hospitals and schools Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 provides for the continuation and expansion of existing religious educational and pre-school services which support the needs of the surrounding community The proposed joint use parking and associated variance ensure that adequate parking is provided to serve the proposed use SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -VARIANCE NO 07-001 1 The granting of Variance No 07-001 to allow joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification Properties which are being redeveloped in the City of Huntington Beach are typically allowed to continue to operate with reduced parking availability during construction with approval of a parking management plan or other mechanism to ensure adequate parking is provided and adverse impacts to surrounding properties are minimized The applicant is proposing shuttle service between the joint use parking lot and the subject property as its mechanism to ensure no detrimental impacts will result from the distance between the two properties Other examples of similar privileges enjoyed by other properties include commercial centers which are permitted to operate with (G\PC\NOA\07\MND 06 08 CUP 06 35 VAR 07 01) Page 2 of 5 reduced parking for limited periods of time while a portion of the available parking is displaced by Christmas tree displays or parking lot sales and other churches which are permitted to operate with reduced parking on site during festivals which encumber parking areas 2 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property including its location and surroundings the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification The special circumstances applicable to the subject property includes its location in proximity to a use (Huntington Beach High School) which underutilizes its on- site parking coincident with the peak parking demands of the subject property Without the granting of the variance the subject property would be required to provide parking on-site which generally (excepting a single day each week) exceeds its parking demand and would thereby be deprived of the privilege to provide parking at a rate which corresponds to its typical parking demand and the privilege to continue to operate until such time as construction of required on-site parking can be completed 3 The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights The requested variance is necessary to allow the church to meet its parking requirements and continue to operate during its construction phase 4 The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification The church will provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot and the project site in order to mitigate the distance between the two properties and support the use of the joint use parking 5 The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public — Residential Low Density Underlying Designation)on the subject property including the following objectives and policies Land Use Element Objective LU 8 1 Maintain the pattern of existing land uses while providing opportunities for the evolution including intensification and re-use of selected sub areas in order to improve their character and identity Policy LU 9 4 3 Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin on another in order to maximize the use of property minimize the cost of development and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community Circulabon Element Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City SUGGESTED MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1 The project shall provide (1) on-site attenuation of increased storm water flow and/or (2) construction of upsized storm drain facilities in Main Street per the City adopted 2005 Drainage Master Plan 2 A 7 ft tall noise barrier (masonry wall) shall be constructed along the southerly side of the children s play areas (G\PC\NOA\07\MND 06 08 CUP 06 35 VAR 07 01) Page 3 of 5 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-035/ VARIANCE NO 07-001 1 The project plans received and dated June 28 2007 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications a The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property)for a minimum depth of 20 feet b All freestanding low walls planter walls handrails benches and other similar improvements within the hardscape and courtyard areas shall be designed to deter skateboarding c The outdoor dining area shall not exceed 400 sq ft and shall be depicted on the site plan d The proposed parking structure shall be eliminated and replaced with surface-level parking designed in accordance with HBZSO standards e The project shall provide approximately 450 surface-level parking spaces (including 49 off-site parking spaces at Smith Elementary School) f The combined seating capacity and/or assembly area for the three assembly buildings (Worship Center Chapel Multi-Purpose Building) shall be limited based on available on- site surface level parking and the 49 off-site (Smith Elementary School) parking spaces (to approximately 1 450 seats or equivalent assembly area) pursuant to HBZSO parking requirements g A seven foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed along the northerly side of the Tidal Plaza 2 Incorporating sustainable or green building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to)those recommended by the U S Green Building Council s Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (http//www usqbc orq/DisplayPage aspx?CategorvlD=19) or Build It Green s Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http//www builditgreen orq/index cfm?fuseaction=guidelfnes) 3 At least 14 days prior to any grading activity the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number Prior to issuance of the grading permit a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department 4 New structure(s) cannot be occupied and the final building permit(s) cannot be approved until an as-built photometric study has been submitted to the Planning Department demonstrating that all on-site lighting has been designed installed and shielded so as to not produce glare or adverse impacts on adjacent properties consistent with conceptual photometric study referenced in Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 5 The use shall comply with the following a Only the uses described in the project narrative received and dated July 10 2007 shall be permitted (G\PC\NOA\07\MND 06 08 CUP 06 35 VAR 07 01) Page 4 of 5 b Hours of operation for the various uses shall be consistent with the project narrative received and dated July 10 2007 except that outdoor dining shall be permitted only between the hours of 9 00 a m and 6 00 p m daily c Concurrent attendance/ seating capacity for church services shall not exceed 1 450 persons at any time The church shall submit floor plans to the Planning Department which depicts the proposed/modified seating configuration during concurrent use of the three assembly buildings and demonstrates how the 1 450 capacity limit will achieved d Permanent outdoor sound system(s) of any kind shall be prohibited at all times e Use of parking areas for uses other than parking shall be prohibited at all times unless otherwise approved via a Temporary Activity Permit or Temporary Use Permit f Joint Use Parking at Huntington Beach High School (HBHS) shall terminate within 30 months of commencement of construction Church services shall be suspended and/or restricted based upon the availability of parking on-site and at Smith School pursuant to applicable HBZSO parking standards Upon (or prior to) termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS the church shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval a parking area plan and an amended schedule for church services that demonstrates compliance with applicable parking requirements Following termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS all church services shall be suspended until such time as the Planning Department has approved a plan and schedule demonstrating compliance with applicable parking requirements At any time the church may also file an Entitlement Plan Amendment application to the Planning Commission to request approval for Joint Use Parking at HBHS beyond the initial 30 month period g The church shall provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot at Huntington Beach High School and the church property before and after church services on Sundays The frequency of the shuttles shall be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the demand h The church shall regularly encourage church members and parents of children attending pre-school to utilize on-site and authorized joint use parking lots and shall discourage on-street parking I Bus drop-off and pick-up shall occur only in the designated area of the parking lot southwesterly of the Worship Center INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner and each of their heirs successors and assigns shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents officers and employees from any claim action or proceedings liability cost including attorneys fees and costs against the City or its agents officers or employees to attack set aside void or annul any approval of the City including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council Planning Commission or Design Review Board concerning this project The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof (G\PC\NOA\07\MND 06 08 CUP 06 35 VAR 07 01) Page 5 of 5 H• JA HUNTINGTON BEACH 0 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE AUGUST 7, 2007 PROJECT NAME FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH ENTITLEMENTS CUP 06-35/ EPA 06-03 / DRB 06-25 PLANNING APPLICATION NO 2006-0150 DATE OF PLANS JUNE 28, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNER RON SANTOS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-536-5561 / RSANTOS(a)-SURFCITY HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER 10� TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-374-1692/SBOGART(a)-SURFCITY-HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS IN CONJUCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW PARKING STRUCTURE, EXPANSION/ RENOVATION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING MODULAR BLDGS AND A REQUEST FOR JOINT USE PARKING PURSUANT TO HBZSO 23106 The site plan received and dated June 28 2007 shall be the conditionally approved layout except for 1 The following Improvements shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan for the project a Existing curb and damaged sidewalk along the Main Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) b Damaged existing sidewalk along the Loma Avenue frontage (approximately 141 feet from the curb return at Main Street) shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) c Damaged existing sidewalk along the 17th Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) d Damaged curb and gutter along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works sidewalk along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) e The existing 5-foot sidewalk (approximately 220 feet) and non-ADA compliant sidewalk sections along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) Page 2 of 2 f The existing driveway approaches on Adams Avenue shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant driveway approaches per City Standard Plan No 211 (ZSO 230 84) g Any other existing obstructions (i a stepping stones shrubs backflow devices etc) in the public right-of-way shall be removed from the parkway areas along the property frontages G\Engineering Drvlslon\ELLIOTI\Condltlons 2007\CUP 06 35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06 25 PA2006-0150(1207 Main First Christian Church)Conditions 8-07 07 doc ATTACHMENT #2 1 1ST CHRISTIAN CHURCH * r HUNTINGTON BEACH CHURCH 1207 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON W BEACH CA 714 536 958�� N --APPLICANT ART CUETO ERING -,.lSTUDIOS INC 949 417 587E17 5872--.j, �. C/ifs II I % V r i! Es4 R ✓ c �afa N z w * w Lu '' ''� r✓ '� z Q LLJ 0T /y 0807 06 EJECT !/ SHEET INDEX .gyp 10403 1 TITLE PAGE .i 2 $ITE PLAN $ 3 EXISTING SITE WITH DEMOLITION PLAN c me W I n „a nNe,c— I ,c,e,, Bi KIDS BUILDING 1ST FLOOR s�xec ameM nx� jc«F ww B2 KIDS BUILDING 2ND FLOOR 63 KIDS BUILDING NORTH/WEST ELEVATIONS g — ^+- w ^^ B4 KIDS BUILDING SOUTH/EAST ELEVATIONS •i• C1 MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING 1ST FLOOR C2 MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING 2ND FLOOR y nm d, C3 MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING NORTH/EAST ELEVATIONS Q C4 MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING SOUTH/WEST ELEVATIONS w M D1 CHAPEL BUILDING FLOOR PLANS w D2 CHAPEL BUILDING NORTH/EAST ELEVATIONS N D3 CHAPEL BUILDING SOUTH/WEST ELEVATIONS EI CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1ST PLOOR w Mm. E2 CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 2ND FLOOR yySS > E3 CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING NORTH/WEt#WfAT,IOnitln f w M _ E4 CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SOUTH ELEVVWW II II 111uI g on Beach Fl NURSERY BUILDING FLOOR PLANS F2 NURSERY BUILDING NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATIONS JUN 2 8 2007 y s G1 PARKING STRUCTURE LEVELS 0/1 and 2/3 �- G2 PARKING STRUCTURE LEVELS 415 G3 PARKING STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS —ADAMS STREETWIT- �� - - - tI oil �'I! OA. (trt t \ N r L W r � Z EXISTING v WORSHIP CENTER 1— w i = Z Lu s i W � � ,�> > f•fz� s � /8 ,,�� � W C9 - } qq � { `' �f�• n � � �� � � Fes- Y 0 P: (J " i wFED 0 08 07 06 0 L4 1 as " m 104-03 � \ Z k � I 10 I 2 a PNN\GO = Z — s Landscape/Hardscape Legend I. i 7062 = W 1 VILLAGE GATEWAY V W 26 Building Legend 2 CHAPEL GARDEN �A WORSHIP CENTER(Existing) . 3 TIDAL PLAZA TM•-� Q ® B CHILDREN S BUILDING 4 LITTLE SQUIRTS COURT W a SCHOOL FIELD \ C MULTI PURPOSE/YOUTH --w^ 5 PRAYER GARDEN LEGAL DESCRIP ION w �p CHAPEL(Existing) w ^�^ �^^+^ 6 WAVE WALK ^^^ a� ^^µ« O g 7 PIT r I µT ,���,��.u�,.W.u�a�.00 taa E ADMIN /CAFE W.� � .. a� � 7 PORTAL GARDEN 71 •.x xu.wa au'w w° ro"u�um uuavucrxe unen +n� ... ..... x �°µ"` w ��,..��W,«< F NURSERY EXPANSION ^�� ^^� -8 CHILDREN S OUTDOOR PLAY 2- 4.0 Fri 9 PARKING SCALE 1130 1 0 10 FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE Qlty of Hu Eton Bead JUN 2 8 2007 I� 'N Git of Huntington Beach IC.0 0 1 Itl` JUN 2 9 Z007 JUN 2 9 2007 C 1 II y. AD MS AVE UE 01, Church Sig IIiI Church Slgn ® 1 C — — — — C" ti�) Grass �t14'I SMALL I CHAPEL WINGS (DEMO) (DEMO)1 530 S F \ 1 700 S F �\ ICI * F Ivy YOUTH MINISTRY CRAPE Ga den 1` (DEMO) (BUILDIN O \ \ W Orass 3$50 S F 6 600 3 IMPROVE M,G�"n r Concrete \ '� \S rakebas R r \ �\ \ \ \\\ \NURSERYI Counya d Z WORSHIP CENTER\ (BUILDING k }} CHILDREN S CHURCH \/ a+ LU \(EXISTING TO REMAIN IMPROVEMENTy �* MINISTRY SCHOOL d _ 23 300 S F \ (DEMO) BUILDING ►O� �'Wf^� 4 960 S F (DEMO y W V Grass lawn 9800SF C J Playground \ io CLASSROOM �t MODULAR- �� N Z Q w \ (DEMO) r W 0. �3 000 S F � 0 4 1� �� EMMENNOW \ OATfi \ � � ! �\ 08 0706 r A _ A 0 OCT CODE it 104.03 TOl / _ �AY-L 1 J4 1"1414R, BT �� - V c z I o m = 1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 Z F 0 LEGEND ® BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS C C © DEMOLISH BUILDING EXISTING TO REMAIN X TOTAL PARKING SPACES =431 W EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE =53 210 N s ° �-- 0 Q k �ti.1 SCALE 1 =40 0 DEMO SQUARE FOOTAGE =24 840 3 b � p .d' 3 G t b'tY1006 1fi MNWgeUS4pmdiaron 9ee[h GlOe. tSdiamaOC DnmM' Bl�5na12006dS25 K.dsB,u'Se9M t I �V £ o � 3 m P g a � a 3 3 3 - -� J I 3 11 i s � -I a 9 � U a 3 P C _ a $ O O O O O O o_ C- c- co = Z � 7 N CID N .J� O Z3 O �! co CD C1 I First Christian Church 1207 Main Street,Huntington Beach studios W H Kids Building-1st Floor o"� Cn ENTITLEMENT „ W PACKAGE — - u� 6/IYIVOS Yl3]95 PM 1AMxtsYka�E�an Beatl1 GlOemriScnmu OsvbnYfMs @dld9�20060615 Ktlx 81.'1�Y -x k YaYt'�e�ro 8� a a a a � 4 _ Y f �c g ! i `t� Y •- m 3 3 q 4 9 Y I � � z 42t 0 Z N N O O O � m First Christian Church 1207 Main Street,HuntingtonBeach �'�� HEERIup o � � 110 W Kids Budding-2nd Floor W mm o ENTITLEMENT stud s w.a�,was� PACKAGE Wal.'. MM mom& M-0 -Its W.4o, 5" kx, "N IM! BE own. Rg big Rv- IP!I NI:1 1 "1 vsi� • boy?, MOM q VIA .............. ............. p*f 4J, t: gel' M BE O W r.5",�qS1_11,`F1j uJ,11_�1�51.111':: Q, gui g Iwo; , 4 • }Ay IS Fe �1 }. !f 4 .E .2�Y x ry ✓ f{' Rq �'�� i t y Y,.(.. °) t�x`Sa,t>U�a•'.t iY Kryr`�? is "lYA ,,`��'i, 1J, � r, r � i jA �t!I. x rTf Y�t+�fi 'V t n „:i4, 't ' av Yy J,�,..,ww..x.«v.,...�..s�.., T'.,;.:. V,� e .;�.� �..� - �f`+.I� s iy t ,4 �ri'i • u� ��i J7 i3��t✓�z�� }� �� �,f mrt � � �r'�' ;� ) i t, � tt :�� �7&a. t �3 ars�� �r,r�s? s.'k^,urs �e;,'� x a m,ti✓ t Fir ' 'i�.. "2. a e i f; p r l r ,, `z~ L�1 z'�-� , ��✓ �a9✓n tt!';d/ i �a�C"� �._.,��,.,..t � .�ii{.+�P�:';,� .+ � K �lya.:� it a.. r W6,4�-. , � .'fie i, ,��j.) 'AA,: s'GT!�14nxk p-t't�u`:rxrP���P AF 1:'t x..• ..'/ems ,'haPt"` � «z. .,.,L3 r � 'tlp,z �i,T�7((�_dFo � � zts Apf k N V' fir r t.:, �`h*.�:E. •y �y� - r�`' y s' R's��fr f� �r � ; a1� sit; 1 :.F f� Is°a;�. St+": , h itr@ :;i �J ��: ',V 2't ,;:a: '`',JjJ' w"`. .�, "_: y ,: 5 3"Y"�•,� ,,.;� yy.(j s7 VI/ ;.qk.�l, r: ��" �`r ;r 1�A jr/:.,;'a?1`.a �yk;�i ��1. J.. ✓i' �� '�j'S sw �p.�> is,/��I jj � d»T'J,�x I���..,, a,w• L� t� �f a Y� !. y ���'rYx7„ ✓„i,�^ 5..: .,�✓� f) t�r3� I {��i ,;.;t w.~ta x'o.b^� �F/- � t I(:,,,�e� i. 4 S:. dl�w,Y*ns �� ''�,s-v._ ���',.��!��. .14, I s�.� '�} r�' { � :� G✓d. ,rra� t �I: � \i/ C�rA Y�: �1 � end �' ��:�� ��►} � :J'`i. f?o� ��e 2 i1� r} t r k�l/ :,,,t.v...ees;;l3r r'` -$*,;�_,t� :r�?+�r�� ''„�Lhl�� I 1' �� _, 1�� ��� ,n •=j '* (( , 1J:J/���/�. ter. `�.�+',�:.±�ei� � ��'b+�' �`�n'�°��.�' ?H : r 2�s�^" tsN.Etl"+�"uhs sR'a;,arei✓+arU95�"+�AC t c� rr, : r l.. r'a r a y 2 e , r: t • � 3�n > �y}fit rfs F1 k as �stauwc raT a f rn ���i�, <N�E 1S`•^ at�l�ks"�Sv �S'r�'�FY�tt tx,:' "1 tit - i , t Y vet t+ ,7{4t- 5k�t5�S1 f'�ys yAd�, E.•(1� Y�Pn'.Y^S z f , v v nP r i" t ) S {art �` ,�{,� �fr�ri��,1„u,`��`,���,, �r�.�i tia 7�M� r .m} � � , eS;��h.` 2 ✓: ¢ v,� i � �xj ns5 y''ra vti�`r�+�{�,z,s �( rY .: t✓ b. e + - al�'�t•+'.•�}. s_: . .','�''����`�1uur���y.�.tptih�,�z�.'r4`✓ I'�ir�r:;..��x �?I,3'.!y/t �i"y�A'S� Ft�,�ryAhy�Pot�`y��f4 Z ". i c F, t ,J: r. '. 3fV..: t�i�p1v,�;F��O tr t� •1• 1 � c �+� ,ff �„a.���.-�y„ ��,:�;r�t.✓7, W 1"�' 4�ars f i'�1 rV f. Y't P y`'r'cv �' f s �+i � '" �' �YP.�`.t s-. /f s '� x 1 �•�.A� � �_ a�+�'�'�:���x��k .������f r+ ._ all �. ��c �'t.y *✓ 'Fv`Sh1�'�`.. , sr s'R 'Y'X i�J+"+4 5t'. Lre1dV ��y �u S9I x a �Y 1 v. ,:, , }4 � �'�nt k�$✓.93�9 � � } �k .t ��o-b- �� >r��~3'Ja zrFl ly4b)Jf P47 AxQ�� rkf s r t wyt Af�,'1Y �,�+ F. (� i� s ��3�,t���"�,r'���"t�a� z✓, 2V��Y . , Y y .1+. �2 �fY „P ��}r r.A""1 9 1 i �� br.>u f ,�1�* }J�{rd� d • �.a®'�o<� 'Z-va 4 �r {"�' y �,a['n- Y , ^t'� r,-. tr f `M7s;,�f•; ,� r�ryr,t. A � 1�—wlwlw— II VI:fLPoG Y BeCch Stlsma4c iA°VRP0.5EVW605-U3 M I V F B 0 g � 4 v e f 'a 3 s � c e m C] O L = C O Z 3 N � t? N � O O � W CD N A f FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1207 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH yISI NEERIH� oP gym- studios Muhl-Purpose -1st Floor o w ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE - � -- �b U� i bu z s I p3 G 1 l C = Z � N c N O o Z3 v W m N n 3 FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1207 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH V1618 NEERI m � studios N A. Multi-Purpose -2nd Floor w CA ENTITLEMENT --�- -® PACKAGE , _ t C R r�Y 4;"" ( ��. � 5� x .} d W` .�.�. t �.. f t,- 11 +..a S J 1' � •$ t Sfyz a:�� ... �t..v��✓�tj1)1i l�1y ..¢� t a r?r:✓:"{�. �t c ?. rtls fl� �r7.,r�T�" r:'a€` s � �:x yd a a y� V 5u 'Y� r N a ''� w „4. r eyr` ..r� x��i� t. a�, � v,t'°'t :•wy��is�i`� ��y�,k rid rz . p�yt a# I �IhZ ,°rah :,� t x � �;, M y'� }. 5 � It t L t�f� 4s���,r�,13 I pit a �� � r c �l; � .A�✓;Cx,� I I aX. � ( a �z`~', If .I r� �a ,A{,a,yS Y ht t r�' � � I t1 .�'41 I >•f. �� - t na t r tt d .I � I(rp��`'�'y'l N .4..hd',�S.t�)Stuek w.A:.... ......::..�.t�., ...:4. .,. . .ia�fUV�_„a��,,...� I,. ........�t�,t Zvi r- 1.., \�1,.....�. .. .. ....It ,.,r........ .«,✓5��..,.Z:'€".771K Wes. 1. 1. a + j S V p�rix'{;3)�, err '`a'r t y'r• J i s i t; t �r y t y tt t j.+ r I t :r I t e!1 ''11 5 r p. ��!a'��><'Is tiwr�('M}. ,�,"'�srHf� kx� te, .;•S$+'j �y,•.t .I{ fy,. 4Ja }� 7?J.k.t a,� t y t 4 6r't �1 z l n•, "Y t c a�'u ' ;.g��h�i}F'�X` 'rs�u�"� i�&,£k SI�p' t n rit t, � � t j +{..{ems. ryy ` � �r s {s 3 +f i%y,�"�1 ) �'f: •l + a,•. `�''j :° �rr,..,r 1• 1 t �. r,y�F9, {✓n.Y. F- ar 1 t R� a •r..F, ,] �$ Y�r D a r�„q7�,�, t� �' F cF,t ;' -�• ��•�F';�. .y # �`tirry t r >• dikiti� ty�` It �91, IY hn'i z " 4. 1Y' 'tir�M..•low ,- �... Ra,�c'����{� �k'c>,y �"2�4'"itA�t �', .. {�� � e:J'. �31°r�`•to{ rv� i yyE +7.; � s .. _•.a yy �+ 1�r ..'i���.����, r2 4�-t. C t z, 1L� � 4° � d M1 b ��a'4r • �.I ,Ya$11 a I �e'b fir, ����alY�'r —fir II 1Prr�r s��� �a� � � • ��rbk� yi - ��f ���'��r.{ }t-e 1t � � � 7(7��1 _:�jl� ,tby t�q r ri y ��r_ � • 9 i\+Ir yd.P al I s Af i t t k 4 f .IY�1� 7�e1tYSr I+ �.J E I N f �.� .,1 • ................ II ..Y,$ir�,�sk+ 't'�vs.�..yl�'�Ys1�rr?�.hsyp� izM.,i �..1Y ti +1ia,,:'. vz Hs . A„.'� .+a`✓5 � ,.z,:y} s ��• ,a Y ( r..�' 4 > ., Sr + �. y. +r.. .yy',.,[,,," ". dCw?i,i,t`t +;,,? f f i✓ 1f 4f dr i :.+'S ;,. r rr- itY;�+ Jf.y a 't"r'a'%:'. r t 1 r i r t J�k i xir4.,. �iF''.s�PP..5'fi t�,� �)7 .�rCt a 7i•� � `, K , t-�tr�'z» •..*'JI•:t�,h.z� `�. t z s r - C�t �. �;'y'}7�3 asali 4 r.,rr.�h 4�.5 r r.z�' z k�,sAt¢�f�...a P o.5. ...y,sr�:s AY"�� r`v,tiS.""'a,,y v�" ..f^..�• �,�a r,y„ sa 1 r t , s � 3 'U� 'S t4�r IMU m�"'t�i.. „�`'� '.� u. '(�" rY'd,.r'•, Styr� t r �C ''•te' '+"V.tr � "� t% 3t h �,A'»`x`�,+t i r d.6� lv � t :>r`�'4.�+'� ,r,��t�°��2-,2i{�"k•,\a'�i Hai .��•'bj����" .t�' c —a* �a a t x, f �r y l t ' .� ! i I. I ��e ��j��� � �.`.0 ri Str�r�, (r�4 u j � r✓ - a r 's' .. fir.MR4 1 k'7k•!' r/ J r �,� 6 'I � i._......x.. ,..r✓�,��'.,H.z. y�:�� a.S4:;... +.::.- 4 � •+� t;! ,..sr� ;� �' ':bL Y-!.\ C`u_ ._.m.. .._.,,., �, .VrSS •`i +�'F >"(.;�.i'a 5ed °8,°^�"iM ,tr�z'{aezl err:ra yS tS.t. s{r?d':h,:~ ^ i rtr f5°f y'l�#:�: s �, D by 1: et�1 -.o,� 'S J.t`.• n, a.+y isys,*',`'` ,�� �,,'"�y_.,vim, uc k:�i itJ r,..� yr-p.t,✓,a,r d1�t`#�u:y..ih f,Vp-, c,�,�.l�s�l fg}s,�`aa.y�V�'F t�°;.„c F :. �...x„� e=b ,��;� `�n,y�s&°�;;,,y � `�., �.�#.Ay r� � �dufji V�+?.�,.k.F.,'.d t,4A�!�>ss'yfvb7�r�•2i.+��+r°�'1 a t y'�iY3.� y:?;.°,+� ,m7'?e�1;. � �r r;� '`, a .r'*sG `.0 'sF����rk�tL,F^:;.�'�,Sr`Y� '�• .�r '. sr"'j. ` Gp�r ,. wF+"'1 6:::.�,,,(+5,(,{tifr'kli d7 f�aR}pd..,ar�`h'� "l1 y}1iak6tr`�a y1 ,.f,,.'"�1� * .::�v�t���yi '''fyfl� „'^' `',`�'>•�, 1. 1 _ 'fix, s° >, 1.��� '�.✓`F�$i�?����3is9"G�l ,.Y1 T �}- /s3 f N��, +1 S P t 411„y,kF'i e^?f tVY >4�t✓"+�' Y sfer71M1 VR r'�:;� ` � � -ryw .. � ��,.i ^� � s"a4``�>•A��rz�'P,+s�e„� S r4 S at"L.t Yir f , iiiNi. wr Iriww.. -v.'��ri-:. J., �i....J�l,.s.�„�.�£ �,�,•�...,..y.�,,,..,.._.s.?„_'..'_,a.._x.,.u�i,'t4.Ur.,..._.:'.0 °,f».Ls.�d5.,. � • • II N YtD06 trM45 M 'RwWSWUM O�Qearh CA�Dasb�lRMrtia6c Oesl�\fJ1apM20060S09 CIvpJM `-Z 7, v e� §r QQo 62 I g � \l o aw x s zv � - I— 2 IL LAI C5 o_ c = z � N O N � O � CD Al Sy CJ First Christian Church 1207 Main St Huntington Beach �'�' HEERING 00 p�� � studios = Chapel-Floor Plans o �. ENTITLEMENT —�- -� („� ikMSOr1alim480 PACKAGE =-= = �h t t. Gib Px .� - an t �re � a T Nr �vi a s � j 2 1 • -. • a i NEIR x �C LJ f`•• �r � �t t U Y /Y 1 s la �`'•-L -�ilF �� i f tZ tW AV t q ,x • tnslmasxzt.w warecavn.n.9w eead.fw�o.vm�sa�anv<oevm�enFe.na�mnzoo�a- ,�w�rrcuFe�w sl T 'QN IN HOVIN z a A e Y 4,1 00000 Op ' !�z OOO O O s Q sf O O O Q s ® a Cl n 0 c _ c � z � N j W � N O O 7 o � m c� FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1207 Main St Huntington Beach Cafe/Adman - 1st Floor o�� ENTITLEMENT c1 :1 studios �mo �' PACKAGE N 1N i Q o.N Y - 1 Y 'a f L I� J 0 C.- jr- Z � N j OD to N � O 7 O � CD O 1 s hF17RST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1207 Main St. Huntington Beach studios Cafe/Admtn -2nd Floor o ENTITLEMENTC. �' PACKAGE C w Yy rty,F 3' ; W r E fi F yy )rp ty If/urn W4 -", v W�u"'W y� i ,^y � �y,'p� ! , I Iy �/!r. i ^ I�(,. ", !� r :. •uh r fk�x` �� y�, 'iq j fy' �. '� ��f�y ytt.,a��l� W j'�' fP•l� Q r € Il -_n�/i ��1 /Jr✓.:. 1e!. s �.l Y ! L. "t" S4.u�1i G„ai':.,1:_Nx. ',``'�F 7771trr.�r;:'G 'r/3',�,.="' s, .;:+..,ram ,..:_ .�r::..v�" x,.�,r;�,•,,7,�.`,7�-iy ..�r.� e?_ . . ,!_�_. ,.°� -1_=: • � )4 t. 4�Z`w7's a:.$�i✓-a.�u '�, I r ='U� h sir'£ rt ihik + ;L y r{ s.. r r-. y r sc s:. x, , ;,a r € `�5��i e, ,� •1, 1 t �„}:^•u,n^"�Frg" �•.�x"''€f� r � Ct r `�otn i r,�,+�a y,. r� �r +''S�i7 �r +x'�r�ds y r f +x>.. `az� 5' 06tr�`Ji �)��� • rL714 r Wo..:r i�1 �� t I�a t�r§ ��-'ti+x'�f�`�€��"�� • FIN, � i ,i CPS FIN, '.t'*'-'S r v �x rr,; x�, l � Ii r I I f a a •� +S:q d t-� r I 3 � 8� � r 4 � ) �``wX rr k5 e -4. 6��.#�l�� <ly�I � � ,I �I �R 14} x h,/I u� ti� � !'i,, I e su- 'v,,.Sr' v.w j '��"� � • � ' "`"'�", '''�,+ s'•�`r`rl. Y �' t ywt Y„ 5 3Sy ,°� T�J �" �TZ ,� �,� �,��.�+,�,��� p��rf'�UeJ �s;l✓r}I •.�+g�l r r�•'Y�I �4 'Fe'. ^ � � 'S a<;r • ?Yti�l) fs�Ec�l�a�� ��I-��I��'•i� �6�57 � �� ��r� Id G.�- ��� it�/ I I �� � I i 4 I t7 , �� / i Urr! ,.�aiF i ) •� !III��+t QIE/ � � 7 �t .d d! -^iI r 14��tin � �.. _ �a�x��,.: rn., � 1 f 1�.�}.�`�3"����.�`P�u z94.�..., ��..�i. .._��.+c^7 M'�'�..�.r�i� €. .I ur�,C., .,fir.._,.�;_'�t.�....rt,��i .�_!._.�-.�.._if�I•�:.:,�I_,.A=3ia,� ti -5' ` i�✓�' E ¢"Y � a S / / F h-- • 61Y2006 Al/VWgxfsWWLpM�xJr GllDevpn SUemY<'llasgnWvseM��DO- Mase�YM b1 'zON 1Obv 0 4 b'9 s ; � g 3 tz cs 0 c � z � N Ca o 3 o Z3 �+ W m N n -s I First Christian Church 1207 Main St Huntington Beach ���I VEERING -n y ooQ = Nursery-Floorplan o my CA ENTITLEMENT studios W PACKAGE - — = - a� � r 1 IN 5 8. f ;rry Ali y Al � k r 5 y ram,-. i . . -• s • 12—zON 1Mll b � D (D } V 1 � O O Q O B 0 N Oho N W S 0 V V P N N } A N Co CDN � V � z A� C7 0 C _ c � z � N a N O O � O CU CD N n First Christian Church 1207 Main Street,Huntington Beach yfsf H�ER�Nc r G� Parking Structure Levels CD es ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE d 1 and 2 W y e_ � y z z ON IUD %u t + q V N s w Z Z O O rn m � H 3 rn W V n 0 c � z ru a� N 0 O i:3 O V W N C 4 First Christian Church lurch 1207 Main Street,Huntington Beach VISI VEERING}op N Parking Structure Level 3 b ENTITLEMENT studios �' N PACKAGEu� ..�. Beach I I'll city of Hunt y 140111 JUN 4 g M7 wsrn T W Cl— W 1 11 T W.H Ch r IF E —..L tl1 z rear I`�i� e Iz(x - +(Ij se s e } E lE Usnc W En nw seuhE /8 10 0 V 64 0 OI C C _ z H ,, .� WC h �- '°H oh MOl C E w5I �, G '1 �C w I a }o.E v Ty o3193j® ° W.. � 4;� � 4 �I `�� z w L� W i�Y To s�.I , s ,JY/ 1 6 d4 s w _ n �PF +� J T � n— . F- 0{�.�a,(s� ll ,� � ✓f y , ✓,./ `� y6���q°�� 1}I zl �� �-0 YLN® N Z Q ✓� � STD 0-� a L2 S W ii TE W E 06 29 2007 ° 3 _ d 4 1 3 8 0 B E 32 ° p WECT cooe 104-03 g 2 NM Tow rl d b '#1 4 seM U w 3Mm E �_7 W Iowa ws- V �I,o s w ii Y — ~ p { —79€s—T °.L?L® L N v zn'L° _ v 40 1 ✓1 r �- _,_ �e 1�6(B 1..6� � flp p e1d 8 ee s tb -�roL w sM 0 34 8 1 G w N Att dhm t 0 G irst Christian Chu ch Huntington Beach 4 [[NEE p Lit t W kly E tt VS1 y, e l u � f Os N YI d 1 de 19 2007 W I S M d T d y W I T M S d M A I Eagl p Ev T. A Ey Ti. A. Ev Ti. A d E Tlm An d Ev T. A rM E T. A 0, T. A W pSn Tad I W—1-ro W PC ... 900a. I 00 0o OOP,100p 2 1030 m 1130am —716 ` ` a (c p Mry) A F. Chpal n g rpwe A la E 9 od w ao 61 W l0 3o am l 1 io m _ i l2 _CI 5mill Ch pel A Fh Chap I — W 9 00 1000 SO)0-It 30 rh 22 S ykh I Ad I �W W �Cen„{M d1yH 11) W_hp 4 (Mtt r&H II 900un to o0yn 1030 m 11 loam 5 y t I C I (K 5) E dng Ch Id ..JY Ih Bu N wC I M 48 Idrx -00- 10-00am 12) 00p 7 Op 10)Oa.1110am 1 S II G M W hip C6me M tl ffh ar M H I 6-00 m 7 30 10 7-00 9 00 m 0 S ilIG W ... W hRC N{.M ( II� . (M gH y _ 900 1130A0900 1110 am 80900_ I110 00W CaM M Hil ec M et H IW 700 900 mII G Ad I W Cen Mee H it Mea Hil 0 113 1 00 0 MeeW N Ce Mee M ro M Mal 700 m 800 2 700 0-00 20 700 000 20hid. M Eal I C I 8 Id 40 Id 0W 030 1700 83 0 Wg G p Y Ng Id,q 0 1 g 9low 31 700p 83 p1630-1110 m 37H AF Ch I B id 10 A 30 Mufk M 0 heanil W CeMer 7 IS A]0 646 1 E Chi ro 0 Idq Chi 0 dhg 900 20 m 12 OOam 2 P 125 0 am 200 IIS 900 am 300 I S a0 am 300 2 C ch Ail. rn Ne OMm W hoc— Ad. MW 0 Old N 8JO S00 PM 25830 500 p 25030 Loop 25 Sp 3 I Ew F rile W W... W rain hBS-. F Ch pel 350 150 )SO 350 350 35 W did W pre ro y A pram 1 3S0 35 "..350 I50�� is 150 T ca.D A-d o 1916 A 1080 120 10 0 85 N m E I ch d I 1 ct hp=I W6 k d d g h M Ih 16 01 mb Ihfc gh J Wh to pro chool i t ea I Th 0 rch kly g mbl d I d f wo hp m 1 2 300 Aht M I Ad.S Oday Sch I included I W eah p C.- tf6 dane Th pre I". al 1 200 tude0 y. 11 ud. —d Iw awry day A"W—rW M.0m averag d M nd M neludlry IS tag member « W m 4Tumd Ewnng Mee ry h td hly bin Sp I E rm M g I dy h dOW W Thy y W pl d ny d y I M weak as ep Suedaya A—i m in ea wl apec d ewn MI MI by 0 00 pm seed M ft I ro h bl u 1 pl Sp p m Iy and d 0e 9 g 1w ATTACHMENT #3 1 Ad fee CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To Joan Flynn City Clerk From Debbie Cook Mayor Pro Tern Date September 13 2007 Subject APPEAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-0081 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/EXPANSION) I am hereby appealing the Planning Commission s September 11 2007 conditional approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration 06-008 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 and Variance No 07-001 for the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex located at 1207 Main Street The appeal is based on concerns regarding the project as conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and potential adverse impacts to surrounding residential properties DC SH xc John Scandura Planning Commission Chair Penelope Culbreth-Graft DPA City Administrator Paul Emery Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess Director of Planning Herb Fauland Principal Planner Ron Santos Associate Planner ATTACHMENT #4 1 k a , diy 0f HYlt ti4e n B'e" cjr h"';. a artmemt TO Planning Commission FROM Scott Hess,AICP, Director of Planning BY Ron Santos, Associate Planner DATE September 11,2007 SUBJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/EXPANSION) (Continued from the August 28,2007 meeting with pubhe hearing to be opened) APPLICANT Art Cueto, Visioneering Studios, 5 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, CA 92606 PROPERTY OWNER First Christian Church, 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION 1207 Main Street, 92648 (southeast corner of Adams Avenue and 17th Street) STATEMENT OF ISSUE At the August 28, 2007 meeting, the Planning Commission continued this item to the next regularly scheduled meeting, with the public hearing to be opened The item was continued to allow proper public notification of the Planning Commission hearing The original August 28, 2007 staff report, which includes a project description, analysis and staff recommendation, is provided as an attachment to this report REPORT UPDATE Based on discussions with the applicant and community feedback concerning the project, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission also consider the alternative action stated below, which provides for elimination of the proposed parking structure and a corresponding reduction in seating capacity and/or assembly area Under the alterative action, the church would be required to reduce their seating capacity by approximately 190 seats and provide additional surface-level parking on-site, in the area(and easterly)of the proposed parking structure In discussions with staff, the applicant has indicated that, based on preliminary studies, church seating capacity could be reduced as necessary to meet parking requirements and accommodate the elimination of parking structure, and that the alternative action stated below would be acceptable This action would also require appropriate revisions to the suggested findings and conditions of approval but would not necessitate revisions to the Mitigated Negative Declaration B-3 RECOMMENDATION Motion to A "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 with findings and suggested mitigation measures(Attachment No 1 to Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2007)," B `Approve Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1 to Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2007) ' ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS) The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as A "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 with findings and suggested mitigation measures(Attachment No 1 to Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2007)," B `Approve Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Variance No 07-001 with appropriately revised findings, suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1 to Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2007), and the following modifications 1 The proposed parking structure shall be eliminated and replaced with surface-level parking designed in accordance with HBZSO standards 2 The project shall provide approximately 450 surface-level parking spaces (including 49 off-site parking spaces at Smith Elementary School) 3 The combined seating capacity and/or assembly area for the three assembly buildings (Worship Center, Chapel, Multi-Purpose Building) shall be limited based on available on-site surface level parking and the 49 off-site (Smith Elementary School) parking spaces, pursuant to HBZSO parking requirements ATTACHMENTS ■ Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 28, 2007 ■ Letter from David Treiman received August 31, 2007 SH HF RR RS sh PC Staff Report 09/11/07 2 (07sr49 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) k . � { < Z r HUNTINGTON BEACH �.��.� � � TO Planning Commission FROM Scott Hess,AICP, Director of Planning BY Ron Santos, Associate Planner DATE August 28, 2007 SUBJECT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/EXPANSION) APPLICANT Art Cueto, Visioneering Studios, 5 Peters Canyon Road, Irvine, CA 92606 PROPERTY OWNER First Christian Church, 1207 Main Street, Huntington Beach,CA 92648 LOCATION 1207 Main Street, 92648 (southeast corner of Adams Avenue and 17th Street) STATEMENT OF ISSUE ♦ Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project r ♦ Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 is a request to permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex ♦ Variance No 07-001 is a request to allow joint use parking(298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site ♦ StafPs Recommendation Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008, Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 and Variance No 07-001 based upon the following - General Plan goals, objectives, and policies encourage the establishment of uses that support the needs of existing and future Huntington Beach residents when compatible with adjacent uses - Project provides for modernization and expansion of an existing community serving use - Project complies with applicable zoning regulations, with the exception of the requested variance - Divergent hours of operation between the church and adjacent schools allow for joint use parking - The proposed building architecture/design minimizes the visual bulk and mass of the buildings - The project(with mitigation) will have no significant adverse environmental impacts RECOMMENDATION Motion to A Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 with findings and suggested mitigation meas- ures (Attachment No 1) B `Approve Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 with findings and suggested con- ditions of approval (Attachment No 1) B-1 8 Mcr,� as — — soaresn i ♦ au. wAWM ♦ \ ♦ ♦ s.ivaR w_ 7A18RH1' RLLIS GARFULD /YOYICi'OA1i FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH UWaARATOUS r a # R r f SEIM Earl MRS anamxon r xi 2 1- VICINITY MAP MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH - 1207 MAIN ST ) PC Staff Report 08/28/07 2 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS) The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as A Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 with findings for denial ' B 'Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 and direct staff accordingly PROJECT PROPOSAL Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 represents a request to permit the following pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning& Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO) Section 214 06—PS District Land Use Controls and 23106—Joint Use Parking a Demolition of four existing buildings (Church School, Children's Ministry, Youth Ministry, and Small Chapel), and the Large Chapel's existing restroom facilities, b Construction of three new buildings (Children s Building, Multipurpose Building, Administrative/ Cafe/Bookstore Building), c Renovation of the existing A-Frame Chapel, including installation of a steeple and cross with an overall height of approximately 96 ft, d Expansion and renovation of the worship center s nursery and bathroom facilities, e Landscape/hardscape improvements designed to create outdoor gathering places, improve pedestrian circulation, and make the church campus more functional and welcoming to church members and visitors, f Re-striping of the existing parking lot in order to increase its capacity and improve circulation, g Construction of a three-level 298 space parking structure on a portion of the site (the southwest cor- ner), currently utilized for at-grade parking, and h Outdoor dining(less than 400 sq ft)within the courtyard area adjacent to the Cafe/Bookstore In addition, the applicant is requesting approval of joint use parking to allow shared use of 47 parking spaces existing at Smith Elementary School, located adjacent and to the south of the project site, and 298 parking spaces at Huntington Beach High School (HBHS), to meet the church's peak use parking re- quirements Use of parking spaces at HBHS is proposed only during the construction phase (1 e, until the proposed on-site parking structure is completed) and only on Sundays The project narrative estimates that the project would be completed within approximately two years from commencement of construction Variance No 07-001 is requested to allow joint use parking (298 spaces) located approximately 570 ft from the project site (at HBHS), in-lieu of the 250 ft maximum distance permitted by HBZSO Section 231 06 — Joint Use Parking, pursuant to HBZSO Sec 241 02(B)— Variance Procedures The church pro- poses to operate a shuttle between the project site and HBHS in order to mitigate the distance between the two properties PC Staff Report 08/28/07 3 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) Table A describes the proposed buildings and planned modifications to existing buildings Table A —First Christian Church, Huntington Beach-Master Plan Scope Building Status Size (s Planned Use/Improvement A Worship Cen Existing 25 500 No change to existing seating capacity The worship center will not ter be modified as part of this project scope B Children s Planned 17 411 Cluldren s Sunday School(preschool—6"'grade) and nudweek Building preschool Preschool entrance will be relocated to be accessible via irking area instead of current access via Loma Avenue C Multi Purpose Planned 10 268 Flexible meeting space for Jr High and High School groups and other large groups/functions D Chapel Existing 5 717 Remodel existing A-Framed structure into a traditional chapel suit- able for classic worship services,weddings and funerals E Administrative Planned 13 621 Church offices full service kitchen church resource center Cafe/Bookstore (kitchen 1 071 s f dining 1 746 s f/ 89 seats bookstore 943 s f) F Nursery Ex- Planned 4 252* Expanded existing nursery and restroom facilities in the worship pansion center Improvements include a combination of new construction and remodeling of existing facilities TOTAL 76,769 (Existiull Bldg Floor Area 54,410 s f ** Parking Structure Planned 299 spaces Above ground parking structure to accommodate peak parking re- (Estimated) quirements for concurrent worship services in existing worship center and new venues *Note Nursery Expansion square footage includes 1 027 s f of new construction and remodel of 3 180 s f of ex- isting nursery and restroom space in the Worship Center **Attachment A of the project narrative(Attachment No 3 of the staff report) includes floor area figures for exist- ing buildings on the church campus The proposed project will result in a net increase in assembly capacity of 293 seats, bringing the total number of seats available during the peak Sunday service time to 1,763 However, attendance/ seating capacity for Sunday services would be limited to 1,655 persons based on the recommendation in the Trip Generation Study The project will include outdoor public space and landscaping improvements in addition to the items listed above in Table A The completed campus will include a new pedestrian walkway or"Village Gate- way' from Main Street to where the existing Small Chapel is located A Chapel Garden will be located at the location of the existing Classroom Building and allow for direct pedestrian access into the campus from 14th Street A new `Tidal Court will serve as the main gathering area before and after church func- tions and will be open to the public The court will be located between the existing Worship Center and proposed Multipurpose Building, A-Frame Chapel, and Administration/Cafe Building The court will in- clude chairs and tables to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings The `Wave Walk will serve as the main pedestrian connection between the church's parking lot and the new and existing buildings These outdoor areas will be enhanced by the use of decorative paving, land- scaping(including native drought-tolerant plant materials) and signage The church will not hold regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings on its campus, nor will the Tidal Court function as an amphitheater Additionally, the church will not have any outdoor sound system(s) PC Staff Report 08/28/07 4 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) The applicant has indicated that First Christian Church's (FCC) existing facilities are functionally inade- quate to meet its current and future ministry needs The project will upgrade the quality of the church s meeting, kitchen, and resource facilities, consolidate the office space for the church's administration, and improve the campus' overall aesthetic in order to make it a more inviting community-serving facility Protect Sequencing Construction is proposed to take place in the following sequence 1 Construct new Children's Building 2 Demolish existing Church School Building 3 Construct new Multipurpose Building and Nursery Expansion 4 Demolish existing Youth Ministry and Small Chapel 5 Construct new Admmistration/Cafe/Bookstore Building 6 Construct new Parking Structure The project's initial construction phase (new Children s Building, Nursery expansion, Multipurpose Building, Administration/ Cafe/ Bookstore Building renovated Chapel, and site hardscape/ landscape/ parking lot improvements) is planned to last 18 months The construction of the parking garage is antici- pated to take an additional 12 months, for a total construction duration of approximately 2 5 years Hours of Operation FCC holds three weekly worship services (Saturday 6 00 p in , and Sunday 9 00 a in and 10 30 a in) and operates a 200-student preschool during the week The church has an average weekly attendance (three services) of 2,300, and has 25 full-time employees The church's administrative office hours are 8 30 a in to 5 00 p in , Monday through Friday, and the preschool operates from 9 00 a in to 2 00 p in , Monday through Friday (September through June) The church plans to operate the new cafe/book store between the hours of 7 00 a in to 9 00 p in Monday to Saturday, and from 8 00 a in to 7 00 p in on Sundays Weddings and related activities, and other activities held on the church campus will end by 10 00 p in A more detailed list of weekly church activities is contained in Attachment D of the project narrative (At- tachment 3 of the staff report) Special events such as weddings and funerals will typically take place in the renovated chapel As many as one wedding per week and one funeral per month may take place in this venue Both weddings and fu- nerals may take place on any day of the week with the exception of Sundays Most weddings will be scheduled for Saturdays Any wedding or funeral with a projected attendance in excess of 350 people will take place to the Worship Center, though these events are uncommon and may occur on a sporadic basis PC Staff Report 08/28/07 5 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) ISSUES Subiecpt Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Descffnations Subject Property P(RL)(Public—Residen PS (Public-Sermpublic) Religious Assembly/Pre- tial Low Density Under- School lying Designation) North(across 17th St) OS-P(Open Space— OS-PR(Open Space— Worthy Community Park Park) Parks and Recreation Sub- Huntington Beach High district) School Northeast(across Adams RL-7(Residential Low RL(Residential Low Den- Single-Family Residential Ave) East(across Main Density—7 umts/acre) sity) St) West(across 17`h St) RL-7 RL Multi-Family Residential South P(RL),RL-7 PS RL Smith Elementary School Single-Family Residential General Plan Conformance The General Plan Land Use Map designation for the subject property is P(RL) (Public—Residential Low Density Underlying Designation), and is intended to accommodate governmental administrative and re- lated facilities, schools, public parking lots, religious and similar uses The proposed religious assembly/ preschool use is consistent with this designation and the objectives and policies of the City s General Plan, including the following A Land Use Element Objective LU 9 4 Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional,religious, educational and services uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods Policy LU 9 4 3 Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facili- ties where City parks and school facilities adjoin on another in order to maximize the use of property, minimize the cost of development and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community Objective L U 131 Provide for the continuation of existing and development of new uses, such as governmental administrative,public safety,human service, cultural, educational, infrastructure,reli- gious, and other uses that support the needs of existing and future residents and businesses Policy LU 13 11 Allow for the continuation of existing public and private institutional, cultural, educational and health uses at their present locations and development of new uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy LU 7 1 1 Pohcv LU13 12 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new religious facilities in any land use zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and ap- proval { PC Staff Report 08/28/07 6 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) B Public Facilities and Public Services Element Policy PF 4 3 2 Investigate the feasibility of permitting and/or providing child or elderly day care services at public and private institutional facilities, such as churches, temples, other religious build- ings, hospitals and schools C Circulation Element Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient, well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Variance No 07-001 provides for the continuation and expansion of existing religious, educational and pre-school services which support the needs of the surrounding com- munity The proposed joint use parking and associated variance ensure that adequate parking will be provided to serve the proposed use Zoning Compliance The project site is located in the PS (Public-Semipublic) zone and complies with the requirements of that zone, with the exception of the requested variance The PS zone permits religious assembly, public and private schools and accessory uses with approval of a conditional use permit The proposed cafe and bookstore are intended and designed primarily to serve members of the church and are permitted as acces- sory uses by conditional use permit Floor Area Ratio The PS zone establishes a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1 5, which means that the total building floor area cannot exceed 1 5 times the land area of the project site The project site is approximately 7 42 acres or 323,215 sq ft , which would allow up to 484,822 sq ft of building floor area, not including the proposed parking structure which is exempt from FAR standards The project proposes 76,769 sq ft of building floor area and therefore complies with the applicable FAR standard Building Height All of the proposed and existing-to-remain buildings comply with the 50 ft height limit applicable in the PS zone, with the exception of the 96 ft tall steeple and cross proposed as an addition to the existing Chapel HBZSO Section 230 72—Exceptions to Height Limits, exempts architectural features such as this from the applicable height limit with the approval of a conditional use permit The proposed buildings also comply with the 18 ft height limit within 45 ft of a residential zone t PC Staff Report 08/28/07 7 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) The following table specifies the overall height of each of the proposed and existing-to-remain buildings Table 1—Building Heights Building Height(ft)* A Worship Center(existing) 33 B Children s Building 38 C Multi-Pu ose 365 D Chapel 42(+steeple&cross 96) E Administrative Cafe/Bookstore 42 F Nursery Expansion 16 Parking Structure 38 * Proposed buildings feature vaned roof lines towers pitched roof elements and other decorative/architectural elements Noted building heights correspond to the tallest feature of each building from top of subfloor/slab Parkin The church's parking demand is based on the proposal to stage concurrent worship services in three sepa- rate venues (existing Worship Center Renovated A-frame Chapel, and Multipurpose Building) upon the project's completion The concurrent services will generate a parking demand of 555 parking spaces based on HBZSO requirements This demand will be met through a combination of on-site and off-site shared-use parking spaces during the project's construction phase and upon completion of the project, as allowed by Section 23106—Joint Use Parking of the HBZSO The project requires parking based on the following HBZSO standard for Religious Assembly uses 1 per 35 sq ft of public assembly area, or 1 per 3 fixed seats, whichever is great The following tables specify the parking requirements for the proposed project and the existing church campus Table 2a—Parking Requirements—Proposed Project Assembly Area Required No of Proposed No of Venue Faxed Seating (sq ft Parking Spaces Parking Spaces Worship Center 975 11,151 325 A-Frame Chapel 352 2,400 117 Multi-Purpose Bldg - 3,956 113 X TOTAL 1 1,327 1 17,507 1 555* 1 580 (surplus 25) *represents peak parking demand for highest intensity use of site PC Staff Report 08/28/07 8 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) Table 2b—Parking Requirements—Existing Church Campus Assembly Area Required No of Existing No of Venue Fixed Seating (sq ft Parking Spaces Parking Spaces —Worship Center 975 11,151 325 A-Frame Chapel - 2,400 69 Small Chapel - 736 21 MI TOTAL 975 14,287 415 1 447 (surplus 32) Shared Parking The church has entered into shared use agreements with both Smith Elementary School and Huntington Beach High School for the use of the 47 space lot and the 298 space ' south lot" respectively Each lot's location, capacity, and distance from the church property is listed in Table B Table B—Shared Parking Lots Distance From Church (ft) Off Site Lot Capacity (measured in straight hne) Smith Elementary School 47 220 Smith Elementary/Dwyer Middle School 124* Huntington Beach High School 298 (south lot) 570 295 north lot* *additional school parking—not proposed for use by FCC Both lots will be used during the project construction phase to meet the church's parking requirements The church plans to operate two shuttles between the church and Huntington Beach High School's south lot on Sunday mornings in order to minimize the walking distance between the lot and the church The church plans to provide two 20-passenger commuter vans that will operate between the hours of 10 00 a in and 12 00 noon The church agrees to monitor the number of cars parked at the High School s south lot on Sunday mornings during construction and the number of church attendees that use the shuttles, and adjust the shuttles' operating hours and headways accordingly The church proposes to continue to use the Smith Elementary School lot after the project s completion to meet a portion of its parking requirements Table C shows how the church intends to meet its parking re- quirement with the use of the Smith Elementary School and HB High School lots 1 PC Staff Report 08/28/07 9 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) Table C—Parking Supply Parkmg Capacity Parking Lot Without Parking Structure I With Parking Structure FCC Surface Parking 404 234 FCC Structure Parking - 299 Smith Elementary School 47 47 HB High School 298 - TOTAL 749 580 Urban Design Guidelines Conformance The Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines do not include guidelines specific to religious assembly uses, parking structures or the PS zoning district Notwithstanding, the project generally conforms with the objectives and standards for non-residential projects contained in the Guidelines, including the follow- ing ■ Establish attractive, inviting, imaginative and functional site arrangement of buildings and parking ar- eas and high quality architectural and landscape design which provides for proper access, visibility an identity ■ The designer is expected to employ variations in form, building details and siting in order to create visual interest In all cases, the selected architectural style should be employed on all building eleva- tions ■ Buildings should be divided in distinct massing elements Building facades should be articulated with architectural elements and details Vertical and horizontal offsets should be provided to minimize building bulk ■ Vertical architectural elements such as towers should be used as focal points ■ Developments should incorporate plazas and courtyards into their design Courtyards should be buff- ered from the street, parking areas and drive aisles ■ Decorative paving should be incorporated into the project design ■ Vertical building focal elements are encouraged Towers, spires or domes become landmarks and serve as focal/orientation points for the community Environmental Status Staff completed an environmental assessment of the proposed project and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insig- nificance with proper design and engineering Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 (Attach- ment No 5) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240 04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) The Mitigated Negative Declaration is supported by a Phase I environmental site assessment,traffic, noise, geotechmcal and air quality studies PC Staff Report 08/28/07 10 (07sr46 CUP 06-035 First Christian Church) The environmental assessment identified the need for mitigation measures pertaining to hydrology/ water quality and noise In addition, the applicant is proposing to limit the combined total capacity of the as- sembly areas in order to ensure no significant traffic related impacts A condition of approval limiting the concurrent assembly capacity is included in the suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was initially made available for public review and comment for 20 days, followed by a 20-day extension of the public comment period It was subsequently amended to reflect minor revisions to the project proposal and recirculated for an additional 20-day public review and comment period Forty-nine comment letters were received (representing 31 properties) A response to comments has been included with the attached Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Board Comments The Environmental Board was notified of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration On June 18, 2007 the Environmental Board provided a letter(Attachment No 5 99)recommending the following 1 That the City encourage the project developer to utilize green building standards and materials in the demolition construction and renovation of the building and facilities 2 That the project developer be required to submit to the City a landscape plan that utilizes water con- servation measures such as smart irrigation timers and a plant palette that includes drought tolerant and low water use plants 3 That the project developer submit to the City a parking lot plan design that minimizes dry season surface water runoff to the storm drain system by using grass swales or other capture and infiltration techniques 4 That the City require that the proposed covered parking structure surface drainage be plumbed to the sewer system per City and Plumbing Code standards to eliminate possible runoff pollution when the garage is cleaned 5 That the City approve a parking structure location and design that is the least invasive to the sur- rounding community A response to the Environmental Board's comments is included with the attached Draft Mitigated Nega- tive Declaration Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Variance No 07-001, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 Staff, in its ini- tial study of the project, is recommending that the Mitigated Negative Declaration be approved with sug- gested findings and mitigation measures As an alternative to the staff recommendation, the Planning Commission may determine that additional mitigation measures are warranted to address specific potentially significant impacts, reject the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and require that additional studies be completed, or determine, on the ba- sis of the information presented and/or new information, that the project may have a significant adverse environmental impact which can not be mitigated and require that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared In making its determination, the Planning Commission should state the basis of its decision for the record For example, if additional mitigation measures are to be imposed on the project, the Plan- ning Commission should identify the potentially significant impact which is being mitigated and ensure PC Staff Report 08/28/07 11 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) that the mitigation measure is `roughly proportional' to the impacts of the project (i e, ensure that the mitigation measure(s) actually relates to the project and would not do more than fully mitigate the impacts of the development) If an EIR will be required, the Planning Commission should reference the substan- tial evidence in the record that one or more significant environmental impacts may occur Coastal Status Not applicable Redevelopment Status Not applicable Descen Review Board The project was reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) on January 25, 2007 and May 10, 2007 The DRB unanimously recommended approval of the project as proposed Subdivision Committee Not applicable Other Departments Concerns and Requirements The Departments of Building & Safety, Fire, Police, Planning and Public Works have reviewed the pro- posed project plans and identified applicable code requirements (Attachment No 4) The Departments of Planning and Public Works are also recommending conditions of approval (Attachment No 1) Planning Department suggested conditions ensure that the use will operate consistent with the applicant s project narrative The Public Works Department's suggested conditions require repair of public right-of-way im- provements adjacent to the project site, including damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter The Police De- partment also advised that there is no record of noise or other complaints filed against the church and that the proposed parking structure does not present crime or safety concerns Public Notification Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on August 16, 2007 and notices were sent to property owners of record and tenants within a 500 ft radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), the appli- cant, and interested parties As of August 21, 2007 no additional letters regarding the request have been received Application Processinz Dates DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION MANDATORY PROCESSING DATES) August 6 2007 Mitigated Negative Declaration Feb 1, 2008 (180 days) Conditional Use Permit/Vanance Within 60 days from Negative Declaration Approval i PC Staff Report 08/28/07 12 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) ANALYSIS Land Use Compatibih The proposed project, as modified by suggested conditions of approval and mitigation measures, is com- patible with surrounding properties since the religious assembly use of the site is long-standing (the site was developed for use as a church in the mid-1950s) and, as noted above, is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations The project represents a minor expansion of the existing development—measured in terms of the change in intensity of the use, as reflected by the projected traffic generation increase (60 inbound peak hour trips on Sunday) and increase in parking requirements (140 spaces) This supposition considers that the aforementioned trip generation and parking demand increase corresponds to a single day of the week (Sunday) — a day which generally experiences the lowest peak hour traffic levels on surrounding streets, and that the estimated trip generation and parking demand in- crease at all other times would be significantly less (e g, 13 weekday morning peak hour trips) than the Sunday peak The proposed/ cafe and bookstore are intended to primanly serve members of the church and are not ex- pected to attract significant numbers of persons to the site that are not already on site for other purposes Moreover, while the assertion has been made that the proposed project is incompatible with residential uses which exist in proximity, the site is also in close proximity to other institutional uses such as Hunt- ington Beach High School, the adjacent Smith Elementary School and the Civic Center (which also in- clude cafeterias) All of the aforementioned uses are also adjacent to residential uses In fact, a review of the General Plan Land Use map indicates that nearly every Public and Commercial district in the City is adjacent to a residential district and many of these sites are developed with uses which are considerably more intense than the proposed use, including Home Depot, Wal-Mart Target and numerous other com- mercial centers All of the aforementioned sites include businesses which are open later than the hours proposed for the cafe/bookstore(9 00 p m ) and are contiguous to more than a dozen single-family homes, whereas the subject property is contiguous to only two residential properties and is otherwise separated and buffered from residences by public streets Finally, it should be noted that the General Plan encour- ages religious assembly uses and pre-schools/daycare in residential neighborhoods Tra tc A Trip Generation Study (Kimley Horn, March 2007) was prepared for the proposed project which ap- plied weekday and weekend peak tnp generation rates The study concluded that the proposed project would generate a less than significant increase in traffic, provided that concurrent assembly capacity is limited to 1,655 persons, as proposed by the applicant This could be achieved by reducing the seating capacity in the proposed Multi-Purpose Building during concurrent use of the three assembly buildings, since fixed seating is not proposed for the Multi-Purpose Building The Trip Generation Study was peer reviewed by the Public Works Department's Traffic Division, which supports the conclusions in the study and determined, accordingly, that no further traffic impact analysis is warranted A condition of approval limiting the concurrent assembly capacity in accordance with the Trip Generation Study is included in staff's suggested conditions of approval, along with a condition of approval which would require the applicant to submit a floor plan which depicts the proposed/modified seating configura- tion in the Multi-Purpose Room during concurrent use of the three assembly areas, in order to demonstrate how the 1,655 capacity limit will achieved The plan would by used by the City as necessary to enforce PC Staff Report 08/28/07 13 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) the occupancy limit, in the same manner as the occupancy limits of all assembly buildings in the City are enforced The Trip Generation Study acknowledged that the proposed project includes a cafe and resource center (i e , bookstore), but did not identify these uses as contributing to a potentially significant traffic impact It should also be noted that the trip generation study did not find that the project would generate a signifi- cant traffic impact without the suggested limit on the concurrent assembly capacity More accurately, the capacity limit ensures no significant traffic impact and avoids the need for further traffic impact analysis to determine whether or not the project would otherwise generate a potentially significant traffic impact Noise An exterior noise analysis of the proposed project was prepared by an independent consulting firm (Kim- ley-Horn, April 2007) The study identifies all noise sources deemed to be potentially significant based on the noise standards established by Municipal Code Section 8 40 Section 8 40 establishes noise standards with the intent to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and includes distinct standards for projects which are in or adjacent to residential zones Because these standards represent acceptable community noise levels they also serve as thresholds of significance for purposes of noise impact analysis in the City of Huntington Beach The noise study considered that the proposed project includes church services,weddings,preschool and children's play areas, informal outdoor gathering areas, a cafe and bookstore, and a parking structure The study also addresses traffic and construction related noise generated by the project, and concluded that no significant noise impacts will result with incorporation of the suggested mitigation measure,which re- quires construction of a seven-ft tall block wall along the southerly side of the proposed children's play areas located near the southerly property line The mitigation measure is warranted due the proximity of two residential properties located to the south of the project site, the only residential properties which are contiguous to church The noise study also concluded that ■ The parking structure, as designed with a solid wall with no openings on the southeast side, will not result in significant noise impacts to adjacent properties • The informal outdoor gathering areas do not represent significant noise sources ■ Compliance with all provisions of the City's Municipal Code(Section 8 40 090(d))will ensure no negative noise impacts associated with construction of the project As indicated above, the church has stated that there will be no outdoor sound system(s)of any kind Staff is recommending a condition of approval which would prohibit this Protect Design and Architecture The proposed project features contemporary architectural design, bright exterior colors and a variety of forms, wall planes, roof lines, offsets, exterior finish materials and decorative architectural elements The proposed architectural design provides visual interest, minimizes massing and is in accordance with com- munity standards as determined by the Design Review Board Proposed and existing to remain buildings are functionally arranged around a central courtyard featuring decorative paving treatments The City's Urban Design Guidelines encourage the incorporation of court yards, plazas and public or semi-public open space areas in development projects PC Staff Report 08/28/07 14 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) Two of the project s five buildings are existing to remain The Urban Design Guidelines encourage pres- ervation and incorporation of structures which are distinctive because of their age, cultural significance or unique architectural style into project development proposals The proposed 96 ft tall steeple and cross will provide a vertical focal point for the project site, as encouraged by the Urban Design Guidelines All the proposed buildings are limited to two stones and are significantly lower than the 50 ft height lnnut applicable in the zone It should be emphasized that the proposed heights, as noted in the table above may somewhat exaggerate what would be the true perception of building height, since all of the buildings feature a variety of rooflmes and include tower elements, pitched roofs and other features which are taller than the average or predominant height of the various building rooflines It should also be noted, for com- parative purposes, that many of the homes in proximity to the church, (south of Palm Ave , east of Lake St) are as tall as 35 feet, and that the Civic Center, located three blocks north, features a true five-story building The proposed parking structure, although not an ideal component of the project, is necessary however to accommodate the proposed expansion and is designed to minimize its visual impacts The predominant height of the parking structure is 28 feet, including a four-ft tall hanging garden The structure also in- cludes an architectural tower, with a height of 38 ft measured to the peak of the pitched roof, and a small, 30 ft tall elevator tower The tower feature, along with the hanging garden are intended to break up the massing of the building and improve its overall appearance, and were features encouraged by the Design Review Board following its initial review of the project Although the structure provides three levels of parking, it is in essence a two-story structure with roof-top parking That is, the structure is not a true three-story building in that it does not have third-story walls a third-story roof or the associated massing and building height The parking structure will be set back a considerable distance (56 ft) from the two adjoining residential properties to the east This setback area will be landscaped and lined with trees Ten-ft wide tree-lined landscaped setbacks will also be provided along the north, south and west sides of the parking structure, in order to partially screen and soften its appearance The structure will also screen views of parked cars and will displace an existing surface-level open parking lot devoid of trees, landscaping or decorative paving The Police Department has advised that the parking structure does not present concerns related to crime or safety Moreover, the applicant is proposing to install roll-up gates at each entrance to the parking struc- ture in order to secure it when not in use by the church Staff is recommending that this (securing the structure when not in use)be made a condition of approval .Joint Use Parking and Variance Staff supports the proposed Joint Use Parking and believes that the proposal represents an efficient use of land and will be an effective means of meeting, in part, the project's parking requirements The project is particularly suited to the Joint use parking proposal because the off-site parking will be needed only to meet the church s peak use requirements, which represents only a single and partial day of the week, and because the Smith School and HB High School lots will be concurrently under utilized The applicant's proposal to provide shuttle service between the high school parking lot and the church will help to miti- gate the distance between the two sites Consequently, staff supports the variance request,with considera- tion that the HB High School parking lot will be needed only during the construction phase The HBZSO requires that a Joint Use Parking Agreement between the subject properties be executed, submitted for PC Staff Report 08/28/07 15 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Chnstian Church) review and approval by the City and recorded with the County Recorder This requirement is identified in the Code Requirements list (Attachment No 4) SUMMARY Staff is recommending approval of the project based on the suggested findings and subject to the sug- gested conditions of approval The proposed project furthers General Plan goals, objectives, and policies which encourage the modernization and expansion of uses that support the needs of Huntington Beach residents In addition, the project complies with all applicable zoning regulations, with the exception of the requested variance Divergent hours of operation between the church and the adjacent schools pro- vides for joint use parking as a means to meet, in part, the project's parking requirements The proposed use of shuttles between the project site and the off-site parking lot mitigate the distance between the two properties and support approval of the requested variance Proposed buildings feature a contemporary de- sign and architectural features which minimizes the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with surrounding land uses Finally, the project (with mitigation) will have no significant adverse environmental impacts ATTACHMENTS 1 Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval—Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008/Condi- tional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 3 Project Narrative received and dated July 10, 2007 4 Code Requirements Letter dated August 6, 2007 (for informational purposes only) 6 Trip Generation Study(Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc)dated March 7, 2007 7 Exterior Noise Analysis Report((Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc)revised May 1, 2007 8 Air Quality Analysis (Environmental Audit, Inc) dated March 19, 2007 9 Geotechnical Engineering Report(KFM Geoscience) dated January 24, 2007 SH HF RR RS sh PC Staff Report 08/28/07 16 (07sr46 CUP 06 035 First Christian Church) ATTACHMENT NO 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06- 035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 07-001 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines It was advertised and available for a pub- lic comment period of over twenty (20) days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 2 Mitigation measures, incorporated into the conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur 3 There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/ Van- ance No 07-001 will have a significant effect on the environment SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035 1 Conditional Use Pen-nit No 06-035 to permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church com- plex, including a multi-level parking structure, will not be detrimental to the general welfare of per- sons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood A mitigated negative declaration was prepared which analyzed the project's po- tential to generate detrimental impacts on surrounding properties The study concluded that mitigation measures, incorporated into the conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur The Mitigated Negative Declaration is supported by a Phase 1 environmental site assessment, traffic, noise, geotechnical and air quality studies The project will provide adequate parking, in accordance with applicable code requirements, on-site and via the use ofjomt use parking off-site 2 Conditional Use Penult No 06-035 will be compatible with surrounding uses because it provides for the continuation, modernization and expansion of an existing, long-standing (the site was developed for use as a church in the mid-1950s) community serving use which is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations Proposed buildings feature a contemporary design and architectural features which minimize the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with surrounding land uses All of the proposed buildings comply with the applicable height limit in the zone and provide adequate setbacks from adjacent residential properties The pro- posed parking structure will be partially screened with trees on all sides The project was recom- mended for approval by the Design Review Board PC Staff Report—08 28 07 Attachment No I I 3 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other ap- plicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, in- cluding the Public-Semipublic zone permitted uses, minimum parking requirements, with the excep- tion of the requested variance to the Joint Use Parking requirements, maximum building height maximum floor area ratio and minimum building setbacks 4 The granting of Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public—Residential Low Density Under- lying Designation) on the subject property In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element Objective LU 9 4 Provide for the inclusion of recreational, institutional, religious, educational and services uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods Objective LU 13 1 Provide for the continuation of existing and development of new uses, such as governmental administrative, public safety, human service, cultural, educational, infrastructure, reli- gious, and other uses that support the needs of existing and future residents and businesses Policy LU 13 11 Allow for the continuation of existing public and private institutional, cultural, educational and health uses at their present locations and development of new uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy LU 7 1 1 Polacv LU13 1 2 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new religious facilities in any land use zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and ap- proval Public Fatalities and Public Services Element Polacv PF 4 3 2 Investigate the feasibility of permitting and/or providing child or elderly day care services at public and private institutional facilities, such as churches, temples, other religious build- ings, hospitals and schools Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 provides for the continuation and expansion of existing religious, educational and pre-school services which support the needs of the surrounding community The pro- posed joint use parking and associated variance ensure that adequate parking is provided to serve the pro- posed use SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -VARIANCE NO 07-001 1 The granting of Variance No 07-001 to allow joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification Properties which are being redeveloped to the City of Huntington Beach are typically allowed to continue to op- erate with reduced parking availability during construction with approval of a parking management plan or other mechanism to ensure adequate parking is provided and adverse impacts to surrounding properties are minimized The applicant is proposing shuttle service between the joint use parking lot PC Staff Report—08 28 07 Attachment No 1 2 and the subject property as its mechanism to ensure no detrimental impacts will result from the dis- tance between the two properties Other examples of similar privileges enjoyed by other properties include commercial centers which are permitted to operate with reduced parking for limited periods of time while a portion of the available parking is displaced by Christmas tree displays or parking lot sales, and other churches which are permitted to operate with reduced parking on site during festivals which encumber parking areas 2 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including its location and sur- roundings, the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification The spe- cial circumstances applicable to the subject property includes its location in proximity to a use (Hunt- ington Beach High School) which underutilizes its on-site parking coincident with the peak parking demands of the subject property Without the granting of the variance, the subject property would be required to provide parking on-site which generally (excepting a single day each week) exceeds its parking demand, and would thereby be deprived of the privilege to provide parking at a rate which corresponds to its typical parking demand and the privilege to continue to operate until such time as construction of required on-site parking can be completed 3 The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights The requested variance is necessary to allow the church to meet its parking requirements and continue to operate during its construction phase 4 The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification The church will provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot and the project site in order to mitigate the distance between the two properties and support the use of the joint use parking 5 The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public—Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) on the subject property, including the following objectives and policies Land Use Element Ojective LU 81 Maintain the pattern of existing land uses while providing opportumties for the evo- lution, including intensification and re-use, of selected sub areas in order to improve their character and identity Pohcv LU 9 4 3 Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facili- ties where City parks and school facilities adjoin on another in order to maximize the use of property, minimize the cost of development and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community Circulation Element Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient, well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City I PC Staff Report—08 28 07 Attachment No 13 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1 The project shall provide (1) on-site attenuation of increased storm water flow and/or(2) construction of capsized storm drain facilities in Main Street per the City adopted 2005 Drainage Master Plan 2 A 7-ft tall noise barrier (masonry wall) shall be constructed along the southerly side of the children s play areas SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-035/ VARIANCE NO 07-001 1 The project plans received and dated June 28, 2007 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications a The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property) for a minimum depth of 20 feet b All freestanding low walls, planter walls, handrails benches and other similar improvements within the hardscape and courtyard areas shall be designed to deter skateboarding c The outdoor dining area shall not exceed 400 sq ft and shall be depicted on the site plan 2 Incorporating sustainable or"green"building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged Sustainable building practices may include(but are not limited to)those recommended by the U S Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) Program certification (http //www us bg c or DisplayPa e aspx?CategoUID=19)or Build It Green's Green Building Guide- lines and Rating Systems(http //www buildtt een org/index cfin?fuseaction=guidelines) 3 At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing The notice shall include a general description of planned grading ac- tivities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of re- cipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department 4 New structure(s) cannot be occupied and the final building permit(s) cannot be approved until an"as- built' photometric study has been submitted to the Planning Department demonstrating that all on- site lighting has been designed, installed and shielded so as to not produce glare or adverse impacts on adjacent properties, consistent with conceptual photometric study referenced in Mitigated Nega- tive Declaration No 06-008 5 The use shall comply with the following a Only the uses described in the project narrative received and dated July 10, 2007 shall be permit- ted b Hours of operation for the various uses shall be consistent with the project narrative received and dated July 10, 2007 c Concurrent attendance/ seating capacity for church services shall not exceed 1,655 persons at any time The church shall submit floor plans to the Planning Department which depicts the pro- PC Staff Report—08 28 07 Attachment No 14 posed/modified seating configuration during concurrent use of the three assembly buildings and demonstrates how the 1,655 capacity limit will achieved d The Youth Breakout room and Mezzanine in the Multi-Purpose Building shall not be occupied when church services are occurring concurrently in the Worship Center, Chapel and Multi- Purpose Room e Outdoor sound system(s) of any kind shall be prohibited at all times f Church services,weddings, funerals, festivals, fairs, and other similar activities shall be prohibited outdoors unless approved via a Temporary Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit at a noticed pub- lic hearing g Use of parking areas, including the parking garage, for uses other than parking shall be prohibited at all times unless otherwise approved via a Temporary Activity Permit or Temporary Use Permit h Joint Use Parking at Huntington Beach High School (HBHS) shall terminate within 30 months of commencement of construction In the event that the required on-site parking structure is not completed and available for parking at the time the Joint Use Parking is terminated, church ser- vices shall be suspended and/or restricted based upon the availability of parking on-site and at Smith School, pursuant to applicable HBZSO parking standards Upon(or prior to) termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS, the church shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval a parking area plan and an amended schedule for church services that demonstrates com- pliance with applicable parking requirements Following termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS, all church services shall be suspended until such time as the Planning Department has ap- proved a plan and schedule demonstrating compliance with applicable parking requirements At any time, the church may also file an Entitlement Plan Amendment application to the Planning Commission to request approval for Joint Use Parking at HBHS beyond the initial 30 month pe- nod i The parking structure shall be secured when not in use by the church j The church shall provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot at Huntington Beach High School and the church property before and after church services on Sundays The frequency of the shuttles shall be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the demand k The church shall regularly encourage church members and parents of children attending pre-school to utilize on-site and authorized joint use parking lots and shall discourage on-street parking INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should coop- erate fully in the defense thereof PC Staff Report—08 28 07 Attachment No 1 5 4 • Jj HUNTINGTON REACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE AUGUST 7, 2007 PROJECT NAME FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH ENTITLEMENTS CUP 06-35/ EPA 06-03 / DRB 06-25 PLANNING APPLICATION NO 2006-0150 DATE OF PLANS JUNE 28,2007 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNER RON SANTOS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL 714-536-5561 /RSANTOS(cD-SURFCITY-HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER 4f1 ' TELEPHONE/E-MAIL 714-374-16921 SBOGART(a)-SURFCITY-HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS IN CONJUCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW PARKING STRUCTURE, EXPANSION/RENOVATION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING MODULAR BLDGS AND A REQUEST FOR JOINT USE PARKING PURSUANT TO HBZSO 23106 The site plan received and dated June 28 2007 shall be the conditionally approved layout except for 1 The following improvements shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan for the project a Existing curb and damaged sidewalk along the Main Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) b Damaged existing sidewalk along the Loma Avenue frontage (approximately 141 feet from the curb return at Main Street) shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) c Damaged existing sidewalk along the 17tI` Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) d Damaged curb and gutter along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works sidewalk along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) e The existing 5-foot sidewalk (approximately 220 feet) and non-ADA compliant sidewalk sections along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) WTACHMENTN !� Page 2 of 2 f The existing driveway approaches on Adams Avenue shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant driveway approaches per City Standard Plan No 211 (ZSO 230 84) g Any other existing obstructions (i a stepping stones shrubs backflow devices etc ) in the public right-of-way shall be removed from the parkway areas along the property frontages a ATTACHMENT NO _L7 -- G\Engineering Division\ELLIOMCondltions 2007\CUP 06 35 EPA 06-03 DRB 06 25 PA2006-0150(1207 Main First Christian Church)Conchtions 8-07 07 doc 9 First Christian Church of Huntington Beach Conditional Use Permit Application —Revised Project stud'o s Narrative Revised—July 10, 2007 Existing Conditions First Christian Church Huntington Beach(FCCHB) is located at 1207 Main Street. It occupies a 7 5 acres campus consisting of seven (7)existing buildings and 431 on-site parking spaces The proposed master plan of improvements consists of the following I Demolition of four existing buildings(Church School Children s Ministry Youth Ministry and Small Chapel) and the Large Chapel s existing restroorn facilities 2 Removal of the existing modular structures currently used for adult Sunday School classes 3 Construction of three new buildings(Children s Building Multipurpose Building Administrative/Cafe Budding) 4 Renovation of existing A-Framed Chapel 5 Renovation and expansion of the worship center s nursery and bathroom facilities 6 Landscape/Hardscape Improvements designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places improve pedestrian circulation and make the church campus more functional and welcoming to church members and visitors alike 7 Re striping of existing parking lot in order to increase its capacity and improve circulation 8 Construction of a multi-level parking structure Proposed Use Table A describes the new buildings and modifications of existing buildings contained within the Master Plan scope Attachment A shows how the church s existing activities will be housed within the new and existing buildings upon the project s completion Table A First Christian Church, Hunters on Beach - blaster Plan Scope Building Status Size Planned Use/improvement A Worship Center Existing 25 500 No change to existing seating capacity The worship center will not be modified as art of this project scope B Children s Building Planned 17 41 1 Children s Sunday School (preschool—6' grade) and midweek preschool C Multi-Purpose Planned 10 268 Flexible meeting space for Jr High and High School groups and other large groups/ functions D Chapel Existing 5 717 Remodel existing A-Framed structure into a traditional chapel suitable for classic worship services weddings and funerals ATTACHMENT NIO3_.- E Administrative Cafe Planned 13 621 Church administrative offices cafe kitchen church resource center F Nursery Expansion Planned 4 252* Expanded existing nursery and restroom facilities in the worship center Improvements include a combination of new construction and remodeling of existing facilities G Parking Structure Planned 299 spaces Above ground parking structure to (Estimated) accommodate peak parking requirements for concurrent worship services in existing worship center and replacement venues *Dote Nursery Expansion square footage includes 1 027 sf of new construction and remodel of 3 180 sf of existing nursery and restroom space in the Worship Center The project will include a series of outdoor public space and landscaping improvements in addition to the items listed in Table A. The completed campus will include a new pedestrian walkway or Village Gateway from Main Street where the existing Small Chapel is located A Chapel Garden will be located at the site of the existing Classroom Building and allow for direct pedestrian access into the campus from 14th Street A new Tidal Court will serve as the main gathering area for before and after church functions and will be open to the public The court will be located between the existing Worship Center Multipurpose Budding A-Frame Chapel ' and Administration/Cafe Budding The court will include chairs and tables to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings The Wave Walk will serve as the main pedestrian connection between the church s parking lot and the new and existing buildings These outdoor areas will be enhanced by the use of decorative paving landscaping (including native drought-tolerant plant materials) and signage The church will not hold regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings on its campus nor will the Tidal Court function as an amphitheater Additionally the church will not have outdoor amplified music Project Sequencing The construction of the new buildings is scheduled to begin in fall 2007 The construction is anticipated to last between 18 to 24 months The project will be built in the following sequence i Remove existing modular buildings 2 Construct new Children s Budding 3 Demolish existing Church School Budding 4 Construct new Multipurpose Building and Nursery Expansion 5 Demolish existing Youth Budding and Small Chapel 6 Renovation of A-Frame Chapel 7 Construct new Administration/Cafe Building 8 Construct Parking Structure First Christian Church of Hunungton Beach 2 July 10 2007 CUP Application Project Narrative t Parking The church s parking demand is based on the assumption that it will stage three concurrent worship services in separate venues(Existing Worship Center Renovated A-frame Chapel and Multipurpose/Overdrive Budding) upon the project s completion The concurrent services will generate a parking demand of 555 parking spaces as per city code This demand will be met through a combination of on-site and shared use spaces during the project construction phase and upon project completion as allowed by the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance 231 06 Shared Parking The church has entered into shared use agreements with both Smith Elementary School and Huntington Beach High School for the use of their respective parking lots Each lot s location capacity and distance from the church are listed in Table B and shown in Attachment B Table B Shared Parking Lots Distance from Off Site Lot Capacity Church (Feet) Smith Elementary School 47 220 Huntington Beach High School 298 570 Both off-site lots will be used during the project construction phase to meet the church s required parking capacity A Vanance Request has been filed with the city for the use of the Huntington Beach High School lot since it exceeds the city s 250 foot requirements for shared use parking The church will operate shuttles between the High School lot and its campus in order to mitigate the distance between the two The church is intends to continue to use the Smith Elementary School lot after the project s completion to meet a portion of its parking demand Table C shows how the church intends to meet its parking requirement both before and after the completion of the parking structure The parking structure will be located on a portion of the church s existing surface parking lot The number of surface parking spaces will decrease as a result of the structure Table C Final Parking Supply Parkingapacity i Without With Parking Lot Parking Structure Parking Structure FCCHB Surface Parking 404 234 FCCHB Structured Parking 299 Smith Elementary School 47 47 Huntington Beach High School 298 Total 749 580 1 First Christian Church of Huntington Beach 3 July 10 2007 CUP Application Project Narrative ATTACHMENT NO 3 3 The peak parking period for the church and the two school lots are compatible in that the lots are not in use during Sunday mornings As a result the joint use of the lots by the church and the schools will not result in any operational conflicts Evidence of the agreements will be files with the appropriate city and county offices as required by the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance 231 06 0 The parking structure s design will meet all requirements dealing with height setbacks and screening of parked cars The parking structure s perimeter will be landscaped to screen the structure from adjacent streets and neighbonng land uses It will be secured when not in use to prevent unauthorized use or activities Trip Generation A trip generation analysis prepared for this project estimates that the new facilities will generate a total of 283 new trips on Sundays of which 60 inbound and 55 outbound trips will take place during the Sunday morning peak hour This estimate was developed for the project using the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE)Trip Generation Manual (r Edition) and was based on a total Sunday attendance of 1 655 This number is less that the total occupancy for the three venues in which concurrent worship services will take place on Sunday mornings(existing Worship Center Renovated A-Frame Chapel and Multipurpose Building) The church agreed to reduce its maximum Sunday attendance in order to achieve a reduced number of automobile trips during the Sunday peak penod The reduced attendance figures agreed upon by the church are listed in Attachment C Hours of Operation FCCHB holds three weekly worship services(Saturday 6 00 pm and Sunday 9 00 and 10 30 am) and operates a 200-student preschool during the week The church has an average weekly attendance(three services) of 2 300 and has 25 fulltime employees The church s administrative office hours are 8 30 am to 5 00 pm Monday through Friday and the preschool meets from 9 00 am to 2 00 pm Monday through Friday(September through June) The church plans to operate the new cafe/book store between the hours of 7 00 am to 9 00 pm Monday to Saturday and from 8 00 am to 7 00 pm on Sundays Weddings and related activities along with other special events held at the church will end by 10 00 pm A more detailed list of weekly church activities is contained in Attachment D Special events like weddings and funerals will typically take place in the renovated chapel As many as one wedding per week and one funeral per month may take place in this venue Both weddings and funerals may take place on any day of the week with the exception of Sundays Most weddings will be scheduled for Saturdays Any wedding and funeral with protected attendances in excess of 350 people will take place in the Worship Center although these events are uncommon and may occur on a sporadic basis First Christian Church of Huntington Beach 4 July 10 2007 CUP Application Project Narrative ATTACHMENT N 3 �' Reasons for Initiating Application The church s existing Youth Classroom and Small Chapel are both functionally and economically obsolete They do not meet the church s current or future ministry needs and the cost of retrofitting these buildings is approximately the same as constructing new ones in order for them to meet current budding codes The project will upgrade the quality of the church s meeting kitchen and resource facilities consolidate the office space for the church s administration and improve the campus overall aesthetic in order to make it a more inviting and community-serving facility Neighboring Land Uses ,rr FCCHB is located within a portion of the City of Huntington Beach dominated by residential land uses Single family homes are located across 17' Street Adams Avenue Main Street and Loma Avenue Worthy Park is located directly north of the intersection of Adams Avenue and I r Street from the project site Agness L Smith Elementary School and a private home is located adjacent to and south of the project site Population Served j HBCC is the largest Protestant church within the city of Huntington Beach It has a full } compliment of adult youth and children ministry programs along with operating an accredited preschool program The church s attendees reside within Huntington Beach and neighboring cities of Fountain Valley Westminster Costa Mesa and Seal Beach Hazardous Waste and Substance A Phase I Environmental Assessment Report prepared on behalf of HBCC found the site to be free of any hazardous waste or substance The report s executive summary is attached hereto First Christian Church of Huntington Beach S July/0 2007 CLIP Application Project Narrative ATTACH MENT 3 s Attachment A V 1�HI�iI First ChrtsUan Church Huntington Beach Event LocatlonComparlson StUdlOS March IS 1007 E nt Location Ex1 ti Futur Net Room Net R m A tM 8 Ildi #o Rooms Capacity aci Si a SF Sulldl #o Rooms Capacity Sfze SF Not s Worshlp » ... W rsh p Ce ter ud to m e pac ty s bas d o f d s ats Tract I W rshie Ce A d on m 1 975 11 151 Wo_rshie C nt r A d tonum 1 975 11 151 Net SF is based n a dito m assembly a s E t g A Frame cap c ty s bas do post d gn g n Ove on a(C t mp r ry) A Frame Chapel _ » 1 415 2 400 Multp Pos I 438 2 890 oom Net SF s bas d n assembly a a Ren at d A Fram Chap I s t g p V bas d o Clas Sm 11 Chapel 11 80 1 700 A Frame Chapel Re o at d I u 350 2 400 fx d se Pew hid nsMn q Classrooms ... » Chlldre _E tlgg_ » ... 10 » 120 2400 Childrnen N w 10 120 2400 �Laye G o p Room » _ L ght H s Q 5 year oldsl Ch Idren E ist I 120 120 Chlldr n s New _...1» 80 800 T H CK I_g des) Chlldr s Ex st_g » »» » 1 _ 35 _700 Ch ldr n N w 1 100 » 2 302 Beach H s (2 3.grades) r w » Ch Id ens New _ _ _ 1 .... 100 1 955 TEK H 4 5 grad Y uth Bu Id n _ »1 » 275 3 850 Children s New 1 100 �I 611 High Surd y Sch of M dul r B Id g 1 49 1 500 Mutt purpo e 1 95 1 413 H h Sch I G p A Frame Chapel I M It purpose I 3 956 Ad It Sund y School W rsh p Cent e L w r Meet g Ro m 1 547 W rsh p C nt r L wer M t g Room 547 Capacry based on posted sgnage room Ch rch Adm strati Off Worsh�Cente/Exst g Ch Idren s Build njL 17 Administraton Buildmpi _ _ 37 ...M 37 » 3 890 E st ng Ch[tire s B Id rg 4 Pr Sch I Classrooms Ch Idren;-B dd npi Exitn » ^M 10" » 120 2 400 Ch Idren s B Ild nqn~Naw » » W »�10 y 120— 2 400 Offces iChldrens B Idng E i ting 2 21 240 Chih Idrens B Idng New M »2 �2 240 M w 13 8 A Attachment B t VISI KEERING �;_Site hristian Park�ng Lot Locatiourch ns Huntington Beach stud,os March 15, 2007 r ATTACHMENT l Attachment C V161First Christian Church Huntington Beach r,t u I o s Worship Service Venue Occupancies March IS, 2007 Future Existing Mammum Reduced* Worhship Service Venue Occupancy Venue Occupancy Venue Occupancy Traditional Worship Center 975 Worship Center 975 Worship Center 975 Overdrive A Frame Chapel 415 Multipurpose 438 Multipurpose 400 Classic Small Chapel 80 A Frame Chapel 350 A Frame Chapel 280 TOTAL 1470 1763 16SS Note *The total reduced occupancy is based on the existing number of Worship Center fixed seats and reduced Sunday morning peak period occupancies for both the future Multipurpose Budding and renovated A Frame Chapel Reduced occupancies for the Multipurpose Budding and Renovated Chapel are flexible provided that the total Reduced Occupancy does not exceed the 165S limit M W bo f �v. Attachment D �1J� 6I1 First Christian Church Huntington Beach flG List of Weekly Ev nts a t u d 10 A Re iced )u a 19 2007 L t S d M d T ad W d sd Th ad Frid S t d ct E t/Ahi E*1F t Ev Tim Att d E Tim A t dan E t Tim Att dan E Tim Attendance E t Tim Aft dan E Tin Aft d E t Tim Att dance _ _ T»d »I W hk ._...»�.........W shy 9 00 m 10 00 am _600 6 00 p_7 00 pm F T 170 IF TO ;-11 30 am »710 Ov d_(C_ P a yy _ A F am chap I ». » M I p 2 Bilai 9 9 oo m—i o 0o am' 61 _ 1010 am 11 30 am 112 Q 1 y r Sm II Ch p I...»_+ _ A F m»C�I�» 9 00 M-1000 am » 28 10 30 m I 1 50 ar »22 S d y S h L Ad.1"'» » w h!p C. �M I dHA»W r.p C (M —&HA 9 00 am»I O 00 am 10 30 m 11 30 am S d y S h L Ch Id (K 5) _ E I g Ch ld and Y udi B I N w Child» B Ild p,, 9 00 m 10 00 am 123 ...._ _ y� _ »_ ^» »� » 6_OO pm 7 00 pm_ 28 10 30 m 11 30 am _192 Si,IIG p M W hip C M I a Hall W h l C M tl j Halo 600em 730am 10 700 pm 900 p. 10 Sm II G p W m W hly C —(M—p Halls W h�C--(M d gHal y,.�.»� »»� �» » _ 9 00 am_I 1 30 em 80 9 00 am 1130 un _80 9 00 am 11 30 m 100 » w h C M tt H 11 W nhl C M tl Hal 700 pm 900 m 100 Small G p Ad I W hp Ca M d X Hell W hip C M tl It Hal 10 DO am 11 30 10 goo m I 100 am 10 T m M ig W hip C M n 2 Hall W hip C M g Hall 700 pm 800 pm 20 700 pm 800 pm 20 700 pm 800 p. 20 Ch Id M tr E U g Child B Id N wChlld B Idi g » 700 m 830 pm 20 .7 00 pm 830 P. 40 Huh G p _ ..- Y h B Ildl f..._.... ... M IUp R B Idi 8»_.. 9 00 am I0 00 am » 31 T _ .. » _ _ _ 7 OOpm 8 30Rm __60 10 30 m 1130 am 37 High S hoot G p A F am Chp I M I Nrp B Ildl a 7 00 pm 8 30 m 60 Mud M I R h al W hip Ce W sh C 7 15 m 8 30 m 40 P S h I— E I a Child B Ildl g N w Child 8 0dl a 900 m 2 00 m 125 9 00 am 2 00 pm 125 9 00 am 2 00 pm 125 900 m 200p. 125 900 m 2 00 m 125 Ch h Adml I m N Off1 w hip C Admi i d B Itch g 8 30— 5 00 m 25 B 30 am 5 00 m 25 8 30 etn 5 00 m 25 8 30 am 500p, 25 8 30 m 5 00 m 25 Ste 1.1 E is— _.. .. .. .. » _.. ,.. _ .....» .� .. .. .._ ...» _...._... ._..».» .. __... .. ._.» .. F I _ _.w » w hIQ Ce _» A F vn C- »» » »� 350 _ 350 350 350 _ 350 »»^»� _ —'350 w W dd »W hl Ce _A F am C el 350 350 _ 350 750 »350 350 T al D I A dan 1916 $80 1080 1020 1090 850 1008 N tea «a E t h dui 8 t typ al we k d 0 th m th IS pt mb th Oh J wh th p h H I s Th h h we My 0 mb d tt d f is th wo h p seNi 1 2 300 Att d f Ad I S d y 5 h I i l d di W h p C aden +" Th p h I has total Im f 200 d b all tud o toe d 1. y day A nd. tub Ill is g d liy «e d I I d g 15 4d in tuber a'eY W m T d y E I g M I g ar h Id m thly bu em s, "'""Sp I E is g rly h d I d is Th y m y k pl y d y f th w k p S d y A dvld m I wd w di p W u will Id by 10 00 pm Am d— 0g I d thi wbl er f pi I g p p ly d d t 0 ct wal tt dan 8g ip�gaayq 9i® City of Huntington Beach �} 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING Phone 536 5271 Fax 3741540 August 6 2007 Art Cueto Visioneenng Studios 5 Peters Canyon Road Irvine CA 92606 SUBJECT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/ EXPANSION) 1207 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH Dear Mr Cueto In order to assist you with your development proposal staff has reviewed the project and identified applicable city policies standard plans and development and use requirements excerpted from the City of Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance (HBSO) and Municipal Codes This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various r stages of protect implementation It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any "conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change the list may also change The attached project implementation requirements may be appealed to the Planning Com- mission as a matter separate from the associated entitlement(s) within 10 calendar days of the project approval pursuant to the HBZSO Sec 248 24 The appeal fee is $494 00 If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements an explanation of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at 714-536-5561 or at rsantos@surfcity-hb org and/or the respective source department(contact person below) Tk RON SANTOS Associate Planner Enclosure cc First Christian Church 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach Gerald Caraig Budding&Safety Dept —714 374 1575(e mail) Herb Fauland Principal Planner(e mad) ! Lee Caldwell Fire Dept.—714-536-5564(e-mad) Steve Bogart Public Works—714 536-5580(e-mail) (gfocroslplannmgNCode Requirements Letter rev) ATTACHMENT NO HCiTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE AUGUST 6 2007 PROJECT NAME FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/EXPANSION ENTITLEMENTS CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-035/VARIANCE NO 07-001/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH PLAN REVIEWER RON SANTOS ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL (714) 536-5561/rsantos@surfcity-hb org PROJECT DESCRIPTION RECONSTRUCTION AND EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CHURCH COMPLEX INCLUDING A NEW MULTI-LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated June 28 2007 The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation A list of con- ditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s) if any will also be provided upon final project approval if you have any questions regarding these re- quirements please contact the Plan Reviewer 1 The site plan floor plans and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the concep- tually approved design with the following modifications a Parking lot striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24 California Administrative Code b 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 right-of-ways Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults Back- flow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view c All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of15 feet from the exterior edges of the building Equip- ment to be screened includes but is not limited to heating air conditioning refrigeration equip- ment plumbing lines ductwork and transformers Said screening shall be architecturally com- patible with the building in terms of materials and colors if screening is not designed specifically into the building a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing proposed screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s) d Depict the location of all gas meters water meters electrical panels air conditioning units mail- boxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service) and similar items on the site plan and elevations If located on a building they shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building non-obtrusive not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks e All parking area lighting shall be energy efficient and designed so as not to produce glare on ad- jacent residential properties Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public A-rTA 'r' - T O Page 2 of 4 during nighttime hours and such lighting shall be on a time-clock or photo-sensor system (HBZSO 231 18(C)) f Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO Section 231 20—Bicycle Parking 2 Prior to issuance of demolition permits the following shall be completed a The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)and any other local state or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos lead and PCB s These re- quirements include but are not limited to survey identification of removal methods containment measures use and treatment of water proper truck hauling disposal procedures and proper no- tification to any and all involved agencies b Pursuant to the requirements of the SCAQMD an asbestos survey shall be completed c The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the SCAQMD that the Notifi- cation procedures have been completed d All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building e All facets of the project related to historic preservation shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach The applicant shall provide written notice of any proposed demolition to the Planning Department for review by the City of Huntington Beach Historic Resources Board a minimum of 45 days in advance of permit issuance The HRB may relocate fully document and/or preserve significant architectural elements The applicant/property owner shall not incur any costs associated with moving or documenting the structure by the Board 3 Prior to issuance of grading permits the following shall be completed a At least 14 days prior to any grading activity the applicant/developer shall provide notice in wnt- ing to property owners of record and tenants of properties immediately adjacent to and across the street/alley from the project site The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number Prior to issuance of the grading permit a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department b Blockwall/fencing plans (including a site plan section drawings and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls freestanding walls and fences)consistent with the grad- ing plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Department Double walls shall be prohibited Prior to construction of any new property line walls or fences a plan approved by the owners of adjacent properties and identifying the removal of any existing walls shall be submit- ted to the Planning Department for review and approval The plans shall identify proposed wall and fence materials seep holes and drainage 4 Prior to submittal for building permits Zoning entitlement conditions of approval code re- quirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Fire and Public Works shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of budding per- mits (architectural, structural electrical mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point { 5 Prior to issuance of building permits the following shall be completed � � � N 14 3 Page 3 of 4 a Joint use parking shall require a Joint Use Parking Agreement between property owners to be re- corded prior to issuance of permits or occupancy The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a minimum of 30 days prior to budding permit issuance A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and when approved shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder A copy of the recorded agreement shall be filed with the Planning Department The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetu- ity except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntington Beach b An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Planning De- partment to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees custom- ers and contractors during the projects construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location The plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Depart- ment and Public Works Department The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Public Works Department c A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department (This fee pertains to pro- jects with a negative declaration or an EIR The current fee is$285 for negative declarations and mitigated negative declarations) d All new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered by Chapter 254 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance except for mobile home parks shall pay a park fee pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 230 20—Pay- ment of Park Fee The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule) 6 During demolition grading site development and/or construction the following shall be adhered to a Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions b Use low sulfur(0 5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment c Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes d Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts e Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts f Clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any con- struction/grading activity g All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements in- cluding the Noise Ordinance All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction grading remodeling or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7 00 AM to 8 00 PM Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays 7 New structure(s)cannot be occupied the final building permit(s)cannot be approved and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed a All improvements shall be completed in accordance with approved plans except as provided for by conditions of approval b 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 t c A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department �N N am `� ' Page 4 of 4 8 Only the uses described in the project narrative received and dated July 10 2007 shall be permitted except as modified pursuant to Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 Special/temporary/parking lot events shall be subject to approval of a Temporary Activity Permit or Temporary Use Permit 9 The Development Services Departments (Budding & Safety Fire Planning and Public Works)shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of ap- proval The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of ap- proval as appropriate based on changed circumstances new information or other relevant factors Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for budding per- mits Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission s ac- tion 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 provisions of HBZSO Section 241 18 10 The applicant and/or applicant s representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval 11 Conditional Use Permit No 06-0351 Variance No 07-001 shall not become effective until the ten cal- endar day appeal period from the final approval of the entitlements has elapsed 12 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 shall become null and void unless exer- cised (by commencement of construction)within one year of the date of final approval or such exten- sion of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Plan- ning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date 13 The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No 06-035/Variance No 07-001 pursuant to a public hearing for revocation if any violation of the conditions of approval Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs 14 The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code Building &Safety Department and Fire Department as well as applicable local State and Federal Fire Codes Ordi- nances and standards except as noted herein 15 Construction shall be limited to Monday—Saturday 7 00 AM to 8 00 PM Construction shall be pro- hibited Sundays and Federal holidays 16 The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$50 00 for the posting of the Notice of Determi- nation 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 Planning within two (2)days of the Planning Commission s ap- proval of entitlement(s) 17 All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner and in conformance with the HBZSO and approved plans Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas check with the Depart- ments of Planning and Public Works for applicable Code requirements Substantial changes may re- quire approval by the Planning Commission 18 All permanent temporary or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO Prior to installing any new signs changing sign faces or installing promotional signs applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation recovery of code enforcement costs and removal of installed signs � t � � NO �{.5 t HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS H 11NGTON BEACH DATE FEBRUARY 23 2007 PROJECT NAME FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH ENTITLEMENTS PLANNING APPLICATION NO 06-035 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CA PLANNER RON SANTOS ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E-MAIL (714) 536-5271/rsantos@surfcity-hb org PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE LEE CALDWELL FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST TELEPHONE/E-MAIL (714) 536-5531/icaldwell@surfcity-hb org PROJECT DESCRIPTION REVIEW OF PHASE I REPORT FOR PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION The following is a partial list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on the Phase 1 document received by the Fire Department and dated May 18 2006 The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s) if any will also be provided upon final project approval if you have any questions regarding these requirements please contact the Plan Reviewer-Fire LEE CALDWELL FIRE DEVELOPMENT SPECIALIST PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, AND/OR CONSTRUCTION, THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED 1 The submitted Phase I Report confirms that oil production historically occurred on this site and that abandoned oil wells are located within 100 feet of the footprint of the proposed structure The project shall comply will all provisions of City Specification No 422—OIL WELL ABANDONMENT PROCESS City Specification No 429- METHANE SAFETY MEASURES for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts and City Specification No 431-92 SOIL CLEAN-UP STANDARDS (FD) Following are the Huntington Beach Fire Department Methane District Requirements based off of the Phase I findings a California Division of Oil Gas& Geothermal Resources "Construction Site Plan Review"is required for this project The applicant must submit a request for a construction site review to the California Division of Oil Gas&Geothermal Resources(DOGGR-714-816-6847) Submitted requests shall identify the well name(s) well API number(s) and the location of the abandoned oil well(s) in question Page 2 of 4 Y k The Fire Department must receive a completed Construction Site Plan Review from DOGGR as a condition of approval Grading and building plans shall reference submittal of a request for a DOGGR Site Plan Review in the plan notes DOGGR will require that you submit the following information • Three(3)copies of your construction site plan including your street location and the nearest cross street • One copy of the County Assessor's Parcel map with the Assessor Parcel number illustrating your lot • A completed Construction Site Plan Review Application form Make sure to include your city or county plan checker's name phone number and email address Applications may be submitted by fax or email however in some cases fax or email may not be acceptable Contact the Project Engineer to determine if fax or email applications can be accepted NOTE Wells identified in the Construction Site Review not meeting current DOGGR requirements may require re-abandonment • From the Division of Oil Gas&Geothermal Resources(DOGGR—(714)816-6847) provide a Permit to Conduct Well Operations for all on-site active/abandoned oil wells • Obtain a Huntington Beach Fire Department Permit to Abandon Oil Well and follow the requirements of City Specification#422 Oil Well Abandonment Permit Process (FD) b "OIL WELL HISTORY DISPOSITION REPORT' is required The applicant must submit an "OIL WELL HISTORY DISPOSITION REPORT' compiled by a California licensed third-party petroleum engineer or geologist to the Fire Department—Development Section per City Specification#429 section 3 2 Current Well History Review fee is$395 00 per well due at the time of submittal (FD) c "CITY CONSULTANT- OIL WELL HISTORY REVIEW is required The city consultant reviews the submitted OIL WELL HISTORY DISPOSITION REPORT for completeness well integrity and makes safety measure recommendations to the Fire Department (see City Specification#429 section 3 3)(FD) d "SOIL CONTAMINATION TESTING'is required Based on site characteristics suspected soil contamination proximity to a producing/abandoned oil well or Phase 1 11 or Ill Site Audit soil testing is required Sod testing plan must be approved by the Fire Department (See City Specification#429 section 3 4 and City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards) Soil testing results must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department pnor to issuance of a grading or building permit For Fire Department approval all grading plans and building plans must reference that all soils shall be in compliance with City Specification#431-92 Sod Clean-Up Standards in the plan notes (FD) Page 3 of 4 e REMEDIATION ACTION PLAN' If soil contamination is identified provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan(RAP)based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification #431-92 Soil Cleanup Standard Upon remediation action plan approval a rough grading permit may be issued (FD) f "METHANE SAFETY MEASURES are required per City Specification#429 Methane Distnct Building Permit Requirements For Fire Department approval of grading and building plans reference that project will be in compliance with City Specification#429 in the plan notes See section 2a below (FD) g Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines etc must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly (FD) OTHER a "Asbestos Survey and Remediation Action Plan(RAP)is required Prior to any building demolition a comprehensive survey and appropriate asbestos remediation action plan (RAP) shall be developed and submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval All clean-up will be completed prior to building demolition plan approval Excerpt from the Phase I page 17 "Based on the date of construction (1957 and 1982)there is the potential that asbestos- containing materials (ACM)was used in construction materials In addition the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulation 29 CFR 1926 1101 requires certain construction materials to be presumed to contain asbestos for purposes of this regulation All thermal system insulation (TSI) surfacing material and asphalt/vinyl flooring that are present in a building constructed prior to 1981 and have not been appropnately tested are presumed asbestos containing materials"(FD) b The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans require the use of City consultants The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant developer or other responsible party (FD) AT*rAt% ,VIP:7%1 ' N10 L Page 4 of 4 2 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS a "METHANE SAFETY MEASURES"are required City Specification#429 Methane District Building Permit Requirements Methane safety measures shall be detailed on a separate sheet titled METHANE PLAN"and three copies submitted to the Fire Department for approval Reference compliance with City Specification#429 in the building plan notes Requirements include • Abandoned Well Gas Test • Well Vent System • Methane Barrier and Sub-Slab Collection System • Methane Detection/Alarm System For Fire Department approval of building plans reference compliance with City Specification #429 in the plan notes (FD) b "Asbestos Survey and Remediation Action Plan(RAP)required' Prior to any building demolition a comprehensive survey and appropriate asbestos remediation action plan (RAP) shall be developed and submitted to the Fire Department for review and approval t s c Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines etc must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street Vh floor Huntington Beach CA 92648 or through the City s website at www surfcity-hb org If you have any questions please contact the Fire Prevention Division at(714) 536-5411 SAPreventionl1 Developmenf<CUP swain 1207 Phase I for First Christian Church CUP#06 035 doc HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW DESCRIPTION First Christian Church GRID# 431/3814 ADDRESS 1207 Main PLAN CHECK# Planning Application # 2006-0150 — Second Submittal DATE 7-13-2006 9-19-2006 PLANNER Ron Santos EXT# 5561 REVIEWER Lee Caldwell EXT# 5531 The items listed below indicate Huntington Beach Fire Department (HBFD) development condition of approval requirements Compliance is required prior to budding permit issuance and all applicable items must meet Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) Huntington Beach Fire Code (HBFC) and/or Uniform Budding Code(UBC) standards 5 PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING,SITE DEVELOPMENT,AND/OR CONSTRUCTION,THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED 1 Three abandoned oil wells are located on the project property within 100 feet of the footprint of the proposed structures The project shall comply will all provisions of City Specification No 422—Oil Well Abandonment Process and City Specification No 429-METHANE SAFETY MEASURES for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts A methane barner and sub-slab collection system is required Reference compliance with City Spec cations# 422 and#429 in the grading and building plan notes (FD) 2 "Soil Testing is required Based on site characteristics suspected soil contamination proximity to a producing/abandoned oil well or Phase 111 or ill Site Audit soil testing is required Soil testing plan must be approved by the Fire Department (See City Specification #429 section 3 4 and City Specification#431-92 Sod Clean-Up Standards) (FD) 3 Sod"Remediation Action Plan If contamination is identified provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification#431-92 Sod Cleanup Standard (FD) 4 Proof of Sod Compliance or Clean Up is required All sods shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Sod Clean-Up Standards and testing results must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a grading or budding permit (FD) 5 Discovery of additional contamination/pipelines etc must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly (FD) 6 THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS 1 A Methane Barrier and Sub-Slab Collection System is required per City Specification No 429- METHANE SAFETY MEASURES Methane safety measures shall be detailed on a separate sheet titled"METHANE PLAN and three copies submitted to the Fire Department for approval Reference compliance with City Specification#429 in the budding plan notes (FD) 2 Proof of Sod Compliance or Clean Up is required All soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards and testing results must be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a grading or building permit (FD) 3 An automatic fire sprinkler system in compliance with City Specification 9420 Automatic Fire Sprinklers and#430 Fire Alarm Systems shall be installed throughout For Fire Department approval plans(three sets)shall be submitted to the Building Department as separate plans for permits (FD) 4 Fire Department Connection (FDC)to the automatic fire sprinkler system shall be located to the front of the building within 150 feet of a properly rated fire hydrant Portray FDC location on the site plan (FD) 5 Fire Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan and be installed/in service before combustible construction begins Shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department when additional hydrants are required Indicate Fire Department sprinkler connections Reference compliance in the plan notes (FD) 6 Fire Extinguishers shall be installed and located in all areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code standards found in City Specification#424 The minimum required dry chemical fire extinguisher size is 2A 10BC and shall be installed within 75 feet travel distance to all portions of the building Extinguishers are required to be serviced or replaced annually Reference compliance in the plan notes (FD) 7 Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access Reference compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access in the plan notes (FD) 8 Fire Lanes as determined by the Fire Department shall be posted marked and maintained per City Specification#415 Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private Residential Commercial and Industrial Properties The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs both in location and length of run The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted Reference compliance with City Specification #415-Fire Lanes Signage and Markings on Private Residential Commercial and industrial Properties in the plan notes (FD) 9 Main Secured Building Entries shall utilize a KNOA Fire Department Access Key Box installed and in compliance with City Specification#403 Fire Access for Pedestrian or Vehicular Security Gates &Buildings Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office at(714) 536-5411 for information Reference compliance with City Specification#403-KNOX®Fire Department Access in the plan notes (FD) ATT � � � INPUT TRAFFIC FOR LAe 1h Volumes Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc 8 February 2007 S Shiroyama TNM 2 5 INPUT TRAFFIC FOR LAeglh Volumes PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church RUN Future 2030 Roadway Points Name Name No Segment Autos MTrucks HTrucks Buses Motorcycles V S V S V S V Is V S veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph veh/hr mph 17th NB 1 pomt13 13 560 40 12 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 point12 12 560 40 12 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 pointl1 11 Main NB 1 point48 481 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 point47 471 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 point46 46 487 40 21 40 5 40 01 0 0 0 point45 45 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 point44 44 487 40 21 40 5 40 01 0 0 0 point43 43 487 401 21 401 5 40 0 0 0 0 point42 4211 87 401 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 point4l 411 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 01 0 point40 40 Adams W13-2 point106 106 295 25 9 25 3 25 0 0 0 0 point33 33 295 25 9 251 3 251 0 0 0 0 point32 32 295 251 9 25 3 251 0 0 0 0 point3l 31 295 251 9 25 3 25 0 0 0 0 point30 301 295 251 9 25 3 251 0 01 0 0 point29 29 17th SB 2 point111 111 560 40 12 401 6 40 0 0 0 0 pomt4 4 560 40 12 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 point3 3 560 40 12 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 point2 2 560 40 12 40 6 40 0 0 0 0 v K 10945200001TNM1Copy of Future 2030 1 8 Febrc INPUT TRAFFIC FOR LAe lh Volumes point1 1 Huntin on Beach First Christian Church Adams EB 2 point113 113 295 25 9 25 3 25 0 0 0 0 point107 107 295 25 9 25 3 25 0 0 0 0 point21 21 295 25 9 25 3 25 0 0 01 0 point20 20 295 251 9 25 3 25 0 0 01 0 point19 19 295 25 i 251 3 25 0 0 01 0 pointl8 18 Main SB 2 point115 115 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 pomt57 571 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 point56 561 487 401 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 point55 55 487 40 21 40 5 401 0 0 0 0 point54 54 487 40 21 401 5 40 -0-0 0 0 point53 53 487 40 21 401 5 401 0 0 0 0 point52 52 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 point51 51 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 pomt50 50 487 40 21 40 5 40 0 0 0 0 pomt49 49 17) .J K 10945200001TNM11Copy of Future 2030 2 8 Febri. �N INPUT RECEIVERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimley Horn and Associates,Inc 8 February 2007 S Shirayama TNM 2 5 INPUT RECEIVERS PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church RUN Future 2030 Receiver Name No #DUs lCoordinates(ground) Height Input Sound Levels and Criteria Active X Y Z above Existing I Impact Criteria NR in Ground LAeg1h LAeglh Sub I Goat Calc ft ft ft ft dBA dBA dB dB E of Bldg C 6 1 1 094 9 6445 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y E of Bldg D 7 1 1 206 5 5970 000 492 000, 66 100 80 Y N of Bldg E 8 1 1 1409 -433 7 000 492 0001 66 100 80 Y Nof Bldg A 9 1 9345 3564 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #8 W of Bldg B 1 10 1 7473 5530 coo 492 000 66 100 8 01 Y #8 W of Bldg B 2 11 1 7112 4000 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #8 W of Bldg B 3 12 1 7254 4823 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #8 W of Bldg B 4 13 1 7668 5178 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #8 BTW Bldg B&C 1 1 14 1 9353 5817 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #8 BTW Bldg B&C 2 15 1 9233 6185 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #8 BTW Bldg B&C 3 16 1 9438 5487 000 492 000 66 100 80, Y #3 1 17 1 1 0390 5224 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #3 2 181 1 10122 5007 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #3 3 19 1 1 0256 -466 6 000 492 000 66 100 80 Y #3 4 20 1 9766 -497 1 000 492, 000 66 100 so Y % #4 21 1 9683 -449 4 000 492 000 66 100 801 Y #5 22 1 9264, 3827, 0001 4 92 0 00 66 10 0 8 0 Y _M 4� �f J K 10945200001TNMICopy of Future 2030 1 8 February 20 I µ INPUT BARRIERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church Klmley Horn and Associates Inc 8 February 2007 8 Shlrayams TNM 2 5 INPUT BARRIERS PROJECT/CONTRACT Huntington Beach First Christian Church RUN Future 2030 Barrier Points Name Type Height If Wall if Berm Add tnl Name No Coordinates(bottom) Height Segment Min Max $per $per Top Run Rise $per X Y 2 at Seg Ht Perturbs On Important Unit Unit Width -,Unit Point Incre #Up #Dn Struct?Retiec Area Vol Langth mant tions? ft ft $/sq ft $/cu yd ft ft ft $/ft ft it ft it ft Building A W 000 9999 000 0 00 6pointl 1 7765 3253 000 3300 000 0 0 point2 2 8022 3198 000 3300 000 0 0 point3 3 8048 3316 000 3300 000 0 0 point4 4 0 1 3241 000 3300 000 0 0 points 5 880 6 339 1 000 3300 000 0 D point6 6 9105 3762 000 3300 000 0 0 polnt7 7 8918 3909 000 3300 000 0 0 point8 8 899 1 -400 1 000 3300 000 0 0 point9 9 8938 4098 000 3300 000 0 0 pointl0 10 916 2 -422 3 000 33 oo 0 00 0 0 pointl 1 11 9233 426 3 000 3300 000 0 0 pomtl2 12 9285 4173 000 3300 000 0 0 pointl3 13 9644 4374 000 3300 000 0 0 pointl4 14 9639 4384 000 3300 0 00 0 0 polntl5 15 9596 -435 9 000 3300 000 0 0 point16 16 9269 -493 0 000 3300 000 0 0 pointl7 17 9231 -494 7 000 3300 000 01 0 pointl8 181 9249 -49921 000 3300 0 00 0 0 pointl9 19 693 1 5116 000 3300 000 01 0 point20 20 8822 4839 000 3300 000 01 0 point2l 21 8853 -476 8 000 3300 000 01 0 point22 22 878 4 -459 4 000 3300 000 01 0 point23 23 8283 4791 000 3300 000 0 0 point24 24 8268 4754 0001 3300 000 0 0 point25 25 8143 4805 000 3300 000 0 D po1nt26 26 8159 4843 000 3300 000 0 0 _ point27 27 8152 -484 3 0 00 33 0D 0 00 0 0 K point28 28 8176 4898 000 33001 000 0 0 g„ point29 29 8181 -494 1 000 3300 000 0 0 g point30 30 8067 -499 4 000 3300 000 0 0 point3l 311 7967 4959 000 3300 000 0 0 point32 32 7925 486 0 006 3300 000 0 0 point33 33 7939 481 7 000 3300 000 0 0 o point34 34 7992 478 8 0 00 3300 000 0 D point35 35 7987 4783 0 00 33 00 000 01 0 K 10946200001TNWCopy of Future 2030 1 8 February 2007 I INPUT BARRIERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church point36 36 8023 -476 4 000 33001 000i0o point37 37 7956 -464 7 000 33001 000 potnt38 38 792 5 -468 4 00 33 00 0 00 point39 39 7656 -418 5 000 3300 0 00 point40 40 766 7 41 T 8 0 00 3300 000 point4l 41 7671 402 7 000 3300 00-0— point42 42 753 2 400 4 000 3300 000 point43 43 7588 36681 000 33 00 0 00point44 44 7843 3714 000 3300 000 point45 45 7850 -367 1 000 3300 000 0 0 point46 46 8041 362 7 000 33 00 000 0 0 point47 47 8000 US 3 000 3300 0 00 0 0 point48 481 7822 3495 000 33 00 0 00too 0-0— point49 48 776 5 325 3 0 00 33 00 Budding F W 000 9999 000 0 00 point54 54 916 5 -421 7 000 1600 0 i 0 point55 55 921 3 -413 0 0 00 16 00 0 00 0 0 point56 56 9332 -406 5 000 16 00 0 00 0 0 point57 57 9410 410 8 000 16 00 0 00 0 0 pointSB 58 9449 403 8 000 16 00 0 00--0-0 point59 59 9843 425 8 0 00 1600 000 0 0 point60 60 975 0 -442 6 000 16 00 0 o0 0 0 point6l 61 92801 4162 000 1600 000 0 0 point62 62 9229 .4252 000 1600 000 0 0 point63 63 916 5 -421 7 000 1600 Building 8 W 000 99 99 000 000 poin164 64 7505 561 3 000 3400 000 0 0 point66 651 7548 547 4 000 3400 000 0 0 point66 66 7635 5502 000 3400 000 0 0 point67 67 7659 5425 000 34001 0001 0 0 polnt68 68 7755 545 5 0 00 34 00 0 00 0 0 p01nt69 69 7783 5364 0 00 3400 000 0 0 point70 70 7688 5334 000 3400 0 00 0 0 point7l 71 7755 511 7 000 3400 0 00 0 0 point72 72 7736 511 1 000 3400 000 0 0 point73 73 77391 .510 2 0003400 0 00 0 0 po1nt74 74 82301 5256 000 3400 000 0 0 point75 75 82371 5233 000 3400 000 0 0 polnl76 76 8294 5260 000 3400 0 00 0 0 point77 77 830 6 621 1 000 3400 0 00 0 0 point78 78 $41 6 5172 000 3400 000 0 0 point79 79 8475 516 3 000 3400 000 0 0 point80 80 853 4 516 3 000 34 00 0 00 0 0 point8l 81 8553 51651 COO 3400 0 00 0 o point82 82 8649 51881 000 3400 0 00 0 0 pomt83 83 8652 5178 000 3400 000 0 0 point84 84 8894 6254 000 3400 000 0 0 point85 85 8882 529 4 000 34 00 0 00 0 0 point88 86 8965 532 0 0 DO 34 00 0 00 0 0 point87 87 897 7 528 0 0001 34 00 0 00 0 0 d K 1094620000LTNM1Copy of Future 2030 2 8 February 2007 W INPUT BARRIERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church point86 88 930 7 5383 006WO00 0 o point89 89 930 4 539 4 0 00 0 0 point90 90 9285 538 6 0 000 0 0 Po nt9l 91 914 8 582 4 0 000 0 0point92 92 911 5 5814 0 00 0 0pofnt93 93 9095687 7 0 00 0 0 pOint94 94 9120 588 4 0 00 34 00 000 0 0 point95 95 9041 6 t3 6 0001 3400 0 00 0 0 polnt96 96 8837 6D7 2 0 00 34 o0 0 00 0 0 Wolntlo2i02 7 885 4 601 9 00 3400 (Too 0 0 875 9 5989 000 3400 000 0 0 9 874 2 6043 000 34 00 0 00 0 0 831 1 590 8 0 00 34 00 000 0 0 832 2 5872 000 3400 000 0 0 811 7 6808 000 3400—0 00-- 0 0 point103 103 8106 584 3 00 3400 000 0 0 point104 104 8003 581 1 000 3400 000 0 0 point105 1o5 8012 5760 0 Od 3400 0 00 0 0 point106 108 7590 5648 000 3400 000 0 0 point107 107 7592 5640 000 3400 000 0 0 point108 108 7505 5613 000 3400 Suliding C W 0 00 99 99 0 00 000 point109 109 9636 5485 000 2800 000 0 0 point110 110 97161 351 1 000 2800 000 0 0 point111 111 968 3 561 7 000 2800 000 0 0 point112 112 97731 5645 000 2800 0 00 0 0 point113 113 9789 5596 0 00 28 00 0-00-0 o point114 114 9864 6620 000 2800 000 0 0 point115 115 984 8 567 7 000 2800 0 00 0 0 point116 118 9898 5693 0 00 2800, 000 0 0 point117 117 9916 5636 0 00 2800 o o0 0 0 point118 118 1 056 3 583 8 0 00 28 00 0 00 0 0 point119 119 1 057 0 681 4 000 2800 0 00 0 0 point120 120 1 065 9 584 2 000 2800 000 0 0 point121 121 1 0642 5895 000 2800 000 0 0 point122 122 1 0764 5933 000 2800 000 0 0 point123 123 1 072 0 6072 00 280 000 0 0 point124 124 1 083 2 6107 000 2800 000 0 0 point125 125 1 090 4 -625 6 0 00 28 00 o 00 0 0 p01nt126 128 1 080 0 658 6 000 2800 o oo 0 0 point127 127 1 045 7 -647 9 000 2800 000 0 0 point128 128 1 044 0 6532 000 28 00 0 00 0 0 polntt29 129 1 022 5 -646 5 000 2800 000 0 0 point130 130 1 021 3 6503 000 2800 000 0 0 point131 131 9831 638 3 0 00 28 oo 000 0 0 point132 t 32 9843 634 5 0 007 28 00 000 0 0 point133 133 955 7 6255 000 2800 000 0 0 point134 134 95451 6294 060 2800 0-00-0 0 v point135 135 9a2 3 625 6 0 00 28 00 0 00 0 0 eJ K\094620000\TNM\Copy of Future 2030 3 8 February 2007 `V3 �J" I INPUT BARRIERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church po1ntl36 138 9612 565 2 0 00 28 o0 000 01 0 pointl37 1371 9586 6645 000 2800 000 01 0 pointl38 138 963 8 5485 000 2800 Building C Wall W 000 9999 000 000 pointl39 139 902 7 5239 000 16 00 000 0 0 polntl4o 140 1 008 4 6335 000 1600 000 0 0 pointl4l 141 1 0319 5509 0 00 1600 000 0 0 poiM142 142 1 048 5 5667 000 1600 000 0 o pointl43 143 1 060 1 577 7 000 1600 000 0 0 pointl44 144 1 0631 581 1 000 16 00 Building D W Ono 9099 000 000 pointl45 145 1 081 1 5669 000 42001 000 01 0 pointl46 1481 1 080 6 5428 000 42001 000 0 o pointl47 1471 1 1010 6488 000 42001 000 0 0 point148 148 1 1061 5324 00 42 00 F 0-0 0 0 0 pointl49 149 1 126 1 5395 000 42 00 0 00 0 0 polnt150 150 1 1251 5423 000 4200 000 0 0 point151 151 1 1376 546 7 000 4200 0 00 0 0 point152 152 1 1386 5439 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl53 153 1 140 0 544 4 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl54 1541 1 1390 5472 000 4200 005 0 0 pointl55 1551 1 151 9 551 8 000 42001 000 01 0 pointl56 1661 1 1529 5489 000 42001 0,06 0 0 point157 157 1 154 3 5494 000 4200 0 00 0 0 pointl58 158 1 1533 5523 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl59 159 1 1662 5568 000 4200 0 00 0 0 potnt160 160 1 1672 65401 000 4200 000 0 0 pomtl61 161 1 1686 6545 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl62 162 1 1676 6573 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl63 163 1 1804 561 8 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl64 164 1 181 4 5590 000 4200 000 0 0 point165 185 1 1828 5596 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl66 166 1 1818 582 3 000 4200 000 0 0 polnt167 1671 1 1993 5685 0001 4200 000 01 0 pointl68 1681 1 1932 5859 000 4200 000 0 0 point169 169 1 1990 5880 On 42 00 0 00 0 0 pointl70 170 1 194 7 600 3 0 00 42 00 0 00 0 0-- 11 pointl71 171 1 1888 5982 000 4200 000 0 0 f pointl72 172 1 182 7 6156 000 4200 000 0 0 pointl73 173 1 165 0 60941 000 42 OOJ 000 0 0 point174 174 1 1640 6122 000 4200 000 0 0 point175 1751 1 1826 611 7 0 00 42 00 0 00 0po— n ri pointl76 176 1 1636 -608 9 0 00 4200 000 0 IP point177 177 1 161 0 608 0 000 4200 0 00 0 pointl78 178 1 1574 518 2 000 4200 000 0 pointl79 179 1 1327 6095 000 4200 0 00 0 pointl80 180 1 135 3 602 1 000 42 00 000 0 point181 181 1 133 9 601 6 0001 4200 000 0 0 point182 182 1 1349 5988 0 00 4200 0 00 0 0 °� poinl183 183 1 122 4 594 4 0 00 4200 000 0 0 K 10948200001TNMICopy of Future 2030 4 8 February 007 INPUT BARRIERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church point184 184 1 12141 697 2 000 42 00 000 0 0 point185 1 165 1 1200 596 7 066 4200 000 0 0 point186 186 1 1210 5939 0 00 4200 0 o0 0 0 point187 187 1 1085 6895 000 4200 000 0 0 pointy 88 168 1 107 5 592 3 000 4200 0 00 0 0 polnt189 180 1 087 4 5862 000 4200 000 0 0 polnt190 190 1 092 4 570 9 000 4200 0 00 0 0 point191 191 1 081 1 566 9 000 4200 Building W 0 00 99 99 000 000 point192 192 1 038 2 497 0 0 00 30 00 0 00 01 0 point193 193 10462 2 489 2 0 00 30 00 000 01 0 point194 194 1 041 3 4812 000 30 00 0 00 0 0 poinN95 195 1 041 6 -471 2 000 3000 000 0 0 point196 196 1 041 2 46fi 2 000 3000 0 00 0 0 polnt197 197 1 040 2 458 7 000 3000 000 0 0 point198 198 1 038 0 4499 000 3000 000 0 0 point190 199 1 045 0 4475 000 3000 000 0 0 point200 200 1 043 3 -442 8 0 00 300 0 00 0 0 polnt201 201 1 065 0 -435 1 0 00 3000 000 0 0 polnt202 202 1 070 1 -449 7 000 3000 000 0 0 polnt203 203 1 075 8 -447 7 000 3000 000 0 0 point204 204 1 075 3 -446 1 000 30 00 066 0 0 polnt205 205 1 078 6 -444 9 000 3000 000 0 0 point206 206 1 074 0 431 91 000 3000 000 0 0 polnt207 2071 1 0947 -42481 000 3000 000 0 0 polnt208 208 1 091 9 -422 0 0 00 30 00 000 0 o polnt209 209 1 075 8 -428 0 000 3000 000 01 0 polnt210 210 1 075 4 4268 000 3000 000 0 0 point211 211 1 1059 4160 000 3000 000 0 0 point212 212 1 1089 -412 6 000 3000 000 0 0 point213 213 1 130 6 -431 9 000 3000 000 0 0 point214 214 1 1273 435 6 000 3000 000 0 0 point215 215 1 141 5 448 2 000 3000 000 0 0 point216 218 1 1448 -444 4 000 3000 00 0 0 point217 217 1 169 4 486 2 0 00 30 00 0 00 0 0 polnt218 218 1 161 4 489 1 0 00 30 00 0 00 0 —0 -- 1 219 1 1500 -493 1 000 3000 000 0 0 point220 220 1 1496 -492 1 000 30 00 000 0 0 59 point221 221 1 151 7 .491 4 0 001 3000 000 0 0 point222 222 1 150 1 -486 9 000 3000 000 0 0 point223 223 1 1206 -497 3 000 3000 000 01 0 a t point224 224 1 1244 .5078 000 30001 000 01 0 point225 225 1 1112 5125 000 3000 000 0 0 point226 226 1 1729 517 4 000 3000 00 0 0 polnt227 227 1 1007 521 7 000 30 00 000 0 0 polnt228 2291 1 082 3 51441 000 3000 000 0 0 point229 229 1 084 1 509 9 0 00 3000 0 00 -....Oj 0 point230 2301 10580 50001 0 o0 30 00 0 nal ol 0 point231 231 1 057 2 504 5 0 00 30 00 0 00 0 0 �f K 10948200001TNM%Copy of Future 2030 6 8 February 2007 INPUT BARRIERS Huntington Beach First Christian Church point232 232 1 038 2 .4970 000 30001 Building G W 1 0001 9999 000 000 point233 233 9786 -440 3 000 58001 000 0 0 polnt234 234 1 0026 -440 2 000 5800 000 0 0 point235 235 1 002 6 4642 000 5800 000 0 0 point236 236 9788 4643 000 5800 000 0 0 point237 237 9786 4403 000 6800 Parking Structure W 000 9999 0001 0 00 pomt238 238 3509 3762 000 2400 000 01 0 point239 239 4385 2775 000 2400 006 01 0 polnt240 240 6675 -480 6 000 2400 000 0 0 polnt241 241 5798 579 4 000 2400 000 0 0 point242 242 3509 3762 000 24 00 Mot wall 1 W 0001 9999 000 000 point243 243 7081 4868 000 600 000 0 0 point244 2441 7123 -50731 000 600 000 0 0 point245 245 7197 -526 9 000 600 000 0 0 point246 246 7275 5399 000 600 00 0 0 point247 247 7378 551 1 000 Boo 000 0 0 point248 248 7448 6573 000 600 000 0 0 point249 249 7473 5591 000 600 6foot wall 2 W 000 9999 000 000 point250 250 7567 4974 000 600 000 0 0 point252 252 7738 516 5 000 Soo 6foot wall 3 W 0001 9999 000 0 00 point253 253 7407 -487 5 000 6001 000 0 0 point254 254 7645 5020 000 600 6foot wall 4 W 0001 9999 000 000 point255 255 7258 -477 5 000 600 000 0 o point256 258 7396 -492 0 000 Boo 12foot wall 1 W 000 9990 000 000 point257 257 7564 3664 000 1200 000 0 0 point258 258 7508 40051 000 1200 12foot wall 2 W 000 9999 000 000 point259 259 7597 271 7 000 1200 000 0 0 point280 260 7443 3644 000 1200 12foot wall 3 W 000, 9999 000 0 00 point281 261 9729 4035 000 1200 005 0 0 point262 262 9295 3665 000 1200 000 0 0 point263 263 9179 3603 000 1200 000 0 0 �, point264 264 9065 3701 000 1200 W g K 10946 opy of 2030 2006OWNWOf F 11 8 February 2007 f RESULTS SOUND LEVELS Huntington Beach First Christian Church Kimley Horn and Associates Inc 8 February 2007 S Shlrayama TNM 2 5 Calculated with TNM 2 5 RESULTS SOUND LEVELS PROJECT/CONTRACT lHuntington Beach First Christian Church RUN Future 2030 BARRIER DESIGN INPUT HEIGHTS Average pavement type shall be used unless a State highway agency substantiates the use ATMOSPHERICS 68 deg F,50%RH of a different type with approval of FHWA. Receiver Name No #DUs Existing No Barrier With Barrier LAeg1h LAeg1h Increase over existing Type Calculated Noise Reduction Calculated Crit n Calculated Crit n Impact LAeg1h Calculated Goal Calculated Sub IInc minus Goal dBA dBA dBA dB dB JdBA dB dB dB Eof Bldg C 6 1 00 577 66 577 10 — 577 00 8 80 Eof Bldg D 7 1 00 646 Be 646 10 -- 646 00 8 80 Nof Bldg E 8 1 00 653 66 653 101 653 00 8 80 Nof Bldg A 9 1 00 606 66 606 10 606 00 8 80 #8Wof Bldg B 1 10 1 00 496 661 496 10 — 496 00 8 80 #8 W of Bldg B 2 ill 1 00 537 661 537 10 — 5371 00 8 80 #8 W of Bldg 8 3 12 1 00 539 66 539 10 — 5391 001 8 80 #8 W of Bldg B 4 13 1 00 soil 66 601 10 — 501 00 8 80 #8BTW Bldg B&C 1 14 1 00 43 2j 66 432 10 432 00 8 80 _ #8BTW Bldg B&C 2 15 1 00 6201 66 520 10 520 00 8 80 #8BTW Bldg B&C 3 16 1 00 4431 66 443 10 — 443 00 8 80 #3 1 17 1 00 528 661 528 10 — 528 00 8 80 #3 2 18 1 00 530 66 530 101 530 00 8 80 #3 3 19 1 00 561 66 561 10 -- 561 00 8 80 #3 4 20 1 00 492 66 492 10 — 492 00 8 80 #4 21 1 00 431 66 431 10 431 00 8 80 #5 22 1 00 474 66 474 10 — 47 4 00 8 80 Dwelling Units #DUs Noise Reduction Min Avg Max } dB dB dB Al Selected 17 00 00 00 All Impacted 01 00 001 00 All that meet NR Goal 01 001 001 001 .� K 1094520000\TNM\Copy of Future 2030 1 8 February 2007 I i ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC. 1000-A ORTEGA WAY • PLACENTIA, CA 92870-71 City of Huntington Beach 714/632-8521 FAX 714/632-6754 MAR 2 0 2007 March 19, 2007 Project No 2523 First Christian Church-Huntington Beach 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn Mr Norm Dyson Subject Air Quality Analysis for the Proposed Modifications to the First Chnstian Church -Huntington Beach Mr Dyson Environmental Audit, Inc (EAI) has been retained by the First Christian Church - Huntington Beach (FFC-HB) to prepare an air quality analysis of the proposed modifications to FFC-HB using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) modeling program URBEMIS 2002 Project Description The proposed project consists of modifications to FCC-HB that include • Demolition of four existing buildings (Church School, Children's Ministry, Youth Ministry, and Small Chapel), • Removal of existing modular structures currently used for adult Sunday School classes, • Construction of three new buildings (Cluldren's Building, Multipurpose Building, and Administrative/Cafe Buildmg) • Renovation of Existing A-Frame Chapel, • Expansion and renovation of the Worship Center's nursery and bathroom Y facilities, • Construction of a new tower to serve as the Church's new focal feature, r • Landscape/Ilardscape Improvements, • Restnping of existing parking lot, and, • Construction of a multi-level parking structure s PLANNING ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSES AND is .-.�� 1T lam lTl ► /ZTAln1TT Al"-1A — AT Ali First Christian Church—hantington Beach Air Quality Analysis Page 2 Air Emission Estimate Basis The proposed project has been scheduled in phases to allow for continued use of the campus while renovation occurs The largest construction phase of the project will be the demolition of the existing Church School and Childreds Ministry and construction of the replacement Children's Building The operational changes of the facility will remain the same as current activities with the exception of an estimated 60 additional vehicle trips to the facility on a peak day The air quality analysis has been performed on the largest phase of the project to evaluate the peak potential emissions from construction from the proposed project The operational emissions evaluation for the proposed project is limited to the increases associated with the proposed project(i e, additional vehicle trips as a result of the proposed project) The CARB URBEMIS2002 model is designed to estimate air emissions from land use development projects Both construction and operational emissions can be calculated using URBEMIS2002 Therefore, use of the L RBEMIS2002 model (version 8 7)is appropriate for this project Construction Emissions Construction emission estimates are based on a June 2007 start date and take four months to complete for the Children's Building Construction equipment used during demolition of the existing structure and grading for the new structure is expected to be one small bulldozer (similar in size to a Caterpillar 134) and one backhoe Construction equipment used during building construction is expected to be one forklift, one crane, two diesel-powered welding machines, and two electric manlifts The equipment estimates are for the peak equipment usage day during the respective phases of the construction The URBEMIS2002 modeling results for construction are shown in Table 1 The results are below the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) emissions thresholds established for construction activities The URBEMIS2002 model output is presented in Attachment A Operational Emissions The operations at FCC-HB will remain unchanged with hot water and heat generation remaining the same following the proposed project Landscaping maintenance activities are not expected to increase as a result of the proposed project The Trip Generation Study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc (dated March 7, 2007) identified a maximum increase in peak traffic of 60 trips The operational emissions increase associated with traffic has been included in the URBEMIS 2002 ATTACHMENT N ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC, First Christian Church—Huntington Beach An-Quality Analysis Page 3 modeling The results are presented in Table 2 and the LTRBEMIS2002 model output is presented in Attachment A The results are below the SCAQMD emissions thresholds established for operational activities TABLE 1 PEAK CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) Project Phase ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2.5 Demolition 256 3463 1407 006 1057 613 Grading 109 8 15 869 000 236 137 Construction 212 871 1264 000 031 018 Peak Phase 256 3463 1407 006 1057 613 SCAQMD Significance 75 100 550 150 150 55 Threshold Significant% No No No No No No (1) P1VL 5 fraction of PM10 calculated using Profile ID #391 (Road and Building Construction dust) from the SCAQMD PM10 to MU 5 fraction file available at https//www Mmd_g v/cNa/handbook/PM2 5/pm— 5ratio As TABLE 2 PEAK OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES (lbs/day) Activity ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 PM2 5{ Traffic Increase 723 978 10294 007 1023 613 SCAQMD Significance 55 55 550 150 150 55 Threshold Significant'? No No No No No No (1) PM2 5 fraction of PM10 calculated using Profile ID#117(Vehicular Sources Gasoline)from the SCAQMD PM10 to PM2 5 fi-action file available at hops Hwww Nmd gov/cega/handbook/PM2 5/pm—') ratio xls ENVIRONMEN'1AL AUDIT,INC_ First Christian Church—huntmgton Beach Air Quality Analysis Page 4 Conclusions The construction and operational emissions calculated for the proposed project are not expected to exceed the establish SCAQMD emissions thresholds Therefore, no further air quality analysis is required and the project is not expected to cause a significant impact to air quality Sincerely, ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT, INC Marcia Baverman,P E Senior Engineer cc Art Cueto,Visioneermg Studios in Vnrb12523Uw Quality Analysis Letter doc ATTACHMENT NO 5LL- ENVIRONMENTAL AUDIT I1VC,, ATTACHMENT A URBEMIS2002 Model Output y g � Page 1 03/16/2007 2 38 PM i URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8 7 0 File Name D \URBEMIS 2002\Projects2k2\2523 FCC HB urb Project Name 2523 FCC HB Project Location South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) On Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2 2 SUMMARY REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2007 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 2 56 34 63 14 07 0 06 10 57 0 99 9 58 PM10 PM10 PM10 *** 2008 *** ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 1 47 8 54 12 61 0 00 0 28 0 27 0 01 AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 0 13 0 17 0 83 0 00 0 00 OPERATIONAL (VEHICLE) EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 7 23 9 78 102 94 0 07 10 23 SUM OF AREA AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 7 37 9 95 103 77 0 07 10 24 ATTAt.4 ,izeT Page 2 03/16/2007 2 38 PM URBEMIS 2002 For Windows 8 7 0 File Name D \URBEMIS 2002\Projects2k2\2523 FCC-HB urb Project Name 2523 FCC-HB Project Location South Coast Air Basin (Los Angeles area) on-Road Motor vehicle Emissions Based on EMFAC2002 version 2 2 DETAIL REPORT (Pounds/Day - Summer) Construction Start Month and Year June 2007 Construction Duration 4 Total Land Use Area to be Developed 0 8 acres Maximum Acreage Disturbed Per Day 0 2 acres Single Family Units 0 Multi-Family Units 0 Retail/Office/Institutional/Industrial Square Footage 17411 CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES UNMITIGATED (lbs/day) PM10 PM10 PM10 Source ROG NOx CO S02 TOTAL EXHAUST DUST *�* 2007*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - 9 45 - 9 45 Off-Road Diesel 1 06 8 11 7 87 - 0 36 0 36 0 00 On Road Diesel 1 48 26 48 5 51 0 06 0 76 0 63 0 13 Worker Trigs 0 02 0 04 0 69 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Maximum lbs/day 2 56 34 63 14 07 0 06 10 57 0 99 9 58 Phase 2 Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - 2 00 - 2 00 Off-Road Diesel 1 06 8 11 7 87 - 0 36 0 36 0 00 On Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Worker Trips 0 03 0 04 0 82 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Maximum lbs/day 1 09 8 15 8 69 0 00 2 36 0 36 2 00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 1 44 8 70 12 24 - 0 30 0 30 0 00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0 03 0 02 0 40 0 00 0 01 0 00 0 01 Arch Coatings off Gas 2 06 - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0 06 0 10 1 92 0 00 0 01 0 00 0 01 Asphalt Off-Gas 0 00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 - 0 00 0 00 0 00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Maximum lbs/day 2 12 8 71 12 64 0 00 0 31 0 30 0 01 Max lbs/day all phases 2 56 34 63 14 07 0 06 10 57 0 99 9 58 4#* 2008*** Phase 1 - Demolition Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0 00 - 0 00 Off-Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 - 0 00 0 00 0 00 On Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Worker Trips 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Maximum lbs/day 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Phase 2 Site Grading Emissions Fugitive Dust - - - - 0 00 - 0 00 Off-Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 - 0 00 0 00 0 00 On Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Worker Trips 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Maximum lbs/day 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Phase 3 - Building Construction Bldg Const Off-Road Diesel 1 44 8 52 12 24 - 0 27 0 27 0 00 Bldg Const Worker Trips 0 03 0 02 0 37 0 00 0 01 0 00 0 01 Arch Coatings Off-Gas 0 00 - - - - - - Arch Coatings Worker Trips 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Asphalt off-Gas 0 00 - - - - - - Asphalt Off-Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Asphalt On-Road Diesel 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Asphalt Worker Trips 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 0 00 Maximum lbs/day 1 47 8 54 12 61 0 00 0 28 0 27 0 01 Max lbs/day all phases 1 47 8 54 12 61 0 00 0 28 0 27 0 01 ATTACHMENIT N Page 3 03/16/2007 2 38 PM Phase 1 - Demolition Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 1 Jun 07 Phase 1 Duration 0 6 months Building Volume Total (cubic feet) 225000 Building Volume Daily (cubic feet) 22500 On-Road Truck Travel (VMT) 1251 Off-Road Equipment No Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 40 0 590 8 0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0 465 8 0 Phase 2 - Site Grading Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 2 Jun 07 Phase 2 Duration 1 2 months On Road Truck Travel (VMT) 0 Off-Road Equipment Na Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers 40 0 590 8 0 1 Tractor/Loaders/Backhoes 79 0 465 8 0 Phase 3 - Building Construction Assumptions Start Month/Year for Phase 3 Jul 07 Phase 3 Duration 10 2 months Start Month/Year for SubPhase Building Jul 07 SubPhase Building Duration 10 2 months Off Road Equipment No Type Horsepower Load Factor Hours/Day 1 Cranes 190 0 430 8 0 Start Month/Year for SubPhase Architectural Coatings Apr 07 SubPhase Architectural Coatings Duration 1 months SubPhase Asphalt Turned OFF �r d ATTA CH' 'IA E N T NI Page 4 03/16/2007 2 38 PM AREA SOURCE EMISSION ESTIMATES (Sumner Pounds per Day Unmitigated) Source ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Natural Gas 0 01 0 17 0 14 0 0 00 Hearth - No summer emissions Landscaping 0 10 0 00 0 69 0 00 0 00 Consumer Prdcts 0 00 - - Architectural Coatings 0 02 - - TOTALS(lbs/day unmitigated) 0 13 0 17 0 83 0 00 0 00 ATTACHMENT K)" 8,01 _ .. Page 5 03/16/2007 2 38 PM UNMITIGATED OPERATIONAL EMISSIONS ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Elementary school 7 23 9 78 102 94 0 07 10 23 TOTAL EMISSIONS (lbs/day) 7 23 9 78 102 94 0 07 10 23 Does not include correction for passby trips Does not include double counting adjustment for internal trips OPERATIONAL (Vehicle) EMISSION ESTIMATES Analysis Year 2008 Temperature (F) 90 Season Summer EMPAC Version EMFAC2002 (9/2002) Summary of Land Uses No Total Unit Type Acreage Trip Rate Units Trips Elementary school 60 00 trips/1000 sq ft 17 41 1 044 66 Sum of Total Trips 1 044 66 Total Vehicle Miles Traveled 6 748 50 Vehicle Assumptions Fleet Mix Vehicle Type Percent Type Non-Catalyst Catalyst Diesel Light Auto 55 00 1 60 98 00 0 40 Light Truck < 3 750 lbs 15 00 2 70 95 30 2 00 Light Truck 3 751- 5 750 16 20 1 20 97 50 1 30 Med Truck 5 751 8 500 7 20 1 40 95 80 2 80 Lite-Heavy 8 501 10 000 1 10 0 00 81 so 18 20 Lite-Heavy 10 001 14 000 0 40 0 00 50 00 50 00 Med-Heavy 14 001-33 000 1 00 0 00 20 00 80 00 ( Heavy-Heavy 33 001-60 000 0 90 0 00 it 10 88 90 Line Haul > 60 000 lbs 0 00 0 00 0 00 100 00 Urban Bus 0 20 0 00 50 00 50 00 Motorcycle 1 70 76 50 23 50 0 00 School Bus 0 10 0 00 0 00 100 00 Motor Home 1 20 8 30 83 30 8 40 Travel Conditions Residential Commercial Home- Home- Home Work Shop Other Commute Non-Work Customer Urban Trip Length (miles) it 5 4 9 6 0 10 3 5 5 5 5 Rural Trip Length (miles) 11 5 4 9 6 0 10 3 5 5 5 5 Trip Speeds (mph) 35 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 40 0 t of Trips - Residential 20 0 37 0 43 0 1 of Trips - Commercial (by land use) Elementary school 20 0 10 0 70 0 TTA KV NO page 6 03116/2007 2 38 PM Changes made to the default values for Land Use Trip Percentages Changes made to the default values for Construction The user has overridden the Default Phase Lengths Architectural Coatings # ROG/ft2 (residential) changed from 0 0185 to 0 0013 Architectural Coatings # ROG/ft2 (non res) changed from 0 0185 to 0 0013 Phase 2 mitigation measure Soil Disturbance Watering 3x per day has been changed from off to on Changes made to the default values for Area The landscape year changed from 2005 to 2008 The residential Arch Coatings ROG emission factor changed from 0 0185 to 0 0013 The nonresidential Arch Coatings ROG emission factor changed from 0 0185 to 0 0013 Changes made to the default values for operations The operational emission year changed from 2005 to 2008 s T T A 0,11,iR,i EN T N 0g 11 i_ KOFM C€otc 11111tat 1 11�111e rill- a I ogm"rfa�0 olo'N Geotechnical Engineering Report First Christian Church 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach, California Prepared for First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studio S Peter Canyon Road,#330 Irvine,CA 92606 Prepared by KFM GeoScience 1360 Valley Vista Drive Diamond,California 91765 January 24,2007 Project No BUN 06-02E ATTACHMEWT W. �. . KFM G G o�t C CC Project No BUN 06-02E January 24,2007 First Christian Church c/o Mr Art Cueto Visioneenng Studios 5 peter Canyon Road,##330 Irvine,CA 91732 Subject Geotechnical Engineering Report First Christian Church 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach,California Dear Mr Cueto KFM GeoScience (KFMg) is pleased to submit the results of our geotechnical investigation at the subject site The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions and provide recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed construction of 4 new buildings, addition to the existing chapel, reconfiguration of parking, additional appurtenances, landscaping, and in the future planned at-grade parking structure at the First Christian. Church campus in Huntington Beach The results of the geotechnical field explorations and laboratory tests are presented herein. The recommendations provided within are based on our current understanding of the proposed project Once the project configuration is finalized and the design is complete, KFMg should review the plans and specifications to evaluate if the geotechiucal design recommendations remain appropriate and have been incorporated as intended We appreciate the opportunity to provide our professional services on this project If you have any questions regarding this report or if we can be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned Respectfully submitted, 1KFM GeoScience g , I'S Edward Sabins,C E G 15 0�'�� �� Peter Sko PhD, � ���` Senior Engineering Geologi T�o=to Princip ngineer Filename ist 0outtan Church Huntington Beach RPT Distribution (4)Addressee 1350 Val e}V ssla 0 1 e Dtaiiond B f C�,,91765 l el 989 860,;09F� Fa.< 909-860 50,44 First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page i INTRODUCTION 1 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES 2 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION 3 4 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 4 41 FIELD EXPLORATIONS 4 42 LABORATORY TESTING 4 5 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS 6 51 FILL 6 52 NATIVE TERRACE DEPOSITS 6 53 GROUNDWATER 6 6 ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY 7 61 GENERAL SEISMIC SETTING 7 62 SEISMIC HAZARDS 7 63 POTENTIAL FOR SURFACE FAULT RUPTURE 7 64 SEISMIC HAZARD ZONES 8 65 LIQUEFACTION AND DYNAMIC SETTLEMENT POTENTIAL 8 66 SEISMIC ACCELERATIONS 9 7 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 10 71 GENERAL 10 72 CLEARING 10 73 SITE PREPARATION 10 74 TEMPORARY AND TRENCH EXCAVATIONS 12 75 FOUNDATIONS 13 76 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS 14 77 CONCRETE SLABS-ON-GRADE 14 78 RETAINING WALLS 16 79 ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT 17 710 DRAINAGE CONTROL 18 711 SOIL CORROSION 19 8 GENERAL SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS 21 9 DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 23 91 PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS 23 92 CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 23 10 LIMITATIONS 24 11 SELECTED REFERENCES 25 Figures Figure I —Site Location Map Figure 2—Borehole Locations Appendices Appendix A—Logs of Exploratory Borings Appendix B—Laboratory Testing i h1 tit 64,01-'cicncc TAC3" E 4 140 '1 3 First Christian Church c/o Visioneenng Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 � vas Aerial photo of project site,located on Main Street 1 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of KFM GeoScience's (KFMg) geotechmcal engineering evaluation for the proposed additions and improvements to the First Christian Church Campus m Huntington Beach The present layout of the subject project is shown tin the aerial photo above The regional site location is shown in Figure t —Site Location Map The purpose of this study was to evaluate the subsurface conditions at the site and to provide recommendations for the design and site grading of the proposed construction. This report summarizes the data collected and presents the findings, conclusions, and recommendations This study was performed in accordance with KFMg's proposal dated December 1,2006 1 tit M (a(o"'Cienec l� tnS�t)i�f 1 r4i _�J First Christian Church c/o Visioneersng Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Chnstian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES KFMg's scope of services for this project consisted of the following tasks • Review of readily available background data, including in-house geotechnical data, geotechnical literature geologic maps,and seismic hazard maps relevant to the subject site • A site reconnaissance to observe the site surficial conditions and to mark boring locations • A subsurface evaluation including the excavating, logging, and sampling of 5 exploratory borings to depths of up to approximately 46 feet below the existing grade Soil samples obtained from the borings were transported to a geotechmeal laboratory for further visual classification and testing • Laboratory testing on selected soil samples to evaluate geotechnical engineering properties of the on site soils • Engineering evaluation of the collected geotechnical data to develop geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed residential development including the following items o Evaluation of general subsurface conditions and description of types distribution, and engineering characteristics of subsurface materials e Evaluation of geologic hazards, including liquefaction and seismic settlement potential and recommendations for appropriate mitigation measures o Evaluation of general groundwater conditions and potential impact on design and construction o Provision of seismic parameters as per UBC/CBC o Provision of general evaluation of project feasibility and suitability of on site sods for foundation and fill support o Provision of geotechnical recommendations for design of foundations o Provision of geotechnical recommendations for design of site flatwork and appurtenant structures o Provision of drainage and subdramage recommendations o Provision of retaining wall design recommendations o Preliminary design of asphalt pavement sections o Evaluation of suitability of on-site sods for backfill including evaluation of the corrosion potential of the on-site materials • Preparation of this report, including reference maps and graphics summarizing the collected data and presenting the findings, conclusions and geotechnical recommendations for the design and construction of the proposed project 2 11 rM GcoStatncc f, '+ '► t sue-. First Christian Church c/o Visioneernig Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 3 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND SITE DESCRIPTION The project site is located in a residential area of Huntington Beach on the southwest corner of Adams Street and Main Street More specifically the site is bordered by 17'h Street to the northwest, Adams Street to the Northeast, Main Street to the east, 10 Street to the southeast Loma Avenue and San Nicolas Circle to the south, and office buildings to the southwest. The site is essentially flat with gentle gradient sloping down to the northeast The project will consist of 4 new buildings, addition to the existing chapel, reconfiguration of parking, additional appurtenances, landscaping, and in the future planned at-grade parking structure in the southwest corner of the site The site is presently occupied by a chapel, main sanctuary and several administration buildings and preschool classroom With the exception of the chapel and main sanctuary, the existing buildings will be removed to be replaced with the new construction A new multi-purpose building is planned at the location of the existing pre-school New pre- school classrooms will be constructed at the site of current portable classrooms, and a new administration building will be constructed in the northeast parking lot The site was previously subject to geotechnical investigation performed by Soils International and the findings were summarized in a report entitled `Report — soils And Foundation Investigation — Proposed New Sanctuary — First Christian Church — 1207 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California", project S-0492-F dated October 11, 1979 This report was reviewed as a part of the scope of this study 3 KI N1 6co'Sciciatt First Christian Church c/o Visioneenng Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 4 FIELD EXPLORATIONS AND LABORATORY TESTING 41 Field Explorations The field investigation was performed on December 20, 2006 and consisted of excavating 5 borings as outlined in the following table Table 1 Field Borah s Summa Boring Identification Approximate Depth Objective B4 46 feet Liquefaction potential and foundation design B-1,-2 -3 &-5 31 5 feet Foundation design The borings were excavated using a CME-75 ng with an 8-inch diameter hollow stem auger The approximate locations of the borings are presented on Figure 2 — Borehole Location Plan The borings were observed by a KFMg field geologist who logged the bonngs and obtained soil samples Relatively undisturbed soil samples were collected using a Modified California Sampler and disturbed samples were collected from a Standard Penetration Test(SPT) sampler tube The samples were collected by driving the sampler using an auto-trip hammer In addition, bulk samples of selected materials were collected in plastic bags During the logging, the description of the material type, color, moisture, gram size, density/consistency, and other pertinent geologic characteristics were recorded Following completion of each boring, the borehole was backfilled with cuttings tamped periodically with the downhole hammer Logs of Borings B-1 through B-5 are presented in Appendix A Prior to performing the field exploration program, a site reconnaissance was conducted to observe site surface conditions and to mark the locations of the planned bonngs As required by the law, Underground Service Alert was notified of the locations of the exploratory excavations more than 48 hours prior to drilling 42 Laboratory Testing Laboratory tests were performed on selected samples obtained from the borings in order to aid in the soil classification and to evaluate the engineering properties of the foundation soils The following tests were performed • In-situ moisture content and dry density • Grain size distribution, • Plasticity(Atterberg Limits), • Compressibility of undisturbed samples • Expansion potential, • Soluble sulphates content,and • Corrosion potential 4 krM Gcogcitncc Fast Christian Church c/o Vcsioneering Studios Project No BUN 05-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Hunttngton Beach January 24 2007 Testing was performed in general accordance with applicable ASTM standards and California Test Methods The moisture content and density data are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A The remaining Iaboratory test results are presented in Appendix B Details of the laboratory testing program are also included in Appendix B 5 lal,m CcoScience 20 First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 5 SITE AND SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soil materials encountered during the subsurface explorations consisted of localized minor fill overlying native alluvial soils Generalized descriptions of the encountered units are provided below More complete descriptions of the soil conditions encountered are presented on the boring logs in Appendix A 51 Fall Apparent fill material was encountered in boring B-4 The fill soil consisted of medium dense, medium brown sandy silt, slightly moist containing brown topsoil and siltstone fragments As observed in the boring,the fill depth was 5 5 feet below the existing grade 52 Native Terrace Deposits Except for the occurrence of fill noted above, native terrace deposits typical to the project area were observed in all borings from the ground surface to the terminated depth of the borings The terrace deposits consisted primarily of interlayered, loose to medium dense moist silty sand, sandy salt,and sand Localized stiff to hard silty/sandy clay zones up to several feet thick were encountered at various depths in borings B-1 and B-4 and at a depth of approximately 30 feet in borings B-2 and B-3 5.3 Groundwater Groundwater or seepage was not observed in the exploratory borings with the exception of B-4 where groundwater was encountered in the dense to very dense silty sand interval at a depth of about 40 feet Groundwater was similarly encountered at depths of 44 and 48 feet in 2 borings performed by Soils International in 1979 However, it should be recognized that groundwater levels may fluctuate due to seasonal variations,rainfall,irrigation,or other factors Mapping by the State of California for the Seal Beach Quadrangle indicates that the historically high groundwater level at the site is estimated to have been approximately 50 feet below the ground surface (California Department of Conservation,Division of Mines and Geology, 1998) It is our opinion that the groundwater encountered in the boring was likely perched on a localized clayey zone 6 Itl-itI t co'Sticaitt First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements,Huntington Beach January 24 2007 6 ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY 61 General Seismic Setting The Southern California region is known to be seismically active Earthquakes occurring within approximately 60 miles of the site are generally capable of generating ground shaking of engineering significance to the proposed construction The project area is located in the general proximity of several active and potentially active faults Active faults are defined as those that have experienced surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the Iast 11,000 years) The closest active faults to the site are the Newport Inglewood Fault, located approximately 1 km to the north, the Palos Verdes Fault, located approximately 17 km to the southwest, and the Whittier Fault located approximately 31 km northeast of the site The San Andreas Fault is mapped about 84 km to the northeast of the site Notable damaging earthquakes in the project region include the 1994 magnitude M6 7 Northridge earthquake and the 1987 magnitude M5 9 Whittier Narrows earthquake,both on blind thrust faults (low angle faults that are not expressed at the ground surface),the 1971 magnitude M6 4 San Fernando earthquake which occurred on the San Fernando fault(the easternmost fault of the Sierra Madre system), the 1933 magnitude M6 3 Long Beach earthquake on the Newport Inglewood fault, and the 1857 magnitude M7 9 Fort Tejon earthquake on the south central segment of the San Andreas fault 62 Seismic hazards The engineering seismology study for the subject site included reviewing local and regional faulting maps and the review of historical earthquake data Specifically, the following engineering seismology issues were addressed 63 Potential for Surface Fault Rupture Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones were reviewed to evaluate the location of the project site relative to active fault zones Earthquake Fault Zones(known as Special Studies Zones prior to 1994)have been established in accordance with the Alquist-Paolo Special Studies Zones Act enacted in 1972 The Act directs the State Geologist to delineate the regulatory zones that encompass surface traces of active faults that have a potential for future surface fault rupture The purpose of the Alquist-Paolo Act is to regulate development near active faults in order to mitigate the hazard of surface fault rupture Based on the review of the Seal Beach Quadrangle maps the site is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone for fault surface rupture hazard The surface traces of any active or potentially active faults are not known to pass directly through or project towards the site Therefore, the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low 7 KFM C►co`scicnc.c First Christian Church c/o Visioneenng Studios Project No BUM 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24, 2007 64 Seismic Hazard Zones Maps of seismic hazard zones are issued by the California Geological Survey (formerly California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology) in accordance with the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act enacted in April 1997 The intent of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act is to provide for a statewide seismic hazard mapping and technical advisory program to assist cities and counties to developing compliance requirements to protect the public health and safety from the effects of strong ground shaking liquefaction, landslides, or other ground failure and other seismic hazards caused by earthquakes Based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Report 011 —Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Seal Beach 7 5-mmute Quadrangle Los Angeles and Orange Counties, California (1998), the proposed development is not located within an area identified by the State of California as subject to the hazard of liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides An evaluation of the liquefaction potential and dynamic settlement potential is discussed in following section of this report 65 Liquefaction and Dynamic Settlement Potential Liquefaction is a phenomenon wherein a saturated or near saturated mass of soil looses a large percentage of its shear resistance when subject to monotonic, cyclic,or shock loading,and flows in a manner resembling a liquid until the shear stresses acting on the mass are as low as the reduced shear strength Liquefaction of soils can be caused by ground shaking during earthquakes Research and historical data indicate that loose relatively clean granular sods are susceptible to liquefaction and dynamic settlement,whereas the stability of the majority of clayey silts,silty clays and clays is not adversely affected by ground shaking Due to the lack of groundwater and the dense to very dense state of the on site granular materials within the depth of liquefaction significance,the potential for liquefaction and its adverse effects impacting the site is considered negligible Dynamic settlement occurs due to soil densification during cyclic or shock loading,typically due to earthquake shaking, and can occur in dry sands or, as a consequence of liquefaction, in saturated sands Due to the absence of propensity to liquefaction, liquefaction-induced settlement is not expected at the site However, localized loose to medium dense on-site granular soils encountered in borings B-i and B-4 may be subject to earthquake-induced settlement The potential for earthquake-induced settlement of dry sods was calculated according to the procedures outlined in Pradel (1998a,and 1998b) Based on the SPT blowcount data and the thickness of the layers,the earthquake-induced settlement of localized on-site dry materials was calculated to be less than 0 25 inch 8 Kt'M GLW)'Lltntt ATTACHMENT NO First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 Based on the above analyses, no special design considerations for mitigation of liquefaction, liquefaction effects,or earthquake induced settlements are deemed necessary 66 Seismic Accelerations In order to evaluate the potential ground accelerations probabilistic analyses were performed for the design basis earthquake (DBE) which is defined by the 2001 California Building Code as a seismic event having ground acceleration with a 10 percent probability of exceedance in 50 years which corresponds to an average return period of approximately 475 years The DBE ground motion is estimated to be 0 42g and the associated de-aggregated predominant earthquake magnitude is Mw6 9 at a distance of 2 kilometers 9 f VNI f;cc�5«cncc ATTACHMENT NO a f 2 First Christian Church c%Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach Januaa 24,2007 7 DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 71 General Based on the results of the field explorations and engineering analyses, it is KFMg s opinion that the proposed construction is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the recommendations contained in this report are incorporated into the design plans and implemented during construction The foundations of the proposed expansion structure may be supported on shallow footings established in engineered fill or competent native terrace deposits Observations and laboratory tests indicate that the near-surface on-site soils have a very low expansion potential, negligible levels of water-soluble sulfates, and a moderate corrosion potential to ferrous metals The design recommendations presented below are based on KFMg's current understanding of the project Once the protect configuration is finalized and the design is complete KFMg should review the plans and specifications to evaluate if the geotechnical design recommendations have been incorporated as intended 72 Clearing The surface should be cleared of any existing structures pavement, flatwork, vegetation, trash and debris prior to commencement of the earth work Any encountered subterranean installations such as pipes, utility collectors, tanks, etc should be abandoned in accordance with applicable regulations 73 Site Preparation In order to create a uniform bearing condition for the proposed construction, the following site subgrade preparation is recommended • Building/floor slab areas located on the native terrace deposits should be overexcavated to a depth of 2 5 feet below the bottom of the floor slab or 15 foot below the bottom of the footings or to competent native soils,whichever is deeper Deeper excavation to a depth of at least approximately 5 feet below the existing grade will be required to remove undocumented fill soils encountered in the boring B-4 in the general area of the proposed multi-purpose building The excavations should extend a horizontal distance of at least 5 feet beyond the outside perimeter of the structure It is likely that deeper overexcavation will be locally required due to ground disturbance due to removal of existing structures and localized unsuitable subgrade conditions • Lightly loaded ancillary structures areas (e g, site walls, trash enclosures, small retaining walls)should be overexcavated to a depth of at least i foot below the bottom of the proposed footing or to competent soils, whichever is deeper The excavation should extend a horizontal distance of at least 2 feet beyond the outside perimeter of the structure 10 KFM Gros€ien€€ ATTACHMENT NO13 First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 • Pavement and flatwork areas should be overexcavated to a depth of at least i foot below the proposed pavement subgrade elevation • Disturbance of native soils at structural areas will likely occur after clearing the site Disturbed native soils should be excavated and replaced as compacted fill to the total depth of the disturbed material The subgrade soils exposed during excavation should be scarified to a depth of 6 inches, moisture-conditioned to at least optimum moisture contents,and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as evaluated by the latest version of ASTM D1557 Although not anticipated, if localized zones of loose and/or unstable soils are encountered during the grading operations at the subgrade level that are not practical to be excavated and processed, Table 1 provides options for stabilizing the subgrade The specific type of remediation and associated area limits will need to be evaluated in the field by a representative of KFMg Table 2 Options for Handling Unstable Materials at the Excavated Sub grade Areas where the soils are soft • Place non-woven geotextile,Mirafi 180N or equivalent over and/or unstable at the the exposed soil excavation subgrade • Place and compact fill over the geotextile ® Place at least 6 inches of aggregate base or crushed rock or similar over the exposed soil only reasonably achievable Areas where the soils are compaction is required excessively soft and/or unstable • Place non-woven geotextile,Mirafi 18ON or equivalent,over the aggregate base • Place and compact fill over the geotextile Place non woven geotextile,Mirafi 180N or equivalent,over the exposed soil Larger areas where the soils " Place at least an i 8-inch-thick layer of l-inch or'/e inch are excessively soft and/or crushed rock or gravel,only reasonably achievable unstable compaction is required O Place non woven geotextile,Mirafi 180N or equivalent,over the aggregate layer • Place and compact fill over the eotextile All fill placement associated with the replacement of the overexcavated soils, fill placed to achieve finish grade or subgrade, or utility trench backfill should be moisture-conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density, as evaluated by the latest version of ASTM D1557 The upper 1 foot of soils below pavements and any flatwork should be processed and compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density The on-site soils may be re-used as compacted fill provided they are free of organics,deleterious materials, debris and particles over 3 inches in largest dimension Particles up to 6 inches in 1 i KI M Gto4titnc€. ATTACHMENT NO 1�14 First Christian Church c%Visioneenng Studios Project No BUM 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 largest dimension may be incorporated in the fill soils based on specific approval and placement recommendations provided by the KFMg during grading In the event that any soil materials (including backfill or base course materials) are imported to the site, such soils should be sampled, tested and approved by KFMg prior to arrival on-site In general any soils imported to the site for use as fill should be predominantly granular and have an Expansion Index less than 20 Additional recommendations for site grading are provided in the"General Grading Recommendations"section of this report 74 Temporary and Trench Excavations The on-site soils are not expected to pose unusual excavation difficulties, and therefore, conventional earth-moving equipment may be used However, sloughing/raveling of exposed soil intervals in new vertical cuts should be anticipated All trench excavations should be performed in accordance with CalOSHA regulations The on-site soils may be considered a Type C soil as defined the current CaIOSHA soil classification All applicable excavation safety requirements and regulations, including CalOSHA requirements,should be met Unsurcharged excavations Temporary short-term (generally less than 5 days) unsurcharged excavations shallower than 4 feet may be excavated with vertical sides Sides of temporary unsurcharged excavation deeper than 4 feet should be sloped back at an inclination of 1 5(H) I(V) or flatter Where space for sloped sides is not available, shoring will be necessary This office can provide appropriate shoring recommendations, once the excavation layout is known Surcharge setback recommendations Stockpiled (excavated) materials should be placed no closer to the edge of a trench excavation than a distance defined by a line drawn upward from the bottom of the trench at an inclination of 1(H) 1 5(V),but no closer than 4 feet A greater setback may be necessary when considering heavy vehicles, such as concrete trucks and cranes KFMg should be advised of such heavy vehicle loadings so that specific setback requirements can be established for the used equipment Alternatively, a shoring system may be designed to allow reduction in the setback distance Personnel from KFMg should observe the excavation progress so that appropriate modifications to the excavation design may be recommended, if necessary due to encountered conditions differing from the design assumptions 12 KFM trc v�cicncc ATTACHMENT No q .15 -- First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 7 5 Foundations The foundations for the proposed development may be supported on shallow footings established in compacted fill or competent native terrace deposits Recommendations for the design and construction of shallow foundations are presented below 751 Design Parameters Shallow foundations should be designed using the geotechnical design parameters presented in Table 3 Footings should be designed and reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the structural engineer and should conform to the 2001 California Building Code 'fable 3 Geotechnical Design Parameters Continuous and Isolated Spread Footing Foundations Foundation Dimensions - At least 18 inches in width At least 24 inches below the lowest ad scent grade 3 000 pounds per square foot(psf) Net Allowable Bearing Capacity - The allowable bearing value may be increased by one third for transient live loads from wind or seismicity Approximately 1-inch total settlement Estimated Settlement - Approximately 0 5-inch differential settlement over 20 feet Approximately 0 75-inch differential settlement over the building length Allowable Coefficient of Fraction - 040 Allowable Lateral Passive Resistance - 180 pounds per cubic foot equivalent fluid pressure ( cf EFP) The total allowable lateral resistance can be taken as the sum of the friction resistance and passive resistance The passive resistance values may be increased by one-third when considering wind or seismic loading Footings should be designed and reinforced in accordance with the recommendations of the Structural Engineer and should conform to the requirements of the 2001 California Building Code 752 Footing Observations To evaluate the presence of satisfactory materials at design elevations, footing excavations should be observed to be clean of loosened soil and debris before placing steel or concrete and probed for soft areas If soft or loose soils or other unsatisfactory materials are encountered,such materials should be removed and replaced with compacted fill prior to pouring the footing 13 hrm (;e0Sticutt TTACME. T NO 01 First Christian Church c%Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06 02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 76 California Building Code Seismic Design Parameters The seismic design of the project may be performed using criteria presented in the 2001 California Building Code, Volume 2 Chapter 16A Divisions IV and V using seismic design parameters described in Table 4 Table 4 2001 California Building Code Seismic Design Parameters 2001 CBC Seismic Design Factor Value Seismic Zone 4 Soil Profile Type So Seismic Source/Type* Newport-Inglewood Fault/ Type B Distance to Source <2 km *Faults are designated as Type A,B or C,depending on maximum moment magnitude and slip rates(Table 16A-U of 2001 California Buildm Code) 7 7 Concrete Slabs-On-Grade The recommendations provided in the"Site Preparation"section of this report and in this section are intended to help reduce the occurrence of cracks and fissures in concrete and to limit their horizontal separation and vertical offset However, it should be understood that the concrete slabs may still crack due to structural design or detailing curing,or construction execution even when these recommendations are implemented If cracking of the concrete is desired to be minimized the reinforcement, concrete mix,and curing specifications should be designed by the Structural Engineer and Concrete Specialist 771 Floor Slabs For design of concrete slabs, a modulus of subgrade reaction (k) of 200 pounds per cubic inch may be used Floor slabs should be designed and reinforced in accordance with the Structural Engineer's recommendations The minimum reinforcement to reduce separation and offset of potential concrete cracks should consist of No 4 reinforcing bars spaced at 16 inches on-center, each way, placed in the middle one-third of the section. Reinforcement should be properly placed and supported on "chairs" Welded wire mesh reinforcement is not recommended To reduce potential for vapor transmission through the slabs, it is recommended that the concrete have a thickness of at least 4 inches, water cement ratio of 0 50 or less, and a slump of 4 inches or less Table 5 provides alternatives for control of vapor transmission through concrete floor slab support placed on a properly prepared subgrade The appropriate level of protection should be selected by the Owner and/or the Architect based on the sensitivity of the floor covering and the intended use of the building t 14 kl N1 Gco'�)(Icnce ATTACHMEENT NO I I� First Christian Church c%Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 Table 5 Ceotechnical Recommendation Alternatives for Control of Vapor Migration through Concrete Slab Objective Recommendation O Concrete floor slab on-grade placed directly on a plastic membrane 10 mils in thickness'(ACI 302 1 R-96) 0 The membrane should be placed on at least 2 inches of dry silty "Best"protection against sand vapor intrusion • The dry silty sand should be separated from the underlying capillary break layer by non-woven geotextile Mirafi 140N or equivalent. • The geotextile should be placed on at least 4 inches of 3/4-inch crushed rock3 or clean grave14 to act as a capillary break "Better"protection against ° Concrete floor stab-on-grade placed directly on a plastic membrane vapor intrusion 10 mils in thickness (ACI 302 IR 96) z 0 The membrane should be laced on at least 2 inches of siltysand ® 2 inches of dry silty sand , Standard protection against o placed over plastic membrane 8 mils in thickness vapor intrusion . The membrane should be placed on place at least 2 inches of silty sand r If additional protection is desired the plastic membrane may be replaced with a 10 mil thick moisture vapor retarder that meets the requirements of ASTM E 1745 Class C (for example Stego Wrap or similar) s The silty sand should have a gradation between approximately 15 and 35 percent passing the No 200 sieve and a plasticity index(PI)of less than 4 3 The 3/4 inch crushed rock should conform to Section 200 12 of the latest edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction(Greenbook) °The gravel should contain less than 10 percent of material passing the No 4 sieve and less than 3 percent passetg the No 200 sieve All underslab materials should be adequately compacted prior to the placement of concrete The materials should be dry/moist and not be wetted or saturated prior to the placement of concrete Care should be taken during placement of the concrete to prevent displacement of the underslab materials The concrete slab should be allowed to cure properly prior to placing vinyl or other moisture-sensitive floor covering 772 Exterior Slabs Exterior slabs should be placed on subgrade prepared in accordance with the recommendations provided in the'Site Preparation"section of this report As indicated above, Structural Engineer and Engineer specialized in concrete design should be consulted if cracking of the exterior slabs should be minimized As a minimum for exterior walkways,it is recommended that narrow strip concrete slabs, such as sidewalks, be reinforced with at least No 3 remforcnngbars placed longitudinally at 36 inches on center Wide exterior slabs should be reinforced with at least No 3 reinforcing bars placed 36 inches on center, each way The reinforcement should be extended through the control Joints to reduce the potential for differential movement Control joints should be constructed in accordance with recommendations from the Structural Engineer and Architect. 15 I{rm Cco5cicnc ATTACHMENT First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 78 Retaining Walls 781 Retaining Wall Design No specific configurations or locations of retaining walls were provided for the preparation of this report Consequently, the following recommendations are provided for a general retaining wall less than 6 feet in height Such a retaining wall may be supported on spread footings constructed in accordance with the `Site Preparation'and "Foundations' sections of this report The lateral retaining wall loading and soil resistance should be calculated based on the recommendations presented in Table 6 Design values are provided for both the active and at-rest conditions for level backslope and assume that a drainage system will be installed behind the wall, so that external water pressure will not develop If a drainage system is not installed, the wall should be designed to resist also the hydrostatic pressure Table 6 Geotechnical Design Parameters Geotechnical Design Parameters for Retainin Walls Level Backslope Condition Lateral at-rest pressure(psf) 60 z+0 50 Q Lateral active pressure(psf) 40 z+0 34 Q Allowable lateral passive resistance 180 pcf EFP where z Depth below the grade behind the wall(ft) Q Uniform surcharge load (psf) within a 1(H) 1(V) plane drawn upward from the heel of the wall footing Determination of whether the active or at-rest condition is appropriate for design will depend on the flexibility of the walls Walls that are free to rotate at least 0 001 radians (deflection at the top of the wall of at least 0 001 x H)maybe designed for the active condition Walls that are not capable of this movement should be assumed rigid and designed for the at-rest condition The effect of any surcharge(dead or live load) located within a I(H) I(V)plane drawn upward from the heel of the wall footing should be added to the lateral earth pressures 782 Retaining Wall Rackflil and Drainage It is expected that approved select on-site material may be suitable as the backfill behind the retaining wall Alternatively, an approved import material may be used for the backflll Suitable material should have a Sand Equivalent of about 30 an Expansion Index of less than 20, and fines content(passing#200 sieve)of less than 15 percent However,the suitability of the on-site and/or import material for retaining wall backflll must be verified at the time of construction 16 KrM GCOI Cicntc T TA C H M1 EN T 1 First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach january 24,2007 If the surrounding native materials are granular and relatively permeable the granular backfill may densified by water jetting Otherwise the backfill should be moisture-conditioned to at least optimum moisture content and compacted in loose horizontal lifts not more than 8 inches in uncompacted thickness to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density as evaluated by the latest version of ASTM D1557 The backfill should be capped with a concrete swalelslab or with at least 12 inches of relatively impervious clayey material and sloped to prevent ponding of water Retaining walls should be constructed to limit potential for hydrostatic pressure built-up behind the wall If irrigation or precipitation infiltration is expected, adequate drainage is essential to provide a free-drained backfill condition to limit hydrostatic buildup behind the wall If control of efflorescence on the air side of the wall is desired, the wall should be appropriately waterproofed. Adequate drainage and waterproofing behind the wall may be provided by a backdram consisting of geosynthetic drainage composite such as TerraDrain MiraDram, or approved equivalent, placed against the entire backside of the wall The drainage composite should be connected to a 4-inch-diameter perforated ABS or PVC Schedule 40 drain pipe, or approved equivalent The drain pipe should be sloped at least 2 percent and surrounded by I cubic foot per foot of the Class 11 Permeable Material (Caltrans Standard Specifications - Section 68), or by of%-inch crushed rock(Standard Specification for Public Works Construction ("Greenbook") - Section 200-1 2) wrapped in suitable non-woven filter fabric, e g, Mirafi I40NL or approved equivalent Perforations in the drain pipe should have a maximum diameter of 0 25 inches or 3/ inches for Class 2 Permeable or 3/-inch crushed rock drain material, f respectively, spaced 3 inches on center, and be arranged in 2 rows at a radial spacing of approximately 120 degrees The axis of the included angle between the perforation rows should be positioned downward to form a flowline The drain pipe should discharge through a solid pipe to appropriate outlets, such as the storm dram system or through the wall The maximum length of the drain pipe between discharge outlets should not exceed 200 feet Alternatively, weep holes through the wall, at least 3-mchches in diameter, spaced no more than 10 feet apart may be considered 7 9 Asphalt Concrete Pavement 791 Subgrade Preparation The pavement subgrade should be prepared, scarified and compacted just prior to placement of the base course Positive drainage of the pavement and pavement subgrade areas should be provided since moisture infiltration into the subgrade may decrease the life of pavements Curbing located adjacent to paved areas should be founded in the compacted subgrade soils,not the aggregate base, in order to provide a cutoff, which reduces water infiltration from adjacent irrigated parkways into the base course 79.2 Pavement Design The required pavement surface and base thicknesses will depend on the expected wheel loads and volume of traffic (TI Traffic Index) Assuming that the pavement subgrade will consist of 17 KFN4 Geo'�ritnce ATTACHMENT '9 ZOT. . First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 the on-site or comparable soils compacted as recommended pavement structural sections provided in Table 7 may be used for design Table 7 Geotechnical Recommendation Asphalt Concrete Pavement Structural Sections Typical Traffic Use sign Asphalt Concrete Base Course Traffic Index (inches) (inches) Parking/driveways 3 30 42 Light duty 45 30 42 Fire lanes 6 35 75 The pavement structural sections were established using the design criteria of the State of California, Department of Transportation, an estimated design, R-value of 30, and the assumed Traffic Indices as indicated Confirmatory R-value tests on the exposed subgrade soils during grading will be required to verify the recommended design sections The base course should meet the specifications for Class II Aggregate Base as defined in Section 26 of the State of California, Department of Transportation, Standard Specifications, current edition Alternatively, the base course could meet the specifications for untreated base materials as defined in Section 200-2 of the current edition of the Standard Specifications for Public Works Construction C Greenbook') The base course should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density(ASTM D1557) 793 Pavement Construction Observation The preparation of the pavement subgrade and the placement of the pavement section should be observed by KFMg personnel Careful observation is recommended to evaluate that the pavement subgrade is uniformly compacted and the recommended pavement and base course thicknesses are achieved,and that good construction procedures are used 7 10 Drainage Control The intent of this section is to provide general information regarding the control of surface water The control of surface water is essential to the satisfactory performance of any building construction and site improvements Surface water should be controlled so that conditions of uniform moisture are maintained beneath the structure, even during periods of heavy rainfall The following recommendations are considered minimal Ponding and areas of low flow gradients should be avoided • Paved surfaces should be provided with a gradient of at least I percent sloping away from improvements 18 KI M GcoScitncc ATTAC M T ZI First Christian Church c/o Visioneenng Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 3 • Unpaved areas, e g, lawn should be provided with a drainage gradient of at least 2 percent away from structures • Bare soil, e g, planters, within 5 feet of the structure should be sloped away from the improvement at a gradient of 5 percent • Positive drainage devices, such as graded swales, paved ditches, and/or catch basins should be employed to accumulate and to convey water to appropriate discharge points • Concrete walks and flatwork should not obstruct the free flow of surface water • Brick flatwork should be sealed by mortar or be placed over an impermeable membrane • Area drams should be recessed below grade to allow free flow of water into the basin • Enclosed raised planters should be sealed at the bottom and provided with an ample flow gradient to a drainage device Recessed planters and landscaped areas should be provided with area inlet and subsurface dram pipes • Planters should not be located adjacent to the structure If planters are to be located adjacent to the structure, the planters should be positively sealed, should incorporate a subdrain, and should be provided with free discharge capacity to a drainage device • Planting areas at grade should be provided with positive drainage Wherever possible, the grade of exposed soil areas should be established above adjacent paved grades Drainage devices and curbing should be provided to prevent runoff from adjacent pavement or walks into planted areas • Gutter and downspout systems should be provided to capture discharge from roof areas The accumulated roof water should be conveyed to off-site disposal areas by a pipe or concrete Swale system Landscape watering should be performed judiciously to preclude either soaking or desiccation of soils The watering should be such that it just sustains plant growth without excessive infiltration Sprinkler systems should be checked periodically to detect leakage and they should be turned off during the rainy season 711 Soil Corrosion The corrosion potential of the on-site materials to buried steel and concrete was evaluated Laboratory testing was performed on representative soil samples to evaluate pH, minimum resistivity, and soluble sulfate content. Table 8 presents the results of the corrosivity testing General recommendations to address the corrosion potential of the on-site soils are provided below If additional recommendations are desired, it is recommended that a corrosion specialist be consulted I 19 KI 111 GcoScic nce ATTAC HM T NOJ 22. First Christian Church c%Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 Table 8 Corrosivity Test Results Boring B-1 I SK-1 B-5 J SK-I Depth 3—5 feet 3 —5 feet pH 89 Minimum Resistivity 7,100 ohm-cm Soluble Sulfate Content 0 0058% 0 0049% Chloride Content 0 0297% The corrosion potential of the on-site soils should be verified during construction for each encountered soil type Imported fill materials should be tested to confirm that their corrosion potential is not more severe than those assumed 7 111 Reinforced Concrete Laboratory tests indicate that the potential of sulfate attack on concrete in contact with the on-site soils is 'negligible"' based on 2001 California Building Code Table 19-A4 Accordingly, concrete mix with Type II cement may be used 7112 Metallic Laboratory tests indicate that the on-site soils have a "moderate" corrosion potential to buried ferrous metals As a consequence of these conditions, we recommend that consideration be given to using plastic piping instead of metal Alternatively, a corrosion specialist should be consulted regarding suitable types of piping and necessary protection for underground metal conduits 20 kFAI €,coScicnct ATT C M T First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 8 GENERAL SITE GRADING RECOMMENDATIONS The intent of this section is to provide general information regarding the site grading Site grading operations should conform with applicable local budding and safety codes and to the rules and regulations of those governmental agencies having jurisdiction over the subject construction The grading contractor is responsible for notifying governmental agencies, as required, and a representative of KFMg at the start of site cleanup, at the initiation of grading, and any time that grading operations are resumed after an interruption Each step of the grading should be accepted in a specific area by a representative of KFMg, and where required, should be approved by the applicable governmental agencies prior to proceeding with subsequent work The following site grading recommendations should be regarded as minimal The site grading recommendations should be incorporated into the project plans and specifications 1 Prior to grading, existing vegetation, trash, surface structures and debris should be removed and disposed off-site at a legal dumpsite Any existing utility lines, or other subsurface structures, which are not to be utilized should be removed, destroyed, or abandoned in compliance with current governmental regulations 2 Subsequent to cleanup operations, and prior to initial grading, a reasonable search should be made for subsurface obstructions and/or possible loose fill or detrimental soil types This search should be conducted by the contractor,with advice from and under the observation of a representative of KFMg 3 Prior to the placement of fill or foundations within the building area the site should be prepared in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Site Preparation section of this report All undocumented fill or disturbed soils and colluvium within the building areas should be removed and processed as recommended by the representative of KFMg 4 The exposed subgrade and/or excavation bottom should be observed and approved by a representative of KFMg for conformance with the intent of the recommendations presented in this report and prior to any further processing or fill placement It should be understood that the actual encountered conditions may warrant excavation and/or subrade preparation beyond the extent recommended and/or anticipated in this report. 5 On-site inorganic granular soils that are free of debris or contamination are considered suitable for placement as compacted fill Any rock or other soil fragments greater than 3 inches in size should not be used within 5 feet of the foundation subgrade 6 Observation and field tests should be performed during grading by a representative of KFMg in order to assist the contractor in obtaining the proper moisture content and required degree of compaction Wherever in the opinion of a representative of KFMg an unsatisfactory 21 Kr4 Esc ci�i iciici ATTACHMENT I �1 z First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24,2007 condition is being created in any area, whether by cutting or filling, then the work should not proceed in that area until the condition has been corrected 22 14I M GcoSticticc TT MENT ; �_w First Christian Church c%Visioneenng Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 9 DESIGN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION MONITORING Geotechnical review of plans and specifications is of paramount importance in engineering practice The poor performance of many structures has been attributed to inadequate geotechnical review of construction documents Additionally, observation and testing of the subgrade will be important to the performance of the proposed development The following sections present our recommendations relative to the review of construction documents and the monitoring of construction activities 91 Plans and Specifications The design plans and specifications should be reviewed and approved by KFMg prior to bidding and construction, as the geotechmcal recommendations may need to be re-evaluated in the light of the actual design configuration and loads This review ;s necessary to evaluate whether the recommendations contained in this report have been incorporated into the project plans and specifications as intended 92 Construction Monitoring Site preparation, removal of unsuitable soils assessment of imported fill materials, fill placement, foundation installation, and other site grading operations should be observed and tested The soils exposed during the construction may differ from that encountered in the test borings Continuous observation by a representative of KFMg during construction allows for evaluation of the soil conditions as they are encountered, and allows the opportunity to recommend appropriate revisions where appropriate s 23 KFN4 GtoSc.tcncc ATTA ME- T NO, �, 2� First Christian Church c/o Visioneenng Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 10 LIMITATIONS KFMg has endeavored to perform its evaluation using the degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar circumstances by reputable geotechnical professionals with experience in this area an similar soil conditions No other warranty, either expressed or implied,is made as to the conclusions and recommendations contained in this report The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report are based on KFMg s review of background documents and on the limited information obtained from field explorations and the associated laboratory testing It should be noted that this study dad not evaluate the possible presence of hazardous materials on any portion of the site Due to the limited nature of the field explorations, conditions not observed and described an this report may be present on the site Uncertainties relative to subsurface conditions can be reduced through additional subsurface exploration Additional subsurface evaluation and laboratory testing can be performed upon request It should be understood that conditions different from those anticipated in this report may be encountered during grading operations, for example, the extent of removal of unsuitable soil and the associated additional effort required to mitigate them Site conditions, incluthng groundwater level, can change with time as a result of natural processes or the activities of man at the subject site or at nearby sites Changes to the applicable laws, regulations,codes, and standards of practice may occur as a result of government action or the broadening of knowledge The findings of this report may, therefore, be invalidated over time,in part or in whole,by changes over which KFMg has no control KFMg s recommendations for this site are to a high degree,dependent upon appropriate quality control of subgrade preparation, fill placement and foundation construction Accordingly, the recommendations are made contingent upon the opportunity for KFMg to observe grading operations and foundation excavations for the proposed construction If parties other than KFMg are engaged to provide such services, such parties must be notified that they will be required to assume complete responsibility as the geotechnical engineer of record for the geotechnical phase of the project by concurring with the recommendations in this report and/or by providing alternative recommendations This document as intended to be used only in its entirety No portion of the document,by itself, as designed to completely represent any aspect of the project described herein KFMg should be contacted if the reader requires additional information or has questions regarding the content, interpretations presented, or completeness of this document Reliance by others on the data presented herein or for purposes other than those stated an the text is authorized only if so permitted an writing by KFMg It should be understood that such an authorization may incur additional expenses and charges 24 KrNi ccosocnec ATTACHMENT NO R X7 First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 11 SELECTED REFERENCES ASTM(American Society for Testing and Materials),2001,Soil and Rock Vol 4 08 California Department of Conservation Division of Mines and Geology, 1997a, Guidelines for Evaluation and Mitigation of Seismic Hazards in California Special Publication 117, 74 pp California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998a, Maps of Known Active Fault Near-Source Zones in California and Adjacent Portions of Nevada International Conference of Building Officials dated February,Scale I inch=4 km California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, 1998, Seismic Hazard Evaluation of the Seal Beach 7 5-Minute Quadrangle, Los Angeles and Orange Counties California.Open-File Report 98-11,50 pp International Conference of Building Officials,2001,California Building Code Volume 2 Ishihara, K, 1985, Stability of Natural Deposits During Earthquakes Proceedings, I 1 th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Volume 1,pp 321-376 Hart, E W, and Bryant, W A, 1997 Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, Supplements 1 and 2 added 1999, 38 pp Jennings, C W, 1994, Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology Geologic Data Map No 6, Scale 1750,000 Pradel, D, 1998a, Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,dated April,pp 364-368 Pradel, D 1998b, Erratum to Procedure to Evaluate Earthquake-Induced Settlements in Dry Sandy Soils Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,dated October, p 1048 Southern California Earthquake Center, 1999, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Liquefaction in California dated March 63 pp Southern California Earthquake Center, 2002, Recommended Procedures for Implementation of DMG Special Publication 117 Guidelines for Analyzing and Mitigating Landslide Hazards in California dated March 127 pp 25 1aFMl CCOSC1C11cc TT C WT N First Christian Church c!o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 Youd T L and Idriss I M , 1997, Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils National Center for Earthquake Engineering Research Technical Report NCEER-97-0022 Youd, T L and Idriss, I M, 2001, Liquefaction Resistance of Soils Summary report of NCEER 1996 and 1998 NCEER/SF Workshops on Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils Journal of Geotechmcal and Geoenvironmental Engineering, dated April, pp 297- 313 26 I I-M CtoSricnie ATTACHMENT NOI 'P, Wu, 7, Y�4"-1 7-77 lik-3!`�I- 11-R k YZ M, A Pt� — uii N y""N M.. IF, - X 1, t- itZto W- I k6 'q h F1 .. "T ...... �F` 'J IF -Z�lt7 I Z" 4"A R 6-6 r�.tV M lisF Vie= 'M S� ,4d, F, n r _0 � k ?yam K, 5, IF 0 5, P x,� 'W lgaj t^W Z "`z it L 4� r- fXY V%7-07 -ul -J, ,Ft o tj MW 'biie-Avkl tz sA ZW K. h4iiii lid pwi s-- "Ft 5F. x 4 �J -3, M R, V 3, _ J; Tj -Av4 IL t: �7 Lit 1360 Valloy Vista Dswe Site Location Map Diamond 08 CA 917455 First Christian Church Additions and Improvements I(F M 909 WO 5096 ptwrw jf 1207 Main St Huntington Beach California W9 SW-6094 fa BUN 06-02E Figure I , & ® �« >�? ® � & # » IN � (Boring locations are approximate) ■ @ e+ *_mMATE«_ ,mvalley a._, Bor ehok Locations KFM ___a me First Christian Church Additions d Improvements a sew : „ "~�� 1207 Main StH B�� h California ____ BUN 06-02E Figure 2 ATTAr�VPNITNO 01,31 First Christian Church c/o Visioneenng Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach January 24 2007 Appendix A Logs of Exploratory Borings Bulk and relatively undisturbed drive samples were obtained in the field during KFMg's subsurface evaluation The samples were tagged in the field and transported to KFMg s laboratory for observation and testing The drive samples were obtained using the California Modified Split Barrel Drive sampler as described below California Modified Split Barret Drive Sampler The split barrel drive sampler was driven with a 140-pound hammer allowed to drop freely 30 inches The number of blows per foot recorded during sampling is presented in the logs of exploratory bonngs The sampler has external and internal diameters of approximately 3 0 and 2 4 inches, respectively, and the inside of the sampler is lined with 1-inch-long brass rings The relatively undisturbed soil sample within the rings is removed, sealed, and transported to the laboratory for observation and testing Standard Penetration`Nest Sampler The standard penetration test sampler is driven with a 140-pound hammer allowed to drop freely 30 inches in general accordance with ASTM D1586 The number of blows(N-value)required to drive the SPT sampler 12 inches is shown on the borings logs The sampler has external and internal diameters of approximately 2 0 and 14 Inches respectively The sampling tube consists of an unlined split-tube barrel The disturbed soil sample is removed, sealed,and transported to the laboratory for testing KFM Gto'�CICIICC q 32 Project*First Christian Church Log Of Boring B-1 Project Location Huntington Beach Project Number BUN 06-02E Sheet 1 of 1 Dale(s) December 20 2006 t Logged By SR13 Checked By EMS Drilled Drilling Drift Bit Total Depth Method Hollow Stem Auger gtzerrype of Borehole 315 feet bgs Drill Rig CME 75 Drilling JET Drilling Approximate Type Contractor Surface Elevation Groundwater Level Sampling Hammer and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD Method(s)SPT Modified California Bulk Data 1401b 30 in drop auto trip Borehole g Backfitl Cuttings with Concrete Patch Location Southeast Parking Lot Proposed Admin Building w M NN 6 Q.y E v G $ H m« c 8 m arm V to u ac m > a E 3 U Q- °c REMARKS AND OTHER w o in viz m D 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �0 o TESTS J s SM , T Concrete Pavement m frERRACE DEPOSITS) r SILTY SAND light to medium brown slightly moist,medium m SK 1 dense fine to medium-grained sand Grain Size Analysts o becomes dark reddish brown sand predominantly #200 8 g c R 2 49 fine-grained 95 128 Resistivity=7100(ohm-cm) x' ' t '& R 3 41 78 114 c 1 SPT-4 20 becomes dark brown m t U — 1 CL SANDY CLAY light grayish-brown moist hard fine grained R$ 48 / sand 138 121 z — ML SANDY SILT dark grayish brown moist very stiff fine grained o SPT 7 23 sand t— N n CL SILTY CiAY medium to dark grayish brown with mottling of 2 orangish brown streaks and dark gray to black organic R-8 34 i fragments moist very stiff tow plasticity 33 91 m 30 m / i; SPT 939 = Sm SILTY SAND light to medium brown with orangish-brown streaks moist medium dense to dense fine to medium grained sand 3 Bottom of Boring at 315 feet bgs t 0 w z E4 IL ai i- U w O `� Figure Project First Christian Church LOB Of Boring B-2 Project Location Huntington Beach Project Number BUN 06-02E Sheet 1 of 1 Dr e d Drilled December 20 2006 Logged BY SRB Checked By EHS DrillingDrill Bit g h Total Depth Method Hollow Stem Auer inc soil bit 315 feet logs Method g Sizeftype of Borehole Drill Rig CME 75 Drilling JET Drilling Approximate Type Contractor g Surface Elevatwn Groundwater Level Sampling Hammer and Date Measured Not Encountered ATD Method(s)SPT Modified California Bulk Data 740 fb 30 to drop auto trip Borehole a B fill Cuttings and Asphalt Patch Location Northwest Parking Lot Proposed Parking Structure N M O Q y c E o £ @E j N a c REMARKS AND OTHER MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �n o TESTS cA r ASPHALT c o [TERRACE DEPOSITS] + SAND to SILTY SAND medium reddish brown moist,medium m dense fine to very fine grained sand o R 1 40 73 108 SK 2 = R-3 71 F becomes medium grayish brown and dense 32 114 W1 SPT-4 33 SM SILTY SAND medium grayish brown slightly moist dense U „1 Y L becomes fight brown R 5 80 SAND to SILTY SAND Gght to medium brown with medium 25 103 reddish-brown mottled streaks slightly moist,dense slight ! calcium carbonate cementation 2 SM --- --- SPT-6 37 f SILTY SAND light to medium brown slightly moist medium dense to dense fine-grained sand absence of cementaton J becomes fine to medium sand xr J 2 S R 7 86 l 31 104 I m m o r 3 PT 8 16 CL SILTY CLAY light to medium brown slightly moist v stiff x � 9 Y �Y Bottom of Boring at 315 feet bgs U L L V W 2 m N a O 4 a` m U iv 0 5 N Figure 0 5 ENT Protect First Christian Church Log of Boring B-3 Protect Location Huntington Beach Protect Number BUN 06-02E Sheet 1 Of 1 Dates) December 20 2006 Logged By SRB Checked B EHS Dnfled Y M tth izhood Hollow Stem Auger S era 8 inch soil bit Tom Depth31 6 feet s izelType of Borehole � Doll Rig CME 76 Drilling JET D Approximate rdlm Type Contractor g Surface Elevation Groundwater Level Hot Encountered ATD Sampling SPT Modified California Bulk Hammer 140 lb 30 in drop auto trip and Date Measured Method(s) Data Borehole Cuttings with Concrete Patch Location Lawn in front of main auditorium Proposed Boren 9 p preschool classrooms a Fir o v co G c E N m m NCL o c fl REMARKS AND OTHER a o N NZ at => a MATERIAL DESCRIPTION v o TESTS SM T�soil °D [TERRACE DEPOSITS] roSILTY SAND medium to dark reddish brown slightly moist m , loose fine grained sand o5 R 1 12 46 105 c = SK 2 becomes medium yellowish-brown R-3 19 r 87 111 s 7 1 SPT-4 8 becomes medium to dark reddish-brown and moist t U LLbecomes medium reddish brown 9 1 R 5 40 SM ! becomes medium dense 9 9 106 ig °= becomes light to medium brown 2 SPT-6 32 r �a becomes dense and light grayish-brown 2 R 7 2g becomes medium dense and light browns tan 333 91 ML SANDY SILT medium yellowish-brown with medium iP reddish brown mottled streaks moist,medium dense fine-grained sand micaceous 3 ednm CL SILTY CLAY m grayish brown with orangish-brown—--- SPT 8 24 mottled streaks slightly moist to moist,very stiff ------------ Bottom of Boring at 315 feet bgs s u 3 a u n qu. �i m Vl O Qp N t3 - --- J f Q SO— a 9 Figure Project First Christian Church Log of Boring B-4 Project Location Huntington Beach Project Number BUN 06-02E Sheet 1 Of 1 Drilled December 20 2006 Logged By SRB Checked By EHS Dritlmg Drift 89 Totat Depth Method Hollow Stem Auger Sizeype a inch soil bit of Borehole 46 feet logs Ta a urmate YP CME 75 contractor JET Drilling Surface Elevation Groundwater Level Groundwater Encountered and Data Measured f �(s)SPT Modified California Bulk Aata r 140 lb 30 in drop auto trip g Borehole Ctrttings with Concrete Patch Loon Existing Preschool Playground Proposed Multi-purpose Building � 0 � w ri6 `rRz' u cx REMARKS AND OTHER n MATERIAL DESCRIPTION 2! a TESTS J ML s TapsoA SANDY SILT to SILTY CLAY medium brown4 sirgh@y moist, I medan dense to very stiff contain white to light gray nodules r R 1 39 I and streaks brown topsoil and siitstone fragments 86 111 Consolldadan Test LL=32% Pt.=17% SK 2 SM r f (TERRACE St1RFACE) 131=i5% EI=fl r SILTY SAND brown to dark brown,slightly moist medium Consorrciatron Test R 3 13 $M f dense,d�ttains rootlets __y M1« 53 108 frERRACE DEPOSITS) SPTA e sad SAND dark reddishfirown mo ist,loose firt;e grddned G becomes light to medium yellowish-brown R 5 28 i becomes sbgMy moist,medium dense 65 91 Consolidation Test it- becomes{ i' 2 };j a medium reddish brown PT 19 �+ CL SILTY CLAY medium grayrsh-brown moist,stiff to very stiff s+ 2 R? 82 v 4 87 becomes medium grayish-brown with focailized oxidation and c ontarns trace of dark gray to black organic debris SILTY SAND tlght to medium yeilovdstrbrown,slightly moist, SPT4 35 I medium dense fine-grained sand x , I i i v becomes fine to medreun-chained sand R 9 54 163 109 becomes tight to medium frown locally oxidizedUJ U. PT 11 58 r g betimes wet and dense to very dense iATDI Gram Size Analysis #200=11% m � 45— k a R 1t 5014 i�r NO RECOVERY Bottom of Boring at 46 feet bgs DRILLING STOPPED DUE TO HEAVING WATER AND SAND-LOCK OF AUGER w >r Figure All J Project First Christian Church Log ®$ Boring B-5 Project Location Huntington Beach Project Number BUN 06-02E Sheet 1 of 1 Drilled, December 20 2006 togged 13Y SRB Checked 13Y EHS DrilliMethod Hollow Stem Auger SizT Drill 8 inch sod bit Total Depth feet Size/Type of Borehole 31 5 bs g Drill Rig CME 75 Drilling Type Contactor JET Drilling Surface Elevation Groundwater Level Not Encountered ATD Sampling SPT Modified California Bulk Hammer 140 lb 30 in drop auto trip and Date Measured Method(s) Data p p _ $ hol a Cuttings with Concrete Patch Location Northwest Pearking Lot Proposed Parking Structure o _ o � S U c o Z-1 c q m m m � o 0 m o c z REMARKS AND OTHER w o vi v'4z co 0 MATERIAL DESCRIPTION �ci o TESTS 403 t t T ASPHALT m (TERRACE DEPOS1TS1 SILTY SAND light reddish brown moist loose to medium SK 1 I dense fine-grained sand SO4=0 0049% 13 � _ R 2 21 105 103 Consolidation Test x becomes dark reddish brown and medium dense Consolidation Test R3 47 96 101 .c t U t becomes light to medium yellowish brown n s 4 SPTA 30 i z yet z m z R 5 68 104 123 becomes dense H J .O � 2 i S SPT-6 36 m 0 3 § R 7 53 47 106 x S Bottom of Boring at 315 feet bgs fi U m `m L u u. 4 m 0 a t� w O K a Figure 0 T TA C MFN'T NVI 0 q 3�m� First Christian Church c/o Visioneering Studios Project No BUN 06-02E First Christian Church Additions and Improvements Huntington Beach JgpM 24,2007 Appendix B Laboratory Testing Classification Soils were visually and texturally classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System Soil classifications are indicated on the logs of the exploratory bonngs in Appendix A In-Place Moisture and Dry Density'Pests The moisture contents and dry densities of relatively undisturbed samples obtained from the exploratory borings were evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D2937 The test results are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A Particle Size Analysis An evaluation of the particle size analyses in selected soil samples was performed in general accordance with ASTM D422 The results of the analyses are presented in this Appendix B Atterberg Limits Tests Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of selected and representative on-site materials were performed in general accordance with ASTM D4318 The results are presented on the borehole logs and in the table below Sample Sample Depth Soil Type Liquid Limit Plastic Limit Plasticity Index Location (ft) USCS (%) (0/0) (0/0) B4/R-1 5 -5 5 SM 32 17 15 Consolidation Tests Consolidation tests were performed on selected relatively undisturbed soil samples in general accordance with the latest version of ASTM D2435 The samples were inundated during testing to represent adverse field conditions The percent consolidation for each load cycle was recorded as a ratio of the amount of vertical compression to the original height of the sample The results of the tests are presented in this Appendix B Expansion Index Tests The expansion indices of selected samples were evaluated in general accordance with Uniform Building Code Standard No 18-2 The results of this test are presented on the borehole logs in Appendix A Soil Corrosivity Tests Soil pH and resistivity tests were performed on representative soil samples in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 643 The sulfate content of selected samples was evaluated in general accordance with the latest version of California Test Method 417 The results of the tests are presented in Table 8 in the text of this report h1'N1 Gcci'-ititntc a v F.; e �$ KFM#BUN 0802E GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS ASTM D 422 Job#2005033 US Standard Sieve Size 3In I sh 3/4In 3/81n A8 030 0100 #200 100 I I 1 I I I 1 1 7 I I 1 I I 1 I I t 1 i 90 I 1 1 I I I t I 1 I r I I f 1 so 62 _ I 1 1 1 1 1 I I i I I 70If m I I 1 I 1 1 1 { p I m 60 1 I 1 I I I 1 L I I I I i m 50 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 i I t 40 io 3 30. y n. J0 1 I 1 1 I I i I I I 1 I 1 1 I 20 I I 1 1 I I I 1 10 I I I I 1 I 1 f 0 100 10 1 01 001 0 001 Grain Size(mm) Initial Dry Test Dry Boring/Sample Initial Moist Test Moist Permeability K LL PL PI Unified Soil Description No Density ( } Density (%} (cm/sec} Class p ( cf} °�° (pcf} B1 /SK1 SM — Geologic Associates r KFM#SUN 06-02H GRAIN SIZE ANALYSIS-ASTM D 422 Job#2006.033 US Standard Sieve Size 31n 1 Vn 3/41n Wain #8 030 #100 #200 100 I I 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 90 I 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I i 1 1 1 1 I I I 80 1 I I 1 1 I I i 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 r I 1 I 1 I 1 70 I I 1 I 1 1 1 I I I I I 1 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 I 1 1 50 I i 1 I I 1 I I 1 1 1 40 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I I I I 1 1 1 I I 1 1 I i 1 I I 1 I I I 30 , , I 1 I I t 1 1 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1 20 i 1 1 1 1 I 1 I I t 1 I i 10 I I I t I 1 1 1 0 100 10 1 01 001 0 001 (train Size(mm) Initial Dry Test Dry Boring/Sample Density Initial Moist Dity Test Moist Permeability K LL PL pi Unified Sod Description ens No cf N ens (/°) (cm/sec) Class B 4/SPT 10 SM Geologic Associates 7, KFM BVIV0602E CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D2435 .kbft 2005-033 Boring!Sample No B 4/R # Depth 5 0 -5 5 Date 01 10-07 103 1 02 1 01 t 0Q Natural 958 0 9s 4 o Submerged 0 98 0 97 0.96 095. Q sa 0 93 V s2 Clayey Slit - Dry Density 110 8 pct w s1 Initial Water Content 8 6°/ t Final Water Content 17 5 A ,v NZO @ 200 PSF as E tv �ea 087. Q 86 085. 0 84 0 83 0 82 081 0 80 Q 79 078 077 100 1000 10000 10000D Vertical Pressure (psf) Geot_ogic Assoaates ff SAC H�A,�F Hi N C� Ityl KFM 0 BUN 06-02E CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D2435 Job No M5o 033 Boring t Sample No B-4!R 3 Depth 80 8 5' Date 01 10-07 1 03 1 02 1 01 --- Ha too L9991 a Natural b969 o Submergeddwr _ 0 98 Z Hj- fl 86 -92 Silty Sand -- — — Dry Density 105 7 pct — 91 Initial Water Content-5 3% t Final Water Content:17 7% 9a HO @ 200 PSF z �89 E Ob88 ;- - 0 87 0 86 085 I 0 84 # _ 0 83 f 0 82 081 0.80 t 0 79 0 78 I F 07T fill 10d 1000 10000 100000 Vertical Pressure {psQ Geologic Assocsates KFMJ BUN or wE CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D2435 Job No 2005-033 Boring/Sample No B 4/R 5 Depth 160 165 Date 01 1007 103, _ 102 — f 101 E .Natural 100 o Submerged 099 t 0 9e s� 0 97 0 ss --- 0 0 94 4393 — �92 Silty Sand --- Dry Density 97 4 pcf s, Initial Water Content 5 5% Final Water Content 20 3% - — �aa HzO @ 200 PSF uk188 — — — �— — 087 -4— -- a 0 86 � 4 i {{ 0 84 4__ F � 0 82 f 080 — 079 i 0?8 077 100 1000 10000 ,00000 Vertical Pressure (psq GeoLogm Associates ATTACHMENT NO KFM9 RUN 06.02E CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D2435 dobNo 2005-M Boring/Sample No B-5/R 2 IlDepth 60 69 Date 01 10-07 1 03 102 - _- 1 01 — 100 ,_ ■Natural s o Sutxnerged 0H�O 95 99 + 91—s i - s 0 98 i 0.97 l 096 -- 0 94 t i 92 Slity Sand -- - i- Dry Density 102 6 pcI — co s1 initial Water Content 10 5% - t Final Water Content_17 6% ; 90 H2O @ 200 PSF - E 07088 o.e7 0 86 t '_ l o as 0 84 0 83 �t 0 82 081 0.80 0 79 i 0 7g t 077 100 1000 10000 100000 Vertical Pressure W GeoLogic Associates 1"#BUN08-02E CONSOLIDATION TEST ASTM D2435 Job Na 2005.033 Boring/Sample No B 51 R 3 Depth 100 105 Date 01 1007 1 03 :t8 -- 1 ■Natural - - 100 o ss7s - 967 o Submerged 0.9s e 8 j i 098 f - I 0.97 0a6 0 94 - 44 I 093 - -- -- - - - �- Silty Sand Dry Density 1012 pct -- 91 , initial Water Content 9 6% — Final Water @ 20 Conterd SF3 7%90- H z i �89 - - - I E t i �C188 -- -- - -i r 1 087 I I _ 0 86.r: o sa 083, 3 0 82 s 0 Si I 080 0 79 --- 1 0 78 t 077 100 1000 10000 10000o Vertical Pressure {psf} GeoLoglc Associates ^ 5, ATTACHMENT #5 1 ✓£ � ^. y 7. M k' GAF, 4'� �y'. f I PROJECT TITLE First Christian Church Expansion/Remodel Entidement(s) Conditional Use Permit 2006-035 2 LEAD AGENCY City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Contact Ron Santos, Associate Planner Telephone No (714) 536-55561 3 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 Main Street, Huntington Beach(southeast corner of Adams Avenue and 17`h Street) 4 PROJECT PROPONENT Art Cueto—Visioneering Studios $ } 5 Peters Canyon Rd Irvine,CA 92606 (949)417-5872 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION P(RL) (Public—Underlying Designation Residential Low Density) 5 ZONING PS (Public-Semipublic) 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project consists of the following a_ Demolition of four existing buildings (Church School, Children s Ministry, Youth Ministry, and Small Chapel), and the Large Chapel's existing restroom facilities b Removal of the existing modular structures currently used for adult Sunday School classes c Construction of three new buildings(Children s Building, Multipurpose Building, Administrative/ Cafe Building) d Renovation of existing A-Frame Chapel e Expansion and renovation of the worship center's nursery and bathroom facilities f Landscape/hardscape improvements designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places, improve pedestrian circulation, and make the church campus more functional and welcoming to church members and visitors alike G\ENVIRONKCHECKLST Page 1 _ '', 1 h Re-striping of existing parking lot in order to increase its capacity and improve circulation i Construction of a multi-level parking structure on a portion of the site (the southwest corner) currently utilized for at-grade parking Table A describes the proposed buildings and planned modifications to existing buildings Table A-First Christian Church, Huntington Beach -plaster Plan Scope Butldcn Status Size(sJ) Planned Use/Improvement A Worship Existing 25 500 No change to existing seating capacity The worship center will not Center be modified as part of this project scope B Children s Planned 17 411 Children s Sunday School(preschool-6`r grade) and midweek Building preschool Preschool entrance will be relocated to be accessible via parking area instead of current access via Loma Avenue C Multi-Purpose Planned 10 268 Flexible meeting space for Jr High and High School groups and other large groups/functions D Chapel Existing 5 717 Remodel existing A-Framed structure into a traditional chapel suitable for classic worship services weddings and funerals E Admimstrahve Planned 13 621 Church administrative offices full service kitchen church resource Cafe center F Nursery Planned 4 252* Expanded existing nursery and restroom facilities in the worship Expansion center Improvements include a combination of new construction and remodeling of existing facilities TOTAL 76 769 G Parking Planned 299 spaces Above ground parking structure to accommodate peak parking Structure (Estimated) requirements for concurrent worship services in existing worship center and new venues *Note Nursery Expansion square footage includes 1 027 sf of new construction and remodel of 3 180 s f of existing nursery and restroom space in the Worship Center The proposed project will result in a net increase to assembly capacity of 293 seats, bringing the total number of seats to 1,763 seats during the peak Sunday Service times However,attendance/seating capacity for Sunday services would be limited to 1,655 persons based on the recommendation in the Trip Generation Study The project will include outdoor public space and landscaping improvements in addition to the items listed to Table A The completed campus will include a new pedestrian walkway,or"Village Gateway" from Main Street where the existing Small Chapel is located A Chapel Garden will be located at the site of the existing Classroom Building and allow for direct pedestrian access into the campus from 14th Street A new"Tidal Court"will serve as the main gathering area for before and after church functions and will be open to the public The court will be located between the existing Worship Center, Multipurpose Building,A-Frame Chapel,and Administration/Cafe Building The court will include chairs and tables to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings The"Wave Walk' will serve as the main pedestrian connection between the church's parking lot and the new and existing buildings These outdoor areas will be enhanced by the use of decorative paving, landscaping (including native drought-tolerant plant materials),and signage The church will not hold regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings on its campus, nor will the Tidal Court function as an amphitheater Additionally, the church will not have any outdoor amplified sound system Page 2 ATTACHMENT —2- Reasons for Initiating Application FCCHB s existing facilities are functionally inadequate to meet its current and future ministry needs The project will upgrade the quality of the church s meeting kitchen and resource facilities, consolidate the office space for the church s administration and improve the campus overall aesthetic in order to make it a more inviting and community-serving facility Pro/ect Sepuencm Construction of new buildings is tentatively scheduled to begin in summer of 2007 Construction will take place in the following sequence 1 Remove existing modular buildings 2 Construct new Children s Building 3 Demolish existing Church School Building 4 Construct new Multipurpose Building and Nursery Expansion 5 Demolish existing Youth Building and Small Chapel 6 Construct new Administration/Cafe Building 7 Construct Parking Structure The project s initial construction phase(new children s, nursery expansion, multipurpose cafe/ administration, renovated chapel, and area improvements) is planned to last 18 months(1 5 years) fhe construction of the parking garage is anticipated to take an additional 12 months, for a total construction duration of 30 months(2 5 years) Parkin The church s parking demand is based on the assumption that it will stage three concurrent worship services in separate venues (Existing Worship Center, Renovated A-frame Chapel, and Multipurpose/ Overdrive Building) upon the project's completion The concurrent services will generate a parking demand of 555 parking spaces per city code This demand will be met through a combination of on-site and off-site shared use spaces during the project construction phase and upon project completion as allowed by Section 23106—Joint Use Parking of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance Shared Parkin The church has entered into shared use agreements with both Smith Elementary School and Huntington Beach High School for the use of the 47 space lot and the south lot respectively Each lot's location, capacity, and distance from the church are listed in Table B Table B—.Shared Parking Lots Distance from Off Site Lot Capacity Church (Feet) Smith Elementary School 47 220 Smith/Dwyer Lot 124* Huntington Beach High School 298 south lot 570 295 north lot* *additional school parking—not proposed for use by FCCHB Page 3 ATTAL";NMENT Nu"' S3 Both lots will be used during the project construction phase to meet the church s required parking requirements The church plans to operate two shuttles between the church and Huntington Beach High School s south lot on Sunday mornings in order to minimize the walking distance between the lot and the church The church plans to provide two 20-passenger commuter vans that will operate between the hours of 10 00 am and 12 00 noon The church agrees to monitor the number of cars parked at the High School s southern lot on Sunday mornings during construction and the number of church attendees that use the shuttles, and adjust the shuttles' operations (operating hours and headways) accordingly A Variance request has been filed for use of the Huntington Beach High School south lot since it exceeds the City s 250 foot maximum distance requirement for off-site/shared parking The church intends to continue to use the Smith Elementary School lot after the project s completion to meet a portion of its parking demand Table C shows how the church intends to meet its parking requirement through the use of the Smith Elementary School lot Table C—Parking Supply Parkmg Capacity Without Parking With Parking Parking Lot Structure Structure FCCHB Surface Parking 404 234 FCCHB Structured Parking 299 Smith Elementary School 47 47 Huntington Beach High School 298 Total 749 580 Hours of Operation First Christian Church of Huntington Beach(FCCHB)holds three weekly worship services(Saturday 6 00 pm, and Sunday 9 00 and 10 30 am) and operates a 200-student preschool during the week The church has an average weekly attendance(three services)of 2,300, and has 25 full-time employees The church's administrative office hours are 8 30 am to 5 00 pm,Monday through Friday, and the preschool meets from 9 00 am to 2 00 pm, Monday through Friday(September through June) The church plans to operate the new cafe/book store between the hours of 7 00 am to 9 00 pm Monday to Saturday, and from 8 00 am to 7 00 pm on Sundays Weddings and related activities, along with other special events held at the church, will end by 10 00 pm Amore detailed list of weekly church activities is contained in Attachment 3 Special events such as weddings and funerals will typically take place in the renovated chapel As many as one wedding per week and one funeral per month may take place in this venue Both weddings and funerals may take place on any day of the week with the exception of Sundays Most weddings will be scheduled for Saturdays Any wedding or funeral with projected attendances in excess of 350 people will take place in the Worship Center,though these events are uncommon and may occur on a sporadic basis 7 SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING The project site is surrounded primarily by residential land uses Single-family homes are located to the northwest (across 17`h Street),northeast(across Adams Avenue), and east(across Main Street)and south (across Loma Avenue) Worthy Park is located directly north of the project site at the intersection of Adams Avenue and 17th Street The Agness L Smith Elementary School, and single- family homes are located adjacent to and south of the project site Huntington Beach High School is located approximately 570 feet north of the property, across 17`h Street Page 4 ArACHMENT NO �' S OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION N/A 9 OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i e permits, financing approval or participating agreement) N/A z Page S ` ° s ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project involving at least one impact that is a Potentially Significant Impact or is Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated, as indicated by the checklist on the following pages ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality Q Noise ❑ Recreation ® Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on ❑ an attached sheet have been added to the project A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required I find that the proposed project MAY have a `potentially significant impact or a"potentially significant unless instigated impact on the environment but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ElR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and(b)have been avoided ❑ or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project nothing further is required_. Signature Date July 19 2007 Ron Santos Associate Planner Printed blame Title Page b ATTACHMENT EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1 A brief explanation is required for all answers except No Impact answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question A No Impact answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project A No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards 2 All answers must take account of the whole action involved Answers should address off-site as well as on- site cumulative as well as project-level indirect as well as direct and construction as well as operational impacts 3 Potentially Significant Impact is appropriate if an effect is significant or potentially significant or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact entries when the determination is made preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted 4 Potentially Significant hnpact Unless Mitigated applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from Potentially Significant hupact to a Less than Significant Impact The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII Earlier Analyses may be cross-referenced) 5 Earlier analyses may be used where pursuant to the tiering program EIR,or other CEQA process an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section 15063(c)(3)(D) Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist 6 References to information sources for potential impacts(e g general plans zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist A source list has been provided in Section XVIII Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions 7 The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3 Title 14,California Code of Regulations but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach s requirements (Note Standard Conditions of Approval-The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance However because they are considered part of the project they have not been identified as mitigation measures For the readers information,a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No 4 Page 7 T T NO �9_Y Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the project a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan policy or ❑ ® Q ❑ regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan specific plan local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or ruttigating an environmental effect? (Sources 1 2 4 14) Discussion The subject property is designated for public quasi-public and institutional use(s) and development including but not limited to governmental public utilities schools public parking lots and religious assembly by the Huntington Beach General Plan and Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) The proposed religious assembly use is consistent with the Public and Public- Semipublic General Plan land use and zoning designations In addition, the project complies with all but one of the applicable land use and development standards of the HBZSO including minimum building setbacks parking and landscape requirements and maximum building height Approval of Joint Use/off-site parking is requested including a vanance(s) to the 250 ft maximum distance requirement for off-site parking in order to meet parking requirements The applicant proposes to provide shuttle service between the project site and the off-site parking lots as means to instigate the distance between the project site and the off-site parking lot Because the off-site parking is needed only to meet parking requirements during the Church s peak demand which coincides with church services provision of shuttle service is anticipated to be a uniquely functional and effective means of mitigation That is since a significant proportion of church service attendees may be expected to regularly attend services and arrive and depart in mass at scheduled times the church may effectively disseminate information regarding the availability of the shuttle service and operate the service efficiently Accordingly a less than significant impact associated with the granting of the requested variance is anticipated The project site is not within the boundaries of any specific plan nor located within the coastal zone b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ® ❑ or natural community conservation plan?(Sources 1 2 14) Discussion The project is proposed in an urbanized area on a previously developed site The project will not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan of the City of Huntington Beach as there are no such plans adopted for the area c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources [] ❑ ❑ 1 4) Discussion The proposed development will occur on a previously developed parcel with direct access to existing public streets No public access ways through the subject property exist No new roadways road widening rail lines bridges or other off-site improvements with the potential to physically divide an established community are proposed or required II POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the project a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either ❑ ❑ ❑ Page 8 ATTACHMENT Nun _� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact directly (e g by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (e g through extensions of roads or other infrastructure) (Sources 1 4 S) Discussion The project is not expected to induce significant population growth or affect official regional or local population projections The proposed project does not involve the construction of housing The project will provide for a mirror expansion of an existing use serving a local population in a neighborhood which is largely built out The church employs 25 people full-time and does not anticipate the need for additional employees No increase in pre-school enrollment is proposed Therefore the demolition of the existing buildings and construction of the proposed buildings on the subject site will not induce substantial population growth in the area b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing ❑ ❑ ❑ Q necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources 1 4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating ❑ ❑ ❑ Q the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources 1 4) Discussion b)—c)The project site is currently developed for religious assembly uses The proposed project provides for demolition of existing buildings and associated site improvements and construction of new structures and site improvements intended to accommodate the continued use of the site for religious assembly use No residential uses or structures exist on the project site Therefore the proposed project will not displace existing housing or inhabitants III GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would the project a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, mlury,or death involving i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ on the most recent Alquist-Paolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault'?(Sources 6 13 15) Discussion The site is not located within a designated Alquist Pnolo Earthquake Fault Zone The surface traces of any active or potentially active faults are not known to pass directly through or project towards the site The nearest active faults to the site are the Newport-Inglewood Fault located approximately 1 km to the north, the Palos Verdes Fault located approximately 17 km to the southwest, and the Whittier Fault located approximately 31 km northeast of the site Therefore the potential for surface rupture due to faulting occurring beneath the site during the design life of the proposed development is considered low it) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources 1 13 15 ❑ ❑ [.7� ❑ 23) Discussion The project site is located in a seismically active region of Southern California Therefore the site could be subjected to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake Structures built in Huntington Beach are required to comply with standards set forth in the California Building Code (CBC) and standard City codes policies and procedures which require submittal of a detailed soils analysis prepared by a Licensed Page 9 nn ATTACHIMENTNO q` 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Soils Engineer The required soils analysis must include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading foundations retaining wails streets utilities and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof and a report prepared by an engineering geologist 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 must be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits Conformance with CBC requirements and standard City code requirements will ensure potential impacts from seismic ground shaking are less than significant in) Seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? (Sources 1 15) Discussion (in — iv)The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Liquefaction Potential map designates the project site as an area of Low POTENTIAL In addition, based on the Seismic Hazard Zone Report 011 — Seismic Hazard Zone Report for the Seal Beach 7 5-minute Quadrangle Los Angeles and Orange Counties California(1998) the proposed development is not located within an area identified by the State of California as subject to the hazard of liquefaction or earthquake-induced landslides Due to the lack of groundwater and the dense to very dense state of the on site granular materials within the depth of liquefaction significance the potential for liquefaction and its adverse effects impacting the site is considered negligible The Geotechmcal Engineering Report concludes that no special design considerations for mitigation of liquefaction,liquefaction effects or earthquake induced settlements are necessary b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation grading or fill? (Sources 1 15) Discussion The project and vicinity are urbanized and have relatively flat topography The project site has been previously graded and developed with structures parking surfaces walkways and landscaped areas Although the proposed project has the potential to result in erosion of soils during construction activities, erosion will be mumized by compliance with standard City requirements for submittal of an erosion control plan prior to issuance of building permits for review and approval by the Department of Public Works Implementation of the proposed project would not require significant alteration of the existing topography of the project site In the event that unstable soil conditions occur on the project site due to previous grading excavation, or placement of fill materials these conditions would be remedied pursuant to the recommendations in the required geotechnical study for the project site Therefore no significant impact is anticipated and no mitigation measures would be required c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or ® [] that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide lateral spreading subsidence liquefaction or collapse? (Sources 1 15 23) Discussion The City of Huntington Beach General Plan Potentially Unstable Slope Areas map indicates that the site is in an area of NO POTENTIAL slope instability The project is proposed on a flat parcel of land and no slopes or other landforms susceptible to landslide exist in the vicinity of the property Moreover California Division of Mines and Geology has not mapped any earthquake-induced landslides at,or in the vicinity of,the site which would be indicative of the potential for slope instability at or in the vicinity of the site Page 10 ATTACHMENTNO Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive sots as defined in Table 18-1-B [] El of the Uniform Building Code(1994) creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources 1 15) Discussion The General Plan Expansive Soil Distribution Map designates the project site as Low In addition observations and laboratory tests performed in conjunction with the project Geotechmcal Engineering Report indicate that the near-surface on-site soils have a very low expansion potential No impacts associated with expansive soil risks are anticipated e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems E] where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources 1 15) Discussion The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department has determined that the public sewer system can accommodate the proposed development No septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems are necessary IV HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the project a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements (Sources 1 14 23) Discussion Water quality standards and waste discharge requirements will be addressed in the project design and development phase pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) regulations and approved by the City of Huntington Beach Department of Public Works The SWPPP and WQMP will establish Best Management Practices(BMPs) for construction and post-construction operation of the facility including source site and treatment controls to be installed and maintained at the site The WQMP and SWPPP are standard requirements for development in the City of Huntington Beach, and with implementation, will ensure compliance with water quality standards and water discharge requirements Less than significant impacts would result b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e g, the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources 1 22,23) Discussion The Huntington Beach Public Works Department prepared a Master Plan for the City s water system in 2000 The Master Plan addresses water supply issues within the City and pertinent surrounding areas The Public Works Department reviewed the project plans and did not identify any concerns regarding impacts to ground water supplies due to the nature of the proposed uses The project would not result in an increase in water consumption not previously planned for in the Master Plan and therefore does not present a significant impact to water supplies In addition the project is subject to compliance with the City's Water Ordinance including the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements as well as Title 24 conservation measures such as low flow fixtures which ensure water consumption is minimized The estimated water demand for the proposed project can be accommodated by the City s water service capacity and does not represent a Page II ATTACHMENT NO i! - Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact significant impact c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources 4 14 23) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ ❑ Q ❑ site or area including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? (Sources 4, 14 23) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ Q ❑ ❑ the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources 4 14 23) Discussion (c-e) The site currently drains via sheet flow to the northeast and enters a public storm drain system at the southwest corner of Main St and Adams Ave The proposed project will maintain this existing drainage pattern No stream or rivers exist on the site or in the vicinity The proposed project may increase in storm water run-off and unipact downstream public storm drain facilities The project would be required to mitigate these impacts by the following methods (1)on-site attenuation of increased storm water flow and/or (2) construction of upsized storm dram facilities in Main Street per the City adopted 2005 Drainage Master Plan However preliminary studies indicate that the percentage of impervious surfaces on the site would slightly decrease resulting in a reduction in run-off f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ Q ❑ Discussion See discussion under Section IV(a) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as ❑ ® ❑ Q mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources 4 7) h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures ❑ ❑ ❑ Q which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources 7) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss ❑ ❑ ❑ injury or death involving flooding including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources 7) Discussion (g — i) The proposed project consists of non-residential uses No housing is proposed The Page 12 ATTACHMENT NO ro 12, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Stgmficant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact subject site is designated as Flood Zone X on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) which is not subject to flood-related development restrictions The project site is not situated within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on the FIRM In addition the site is not in the immediate vicinity of a levee or a dam Therefore no impacts are anticipated 1) Inundation by seiche tsunami or mudflow?(Sources ❑ ❑ {� ❑ 1 9 15) k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction ❑ activities? Discussion See discussion under Section IV(a)and IV(e) 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? Discussion See discussion under Section IV(a)and IV(e) m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage vehicle or equipment fueling vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing) waste handling hazardous materials handling or storage delivery areas loading docks or other outdoor work areas?(Sources 23) Discussion The proposed use does not include material storage vehicle or equipment fueling vehicle or equipment maintenance(including washing) waste handling hazardous materials handling or storage delivery areas loading docks or other outdoor work areas In accordance with standard City of Huntington Beach development requirements hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on-site and off-site facilities Storm Dram, Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP) conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval Specific requirements and measures to be incorporated into the required studies and plans are identified in Attachment No 4 —Project Implementation Code Requirements Refer to response in Section IV(a)for further discussion n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? Discussion See discussion under Section IV(a)and IV(e) o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? Discussion See discussion under Section IV(e) p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of ❑ ❑ [] [� the project site or surrounding areas? Discussion See discussion under Section III(b) Page 13 ATTACHMENT NUO Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. AIR QUALITY The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations Would the project a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute [� substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? d) Conflict with or obstruct unplementation of the 11 El applicable air quality plan e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- ❑ .[� attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources 8 16,23) Discussion (a — e) Construction of the project may result in temporary air pollutant emissions from the following activities the commute of workers to and from the project site demolition of existing structures grading activities including the transport of any necessary soil import and/or export, delivery and hauling of construction materials and supplies to and from the project site, fuel combustion by on-site construction equipment and dust generating activities from soil disturbance Construction will occur in phases over a 2%2 year period Environmental Audit, Inc, prepared an air quality analysis of the proposed project using the California Air Resources Board modeling program URBEMIS 2002 In order to analyze peak construction impacts the analysis was performed on the largest phase (the initial phase) of the project to evaluate peak potential emissions from construction of the project The study also identified the estimated maximum additional peak vehicle trips (60) as the only operational emissions increase of significance The analysis concluded that the construction and operational emissions calculated for the proposed project are not expected to exceed the established SCAQMD emissions thresholds Based on the submitted air quality study and with implementation of standard code requirements and conditions of approval, which include but are not limited to frequent watering of the site to prevent dust movement spreading of soil binders installation of wind barriers along the perimeter of the site, street sweeping as necessary washing trucks prior to leaving the site, use of low sulfur fuel, and discontinuing construction on days where there is a second stage smog alert no significant unpacts are anticipated No objectionable odors are expected as a result of either construction or operation of the proposed project Therefore, no further air quality analysis is required and the project is not expected to cause a significant impact to air quality VI TRANSP®RTATI®N/TRAFFIC Would the project a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ❑ [] relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the Page 14 ENT NO __!�- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact street system(e g result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips the volume to capacity ratio on roads or congestion at intersections9 (Sources 1 4 9 10 17) Discussion Current seating capacity for the Sunday church services at the site is 1 470 The seating capacity in the sanctuary will remain unchanged at 975 The seating capacity in the A-Frame Chapel will be reduced by 65 seats from 415 to 350 The Small Chapel (80 seats) will be demolished Based strictly on floor area the assembly capacity of the new Multi-purpose Building will be 438 The proposed project will result in a net increase in assembly capacity of 293 seats bringing the total number of seats to 1 763 seats during the peak Sunday Service times Trip generation estimates have been prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates Inc to estimate the net change in traffic that will result from the proposed renovation and expansion Calculations were prepared for both existing and proposed conditions The proposed project is estimated to generate 165 new daily tips on a typical weekday with 13 trips in the morning peak hour and 11 tips in the evening peak hour The project is estimated to generate 283 new trips on Sunday with peak-hour new trip generation estimated at 60 inbound and 55 outbound On typical weekdays traffic in the area of the proposed project generally operates with very little congestion and delay with a couple of notable exceptions During the school year significant short-term congestion results at the intersections of Maui Street/l7 h Street/Utica and 17''Street/Adams due to the short peaks from beginning of the school day and dismissal at Huntington Beach Union High School These periods are relatively short and do not coincide with any of the program expansions associated with the proposed project The intersection of Adams Avenue and 17n`Street is ranked 10t'(tied with 6 other locations)on the current traffic signal priority list for the City The primary factor for consideration of a traffic signal at this location is the peak weekday traffic volume on the streets and the heavy peak traffic periods One activity at the project that is notable on a typical weekday and coincides with the peak high school activity is the preschool pick-up and drop-off activity on Loma Avenue Main Street and I e Street The proposed project does not significantly alter the preschool activity On Sundays when greater regular peaks are expected from service activities traffic on the area streets is relatively low with minimal congestion The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department Traffic Division has reviewed the Kimley-Horn study and concluded that the project does not have the potential to result in significant adverse traffic impacts provided attendance/seating capacity for Sunday services is limited to 1 655 persons First Christian Church has indicated that the planned capacity(as described above) exceeds the Church s expectations for growth in membership and therefore has agreed to limit attendance/capacity to the figure prescribed by the Public Works Department The church will limit the total seating for Sunday worship services in order to assure compliance with the 1 655 limit agreed upon as part of the Trip Generation analysis This will be achieved by reducing the number of portable seats provided in the multipurpose building for Sunday worship or roping-off pews in the renovated chapel on Sunday mornings During construction there is the potential for increased congestion due to construction related activities The Department of Public Works had identified standard development requirements including submittal of a truck haul route if the import or export of material exceeds 5 000 cubic yards and traffic control plans prepared by a licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer which will ensure potential impacts are less than significant To offset the loss of on-site parking during construction remote parking with shuttle service is proposed through agreement with Huntington Beach Union High School District Existing traffic conditions during the expected use periods on Sunday would not be significantly impacted by the use of this system Shuttle traffic and any resulting pedestrian traffic can be easily accommodated using existing traffic control measures at area intersections Accordingly no significant traffic impacts are anticipated and no mitigation is required_ Page 15 ATTACHMENI Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Exceed either individually or cumulatively a level of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources 1 9 10 17) Discussion The project trip generation study evaluates potential individual and cumulative impacts of the proposed project and supports the conclusion that no significant adverse level of service impacts are expected (See Section VI(a)for additional discussion) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns including either ❑ ❑ ❑ an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources 11) Discussion Although the City is located within the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos the project site is not located within 2 nnles of any known public or pnvate airstrip the proposed project does not propose any structures with heights that would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns No impact would occur d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature ® ❑ ® [� (e g sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources 1 4 9 17) Discussion The project site is currently developed and utilized consistent with the proposed use No alterations of existing roadways or intersections or change in use is proposed or necessary No impacts resulting from an increase in hazards or incompatible uses will occur e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources 1 4) ❑ ❑ ❑ 10 Discussion The proposed site plan has been reviewed by the Departments of Fire and Public Works for conformance with City requirements for emergency access The project's proposed driveway access and on- site circulation has been found to be consistent with City standards for emergency access and circulation No impacts are anticipated f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources 2 4) ® ❑ [ ❑ Page 16 T A I TACHMENT s- i(o Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion The project proposes to meet the City s parking requirements by providing a combination of on- site and off-site parking pursuant to the Joint Use Parking provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance Joint Use Parking requires approval of a conditional use permit and that off-site parking be located within 250 feet of the project site The church has entered into shared use agreements with Smith Elementary School and Huntington Beach High School for the use of 47 and 298 spaces on their respective parking lots Smith School is located adjacent and to the south of the project site HB High is located northeast of the project site approximately 570 feet The applicant is proposing to use HB High only during the construction phase and is requesting a variance to the 250 foot distance limit The church proposes to operate shuttles between the HB High parking lot and the project site to mitigate the distance between the two The project requires a total of S55 parking spaces to comply with the applicable parking standards of the HBZSO and will provide a total of 580 No unique circumstances exist which would suggest that the minimum parking standards applicable to the project are inadequate The HBZSO Section 23106—Joint Use Parking requires that there be no conflict in the operating hours based on parking space requirements for the different uses and that the applicant submit evidence of an agreement for such joint use for review and approval by the City The applicant has advised that there are no conflicts with use of the Smith and HB High parking lots on Sundays and the Community Services Department Field Allocation schedule indicates that no youth sports teams use their respective fields on Sunday Accordingly no significant parking related impacts are anticipated g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e g bus turnouts bicycle ❑ ® [� ❑ racks)?(Sources 1 2) Discussion The project will provide bicycle racks on site in accordance with the requirements of HBZSO Sec 23120 — Bicycle Parking The project s contribution to traffic impacts is expected to be offset by the projects payment of its share of the traffic impact fees which are utilized to fund area wide traffic improvements such as bus turnouts YII BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect either directly or (] ❑ ❑ [� through habitat modifications on any species identified as a candidate sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans policies,or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U S Fish and Wildlife Services(Sources 1 9) Discussion The project site and all surrounding properties are currently developed with residential public and commercial land uses zoned accordingly The project site does not support any unique, sensitive or endangered species and is not shown in the General Plan as a generalized habitat area therefore no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat ❑ ❑ ❑ Q or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans policies regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources 1 9) Discussion The project site is currently developed for use consistent with the proposed use The project site does not contain any riparian habitat or sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans policies regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service The Page 17 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact project will not result in any loss to endangered or sensitive animal or bird species and does not conflict with any habitat conservation plans c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ .� wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh vernal pool coastal etc) through direct removal filling hydrological interruption or other means9 (Sources 1 9 15) Discussion The project does not contain any wetlands, therefore no impacts are anticipated d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources 1 9) Discussion The project area is surrounded developed property The site does not support any fish or wildlife is not within a wildlife corridor and will not interfere with the movement of any fish or wildlife species nor impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting ❑ ® ❑ biological resources such as a tree preservation policy or ordmancO (Sources 1 2 9 23) Discussion The church currently has 104 trees on its campus The current landscape plans identify a total of 101 trees An estimated additional 35 trees will be planted adjacent to the planned parking structure to provide adequate screening of the structure to the neighboring residential community Smith School and 17th Street These additional trees will result in an estimated total of 136 trees planted in the completed project This will represent of 33 percent increase in the number of existing trees Submittal of an arbonst's report is required which identifies trees on the site describes the size and condition of each tree and the feasibility of retention or relocation of trees Construction of the project will be subject to standard City requirements for the submittal of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with current code requirements and the replacement of existing mature healthy trees to be removed at a 2 1 ratio(or equivalent e g capsizing of trees) No other significant biological resources exist on the site and no significant impacts will result f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation ❑ ® ❑ Plan or other approved local regional or state habitat conservation plan (Sources 1 9) Discussion The project site is presently developed and does not support any unique or endangered plant or animal species and is not a part of any adopted Habitat Conservation Plan Natural Community Conservation Plan or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan, therefore no impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated VIII MINERAL RESOURCES- Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ [,7� resource that would be of value to the region and the Page 18 ATTACHMENT NO Potentially Sigmficant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact residents of the state? (Sources 1 9) Discussion The proposed development will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource The project site is not designated as a known mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan No impacts are anticipated b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important ❑ ❑ ❑ [� mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources 1 9) Discussion The project site is not designated as an important mineral resource recovery site in the General Plan or any other land use plan Development of the project is not anticipated to have any impact on any mineral resource recovery No impacts to mineral resources are anticipated IX HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ ❑ environment through the routine transport use or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources 5 20) Discussion The proposed religious assembly use will not involve the transport use or disposal of hazardous materials The facility will not provide on-site fuel dispensing underground or outdoor storage of hazardous materials No impacts regarding the disposal of hazardous materials are anticipated b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources 20) Discussion The submitted Phase I Report confirms that oil production historically occurred on the project site and that abandoned oil wells are located within 100 feet of the proposed structures The project is subject to compliance with all provisions of City Specification No 422—Oil Well Abandonment Process The City's standard development requirements also include submittal of soil sample data to show compliance with the City of Huntington Beach Soil Cleanup Standard(Specification No 431-92) and submittal of a plan showing all abandoned oil wells within 100 feet of the property In addition California Division of Oil, Gas & Geothermal Resources Construction Site Plan Review is required for this project and submittal of an Oil Well History Disposition Report compiled by a California licensed third-party petroleum engineer or geologist Demolition of the existing buildings is subject to asbestos removal requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District Per standard City requirements the applicant is required to submit an Asbestos Survey and Remediation Action Plan (RAP) to the Fire Department for review and approval Standard City requirements as outlined above will ensure no sigmfcant hazards involving the release of hazardous materials will result c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ 10 ❑ acutely hazardous material substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources 1 20) _ Discussion The project site is located in the Methane District,as identified in the General Plan and within a quarter nule distance of Smith Elementary School and Huntington Beach High School The project is subject to standard conditions of approval which require compliance with all provisions of HBMC Section 17 04 085 Page 19 A ACHE T NO �9:. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact and Fire Department City Specification 429 Methane Building Permit Requirements which regulate site development as necessary to minimize potential methane emissions No significant impact is anticipated d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of r-( hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962 5 and as a result would it create a sigmficant hazard to the public or the environments (Sources 12) Discussion The site is not listed on the State s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List No impacts are anticipated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of private airstrip ® ® ❑ Q would the project result m a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources 11) Discussion e) — f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or private airstrip g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources 11) Discussion The project site is not a component of nor will the project m any way mterfere with the City of Huntington Beach Emergency Operations Plan or any other adopted emergency response or evacuation plan h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving wildland fires including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources 1) Discussion The project site is located in an urbanized area No wildlands exist in the vicinity of the project site X NOISE. Would the project result in a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in ® (� excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies` b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels ® ® ❑ Page 20 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ [� ❑ ❑ without the project? (Sources 1 14 19) Discussion a) — d) The noise producing components of the project identified in a noise study prepared by Kimley-Horn and Associates are project-generated vehicular traffic construction/demolition, children s play areas weddings church services and day care and the proposed parking structure No outdoor amplified sound system will be provided The trash enclosure will remain at its current location on the north side of the existing worship center No other significant noise sources were identified. The study concludes that future exterior traffic noise levels would be in compliance with the City s Noise Ordinance and that construction noise will not represent a significant impact provided the contractor complies with the City s Noise Ordinance The study also concludes that noise generated in the children s play areas may exceed the City s noise limits and recommends a mitigation measure requiring construction of a 7-ft tall noise barrier(masonry wall)along the southerly side of the children s play areas The study concludes that no significant noise impacts would result with construction of the recommended noise barrier The applicant has agreed to constrict a 7 ft tall wall as recommended Accordingly no sigmficant impacts are anticipated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted within two miles of a public airport or public use airport would the ❑ ❑ ❑ [� project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources 9 11) Discussion The City of Huntington Beach is included in the Planning Area for the Joint Forces Training Center in Los Alamitos However the site is located a considerable distance from the Training Center such that the project would not be impacted by flight activity and noise generation from the Center No impacts are anticipated f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip would the project expose people residing or working in ❑ ❑ ❑ .Q the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources 9 11) (Discussion The project site is not located near any private airstrips No impacts are anticipated X1 PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios response trines or other performance objectives for any of the public services a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ R1 ❑ b) Police Protection? (Sources 1 9) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion a)-b) The proposed project has been reviewed by Huntington Beach Fire Department and Police Department staff The project site is located one mile from the Lake Fire Station and approximately one-third of a mile from the Main Police Station Estimated emergency first response tunes are within the 80 percent/5 Page 21 ATTACHMENT NO -5- 2­t Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sigmficant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supportmg Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact impute response time objective established in the City s Growth Management Element Estimated emergency first response tunes from the Police Main St Station are also within acceptable service levels The project can be adequately served by existing Fire and Police protection service levels The proposed development is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use designation and maximum floor area ratio Because the project site is currently developed, the proposed project represents only a minor expansion of the existing use and the City already provides public services to the site no significant impacts will result c) Schools? (Sources 1 9) ® ❑ [ ❑ Discussion The proposed project will provide for the continued operation and manor expansion of a religious assembly use within a neighborhood that is largely built out and for continued operation of an existing pre- school No significant increase in the number of persons employed at the site is anticipated Based on the negligible expansion proposed no significant impacts are anticipated Neither Smith Elementary nor Huntington Beach High School presently schedule athletic events on their fields on Sunday mornings nor does either school have regularly scheduled events on their campuses on Sunday mornings which would result in conflicts with the church s shared use of then-parking lots d) Parks? (Sources 1 9) ® [] [✓� ❑ Discussion The project will be subject to payment of the City's park fee currently$0 23/sq ft Payment of the park fee is considered a fair share contribution towards the development of additional recreational facilities in the City and serves to offset any project impacts The project will not provide housing or additional employment opportunities and consequently will have a less than significant unpact on the use of parks or other recreational facilities e) Other public facilities or governmental services? 11 El (Sources 1 9) Discussion The project has been reviewed by the various City Departments responsible for providing and administering public services and facilities including Building and Safety, Community Services Fire Planning Police and Public Works No significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated XII UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project. a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the ❑ applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or ❑ ® [� [] wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water ® Q drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the ❑ ❑ [�( ❑ project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Page 22 ATTACH T " � Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment ❑ ❑ (� ❑ provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the providers existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted ❑ ❑ (.� ❑ capacity to accommodate the projects solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal state and local statutes and ❑ ❑ [� regulations related to solid waste? h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice (BMP) (e g water quality ❑ ❑ [� treatment basin constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources 1 4 9) Discussion a)-h) The proposed project provides for the continuation and minor expansion (including replacement of existing buildings)of an existing use The site currently drains via sheet flow to the northeast and enters a public storm dram system at the southeast corner of Main St and Adams Ave The proposed project will maintain tlus existing drainage pattern No stream or rivers exist on the site or in the vicinity The proposed project may increase the percentage of impervious surfaces on the site and therefore increase storm water run-off and impact downstream public storm drain facilities The project would be required to mitigate these impacts by the following methods (1) on-site attenuation of increased storm water flow and/or (2) construction of upsized storm dram facilities in Main Street per the City adopted 2005 Drainage Master Plan However preliminary studies indicate that the percentage of impervious surfaces on the site would slightly decrease resulting in a reduction in run-off No increase in the number of people employed at the site nor any other change in operations that would significantly increase the amount of wastewater or solid waste previously generated at the site, is planned or anticipated The developer shall be required to submit a hydrology and hydraulic study for both on-site and off-site facilities and a project WQMP for review and approval by the Public Works Department The studies and the proposed drainage improvements shall include on-site privately maintained clarifiers or other devices to control the quality of run-off water from the development All utility connections to the project site will be in accordance with applicable City standards Solid waste collection service for the City of Huntington Beach is provided by Rainbow Disposal, under an exclusive long-term contract with the City Collected solid waste is transported to a transfer station where the solid waste is sorted and processed through a Materials Recovery Facility where recyclable materials are removed The remaining solid waste is transferred to the Frank R Bowerman Landfill located in the City of Irvine The landfill has a remaining capacity in excess of 30 years based on the present solid waste generation rates and the project is not expected to generate a substantial amount of daily waste products in the long term nor as a result of construction Accordingly the project is not anticipated to noticeably impact the capacity of existing landfills that will serve the use The project is subject to compliance with all federal state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and no exceptions to those standards are proposed The 2000 City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan analyzes demands and anticipated impacts of future developments based on the Land Use Element designations The proposed project is consistent with the corresponding General Plan Land Use designation No significant impacts are anticipated_ Page 23 ATTACHMENT NO �� �� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII AESTHETICS Would the project a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ vista?(Sources 1) Discussion The project site is not situated adjacent to or in the vicinity of any scenic vista designated by the City or the State Consequently no impacts are expected b) Substantially damage scenic resources including but ❑ ❑ ❑ [� not limited to trees rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources 1) Discussion The site is not adjacent to a state scenic highway nor are there any significant trees rock outcroppings or historic buildings in the vicinity of the subject site No impacts will result c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or ❑ ® Ex ❑ quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources 1 4) Discussion The proposed development will replace several building constructed in 1957 with new buildings featuring quality building materials and contemporary architecture Proposed on-site landscaping is approximately double the nummum site percentage required by the HBZSO Any healthy mature trees to be removed must be replaced in accordance with standard City requirements on a two for one basis and provided in addition to current tree requirements The project will introduce a three-level parking structure to the site which is expected to have a less than significant impact since the predominate height of the parking structure will be 28 feet (including a hanging garden feature 4 feet in height excepting an elevator tower and architectural tower a maximum of 38 feet in height The predominate parking structure height approximates that of a two-story single-family dwelling and all portions of the structure are significantly below the 50 ft height limit applicable in the zone Ili addition, the parking structure will be surrounded by a tree-lined landscape planter on all sides and will be setback from the adjacent residential property by approximately 56 feet The project substantially conforms with the City's Urban Design Guidelines and has been reviewed by the Design Review Board (DRB) which is charged with reviewing projects for consistency with community design standards and objectives and making recommendations to ensure the project features a high quality design the use of quality building materials and compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood The DRB recommended approval of the project with conditions of approval to enhance the projects aesthetics No significant impacts are anticipated d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ® ❑ lid would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?(Sources 4) Discussion The proposed project provides for redevelopment of a site which is presently developed The proposed building and parking areas will be configured similar to the existing development Lighting at the project site will be generally consistent with how the site has been lit for decades A photometric plan for the proposed project indicates that the project will be in compliance with City codes requiring that lighting be shielded and directed to prevent glare and spillage onto adjacent residential properties Proposed outdoor lighting includes 18 12-ft tall light poles distributed throughout the parking areas The proposed buildings feature minimal glazing or metallic exterior finishes and therefore are not expected to be a significant source of reflective glare No significant impacts are anticipated Page 24 ATTACHMENT NO �". �� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ❑ ❑ a historical resource as defined in 615064 59 b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 615064 5? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ® ❑ resource or site unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains including those interred ® ❑ ® Q outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources 1 9 15) Discussion a) — d) The project is not located in the vicinity of any known archeological historic or other cultural resource No impacts are anticipated XV RECREATION Would the project a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ ❑ ® Q neighborhood community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ® ® ❑ [� the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources 1 4 23) Discussion a) —c) The project will not result in the loss of any existing recreational facilities or generate demand for additional facilities since the project does not provide housing or additional employment opportunities No impacts to recreation are anticipated Neither Smith Elementary School nor Huntington Beach High School presently schedule athletic events on their fields on Sunday mornings nor does either school have regularly scheduled events on their campuses on Sunday mornuigs which would result m conflicts with the church's shared use of their parking lots XVI AGRICULTURE RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland Would the project Page 25 ATTACHMENT NO S` Z�` Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact a) Convert Prime Farmland Unique Farmland or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 Statewide linportance (Farmland) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a ❑ ❑ ❑ [� Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which ❑ ❑ ❑ [� due to their location or nature could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources 1) Discussion a) — c) The project site does not serve as farmland and is not identified as farmland on the City's Important Farmlands map The project will not impact property that was used for agriculture in the past nor could the subject site be potentially utilized for agricultural purposes in the future based on its current Public-Semmpubhc zoning designation and use No impacts are anticipated XVII MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ R1 the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels threaten to eliminate a plant or amoral community reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources 1) Discussion The proposed project is not situated within or in the vicinity of a wildlife resource habitat As analyzed in this initial study the project is located in areas previously developed that do not support any unique sensitive,or endangered species No impacts to any habitat or wildlife area are anticipated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually Imuted but cumulatively considerable ("Cumulatively ❑ ❑ ❑ [� considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects) (Sources 1-23) Discussion The proposed project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan designation for the subject property No impacts beyond those anticipated in the General Plan PEIR — which considers the potential cumulative impacts of projects anticipated under the current General Plan Land Use designations, are expected The project floor area ratio is lower than permitted under the P(Public-Semipublic)zoning designation The project is proposed in a developed urbanized area with limited development potential Consequently no significant cumulative impact resulting from the proposed project when viewed in connection with probable future projects is anticipated Page 25 ATTACH ENT NO Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly ❑ ❑ or indirectly? (Sources 1 23) Discussion As discussed above in Sections I through XVI mitigation of storm drain impacts will be required Standard code requirements and project revisions agreed to by the applicant relative to noise and traffic will ensure other potential impacts are less than significant Page 27 ATTACHMENT S",Z1 XVIII EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analyses may be used where pursuant to tiering program EIR or other CEQA process one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration Section 15063 (c)(3)(D) Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in tlus Analysis Ref # Document Title Available for Review at i City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of HB Planning Dept PlannmglZomng Information Counter 3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1 4 Reduced Project Plans—received and dated June 28 and 29 See Attachment#2 5 Project Narrative—received and dated July 10 See Attachment#3 6 City of Hutmgton Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report City of HB Planning Dept. Plannmg/Zomng Information Counter 3`d Floor 2000 Main St Huntington Beach 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(February 18 2004) " g CEQA Air Quality Handbook " South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 9 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 10 Trip Generation Handbook,6"'Edition,Institute of Traffic Engineers I 1 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos " (Oct 17 2002) 12 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List " 13 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map " 14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code " 15 Geotechnical Engineering Report(KFM Geoscience)—Jan 24 2007 16 Air Quality Analysis(Environmental Audit Inc)—March 19 2007 C 1ENVIRONMICHECKLST Page 28 ATTACHMENT 17 Trip Generation Study(K-mley-Horn and Associates Inc)—March 7 2007 " 18 not used 19 Exterior Noise Analysis Report(Kimely-Horn and Associates Inc)Revised May 1 2007 20 Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment Report(LandAmerica Assessment Corporation)—January 24 2007 21 not used 22 Huntington Beach Water Master Plan 23 Project Implementation Code Requirements Attachment No 4 Page 29 ATTACHMENT NO �a�`� � �; �� r � P6 �'t GYP v171,��'�i�"`/�•�`c(�y ,1,✓c°�"'�*��� } , ✓r ✓// +' c f��`P > W\��\\.5M Sq • _ r s��l1�e�}, 00 14'& ;f Jrxl � .� k . f NV. r� �w�C`�'� � i a � �l,�- mot. 4�-..fin 1��.�,,,.,,. / ■, Now r ' ` c r ',tj NNW] i4soon w.... ENE • G �>�� 'I$ 4�r f�l °r f �t�J �.� !� L i� ,� � I '���r � �'' : MENNEN -40 .,_ ` Rom ro� O IST CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF HUNTINGTON BEACH M-6 CHURCH 1207 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 714 536 9589 y APPLICANT ART CUETOO VISIONEERING �.ISTUbIOS INC 949 417 58722*,� oil rs 1 s r� r m e 0 r W za N W d f wryi •.� onn 08 07 06 SHEET INDEX m� 104-03 1 TITLE PAGE e8ea 2 SITE PLAN U 3 EXISTING SITE WITH DEMOLITION PLAN xrecrM.m.uwa rvn umw,�raawnmee.aee 61 KIDSSUILDING iSTFL00R erg e,ry c. .,wre, myc. we.M.w 62 KIDS BUILDING 2ND FLOOR �d 83 KIDS BUIL01NO NORTH/WEST ELEVATIONS +ice '^°"'y�,�, * wti •- 64 KIDS BUILDING SOUTH/EAST ELEVATIONS .de 01 MULTI-PURPOSE BUILDING 1ST FLOOR V C2 MULTIPURPOSE BUILDING 2ND FLOOR s� C3 MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING NORTH/EAST ELEVATIONS b 04 MULTI PURPOSE BUILDING SOUTH/WEST ELEVATIONS Q w �..., » W 0 ^om�uaee�r DI CHAPEL BUILDING FLOOR PLANS L D2 CHAPEL BUILDING NORTW EAST ELEVATIONS r �+++ •+w... D3 CHAPEL BUILDING SOUTH/WEST ELEVATIONS y im... - -w »_- E1 CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING iST FL00R E2 CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUIDLING 2ND FLOOR E3 CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING NORTH/WEST ELEVATIONS E4 CAFE/ADMINISTRATION BUILDING SOUTH ELEVATION V V ZIP Ft NURSERY BUILDING-FLOOR PLANS F2 NURSERY BUILDING NORTH/SOUTH ELEVATIONS y M +� $ G7 PARKING STRUCTURE LEVELS 011 d 2/3 �I -m » 02 PARKING STRUCTURE LEVELS 416 u I 03 PARKING STRUCTURE ELEVATIONS � N rrs JAG ��i. QIi �►i +9 .._...,... . v�- ``.. � � � � � � I � � � � I � III�i � lill � l � l � i :.►� _�► � li � � ll � l � � '' 41 - arr. .n♦ err. 4'••- ' `r�i �"i:4 Ji:•♦♦♦♦ f... .� _.... .: .._ _.: ::•i:❖:iii is❖iiii:❖::i♦ ,:❖:••'�O�O•O. , �.,, ,�la�• ♦. ..__ _. .. ..♦•♦•.♦••♦♦•♦♦♦•♦•♦♦♦••♦.. 1 •►Y ;i:••iiisii❖:❖:❖i''�':i❖:❖::`:•:':❖:S•:O'•:O•i:':•:':'I -- - . - i .....�.. .........♦ •a.♦•••• a ♦r ._-----. _. ._.-. u :O•0...• Oo00000000000❖::•:o:� 1• �--✓ ►p� \ 7 -__ - __ AO♦O♦•••♦ •• •♦♦OL0000000•.O•.00•.00Ot I � Lc:•.O•♦O•,. J I �\ i 11 _._._._._- .. --- -- iii ` •a,0•,0•••a u!wr� •aa.•aa,0•aa• ♦. ♦ O ♦ ...... Mir .❖.•.❖.❖aq:;y;�ro� ��1►.,::�o::�'�:❖s.oew� ►. ---_— _.._. ----- • ,�ii��••iiOO •♦•aP:P♦! .a:•��;�i%.' OR ♦ ♦•:i�:;:;Obi 0a:O� iry,r _.______._ .♦.OM i MOO•♦••♦••.•:`:i000.O ,•, ~ ���(/ � :•:S �•♦ O X. - ____ -__ � .�Oa• O♦•00•Pa•a000••,•••i'O ,aO:a:O; ''. '•M4;♦4;:;:%O♦L;�i i0`:•y;:;:L is • �QIr. -- ... ...:..--- �� �� :••••.000•.M..00O•.O•..: -- �. 'MO:❖•`:❖:❖J:❖:5:::::•�•i �►� -_.. - -- - Oyo.a.000000.o•..O•a, .• ;p;•p;;O•a,.p...0......•c. �►b - ♦1� SI'. C'r� ♦1i. O .r O,••a�'a♦�a•♦'OO•MO• ♦♦♦� ♦. O♦••♦iaO.O. •� ►��► ..._..._ � • .••.000ii`:•O:••O ��-s,��OOii4•�` _ p i•♦•Oi••`••�•♦•ii•••ii0-. 1►� I►� �1�. '1►� ••�•�•••i i•♦,♦;♦♦;i: ..J:':•i:O•J•,;p aiMOi•�i:•:OL•:M•••. --Mr Fs'\"SIFirwi�lfk7 ` !a ::;:;•A;:;r0••:�•❖:•:�❖:•:a �''• rl� IN .:•.;:..::... ':I►� I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I �"``� �r � ==,r.►� •. °a` {�,� III { { { { IIII \ • �► �� - - - - �` ,,,�;� - 11I Illlllillllll � lil ;►; . . .. . . .. 'I . ,�►�► {,I I � ' I �.I,I I � I rI Il I I I� I,I � I.�. I ,,,►,/1.= •- ` ._ - o •r ♦► "ram �►�RI�o �, • i _ �0A ,� ..��� Mill n.� F PDAM AVEN E � \ Church ah Sign Church Sign \ � w® I:'II — - - - - -- - ��� C t Gras � SMALLCHAPE � CHAPEL WINGS \ (DEMO) (DEMO)1$30 S F \ ��✓ 0 1 700 S F J _ YOUTH MINISTRY CRAPE ardenUj (DEMO) (BUILDIN 3850SF IMnn S III F EN P Concrete Grass it Ann \ �✓ \Service Ram Courtyard to basment WORSHIP CENTE NURSERY( C x Z R\ BUILDING CHILDREN S CHURCH W FJ(ISTINO TO REMAIN MPROVEMEN * MINISTRY SCHOOL \ pdf 3 300 S F (DEMO) BUILDIN G M ,w 4 960 S F (DEMO (n W C�9Y Grass Lawn .r. 9 800 S F C J S Playground SSROOM MODULARS '� N (DEMO) e-000 S F W �,. 1. Oo�� ✓ % / DATE ` 08 07 06 A \ PRO DEECT 104.03 III II II T a o - c �� �� O © J 5 C i I 1 2 3 4 5 8 7 9 10 n. Q i asp LEGEND E ✓� I -- M BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS O DEMOLISH BUILDING " ® EXISTING TO REMAIN N �_ TOTAL PARKING SPACES =431 J " EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE=53 210 N Me SCALE 1 =40 0 DEMO SQUARE FOOTAGE =24 840 �I snseoa ttn wrvwoKnvwr9w,ewm uwe-w.ut+�+��nc o.�wrce�w�o�xdosaazs/ca.mnu,�.,.e z 'ON IN9MOd11V FF A A — A � a 3 3 aw S � � r 3 C u 3 � � 3 3 r 3 � I E O O O O O O First Christian Church 1207 Main Street,Huntington Beach �!�!FNEERlN6 studios W = Kids Building-1st Floor o": ENTITLEMENT -� — W vs.scbrm�,sm PACKAGE _ JC 7i f4 J HOV11V RL JE;INJ r g y Q _ Y Y g — b � / S {qu1 3 1 g � g First Christian Church 1207 Main Street,Huntington Beach VISIONEIRIupMz Studios N Kids Building-2nd Floor o�p ENTITLEMENT Nm320 PACKAGE "` - c � :� •c'a��'� ti. mow, a � -> � �-���i�s�' '�,zz `.z i i��,d� ��£ sue: .� e ,... �; `���"'°.��' � �� {✓�$va� . .�_"'"r kY`.� 'v✓.lY�ys 3 � 6 6�� � �`� 'v� ,�r"3�� �*�t� .£�, Sods/,,✓ � '� c� d ac F z � yr r .T, 3. b ✓ 5 r � _� ' � �z���, ter' ✓ � :�'fr'•s �y�� �` � � "f ���s�e /� �� 4". '�. �� e- "�,�v"�� �. ,r 'g ,z" �: .:w{' sue".?' � � � �4� ✓� �rfl �'F �t�' `r^z` .a w,�' '�€�'� �c�� �v - •rr' a, s f ,,, �: � ,� 'z a � ✓ ¢r y .,f �ve a •PI i • totem • • • � 1 Y iY� film �� v 2\ 1��v .{>: �' ,•5 F >s s S ''� ..a: .��t >,�..; ...fin.. �` \ ,•:.s Y.�:�.�,`,i ter'\'l3 '., k. \ r: ^`a, .s,., ..x:. a Sri: ,,.: a x :.� r ,n x F:..✓/,k��'s,. u ' y. L-� '�� 1�.::`l ><� ^�� C.. \ ,X.. .G ,� ,,, „st„ ...:: ....L , ;,,..,,. .. ...: 5 fi:,:.� ,;:.. / U :} .r' 3;• t�.,.f f,,e s �. '�.. `"t „x+_ s..„, ..a .. `� 'r. 3Atro..,... b ,: s ,. ,..,, :-^., ,...,... e ,,.,�r a .: :„rJ' :4 S,arhr; .� s •i •. �. r.�.: a `tS a:� ,r u'_;,� x>.� '�c� ..� e.�•,wa. "'is,:,"..,���x <i`S; n: '.rt kl k �::'7�'.:YF ��:•..�x.��&.'?'. �'�.. :3.�a...{��•: c�i R ss '"��'x"-c°E a:,;fi�.s z� ��xa s"�'� �t��p ��t'"` $'�'z a tY��h�i?"ilU`i��`�'� !,�-•s�� 4•a•�.,,,k.4<k� - t,� v rS � t +a ' r , 's it uk. a , sync, , �v:;�n� -: �x"s:ie-Y'a�-'��r'� 'frarEn�;;-, ,r.. � - ._ &•�, _ -..,. ,...... -... > ...J?'�xw+{.+..� -�(�a�.v �p�•,�, �i E�_,.� �iS ",W..F R.a`?.t �%SiW s .`�} Y �"�". ��.• `P.xss�. ;z, $,�;5: �s.�&r ``sin€�.��.� � �'.'"r"'-�' ''`��. � ��.,k- �„� P,w� a:s•�e�- ��� ,, � ,: �us�,�rcYza ror.;,:. ��•:��>r�39: ;y'' s.� I Rm >" r i S�� �kfyAt53A r�4M'�t�etyyy�ro�' P�'� ,?as a:,.z��a {�x)< �'4 u.a .ray�i>aws S t,, 7 r�r�¢f sY°t ra '* �u,t u' a,v'� r rf'rx a v �q y 'r M • ;;^���``�iS� vl�,ae +� a��. v�£gsez' s s i t �:: S � P � t'••. � � a aa, y ��! �2g r`/ ¢k j fir" "k �rF�' � r y 'v 7 ! �{?f. '�%az� ��z`.r f�c���vl.'Wv��,k�$�, s'w:� �r^�) awr 8k •f�i � F r �r '$ 'ao .��x, r *r\d�"• r v a r.t t/y r. �c �nl � # vsy T:. ,r �,,�'��:;,.rS t 3"�`� u 2 }`f� r,(��'� '#�- a'�./§•s.,��'�.s s�! ,, f�v 6 w x� �a,yr•i<rr ,k a,x* r�4-: �v � �,v r:, l .� <r y. > t `rs 1. �w4 ¢ � t .>✓/ :� '� rsv slE R !':G�..S,s f �3,+�'e �4 r/ � l /vr✓j s�C ✓,y ( S F t rt;.,� Y ; '�'£� �� ,1►> ` � �a,d.">Hr�s��,7�j�I ro��,�;,*r ik:., k ��, .?Fit r ..r,P� �h z��p 1S'3'f YA r4-`�( E � -_� a K "�' �:>}A 6 c s#s . °� :.,�• ,. y,r. ,..ps 7 --:a��`'.°fr`s f��.....q„,a�/ FY9?. Y�,1j .:.f yfG(vf m,'.��>v6f�3�_�I}a�' �.r xsp�s,:. r"kr G�:ib^c �"+3�8s�'M�>�,1 r t�4.eiat tf (_ '' :n\ r• � Y .....: ., ,�� ,,._ ��>� ~r" -r ����r✓l��J`�l�� ��sh���✓r�' s 2 y.x° r!� �F'� tav�r�''�#' .. fza a'i �Xt'°z Y �rx�i-,,. ''��eLy.�r U h� ,� s}� _ "-.:., ,. ,.�¢>».� , >�✓.xs��? Y r�nn�'+�ri' %��� i'yu t,��C,�`, � {�E i x .:s�'n�. tut 3 }e.�W >�>3 � n r '��#��, s re *Ys � � F%• �A �^�W �, - � � �,r7Sx•-'ShY% � � f., 3 1 � E° �' At S{s'�3 � ��� s �tr '?�e,. �,�, �:�ttlYi,� �S� a�r�` z�af� ��$�� �+?�`S�ya •-t � ��'� uY`,a w��" �roir - .. • -':.. ee ® yg@gdA,6.e.�nr ,. �. L,.,�,. � �.» �. .1t•.,.���.Ew, A f.@4 =�'>�tS >?�� 5uc� <k�' x �r • Qj A1WE M V 4 n x? 1 � 3 - I bf t I F � `e3 & s� Y 3 S ID n S r TIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 12QTMAINSTREET HUNTINGTONBEACH yj NEE ING ° ' sturos ulti-Purpose - 1st Floor o m ENTITLEMENT �sm �' PACKAGE ON iNNHOVIV 81Y1Po6 qAM 1^WmACbVprNrrob+rBMCh CA1P`vT�SdneeO[OmnnNMIETIPW�O5E110060S03 Mu0oiw*bvtM b vON IN3YYHDVIIV 6 a g S 3 s FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1207 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTOM BEACH VEERING DaQ A � = ; 1c, Multi-Purpose-2nd Floor o" a ENTITLEMENT studios � W PACKAGE � �`,>`�,, S;.r ,r w..,�4� �t t E '� r,, � � �,,s � a, •.'t°_ -� � �� tF s.?a r�; �ik�l 4�a z� ,���; �;� ��t�k-e ��r� �, �sm�;, >.;; � '"��. x a�.,'a��i .:z. '�N:��h"£° L rii c.. A 3 s,-:� zr � N t �� {,. -•S S�,t�S 'x6�'.h*'s �S j a 3�iiz�� y,� xza}a�' s� �j'v�i h"i�'.�a� --.c. :� S N h'v 4C.,.a s,��rzyrg,,._.� qu "��1 a�'t'r Ax§c �'�€.,s € •� r• ' ,, ,✓�� 1 �k t\� � C3€::. yc Y x„.::"r �:, m S4 l`�� 1`��.�13.�,al ��: � < s �5 a .� d $,[ _,�"�t � �R '� w r § `x''^�-"r N ..<�z"M a'"•as ,s�:',a ,yY¢{ �� ,' a.:� � :a�° (., ,3 ,., ;�; �����- a�. x,s� ;:�M �'�r:.� z� ���?z w\,�:""v�`^ a i� alp.`� � ,,.s:.� r� eF.. ,d�•�.` .,�+... �c,. s �7i�:.�i*.�sCh��i x ,.��.{{, ¢ w�� t s_ ,fix''. { �. ,�, ... .5 �"�� �"Ccu. vd i��.„..`� •a, .� -...,g � a � . a .....r.,� - W�.r,.0.5 a�! "bFL �....,.`54#J ;;€s� � :.;3.�. a+:,r•,::; �"�"§�,c,�4 - •e .d. .. .. ...., l� ,�� .,.,r� �..>` 4� ,�.`_,''.,.r�..•� � N s.,,.:�; � . - z ...Jr.� °$ �` n. �u:n v,�.,�,�. p•3'L�`�+',x.: :�� �»^ r 2 rt d t`�' 3-.N'�f r• �ti� i e �E t.s �,`�P�*.;�v �...y<��, a�'�"a\�` .� �u�l���,.u3�.. r�r �� ,r �. E>,• .,�z�a.<�_.�gi'� a5�z ; .3s=���� tits„ �x,;`? r� .� 4 s� `, ,� ,�''a.a>g�i�« �3=�� !Ey w'�" � "�a�s�sm; t _" .' �a.�..'R.. � .,5i,� m�T"• :.\s� "$.,,.::md�,..��3��3�47 u, ;�,�£'ya 'c xi ts\���'f �,sml j�r,�hF..�x raC?;arx+`��tS�•>�.-�Stl z.:'�� 'r ��4� �. ,SS, ��,� x, �' '; ,., ,�'�s$ep��w�a'\ >�,� +�r«��t�,,x�?,fin... :a r a a. e a ;'A;�a`S"�T,�GS ° 4t ev.. '"a i a ta!•� 'x ma ph3:,`'a, a tG�i°''�,'y�r w�" }�t y�;�:rt`'a wry+z„;�€S TNtSy, da a ,.,fa }�"u,,.�`S'+}�" • _ep& �s,,'n" s` a�. a, �'•r,' ; .s ��r �`?`§ ,t! Esc ,.5.�'u'J..mt�. a ,r'Fgr N.. .". °vt�. k4� -x��g�':L. y� ,i r.t a ,a�r¢.. f lFia 15 N `g$'`G'ay is '�i�'�'�•S"�'i� 'S, n� � �cv �fear .x<?, m 1���r������� �h`�uz?r xx�. "" v�f ✓ F<�, �z.e�'� v a d.� .a.�er ss" d ��v Y,� $ � ,� Y:: � '7 Nat` 2 • ._. S 5x`:m''s :3N�a y t s ��kiro ' c✓� f i^ "g a'G €A s 3a AF a +F kp r�."�"P✓r. .G £ x x��`�r ✓=N 3 f� ✓ t' rz i��. Sa•-3xa'" �"Y �_. Ek s 3 b'r r f s:✓ 'l��r ,5iy'"�°*`'��*N' #� � }r, s �h� { �uic�'x,� } �`� �-:�. '�g�t '� am �:✓ yp �,�,r,'"�+f°.c�7� r �r �,,��, ��N�p 1,�g a N r- � ����:: IMF i `m*�„� ;a N ,. y qqq `# f, f; A rG+y fi'ta 1P u f ",Sl:,k. ^^�" �S6�luyY�� � � o •, ate�m,€ s 9z 4 A, wwYedQ+\� e�®')". .. E i' 1� ,-i.,.H eSA�a 'f „•V z)1,+�.<.-: iug5 4 ti�i"•S* (��' y i, 1 4 i, • F{�s�S_.s�4�� 3�ra�`'( ,�'���,� a.%ryry?���mt���L.,�$Trr�'xyC.}_7 t€ �"a,�`S a`f..�, �� +•y"�m��x 'c isY�; 5S�R„v ^aN'�a a4 z 1i;rfic.a.�r '. ,`3 s=�g*i. .� .,v � •',. �`n ,��, %�, ��� " ' �, ta<rT a: ''�x o rkNrS� a a rA�!l �ty � €��r z-:: '"�`� ;.. �t # 'F: fl J�`'"F.�a i z vi+tad+y• r �'d s�t� ��x,.a � k•�Y��t�t'�, �,� � �� 'au ';. + �� .3N �'�sshY4�a a�au+?���'"A ' �s�7's y °^ T�� y�i •. Ic— o- _e€�%xx ."`� -', �"il:It�'��`� x^ '�•L� � �C�S�2r� �..r� ��z5r�`�. a�:'n. • x v.3.�Y 4 roe Gg ,y yt°- l"•zw h BNP , c 9 D•, k Rt `S� � -N. i IN 'vr ) ( ii � d,e!•tk� a� .0 r �a �a'�r�, � �arv��'iaeai",�.�isma �.���>�k .a i '"•__� �: �`N����. ��Si�t� ��g � r�"���`� �.�i� ;,ii'� ... - r. s 'x r C cbyrs�,z� Yx v'ac r r �r rF§N mri17 `v�,pS,,. •`� . ti id"Y f tivi" ;k � � is{ t � €�,±45"*.,� �vM1r'p �A,f � � �i F t g r`` '�2��yj���'. �,-`, "� , • js�s'C ���a` rt E�ry+n'' - �'� '�'5� �# ,ii��>� �5'�t � Ee A � 5,x .s v��a-. • ?�i �17 �` h J,s:i l G 9k' i6 ra"a 9 � 7,�5 I�4x3��•."f3` �.ID'i'_^3fi�������� .rr ;: a, � ...�x `a+�� :. � �.� � � r �;a t. ��m et��.„, � k,. "; -.+�, «C ,.•3 s�, � ..,,.za a � ?,, ;. vt\ ..h..r.„ u� .��Y r�; ��•� ..� ,�a `':'.-a`h�,n � �. ?';."''�I.s�� �� &�P�s{"�,��yp'- ay�K��:�-� 'm '' 5�?aW`Xi .�,� rarr.. 'sw;i���b �:Y� x�:� s �"` ¢ ,s ' a�a - .s,> A, �3 ,t��yxa;r�.,..q;�k�`u�.�z�,m��'4t s r..�hs 2 �s£•a,re��x, '-e€.q t^ '�',���s�a�'�ia't �,,� di,.,.v � .,;:^ ���-,.'.��a'�F �� S ��>:rs.,v ��xt� ..� 3 1 .. �1. �� :'� � � yLRs��d � ,<� � ,a�. •' �� *� e.� �.y�`�Yy' ¢ �;� ��,�r,..a����.\ '� rc�.¢:?� '�• � �� �`c��a. n >, a 4-1 a 5 A> s 'a,F M..,:�'r^kR.A' :�Er3 �&laA,4lsa''.%" ��^w,a.¢area. a.;, .,swA":; s�..e'+:^.ws'J's,r?', ,' �tY.: ..s.' r`t r'e afl..ry'.�u,?>5: .,i.."i r Hwy r�,"' S `, `Tka'y: r �4 • ' A • • �tl�„'A t^t^'...,;✓u- r a� Ca -. >� a 5;1.,.� x :.,`�., �,. Zd€: i,�..."3 .. � � �,i 5,. � 'Li a .:SgS��R�,�sy L. y= _..q��.��''�. i .S# a i¢ �-:Y"�\�k� ?; 1 / _ - � ,�� �i � air. �m� � °:�`�� �r»• ��e� c r���e»s� r: � b ��*� ����: t �s� �h�>v s v , � � as t ..r. 5�^^•x h,.f.\� r� n: ,- ¢�.€'i: s Y �y1.aF � .. • "via � `s '.� ��W.t�+x3'" v"a��.3����`�,.L��v a.r.; k rrxrr`� ,::,�a '�,v.i ,::�`k����3� i!<.,:�.t��.'SS .t �,r���v y€€�> .. a a' � ,�t�'r. a��i�siz. .:. :•:"�i �i-��t�.-.:t�.:►:. .�,., :.�'�' .a ss sE _.��"�3�,. z,a� �a � 's�-�,.a¢.,-i%-. �;� `fa°;lad". ,r.c. ,.�a.. t mi � ¢\: sZ�t �¢ �1.--; �, g,�eE,a� 1.�.�"• .�;���..� a,��'S•..,.S..v�, m.3t�>g w,S };- � €�Ax:��a-a: �'�r?,.sy'.t'.:1� Y s>�� y€.: nt �.,..s �6sz?t fed >,�mx �:.;?x,xc. ;.. -... � ..... �', ¢r�s«ro:- r� �FiyS 'w�:h 'ts?; ..5..� wr'K���.: .. �..snre'+t �'vM1.�r -. <""8 qa t E 3s xnza�n f�>hr^>P>{ .� .e Y„ ,>-. �R .:. ��.�•',. �aM1tr 1 c.,�-,v:¢. �a�m � ��at°a �s�4'�S�"` �, �v'�.T" � �s.��`� � �, irP � s.,vt ���' tbt ��� � `;,, w��« ,it � � •. �'- ....... t``'�i�"54 �s� ��s i�„��. Fit a� a k'�"T3'�*r" r 5�,c `.R�i1` ���r� r �'� t -. s"•Y}�. a Y.:ag� ������.� t�, st.x�.a � �xg F xx'v a °Z w'yfla - • AWL ` :\Z v�Ct..� eta ';_..s„���,i, ;`.a«.,W � ro z..�n.n«'�' "a �:�2 s a,Yi �w:t s�6a.. �N' :k,. E � 3 �l �� � t �, • • y `T � �&`x�� u i:..F' "" ' '� � i N`9 s5 � sf -- to�'�y� i � ' t SS+.'l5 ft } F.� x¢ �,. _... �.� �i�...-v�,v�ezt,`krati _x>:..::�aN�r�w+.,«a�, s 4� ,. :-._na ..e^s a�:��«y.�.r,:Fs�Si.,.d..;;. "r�,..+,c.�::;i ,rx°.,.,��'.Y„. ,.a.. .�,... ..a(xx ,,,s. {._y ^ .xs&.Ri+�3GS��3�,,.o:�,v:w-P1d+'?���\\1���,: • 6 R NfY2006 O' lSAM Wmxc4V#mpnCvi Balch �Des�AScla�rahc OaaaM hacen2RJ6�D9 M1eprlM -T.A ?VINMHOVID d� 0 jy gJ £ P i �7 � Lq Svi Lit First Christian Church 1207 Main St Huntington Beach �mm , m ENTITLEMEfVT qstudios Chapel-floor Plans o �' PACKAGE _ ra 8'IS"1008 O OfAM V'WdeOSWUMNNoe Beaty GlOeannlAirerru0e0eabn�O9ChmNM i r bra 4� 4 a a UNINMHOVELV First Christian Church 1207 Main St Huntington Beach VISI VEERING K) Chapel-Elev-North/East o wi o ENTITLEMENT ® z studios PACKAGE f p � k l C 1 - `£` � � � z 2 HFu 1 �2 • &IY'GD593@2AAM 1FWmleMaWnGnobn Bear GIPMn1.9iimrrBeD *r1FEAa%V&'060f- AWY�iCI1FEM 51 v N IN31NHOVIIV Rill Fie m 4 r OOOOO s �O �/ o00 0 ��J CIO � O o � o � o y 4 � FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1207 Main St Huntington Beach YISI �EERINS ITI w o`go Studios Cafe!Adrr�rn -1st Floor o N ENTITLEMENT �' � PACKAGE _.�U® &IN1006 XROBM!YW§CaW([s/� �g�G»B 1+G41fbfmlSMr-6c Cbmv�iCAFEAOleM2p06M�13AU1MiCAFEM �1 V N IN31NHDV.Liv _ L t �t a � a - 1 -� i 4 / / F FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH 1207 Main St Huntington Beach VISIONEIRING m C. studios IV Cafe/Adman -2nd Floor o M N ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE I� f x } •t � ' � s n. 3 i A. � a IN WITCREMMMAM, �. 1 Nf 9'i'Ot AM N IGFEA OI-3A/a6NGfE.M �r CAN ANHOVID m� k FIRST C H RISTIAN CHURCH 1207 Main St Huntington Beach -.$ o p tIC f�f Cafe/Admin-South W. studios Elevation W o ENTITLEMENT PACKAGE ®'IS'.LY16 Q447MINWMxfaVr.BaecliGNeah�l9J�erre[k DesfimWsanviZ00501- MasercM blON lNiINHOVIXY ❑ o LU t y First Christian Church 1207 Main St Huntington Beach VISIONEIRING ,o� o �aNursery-Floorplan CoC ENTITLEMENT s t u duo s �' m PACKAGE "=U=� mi Ago MAN I . y � sr � ` -two 3 � 4.1 cY h fu if � �_ _ •'` i i _ t _ 1 i, �1. I Jf x z ON 11 TmONINWIHOMY �m N + v O O 4 O O 3 N pip N W v � � � N + x ? s�— Uco m � V � CC z A First Christian Church 1207 Main Street,Huntington Beach YI�I NEE III G79 Parking Structure Levels N Stud l o s 1 and 2 ENTITLEMENT � m. w PACKAGE ON IN3YVH3VJLiV Z 8?)2VIl .529AM'WgemW1vbiu�mb�NGlOreWivaLStl�eniaECGawMeiMn SfvcNnlMO)11616^Ylu�a.9idueElvetmaM 1 D m k + x N A Y x m to Z Z 8 O '4 m O � m w � � A rn x pNj V D ------Ul First Christian Church 1207 Ma in Street Huntington Beach VISI NEE IN6 G) s og stu cos N Parking Structure Level 3 0� ENTITLEMENT ,�� y PACKAGE s. s � Y�aEtb'� •i ��� s � q Jz++� am At € � s h \g #FO- .} op f 8 � e n r 1 1 1. Attachment 0 VI NEgIKG first Christian Church Huntington Beach , t.Weekly Events Stu 09 Revised June 19 2007 Location Sund 1 M rid v T esd Y W dad y Th rod v Frid y t d Ev-ttAetMty I~ Eve t Ti— Attend- Ev Time Am dance Ev Time Am dance Ev t Tlrna Am danc Event Time Attendant Ev t Tlmo Am ndan Ev Y— At don W nh!e Services Tradid at,. J, Wor hlpC re W Whip Care 900am 1000 am 600 _ 600 pm 700pm 270 10 30 am 11 30 am 716 Ov d I (C tempo ry) A-Fr;m Chapel_ ,,. V Multlp rE B Bdl,g _ -.?00— 10 00 am _ 61 10 30 ern 11 30 ern Ili Clastl Stnal1 Chap I A Frame Chap L. _ 9 00— 10 00 am 28 _ 10 30 un 11 30 am 22 S day Sh-L Ad Ins Wm hp C. �MeenrjHall) W nMp C (Mead&Halls 9 00 em 10 00 em _ 10 30 am 11 30 am k d y Scheel Childre (K S) E I dM Child a and Y th BIN w Child B IldlroL 9 00 am 1000m.. _ 123 6 00 pm 7 00 pm 28 10 30 am 11 30 an 192 Small G p M Wonhip C to M tinat Hal W h I C (Meeting Hall 6 00 am 7 30 am 10 7 00 prn 9 00 prn 10 Small G p W men W nhp C LM.UnAHalI) W hip C re(Mead g Hxll1 9 00 ern 11 30 60 9 00 ern 1130 rn 80 9 00 am 11 30 100 Wor hip C (MdN Hal W hip C Meetl I Hall 700 m 900 m 100 Small G p Ad I W hip Ce t (Meeting Hilo W hip C irtlead g Hdl 10 00 am 11 30 10 9 00 am 11 00 10 Team M tl 0 W"hip C M«tl at Hall W he,C a Mead a Hall 7 00 pm 8 00 on, 20 7 00 Pm 8 00 pm 2017 00 it. 8 00 pm 20 Child M taw Exl 'Child- S ilding N w Child S Ids a 7 00 pm 8 30 pm 20 7 00 Pm 8 30 pm 40 H1ghG p Y the Idl Muldp rp a Idi g 900em 1000am _ 31 700pm 830pm 60 10 30 ern 1 1 30 am 37 High S hool G p A Frain Ch pal Muldi, p tee B Id j 7 00 m 8 30 m 60 M I MI I cry R h nal W hip C W rship C 7 15 pm e 30 prn 40 P S hoola*a E g Child B 11dirji N w Child 6 ddl 1 900 m 2 00 m 125 9 00 am 2 00 pm 125 9 00 am 2 00 m 125 9 00 am 2 00 Pm 125 9 00 am 2 00 m W Ch h Adml I trail Off a W hi C Admi ha d B Ildl S 830 m 5 00 m 25 8 30 am 5 00 m 25 8 30 am 5 00 m 25 830 m 5 00 m 25 B 30 am 5 00 m 25 5p lal E is a*"e" F al W hp C A F am Chapel 4 _ 350 350 350 350 350 350 Weddl W hip C A F m C 1 350 350 350 350 350 l50 T al Dal A dance 1016 No 1080 1020 1090 850 1008 Not Events eh dule refleote s typl al w ek d d g th m nthe IS pt mb through June when th pr cho 11 In sal The h th a weeldy av al; mbined it rid n f r Its th wo hip owl IB 2 300 Am dance for Ad I Sund y kh III dud d I W Whip C w attendant "** Th p school hate total N Im f 200 tud a b t no an tudem atte d last ev ry d y Attention umbe reflects w rage dMy ttendan Intl ding IS tdf mamba '"***Wom 4 Tuesday Ev I g M dnV ar held mo thy bah c'>a'"""Speclal E ena er t gutarly,oohed led ve a Th y may ak pl to terry day f th we k pt S days Ace Id asoclated with pedal a Wil to d d by 10 00 pm Atte d nc Aga 11 d thh abl ar for plan i g p P.as fly and d floc tual tt dan Og i w� s l` - 1 t` First Christian Church of Huntington Beach Vislipff(HIM Conditional Use Permit Application— Revised Project s t u d 10 S Narrative Revised—July 10, 2007 Existing Conditions First Christian Church Huntington Beach (FCCHB) is located at 1207 Main Street It occupies a 7 5 acres campus consisting of seven(7)existing buildings and 431 on-site parking spaces The proposed master plan of improvements consists of the following I Demolition of four existing buildings(Church School Children s Ministry Youth Ministry and Small Chapel) and the Large Chapel s existing restroom facilities 2 Removal of the existing modular structures currently used for adult Sunday School classes 3 Construction of three new buildings(Children s Building Multipurpose Building Administrative/Cafe Budding) 4 Renovation of existing A-Framed Chapel 5 Renovation and expansion of the worship center s nursery and bathroom facilities 6 Landscape/Hardscape Improvements designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places improve pedestrian circulation and make the church campus more functional and welcoming to church members and visitors alike 7 Re striping of existing parking lot in order to increase its capacity and improve circulation 8 Construction of a multi-level parking structure Proposed Use Table A describes the new buildings and modifications of existing buildings contained within the Master Plan scope Attachment A shows how the church s existing activities will be housed within the new and existing buildings upon the project s completion Table A First Christian Church, Huntington Beach - Master Plan Scope Building Status Size(s Planned Use/improvement A Worship Center Existing 25 500 No change to existing seating capacity The worship center will not be modified as art of this project scope B Children s Building Planned 17 411 Children s Sunday School (preschool—6"' rade and midweek preschool C Multi-Purpose Planned 10 268 Flexible meeting space for Jr High and High School groups and other large groups/ functions D Chapel Existing 5 717 Remodel existing A Framed structure into a traditional chapel suitable for classic worshi services weddings and funerals ATTACHE T NO ATTAC MINT M -S- C E Administrative Cafe Planned 13 621 Church administrative offices cafe kitchen church resource center F Nursery Expansion Planned 4 252* Expanded existing nursery and restroom facilities in the worship center Improvements include a combination of new construction and remodeling of existln facilities G Parking Structure Planned 299 spaces Above ground parking structure to (Estimated) accommodate peak parking requirements for concurrent worship services In existing worship center and replacement venues *Note Nursery Expansion square footage includes 1 027 sf of new construction and remodel of 3 180 sf of existing nursery and restroom space in the Worship Center The project will include a series of outdoor public space and landscaping improvements in addition to the items listed to Table A. The completed campus will include a new pedestrian walkway or Village Gateway from Main Street where the existing Small Chapel is located A Chapel Garden will be located at the site of the existing Classroom Building and allow for direct pedestrian access into the campus from 14"Street A new Tidal Court will serve as the main gathering area for before and after church functions and wQ be open to the public The court will be located between the existing Worship Center Multipurpose Budding A Frame Chapel and Administration/Cafe Budding The court will include chairs and tables to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings The Wave Walk will serve as the main pedestrian connection between the church s parking lot and the new and existing buildings These outdoor areas will be enhanced by the use of decorative paving landscaping (including native drought-tolerant plant materials) and slgnage The church will not hold regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings on its campus nor will the Tidal Court function as an amphitheater Additionally the church will not have outdoor amplified music Project Sequencing The construction of the new buildings is scheduled to begin in fall 2007 The construction is anticipated to last between 18 to 24 months The project will be built in the following sequence I Remove existing modular buildings 2 Construct new Children s Building 3 Demolish existing Church School Building 4 Construct new Multipurpose Budding and Nursery Expansion S Demolish existing Youth Building and Small Chapel 6 Renovation of A-Frame Chapel 7 Construct new Administration/Cafe Building 8 Construct Parking Structure Furst Christian Church of Huntington$each 2 July 10 2007 CUP Application Project Narrative ATTACHMENT NO 3 2 �- SZo Parking The church s parking demand is based on the assumption that it will stage three concurrent worship services in separate venues(Existing Worship Center Renovated A-frame Chapel and Multipurpose/Overdrive Building) upon the project s completion The concurrent services will generate a parking demand of 555 parking spaces as per city code This demand will be met through a combination of on-site and shared use spaces during the project construction phase and upon project completion as allowed by the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance 231 06 Shared Parking The church has entered into shared use agreements with both Smith Elementary School and Huntington Beach High School for the use of their respective parking lots Each lots location capacity and distance from the church are listed in Table B and shown in Attachment B Table B Shared Parking Lots Distance from Off Site Lot Capacity Church Feet Smith Elementary School 47 220 Huntington Beach High School 298 570 Both off-site lots wilt be used during the project construction phase to meet the church s required parking capacity A Variance Request has been filed with the city for the use of the Huntington Beach High School lot since it exceeds the city s 250 foot requirements for shared use parking The church will operate shuttles between the High School lot and its campus in order to mitigate the distance between the two The church is intends to continue to use the Smith Elementary School lot after the project s completion to meet a portion of its parking demand Table C shows how the church intends to meet its parking requirement both before and after the completion of the parking structure The parking structure will be located on a portion of the church s existing surface parking lot The number of surface parking spaces will decrease as a result of the structure Table C Final Parking Supply Parkin Ca acity Without With Parkin Lot Parkin Structure Parkin Structure FCCHB Surface Parking 404 234 FCCHB Structured Parking 299 Smith Elementary School 47 47 Huntington Beach High School 298 Total 749 580 First Chnstian Church of Huntington Beach 3 July 10 2007 CUP Applrcat on Project Narrative AT—! e INC) 3 ATTA .�---1 The peak parking period for the church and the two school lots are compatible in that the lots are not in use during Sunday mornings As a result the joint use of the lots by the church and the schools will not result in any operational conflicts Evidence of the agreements will be files with the appropriate city and county offices as required by the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance 231 06 0 The parking structure s design will meet all requirements dealing with height setbacks and screening of parked cars The parking structure s perimeter will be landscaped to screen the structure from adjacent streets and neighboring land uses It will be secured when not in use to prevent unauthorized use or activities Trip Generation A trip generation analysis prepared for this project estimates that the new facilities will generate a total of 283 new trips on Sundays of which 60 inbound and 55 outbound trips will take place during the Sunday morning peak hour This estimate was developed for the project using the Institute of Traffic Engineers(ITE)Trip Generation Manual(r Edition)and was based on a total Sunday attendance of 1 655 This number is less that the total occupancy for the three venues in which concurrent worship services will take place on Sunday mornings(existing Worship Center Renovated A-Frame Chapel and Multipurpose Building) The church agreed to reduce its maximum Sunday attendance to order to achieve a reduced number of automobile trips during the Sunday peak period The reduced attendance figures agreed upon by the church are listed in Attachment C Hours of Operation FCCHB holds three weekly worship services(Saturday 6 00 pm and Sunday 9 00 and 10 30 am) and operates a 200-student preschool during the week The church has an average weekly attendance(three services) of 2 300 and has 25 fulltime employees The church s administrative once hours are 8 30 am to 5 00 pm Monday through Friday and the preschool meets from 9 00 am to 2 00 pm Monday through Friday(September through June) The church plans to operate the new cafe/book store between the hours of 7 00 am to 9 00 pm Monday to Saturday and from 8 00 am to 7 00 pm on Sundays Weddings and related activities along with other special events held at the church will end by 10 00 pm A more detailed list of weekly church activities is contained in Attachment D Special events like weddings and funerals will typically take place in the renovated chapel As many as one wedding per week and one funeral per month may take place in this venue Both weddings and funerals may take place on any day of the week with the exception of Sundays Most weddings will be scheduled for Saturdays Any wedding and funeral with projected attendances in excess of 350 people will take place in the Worship Center although these events are uncommon and may occur on a sporadic basis first Chnsuan Churdi o{Huntmgton Beach 4 July 10 2007 CUP"ication Project Narrative ATTACHMENT NO , TT IT PSI Zz--<--z Reasons for Initiating Application The church s existing Youth Classroom and Small Chapel are both functionally and economically obsolete They do not meet the church s current or future ministry needs and the cost of retrofitting these buildings is approximately the same as constructing new ones to order for them to meet current building codes The project will upgrade the quality of the church s meeting lutchen and resource facilities consolidate the office space for the church s administration and improve the campus overall aesthetic in order to make it a more inviting and community-serving facility Neighboring land Uses FCCHB is located within a portion of the City of by Huntington Beach dominated by residential land uses Single family homes are located across I r Street Adams Avenue Main Street and Loma Avenue Worthy Park is located directly north of the intersection of Adams Avenue and 17'Street from the project site Agness L Smith Elementary School and a private home is located adjacent to and south of the project site Population Served HBCC is the largest Protestant church within the city of Huntington Beach It has a full compliment of adult youth and children ministry programs along with operating an accredited preschool program The church s attendees reside within Huntington Beach and neighboring cities of Fountain Valley Westminster Costa Mesa, and Seal Beach Hazardous Waste and Substance A Phase I Environmental Assessment Report prepared on behalf of HBCC found the site to be free of any hazardous waste or substance The report s executive summary is attached hereto First Christian Church of Huntington Beach 5 Judy 10 2007 CUPApp6catron Project Narrative ATTAR FT Attachment No 4 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL/ PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS* *applicable to potential environmental impacts SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1 Attendance/seating capacity for Sunday services shall not exceed 1 655 persons PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS I The site plan floor plans and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications a All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a mimmuni of1 5 feet from the exterior edges of the building Equipment to be screened includes but is not limited to heating air conditioning refrigeration equipment plumbing lines ductwork and transformers Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors If screening is not designed specifically into the building a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing proposed screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building pernut(s) b Energy saving lamps shall be used for all outdoor lighting All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage"onto adjacent properties The type and location of all exterior lighting shall be on the site plan and elevations c Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of HBZSO Section 23120— Bicycle Parking 2 Prior to issuance of demolition penmts the following shall be completed a The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)and any other local state or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos lead and PCB s These requirements include but are not limited to survey,identification of removal methods,containment measures use and treatment of water proper truck hauling disposal procedures and proper notification to any and all involved agencies b Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District an asbestos survey shall be completed c The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. d All asbestos shall be removed from all buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building e Applicant shall provide a consulting arbonst report on all the existing trees Said report shall 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. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for I ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent(13 -14 of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9 of brown trunk) (Resolution 4545) 3 Prior to issuance of a grading permit a Precise Grading Plan,prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval (MC 17 051ZSO 230 84) The following improvements shall be shown on the plan a Curb gutter and sidewalk along the Main Street and Adams Avenue frontages per City Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) Attachment No 4-Page 1ATI T NO �1 b Sidewalk along the 17th Street frontage per City Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) c The existing driveway approaches on Adams Avenue shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant driveway approaches per City Standard Plan No 209 or 211 (ZSO 230 84) d_ ADA compliant access ramps at the southwest corner of Main Street and Adams Avenue and at the northwest corner of Main Street and Loma Avenue per Caltrans Standard Plan A88A (ZSO 230 84 AD A) e A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the main in Adams Avenue or Loma Avenue If the new sewer lateral is not constructed at the same location as the existing lateral then the existing lateral shall be severed and capped at the main or chimney (ZSO 230 84) f All existing non-conforming water appurtenances(including meter boxes and backflow protection devices) serving the development shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards (ZSO 255 04E) g The existing domestic water services currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if they are of adequate size conform to current standards and are in working condition as determined by the Water Inspector h Alternately a new separate domestic water service(s) meter(s)and backflow protection device(s)may be installed per Water Division Standards and shall be sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code(CPC) The new domestic water service shall be a minimum of 2-mch in size (ZSO 230 84) i The existing irrigation water service(s)currently serving the existing development may potentially be utilized if they are of adequate size conform to current standards and are in working condition as determined by the Utilities Division If the property owner elects to utilize the existing water service(s) all non-conforming water meters and backflow protection devices shall be upgraded to conform to the current Water Division Standards Alternatively a new separate irrigation water service(s) meter(s)and backflow protection device(s)may be installed per Water Division Standards The new irrigation water service shall be a mimmum of 1-inch in size (ZSO 232) J A separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards The water service shall be a nummum of 1-inch in size (ZSO 232) k Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water Division Standards for domestic irrigation and fire water services serving the new building(s) (Resolution 5921 and Title 17) 1 All existing domestic water facilities(including water services meters backflow protection devices etc) that are not utilized shall be abandoned and removed per Water Division Standards (ZSO 255 04E) m If fire sprinklers are required by the Fire Department for the proposed development,a separate dedicated fire service line shall be installed (ZSO 230 84) n. The existing fire backflow protection device shall be removed and replaced with a backflow protection device that conforms to the current Water Division Standards (ZSO 230 84) o A water utility easement shall be dedicated to and accepted by the City of Huntington Beach,covering the public water facilities and appurtenances located within the project site The easement shall be a minimum total width of 10 feet clear(5 feet either side of the water pipeline or appurtenance) unobstructed paved or landscaped surface,pursuant to Water Division Standards Where access is restricted or impacted by structures walls curbs etc the easement width shall be 20 feet to allow for equipment access and maintenance operations No structures parking spaces trees curbs walls sidewalks etc,shall be allowed within the easement No modifications to the water facilities and pavement located within the easement shall be allowed without proper notification and written approval from the City in advance Such modifications may include but are not limited to connections to the water system,pavement overlay parking lot re-striping and parking lot reconfiguration Utilities Division personnel shall have access to public water facilities and appurtenances at all times Page 2 A. T T S`�! p The Property Owner(s)shall enter into a Special Utility Easement Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach for maintenance and control of the area within the public water pipeline easement which shall address repair to any enhanced pavement etc if the public water pipelines and/or appurtenances require repair or maintenance The Property Owner(s) shall be responsible for repair and replacement of any enhanced paving due to work performed by the City in the maintenance and repair of any water pipeline The Special Utility Easement Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&R s (Resolution 2003-29) q A Landscape and Imgation Plan prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval by the Public Works and Planning Departments (ZSO 232 04) r All landscape planting irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications (ZSO 232 04B) s Landscaping plans should utilize native drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible (DAMP) t The Consulting Arbonst(approved by the City Landscape Architect)shall review the final landscape tree planting plan and approve in writing the selection and locations proposed for new trees and the protection measures and locations of existing trees to remain. Said Arbonst report shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect s plans as construction notes and/or construction requirements The report shall include the Arbonst s name certificate number and the Arbonst's wet signature on the final plan (Resolution-4545) u Storm Dram Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans(SWPPP)and Water Quality Management Plans (WQMP)conforming with the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) requirements prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval (DAMP) v A SWPPP shall be prepared and updated as needed during the course of construction to satisfy the requirements of each phase of the development The plan shall incorporate all necessary Best Management Practices(BMP s)and other City requirements to eliminate polluted runoff until all construction work for the project is completed The SWPPP shall include treatment and disposal of all de- watering operation flows and for nuisance flows during construction (DAMP) w The applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under California's General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOD submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification(WDID)Number (DAMP) x A Project WQMP shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval and shall include the following • Discusses regional or watershed programs(if applicable) • Addresses Site Design BMP s (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas maximizing permeability minimizing directly connected impervious areas creating reduced or `zero discharge" areas and conserving natural areas • Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMP s as defined in the DAMP • Incorporates Treatment Control BMP s as defined in the DAMP • Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs • Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-terns operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMP s Page 3 ATTACHMENT NO ® Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMP s C Includes an Operations and Maintenance(O&M)Plan for all structural BMP s • Upon approval of the WQMP three signed copies and an electronic copy on CD(pdf or doe format) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department y A suitable location, as approved by the City shall be depicted on the grading plan for the necessary trash enclosure(s) The area shall be paved with an impervious surface designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area and screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash The trash enclosure area shall be covered or roofed Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited (DAMP) z A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading overexcavation engineered fill dewatering settlement protection of adjacent structures chemical and fill properties liquefaction,retaining walls streets and utilities (MC 17 05 150) as If soil remediation is required,a remediation plan shall be submitted to the Planning Public Works and Fire Departments for review and approval in accordance with City Specifications No 431-92 and the conditions of approval The plan shall include methods to nummize remediation-related impacts on the surrounding properties details on how all drainage associated with the remediation efforts shall be retained on site and no wastes or pollutants shall escape the site and shall also identify wind barriers around remediation equipment (N4C 17 05 150 TD Spec 431-92) bb The applicant s grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD s Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control (AQMD Rule 403) cc The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments In addition,clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein,specifically,grading activities,truck routes construction hours noise etc Signs shall include the applicant s contact number regarding grading and construction activities,and' 1-800-CUTSMOU in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No 403 dd The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading 4 Prior to issuance of an encroachment permit,Traffic Control Plans prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation{guidelines) 5 Prior to issuance of building permits the following shall be completed a Joint use parking shall require a Joint Use Parking Agreement between property owners to be recorded prior to issuance of permits or occupancy The legal instrument shall be submitted to the Planning Department a mimmum of 30 days prior to building permit issuance A copy of the legal instrument shall be approved by the City Attorney as to form and content and,when approved, shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder A copy of the recorded agreement shall be filed with the Planning Department The recorded agreement shall remain in effect in perpetuity except as modified or rescinded pursuant to the expressed written approval of the City of Huntmgton Beach Page 4 ATTACHMENT NO` lo 77- b An interim parking and 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 plan shall also be reviewed and approved by the Fire Department and Public Works Department The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works c A Mitigation Monitoring Fee shall be paid to the Planning Department (This fee pertains to projects with a negative declaration or an EIR The current fee is$285 for negative declarations and mitigated negative declarations) d All new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered by Chapter 254 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance,except for mobile home parks shall pay a park fee pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 230 20—Payment of Park Fee The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution(City of Huntington Beach Planning Department Fee Schedule) e A Precise Grading Perrmt shall be issued f Traffic impact fees for non-residential developments shall be paid at a rate of$146 per net new added daily trip The rate is subject to an annual adjustment on December 1st (MC 17 65) 6 During demolition,grading site development and/or construction the following shall be adhered to a Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions b Use low sulfur(0 5%)fuel by weight for construction equipment c Truck idling shall be prohbited for periods longer than 10 minutes 1 d Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts e Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts f Clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity g All Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code requirements including the Noise Ordinance All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction,grading remodeling,or repair shall be limited to Monday-Saturday 7 00 AM to 8 00 PM Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays h The developer shall coordinate the development of a truck haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works (MC 17 05210) i Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough to prevent dust being raised by the operations (WE-1) j All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8 00 am.or leave the site no later than 5 00 p m and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only (MC 17 05) k Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded,in the late morning and after work is completed for the day (Nk E 1/MC 17 05) i The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible (EC I) m All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas Page S ATTACHMENT NO s (oq n Prior to leaving the site all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets o Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403 particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas (AQNID Rule 403) p Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site q Remediation operations if required,shall be performed in stages concentrating in single areas at a time to mmumze the impact of fugitive dust and noise on the surrounding areas r All construction materials wastes grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils aggregates soil amendments etc shall be properly covered stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind rain tracking tidal erosion or dispersion (DAMP) 7 New structure(s)cannot be occupied the final building permit(s)cannot be approved and utilities cannot be released until the following has been completed a 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 b Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading landscape plans (VI C 17 05) c Existing curb gutter and sidewalk must be removed and replaced per City Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 Existing street tree(s)to be inspected by the City Inspector during removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof Tree replacement or root/tree protection will be specified upon the inspection of the root system_ (Resolution 4545) d All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to 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 "Smart irrigation controllers and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed (ZSO 232 04D) e Applicant shall provide City with CD media TIFF images(in City format)and CD(AutoCAD only)copy of complete City Approved landscape construction drawings as stamped Permanent File Copy' prior to starting landscape work Copies shall be given to the City Landscape Architect for permanent City record f Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices(BMP s)described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications g Demonstrate all drainage courses pipes gutters basins etc are clean and properly constructed h Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMP s described in the Project WQMP i Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers z Page 6 Attachment No 5 Summary of Mitiaati®n Measures Description of Impact Mitigation Measure The proposed project may increase the percentage of i The project shall provide (1)on-site attenuation of impervious surfaces on the site and therefore is expected to increased storm water flow and/or(2)construction of increase storm water run-off and impact downstream public capsized storm drain facilities in Main Street per the storm drain facilities City adopted 2005 Drainage Master Plan Noise generated in the children s play areas may exceed the 2 A 7-ft tall noise barrier(masonry wall)shall be City s noise limits constructed along the southerly side of the children s play areas Attachment No 5-Page I ATTACHMENT 5 (a RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008 I This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declara- tion No 06-008 This document contains information available in the public record related to Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 (First Christian Church Remodel/Expansion)as of August 8, 2007 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Envi- ronmental Quality Act(CEQA)Guidelines This document contains five sections In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments and Appendix The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06- 008 The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of August 8, 2007 The Response to Comments section con- tains responses to each comment It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 Based on the informa- tion contained in the public record, the decision-makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project II PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project The City also used other methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 1 Notice of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was published in the Hunting- ton Beach Independent on May 24,2007 Upon request,copies of the document were dis- tributed to agencies, groups,organizations, and individuals 2 Notice of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was provided by mail to prop- erty owners,interested parties, and commercial and multi-family tenants within a 500-ft radius of the project site on May 21,2007 3 Notice of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was posted at the County Re- corders Office on May 22, 2007 for a period of 20 days 4 The Comment Period for Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was extended from June 12, 2007 to July 2, 2007 Notice of the extended comment period was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on June 28, 2007 and provided by mail to property owners, interested parties,and commercial and multi-family tenants within a 500-ft radius of the project site on June 14, 2007 First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page I AT-rAf%URA1=K1T KIA �" 5 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was amended and recirculated for public comment for a period of 20 days commencing July 19, 2007 and ending August 8,2007 Notice of the Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(D-MND)No 06-008 was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on July 19, 2007 and provided by mail to property owners, interested parties, and commercial and multi-family tenants within a 500- ft radius of the project site on July 16, 2007 III COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of August 8, 2007 are contained in Appendix A of this document All comments have been numbered with the commenter's initials and are listed on the following pages Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environ- mental issue are contained in this document IV RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals The report was made available for public re- view and comment for a period of 20 days beginning on May 24, 2007 to July 2, 2007 The Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was made available for public review and comment from July 19,2007 to August 8, 2007 Copies of all comment letters received as of August 8,2007 are contained in Appendix A of this report Comments have been numbered with the commenter's initials and responses corre- spondingly numbered Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft Mitigated Nega- tive Declaration No 06-008, do not raise significant environmental issues,or request addi- tional information A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the con- text of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Such comments are responded to with a'comment acknowledged"reference This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration CEQA defines substantial evidence for purposes of supporting a fair argument triggering the need for an EIR or mitigation as follows Argument, speculation,unsubstantiated opinion or narrative, evidence which is clearly inaccu- rate or erroneous,or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not contribute to or are not caused by, physical impacts on the environment, is not substantial evidence Substantial evidence shall include facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 2 T 9 i MND NO 06-008 — COMMENT REFERNCE LIST The authors of all comments received during the public review periods, along with the corresponding reference initials used for numbering the responses, are listed below Comment Author Comment Reference Initials Austin, Ronald and M L Williams-Austin RA Blackburn,Tracy and John TB Bloomfield,Nancy and Fred NB Briers, Deborah and John DB Butland, Phyllis and Jon Rader PB Courdy, Dave DC DiBenedetto, Michele and Brian Haner MD Environmental Board ENVB Essner, Roz and Howard Ross RE Felts, Loren LF Gallagher,J W JG Gan, Deirdre and Todd DG Gelfand, Sander and Shirley SG Gray,Karen and David KG Hunt,Mathew and Kathleen MH Kent,Kyoko KK # Keisel, Richard and Jean RK Kluewer, Stephen and Karen SK Langistine, John JL Le, Kim KL Lubin,Dick DL McCurdy,Rita RM McGowan, Alan AM Peterson,Robert and Judith RP Ross, Lawrence and Donna LR Schiller,Seth SS Stafford, Steve SST Trelman, David DT Treiman, Lee LT Troxell, Ron RT Walker, Betty BW Walt,John JW t First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 3 ATTACHMENT NO APPENDIX A— RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RA1 Comment acknowledged RA2 Comment acknowledged RA3 The cafe and bookstore represent accessory uses which are permitted with approval of a conditional use permit RA4 The recirculated D-MND identifies parking structure height dimensions (28 ft to 38 ft ) consistent with the revised/current project plans and concludes no significant impact The Police Department has advised that there is no basis for concerns regarding crime in the proposed parking structure RA5 Comment acknowledged RA6 The Trip Generation Study(Kimley Hom March 2007) concluded that the proposed project would generate a less than significant increase in traffic The Exterior Noise Analysis concluded that exterior traffic noise levels would be in compliance with the City s Noise Ordinance and identified mitigation to noise impacts generated by the new children s play area The church s trash disposal service has agreed to adjust its trash collection time to 10 00 am upon the church s request in order to reduce early morn- ing noise impacts resulting from the trash collection RA7 See response to RA1 RA8 See response to RA3 RA9 See response to RA4, P132 RA10 See response to RA5 TB1 The church's peak travel period is Sunday mornings which is typically the period of least travel on local streets Additionally the projects Trip Generation Study(Kimley- Horn, March 2007) concluded that the church's weekday activities will not generate a significant number of additional trips As a result, the project will not significantly in- crease congestion on neighboring intersections during the weekday peak travel pen- ods T132 The project narrative indicates that the various activities at the church would occur be- tween the hours of 7 00 a m and 10 00 p m The uses proposed are permitted in the PS zone with approval of a conditional use permit The project site is not in nor sub- ject to the Residential Low Density zoning regulations T133 The Police Department has advised that there is no basis for concerns regarding crime in the proposed parking structure NB1 See response to RA6 First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 4 ATTAr,HMF T N DB1 See response to RA6 DB2 Comment acknowledged DB3 The project will replace existing buildings which are more than 50 years old with new buildings featuring a contemporary design Existing buildings to be demolished are not listed in the General Plan as historically significant The protect design was re- viewed by the Design Review Board and recommended for approval DB4 Comment acknowledged P131 The recirculated D-MND identifies parking structure height dimensions (28 ft to 38 ft ) consistent with the revised/current project plans PB2 The applicant has submitted a photometric plan indicating that lighting on the project site will not significantly impact adjoining properties This plan was used as the basis for the conclusions in the draft mitigated negative declaration P133 See response to RA3 PB4 The parking structure will be constructed at grade The parking structure's design con- forms to the City s Zoning Ordinance, Chapter 231 8 G Design Standards— Parking Structures which requires that parked cars at all levels be screened by landscaping and decorative screen walls Furthermore the parking structure s design was re- viewed and recommended for approval by the City s Design Review Board The Police Department has advised that there is no basis for concerns regarding crime in the pro- posed parking structure Moreover the church has indicated that the parking structure will be secured in such a way as to not allow entrance into the parking structure while not in use for church activities and will monitor the structure in order to assure against any misuse or unlawful activities PB5 The outdoor gathering area adjacent to the planned new Multipurpose building was labeled as an amphitheater on the site plan initially submitted to the City as part of the CUP application Based on the revised plans and project narrative this area will not function as an amphitheater in that the church will not program outdoor meetings or gatherings but rather is proposed to be used by both church attendees and community members as an informal gathering area on Sundays and during the week The church has agreed to not have outdoor amplified music in order to limit noise impacts on neighboring residential areas PB6 The total height of the renovated A-Frame Chapel s proposed steeple will be 96 feet including a 12-foot tall cross The steeple and renovations will improve the chapel s appearance and by extension the appearance of the entire church campus The park- ing structure will include design and landscape elements required by the City s Zoning Ordinance intended to enhance its visual quality The project will not include an am- phitheater or an outdoor sound system DC1 The parking structure is proposed at a 56 foot(landscaped) setback from the nearest residential property line to the southeast and features a solid wall with no openings on the southeast side of the structure In addition the project proposes a row of trees along the southeasterly property line intended to screen views between the parking structure and the adjacent residential property First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 5 ATTACHMENT NO -5'-71 DC2 The noise study prepared for the protect concluded that the parking structure as de- signed with a solid wall with no openings into the parking garage on the southeast side will not result in significant noise impacts to adjacent properties DC3 Comment acknowledged DC4 Comment acknowledged DC5 Comment acknowledged MD1 The Police Department has advised that there is no basis for concerns regarding crime in the proposed parking structure Moreover the church has indicated that the parking structure will be secured in such a way as to not allow entrance into the parking struc- ture while not in use for church activities and will monitor the structure in order to as- sure against any misuse or unlawful activities The church s peak Sunday morning operating period and the schools weekday peak period do not overlap Weekday ac- tivities at the church are limited to small group gatherings, church administration activi- ties the church s existing preschool the cafe and occasional special events (wed- dings and funerals) and therefore will not pose a safety risk to local school children The church has stated its intent to work with the local schools to address any safety concerns that may arise as a result of the church s operations MD2 See response to RA6 MD3 Comment acknowledged ENV131 The applicant has submitted a plan outlining proposed "green design and construc- tion methods ENV132 Comment acknowledged ENVB3 The project developer is required to submit a Project WQMP to the Public Works Department for review and approval which incorporates best management practices for minimizing runoff ENVB4 The project is subject to compliance with all applicable plumbing code water quality management plans and storm water pollution prevention plans ENV135 Comment acknowledged RE1 The revised project narrative included as an attachment to the recirculated draft nega- tive declaration includes the proposed cafe/bookstore hours(7 00 a m —9 00 p m Mon through Sat and 8 00 a m to 7 00 p m on Sunday) The noise study identified all noise sources deemed to be potentially significant RE2 The Public Works Departmetn concluded that a condition of approval limiting occu- pancy to 1 655 persons will ensure no significant traffic impacts (based on the traffic generation study prepared for the project) and that such a limit will avoid the need for additional traffic impact analysis to determine whether or not a significant traffic impact may result from a higher occupancy The occupancy limit would be enforced by the City in the same manner as all occupancy limits applicable to all assembly buildings are enforced Citywide RE3 The recirculated D-MND identifies parking structure height dimensions(28 ft to 38 ft ) consistent with the revised/current project plans RE4 The recirculated D-MND includes all pages missing from original document First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 5 TT NIA �:�---- RE5 The original site plan submitted identified a gathering area located in front of the new Multipurpose building as an amphitheater Based on the revised protect plans and narrative this area will not function as an amphitheater in that the church will not pro- gram formal outdoor events in this area or the central court Additionally the church agreed not to have outdoor amplified music on the church campus RE6 The renovated A-Framed worship center will have a new steeple along its Main Street frontage The steeple will be topped by a 12-foot cross bringing its total height to 96 feet RE7 The church currently has 431 parking spaces The church will need to provide 555 parking spaces in order to meet its parking requirements based on the City's code This demand will be met by the 234 surface spaces in the re-striped lot the 299 space garage and 47 spaces shared with Smith Elementary School This will result in a ca- pacity of 580 spaces for the Sunday morning peak period RE8 The Police Department has advised that there is no basis for concerns regarding crime in the proposed parking structure Moreover the church has indicated that the parking structure will be secured in such a way as to not allow entrance into the parking struc- ture while not in use for church activities and will monitor the structure in order to as- sure against any misuse or unlawful activities RE9 Comment acknowledged RE10 See response to RE1 RE11 See response to RE2 RE12 See response to RE3 RE13 Comment acknowledged LF1 All references to the project are inclusive of all proposed and existing-to-remain structures and uses LF2 Comment acknowledged LF3 Comment acknowledged LF4 Comment acknowledged LF5 Comment acknowledged LF6 The City has no record of prior code violations or noise complaints associated with the church LF7 Comment acknowledged LF8 Comment acknowledged LF9 The church will have no outdoor sound system JG1 Comment acknowledged JG2 The project will result in an increase in the amount of open space on the church cam- pus as well as upgrading its quality through a series of urban design and landscaping improvements The design and colors of the new buildings were approved by the - church and reviewed and recommended for approval by the city s Design Review Board First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 7 A`TAT NO JG3 The parking structure will not contribute to increased traffic on local streets but rather is required to meet the church s parking requirements The Trip Generation Study prepared for this protect (Kimley-Hom March 2007) concluded that the protect would not generate a significant number of additional trips during the church s Sunday morn- ing peak period or during weekdays JG4 Comment acknowledged DG1 Comment acknowledged DG2 The project s Trip Generation Study(Kimley-Hom March 2007) indicates that the pro- tect will result in an increased assembly capacity of 185 This same study concluded that the project would not generate a significant number of additional trips during its Sunday morning peak period DG3 The outdoor gathering area adjacent to the planned new Multipurpose Building was initially labeled as an amphitheater" in the entitlement drawing set submitted to the City This area is proposed to function as an informal gathering area and will not be used to stage organized events Furthermore the church has agreed as part of the project s Noise Study (Kimley-Horn April 2007)to not have outdoor amplified music The cafe will be an indoor facility complete with seating Outdoor seating will be pro- vided adjacent to the cafe in the central court The noise study concluded that the outdoor gathering areas will not be significant noise sources DG4 See response to PB4 DG5 Comment acknowledged SG1 Comment acknowledged SG2 The church is subject to compliance with applicable parking requirements entitlement conditions of approval, mitigation measures etc at all times Violations of applicable codes, conditions of approval mitigation measures may result in the revocation of the conditional use permit SG3 Comment acknowledged SG4 Comment acknowledged Also see response to RA3, DG3 SG5 Traffic and noise studies were completed for the proposed project by qualified engi- neers The studies concluded that the project will not result in significant traffic or noise impacts SG6 Comment acknowledged SG7 Comment acknowledged KG1 The parking structure's design conforms to Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance Chap- ter 231 18 G which requires structures to provide a 10-foot-wide perimeter landscape planter and to screen all parked cars on each level with landscaping or decorative screen walls The parking structure s design was reviewed and approved by the Hunt- ington Beach Design Review Board The church has indicated that access to the parking structure will be limited to Sunday mornings and other church related functions that require its use that gates will be placed at the structure s entrances which will be locked when the structure is not in use and that the church will monitor the parking structure in order to assure that no unlawful activities occur within the structure First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 8 ATTACHMENT NO KG2 The proposed Administration/Cafe building is 2 stones not 3 stones The operation of the cafe was analyzed in the projects Trip Generation Study(Kimsey-Horn March 2007) as part of the church s weekday operations The cafe will not serve as an as- sembly area for Sunday worship services therefore it was not included in the analysts of the Sunday peak hour trip generation Based on this analysis the project will gener- ate a traffic impact deemed to be less than significant by the City The project s Exte- nor Noise Analysis (Kimsey-Horn April 2007)found that vehicular traffic construction and demolition the children s play area amplified music and the parking structure are the only potentially significant noise sources that the project would generate The church agreed to not have outdoor amplified music as a result of this analysis Con- sequently the cafe s operation is not anticipated to generate a significant noise im- pact The church states that the cafe will be open between the hours of 7 00 am to 9 00 pm Monday through Saturday and 8 00 am to 7 00 pm on Sundays All church activities will end by 10 00 pm KG3 The area previously identified in the proposed site plan as an amphitheater will not function as such but rather will be an informal outdoor gathering area The church will not program formal outdoor gathering in this pace nor have amplified outdoor music The children s play areas will have a 7-foot tail sound barrier wall along their Loma Avenue frontage in order to mitigate potential noise impacts KG4 Comment acknowledged KG5 Comment acknowledged KG6 Comment acknowledged Although CEQA does not dictate the precise format re- quired for an initial study the initial study must contain certain information to satisfy le- gal requirements The City has adopted an initial study checklist which is consistent with the sample environmental checklist form included in the CEQA guidelines and which satisfies the legal requirements of CEQA KG7 The predominate height of the parking structure will be 28 feet, a height which is gen- erally compatible with that of a typical two story single-family dwelling The parking structure is proposed to be constructed at the existing parking lot grade and not on a hill or to-be-elevated grade MH1 The proposed bookstore hours are 7 00 am to 9 00 pm Monday through Saturday and 8 00 am to 7 00 pm on Sundays The Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declara- tion includes a statement on the proposed bookstore hours in the project description MH2 The recirculated D-MND identifies parking structure height dimensions (28 ft to 38 ft ) consistent with the revised/current project plans MH3 See response to RE8 MH4 See response to DG2 DT21 MH5 The project's construction is anticipated to last 24 months The noise study prepared for this project (Kimsey-Hom April 2007) indicates that compliance with all provisions of the City s Municipal Code (Section 8 40 090(b))will mitigate negative impacts result- ing from the projects construction KK1 Comment acknowledged KK2 See response to SG5 RE8 MD1 First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 9 ATTAR T O 7S` KK3 The City s Design Review Board reviewed the protect s design and recommended it for approval at its May 10 2007 meeting The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration does not support the assertion that the project will negatively affect the value of surrounding properties and no evidence to the contrary has been presented KK4 Comment acknowledged RK1 Comment acknowledged SK1 Comment acknowledged SK2 The church held a community meeting to advise surrounding residents of proposed plans for the church expansion and remodel in August 2006 and provided notice of the meeting to property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the protect site at the request of City staff The City has not issued permits for the project SK3 The proposed cafe and bookstore are intended primarily to support church functions and not as stand alone commercial enterprises in a similar manner that a cafeteria serves a school The cafe and bookstore will be operated by the church and not a separate commercial entity The property is not zoned residential SK4 The church will secure the parking structure in order to restrict access into the struc- ture while it is not in use with roil-up gates as depicted on the protect plans The park- ing structure has been designed to minimize visual impacts to neighboring properties by limiting in large part its height to approximately one-half of the site s 50-foot limit and by providing generous set backs from neighboring residential properties The parking structure will provide sufficient parking to meet the church s parking require- ments per the City's codes There are no parking restrictions on neighboring public streets (Adams Ave 17th St Main St and Loma Ave ) The church may work with its neighbors to develop a "good neighbor' program that would encourage its members to not park in residential streets on Sunday mornings Church attendees parking on the structures top level will only have to go down two levels not three as stated in the comment SK5 Comment acknowledged SK6 The City issued permits to remove existing temporary classroom buildings only SK7 CEQA does not require that the City verify consistency between plans submitted to the City and plans independently posted by First Christian Church on their website A copying error occurred during the initial printing of Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 The City distributed only a few copies before the error was corrected but it appears that additional copies were distributed by others The error was subse- quently corrected and the comment period was extended an additional 20 days fol- lowed by recirculation of an amended Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 and an additional 20-day public comment period SK8 See response to RE8 KG1 SK9 A remnant portion of a public roadway easement exists along the south side of the property adjacent to San Nicolas Circle which extends from the terminus of Loma Ave approximately 100 ft west The Public Works Department has initiated the proc- ess to vacate this easement There are no public roadway easements in place which allow traffic flow between Loma Ave and 17th Street First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 10 _ SK10 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was prepared by City staff and is sup- ported by a traffic generation analysis prepared by a licensed traffic engineer which ' concludes that a condition of approval limiting occupancy to 1 655 persons will ensure no significant traffic impacts SK11 The City does not have codes or ordinances which require that use of the site be lim- ited to a non-profit use and has no authority under the law to require that the church maintain non-profit' status The for-profit or non-profit status of the church has im- plications for tax assessment purposes only and is not a matter subject to land use regulation or impact analysis under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act The church has historically operated a pre-school which generates profit for the church and the proposed cafe and bookstore are permitted as accessory uses to a religious assembly use The church has eliminated their proposal for an amphi- theater JL1 See response to RE7 The church proposes to provide parking in excess of the mini- mum required by code at all times The church is requesting approval of joint use parking which would allow parking spaces at HB High School to meet in part the mini- mum parking requirements for the church until such time as the parking structure is completed JL2 See response to KG2 KL1 None of the new buildings contained in this protects scope (Children's Multipurpose or Administration/Cafe), or the renovated A-Frame Chapel will consist of three stones These buildings will each have, at most a second story Also see response to RE8 } KG1 PB5, DC2 MD1 DL1 In an effort to improve parking and traffic conditions along Loma Ave and St Nicholas Circle, the preschool is proposed to be relocated into the new Children s building This building will not have any entrances off of Loma Ave as does the current building This will make it more convenient for parents to drop off or pick up their children from the church parking lot Additionally, there will be no direct pedestrian access from Loma Ave to the children s building The church will advise its attendees not to park on Loma Ave or St Nicholas Circle on Sunday mornings in order to reduce any im- pact on the community during its peak Sunday operating period The City does not al- low the church to place signs of any kind on public streets The church has stated its intent to advise its attendees to not park on neighboring residential streets DL2 The church is required to comply with all applicable City codes and ordinances in plan- ning and building this protect The City has neither received nor been granted any special consideration for this protect DU The completed protect will have a parking demand of 555 spaces based on the City's code This required capacity will be met by reconfiguring the existiT surface parking lot, shared use of the Smith Elementary School parking lot along 17 Street and the construction of a single 299 space three-level parking structure DL4 Comment acknowledged RM1 Comment acknowledged Also see response to SK3 AM1 Comment acknowledged AM2 See response to TB1 RE2 RE7 First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 11 ATTArHMFNT Nn SS -71 AM3 Comment acknowledged RP1 Comment acknowledged Also see response to RA6 DC1 DC2 SK4 DT21 LR1 The outdoor amphitheater tower and pop jet fountains are not part of the current pro- posal LR2 See response to SK3 RE1 LR3 Comment acknowledged LR4 See response to RE2 SG5 DG2 LR5 See response to TB3 PB4 DC1 DC2 MD1 SS1 See response to RE2 SG5 DG2 DT21 SS2 See response to MD1 SS3 Comment acknowledged SST1 The church has entered into a contractual agreement with Huntington Beach High School for the shared use of its southern parking lot consisting of 298 spaces This agreement is limited to Sunday mornings only as the lot will be required to support school activities during week days The church will file an agreement for review with the City as required by City code The executed agreement between the church and Huntington Beach High School for the use of its south parking lot is for Sunday morn- ings only The church s parking lot will be used to accommodate wedding parties and other special events The church is working with the high school and City to determine if the executed contract between the church and the high school allows the church to use Estate Circle to access the lot on Sunday mornings The high school will allow access to the south lot from Main Street if it is determined that the church will not be able to access the lot from Estate Circle SST2 See response to PB4 SST3 The church secured the services of independent consultants to produce technical studies to assess the project s potential impacts on its surroundings as directed by the City The City incorporated the findings of these studies into the projects environ- mental assessment The assessment identifies specific mitigation measures required of the church in order to lessen the project's potential impact on the community The church has agreed to incorporate these mitigations in the projects scope SST4 The demolition activities that occurred on church property were limited to removal of temporary classroom buildings paving and landscaping The church obtained a demolition permit for this specific activity No further demolition or construction activi- ties will take place on the project site until the church secures the required demolition and construction permits from the City The church has stated its intent to notify its neighbors in advance of any future construction activities that will take place on the church property DT1 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 was amended to address plan revi- sions omissions and errors properly advertised and recirculated for a 20-day public review and comment period First Chnstian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 12 ATTACHMENT NOs DT2 The amended/current plans and protect narrative included as attachments to Draft f Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 include the bookstore and the proposed k hours DT3 See response to KG2 KG3 DT4 See response to DT1 DT5 See response to DT2 DT6 The Tidal Plaza represents a passive open space not intended for formal gatherings or events and therefore does not represent a significant noise source DT7 See response to DT1 DT8 See response to DT1 DT9 See response to DT1 DT10 See response to SK7 DT11 See response to DT1 DT12 The Little Squirts Court is located in excess of 150 feet from any other property The noise study did not identify this space as a significant noise source DT13 See response to PB5 DT14 The protect does not propose an outdoor sound system DT15 See response to SK3 The comment states that mitigation should be required but does not identify what impacts warrant mitigation DT16 The proposed cafe and bookstore are approximately 2 817 sq ft (kitchen and dining area combined) and 943 sq ft respectively The protect proposal includes an outdoor dining area outside of the proposed cafe DT17 See response to RE1 DT18 See response to DT44 DT19 The Traffic Generation Study prepared for the protect acknowledges that the proposed protect includes a cafe and resource center(i e , bookstore) The study did not identify these uses as significant traffic generators The study considers the peak traffic gen- eration for the proposed protect and concludes that the protect as proposed, will not generate a significant traffic impact DT20 The tower feature on the proposed Cafe/Adman building represents an area which is approximately 24 ft by 24 ft and constitutes only a small fraction of the building area volume The 42 ft height dimension represents the height of the peak of a pitched roof and a height which is 16% lower than the maximum height permitted in the zone (50 ft ) This architectural feature provides visual interest and vaned roof lines consis- tent with the City's Urban Design Guidelines Based on these factors and the recom- mendation for approval by the Design Review Board the height of the tower was de- termined to not represent a significant aesthetic impact r DT21 An air quality analysis was prepared for the proposed protect by an independent con- ;- sulting firm The analysis concluded that there would be no significant operational air quality impacts associated with the proposed protect The CEQA Air Quality Hand- book Projects of Significance Table lists restaurants in excess of 23 000 sq ft as re- First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 13 ATTACHMENT N � 7� suiting in a potentially significant air quality impact The combined floor area of the proposed cafe and kitchen including storage areas is 2 817 sq ft DT22 Mitigation measures are appropriate only where the Environmental Assessment con- cludes that significant environmental impacts will result from the proposed project The application of mitigation measures to other completely dissimilar protects (i e Target Walmart) does not serve as a basis to require mitigation measures for the pro- posed project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 concluded that poten- tially significant impacts may result in the areas of noise and hydrology and identifies appropriate mitigation measures Moreover CEQA does not mandate similar mitiga- tion for all similar protects DT23 See response to DT1 DT24 The plans reviewed in conjunction with Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06- 008 and the requested entitlements represent conceptual plans and are not intended nor required to represent detailed working drawings with precise details for all protect features Notwithstanding the heights of all proposed buildings are noted on the pro- ject plans and the proposed operating hours are identified in the project narrative and in Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 A submitted photometric plan ad- dresses on-site lighting and the church has indicated their intent to secure the parking structure when not in use with roll-up gates as noted on the project plans DT25 The noise analysis report prepared for the project identified weddings church ser- vices meetings and daycare as proposed uses and concluded that these activities would not generate significant noise related impacts DT26 The church would be permitted use of the property consistent with the approved condi- tion use permit and the approved plans Temporary outdoor special events may also be permitted in accordance with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance via the issuance of temporary activity permits and/or temporary use permits DT27 The church use would be subject to compliance with all conditions and provisions of an approved conditional use permit Provisions of conditional use permits along with applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code are enforced by the Code Enforcement Division of the Planning De- partment The City investigates all complaints received and issues notices of violation and administrative citations as necessary A conditional use permit may be revoked by the Planning Commission based on violations of conditions of approval or City codes DT28 The fact that the applicant initially proposed to amend their existing entitlements and later as the scope of the protect changed opted to file a new conditional use permit application is not a matter that must be addressed by the draft negative declaration since it does not raise significant environmental issues DT29 Comment acknowledged The project will be required to comply with the City s Noise Ordinance which species hours for construction for residential areas DT30 See response to DT1 DT31 Comment acknowledged DT32 See response to DT1 First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 14 ATTTArHMPg T Nn DT33 The requested CUP is not available for public review because it has not been granted (i e there is no CUP to review) However the CUP application file is and has been available to anyone who requests to review it The CUP staff report is available six days prior to the public hearing DT34 See response to RE5 DT1 DT35 Technical studies submitted by the applicant were reviewed by City staff The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City s independent judgment of potential impacts associated with the proposed project Although the Planning Commission may impose conditions of approval which are more restrictive than applicable code re- quirements and/or mitigation measures to address issues of concern there is no such law or ordinance that requires more restrictive requirements moreover there is no ac- cepted planning principal or general rule-of-thumb that suggests that all projects re- quinng a conditional use permit shall arbitrarily be subject to requirements that are more restrictive than the Code In fact the converse is generally the accepted prac- tice that is that applicable codes and ordinances are adequate to protect public, health safety and welfare and that more restrictive requirements would be applied on a case-by-case basis as appropriate to address unique circumstances The analysis completed for the proposed project is comparable to that prepared for other church master plan projects and the City believes that adequate information is available to assess potential impacts Upon learning of inconsistencies and/or missing informa- tion the City revised and recirculated the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration DT36 See response to RE5 DT35 DT37 The pop jet fountains which were part of the original project proposal have been eliminated from the amended/current project proposal Mitigation in the form of a block wall along the southerly side of the designed play areas located near the south- erly property line is suggested due to the proximity of the residents to the south A sound wall is not needed along the north side of the play areas because the nearest adjacent property to the north is located at a distance in excess of 300 feet(approxi- mately twice the distance of the nearest adjacent property to the south) DT38 See response to P135 DT39 An outdoor dining area is proposed adjacent to the proposed cafe Also see response to KG2 DT40 The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) defines `significant effect on the envi- ronment' as "a substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project " Therefore the conclusion of the noise study that design features of the parking structure will reduce noise to levels similar to the current condition and therefore that no significant noise impacts associated with the parking structure will result is based on a proper application of CEQA and a proper interpreta- tion of significance" Also see PB4 MD1 DC2 DT41 The noise study prepared for the protect identifies all noise sources deemed to be po- tentially significant Also see response to DT26 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 need not consider unauthorized activities by others that are not intended or proposed in conjunction with the project Also see response to DT27 DT42 The Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance establishes standards for noise levels in resi- dential zones which are distinct from standards in non-residential zones Permitted First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 15 ATTACHMENT N noise levels are established with the intent to protect public health safety and welfare are deemed to be acceptable community noise standards and therefore serve as thresholds of significance for purposes of noise impact analysis The noise analysis prepared for the project applies the noise standards that are applicable to the project based on the surrounding land uses The geotechnical study prepared for the project concludes that the foundations for the proposed development may be supported on shallow footings established in com- pacted fill or competent native terrace deposits The geotechnical study does not identify the need for deep foundations mat foundations quasi-ngid foundations, or other ground modification such as stone columns or compaction grouting which would result in excessive ground borne vibration See response to RA6 The noise study prepared for the project includes an analysis of traffic related noise which concludes that the increase in traffic generated by the project would result in a sound variation from the existing condition which is not de- tectable by the average human ear, and therefore that the project-generated traffic noise level increase is not significant DT43 The project plans indicate that the trash enclosure will remain at its current/existing location See response to DT40 Also see response to RA6 A cumulative impact analysis requirement under CEQA requires that the lead agency determine whether a significant impact will result from the cumulative impact of all noise sources resulting from the proposed project The California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) defines significant effect on the environment as a substantial adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project " Since the noise _ analysis concludes that the proposed project will not generate significant noise im- pacts and trash collection noise at the site represents the existing condition, no cumu- lative impacts were identified Also the church has indicated its intent to replace its trash containers with ones that have rubber lids in order to reduce the noise they make during trash collection The church decided to not relocate the trash enclosure from its current location adjacent to the Worship Center along Adams Avenue because they are almost completely hidden from public view at this location and relocating them to another part of the campus would not eliminate any noise generated by trash collec- tion but instead shift it to another part of the church campus where it would potentially be located closer to other residences DT44 Supplies are currently delivered to the church on a regular basis The floor plan for the proposed Administrative/Cafe budding shows a receiving area accessible via a stan- dard, swinging door There is no roll-up door loading dock or truck access to the budding which is separated from vehicular access ways by a curb and raised walk- way Nothing in the project plans or the nature of the proposed use suggests that large trucks nighttime deliveries an excessive number of deliveries or environmental impacts may result from deliveries to the proposed site The comment requests miti- gation but does not identify what impact needs mitigation DT45 See response to DT28 The proposed project and requested entitlements if ap- proved would supersede any prior entitlements The City is required to consider the requested application as a new application Conditions associated with prior entitle- ments and pertaining to buildings proposed to be demolished and uses that are pro- posed to be modified need not be considered as part of an environmental assessment of the proposed project Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 analyzes the First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 16 proposed project it does not reanalyze a previously approved protect The Design Review Board does not make formal findings in conjunction with its review of protects DT45a The amended/current plans eliminated a 64 ft tall tower depicted on previous plan submittals All of the proposed and existing-to-remain buildings comply with the 50 ft height limit applicable in the PS zone with the exception of the 96 ft tall steeple and cross addition proposed for the existing Chapel—which may exempted from the 50 ft height lima pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 230 72— Exceptions to Height Limits The parking structure proposed in conjunction with the church master plan is a permitted use on the subject site The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration analyzes potential Impacts associated with the structure in accordance with CEQA See Response to DC1 KG1 KG7 DT45b See response to PB2 DT45c See response to DT88 DT97 DT45d See response to DT88 DT45e Pursuant to the provisions of CEQA if the Initial study Identifies potentially significant effects on the environment but revisions in the project plans or restrictions agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effect mitigation measures are not required to ad- dress the otherwise potentially significant Impact The applicant has agreed to and is proposing to limit concurrent attendance as recommended by the traffic generation analysis in order to avoid the need for further traffic Impact analysis that would deter- mine whether or not traffic related Impacts may otherwise result A condition of ap- proval limiting concurrent attendance as proposed by the applicant is recommended by staff DT45f The protect as proposed provides parking in excess of the minimum required by Code Moreover, no evidence has been presented which would suggest the City s parking standard is Inadequate DT46 Comment acknowledged The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department which em- ploys hazardous materials experts has reviewed the proposed protect and determined that standard City requirements applicable to capped oil wells and methane provides adequate protection to ensure no associated significant environmental Impacts DT47 See response to RE8 DT48 The potential for flood related Impacts has been analyzed by the City's engineers and appropriate standard mitigation is suggested The conclusions and suggested mitiga- tion measures are based on expert analysis, engineering science and available data with respect to the adequacy of the existing storm drain system DT48a The amended/current plans depict the location of the trash enclosure serving the pro- tect site at its current existing location As noted in Draft Mitigated Negative Declara- tion No 06-008 the developer will be required to submit a Water Quality Management Plan and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan which address potential sources of pol- lutants on site including the trash enclosure DT49 See response to DT44 The entire public record associated with the proposed project is and has been made available for public inspection upon request First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 17 ATTArt4hA;:NT Nn DT50 See response to DT21 The City has adopted the AQMD s thresholds as its own thresholds of significance for purposes of environmental impact analysis Also see re- sponse to DT27 DT51 See responses to DT30— DT50 DT52 See response to DT1 DT53 See response to DT2 DT54 See response to DT3 DT55 See response to DT4 DT56 See response to DT5 DT57 See response to DT6 DT58 See response to DT7 DT59 See response to DT8 DT60 See response to DT9 DT61 See response to DT10 DT62 See response to DT11 DT63 See response to SK7 DT64 See response to DT12 DT65 See response to DT13 DT66 See response to DT14 DT67 See response to DT15 DT68 See response to DT16 DT69 See response to DT17 DT70 See response to DT18 DT71 See response to DT19 DT72 See response to DT20 DT73 See response to DT21 DT74 See response to DT22 DT75 See response to DT23 DT76 See response to DT24 DT77 See response to DT25 DT78 See response to DT26 DT79 See response to DT27 DT80 See response to DT28 DT81 See response to DT29 DT82 Comment acknowledged First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page l8 ATTACHMENT NO S''d4 DT83 The California Environmental Quality Act requires an Environmental Impact Report when there is substantial evidence that the protect may produce significant adverse environmental impacts The size or scope of the protect alone does not serve as a basis to require an environmental impact DT84 See response to D133 DT85 Whether the proposed cafe is or is not comparable to a Starbucks is not a basis to de- termine whether or not the protect may have significant adverse environmental im- pacts Provisions of CEQA are such that each protects potential to generate signifi- cant adverse environmental impacts is evaluated independently CEQA does not re- quire or suggest that mitigation measures applied to one protect shall or should be arbitrarily applied to any other DT86 Comment acknowledged DT87 Comment acknowledged DT88 The comment states that there is currently both excessive traffic and speeding on Ad- ams Avenue Generally, excessive traffic and speeding do not co-exist and there is no evidence presented to support that either of these conditions predominate Moreover, under the provisions of CEQA the applicant is not required to mitigate existing condi- tions The protect does not propose any roadway improvements or modifications which "divert traffic from Loma to Adams and to 17th However the entrance to the Children's building will be relocated (relative to the existing Children's building) in part to encourage access to the building via the church s parking lot instead of via (on- street parking on) Loma Avenue which may reduce vehicular traffic to and from the site along Loma Avenue Also see responses to RA6 T131, RE2 DT89 See response to DT21 The State has not made any findings that the proposed pro- tect may have a potentially significant air quality impact nor made any other findings or comments concerning the proposed protect DT90 The protect does not propose an amphitheater, outdoor sound system parties picnics concerts use of the parking lot for play sports activities or unauthorized uses such as fireworks and auto racing Use of leaf blowers on the site is subject to compliance with the City's leaf blower ordinance The proposed parking areas are consistent with the existing parking areas and therefore are not anticipated to generate additional noise impacts No change to the location of the existing trash enclosure is proposed DT91 See response to PB5 DT92 The applicant has stated that no outdoor sound system will be installed CEQA de- fines substantial evidence for purposes of supporting a fair argument triggering the need for an EIR or mitigation as follows Argument speculation unsubstantiated opinion or narrative evidence which is clearly inaccurate or erroneous or evidence of social or economic impacts which do not con- tribute to or are not caused by physical impacts on the environment is not substantial evidence Substantial evidence shall include facts reasonable assumptions predi- cated upon facts and expert opinion supported by facts f DT93 The Little Squirt s Court is located at a distance of approximately 250 feet from any ad- jacent property in a court yard area central to the church campus The noise study prepared for the project indicates that children's play areas were analyzed and sug- First Christian Church—MND No 0"08 August 15 2007 Page 19 ATTAry ;MF: T NO ���� gests mitigation for those areas deemed to present potentially significant noise im- pacts DT94 See response to RA3 RE1 MH1 SK3 SK11 DT16 DT95 See response to DT16 DT96 Notwithstanding the applicants request which specifies the proposed hours of opera- tion for the bookstore (see response to RE1) and various other uses on the site(see response to TB2) there are currently no restrictions on the proposed project, since the proposed project has not been approved Any restrictions applicable to the project would be imposed by the Planning Commission, at a public hearing in conjunction with the approval of the project DT97 The Trip Generation Study(Kimley Horn March 2007) concluded that the proposed project would generate a less than significant increase in traffic The study was peer reviewed by the Public Works Department which concluded accordingly that no fur- ther traffic impact analysis is warranted DT98 The amended/current protect plans include height dimensions for all proposed build- ings and were made available for public review and comment for a minimum of 20 days Also see response to DT20 DT99 See response to DT21 DT100 The California Environmental Quality Act requires mitigation when there is substantial evidence that the protect may produce significant adverse environmental impacts The study concludes that mitigation is necessary to address certain noise and hydrology r related impacts Those aspects of the project which have been determined to not generate significant adverse environmental impacts do not require mitigation DT101 The church would be permitted to conduct all activities which are authorized by the conditional use permit For example, the applicant is proposing to have weddings and funerals concluding no later than 10 00 p m Accordingly if the applicant s request is approved weddings and funeral concluding no later than 10 00 p m would be permit- ted unless otherwise prohibited or restricted by conditions of approval Uses which are not approved as part of the conditional use permit would not be permitted The City may also approve Temporary Activity Permits and Temporary Use Permits for cer- tain other special events pursuant to the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance DT102 See response to TB2 DT27 DT103 Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 and the noise study prepared for the project includes an analysis of construction related noise impacts Whether a con- struction project of similar duration is or is not"common" (however this term may be defined) is not a basis for determining whether or not the proposed project may have an environmental impact The City may impose restrictions on construction hours which are more restrictive than the City s ordinance as a condition of approval DT104 An air quality analysis was prepared for the proposed project by an independent con- sulting firm The analysis concluded that there would be no significant operational air quality impacts associated with the proposed project Also see DT50 DT105 Comment acknowledged First Christian Church—MND No 06-008 August 15 2007 Page 20 ATTArHM T N , 43(a LT1 Comment acknowledged Also see response to DT14 RT1 See response to RE4 RE5 BW1 Comment acknowledged BW2 Comment acknowledged BW3 See response to RE2 BW4 Comment acknowledged JW1 Comment acknowledged First Christian Church—MND No 06 008 August 15 2007 Page 21 ATTAruRA SIT NO S��3) 1706 ` -)ley St Huntington Beach CA 92648 29 June 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main St AN 2 9 2007 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos This letter is an addendum to our letter of 8 June, 2007 1 have reviewed the modified plans for the First Christian Church project at 1207 Main St that you provided me yesterday There are several areas of concern I The arclutectural design theme,with the exception of the chapel, is not in keeping with the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood It appears in general to be more appropriate for a shopping mall than a neighborhood church 1�2 2 There are outdoor play areas that we were told would be removed 3 A full kitchen cafe and a retail bookstore are still included These are commercial (� 3 in nature and would appear to be a clear zoning violation 4 The parking structure is considerably higher than the value(24')that you used when you determined that it had no significant negative impact The structure has towers of 32 and 40 and a shear wall of 28' in height These heights combined with the fact that the structure is sited on the highest elevation on the r—Aq property give maximum negative impact on sightluies and aesthetics These issues,the concentration of traffic and the safety problems which accompany all parking structures(crime,drugs,teen hangouts)make thus structure totally inappropriate for inclusion in a residential neighborhood' I note that the parking structure is only required to accommodate the peak parking 7 requirements for concurrent services in the existing worship center and replacement venues By the varied nature of the activities planned in the various venues,it would seem highly unlikely that they all would be full at the same tune Herein lies a simple solution to the parking issue If the FCC would take steps(multiple services, staggered tunes for events etc), as many other churches have done,their current surface parking and arrangement with Smith school would provide more than adequate parking This would cause no apparent problem for FCC the majority of the time and at most be a minor inconvenience on occasion In addition,this would reduce the peak traffic problems and have the added bonus of saving the parisioners lot of money) Thank you for giving these comments your attention Respectfully, Ronald R. Austin and M L Williams-Austin ATTACHMENT NO �� 1706 Shipley St Huntington Beach CA 92648 8 June 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos This letter is to express our opposition to the proposed expansion by the First Christian Church at 1207 Main St, Huntington Beach We already suffer daily from excessive noise and traffic at that site due to trash collection school activities and frequent other functions The proposal for a major expansion and in particular,a multi-level parking structure in the midst of a residential `- area are very disturbingi The planned expansion would change this facility further into a commercial enterprise far removed from the concept of a neighborhood church, Please be aware that we will take all possible steps to prevent tlus expansion from going forward as planned and destroymg what ambiance and tranquility we have left in our neighborhood Respectfully, (Ronald R Austin &M L Williams-Austin) ATTACHMENT NO �` � 1706 Shipley St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 July 27 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos This letter is regarding the modified plans for the First Christian Church(FCC) project at 1207 Main St in Huntington Beach There are still many areas of concerns I The architectural design theme with the exception of the chapel, is more appropriate for a shopping mall than a neighborhood church and does not blend with the aesthetics of 1 � the surrounding neighborhoods 2 A full kitchen cafe and a retail bookstore are still included These are commercial in nature, are inappropriate for a residential neighborhood and must be a clear zoning violation 3 The modified(slightlyl) parking structure is still destined to be a major eyesore It is sited on the highest elevation on the property and as such will have maximum negative impact on sightlmes and aesthetics In addition, the hghting that will be necessary for the structure does not appear to be covered in the plans These issues the concentration of traffic and the safety issues which accompany all parking structures(crime drugs,teen hangouts)make this structure totally inappropriate for inclusion in a residential neighborhood I seriously question your judgment that this structure would have no or minimal impact on the environment) The impact would be major and contmuouso I note that the parking structure is only required to accommodate the peak parking requirements for concurrent activities in the existing worship center and replacement venues The varied nature of the venues would make it unlikely that all would be full to capacity at the same time It would seem to be a simple accommodation for FCC to , stagger services and venue scheduling (as other churches do) so that the existing surface parking and the arrangement with Smith school would continue to meet city requirements This would have the added bonus of reducing peak traffic congestion and the accompanying noise and pollution_ Please give these comments your serious attention Respectfully, Ronal Austin and M.I, Williams-Austin AUG -2 Z001 ATTACHMENT NO " D City of Huntington Beach John and Tracy Blackburn 1717 Aspenwood Lane JUN 15 Z007 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ron Santos June 12 2007 Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos We recently received your letter regarding the proposal by First Christian Church to expand and reconstruct their existing church complex and the impact that it might have on our neighborhood We live on Aspenwood Lane thus one of our biggest concerns is traffic and the related problems of congestion and noise The intersections at 17"'and Adams and Adams and Main Street are already at capacity during the morning and afternoon rush I would like to invite members of the planning commission to try and exit our small street on to Adams Ave between 8 00am and 8 45am on any weekday morning t can tell you it is quite stressful if not borderline unsafe Adams Ave from 17'h to Main can barely handle the current traffic count Think what a mess it will be with a three level parking structure and a 24/7 venue which the church is proposing As neighbors of the church we have no problem with a remodel and an expansion to accommodate more parishioners It sounds like however that First Christian wants to expand ` traditional church activities to a 24J7 venue that goes beyond what our residential and low density zoning would permit A three story parking structure cannot in anyway contribute to the aesthetics of a residential neighborhood Additionally,the city needs to consider the safety and crime issues that are related to an open parking structure We hope that these concerns can be addressed by the city and that First Christian can be persuaded to scale back it s overly ambitious expansion plans Sincerely, 4JoWackburmn Tracy Blackburn ATTACHMENT NUO Ron Santos, Associate Planner t City of Huntington Beach Planning Deparment 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 We, Fred and Nancy Bloomfield, 19728 Seashore Circle, H B , are writing to protest the construction of a parking structure on the First Christian A Church property A multi--level parking stucture is not an appropriate use of land located in a residential area It will increase traffic on Seventeenth Street and increase the noise level of the area We hope the Planning Commission and the City Council will not allow this project to go forward Thank You, Nancy& Fred Bloo field 19728 Seashore Circle HB City of Hunbngion Bea,, JUN 2 6 2007 ATTACHMENT NO �2--- P '001A o John&Deborah Sners 7312 Veenng Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 536-2947 Cry C) � 3 , ' 3'i June 27 2007 JUN 2 9 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re First Christian Church Reconstruction and Expansion Project Dear Mr Santos Our home on Veering Circle is directly across from the parking lot at First Christian Church Like many of our neighbors, we are concerned primarily about the expansion of this neighborhood church Regardless of the zoning FCC is sandwiched between single-family homes and schools and any expansion needs to recognize the limitations of their site My primary concern is traffic With kids at Smith Dwyer and Huntington Beach High School, my children and I walk across 17"'multiple times on a daily basis(at Adams) and any increase in activity will impact a traffic situation that is already very dangerous While I also intend to contact the HB Police Department something needs to be done to improve pedestrian safety at this intersection Cars barely stop at all rushing to break between pedestrians and pay little attention to the crosswalk. My six-year-old daughter and I have been almost hit several times crossing there because people are rushing and not paying any attention to people in the crosswalk The church s intended coffee and gift shop would bring additional car trips through that intersection at peak hours Any expansion would further aggravate a dangerous situation I am relieved that the church has willingly agreed to scale back their plans with regard to the outdoor amphitheater and tower, however, a three-story parking structure has no place in a residential neighborhood Especially when peak church hours coincide with times when the neighbonri9 school parking 14ts are empty which wQald Make a $hared parking $1Wabgn ideal I am also concerned that the overall architectural aesthetic is too commercial for our residential neighborhood The surrounding homes and schools are primarily historical in nature and the church's plans show something modem and industrial I have worked in the field of architecture for d ten years and the proposed design for the church does not enhance the fabric of the community Instead it will detract from the special historic character that has evolved and makes this neighborhood such a wonderful place to live The concerned citizens in the surrounding homes appreciate the attention you are giving to this proposed project and recognize that FCC is making concessions However I implore you to 06 further look at the traffic situation at 17t'and Adams Additionally, the materials and colors for the new church should be toned down to more appropriately reflect the neighborhood Sincerely Deborah Bners ATTACHMENT NOq3 Jon A Rader and Phyllis Butland 19822 Waterview Lane , Huntington Beach CA 92648 July 2 2007 Mr Ron Santos 3Qt. Q 2 Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos This letter is in response to the City of Huntington Beach s notice to interested parties regarding the expansion/remodel plans of the First Christian Church of Huntington Beach We have several new concerns in the light of the Church s revised plans submitted on June 28"h and they follow below We oppose the parking structure planned by the FCC in our residential neighborhood The Church s revised plans show that the parking structure is hue It is 293 feet long by 139 feet wide The front of the structure facing 17th Street will have an architectural tower that is 40 feet high The back of the structure has a 32 feet high elevator tower pp l � In the aesthetics section of the environmental report for this project it said "The project will introduce a three-level parking structure to the site which is expected to have a less than significant impact since the structure will have a maximum height of 24 feet (our italics)will be surrounded by a tree-lined landscape planter on all sides and will be setback from the adjacent residential property by approximately 40 feet The environmental report also said that no significant impacts in outdoor lighting are expected in this project However whatever lighting is employed will indeed necessarily P2 have an impact on homes nearby It will essentially be a large elevated floodlit place to shine bright lights into our homes and bedrooms In addition to these issues of the parking structure we are very disturbed about the plans for the so-called"cafe" listed in the expansion plan The word "cafe" suggests that it would be a coffee-serving venue perhaps with sandwiches and snacks on offer In fact this church 'Cafe will seat 80 people indoors and more outdoors have a full commercial kitchen dedicated to it be an open-to-the-public for profit all-day-until-9 00 P M 7-days-a-week restaurant it is a full-blown restaurant that does not belong in a residential neighborhood Our neighborhood will undoubtedly be subjected to the smells of cooking food from before the restaurant opens each day until it closes at night We live in a breezy neighborhood where all Church neighbors will have times when the wind is blowing restaurant smells their way How can it be argued that this Church in a residential neighborhood is zoned for a commercial for profit "cafe"? Please take these questions and comments into account as you review the project AThank te Jon A ceder and Phyllis Butla TT T 1 1 Jon A Rader and Phyllis Butland 19822 Waterview Lane Huntington Beach CA 92648 June 11 2007 JUN 1 Z 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos We are residents of Beachwalk and our home backs up to l Ph Street near the First Christian Church and are responding to the City of Huntington Beach s letter to interested parties regarding the proposed expansion of the church There are several aspects of the plans that are very troubling to us One problem is the three-level parking structure that will be placed on a raised elevation on the church property immediately next to the elementary school This structure must necessarily be unsightly being placed in such a very prominent place Efforts expressed in the proposal to use plantings to tone down the view of this concrete behemoth will be � in vain This parking structure does not belong in a residential neighborhood where it can provide an attractive hideaway for homeless persons and teens and possibly pose a safety threat to the elementary school X For years our neighbors and we have been tolerant of the traffic noise of the sound system crowds and smells of animals and idling vehicles before Christmas each year when the First Christian Church holds its Christmas pageant Now by studying the proposed expansion plan it is clear that we will be contending with all but the animal smells year round With the outdoor sound system playing to those in the proposed amphitheater and necessarily to ail the neighbors for at least a mile around we will be experiencing a great loss of quality of life On Page 23 of your impact report item Vlil Aesthetics item c)you have judged as"Less Than Significant Impact"the item that the project will "Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings ' We cannot agree with this � p finding A three-story church building with a 96-foot cross huge outside constructions planned including a three-level parking structure on a hill an outdoor amphitheater with an outdoor sound system will have a huge impact on the character of our residential neighborhood Please take these comments into account as you review the project Th o G - n A Rader and Phyllis Butland ATTACHE ` T NO June 25 2007 Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 SUBJECT FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH PARKING STRUCTURE My wife and I live at 812 San Nicolas Circle which is the last house on the street that overlooks the parking lot of the First Christian Church After reviewing the plans for the expansion/remodel we have concerns regarding the parking structure Our main concern is the height and size of such a large structure so close to the back of our house Our balcony I and all our back windows look out over this area and we worry that the parking structure will have a significantly negative impact on our view (Of course the noise generated from the structure is also a concern but I m hoping that your studies have already addressed this issue and determined that it will be acceptably low ) :1 In looking over the plans it appears that the parking needs are calculated on a somewhat "worst case" scenario(heavy attendance at three concurrent services) It seems reasonable to assume that most weeks the parking demands would be lower In fact it may be that this "worst case" scenario might only occur rarely if ever This especially seems true considering that many church attendees will be parking on the many nearby streets as they do now At they meeting held at the church on Monday June 18 to discuss the expansion/remodel it appeared to be unanimous that nearby residents including ourselves would prefer church-goers park in front of our homes for a couple of hours on Sunday over a massive parking structure if the church expects heavy attendance(e g Easter Christmas etc ) they could use the High School parking lot in conjunction with a shuttle(as they plan to use during construction) It appears that the construction schedule calls for the parking structure to be built last after all o the other elements have been completed In between these two phases seems to present an excellent opportunity to re-evaluate the parking situation before requiring the church to construct a large structure that seems to be opposed by many if not all nearby residents It will be quite frustrating to look at a massive parking structure every day that is empty 90% of the time and rarely if ever fills up realizing that we could have either eliminated or reduced '�+ the size of the structure with minimal adverse impacts Sincerely Dave Courdy 812 San Nicolas Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 (562)626-7849 (714) 536-1662-evenings and weekends ATTACHMENT <�,9 b Brian Haner and Michelle DiBenedetto 7322 Veering Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 845-6725 June 10, 2007 Ron Santos, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject Re Notice of Availability of a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for First Christian Church of Huntington Beach Expansion/Remodel Ron We are writing in regards to the proposed expansion plans for First Christian Church of Huntington Beach We feel that some consequences of these expansions have been overlooked We live across 17th street from the church and feel that these expansions will have a negative effect on our neighborhood's quality of life We are most concerned about the ill-suited parking structure and the excess traffic and noise The church is located in a residential community, in which a parking structure would be unsightly and out-of-place Parking structures can often attract illegal and/or undesirable activities We are not aware of any discussion about precautions being taken to ensure that our neighborhood continues to feel safe The church is surrounded by schools, and the children's safety should be considered, also A parking structure would also mean an excess amount of cars that would lead to excess traffic and noise As mentioned, the church is surrounded by schools Between the church and the schools, the intersection of 17th and Adams is already heavily congested The extra amount of cars the parking structure would allow for would only add to this congestion We understand the benefits of expansion to the city, but, as residents of Huntington Beach for 25 years, we believe we have a right to the peaceful neighborhood beach city we know and love And we know the city would benefit in continuing to uphold this image We implore you to seriously consider the negative impacts this _ - expansion would have on the surrounding residential areas, their residents and the ATTACHMENT 5'-, 97 cities image as a clean, serene city We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further Sincerely Brian Haner and Michelle ®iBenedetto ATTACH 9 MAA CITY OF HUNT'INGT'ON BEACH ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD June 7, 2007 Ms Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re Mitigated Negative Declaration(No 06-008) At our June 7, 2007 meeting the Environmental Board reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 for the proposed First Christian Church project located at 1207 Main Street The following are our comments concerns and observations 1 The Board requests that the City encourage the project developer to utilize green building standards and materials in the demolition construction and renovation of G-}U I the building and facilities 2 The project developer is required to submit to the City a landscape plan that utilizes water conservation measures such as smart irrigation timers and a plant palette that includes drought tolerant and low water use plants 3 The project developer submit to the City a parking lot plan design that minimizes _ dry season surface water runoff to the storm drain system by using grass swales or other capture and infiltration techniques 4 The Board suggests that the City require the proposed covered parking structure surface drainage be plumbed to the sewer system per City and plumbing Code standards to eliminate possible runoff pollution when the garage is cleaned 5 The Board requests that the City approve a parking structure location and design EMS- that is the least evasive to the surrounding community We appreciate the opportunity of commenting on this document_ Please feel free to contact the Board with any questions Sincerely, Craig Justice Chair H B Environmental Board RECEIVED JUN 18 ?W7 ATTAr.HMFNT NO T,91 -;'Y 01 Hunhngt©q Beach Howard Ross & Roz Essner JUL 0 2 Z007 2� 7321 Veering Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 to y a A V t 714-969-9343 Ron Santos Associate Planner July 1 2007 City Of Huntington Beach Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ron This letter is in response to City of Huntington Beach s notice to interested parties regarding the expansion/remodel plans of the First Christian Church (FCC) of Huntington Beach This letter is an addendum to the letter we wrote on June 9 th to the City Since that initial letter was written on June 28t' FCC submitted a revised project narrative and plans to the City Unfortunately that did not give us that much time to review and comment on this revision by July 2n° Even so we spent time this past weekend looking at the revised material and we have comments on several of the items FCC has proposed FCC plans to operate two new commercial ventures on their property First FCC plans to operate a cafe from the hours of lam to 9pm Monday through Saturday and from 8am to 7pm on Sunday The cafe has a full kitchen The cafe is open to the public and has outdoor seating Second the Church plans to operate a new book store for the public Hours of the book store were not mentioned in the plans We object to FCC doing commercial ventures in a residential zone neighborhood The potential noise generated by people using these public stores was not mentioned in the environmental study FCC still plans to expand their seating capacity to 1 763 seats even though the HB Traffic Division has stated that using over 1 655 seats will result in a significant traffic impact to the area FCC is allowed to pass traffic environmental impacts by saying they will limit seating to 1 655 persons Why does the City find this to be acceptable? There is no way to enforce this limitation FCC should reduce maximum seating to 1 655 in their plans or face an environmental impact report Sts Simon& Jude Catholic Church has over 4 600 registered families a much larger congregation than FCC They do not have a parking garage Sts Simon&Jude manage parking and traffic by having more services on Saturday evening and Sunday Why can t FCC? The proposed construction of a very large parking structure is still in the plans Every neighbor we talk to finds that this parking structure will substantially degrade the existing visual character of the area The new plans show that this parking structure will have a maximum height of 40 feet This structure will be sitting on the highest point of land that the Church has The aesthetic issues of the environmental study said that the structure would only have a maximum height of 24 feet That statement is incorrect We believe ATTArHhAFNT NO S- ij) CSSt/m that this huge parking structure will not be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and will be impossible to hide with landscaping We are still seriously concerned about the proposed plan We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with you and the appropriate parties Please take these comments into consideration in your review of these plans Sincerely 4zx-m- / a Howard Ross oz Essner ATTACH Howard Ross & Roz Essner 7321 Veering Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 714-969-9343 Ron Santos Associate Planner June 9 2007 City Of Huntington Beach Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ron This letter is in response to City of Huntington Beach s notice to interested parties regarding the expansion/remodel plans of the First Christian Church of Huntington Beach We have reviewed these proposed plans and have several concerns We were informed on June 8t' by a neighbor that the documents for review are missing } several key pages Also it now appears that the Church has plans for an outdoor amphitheater and a sound system in a central plaza area that was not stated on the plans that the Planning Department used to analyze this expansion/remodel for potential environmental impacts Therefore we are concerned that the analysis for environmental impacts of this expansion/remodel might be flawed We have encountered the situation many times in which the Church has outdoor music concerts and other events on their parking lot which can be quite loud The Church did not mention this in any of the documents we reviewed With the addition of the proposed outdoor amphitheater and the proposed three (3) story garage we are concerned that there will now be space for more multiple and simultaneous outdoor events creating serious noise issues for our residential neighborhood and preventing us from quiet enjoyment of our property We don t believe these issues were addressed in the environmental impact study The plans we saw have a 96 foot cross to be built on the Church grounds Such a tall structure does not fit into the residential area of 2 story and single story homes that surrounds the Church A shorter cross would blend into the neighborhood in a kinder gentler way The proposed construction of a very large parking structure (which allows for three levels of parking) is extremely hard to accept as an improvement to the area It is difficult to understand why a parking garage for an additional 336 cars is permitted as well as the re-striping of the existing parking lot to increase the Church s parking capacity while at the same time the HB Public Works Traffic Division states that the Church needs to 11mit Sunday services to 1 655 persons so that they do not adversely impact traffic Currently the Church has maximum seating capacity of 1 470 and so with this limitation the Church may only add an additional185 people Again why is this garage needed?We are concerned that this garage will allow the Church to use the existing parking area for large and loud outdoor events--something that this environmental study has not addressed We are also concerned that an unlocked parking garage could attract criminal activity to the area which is especially disconcerting since there s anQ� elementary school adjacent to the proposed site of the parking garage ATTACHE NO' S- !vim CSS��Z We are seriously concerned about the proposed amphitheatre 96 foot cross and the c� parking garage We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with you and l the appropriate parties Please take these comments into consideration in your review of these plans Sincerely Howard Ross oz Essner a ATTACHMFNT NO S,103 �FCF-I ED Howard Ross& Roz Essner AUKS�QQ� 7321 Veering Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 -ft of Huntington eezcr' 714-969-9343 Ron Santos Associate Planner July 31 2007 City Of Huntington Beach Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ron This letter is in response to City of Huntington Beach s notice dated 7/16/2007 to interested parties regarding the amended expansion/remodel plans of the First Christian Church (FCC) of Huntington Beach FCC plans to operate two new commercial ventures on their property First FCC plans to operate a public cafe from 7am to 9pm Monday through Saturday and from 8am to 7pm on Sunday with outdoor seating available for a large number of people Second the Church plans to operate a new book store open to the public Hours of the book store f;26-to are the same as for the cafe We object to FCC doing these commercial ventures in a residential zone neighborhood The potential noise traffic and cooking smells generated by people using these public venues were not mentioned in the environmental study FCC still plans to expand their seating capacity from 1 470 seats to 1 763 seats even though the HB Traffic Division has stated that using over 1 655 seats will result in a significant traffic impact to the area FCC is allowed to bypass this serious environmental concern by saying they will limit seating to 1 655 persons Why does the City find this acceptable? How is the City planning to enforce this limit? FCC should reduce maximum seating to 1 655 in their plans or face an environmental impact report The proposed construction of a huge 3 level parking structure is still in the plans The front of the parking structure will face 17"' Street next to Smith School and will be 293 feet long 139 feet wide and 38 feet high This structure will be sitting on the highest point on 17#' Street This parking structure will substantially degrade the existing visual character of the neighborhood and will be impossible to hide even with landscaping In addition the large amount of outdoor lighting that will be necessary for the structure is not even mentioned in the public plans or in the environmental report This huge open building will be vacant except for Sundays—a potential spot for vagrants and criminal activity—in the midst of a residential neighborhood and next to our elementary schools Sts Simon &Jude Catholic Church has over 4 600 registered families a much larger congregation than FCC yet they do not have a parking garage How is this possible? Sts Simon &Jude manage parking and traffic by having 2 services on Saturday evening ATTACHMENT N04s ry and 4 services on Sunday Why can t FCC do something similar by having additional services? We are still seriously concerned about the proposed plan We would welcome the opportunity to discuss this further with you and the appropriate parties 1 Please take these comments into consideration in your review of these plans Sincerely t 1 Howard Ross C�oz Essner r ATTACHMENT NO S, l0S Loren Dale Felts 19662 Stern Lane Huntmgton Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5716 7J20/o7 Ron Sftos.Associate Planner City gton Beach 2oa� Hun ch,CA 92648 Subject:1440nents on Recirculated Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for First Chnsttanrch Remodel Project. Dear Sir I am pleased to have the opportunity to again provide comments on the Christian Church Remodel project during this public review penod. I am pleased to see many of the changes of the project plans that you have listed on the first page of your letter to"Interested Parties' Comments 1 OUTDOOR AMPLIFIED SOUND SYSTEM a I'm pleased you have added tins restriction,hopefully eliminating extremely loud emanations that have occurred on previous occasions b Your note refers specifically to the"project" I hope this extends to the Church as a whole,and is not limited to just this"project' c The sounds from their annual Nativity Drive Through have never been a problem. Providing they keep them at traditional levels,I would hope this requirement would not apply to that event. d I'm not opposed to clumes or bells on Sunday mornings as a call to worshipers 2 PARKING GARAGE a I'm sorry to see that the new Parking Garage is still in the plans b I expect it will be almost exclusively be for Sunday morning services, approximately 3 hours out of the whole week. ��- c I'll be looking at that dung every day as I go past there,and I think it is inappropriate for the neighborhood that it is in. Please look at the homes on Veering,Park,Loma and 10 to see how inappropriate a parking structure would be FApawm#2 Doc i d For 3 hours a week I think we could allow parking on 17'h(Main to Palm) Smith School and Adams Sunday Morning Only (Kids used the bike lanes at other times) If necessary add in the parking for the ball diamonds on 17'h and the high school lot e This is an expense that the Church need not bear if enough local parking is available for the short time that is required NOISE PLAY AREA a I have never been bothered by the play area s noise The wall may not be necessary though I would defer to the folks on Loma who might be more strongly acted Yours Loren D Felts Chi Expamoa#2 DOC ATTACHMENT NO S, 1n-7 Loren Dale Felts 19662 Stem Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714)536-5716 5/25/2008 Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept 2000 Main St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject. Comments on Fist Christian Church Remodel Summary Comments 1 Church is already out of character for it s neighborhood I oppose any fit Cher increase in size and noise 2 Most especially there should be no parking garage on the comer of Adams and 17'h Street If said parking garage is approved, it should be closer to the main buildings and should be masked by landscaping 3 This church has already shown it s lack of concern for it s neighbors by it s violation of noise codes for outdoors`beach music"entertainment_ No outdoor activitiesP should exceed the noise codes relative to that which applies to any of the residences immediately around it Discussion 1 The church parking lot is already the ugliest flung on the comers of Adams and 17'' Street. Two comers have nice houses(in fact the church is totally out character of the residences that nearly surround nit) the third is the green fields associated with the High School In no way should it become an even bigger eye sore 2 The comer is the last plaice to put a parking garage,both for it's appearance and the fact that this comer has especially heavy student foot and auto traffic from the four schools in the neighborhood High visibility around the corner should be a high priority for safety reasons If such a garage is to be built, it could be well located more near the existing main buildings and masked to lude it's appearance 3 Last summer this church sponsored an outdoor"Beach Boy"type of music that completely drowned out the neighborhood A call to the police did little to get the levels reduced. I did talk via email to one church representative who said they planned on possibly doing it again. I sure hope not Raving beach type volume in this tight knit neighborhood is not appropriate Sincerely, r 04 o, Hsiiliiilgion an ' MAY 2 5 2007 ctur&ExammConmetts to CRgof M DOC FQ11`2 ATTACHMENT N .�;-, to 8 June 10 2007 The Huntington Beach Planning Department I become aware of the planned additions to the Church propertyjust across the street I have lived in this home since 1980 and enjoy this rather ideal location and the surrounding area is still primarily residential The additional structures and increased square footage of some of the existing buildings, I believe will have a very negative impact on our area. This is still a mostly residential area and it seems to me that if this organization finds it necessary to increase their facilities to this degree,that they should consider locating a piece of land more suited for this size of a campus The loss of the"open space"is problem enough,but the garish colors that they propose are really in very poor taste I doubt that all of the members of the church would condone the bright, tasteless hues that these buildings will be painted The traffic report is interesting, but I doubt that a multi level parking structure can do anything but contribute to a higher density in the traffic on our local �j streets I have viewed the church and it's surroundings and tned to imagine all the changes I cannot help but believe the resulting structures will not enhance our �C ' area of our city Sincerely, J W Gallagher 1718 Shipley Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTArH F:NT Rt S� 10 1 June 7, 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos We recently received your letter regarding the proposal by First Christian Church to expand and reconstruct their existing church complex and the impact that it might have on our neighborhood We are residents of Shipley Street, directly across the street from the church We moved here almost 10 years ago because the neighborhood offered us a quieter, more suburban feel than where we previously lived on the numbered streets We are not opposed to progress, but we feel our neighborhood will be threatened by the extent of the proposed project I strongly disagree with your findings concerning the negative impact that such a project would generate You mention 2 areas that are of concern to you, hydrology and noise The most important of these issues is the noise You only mention a children's play area, however, what about the noise from the increased traffic It is our understanding that the church is trying to expand That means lots more people and lots more traffic in already very busy intersections Plans call for traffic to be routed along Adams Ave and along Seventeenth St Have you driven the Main St /Adams intersection lately? It is already a very dangerous intersection that is unable to handle the existing traffic It is nearly impossible to turn during peak school and church hours It is also a problem exiting out of Shipley or Aspenwood The lanes on Adams are designed poorly and thus already cause residents issues getting in and out of the development Oncoming traffic cannot be seen until one has already pulled out in the lanes of traffic I can't tell you how many times accidents have narrowly been avoided Any increased traffic would be a huge problem The other noise issue that needs to be addressed,but has somehow managed to fly under the radar, is the noise that will be generated from the proposed outdoor amphitheater, D6t3 outdoor cafe and outdoor sound system It is my understanding that these are part of the project, however,the city does not mention these in their report Other major concerns are the aesthetic and safety issues that come with an obviously,out V4 of place,commercial parking structure There is no place in our neighborhood that a c ATTACHMENT Nn -, 1 >0 multi level commercial parking structure would look good or even fit in Such a structure would be a detriment to our neighborhood and city and only provide a place for kids and the homeless to hang out_ We are asking that the Planning Department the City of Huntington Beach and First { ` Christian Church, take into account the potential problems that this project will generate and reconsider the proposed project Sincerely, Deirdre and Tod Gan 1804 Shipley St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTACHMENT Sander & Shirley Gelfand 1711 Shipley St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2743 June 30, 2007 ;untjnn Beach JUL 0 2 200a Ron Santos, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Proposed expansion plans for First Christian Church of Huntington Beach, 1207 Main St., Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Santos: Eighteen years ago we purchased our home at 1711 Shipley St., Huntington Beach. As you are undoubtedly aware, our street intersects Adams Ave. directly across from the church. When we purchased our home we did so with the acceptance of the church's appearance. As it appeared then and as it is now, it's architecture, in our opinion, blends in with the neighborhood. Since then we have had a very compatible association with the church. Now we are learning of plans by the church that will severely change it's appearance. As you may recall we were in your office looldng at the church's plans. Subsequently we attended a meeting at the church on July 18 chaired by Pastor Bruce Templeton. At that meeting we were part of a lengthy interactive discussion.. We, as well as our neighbors who attended the meeting, voiced objections to several issues regarding the church's plans. We are sure that by now you have received many letters about these issues. The overall plans show a number of radical changes that, in our opinion, will change our residential neighborhood into a more commercialized environment. We feel this way because the parking structure itself will snake our neighborhood look like a commercial area. We know of no other church in the city that has such a structure We feel that the church has other options to accommodate it's growth within the parameters of it's property- 1. to remodel in lieu of demolishing and re-building 2. to utilize remote parking via a variance 3...to modify the number of seats and schedule multiple services. Any or all of these alternatives would certainly be less costly than the 4 million dollar parking structure. The same cost savings concepts certainly apply to the reference in Pastor Templeton's letter of June 25 to us that states, "If we apply for the variance at this stage of the game, we would have to start at square one with the planning process, pushing us back potentially a few more months, and frankly, we can not afford any more delays. Our building costs are rising with every delay " It seems to us that the entire planning process jumped off to a fast start without considering the impact it would have on the neighborhood. It also seems odd that the plans submitted to the city show a completely conceived rendering without the financial means of completing the project as submitted. What if the church completes the buildings and then is not able to raise c��. the money to build the parking structure to comply with the city's parldng regulations? In your letter of June 13 entitled "Notice of Avadability of a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for first Christian Church of Huntington Beach Expansion/Remodel", we feel that the "Significant TJ� environmental effects anticipated to result from the proposed project (15487(c)(4))" statement is incomplete. We thank that the above stated concerns should be considere4 by the Department of Planning. ATTACHMENT NO S" 1 e 3 Another concern of ours is the "cafe". It is proposed to seat about 80 people, which is larger than many restaurants in the city. This plan also calls for outdoor seating for about 15 people. The "cafe" should be confined within the building and not have any outdoor seating, due to the noise factor. This also emphasizes our concerns that this plan will become more of a commercial project The "cafe" should not be available to the public The planned expansion by the church will undoubtedly contribute to the traffic congestion and noise in the area. These factors will certainly 5CAE be detrimental to our neighborhood Sincerely, Sander Gelfand Shirley Gelfand r t ATTACHMENT NO s 1 ( 44 DR & -RS SANDER(& SHIRLEY) GL 1FAND 1711 SHIPLEY ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648-2743 3 MAY 29, 2007 Ron Santos, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos We live directly across from the First Christian Church of Huntington Beach parking lot (across Adams between 17'h St & Main St) We have lived here since 1989 We have never minded the church and the parking lot as they are presently arranged The b landscaping and layout of the church property presently blends well with the neighborhood iowever, we do not think a parking structure has any place in the middle of all the residences that surround the parking lot We feel this would commercialize the neighborhood and lower our property values It would also greatly increase the number of cars and cause additional traffic congestion Sincerely, Sander Gelfiirid Shirley Gelfand CW Of HWAVW Bach W 2920 ATTACHMENT NO 5 I t s- May 29 2007 Dear Members of the Planning Department We are neighbors of the First Christian Church at the intersection of Main Street and Adams We have recently reviewed the plans for the church s expansion project and we were dismayed with regard to some of the proposed plans the church has in mind Specifically,we are very concerned about the parking structure on 17'h Street and the proposed 3 story building to be facing on Adams Avenue The parking structure has no place in a residential area which this neighborhood certainly is The structure will only be an eyesore and,equally disturbing,a place for vagrants and teenagers to hang out,make noise,race cars and be a general nuisance The only parking structures I am aware of are in commercial and retail areas and not in residential neighborhoods such as ours The argument that the structure will reduce side street parking is without meet in that no one ever parks in a parking structure if there is street parking available and as long as one space is available on my street the parishioners will find it and use it The proposed 3 story building—with a cafid no less—is another building that will be out of place on the street. Large and looming and ungainly again it is a structure out of step with the surrounding environment. The idea that they propose a cafe on that site is put forward without careful consideration on the church's part. Patrons will increase traffic in the area as well as kAlz produce extra noise as they enter and leave the cafe and gather in the parking lot If,as I have heard,that the cafe is to be open until 1100 p in then again this idea has not been thought through and will create noise late into the evening and be a further nuisance to us as neighbors There are other proposals which I have heard about regarding an amphitheater, play area and wall structures that although I don't have a clear understanding of them,it seems that they will aggravate the noise problem rather than mitigate it We look forward to discussing this further with you. Thank you, . Karen and David Gray 1714 Shipley Street Huntington Beach,92648 714-960 3344 dgray@socal rr com RECEIVED MAY 312W ATTACHMENT NO 13 June11 2007 Mr Ron Santos Department of Planning City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Mr Santos This is my second letter to the Department of Planning regarding the expansion of the First Christian Church on Main Street. The church project includes a parking structure and we are opposed to a parking structure in a residential neighborhood I recognize that the church has had its zoning changed,nonetheless, the church sits smack in the middle of a residential area I have read the Environmental Impact Report and I have some remarks with regards to XIII Aesthetics I understand that there is no scenic vista for the structure to interfere with,nor would the parking structure damage scenic resources, however it will substantially degrade the existing visual character of the residential neighborhood where the structure is proposed This would be a significant degradation of the character of the neighborhoods that make up this area. Whenever any project of any kind anywhere is proposed these days an EIR is necessary Having scanned the report I recognize that they are broad in scope I think however,that one EIR format alone cannot be the sole criteria for every situation Certainly additional considerations as theyGf�' anse case by rase are taken into account by planning staffs everywhere I think this case is one where further considerations than those outlined in the EIR would easily come to mind and into play Also, the twenty-four foot height of the proposed parking structure alone would have a negative visual impact on the street On top of that,however,is the fact that it is proposed to be sitting AT THE TOP OF THE HILL on i 7'i'thereby giving it even more prominence No amount of trees and vines can camouflage the parking structure so it would fit into a residential neighborhood. Surely, good sense alone argues against a parking structure in a residential neighborhood. Thank you for listening GL1�•�o'�J � -7 David and Karen Gray 1714 Shipley Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-960-3344 dgray@socaL rr com TT Hurvingtog Beach, 7302 Veering Circle, JUL 0 2 2007 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 714 536 1411 July 1, 2007 Mr Ron Santos,Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 200 Main St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos, After careful perusal of all three documents furnished by your Department relating to the expansion/remodel of the First Christian Church at 1207 Main St Huntington Beach,we are very concerned and dismayed to think that such a commercialization could take place The property is not zoned for"an open to the public"cafe,which will do business seven days a week, six days for fourteen hours each day and Sundays eleven hours Tlus type of operation emulates a McDonalds business Additionally,there is no mention of the business hours of the book store operation. The placing of a huge parking structure on the property will dummsh the property values of all the residential homes surrounding the church. Such a massive structure belongs in a commercial zone and not in a primarily residential neighborhood While the2 documentation cites a maximum height of 24 feet,it stands to reason that it has to be much higher to accommodate three floors of vehicles We look forward to bringing the above issues before the Planning Commission when we are notified of its placement on the agenda. Sm rely atthew and I thleen Hunt ATTACHMEN I NU 7302 Veering Circle, Huntington Beach CA 92648 714-536-1411 June 7, 2007 Mr Ron Santos, Associate Planner, City of Huntington Beach,Planning Department 200 Main St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos In response to Draft Mitigation Negative Declaration#06-008,outlining a proposal by First Christian Church of Huntington Beach, 1207 Main Street, Huntington Beach, I wish to make the following comments The proposed parking structure is not in keeping with an upscale residential area- Such a structure is an aberration in a residential neighborhood and will foster crime and other3 negative activities The building expansion will have a negative impact on traffic and pollution in the immediate area The proposed construction,which is scheduled to last for several years,will cause serious noise and discomfort issues in the neighborhood,thereby negatively impacting home }�5 values We look forward to bringing above issues before the Planning Commission. ew an een Hunt. 76�" ATTACHMENT KYOKO KENTT June 24 2007 C4 0t Hdinfino4t r, ? h JUN 2 0 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associates Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE Letter dated 6/13/2007 referencing a Notice of Availability of a Draft 1Vfitigated Negative Declaration for First Christian Church of Huntington Beach Expansion/Remodel Dear Mr Santos In reference to your letter regarding First Christian Church of Huntington Beach Expansion/Remodel I strongly OBJECT to the idea of their expansion plan The following are my comments 1 A multi-level parking structure does not belong in the middle of a residential area 2 An expansion can result in increased automobde traffic in a quiet neighborhood, increase in the noise level, an increase in crime due to dark & unlighted areas in the parking . structure itself where they are located next to elementary school and middle school 3 These expansion is an eye sore to the neighborhood, if it is approved what would happen to the value of my property that is across from it 4 I moved into the neighborhood 15 years ago to get away from a city environment, which includes a multi-level parking structure and enormous expansions I realize that it's not the same as the expansions that are taking place at the PCH areas or the expansions that took place at the Bella Terra THIS IS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. Please DO NOT allow change what makes Huntington Beach a most desirable place to live which does not include multi-level parking structures and non-residential expansions Thank you, 19734 Seashore Circle.Huntington Beach•California 926U USA Tel (714)960-8586®Cell (714)785-1296+Fax (714)%9-7810 a Email k2associatesla�enzon net TT - 5: u � 1 , 2nn' 1 i r � t ATTACHMENT S r ZI May 30 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner Jew ' City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Maui Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos Tins letter is in strong opposition to the proposed"Next Wave"project of the Fast Christian Church(FCC) I will address issues from the perspective of one neighboring family, however,these views will be shared by many We also have the perspective of living in this house for 29 years The FCC has been our neighbor(and the families on Main Street)for all those years,and more We have been understanding of each others privacy and compassionate with parking issues on Sunday(or Services for funerals, weddings and the annual Nativity program)or when we have had a party and needed more space We did not oppose the growth to the new Sanctuary,yet,did oppose a proposed"Senior Living Complex"a number of years ago Now we come to the present Hidden in your letter of May 18 is a dramatic set of plans and growth that do not fit in a residential community As you well know,the FCC borders homes on Main Street, Loma, 17ih Street and Shipley The Church also borders three schools,Agnes Smith Elementary,Dwyer Middle and Huntington Beach High School A review of the FCC"Next Wave"plans include a multi-story Pre-School and K-S Children's Ministry,a substantial increased capacity in three buildings for Sunday Services,a Cafe 1 Coffee House,additional space for"Relevant"Outreach Programs, another multi-story building for a"Retail Bookstore",Centralized Staff Office Complex and now a multi-story parking structure This is NOT harden Grove and the Crystal Cathedral) Examine that complex and look at the former neighborhoods surrounding that monstrosity The next largest church in Huntington Beach is St. Simon and Jude with a congregation of 2500—3000,yet,they are on the comer of two"four lane"streets and there is no commercial endeavor We respect the right of the FCC to grow;however,this is going too far As a Planning Department, you are coming to us(the surrounding residents)for comments on the Parking Stricture,yet,why didn't you ask for comment when the original plans for the buildings were submitted? If permits have been issued,it doesn't seem like approved ATTAPHUFNT N S I�� protocol was followed How can a"clear'commercial business(the bookstore and coffee house) be approved in an existing residential neighborhood? If this project is allowed to progress as outlined on the FCC Websnte crime will go up (especially with young people congregating in the parking structure),open views will be obscured,our property values will decrease and the parking problems WILL NOT be resolved because people wilt not want to proceed down 3 stones of parking versus just wanting across the street. Fortunately we do not have to look to far to see what a 3 story parking structure looks like,just go the corner of Beach Blvd.and Newman Ave That's at a hospital and S medical complex,not a residential neighborhood Sincerely, . Step en and Karen Kluewer 1710 Shipley Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-536-3433 ATTACHMENT NO ',Si 1 tl_ June 12 2007 Mr Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re Addendum to my letter,May 30,2007 in opposition to the proposed growth of The Fast Christian Church Mr Santos A number of topics have come to light in the last few weeks regarding the proposed "New Wave"project of the First Christian Church(FCC)and I therefore feel compelled to submit additional comments i The church has begun demolition of the existing structures and don't appear to � have licenses and permits to build_ Have the permits been granted without proper notification and impact studies 2 The plans I was able to review,through the city,differ from those listed on the S K7 FCC website Why are pages missing? Was this intentional 3 The proposed Parking Structure,m addition to being an eyesore which does not conform to surrounding neighborhoods, is a potential safety hazard for young children who must pass-by(as a hiding place for potential predators)and for young people who will congregate with"skateboards"or just"hang-out" Are the SW church and/or city willing to accept any and all potential liability that may result from one incident? 4 Dating back to 1958 to 1961 the church(and city)was granted easements for the FCC School Vanance to allow,m part,traffic to flow from Loma to 17'Street. What is the status of the easements today and in the future? 5 Where is an"independent"Environmental Impact Study? What about an SKID independent traffic study and the impact on 17m and Adams9 6 With this project,where does the FCC cease to be a place of worship and become a"for profit"school,cafe and bookstore? The cafe and kitchen are in the plans Are they going to prepare food for weddings and other social gatherings,and at a profits Are they zoned for that? What about the Amphitheatre? Will its use be non-profits The church is a place of worship for many and I appreciate their desire to"modernize", however,to what extent? With the new plans,at what point do they cross the line and cease to be a church with expressed goals and objectives and become a profitable business in a zoned residential area e4ty of Hurlftngtcn Beach Respectfully, Stephen Kluewer ATTACHMENT NO K1-4i-- Page 1 of h Santos, Ron From John Langistine[j1anghb44@gmad corn] Sent Friday August 03 2007 2 31 PM To Santos Ron Subject First Christian Church Project I am very concerned about the large project being proposed for downtown I have read the document on the website about this,and I think it is ridiculous that the church is proposing to offer so little parking and from what I can tell they parking garage is something that might only get built at some point in the -TL j future Why would you allow this church to build buildings without building parking first?It would be 1 like allowing a store to open without parking on the promise it will be built in the future when the store needs it' I also do not believe the church is being honest about their number of parking spots needed On their website they have a service called the Video Cafe that is not listed anywhere when parking is talked about Where is that accounted for?Are they going to keep doing it when the other buildings are built? While buildings will be racer than the junky ones they have now,the traffic will be a huge concern and so will the coffee shop they have proposed This is simply too much for a residential neighborhood Please vote to make this church live up to all of the same rules you make other people follow i f 8/9/2007 ATTACHMENT NO 1, /Z Ss June 9 2007 From Kim L Le 7292 Veering circle Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 Tel (714) 536-2688 To Ron Santos Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Subject First Christian Church Remodel/Expansion Dear Ron, I have learned thru our neighborhood meeting on June 4,that the construction planned for the Christian Church on 170'and Adams is much more than the remodeling and renovating of the existing structures A three story building,a multi level parking structure and an outdoor amphitheater within the existing land configuration are major additions that will no doubt transform this serene neighborhood church campus into an establishment that belongs to a full blown commercial zone This massive proposed expansion would have very severe adverse effects on the quality of hfe in our community Along with issues regarding increase noise pollution and traffic,I also have serious concerns with the aesthetic effect and potential safety and crime issues brought on by an enclosed parking structure in such close proximity to a residential neighborhood and an elementary school As a homeowner who resides across 17'' street from the Church for more than 10 years,I also see that the proposed changes would negatively affect how well the Church has been blending mto the surrounchr gs and landscape of historte downtown Huntington Beach My concerns are shared by many residents m the neighborhood and we are in the process of collecting signature for a petition to oppose the expansion of this magnitude which I believe is unprecedented m any residential neighborhood of Huntington Beach. I trust that the City planning process is a democratic one where the citizens that are most affected by any major changes to occur will have a say in their umplementat m Sincerely, Kim L Le ATTACHMENT NO 5� lz-- I-If ? 7/= 7 17,2 7 City of PunUngion beach tJUIV 2 Q mr 62;7 (�-)c2- 7 ) ILQ " vt d OL L415 r OUAq_ Od-1 �� �� ATTArHMFNT NO 7-jz-7 L-UBII-j l��J Ck,,V, (flJ V 1? h i ENT NO T 'Jf tl t eyf C/ � ✓LLL�- ri^✓JYl.t--L fc.-c 6_1 l__��� J�X�_�sL�y�s-,c1 �J�__'i� �.^ c A'rTa r kA P MT KI tl r- r.7 oi AA l �(f-v 7 rL �t TT T NO 513(2 i Alan McGowan ~J JUN 19741 Little Harbor Drive a 1 &07 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 960-2326 May 31, 2007 Mr Ron Santos, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr Santos Thank you so much for sending the notification of the proposed parking structure at the First Christian Church 1 am very much in opposition to a parking structure in my neighborhood This is a residential newhborhood. A concrete parking structure is something that night belong on Beach Blvd , not in a residential zone I object very strongly toanv expansion to that church to the building itself and especially to the parking lot Allowing the expansion of parking would cause more traffic and congestion in the ' residential neighborhood which is already a nuisance dealing with the existing traffic congestion As it is they fill the parking lot almost completely—twice---on 2 Sunday in two shifts They have something going on at the church on the average of four nights a week Is this a church, a business, or a social club? I'm against any more activity at the church Normally I don't get involved in � things of this nature but if there is to be any kind of public hearing, I would greatly appreciate being notified _ Thank you, c Alan McGowan A°TTArH FNT mr) 131 July 30 2007 Ron Santos Planning Department City of Huntington Beach Ca 92648 200 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 The purpose of this letter is to document our opposition to the proposed multi story parking structure being proposed by the First Christian Church It our position that a multi-level parking structure doesn t belong in the middle of a residential area We live at 7328 Waterside Drive which is directly across 17"h Street from the proposed multi level parking structure 1 When we wake up in the morning and look out our sliding glass door we 11 be looking directly at the proposed parking structure 2 When we walk out our front door we 11 be looking directly at the proposed parking structure 3 When we drive down our street we 11 be looking directly at the proposed parking structure 4 We are also concerned about the noise and gas fumes that will be generated as well as the lack of visual privacy for homeowners ° We suggest the following alternatives 1 Utilize the Huntington Beach High School parking space permanently on Sunday 2 Schedule three services on Sunday 3 Build under ground parking The remaining portion of the project will not have any permanent impact on us other than putting up with the noise dirt for two years Robert VTdterso�n�udtth;eterson 7328 Waterside Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 714-960-6797 vet` U ,�,��£��Diu, - � € AUG - 2flfl{ l ATTACHMENT NOS" j�� Cr"Y of 11gi0�3 Beach Lawrence and Donna Ross t 7301 Veering Circle JUL 0 2 Z907 Huntington Beach CA 92648 714-536-6068 Ron Santos Associate Planner July 1 2007 City Of Huntington Beach Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ron This letter is in response to the City of Huntington Beach s notice to interested parties regarding the expansion/remodel plans of the First Christian Church of Huntington Beach We still have several concerns We are writing this letter in follow up to the letter we wrote to you on June 7 2007 Since our letter of June Ph the documents for review were updated to include several key pages that were missing in the original documents Those new pages contain information on an outdoor amphitheater and a sound system that were to be built The noise from these items was not addressed in the environmental noise study that was done on this project and these items appear to still be in their plans On June 18P'First Christian Church held a meeting and invited interested parties to discuss their construction plans Pastor Templeton said that the Church had decided to modify their building plans based on budget cuts and insurance concerns The letters received by neighbors about their building plans were also of concern to them and he attempted to fifid common ground with a revised plan The following changes were supposed to be made The large tower was pulled from the plans LIP- The outdoor amphitheater was no longer in the plans The pop}et fountains and the tide pools in the plaza area were also to be pulled Pastor Templeton stated to all in attendance at the June 18th meeting that the Church was going to submit these changes to the City the very next day To my knowledge,that has yet to occur We are now at the end of the comment period and we are not clear on what changes if any have been made to the churches original plans if the above items have not been removed then we still reserve concerns over those items particularly the noise impact of outdoor events We believe these items should be addressed in the environmental noise study Of greatest concern to us are the proposed parking structure and cafe that wnl! be open 'from 7 AM into the late evening hours, possibly 10 PM While the cafe idea may be appealing to their congregation it concerns us that this plan is far to`commercial'in2 i nature to be placed in the middle of a residential area without commercial zoning The coffee wdl not be free of charge and certainly can not be associated as religious in nature If a church sells religious books to its members that is a far different enterprise than opening a Starbucks While the Pastor explained that the cafe would be inward Z facing in their plaza area, it will be hard to argue that it wil not have any impact on the surrounding area from additional traffic and noise from early morning to late evenings We also believe that the huge commercial looking parking structure just does not fit within the surrounding neighborhood It will be an aesthetic eyesore that no amount of landscape will be able to change Surely there must be a way to compromise on the size of their plan to remove the need to build this structure We encourage the city to work Lin with the church to help meet their needs to replace their aging structures without compromise to the need for quiet enjoyment of the surrounding neighborhoods We still strongly believe that these two items will have damaging effects on the quality of fife in our neighborhood and object to their inclusion to the plan as proposed Sincerely Lawrence Ross Donna Ross r ATTACHE T S;/� Lawrence and Donna Ross 7301 Veering Circle Huntington Beach CA 92648 714-536-6068 Ron Santos June 7 2007 Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Ron, This letter is in response to your notice to interested parties regarding the notice of a draft Negative Declaration for Fist Christian Church of Huntington Beach expansion/remodel We reside in the single family neighborhood on Veering Circle directly across 17'h Street from the Church property We have reviewed the proposed plans for the Church's expansion/remodel and have several concerns Having resided in our current residence for over 10 years now we have witnessed continuous traffic growth in the area and in particular,at the mtersection of 17d, and Adams which is very near our home We are very concerned about the additional traffic noise and pollution that will be generated by the expansion of the Church from its present configuration We believe that this expansion could further erode the quality of life for our neighborhood,which is zoned Residential Low Density So far,the only potential significant impacts stated in your notice,pertain to water run off and . noise from the children's play areas With the added traffic from multiple venues that the Church is proposing,through the increase in seating capacity, it is hard to imagine that this would not significantly impact the surrounding area. With the thought of 100 to 200 additional cars,a total of 579 cars driving in and out of the area,it is hard to imagine how that could not result in any impact to the community Again,the property in question,with the exception of the schools to the South,is surrounded by areas that are all zoned residential In addition,the proposed constriction of a multi-level parking structure(which I understand will be three(3)levels of parking)is extremely difficult to accept as an improvement to the area Again,this is a residential area,not commercial This is where our famines reside and the j_fop-, homeowners in the area are entitled to quiet enjoyment.In addition,while we are unfamiliar with any specific studies on the subject,we believe there may be safety issues that will impact the area as well,from such a structure Please take these comments into consideration for your Negative Declaration Sincerely, Lawrence o Donna Ross ATTACHMENT 135. Seth&Dianne Schiller 1726 Shipley Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714-969-6822 Ron Santos July 22 2007 Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Ron, This letter is in response to your notice to interested parties,regarding the notice of a draft Negative Declaration for First Christian Church of Huntington Beach expansion/remodel We reside in the single family neighborhood on Shipley Street,directly across Adams Street from the Church property We have reviewed the proposed plans for the Church s expansion/remodel and have several concerns Having resided in our current residence for over 6 years now,we have witnessed continuous traffic growth in the area and in particular,at the intersection of 17'h and Adams which is very near our home We are very concerned about the additional traffic noise and pollution that will be generated by the expansion of the Church from its present configuration We believe that this expansion could further erode the quality of life for our neighborhood,which is zoned Residential Low Density So far the only potential significant impacts stated in your notice,pertain to water run off and noise from the children's play areas With the added traffic,from multiple venues that the Church is proposing through the increase in seating capacity, it is hard to imagine that this would g not significantly impact the surrounding area. With the thought of 100 to 200 additional cars,a total of 579 cars driving in and out of the area,it is hard to imagine how that could not result in any impact to the community In addition,the proposed construction of a multi-level parking structure(which I understand will be three(3)levels of parking)is extremely difficult to accept as an unprovement to the area and should not be approved The church can get a permanent variance to park at the High school to solve any additional parking spaces that would be required for their memberships growth Parking structures are also proven to be magnates for crime (see enclosed HB Police reports for city parking structures) The increase in crime would have a negative impact to our quite safe residential neighborhood.The property in question,with the exception of the schools to the South,is surrounded by areas that are all zoned residential This is where our families reside and the homeowners in the area are entitled to quiet ,enjoyment- Please add these comments and concerns in your Negative Declaration Sin y, Seth&Dianne Schiller C5W �.�,�1ti1t iai JUL 2 4 Z007 ATTACHMENT S Parking Strucfura Crime Reporgs January 2000 thru May 312007 Case# Offense Date Address Loostlon Comment 1 2008016083 BURGLARY VBHICLE 08/27/2006 18086 SAINT CROIX Cl PARKING STRUCTURE 2 2008001817 BURGLARY VEHICLE 01/29/2006 16912 SIMS ST UNDERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE 3 2006014834 BURGLARY VEHICLE 8/4/2008 17011 BEACH BL PARKING STRUCTURE 4 2NO017370 BURGLARY VEHICLE 9/14/2006 17011 BEACH BL PARKING STRUCTURE 3RD FLOOR 5 2007008817 LOST PROPERTY 05/13/2007 17011 BEACH BL PARKING STRUCTURE 6 2008008742 VANDALISM 08/17/2006 17011 BEACH BL PARKING STRUCTURE 7 2007008481 PETTY THEFT-FROM VEHICLE 5/11/2007 17071 BEACH BL PARKING STRUCTURE 8 2000014307 BURGLARY VEHICLE 08/01/2006 17001 BEACH BL PARKING STRUCTURE 9 2007008907 SWRQLARY VEHICLE 04/01/2007 17091 BEACH SL LOWER PARKING STRUCTURE 10 2006002034 VANDALISM 2/l/2006 17091 BEACH BL 6TH FLOOR PARKING STRUCTURE 11 2006013382 GRAND THEFT FROM VEHICLE 07/20/2006 17151 CORBINA LN SPACE 138IN PARKING STRUCTURE 12 2006013387 VANDALISM 07/20/2006 17151 CORBINA LN SPACE 141 IN UNERGROUND PARKING STRUCTURE 13 2008013388 BURGLARY VEHICLE 07/20/2006 17172 ABALONE LN PARKING STRUCTURE BELOW RESIDENCE 14 20000193" INDECENT EXPOSUR15 10/12/2008 17752 BEACH BL PARKING STRUCTURE 15 2008010688 BURGLARY VEHICLE 10/02/2006 18141 BEACH SL LOWER PARKING STRUCTURE 18 2008012198 AGO ASSAULT NO FIREARM 07/04/2008 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE STAIRWELL 1 ST FLOOR 17 2007010197 AUTO THEFT 6/8/2007 200 MAIN ST LOWER LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 18 2006000875 AUTO THEFT 01/15/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 19 2008009810 AUTO THEFT 06/01/2008 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 20 2008001498 BATTERY 01/24/2008 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 21 2008012609 BATTERY 07/09/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 2NO LEVEL 22 2007002733 BATTERY 02/11=07 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 23 2006008187 BATTERY 4/7/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 24 2006003485 BURGLARY COMMERCIAL 02/23/2006 200 MAIN ST NORTH ENTRANCE OF PARKING STRUCTURE rn 25 2007006270 BURGLARY VEHICLE 4/7/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 28 2006009888 BURGLARY VEHICLE 06/31/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 27 2008016089 BURGLARY VEHICLE 09/08/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 28 2006023717 BURGLARY VEHICLE 12/18/2008 200 MAIN ST TOP LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 29 2006024094 BURGLARY VEHICLE 12/20/2006 200 MAIN ST 2ND LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE Ln f W *sorted by address, then offense page 1 of 4 Parking Structure Crime Reports January 2006 thru May 312007 30 2008024787 BURGLARY VEHICLE 12/31=08 200 MAIN ST 3RD LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 31 2007002438 BURGLARY VEHICLE 02/07/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 32 2007006646 BURGLARY VEHICLE 04/11/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 4TH FLOOR 33 2007008298 BURGLARY VEHICLE 5/8/2007 200 MAIN ST 3RD LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 34 200700$300 BURGLARY VEHICLE 05/08/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 35 2007008369 BURGLARY VEHICLE 05/09/2007 200 MAIN ST 3RD LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 38 2007009388 BURGLARY VEHICLE 06/26/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE LEVEL 2 37 200801003 BURGLARY-VEHICLE 6/4/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 38 2008006846 BURGLARY VEHICLE 4/l/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 39 2006018447 BURGLARY VEHICLE 9/28/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 40 2008020326 BURGLARY VEHICLE 10012008 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 41 2006004481 DISORDERLY CONDUCT INTOXICATED 03/11/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 42 2008017064 DISORDERLY CONDUCT INTOXICATED 09/09/ O06 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 43 2008024633 DISORDERLY CONDUCT INTOXICATED 12/27/2006 200 MAIN ST 2ND LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 44 2008008646 DISORDERLY CONDUCT SOLICIT LEWD ACT 04/07/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 2ND 45 2007008830 DUI 4/13/2007 200 MAIN ST 1ST LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 48 2008008033 FOUND PROPERTY 04/04/2000 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE NIE STAIRWELL 47 2006016622 GRAND THEN 9/l/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 48 2008024093 GRAND THEFT FROM VEHICLE 12/20/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 49 2007003849 GRAND THEFT FROM VEHICLE 02/26/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 60 2007000826 HIT AND RUN 01/08/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 51 2007002436 PETTY THEFT FROM VEHICLE 2/7/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 62 2007002088 PLACING COMMERCIAL HANDBILLS ON VEHICLES 2/18/2007 200 MAIN ST 1ST LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 83 2007603649 PLACING COMMERCIAL HANDBILLS ON VEHICLES 3/16/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 64 2007008718 PLACING COMMERCIAL HANDBILLS ON VEHICLES 04/14/2007 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE 86 2006003697 POSSESS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 02/28/2000 200 MAIN ST WEST SIDE OF PARKING STRUCTURE 66 2000007298 POSSESS CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE 04/24/2008 200 MAIN ST 3RD FLOOR PARKING STRUCTURE 67 2006002820 VANDALISM 02/13/2006 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE LEVEL G 88 2006007WO VANDALISM 04/29/2006 200 MAIN ST TOP LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 89 2006018491 VANDALISM 09/30/2008 200 MAIN ST PARKING STRUCTURE A "sorted by address,then offense Page 2 of 4 w Parking Structure Crime Reports January 2006 thru May 312007 90 2006000208 AUTO THEFT 5/24/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 91 2007003482 BURGLARY VEHICLE 2/23/2Q07 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 3RD FLOOR 92 2008019107 BURGLARY VEHICLE 10/00008 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 93 2007008$01 BURGLARY VEHICLE 04/12/2007 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 2ND 94 2007008809 BURGLARY-VEHICLE 04/12/2007 7777 EDINGER AV 4TH LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 98 2008009684 BURGLARY VEHICLE 6/30/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 9$ 2008017472 BURGLARY-VEHICLE 9/18/2008 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 97 2008002317 BURGLARY VEHICLE 2/5/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 98 2008OQ2990 BURGLARY-VEHICLE 2/16/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 3RD FLOOR 99 2008003005 BURGLARY-VEHICLE 2/15/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 3RD FLOOR 100 2008023260 DISORDERLY CONDUCT SOLICIT LEWD ACT 12/08/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 101 2007001164 PETTY THEFT FROM VEHICLE 01/1=007 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 102 2007003ON PETTY THEFT-FROM VEHICLE 02/16/2007 7777 EDINGER AV 4TH LEVEL PARKING STRUCTURE 103 2007000686 PETTY THEFT FROM VEHICLE 008/2007 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE LEVEL 1 104 2008003888 RECOVERED STOLEN VEHICLE 3/1/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 1ST FLOOR 108 2008004891 RECOVERED STOLEN VEHICLE 3/12/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 1% 2006024263 VANDALISM 12/22/2006 7777 EDINGER AV PARKING STRUCTURE 1,07 2006001389 ROBBERY 1/22/2006 7842 WARNER AV PARKING STRUCTURE z 'sorted by address,then offense Page 4 of 4 Ron Santos, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Greetings Mr Santos, I live on Shipley Street across from the First Christian Church located at Main I Adams and 17'h Street. I am opposed to any expansion of the Churches facility Especially building a mult14evel parking lot They do not need a multilevel parking lot The parking lot they have is never full except maybe one day a week, Sunday The only other time their current lot gets full is on Easter and Christmas No matter what the design of the expansion or the parking structure they're planning it will alter the small town, neighborhood look and feel of this area I also feel by building and locating an ugly mult14evel parking structure so close to my home will lower my property value I will also be rallying my neighbors to stand up and oppose this Church expansion and parking facility I'm sure I won't have too much difficulty getting them to agree that this proposed expansion in not needed and would adversely affect this neighborhood YI eth Schiller 1726 Shipley Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 C,-,y 01' Fjuni-nz,OO Bruaca i MAY 2 5 2001 ATTACHMENT N �, ��� 2O01 ��am S1"E`vF Sr� F��r� 35 mo SSZ'l S C Of Tof�, 0�I�t V 6 L6 a�d T� 6f AU� `/j-oJ 000A rvol- o+vLy �IA-c- r� s �(�oL 13�11- Ci-ty � A(AJT-)d6�a�J (�� 7�,�e cis ii�,L :�5 /-�,�JD I��-� N�� a-f� �l�s i� c�S � Re- -0e k r G� S- � T w c.eKCe-- G*�/s?gV N6 dtJLy CS i�i ec;2 T(�e- ody R / �-mis kCc06"Dia's 7a kYrN4A m .� A aK r�S INC VsPI a� TkAc-, ef\(?46-11-1�) L,6t ov�;fv6 Scll�Ll �S ATTACHMENT NOSE s eKr(7�� -TNj WI-bs Vsv-ok,34e -PK lvaise, V(Z- <) r wick-r �5�, Q-C-T vizavRTZST kcw N -,U— TNT c�v�1 �("Ta T1le- sovT1-1 LOT ldUw WrLL gST2 C(Z:)(;� N�w�t� �� A� eye SPFC �On Wam TT-5 wcF (si?-c W7" mef\swzs w LL & I'kjl:�gQ � IMP e3z)Re 04 6-F TRQ-., Sl-"c�We, Wllzr,) W-OT :P\J I%e- T CAY\J rA PJOG�rn Wl LL- i LP-) N T MD P\J � f-I��- NS 2-� tS TipSgAit �DWCW- [�AAf� �N PKK Wr"G KS� PIACC,f PA I . 6-6(TI � K1R-ss ZG �%s S�ecu(zeo M-4T� 7��T.5 6�2cLiIN� s� uc;,ft4evfLLc/c)Y'f- Y►dl4e-, ftb e�A � ss �� �f�A��e-.gym PN(T-S ATTACHMENT NO s /y-7- SST (V'o* 5�6-t�) rWC)��CT TT� AN A0 (W� WAY SST4 ol Pem Q 1 �� t��S 00Ne W ifii� 00C Nj> � ��S [�-Cj *q-456f trjl)�/ Asi-1-0 M(��y 3T57 KtIo -TcWtMoN MRiz�fr� ffUvel�- �"T PcKmi`�S N� S(�� Awe., C,j P�;s X0 Due,-, TO Tk -FNq- ��� `I"L-his .Ts ::PA 1f4c- PVic AC(fj cw Wov� -I's Jib 5 k66�011\j -TS rvb-r--mc V/Pl4 is 0 ac.) pw(-� VB Z-ly---, v d;�k w 6u-�) rosv .zsS -rT5 w APP,/ "vrPeD 16(2,, OF-Mt-) A4D Slti�Ld N�Nlz�:NT KeD5-To Ok L66 -TA Tb A5 k-' en S �-�):�- s vim' b�0 -mo0r\(JTK6RT c�� _ flAb-)Q-) 71� G53 ATTACHMENT NO � �y3 Huntington Beach Planning Department Attention Ron Santos Associate Planner July 2 2007 NOTE-I have not had time to adequately compile edit and proofread this document because of the short time allowed to respond to documents made available to the public on June 28 Since there is no guarantee the comment period will be restarted I must file these comments today I am sure there are errors that I could correct and will correct if I am allowed to submit comments after this date Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 These comments supplement my comments of June 11 2007 OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMENT PROCESS At the outset I wish to raise new objections to the fairness of the comment process The fairness of the initial comment period(May 24 through June 12)was compromised by a clerical error that omitted several critical pages from the attachments to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(D-MND) While I appreciate the decision of the Planning Department to extend the original comment period to July 2,notice of this fact was not published until the June 28 issue of the Huntington Beach Independent(apparently because of an error on the part of the newspaper),J Although residents did receive a letter extending the comment period it was identical to the 1 original notice except that the closing date was changed from June 12 to July 2 A person who had already reviewed the D-MND would have no reason to know that important additional documents had been made added to the copies at the Planning Department counter and at the Central Library after June 10 On June 18 the First Christian Church held a meeting to discuss the plans with neighbors At this meeting, Senior Pastor Bruce Templeton said he had read the public comments on file in the Planning Department He said that m response to concerns expressed in the letters and to financial considerations,the church was modifying the plans and would delete several items from the proposal He said that the revised plans would be submitted to the city on June 19 Over the next nine days I and some of my neighbors attempted to review the revised plans I was told on June 19,21,25,and 27 by the Planning Department that no new plans had been submitted On June 27*I was told that the City had received an e-mail from the church promising the plans would be submitted soon. I was first able to obtain these revised plans and a revised narrative on Thursday,June 28' I suggested to Ron Santos that citizens could not be expected to comment by July 2 since most would not have an opportunity to review the plans or probably even have notice of the revisions Mr Santos could not comment since he had not had an opportunity to fully review the new plans,but he said the comment penod probably would not be extended if the revisions consisted solely of deletions from the original plans In fact,the new plans and revised narrative do not consist solely of deletions They reveal new information shortly before the end of the comment penod, leaving the public without adequate time to review the changes and file comments with the city I had prior commitments this past weekend and am struggling to complete these Page i of 7 ATTA T 5- ,yy_ .. `�TZ 1A� comments in time to file them today If I had more time,I could have done more to support my objections to the D-MND The promises and representations made by the Church at the meeting with neighbors on June 18 probably induced some neighbors to refrain from commenting on the original plans and the D-MND However, based on my review of the new plans and narrative and on a conversation with Mr Dyson, project manager for the Church, I discovered that the revised plans and narrative made available on June 28 were in several respects inaccurate, misleading, incomplete, or contrary to statements made on behalf of the church at the neighborhood meeting on June 18 With respect to some of these items, Mr Dyson admitted there were errors and represented that the Church planned to correct the errors by filing revisions with the city as quickly as their architects could respond Though I appreciate his candor and willingness to correct good faith errors,this does not elunmate the unfairness and perhaps illegality of askmg the public to comment on plans that have changed several times during the comment period and perhaps have not been finalized I want to stress that these changes do not consist solely of deletions—they clarify and add to the original materials in a manner that compromises the public's ability to review and comment on the adequacy of the D-MND More than that,the manner in winch the comment period has developed probably makes it virtually impossible for the city planners to conclude that the project(elements of which still have not been accurately presented in the newly revised plans and narrative)has no potentially significant impact on the environment. I spoke with Mary Beth Broeren on Friday,June 29,and expressed some of these concerns PTI to her She told me that it was too late to extend again the comment period which is due to expire Monday,July 2 because it would be impossible to give the public timely notice However,she did recognize that there were problems with the process that needed to be reviewed She told me she would raise these issues with her superiors in the Planning Department and recommend that they consider new notice and a new comment period I would strongly urge that the Planning Department take such action now I told Mr Dyson that this was my position and suggested that it would seem to make more sense for all parties affected to remedy the problems at this stage than to continue to the Planning Commission or City Council and be faced with having to go back to this stage at a later tune At the meeting with the neighbors on June 18,most of the neighbors in attendance and the church representatives expressed a willingness and desire to work together to allow the church to renovate their campus and accomplish their goals while respecting the community interest in preserving the nature and quality of the neighboring residential zones and avoiding unreasonable disruption for the 30 months of construction and the future decades of operation of the Next Wave of the Church's development. I hope that the neighbors will be given the opportunity to work with the Church to make suggestions that will balance these interests,and enable the Church to submit final plans the that city can fairly review for environmental impact before the neighbors are asked to comment again Summary of Additions and New information in Revised Narrative and Plans These are some of the points in the revised narrative and plans(made available on June 28, Page 2 of 7 ATTACHMENT NO 5- 2007)that raise concerns regarding the completeness and accuracy of the existing Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Revised Narrative OT1 Page 2 item E The bookstore is not in the narrative or general plans Mr Dyson told me this is going to be corrected Page 2 provides new information about the`Tidal Court" which 1 assume refers to the Tidal Plaza identified in the plans This new information raises concerns about noise Page 3 states the number of spaces in the parking structure as 299,though the original narrative states the number as 129 This was apparently a correction of an error, but citizens might have been confused and not been aware of the actual size until this correction was made available on June 28 Page 4 reveals for the first time the intended hours of operation of the cafe No mention is made of the bookstore Revised Plans[page 3 is missing] Page 1 The Tidal Plaza now more open to Adams Ave than it was under the original plans This is also true of the Little Squirts Court This could affect noise on Adams Pages E3 and E4 were not included in the copies of the D-MND even as corrected after June 11 I saw them for the first time on June 28 They show a 42-foot tower on the Cafe/Administration DTI Building that even Mr Dyson did not recall Page F2 still shows the large tower Mr Dyson says that this was an error and will be corrected D G l and G2 are diagrams of the parking structure that were not included in the D-MND G3 9 consists of new drawings of the parking structure and show an architectural tower and an elevator tower we did not know of until June 28 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS IN DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION In addition to the objections I raised in my letter of June 11, I have several new matters to raise I learned about these new matters from the revised plans and narrative made available on June 28,and from meetings and conversations with Associate Planner Ron Santos and �" representatives of the church I discovered new information,misinformation,or gaps in information that lead me to question the findings of no potentially significant impact regarding several matters I will discuss these matters,but first I must point at that at this point,the last day of the comment period, I still do not understand exactly what the church is proposing with respect to several important aspects of the project. Page 3 of 7 ATTACHMENT NO S' /1& Issue of Deletions from Initial Proposal Early in the meeting on June 18 with neighbors, Senior Pastor Bruce Templeton assured neighbors that several specific aspects of the plan to which neighbors objected were being deleted from the plans or were only mistakenly identified as in the plans in the first place My notes of that meeting show these were large Tower, the Little Squirts Court, the Amplutheater, the outdoor sound system, and pop jet fountains He told us the revisions would be submitted on June 19 The revised plans and narrative made available on June 28 did not fully correspond to these representations Mr Dyson, project manager of the church, responded to my request for � �l clarification. These were the items we discussed Page F2 of the plans still shows the large tower,though it was deleted on other pages Mr Dyson said this was an error The tower has been deleted and corrections will be submitted to the city Little Squirt's Playground This is still in the plans Mr Dyson told me that there was no intention to delete this He said that either I misunderstood or that someone misspoke This element was not addressed in the D-MND and I raised this objection in my letter of June 11 This is a playground area. Two other playground areas were the only elements requiring noise mitigation in the D-MND This aspect at least should be addressed in the D-MND Mr Dyson assured me that it would be screened in and only used on Sunday morning If such a limit exists, shouldn't it be expressed in the plans or fl�I{2 narrative and in the D-MND9 If these limits are not required,this would heighten my concerns about its noise impact of this playground area. On Thursday,June 28,outdoor activity involving inflatable playground equipment, water fights,and noise continued all day This occurred in the area where the Tidal Plaza will be We could hear it,and outdoor music, from our house with the windows open We do not have air conditions and should not have to keep windows closed in summer Amphitheater At a church meeting with the community about a year ago,I heard that the church planned to have an outdoor amphitheater Page 2 of the original plans lists an amphitheater in the Tidal Plaza. Ron Santos told me he did not address this in the D-MND because it was not part of the project proposal At the meeting with neighbors on June 18,Mr Templeton said the amphitheater was deleted,and this is stated in the revised narrative However,the revised narrative on page 1, item b, says there will be landscaping and hardscaping "designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places " Page 2 of the revised narrative says the Tidal Court[Plaza?] will serve as the main gathering area and will be open to the public It will include tables and chairs to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings Mr Dyson told me this hardscape will include tiered seating It seems like it modeled on the amplutheater at Bella Terra. I asked hum what was the difference between this and an amphitheater He told me an amphitheater has a sound system and scheduled events,and the Tidal Plaza will not have either of these Nevertheless,I believe this aspect of the project cannot be ignored in the D-MND Page 4 of 7 ATTACH ` No . Sound System The D-MND does not address the issue of an outside sound system Mr Santos told me this was because none was proposed However, the messages I have heard and seen are inconsistent 1 recall Mr Templeton saying at the meeting on June 18 that there would be no outdoor sound system Someone else said there would be no outdoor amplified sound system The new narrative says no outdoor amplified music The church's noise study page 8,said "There will be no outdoor amplified music, however there will be a localized speakers system that provide low volume background music " Reading these together, I am not satisfied there is no outdoor sound system as promised on June 18 Mr Dyson told me there will be no outdoor speaker or sound system and that the narrative will be corrected Until this is clanfied, it should not be ignored in the D-MND, especially since the original plans upon which the D-MND was based indicated the tower would contain an amphitheater sound booth Cafe and Bookstore I don't understand why a commercially operated cafe and bookstore open to the public in an area zoned P/PS does not violate the general plan and zoning laws of Huntington Beach. Even if DM 5- allowed,mitigation should be required Therefore the D-MND is inadequate regarding element I on page 7 — - My neighbors and I have commented on our concerns relating to noise,odors,and traffic caused by these operations Nowhere in the original D-MND were we given information relating to the capacity and hours of operation of these two activities At the meeting on June 18 we were told that the cafe would seat 70-80 inside and 15-20 outside It would operate from 7 am to 9 p in seven days a week[this is changed slightly in the revised narrative] There will be a full kitchen. The bookstore and cafe together were intended to create a welcoming environment for church members and the public comparable to a Barnes and Nobles and a Starbucks I asked if the church would at least consider hunting the hours of outdoor duung I was told this would be considered For the first time the revised narrative provides some details regarding the hours, but not size,of the cafe It ignores the bookstore I was told that unless limits are unposed in the conditional use permit,there are no restrictions on the operation of the cafe or bookstore This is not the document to address the conditions,but without any restrictions I don't see how the D-MND can declare there is no potentially sigtuficant impact I believe Mr Santos said there was nothing in the proposal about outdoor dining However,on another occasion he told me that if one has an approved school,that implies playing outside anywhere but a parking lot is permitted Under that logic,if one has a cafe, is outdoor dining permitted anywhere but the parking lots Mr Dyson said the bookstore was omitted by error,and the narrative will be corrected. I cannot comment because I have not seen the final narrative,but I wonder whether there will be 1 Iunits on hours There is a receiving entrance for this building Will delivery hours be lmuted9 I believe they were for Target and Walmart- Why is this ignored in the D-MND9 Traffic is already congested in the late afternoon at Adams and Main. Has the traffic impact of these two commercial enterprises open to the public been addressed? I didn't see it in Page 5 of 7 ATTACHMENT NO a 1115 the D-MND I just discovered on pages E3 and E4 [not made available before June 28] that there will be a 42-foot tower on this building This raises concerns about aesthetics and how it fits in the neighborhood Another citizen has raised questions about odors from the full service kitchen I saw �- nothing in the D-MND regarding this Even if allowed by the zoning laws and general plan, I would expect to see some mitigation required to protect nearby residences I recall reading that the city imposed such requirements on Target, Walmart,and the Moulin Rouge restaurant It seems obvious that noise, odors from the kitchen, parking(slamming doors, car alarms), and traffic generated by these uses create a potential significant impact on the neighborhood,even if mitigated When I asked whether the church would consider limiting outdoor dining hours, I was told it would be considered When I asked whether the limits would be incorporated in the request for the CUP, I did not get an answer It is my understanding that mitigating measures must be in the negative declaration and means of enforcement must be considered before the potential impact can be disregarded If allowed at all, these activities must be limited Mistake regarding parking structure. New diagram of parking structure The original narrative said the parking structure would hold 129 spaces and the new narrative says that it will hold 299 Mr Templeton did not return my call because he is out of town, but Mr Dyson,the project manager called me this morning He said the first narrative was in error -the total parking spaces listed is only one more than before(580 compared to 579), but the number of spaces in the structure was erroneously reported as 129 in the first narrative-- it has 0 always been intended to have 299 spaces I also discovered that the plans include pages G 1 and G2 relating to the parking structure that I had never seen before These pages were not even included in the corrected version of the plans made available on June 7 Page G3 shows an"architectural tower" as part of the parking structure In addition, it was revealed at this meeting that the plans are still incomplete with regard to several matters Height,lighting,and hours of usage still have to be finalized. For example, it appears that it has not yet been determined what hours the parking structure would be in use,how it would be secured when closed,and what type of lighting will be used Without knowing this, how can a negative declaration regarding noise,parking,and light be made? Special Events The revised narrative says on page 2 that there will be no regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings On p 4, Hours of Operation, it says weddings,and related activities,along with other special events held at the church will end by 10 p in [Weddings and funerals any day of week 01-2.5- except Sunday] Attachment D estimates 350 attendance for planning purposes This creates the potential for noise from events ending at 10 p in in residential neighborhood with people going to cars,slamming doors,etc This narrative seems too vague to justify a finding of no potentially significant impact Page 6 of 7 ATTACHMENT r 9 y L How often is occasional? I recently learned that the church should have been obtaining activity permits for special activities held in the parking lot,and is limited to four a year I was told that apparently the church was not aware of this requirement I also recently learned from Ron Santos,that this requirement only applies to use of the parking lot and it can be circumvented by the issuance of a conditional use permit allowing such activities If the church specifies in its narrative occasional special events,have they just eliminated any restrictions on outside events? I don't know what the church is actually requesting or what limits remain None of this is addressed in the D-MND Based on the information provided, I do not see how the Planning Department can find no potentially significant impact,especially given the rigorous legal requirements for a negative declaration I am concerned about outdoor special events In discussing this recently with Ron Santos, he said that outdoor play events, like one on June 28, would not require activity permit because it would be a natural activity of a campus with a school It can take place anywhere on campus except parking lots Then what is point of requiring sound walls only on the two designated play areas on the south side of the campus? Does this mean there is no limit to frequency,duration, or time of such activities? On June 28,there was even outdoor sound system This cannot be ignored in negative declaration We were told at the meeting of June 18 with the church that all events end by 10 p in, sinless neighbors are notified The revised narrative says events will end by 10 p m,but it takes tune for people to clear What steps will the city require to assure that these promises are kept_ I have evidence that activity has continued past ten,and at least once past midnight. fl Are there any limits on frequency,duration, location,and time of these occasional special events?It seems there is a potential for significant impact of not limited or mitigated Prior Conditional Use Permits and Restrictions After the church held community meeting last summer,I went to the Planning Dept and looked at the existing CUPs My memory is hazy,but I recall seeing several CUPS with some limits imposed by the city including,I believe,size of cross and signage, restrictions on simultaneous use I discovered recently that the church's application was changed from one amending existing existing CUPS to a new CUP Ron Santos told me on Thursday that this supersedes prior CUPS and accompanying iunits If true,shouldn't this have been discussed in the negative declaration Construction Noise At the meeting with the church on June 18,1 raised concerns about the long hours allowed for construction. I was told there are no plans to do construction on Saturdays,and that contractor would normally begin at 7a m and cease mid-afternoon. I asked if church would agree to these as � limits in the CUP,and I was told it would be taken under consideration. Some mitigation is essential How common are construction projects of this duration in a residential neighborhood? Page 7 of 7 C, Huntington Beach Planning Department Attention Ron Santos, Associate Planner JUN 112007 June 11 2007 SUMMARY The length of this letter commenting on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 [D- MND] is a result of the numerous problems with that declaration Therefore I will summarize my basic points i The process for public comment is deficient because critical information was omitted from the copies of the documents provided for public review at the Planning Department and the Central Library I request that the documents be provided, the public be given notice,and the review DT period be restarted 2 The D-MND fails to adequately identify or explain many potentially significant impacts Other potential impacts are classified as less than significant without adequate information Under the standards set forth in the D-MND (page 6 Item 3), "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance I believe some impacts were classified less than significant based on an erroneous legal standard of review Based on my conversations with Ron Santos and on the explanations he provides in the negative declaration, I believe in several cases he found less than significant impact because the proposal does not violate any laws In my opinion,that is not the legally appropriate standard For these reasons the D-MND is inadequate and unjustified because it is based on mcomplete information from the applicant and insufficiently explained or justified by the planner Since I believe an appropriate review would conclude there are one or more potentially significant impacts for which no remediation has been required, CEQA requires the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report PRELIMINARY COMMENTS When I spoke to Herb Fauland on June 8,2007,to request a new or extended comment period,he advised me to be prepared to submit my comments by the June 12 deadline in case my request was denied I have prepared some comments,but I reserve the right to amend these comments in the event more time is granted and in the light of new information made available to the public The Comment Process I have serious objections to the comment process and to the Associate Planner's manner of review and his conclusions Due to errors,the documents available for public inspection are incomplete and therefore misleading At least one page is not even available from the Planner's file When one asks to review the materials relating to this document,they receive only Mr Santos' notice of May 18,2007,the 27 page Environmental Checklist form,and some attachments Attachments 1 through 3 are missing the even pages Attachments 4 and 5 are Page I of I TWMW nussing entirely from the copy at the Central Library Page 2 of attachment 4 is missing from both public copies and even from the original in the Planner s file As of Friday June 8, the page could not be located in the Planning Department I do not know if there is more than one page to attachment 5 The D-MND refers to attachment 23,but that is not attached If there is an attachment 23,are there attachments b through 22? These omissions also raise the question of D. whether the Design Review Board and the Environmental Assessment Committee had the complete D-MND when they approved it For these reasons I request the Public Comment period be restarted with new notice to the public Commenting on the Application for a Conditional Use Permit I was told that objections to the application for a conditional use permit based on factors other than what are in the negative declaration do not have to be submitted during this comment period,and that there will be an opportunity to object to the CUP at a later time However,the CUP was not available at the library or at the desk in the planning department We won't even know of the staffs recommendations until 7 days before the hearing by the Planning n �3 Commission The Church has had years to work out its position—I fear the neighbors will not have an adequate time to respond It is my hope that the Planning Department staff will exercise its responsibility to take into consideration the harm to and interests of the city and the neighborhood With two minimal exceptions(runoff and south side playgrounds), Mr Santos does not appear to have done so yet Inadequate Review by the Planner to Preparing the D 111ND Based on the documents that are available and that I have seen,it appears that there are aspects of the Church's proposal that were totally ignored or overlooked by Mr Santos When I asked hum why his assessment did not address certain aspects of the proposal, such as outdoor amphitheater,outdoor sound system,and outdoor dining,he asked me where I got that Ott information. I said that I learned this as the meeting with Church officials and neighbors months ago He said that he did not consider these because they were not part of the current proposal I later learned that they were,and are revealed clearly in one of the documents missing from the publicly available versions [page 2 of the Plans,one of the even pages missing from attachment 2] This alone demonstrates that the negative declaration is not based on the record and is therefor inadequate My reading of Mr Santos' conclusions is that he appears to have based them on the conclusions of the consultants for the Church,and did not exercise his own independent judgment of the logical negative consequences of the Church's plans when he concluded, erroneously I believe,that almost none of the plan would result in potentially significant impacts Also,from conversat;ons with him,I believe he applied an erroneous standard—that compliance with city ordinances precludes a finding of potentially significant unpact He specifically argued that my objections of inadequate protection of the neighborhood amounted to-nothing more than a disagreement with the scope of the city ordinances This ignores the law and existing practice of going beyond the minimum protection of ordinances when granting a conditional use permit Page 2 of 11 ITT , I. Z If the only conditions were compliance with existing ordinances there would be no need for a conditional use permit process People who violated the ordinances would be cited for the violations I believe this erroneous standard resulted in erroneous conclusions In fact there are more areas than one where he should have found a potentially significant impact Therefore he should not have made a negative declaration and an Environmental Impact Report should be required In addition,according to the standards in the D-MND(page 6, item 3) if information is not adequate to eliminate the possibility of negative impact,a finding of probable impact is required The Church's own reports concede lack of details and information making estimates of impact difficult or impossible This is omitted from the Planner's explanations This shows that the application of the Church is incomplete for purposes of a negative declaration. Further investigation of the potentially significant impacts and possible mitigation should be required before the Department proposes a negative impact declaration All of this suggests that a new declaration and review by the required persons,boards, and committees should be required,and that an EIR is probably also required by law In another conversation with Mr Santos,he implied that objections need to be supported by reasons,but he was not in a position to detail what substantiation was required My preliminary review of the law appears to indicate that it is sufficient that those commenting raise questions,and that the burden is on the applicant to show that there are no significant impacts I will attempt to demonstrate in the following comments that the Church's own proposals and studies raise concerns that are not adequately addressed I will also attempt to point out problems with Mr Santos' finding and explanations however,these comments are tentative and preliminary Since I have not seen all relevant pages of the negative declaration and supporting documents, I cannot say with confidence that there are not other problems,nor can I say that the missing pages won't contain information negating my objections—but even if they do,this only demonstrates the problems with the existing public review process in this case Omissions from the D-WD _ Before commenting on what is in Mr Santos' review,I want to emphasize what is not in his report. In some ways the omissions are more significant than what is addressed for three reasons I It demonstrates that the application is incomplete or the review is incomplete 2 It shows why there is at least one potentially significant impact that has not been refuted or mitigated,thereby requiring an EIR 3 The absence from the report shows that even if claims I and 2 are rejected,failure to identify these impacts and to explain a finding of no significant impact impairs the ability of the public to review and comment It is much more difficult to comment on what is not in a report than what is in it. Page 3 of 11 ATTACHMENT NOrs3 DETAILED COMMENTS NOISE This is the area where I find the most obvious and serious deficiencies in the D-MND At a meeting with neighbors, the Church gave a slide presentation of its plans The plans included an outdoor amphitheater,outdoor dining, gathering areas, and I believe an outdoor sound system Other than outdoor gathering areas, I saw none of these items mentioned in the negative declaration I asked the planner why he had not addressed these issues He responded that regardless of what was said at the meeting,these were not part of the Church's current proposal I later returned to the Planning Department to seek information missing from the public document I happened to see the plans for the Church on the counter I asked another planner about these items He said they should be in the plans if proposed On page 2 of the plans I discovered the following(I am going to quote lust a few descriptions from one of the missing pages of the plan,page 2) Building Legend E ADMINJCAFE Full service kitchen with indoor/outdoor seating, Church Offices G TOWER Focal Feature, Shaded play/Kiosk/Amphitheatre Sound Booth Landscape/Hardscape Legend i VILLAGE GATEWAY Visual/Pedestrian"Front Porch uses Cafe/Bookstore/Dmmg Terrace 2 CHAPEL GARDEN Frames Chapel/Terminal Vista, Wedding Garden/Gazebo/bamboo Screening 3 TIDAL PLAZA Fellowship Plaza/Amphitheatre,Pop Jet Fountains Embedded Sculptures, Tidal Focal 4 LITTLE SQUIRTS COURT Soft Play Children's Area visually accessible from Fellowship Plaza 8 CHILDREMS OUTDOOR PLAY Age appropriate themed Outdoor Play zones My cots meats I Sound System The above features,all ignored in Mr Santos' noise analysis except item 8 from the Landscape Legend,on their face raise potentially significant noise impacts Mr Santos' explanation to me of not considering them in his negative declaration is that they were not in the proposal I told him I had heard about a sound system that was not amplified He said there is no such thing He said if it is a sound system, it is amplified Subsequently I found the following in a copy of the Church's sound report given to me by a neighbor(I later discovered it was in Mr Santos' file) MISCELLANEOUS ACTIVITIES "There will be no outdoor amplified music,however there would be a localized speakers system that provides low volume background music" Page 8 Page 4 of I I ATTACHMENT l sy How can this be ignored in the negative declaration Doesn't it at least ment an ti explanation I would not be aware of this if I relied solely on the D-MND,even when supplemented by Mr Santos' oral representations I live immediately north of the Church Normal conversations at night are a nuisance unless I keep my windows closed(we do not have air conditioning) If the people outside can hear the music,I can hear the music The Church's noise study continues "Although a detailed plan showing the location of the speakers is not available,the speakers will be calibrated to emit 70dBA or less at 3 feet from any speaker" Page 8 Since this is not in the proposal at all according to Mr Santos,does this mean it is not permitted? Then what purpose is served by the sound control booth in the Tower? See Plans page 2, missing page 2 of attachment 2 Mr Santos cites this study in his list of documents utilized. Doesn't he have a duty to explain potential negative impacts discussed in Church documents he utilized? The Church's report says a detailed plan for the speakers is not available That suggests the application is inadequate and the planner should not have issued a D-MND And if the planner does act on the incomplete record, its own standards require that this be designed a potentially significant impact because of lack on information showing that it will not be one At least it should have been considered under the cumulative effect category Item XVII b) Finally,this portion of the Church's study concludes,"The resultant sound levels would be less than the 50dBA at any project property line and comply with the City s noise ordinance requirements" This again raises my fundamental objection that the fact no ordinances are violated does not rebut the potentially significant impact If the standard for a conditional use permit was only that no laws are violated,there would be no need for the entire process Normal code enforcement would be sufficient. Yet the Church's response is the same response I got - ' from Mr Santos repeatedly,leading me to infer that he and the Church's noise study both fail to meet the standard for a negative declaration 14 2 Item 4[from the Landscape Legend of page 2 of the Plans]LITTLE SQUIRTS COURT Soft Play Cluldren`s Area visually accessible from Fellowship Plaza The"soft play area"is near the Tidal Plaza,containing"Pop Jet Fountains" Have you ever heard little squirts around water? It is not quiet. If the child play areas in item 8 of the Landscape Legend required mitigation(the only mitigation required other than for water runoff) OT3J why is this play area totally ignored in the D-MND? Also,regarding the two other play areas noted in item 8,if noise to the south must be mitigated by a seven foot high sound wall,why not noise to the north? I cannot tell if there are any walls on the north side of the play area. At a minimum,this should have been explained in the negative declaration, 3 Item 3 [from the Landscape Legend on page 2 of the plans] outdoor amphitheater Other items listed above from page 2 of the plans so obviously raise the potential of noise impact,that the failure of Mr Santos to address them is inexplicable unless his explanation is true that he believed the Church's current plans do not propose an amphitheater,outdoor dmmg, or a sound system. The desk copy did show hardscape improvements designed to create high ON quality outdoor gathering places I asked him about this and why he had not addressed it. He said this was not an amphitheater and did not have any more impact than the courtyard outside Page 5 of i 1 ATTACHMENT NO 57, /5"5`_ city hall—people stop to talk when they leave a building The two situations are not at all comparable in function,design,or location Even if they were, it should have been noted as an explanation when he concluded that there was no potential significant impact Why is no mitigation required for an outdoor amphitheater that may be used for unidentified events ands, perhaps has an outdoor sound system9 If a child's playground requires mitigation by a seven foot soundwall, why is there no requirement of a soundwall in the gap between the AdmuustionlCafe building and the Tower Unlike the playground areas,the amphitheater and outdoor dining mentioned next might be used at night. 4 Item E[from the Building Legend of page 2 of the plans] Cafe With regard to the cafe,Mr Santos said there was no proposal for outdoor seating, contrary to what I later discovered on page 2 of the plans Is that where the outdoor musk will also be situated? I told him I had heard conflicting statements regarding when the cafe would close— 10 or I 1 p in He told me that the Church said it would close at 10 p in. This is too late for a residential neighborhood,and even if permitted it should have been disclosed and explained in the negative declaration But worse,I do not even see any time limitation in the D-NM Even in commercial areas,there are time limits S Parlang Structure Norse Mr Santos notes [D-MND page 20 item d),Discussion] that the parking structure is a noise source identified in the Church's noise study He reports that the study concludes that future exterior traffic levels would be in compliance with the City's noise ordinance He concludes the section with a finding of Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated, but the only mitigation required in the noise portion of the study consists of a wall near two of the play areas This implies that he had found that the parking lot does not have a potentially significant noise impact. Yet the Church noise report he relies on says the following "Noise from parking structures typically consists of vehicles arriving and departing,vehicle movement within the parking structure,wheel squeal,car alarms,opening and closing of car doors,and peoples' voices Quantification of parking structure noise is difficult to predict due to many variables" The Church's study concludes that design features will reduce parking structure noise to levels similar to the current condition. Nowhere does Mr Santos discuss whether that level has a potentially sigmficant impact. Car alarms are currently a disturbing factor The other noises are in the words of the Church's own report,difficult to quantify In addition I mention elsewhere in this letter other authorized and unauthorized uses of the parking lot that generate significant noise There are no requirements that the Church control unauthorized use of the parking structure The hack of information about these effects requires a finding of potentially significant impact- 6 Other Activities Attachment 3-4 to the D-MND identifies many activities taking place on church property including the following evening activities Sunday school,small group meeting,team meetings, youth meetings,and music rehearsals In addition the Church says the following about special events in footnote * Special Page ti of I f ATTACHMENT NO -L Events are not regularly scheduled events They may take place any day of the week except Sundays Activities associated with special events conclude by 10 00 p m' How can Mr Santos find no significant noise unpact based on tins material attached to his negative declaration, and how can a negative declaration fails to include any of this in the explanation be considered adequate? One night around midnight I requested that the Church cease outdoor dismantling of a metal stage following one of these special events and received the reply, "We should be finished soon' In addition,one activity starts as early as 6 am The attachment also reports a total daily attendance of more than 1000 per day except Monday and Friday Attachment 3-4 These other activities are not specified with any detail(e g, D-MND page 2 Table A,C - meeting space for other large groups/f inctions), therefore there is insufficient information to conclude that there is no significant negative impact. This shows that the application for the conditional use pernut is mcomplete for purposes of issuing a negative declaration There already are numerous occasional activities in parking lot that cause noise(e g, outdoor barbecues,nativity scene viewing, arrival and departure of buses,musical performances) These do not appear to have been considered even though they suggest the potential for significant unpact alone or cumulated with other activities There is no explanation of what additional occasional uses are planned other than weddings and funerals Since the D-MND contains no restrictions,the lead agency lacks sufficient information to make a finding of no potentially significant impact There also are some occasional uses that are not authorized by the Church but which the Church has told me it cannot control—such as late night fireworks, auto racing, model car racing and model airplane flying,skateboarding,and playground activities Though the Church is not proposing these activities,their existence impacts the total cumulative effect of the events the Church will sponsor 7 Construction Norse A negative declaration requires consideration of construction noise D-MND p 6 item 2 There are standard conditions unposed on construction by the city However, I imagine that it is extremely unusual to see proposed a 30-month time period for construction in a residential neighborhood Disruption of quiet enjoyment of one's home and neighborhood from 7 a.m to 8 p m.Monday through Saturday might be tolerable for a few days or weeks, but not for two and a half yearn Meeting the requirements of city ordinances does not justify ignoring the impact The city standards do not adequately mitigate the harm. CEQA night still allow the noise to occur,but at mimmu m in this situation it would seem to require an ERR The Church's own noise study,4 4 CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION p 7 says that"A construction phasing plan has not been developed at this time,therefore only a general estimate of construction noise levels can be provided." This shows that the proposal is incomplete and cannot provide the basis for fndmg no potential significant impact. It is not reassuring that the concluding sentence of this portion of the study states,"The construction contractor would be required to comply with the City's Municipal Code "I have called to complain on prior occasions about noise,and the response of the Church has been they cannot control when the contractor chooses to do work. If this does not need to be addressed under noise,then it should have at least been addressed under Page 7 of I I ATTACHMENT NO � public services, because it sounds like the responsibility is being shifted back to the city This open-ended 30-month construction window obviously raises potentially significant noise impact unless mitigated,and merely requiring compliance with the City s noise ordinance is not an adequate response or even explanation. Element X b, addresses groundbome vibration or noise levels Mr Santos does not require any mitigation of construction noises We have experienced disruptive vibration from previous construction work and see no mitigation measures being proposed to address that The Church's own noise study identifies the issue of traffic noise Increasing traffic volume will increase the amount of traffic noise The Church's study was only concerned with impact of traffic noise on the Church, not with the proposal's impact on the neighborhood resulting from increased traffic Mr Santos' report ignores the fact that some traffic is going to be redirected from Loma to Adams and to i r Street. This needs to be addressed in the negative declaration For more on this issue, see discussion of traffic impact,elsewhere in this letter 8 Noise from trash collection and loading or delivery docks Rainbow currently picks up trash from a large metal bin three days a week from a ramp located outside the Worslup Center Just south of Adams Pickup often occur around 7 am This creates loud disruptive banging of metal and truck backup warning beeps I complained to the Church about tins at the neighborhood meeting I was told by Church official they would consider relocating the trash pickup I spoke to Ron Santos He told me that not even the current location is shown on plans, though there are requirements that the location of trash storage bins be shown(see discussion of Hazardous Waste) Mr Santos obtained for me a statement that there were no plans to relocate His position seems to be that if it is not being changed, it can be ignored However, a negative declaration requires consideration of cumulative impact New plans without significant impact when added to existing noise can cumulatively cause a significant impact Building plans I recently discovered show that there will be a loading dock or delivery dock for the Cafe/Admin building This is also ignored in the negative declaration,yet matters like this have resulted in mitigation requirements in other cases in this city Therefore there { �# should be a restriction on the Church before finding no potentially significant impact At a minimum,there should be some explanation why no mitigation is required AMTIIETICS I believe that there were pnor conditional use permits[CUPs]granted on this property with restrictions to mitigate aesthetic impact. This is ignored in the current D-MND This raises a cntical issue that is not addressed does this CUP supersede limitations imposed by prior CUPs? I have not been able to get a clear answer to this question Originally this application for a CUP was submitted as an amendment to the existing CUPS,and this is what I was told at the meeting the Church held for neighbors At some point this application was changed to a new application. Why? Because an amendment would leave pnor conditions unless expressly changed? Does this new process imphedly repeal all prior conditions?Either way,this merited discussion in the negative declaration and the public had a right to be informed. This omission is another demonstration that the finding of no potentially significant impact is not justified. Page 8 of 11 ATTAr,HMFNT NO �' is Since the aesthetic aspects have already been approved by the Design Review Board this omission and others makes me wonder if the Board was aware of these omissions Are there publicly available findings of the Design Review Board that members of the public can inspect The Church's proposal identifies several aspects as visual focal points including the large tower The reduced plans included in the public version of the D-MND are difficult to read but it appears the Tower is 84 feet, and a sketch of the completed campus illustrates how it will serve as the focal point for the campus These large structures and a parking structure totally out of place in a residential neighborhood will dominate the neighborhood vista Very few parking structures exist in the entire city and to my knowledge are all part of a commercial development or partly commercial development in a commercial area(Plaza Almeria) Tins is not specifically log addressed in the negative declaration Item XUI d on page 23 addresses light or glare It states that lighting will be similar to the existing site What about the outdoor dining area and other gathering areas These do not currently exist Do the plans show where the lights will be? There is not sufficient information made public to justify a finding of no potentially significant impact TRAFFIC Mr Santos' discussion of traffic on page 14 of the D-MND specifically notes"one activity at the project that is notable"is the preschool pickup and drop off on Loma Avenue, Main Street, and 14'Street He says the proposed project does not significantly alter the preschool activity Besides ignoring this traffic as part of the cumulative impact of the project, he may be factually wrong According to statements made to neighbors at the Church meeting, in order to address concerns of residents on Loma about traffic generated by drop off and pickup of children at the schools,this traffic will be redirected to Adams and 17'' The relocation is also noted in the D-MND page 2 table A item B Santos appears to be unaware of it and totally fails to consider the impact on Adams and 17'Street One potential safety impact that I would like to specifically address is the speed and amount of traffic westbound from Main to 17'on Adams Traffic exiting the alley between Mann and Slupley or turning from Adams into the alley cannot be seen by westbound traffic on Adams because of a blind curve This currently exists,but increase in traffic will exacerbate this problem I specifically raised this concern at the Church meeting with neighbors and requested them to look into mitigation It has been ignored Mr Santos' explanation of the traffic impact assumes that various mitigation measures [e g,limiting attendance below rapacity, shuttle service] will be taken but does not check the box requiring mitigation. If the no impact or less than significant impact finding is based on xnnntigated activity,that should be a requirement of approval I question the conclusion there will be adequate parking based on the fact that Church staff members are currently instructed to park in residential streets to save places for church members on Sunday Page 9 of 1 I ATTACHMENTS, r�� HAZARDOUS MATERIALS The D-MND page 18 says there are issues relating to capped oil wells and methane but that because of city policies, there is no potentially significant impact As we saw on Bushard not too long ago,city policies don't always prevent accidents I am not confident this conclusion justifies a negative declaration without mitigation PUBLIC SERVICES As I mentioned regarding noise and the parking structure, security might be required to mitigate noise in the structure and the parking lot There are no mitigation requirements This might increase demand on police services since neighbors will have no recourse other than T calling the police This is not an efficient use of police resources Some mitigation should be t � required for a finding of no potentially significant unpact In addition,some people have expressed public safety concerns regarding concealment of predators in the parking structure Though we have heard rumors the Church will provide security, it is not a requirement in the D- MND I can find no element in which to address this other than Public Services HYDROLOGY This was one of the only two areas where Mr Santos' notes that mitigation is required However,I have concerns about whether the mitigation required is adequate In 1997,an El Nino year(and I fear there will be more),the flow of runoff rainwater exceeded existing capacity along Shipley and Adams near the Church I do not know if the City Planning Department took cu�� this into consideration in requiring mitigation It might not be sufficient to handle the problem in extremely heavy rainfall Though this area is not in a flood zone,danger of localized flooding due to heavy runoff and inadequate storm drains do not appear on a flood map Anyone who goes by Adams and Lake on a day with even moderate rain can see that,just blocks from the Planning Department Item in on page 12 of the D-MND speaks of potential discharge of stormwater pollutantT— from areas of material storage(including waste handling and loading docks),yet when I asked V>T 6 Mr Santos whether the Church was relocating their current waste storage and pickup area,he said it was no shown on any of the plans How can he conclude there is no impact if he does not even know the locatnon.9 He also reports that the proposal does not include delivery areas or loading docks Item m,page 12 1 believe the plans for the Administrative/Cafe building do include a delivery area uT4-g or loading dock,in which case he is factually wrong Perhaps some of tins is identified in the cited attachment 23,but it is not an attachment that was part of the document made available for public inspection. AIR QUALITY There are restrictions on construction for air quality purposes in the city's standard conditions Has staff considered whether the parking structure or Cafe will have any impact on air quality? I did not see this in his explanation for his finding of less than significant impact. I also do not dunk he has explained why the very impacts he has identified are less than significant. Again he seems to suggest that absent a violation of the law(in this case SCAQMD Page 10 of 1 I ATTACHMENT NO S thresholds),there is no significant impact Mere compliance with the law does not justify per se a finding of no potentially significant impact and ignores the cumulative impact He concludes that the standard construction limits on construction will prevent any potentially significant impact during construction, but no obligation is imposed on the Church to monitor the contractors, something they have refused to do in the past ELEMENT %VH, MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE The findings on items b and c are inadequate because of the inadequate review of the other elements CONCLUSION The numerous issues ignored or inadequately addressed demonstrate that there was insufficient information to justify a finding of no potentially significant impact, or that the application was incomplete,or that Mr Santos often applied a standard of review that only considered whether there would be violations of ordinances(a standard that is not sufficient for a Negative Declaration) Therefore the negative declaration should not be adopted and an Environmental Impact Report should be required At least,the City should investigate the concerns I have raised and require revision of the plans to adequately mitigate the potentially significant impacts C � Submitted by David Trenman June 11,2007 Page 11 of It ATTACHMENT t9 QtY of Huntington Beach h AVG 0,8 Z007 Huntington Beach Planning Department Attention Ron Santos, Associate Planner From David Treiman July 2, 2007 [Typographical and grammatical errors corrected Sunday, August 5 2007] Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 These comments supplement my comments of June It, 2007 OBJECTIONS TO THE COMMENT PROCESS At the outset I wish to raise new objections to the fairness of the comment process The fairness of the initial comment period(May 24 through June 12)was compromised by a clerical error that omitted several critical pages from the attachments to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration(D-MND) While I appreciate the decision of the Planning Department to extend the original comment period to July 2,notice of tins fact was not published until the June 28 issue of , the Huntington Beach Independent(apparently because of an error on the part of the newspaper) Although residents did receive a letter extending the comment period, it was identical to the original notice except that the closing date was changed from June 12 to July 2 A person who had already reviewed the D-MND would have no reason to know that important additional documents had been added to the copies at the Planning Department counter and at the Central Library after June 10 On dune 18 the Fast Christian Church held a meeting to discuss the plans with neighbors ' At this meeting, Senior Pastor Bruce Templeton said he had read the public comments on file in the Planning Department He said that in response to concerns expressed in the letters and to financial considerations,the church was modifying the plans and would delete several items from the proposal He said that the revised plans would be submitted to the city on June 19 Over the next nine days I and some of my neighbors attempted to review the revised plans I was told on June 19,21,25,and 27 by the Planning Department that no new plans had been submitted On June 27'I was told that the City had received an e-mail from the church promising the plans would be submitted soon. I was first able to obtain these revised plans and a revised narrative on Thursday,June 28`' I suggested to Ron Santos that citizens could not be expected to comment by July 2 since most would not have an opportunity to review the plans or probably even have notice of the revisions Mr Santos could not comment since he had not had an opportunity to fully review the new plans,but he said the comment period probably would not be extended if the revisions consisted solely of deletions from the original plans In fact,the new plans and revised narrative do not consist solely of deletions They reveal new information shortly before the end of the comment period, leaving the public without adequate time to review the changes and file comments with the city I had prior commitments this past weekend and am struggling to complete these comments in tune to file them today If I had more time, I could have done more to support my objections to the D-MND The promises and representations made by the church at the meeting with neighbors on June 18 probably induced some neighbors to refram from commenting on the original plans and the Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT NO D-MND However, based on my review of the new plans and narrative and on a conversation with Mr Dyson, project manager for the church, I discovered that the revised plans and narrative made available on June 28 were in several respects inaccurate, misleading, incomplete or contrary to statements made on behalf of the church at the neighborhood meeting on June 18 With respect to some of these items,Mr Dyson admitted there were errors and represented that the church planned to correct the errors by filing revisions with the city as quickly as their architects could respond Though I appreciate lus candor and willingness to correct good faith errors,this does not eliminate the unfairness and perhaps illegality of asking the public to comment on plans that have changed several times during the comment period and perhaps have not been finalized I want to stress that these changes do not consist solely of deletions—they clarify and add to the original materials in a manner that compromises the public's ability to review and comment on the adequacy of the D- MND More than that,the manner in which the comment period has developed probably makes it virtually impossible for the city planners to conclude that the project(elements of which still have not been accurately presented in the newly revised plans and narrative)has no potentially significant impact on the environment I spoke with Mary Beth Broeren on Friday,June 29,and expressed some of these concerns to her She told me that it was too late to extend again the comment period which is due to expire Monday,July 2 because it would be impossible to give the public timely notice However, she did recognize that there were problems with the process that needed to be reviewed She told me she would raise these issues with her superiors in the Planning Department and recommend that they consider new notice and a new comment period I would strongly urge that the Planning Department take such action now I told Mr Dyson that this was my position and suggested that it would seem to make more sense for all parties affected to remedy the problems at this stage than to continue to the Planning Commission or City Council and be faced with having to go back to this stage at a later time At the meeting with the neighbors on June 18,most of the neighbors in attendance and the church representatives expressed a willingness and desire to work together to allow the church to renovate its campus and accomplish its goals while respecting the community interest in preserving the nature and quality of the neighboring residential zones and avoiding unreasonable disruption for the 30 months of construction and the future decades of operation of the Next Wave of the church's development I hope that the neighbors will be given the opportunity to work with the church to make suggestions that will balance these interests,and enable the church to submit final plans the that city can fairly review for environmental impact before the neighbors are asked to comment again Summary of Additions and New information in Revised Narrative and Plans These are some of the points in the revised narrative and plans(made available on June 28, 2007)that raise concerns regarding the completeness and accuracy of the existing Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration Revised Narrative Page 2,item E The bookstore is not in the narrative or general plans Mr Dyson told me this is Page 2 of 7 ATTACHMENT going to be corrected Page 2 provides new information about the"Tidal Court"which I assume refers to the Tidal Plaza -1 identified in the plans This new information raises concerns about noise Page 3 states the number of spaces in the parking structure as 299, though the original narrative states the number as 129 This was apparently a correction of an error, but citizens might have5� been confused and not been aware of the actual size until this correction was made available on June 28 Page 4 reveals for the first time the intended hours of operation of the cafe No mention is made S,p of the bookstore .� Revised Plans[page 3 is missing] Page 1 The Tidal Plaza now more open to Adams Ave than it was under the original plans This D is also true of the Little Squirts Court Thus could affect noise on Adams Pages E3 and E4 were not included in the copies of the D-MND, even as corrected after June 11 I 6T saw them for the first time on June 28 They show a 42-foot tower on the Cafe/Admimstration Building that even Mr Dyson did not recall Page F2 still shows the large tower Mr Dyson says that this was an error and will be corrected fl-(—t;rf G1 and G2 are diagrams of the parking structure that were not included in the D-MND G3 consists of new drawings of the parking structure and show an architectural tower and an elevator oTt tower we did not know of until June 28 SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS IN DRAFT MITIGATED)NEGATIVE 1DECLARATION In addition to the objections I raised in my letter of June 11,1 have several new matters to raise I learned about these new matters from the revised plans and narrative made available on June 28,and from meetings and conversations with Associate Planner Ron Santos and representatives of the church I discovered new information,misinformation,or gaps in information that lead me to question the findings of no potentially significant impact regarding several matters I will discuss these matters,but first I must point at that at this point,the last day o the comment period,I still do not understand exactly what the church is proposing with respect to several important aspects of the project. Issue of Deletions from Initial Proposal Early in the meeting on June 18 with neighbors, Senior Pastor Bruce Templeton assured neighbors that several specific aspects of the plan to which neighbors objected were being deleted from the plans or were only mistakenly identified as in the plans in the first place My notes of that OT61 meeting show these were the large tower,the Little Squirts Court,the Amphitheater,the outdoor Page 3 of 7 sound system, and pop jet fountains He told us the revisions would be submitted on June 19 The revised plans and narrative made available on June 28 did not fully correspond to these representations Mr Dyson, project manager of the church, responded to my request for clarification These were the items we discussed OT62) Page F2 of the plans still shows the large tower, though it was deleted on other pages Mr Dyson said this was an error The tower has been deleted and corrections will be submitted to the city Little Squirt's Playground This is still in the plans Mr Dyson told me that there was no intention to delete this He said that either I misunderstood or that someone misspoke This element was not addressed in the D-MND and I raised this objection in my letter of June 11 This is a playground area. Two other playground areas were the only elements requiring noise mitigation in the D-MND This aspect at least should be addressed in the D-MND Mr Dyson assured me that it would be screened in and only used on Sunday morning If such a limit exists,shouldn't it be expressed in the plans or narrative and in the D-MND9 If these limits are not required,this would heighten my concerns UT about the noise impact of this playground area- On Thursday,June 28,outdoor activity involving inflatable playground equipment, water fights,and noise continued all day This occurred in the area where the Tidal Plaza will be We could hear it, as well as outdoor music,from our house wi the windows open We do not have air conditioning and should not have to keep windows closed in the summer Amphitheater At a church meeting with the community about a year ago,I heard that the church plane to have an outdoor amphitheater Page 2 of the original plans lists an amphitheater in the Tidal Plaza Ron Santos told me he did not address this in the D-MND because it was not part of the project proposal At the meeting with neighbors on June 18,Mr Templeton said the amphitheater was deleted,and this is stated in the revised narrative However,the revised narrative on page 1, item 6, says there will be landscaping and hardscaping "designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places " Page 2 of the revised narrative says the Tidal Court[Plaza9]will serve as the main gathering area and will be open to the public It will include tables and chairs to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings Mr Dyson told me this hardscape will include tiered seating It seems like it modeled on the amphitheater at Bella Terra. I asked hue what was the difference between this and an amphitheater He told me an amphitheater has a sound system and scheduled events,and the Tidal Plaza will not have either of these Nevertheless,I believe this aspect of the project cannot be ignored in the D-UM Sound System The D-MND does not address the issue of an outside sound system Mr Santos told me this was because none was proposed However,the messages I have heard and seen are inconsistent I recall Mr Templeton saying at the meeting on June 18 that there would be no outdoor sound system Someone else said there would be no outdoor amplified sound system The new narrative says no outdoor amplified music The church's noise study on page 8,said "There will be no outdoor amplified music,however there will be a localized speakers system that provide low Page 4 of 7 ATTAR volume background music " Reading these together, I am not satisfied there is no outdoor sound system as promised on June 18 Mr Dyson told me there will be no outdoor speaker or sound system and that the narrative will be corrected Until this is clarified, it should not be ignored in the D-MND, especially since the original plans upon which the D-MND was based indicated the tower would contain an amphitheater sound booth _ Cafe and Bookstore I don't understand why a commercially operated cafe and bookstore open to the public in an area zoned PIPS does not violate the general plan and zoning laws of Huntington Beach Even if pq � allowed, mitigation should be required Therefore the D-MND is inadequate regarding element I on VV page 7 My neighbors and I have commented on our concerns relating to noise,odors, and traffic caused by these operations Nowhere in the original D-MND were we given information relating to the capacity and hours of operation of these two activities At the meeting on June 18 we were told that the cafe would seat 70-80 inside and 15-20 outside It would operate from 7 am to 9 p m seven days a week[this is changed slightly in the revised narrative] There will be a full kitchen The bookstore and cafe together were intended to create a welcoming environment for church members and the public comparable to a Barnes and Nobles and a Starbucks I asked;f the church would at least consider limiting the hours of outdoor dining I was told thus would be considered For the first time the revised narrative provides some details regarding the hours,but not size,of the cafe It ignores the bookstore I was told that unless limits are imposed in the conditional use permit,there are no restrictions on the operation of the cafe or bookstore This is not the document to address the conditions,but without any restrictions I don't see how the D-MJean declare there is no potentially significant impact.I believe Mr Santos said there was nothing in the proposal about outdoor duung However,on another occasion he told me that if one has an approved school,that implies outside anywhere but in a parking lot is permitted Under that logic, if one has a cafe,is odining permitted anywhere but the parking lotsMr Dyson said the bookstore was omitted by error,and the narrative will be corre cannot comment because I have not seen the final narrative,but I wonder whether there will be t� limits on its hours — There is a receiving entrance for this building Will delivery hours be lumted? I believe U�7� they were for Target and Walmart Why is this ignored in the D-MND9 Traffic is already congested in the late afternoon at Adams and Main Has the traffic impact of these two commercial enterprises open to the public been addressed? I didn't see it m M the D- ND I Just discovered on pages E3 and E4 [not made available before June 28] that there vv�11 a 42-foot tower on this building This raises concerns about aesthetics and how it fits in the OT7z neighborhood Another citizen has raised questions about odors from the full service kitchen I saw nothing in the D-MND regarding this. Even if allowed by the zoning laws and general plan, I would expect to see some mrtigatio Page 5 of 7 TTA T N S^t b& required to protect nearby residences I recall reading that the city imposed such requiremeJthe Target, Walmart,and the Moulin Rouge restaurant It seems obvious that noise, odors from kitchen, parking(slamming doors car alarms) and traffic generated by these uses create a potentially significant impact on the neighborhood,even if mitigated When I asked wheth church would consider limiting outdoor dining hours, I was told it would be considered W � asked whether the limits would be incorporated in the request for the CUP I did not get an It is my understanding that mitigating measures must be in the negative declaration and meaenforcement must be considered before the potential impact can be disregarded If allowed these activities must be limited Mistake regarding parking structure New diagrams of parking structure The original narrative said the parking structure would hold 129 spaces and the new narrative says that it will hold 299 Mr Templeton did not return my call because he is out of town, but Mr Dyson,the project manager called me this morning He said the first narrative was in error -the total parking spaces now listed is only one space more than before(580 compared to 579),but the number of spaces in the structure was erroneously reported as 129 in the first narrative—it has always been intended to have 299 spaces I also discovered that the plans include pages G 1 and G2 relating to the parking structure that I had never seen before These pages were not even included in the corrected version of the plans made available on June 7 Page G3 shows an"architectural tower" as part of the parking structure In addition, it was revealed at this meeting that the plans are still incomplete with regard to several matters Height, lighting,and hours of usage still have to be finalized. For example, it appears that it has not yet been determined what hours the parking structure would be in use,how OT76, it would be secured when closed,and what type of lighting will be used Without knowing this, how can a negative declaration regarding noise,parking, and light be made? Special Events The revised narrative says on page 2 that there will be no regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings On p 4,Hours of Operation, it says weddings,and related activities,along with other special events held at the church will end by 10 p in It says that weddings and funerals may take place on any day of the week except Sunday Attachment D estimates 350 attendance for planning purposes Tins creates the potential for noise from events ending at 10 p in in a residential neighborhood with people going to cars,talking, slamming doors,etc This narrative seems too vague to justify a finding of no potentially significant impact How often is occasional I recently learned that the church should have been obtaining activity permits for special activities held in the parking lot,and is limited to four a year I was told that apparently the church was not aware of this requirement I also recently learned from Ron Santos,that this requirement only applies to use of the parking hot and it can be circumvented by the issuance of a conditional use permit allowing such activities If the church specifies in its narrative occasional special events,have they just eliminated any restrictions on outside events9 I Page 6 of 7 ATTAR N -1 10? don't know what the church is actually requesting or what limits remain None of this is addressed in the D-MND Based on the information provided I do not see how the Planning Department can find no potentially significant impact especially given the rigorous legal requirements for a negative declaration I am concerned about outdoor special events In discussing this recently with Ron Santos, he said that outdoor play events like one that occurred on June 28,would not require an activity permit because it would be a natural activity of a campus with a school It can take place anywhere V on campus except parking lots Then what is point of requiring sound walls only on the two designated play areas on the south side of the campus? Does this mean there is no limit to frequency,duration,or time of such activities? On June 28, there was even an outdoor sound system Tlus cannot be ignored in negative declaration We were told at the meeting of June 18 with the church that all events will end by 10 p m, unless neighbors are notified The revised narrative says events will end by 10 p m But it takes time for people to clear out What steps will the city require to assure that these promises are kept I have evidence that activity has continued past ten,and at least once past midnight. ` Are there any limits on frequency,duration,location,and time of these occasional special events?It seems there is a potential for significant impact if not limited or mitigated Prior Conditional Use Permits and Restrictions After the church held a community meeting last summer,I went to the Planning Dept Janlooked at the existing conditional use permits for the church. My memory is hazy,but I recall seeing several CUPs with some liits unposed by the city including,I believe,on the size of � and signage,and restrictions on simultaneous use of various facilities I discovered recently tthe church's application was changed from one amending the existing CUPs to a new CUP RSantos told me on Thursday that this supersedes prior CUPs and accompanying limits If true shouldn't this have been discussed in the negative declaration? Construction Noise At the meeting with the church on June 18,I raised concerns about the long hours allowed for construction. I was told there are no plans to do construction on Saturdays,and that contractor would normally begin at 7a m and cease mid-afternoon I asked if church would agree to these as ON limits in the CUP,and I was told it would be taken under consideration Some mitigation is essential flow common are construction protects of this duration in a residential neighborhood? Page 7 of 7 AT T ��°� t To Huntington Beach Planning Department From David Treiman Shipley Street August 8 2007 COMMENTS ON REVISED DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH DATED JULY 19,2007 I submitted comments on June I l to the original Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration I submitted supplemental comments on July 2 when the original D-MND was corrected to include pages accidentally omitted On July 19 the Revised D-MND was made available along with a third version of the narrative and some additional plan changes In fact most of the problems I raised in my June 11 and July 2 comments still exist However,it appears that none of my comments have been addressed in the revised D-MND Therefore I wish to reassert those objections and request that you read those letters and treat them as applying to the revised D-MND of July 19 My comments in the first two letters with respect to the flawed comment process have been mooted by the revision of the D-MND n N� and third comment period Although my objections to the process have been mooted,my substantive 1! objections still remain My neighbors in their many letters to the Planning Department,have addressed many of the points I have raised and more so I won t repeat them all in this letter In this letter I wish to focus on four areas 1 General remarks about the nature and size of this entire project 2 A brief remark about traffic 3 A brief remark about construction and au-quality 4 Extended remarks about potentially significant outdoor noise This is the area that I believe has received the least attention by the Planning Department and the area that will most significantly disturb neighbors to the north of the church property Therefore,I will also reiterate some points raised in my comments of July 2 1 General Remarks About Nature and Size of the Project This is a huge project for a residential neighborhood and merits an Environmental Impact Report It seems larger in size and duration than the Senior Center in Central Park,where an EIR is being prepared The very fact that the city is requiring a three-level parking garage in a residential neighborhood is prima facie evidence it is too large for its location I do not know of any other parking structures in Huntington Beach near a residential area that are not part of a commercial development Bruce Templeton s video description of the project ("Bruce's Next Wave Presentation );s available on the church s Website He stresses the enormity of the project "This Page I of 9 ATTACH ] NU s l9 is a God-sized endeavor `We are attempting to do something so great of such magnitude that the only way we can accomplish it is with God s help He notes that within five miles of church there are 307,000 people and that 58%do not attend church anywhere He says that means there are over n 178,000 people within five miles of our church building who do not know Jesus Christ Their mission is to reach those 178 000-people The proposed project and list of activities reflect those broad ambitions It is clear that part of the model for this project are large modern shopping centers,specifically in this case Seacliff and Bella Terra The style of shopping mall architecture is �, totally out of character with the residential neighborhood At a neighborhood meeting Bruce Templeton said the goal of the proposed cafe and bookstore was to create a setting like a Starbucks and Barnes and Noble But what Starbucks seats 80 inside and 15 to 20 outside? He said in the video,'the church was never intended to take aback seat to commerce' But it seems like more restrictions have been placed by Huntington Beach on restaurants and big box retailers in areas zoned ��g� commercial than are being placed on the church s commercial enterprises This project is intended to accommodate growth for the next half a century If this does not require an EIR,then this process seems to be making a mockery of CEQA A picture is said to be worth a thousand words The video includes a simulated tour of the T proposed campus One cannot truly appreciate the enormity of this project without viewing the l g video and listening to Pastor Templeton s eloquent description I urge the members of the Planning Commission and of the Planning Department to view this video ' I am not opposing the church s mission,nor their desire for a modern facility to further its mission All I am asking for is that city officials realize the scope of the project, appreciate the -j potential impact on the community as required by CEQA, and require appropriate mitigation to protect the rights of the community and the immediate neighbors ofthe church I believe the original oTV7 and revised D-MND do not discuss or recognize several potentially significant impacts and do not require adequate mitigation, especially with regard to noise These are the matters this letter will address 2 Traffic For the reasons mentioned in my General Remarks,it seems inconceivable that this project will not have a potentially significant impact Traffic on Adams at Main and at 17'is much worse �J than it was a few years ago It often takes more than one light to get across Main Street in the late ` t5 afternoon Seventeenth and Adams probably requires a traffic light Speeding westbound traffic on Adams around the blind curve just west of Main makes exiting the alley onto Adams extremely dangerous Church activities already contribute to the problem,and not just on Sunday The plans divert traffic from Loma to Adams and to 17' 1 believe it is contrary to CEQA to ignore the i www fcc-connection com/home asp Click box on left side of page Next Wave Click on `Media on right end of top line, There are three videos—the most relevant is the third, Bruce s Next Wave Presentation" Page 2 of 9 ATTACHMENT NO -2,1170 existing problems and just focus on the increment added by this proposal I believe you ought to be considering the cumulative impact I also believe that the explanation for the negative declaration D T?3 regarding traffic cannot be reconciled with the scope of expansion described in the video on the church s Website 3 Construction and Air Quality The July 27 2007 issue of the Los Angeles Times reported, 20% of California's diesel pollution comes from the construction industry Building,musing and airport vehicles are responsible for an estimated 1 100 premature deaths statewide every year and more than 1,000 hospitattzations for heart and lung disease along with tens of thousands of asthma attacks, scientists say The article reported that the State Air Resources Board has imposed new restrictions to construction equipment to protect the public health Even though these new laws have not yet taken effect,the II state has found a need to act I have attached a copy of the article This cannot be ignored in the D-MND Clearly the state has found there is a potentially significant impact on air quality Therefore unless mitigated,an EIR must be prepared 4 Noise The negative declaration ignores almost all noise other than the noise from two playgrounds on the south side of the project It requires mitigation to the south for the two playgrounds The other potential sources of noise listed below far exceed those two in number,scope of activities,and duration These other sources are generally ignored in the church's noise study and by the Planning Department in the negative declaration As with regard to traffic,the existing activities should not be ignored and will be part of the future campus The size,nature,and duration of outdoor activities generated by the Next Wave,' when added to the existing sources of noise,will make life extremely unpleasant for neighbors to the north, and are likely to substantially harm the property values Focusing solely on the new sources and ignoring the old is like saying that if 10 units of noise is the maximum acceptable adding five to an existing nine is permissible because the new project does IrrT V not add more than 10 That does not appear to be consistent with the requirements or sport of CEQA I am merely asking that the city recognize these problems and require reasonable mitigation At the end of these comments I suggest some possible mitigation List of outdoor activities 1 An outdoor amphitheater Do not be fooled by the recent addition to the narrative saying that there will be no outdoor amphitheater That is not true I will explain below my reasons for saying this 2 Outdoor sound systems The oral promise to eliminate this is evasive and not satisfactory,for the reasons I will explain below 3 Little Squirt's Playground 4 Outdoor dining 5 Noisy activities in the parking lot a_ Parties picnics,and concerts b Playing in the parking lot c Bus trips pickup and drop off Page 3 of 9 TTA ® 5- J 7l d Car alarms e Activities in the courtyard that will become the Tidal Plaza_ f Dismantling equipment following late night meetings g People gathering late in parking lot after special events h Excessive use of leaf blowers I Trash collection four days per week at very early hours z 0T� J Sports activities k Uses not authorized by nor controlled by the church that occur in the parking lot include nighttime skateboarding,fireworks auto racing,model planes and model cars AMPHITHEATER At a church meeting with the community about a year ago,I heard that the church planned to have an outdoor amphitheater Page 2 of the original plans lists an amphitheater in the Tidal Plaza The Tower included a sound control booth for the amphitheater Several previous letter writers objected to this amphitheater Ron Santos told me he did not address this in the D-MND because it was not part of the project proposal At the meeting with neighbors on June 18, Mr Templeton said the amphitheater was being deleted from the plans The revised narrative states on page 2, The church will not hold regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings on its campus nor will the Tidal Court function as an amphitheater Then why am I objecting to an amphitheater that does not exist? Because it does exist,but locating it is like playing"Where s Waldo, and trying to get a straight answer from the church is impossible I will attempt to assist you in the search for the missing amphitheater V The revised narrative on page 1, item 6, says there will be landscaping and ha gdscapin 1011 "designed to create high quality outdoor gathering places"Page 2 of the revised narrative says the Tidal Court [Plaza?] will serve as the main gathering area and will be open to the public It will include tables and chairs to support the cafe and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings Mr Dyson told me this hardscape will include tiered seating It seems like it is modeled on the amphitheater at Bella Terra I asked him what was the difference between this and an amphitheater He told me an amphitheater has a sound system and scheduled events,and the Tidal Plaza will not have either of these In addition as I explain below, it is not clear there will be no outdoor amplified sound There are already special events held by the church with outdoor amplified sound(including music)even though there is no permanent outdoor amplified sound system They bring in the equipment for the events in the parking lot (apparently without temporary activity permits)and in the area between the Worship Center and current Youth Ministry building But where,exactly,is this tiered seating located? Why was Ron Santos unable to discover this potential amphitheater? I thought it might be hidden in the circular swirls shown on the Tidal z In fairness to Bruce Templeton,I must acknowledge that he has attempted to address this problem,which I very much appreciate However he told me that because Rainbow s contract is with the city only the city has the authority to address this problem Page 4 of 9 ATTACHIMENTNU s W 7z Plaza I was wrong While viewing the virtual tour of the proposed new campus in the Bruce Templeton s Next Wave Presentation I saw what looked like concrete benches in the Tidal Plaza — but I agree that is no amphitheater Then the view changed to the northwest end of the multipurpose building— there it was the hidden amphitheater But the videos are not the plans submitted for approval So I looked at Plan page C4, and there it was as seen from the West, right where it was in the video(see graphic at the end of this letter on page 9) Although neither I nor Ron Santos or Mr Dyson was aware of it,it has been there in the plans all along—both before and after Mr Templeton said it was being removed So what was removedl Apparently only the word amphitheater' and not any structure I ask that the church be required to keep its promise and adhere to the statement in the revised narrative and that this amphitheater structure be removed from the plans — even if the church promises not to use it regularly or with outdoor amplified music A video shown to the community a year ago showed the amphitheater being used for concerts and speakers This will generate noise that will flow unblocked to the north to Adams Avenue with or without amplification And what guarantees are there that performers won t bring their own sound systems? Now that the amphitheater has been discovered, it cannot be ignored in the D-MND Elimination as promised,or at least noise mitigation(like for the playgrounds to the south)must be required or an EIR must be completed OUTSIDE SOUND SYSTEM ` The D-MND does not address the issue of an outside sound system Mr Santos told me this — was because none was proposed However the messages I have heard and seen are inconsistent I recall Mr Templeton saying at the meeting on June 18 that there would be"no outdoor sound system Another agent of the church after the meeting said there would be no outdoor amplified sound system The June 18 revision of the narrative says no outdoor amplified music The current version in the narrative leaves room for outdoor music and amplified sounds other than music Is this another attempt to hide the truth? I don t think I am being unduly suspicious because my concern about this came from the church's noise study,which said on page 8 'There will be no outdoor amplified music M however there would be a localized speakers system that provides low volume background music " Reading these together,I was not satisfied that there is no outdoor sound system as promised on June 18 I spoke with Norm Dyson project manager for the church about this He told me there will be no outdoor speakers or sound system and that the narrative would be corrected But then I received the third and current version of the narrative dated July 10 and there is no change If the church wanted to be clear rather than evasive it could have been Until this is clarified in writing the church has not demonstrated no potential noise impact and it must be addressed in the D-MND I don t have to prove an impact I must merely demonstrate the potential for an impact Since the Planning Department is requiring seven foot sound walls to mitigate the noise of two playgrounds on the south side of the campus it seems obvious that the amphitheater and possibility of a sound system cannot be left unchanged and unmitigated Page 5 of 9 AT T A CHIM 1E,NIT IU ___� _ LITTLE SQUIRT'S COURT-Soft Children's Play Area As I just mentioned the City has found that the plans for two playgrounds on the south side of the campus have a potentially significant impact unless mitigated But there is a third playground in the plans(see page two item 4 of the current June 28 version of the plans) At the meeting with the community of June 18 Bruce Templeton said this was being deleted When I discovered it still in the plans I spoke with Norm Dyson Mr Dyson told me that there was no intention to delete this He said that either I misunderstood or that someone misspoke This element was not addressed in the D-MND and I raised this objection in my letter of June 11 This playground area should at least be addressed in the same manner as the other two playground areas were in the D-MND Mr Dyson assured met.,17 1 that it would be screened in and only used on Sunday morning If such a limit exists shouldn t it be expressed in the plans or narrative and in the D MND? If these limits are not required this would heighten my concerns about the noise impact of this playground area On Thursday June 28,outdoor activity involving inflatable playground equipment water fights and noise continued all day This occurred in the area where the Tidal Plaza will be We could hear it as well as outdoor music from our house with the windows open We do not have air conditioning and should not have to keep windows closed in the summer OUTDOOR DINING-Cafe and Bookstore I don t understand why a commercially operated cafe and bookstore open to the public in an area zoned P/PS does not violate the general plan and zoning laws of Huntington Beach Even if allowed mitigation should be required Therefore the D-MND is inadequate regarding element"r on page 7 My neighbors and I have previously commented on our concerns relating to noise odors and traffic caused by these operations Nowhere in the original D-MND were we given information relating to the capacity and hours of operation of these two activities At the meeting on June 18 we were told that the cafe would seat 70-80 inside and 15-20 outside It would operate from 7 a m to 9 p m seven days a week(Sunday hours were changed to 8 am -7 p m m the revised narrative) There will be a full kitchen The bookstore and cafe together were intended to create a welcoming environment for church members and the public comparable to a Barnes and Nobles and a Starbucks I asked if the church would at least consider limiting the hours of outdoor dining I was told this would be considered For the first time the revised narrative provides some details regarding the hours,but not size of the cafe It does not separately address hours for outdoor dining so it appears the church chose not to show any concern for my request It ignores the bookstore I was told that unless limits are imposed in the conditional use permit there are no restrictions on the operation of the cafe or bookstore This is unconscionable directly across the street from residences I don t see how the D- MND can declare there is no potentially significant impact without restrictions or mitigation I believe Mr Santos said there was nothing in the proposal about outdoor dining However on another occasion he told me that if one has an approved school that implies playing outside anywhere but in a parkmg lot is permitted Under that logic if one has a cafe outdoor dining permitted anywhere but the parking lot The bookstore is mentioned but not discussed in the revised D-MND Are there an;7Tq)-rka Page 6 of 9 ATTACHMIE NLIT NO s t 1y. restrictions on hours of operation or deliveries? Can it operate 24 hours a day? Can deliveries to "Receiving"show on page E I of the plans facing Adams and my house occur at any time of the day PT�(0 or night? I read that the city restricted deliveries at Walmart or Target to protect nearby residences Why can this D-MND ignore this completely9 Traffic is already congested in the late afternoon at Adams and Main It is extremely difficult to exit onto Adams from the alley across the street from this new commercial enterprise Has the traffic impact of these two commercial enterprises open to the public been addressed` I didn t see it in the D-MND I recently discovered on pages E3 and E4 of the plans (not made available before June 29)that there will be a 42 foot tower on the Admimstive/Cafe building I asked Norm Dyson about this He told me he was not aware of this tower Since the tower on the Administrative building was not (M a revealed until the third version of the plans was made available to the public neighbors might have missed this feature This raises concerns about aesthetics and how it fits in the neighborhood Another citizen has raised questions about odors from the full service kitchen I saw nothing y in the D-MND regarding this Even if allowed by the zoning laws and general plan I would expect to see some mitigation required to protect nearby residences It seems obvious that noise odors from the kitchen parking OTI C) (slamming doors car alarms) and traffic generated by these uses create a potentially significant impact on the neighborhood even if mitigated SPECIAL.EVENTS—LATE NIGHT In the revised July 10 narrative, the church states The church will not hold regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings on its campus nor will the Tidal Court function as an amphitheater The church s list of weekly activities (formerly attachment D and now attachment 2 2 says in footnote ***** `Special events may take place any day of the week except Sundays Activities associated with special events will conclude by 10 p in ' My objection is to the ability ofthe church to have special events without any limits as to frequency,duration or sizes I was once told that the church must apply for a temporary activity permit for special events and was limited to just four per year A city official later discovered that the church has been holding special events without such �® a permit But I was also told that no permit is required if the activities do not occur in the parking lot and are related to regular church operations Therefore it is imperative that some other limits be imposed on these special events In addition I was told that no temporary activity permit is required if permitted by a conditional use permit Has the church,by indicating in its proposal that it will hold special events at late as 10 p in (including weddings a funerals any day of the week except Sunday)now been given unlimited rights if the conditional use permit is granted9 I discussed with Norm Dyson the potential for noise from events ending at 10 p in in a residential neighborhood with people going to cars talking slamming doors etc When I mentioned C)T(b-a this to Norm Dyson,he said that the church cannot be expected to control the noise of people going Page 7 of 9 to the parking lot after an event If the church is not expected to control noise on its property generated by its activities then it should not be allowed to have these events and certainly not in the late evening and night We were told at the meeting of June 18 with church officials that all events will end by 10 p in, unless neighbors are notified Notification won t help us sleep any more soundly This caveat again raises the possibility that what in promised in the narrative might not be what we will actually get What steps will the city require to assure that these promises are kept This narrative seems too vague to justify a finding of no potentially significant impact Even after reading three narratives and two D-MND I don't know what the church is actually requesting regarding special events nor what limits remain None of this is addressed in the D-MND Based on the information provided, I do not see how the Planning Department can find no potentially significant impact, especially given the rigorous legal requirements for a negative declaration Construction Noise At the meeting with the church on June 18,I raised concerns about the long hours allowed for construction I was told there are no plans to do construction on Saturdays,and that contractor would normally begin at 7a m and cease mid-aftemoon I asked if church would agree to these as limits in the CUP,and I was told it would be taken under consideration However I have not seen any discussion of this potentially significant impact in the D-MND Some mitigation is essential How common are construction projects of this duration in a residential neighborhood? I read that t73 the city was required to use the county restrictions on noise for one joint bridge project The county, I believe,prohibited construction after 5 p in weekdays and completely on weekends If these are protections citizens of unincorporated areas get,why can t the city impose it as a condition for an enormous lengthy project in a residential area Construction Air Quality Issues The Los Angeles Times recently reported that diesel pollution from construction equipment is a serious health threat and that changes in the law are being proposed. Even if it is not yet the law, , � � it is the City Planning Department's legal obligation to consider this evidence in the D- ND for a project of this scope and duration Even if no EIR is required, the Planning Commission should protect our health by imposing reasonable conditions on the construction f Page 8 of 9 ATTACH T , �7� MITIGATION SUGGESTIONS Some ofmy neighbors have suggested mitigation ideas and can probably come up with more good ideas I would like to mention a few here i Limit outdoor activities that generate noise especially evenings and weekends or put up sound barrier walls,especially to the north 2 Restrict cafe and bookstore activities so they are not equivalent to commercial enterprises L-r- in a residential neighborhood 3 Reduce peak capacity for worships services a small amount to eliminate the need for a parking structure The Church leadership says they do not want to build a structure 4 Impose restrictions on construction noise 5 Install a traffic light at Adams and 17' 6 Install a speed bump before the blind curve westbound on Adams and west of Main Video Capture of Amphitheater from Church s Website video-Bruce s Next Wave Presentation Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENT NO of Huntin, i Beacn JUL Q 2 240� Huntington Beach Planning Department Attention Ron Santos,Associate Planner July 2,2007 I am very concerned about the Tidal Plaza area in First Christians Church building plan This area,which includes a near by cafe and bookstore proposal, will also be a gathering and dmmg area from the hours of lam to 9 pm, This is an extremely long time for neighbors to be disturbed by noise and cars,The Tidal Plaza will also have a graduated step-type seating system to be used for programs and students After hours this step seating area will be very attractive to local skateboarders Skateboarders have already been a nuisance using the current trash truck ramp pickup area Therefore,I think the Tidal Plaza area should definitely be required to have a sound wall and locking gate, so the neighbors to the north do not have to tolerate constant levels of noise Also,any music or sound system would be inappropriate Lee Treunan Shipley Street Huntington Beach. L ATTACHM NO ENT i7� Santos, Ron From Ron Troxell[Ron@troxellusa com] Sent Monday June 11 2007 7 45 AM To Dick Millar(Attorney) Cc Vincent Steven T Nanko nga van Todd Gan Georgina Troxell Kurt&Dana Lustig Patrick Rick Davitt, Santos Ron Subject lib Citizens for reasonable growth First Christian Church June filth 2007 New Building Center Richard W Millar,Jr Millar,Hodges & Bemis 1301 Dove Street, Suite 900 Newport Beach,California 92660 949 752 7722 Fax 949-752-6131 Dear Dick Millar, Tease see the letter below for your reference It seems Icon Santos(City Employee)has accepted an incomplete declaration from FCC(First Christian Church) Personally I think at a fair and legal request that Ron Santos require a complete declaration from FCC. I faxed you a copy of the declaration in question last week Please review and provide your opinion Thanks so much, Eton Troxell Crystal Island Estates Thanks Ron Troxell Subject RE UR Cittizens for reasonable growth I have been working on my letter for the Planning Commission with comments on the"Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration"due June 12 I have spent several days researching files at the Planning Department and asking questions Today I learned that the versions of the declaration that is available for public inspection at the Planning Department and at the Central Library are missing several pages These pages contain some information I consider critical For that reason I spoke with the Principal Planner,Herb Fauland I asked that the missing pages be made D-r available to the public,that the public be given notice of these new documents,and that the comment period be extended He plans to contact me on Monday to tell me the decision made to my request However,since the answer is currently not known,I would urge everyone wishing to comment to make those comments by June 12 I assure that if the comment period is extended,you would be able to make additional comments later Also, remember that if you have questions about the Declaration,the conditional 6/11/2007 ��� — Page 2 of 3 use permit,or the process,you should contact Ron Santos at 714 536-5561 or e-mail rsantos(@surfaty-hb org For those of you with the time and interest, I am including a few details about what I have learned and why I think it important that the comment period be extended When I attended the Church s neighborhood meeting many months ago, the presentation of plans included an outdoor amphitheater, sound system, and outdoor dining in a cental plaza On June 7 I asked Ron Santos why his negative declaration did not address the noise potential of these outdoor activities He told me the application from the church did not propose any of these uses Last night I discovered that my copy of the draft dedaration was missing page 2 of attachment 4 I called the Central Library and discovered their copy did not contain attachments 4 and 5 in their entirety I went to the Planning Department today to get the missing page I discovered neither their public copy nor the file copy used by Mr Santos contained that page Solely by coincidence the plans for the Church happened to be open on the counter I asked another planner if there were plans for an amphitheater, sound system,or outdoor dining He turned to page 2 of the plans(this is different that the page 2 I was seeking), and we discovered the church has proposed those uses I told him I had been informed just yesterday that the negative declaration did not address those uses because they were not in the proposal The planner I spoke to today said that this infoririation should have been in the document made public We checked —it is not in the public version The Principal Planner then discovered that several other pages were accidentally omitted from the public copies This is why the public deserves new notice and an extended comment period But I am concerned this also demonstrates that the initial staff review of the negative declaration and the review by the Environmental Assessment Committee that approved the staff review might bej flawed C� I am going to quote just a few descriptions from one of the missing pages of the plan(page 2) Building Legend E ADM1144CAFE Full service latchen with indoor/outdoor seating,Church Offoes G TOWER Focal Feature, Shaded play/IGosk/Amphitheatre Sound Booth Landscape/Hardscape Legend 1 VILLAGE GATEWAY Visual/Pedestrian"Front Porch uses CafelBookstore/Dining Terrace 2 CHAPEL GARDEN Frames Chapel J Terminal Vista, Wedding Garden/ Gazebo/bamboo Screening 3 TIDAL PLAZA Fellowship Plaze/Amphitheatre, Pop Jet Fountains Embedded Sculptures,Tidal Focal 4 LITTLE SQUIRTS COURT Soft Play ChildreWs Area visually accessible from Fellowship Plaza 8 CHILDREN'S OUTDOOR PLAY Age appropriate themed Outdoor Play zones Item 8 was the only matter Ron Santos thought required noise mitigation(a 611 U2007 ATTACH S I rage -) of-j 7-foot fence on the south side) His report did not find any other use required noise mitigation His comments made to me indicated he was not even aware of several of these uses S/1112007 ATTACHMENT NO I j � JON 12 2007 June 11, 2007 The Huntington Beach Planning Department I have visited your office in order to review the planned additions to the Church property lust across the street I have lived in this home since 1978 and love the location and the surrounding area is still primarily residential The additional structures that are to be built and the increased square footage W of some of the present ones presents a problem for me This area is still a mostly residential area and it seems to me that if this organization finds it necessary to increase their facilities to this degree,that they should consider going"uiland"and finding a piece of property more suited to this expansion The loss of the"open space"is problem enough,but the garish colors that they propose are really not acceptable I rather doubt that even some of the members of the church would condone the bright tasteless hues that these 5W Z buildings will be painted And regardless of the interesting traffic report, a multi level parking structure K/3 is bound to impact on our local traffic I have walked over to the property across the street and tried to imagine what the"finished product"would look like And believe me I am quite discouraged D w i with the thought of this change occurring Sincerely, vi Betty 1705 Aspenwood Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ATTACHMENT NO -L'8x Ron Santos ��, Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 July 31 2007 Dear Mr Santos c------ins I am writing to favor my support for all the remodeling plans by First Christian Church I think the 50 year old property needs a nice modernization and I am in complete agreement with all the plans and support and the new upgrades planned by the church I look forward to construction We bought our home back in 2003 as a new next-door neighbor to FCC As a homeowner buying next to a large church I expected them to have many cars parked there on Sundays and special events I expected people to gather there for their purpose meeting eat drink coffee sell books and make noise I do not see any of their new plans differing from these expectations At our house we do hear the daily bells of Smith School and all their daily PA announcements We even hear on quite days the lifeguard s announcements from the pier We also hear Disneyland s fireworks EVERY night starting at about 9 25 and ending at 9 43 Come to our home one night and listen I do not expect Disneyland to shut down as they too have been there for 50 years and have improved the economy of Orange County _2v��/ The worse and LOUDEST noise of all is the HBPD s helicopters constantly flying over our house at all hours of the night flying very very low making sleep wakening loud noise I really want to call the police for the police disturbing the peace of the neighborhood at night Again I am in favor of all the plans of FCC including the additional parking the coffee shop and bookstore the nice esthetically appealing tower and the outside amphitheater with sound system Remember they have been there for 50 years and just want to improve their large piece of the neighborhood to make it nicer for all I expect noise from the church on Sunday with parking and people gathering eating reading and talking That is what I expected when I bought a home near a large church If you want to question building permits how did Smith school Just plop down ugly temporary' class rooms on their property with very ugly looking air conditioning units and exposed piping with no permit? Kurd re ards ohn Walt 828 14'Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714)969-2774 A T -E, 193 ATTACHMENT #6 1 4 3t CHRIST'IAN CHURCH RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2007 Ron Santos Scott Hess Planning Department Planning Commission Referring to conditions set forth in Suggested Conditions of Approval—Conditional Use Permit 06-0351/Vanance No 07-001 Item 5 Section d Youth Breakout Room be removed from the conditions The Youth Breakout Room is designed for junior high students whose parents are attending worship services Presently there are approximately 40 students each service Item 5 Section e&f-Historically we have held outdoor events within the context of our property that are critical to the performance of our ministry We submit these events to be included in this CUP in deference to e and f Summer Season Kickoff Events These events provide an outreach for pre-school/elementary aged children and families within our community to come and celebrate the beginning of summer They can feature games bounce houses creative art stations face painting and similar activities • usually June-9am-12pm or 1pm-4pm • non-parking lot event—tidal court adjacent to multipurpose/chapel • one day activity for preschool age • one day activity for elementary age • sound system required for spoken word and games/activity background music Summer Preschool Event This event is also known as our pre-school Vacation Bible School Throughout the week kids take part in a half-day program learning about God in creative and relevant ways We offer bounce houses and outdoor games within the tidal court area as activities for the children usually July-9am-12pm—5 day activity • non-parking lot event-tidal court adjacent to multipurpose/chapel 150 200 preschoolers 3 5yrs Old with outdoor activities(games bounce houses) • sound system required for spoken word and games/activity background music Summer Elementary Event This event is also known as our elementary Vacation Bible School Throughout the week kids take part in a half-day program learning about God in creative and relevant ways We offer bounce houses and outdoor games within the tidal court area as activities for the children • usually late Julylearly August-9am-12pm—5 day activity • non-parking lot event-tidal court adjacent to multipurpose/chapel • 500 elementary age children K-5th outdoor activities (games bounce houses) • sound system required for spoken word and games/activity background music Fall Carnival—Community Trick or Treat Alternative This is our annual fall community event that offers an alternative to Trick or Treating We feature carnival style games bounce houses and similar carnival style attractions • end of October-5pm-9pm— 1 day activity non-parking lot event-tidal court adjacent to multipurpose/chapel • 500 children preschool and elementary age outdoor activities (games bounce houses) • sound system required for spoken word games and background music 1207 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Tel 714 S36 2589 FAX 714 536 9580 www fcc-connection corn Drive Thru Nativity This is our annual Christmas outreach event now in it s 39th year The Drive Thru Nativity tells the story of Christ s birth and the events leading up to it through small dramatic vignettes These vignettes are viewed from vehicles as well as those who wish to walk through who are then strategically guided through our parking lot • 3 nights each December 6 30pm — 10pm • parking lot event • 700 cars per night • sound systems for dramatic spoken/spoken words and Christmas background music in our last scene Annual Church wide Celebration Event These events vary in theme and purpose but require the use of our property to facilitate our congregation We typically offer bounce house and activities for the kids food service and beverage services for our adults and some form of live entertainment on our campus • Sunday afternoon once per year 12pm—4pm • 800 people • non parking lot event—multipurpose building/tidal court adjacent to multipurpose/chapel • sound system required for music and live entertainment Also we would request that weddings and funerals be removed from the conditions of Section f to allow flexibility in the planning of weddings and funerals Respectfully Submitted Bruce Templeton Senior Pastor First Christian Church Huntington Beach To the Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners From David Treiman,resident of Slupley Street August 27 2007 Comments Regarding Negative Declaration 06-008 and Conditional Use Pernut 06-035 I have been reviewing proposals and plans of the church and the city s evaluations and responses since the first comment period in May Although I have submitted three sets of comments one for each comment period,I am frustrated by the inadequate responses and failure to follow the law There is no point to reiterating all the matters raised in my three sets of comments—they are part of the record and I hope you have time to consider them along with the comments submitted by my neighbors However,I believe most of our comments have either been ignored misconstrued,or dismissed with erroneous or misleading answers We have so little time between the publication of these responses(Wednesday August 22)and the Planning Commission meeting on August 28 And unlike the staff,most of you and most of the members of the community have other jobs and cannot devote full time to the planning process I want you to have my comments in time to consider them in advance of the meeting of August 28 but there is not sufficient time for me to write or for you to read all the things that need to be said Therefore in this document I am going to stress in general terms a few key points and attempt to provide you with information you might not have I will not elaborate on most of these items at this time,but would be happy to elaborate later if helpful to you I intend to submit more information,for the record,before the meeting on August 28 but it will be too late for you to read unless this matter is put over for a vote at a later meeting I More Problems With Process In addition to all the problems with this process noted in my earlier comments,I wish to raise the following A According to the Staff Report,page 12,legal notices of the Planning Commission meeting scheduled for August 28 were sent to property owners of record within a 500-foot radius of the project This is not true I have spoken with several neighbors and none of us have received notice B I also believe that notice should have been sent to the Huntington Beach City School District because of the proximity of the project to Smith Elementary School To date I have been unable to determine whether the school district received this notice C The public has never been told that your vote on this conditional use permit will supersede all prior conditional use perrmts issued to the church along with the conditions previously unposed Ron Santos told me this would be the consequence of your approval of permit#06-035 I raised this at the Commission meeting of August 14 and urged that you be given this information In the staff response to my written comments Mr Santo s statement is confirmed See Staff Report attachment 5 82 DT45 If the city previously found that restrictions were appropriate those restrictions should not be rescinded without realization of what is being rescinded I hope staff has provided you with this information even Page I of 5 I;r Y a2-07 we.&h`" LATE CO M' 'NICATIOFI -1 though it was never provided to the public D The staff response to the public comments frequently seems to make to faulty assumptions regarding the negative declaration 1 That the citizen bears the burden of showing that some aspect of the project creates a potentially significant impact rather than the burden being on the proponent of the project to show that there is no potentially significant impact 2 Treating the question of whether the activity violates an ordinance as equivalent to the question of whether it has a potentially significant impact Even legal activity can have a potentially significant impact 3 Acting as if a negative declaration is routine rather than a deviation from the presumption in favor of having an Environmental Impact Report 4 Treating construction as having no potentially significant impact on noise traffic or air quality while seeming to apply very different standards to the Senior Center and Newland Residential projects 5 Making questionable decisions regarding the zonmg ordinances to allow a full service cafe and bookstore open to the public to be classified as permissible accessory uses 6 Not requiring relocation of the refuse collection site even though its present location violates HB Zoning Code 230 78 [see attachment to this document] E Failure to explain,as required by law how current linuts on the church in the negative declaration will be enforced F An attachment to my comments of August 8 was not included in the report. It is an article from the Los Angeles Times regarding recent action by the California AN Resources Board to mitigate the effects of diesel construction equipment There is much more information at the ARB s Website II Conditional Use Permit distinguished from Negative Declaration Even if you approve the negative declaration and find no additional mitigation is required to avoid an Environmental Impact Report mitigation can appropriately be imposed as a condition of granting the conditional use permit The harm to the community and the neighbors,including impacts on health and property values,needs to be balanced against the property rights of the church That is your decision to make— whether the benefit to the community of the substantial expansion of the church(slightly less than 50%increase in square footage and a dramatic increase in the types of activities) outweighs the harm by dramatically changing the appearance and nature of the neighborhood and causing noise traffic,and drop in property values My neighbors will discuss many of these issues I will focus on one noise generated by outdoor activities III Outdoor Activities Cumulatively Creating Potentially Significant Noise Impact A The staff s responses rely ahnost exclusively on the church s noise report The responses say the report did not note any noise requiring mitigation other than the two play areas on Loma While recognizing noise from the play areas required mitigation to avoid violating the city s noise ordinance(a seven-foot sound wall) the noise study did not discuss the following Page 2 of 5 i The Little Squirt s play area 2 The amphitheater 3 The noise of outdoor dining(it did find that a proposed speaker system would not violate the noise ordinance) 4 Other special activities occurring in the Tidal Court and other areas of the campus 5 Deliveries 6 Increased trash collection In fact the only mention of any of these areas relates to the impact street traffic will have on these areas rather than the impact these areas will have on neighbors Therefore there is no basis in the record to conclude there is no potential unpact I will submit photos and videos in evidence to show that contrary to staff s responses,these noises can be and are heard across Adams Avenue and cumulatively impact the rights of neighboring property owners B Attempted Mitigation I appreciate very much the attempt by staff to impose some mitigation Staff Report attachment 14 item 5 However,distinctions have been drawn in the past to evade limits and I fear that can happen again The distinctions between regular activities scheduled activities and special activities are very obscure and unless specifically addresses they can defeat the purpose of these limits 1 Item 5 a Only uses described in the project narrative shall be permitted But the narrative speaks of special events with no details or explanation Is this an open-ended approval of anything the church calls a special event? 2 Item 5 f Church services weddings funerals fairs and other similar activities shall be prohibited outdoors unless approved via a Temporary Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit as a noticed public hearing Thank you f However as I teach in my law school classes the term `and other similar activities creates a problem Are barbecues Polynesian feasts athletic games and contests and inflatable fun houses similar activities These have all occurred in the past I am not objecting to any of these in particular,at least if there is no outdoor sound system but they can still be noisy Perhaps the limit needs to be broader or at least clearer C Additional Mitigation Items not addressed by staff 1 Amphitheater I request that the amphitheater be eliminated from the plans Staff states that it will not be used as an amphitheater But there is no way to prevent people from using it as an amphitheater Curved tiered rows of seating are not designed for informal gatherings If it will not be used as an amphitheater there is no need for this design The church has repeatedly told us there will be no amphitheater—then please make them keep their promise and have them elimmate the physical amphitheater— not just the label on a diagram 2 Outdoor dining This is in the Tidal Court open to Adams Avenue This is inappropriate in an area facing homes It needs to be eliminated or perhaps enclosed by sound walls(though currently sounds behind walls carry across Adams Ave) At a mmunum outdoor chning should not be Page 3 of 5 allowed before 9 a in and after 5 p m Bruce Templeton suggested that the tables night be brought inside at tunes outdoor dining is prohibited But this will be difficult to enforce so enclosing or eliminating the outdoor dining would be better 3 Play Areas in the Tidal Court. Please require the same mitigation for the Little Squirt s play area that is required for the other two play areas—a sound wall—or eliminate it Norm Dyson project manager for the church said it would only be used Sunday morning At least limit its use to Sunday morning after 9 a in The noise study of the two play areas on Loma said it assumed a`worst case scenano' of play for a full hour The church has recently used the area of campus in what will be the Tidal Court for play activities running from morning to night—at least eight times the `worst case scenario (see videos to be provided on CD) In addition why does staff assume that noise from the playground on Loma that borders the Tidal Court won t have any impact to the north? According to the noise study this noise violates the city noise ordinance unless mitigated by a seven-foot sound wall to the south Even if the noise to the north is within the limits of the ordinance it can still have a negative impact and I saw nothing in the noise study to the contrary Unless proved to have no significant unpact there should be further mitigation for this play area as well 4 Deliveries and buses Please move the area for deliveries and buses further from homes or limit hours of deliveries and bus transportation to daytime hours unless a permit is obtained for special activities such as transportation to camp At least enforce state law prohibiting idling of diesel trucks and buses to no more than 10 minutes On August 19 2007 four large diesel buses idled across the street from my house for more than an hour and a half despite my request that the engines be turned off until the passengers were ready to board 5 Noisy departures from evening activities Please make the church responsible for asking members to respect the neighbors and leave the campus quietly when they finish evening activities 6 Construction hours At the meeting with neighbors on June 18 representatives of the church said they had no intention of having construction evenings and weekends Please write this in the conditions Orange County has greater restrictions on construction and Huntington Beach has used these more restrictive conditions on the six-week Edinger budge project The county restricts construction to the period 7 a in to 5 p in Monday through Friday I would appeal for an 8 a in start tune given that the church has evening activities until 10 p in Even if not required by law it is reasonable mitigation considering the 2 5 year duration of construction so near homes 7 Trash collection Relocate the refuse collection area to comply with city law Contrary to the staff response to a comment on trash collection Staff Report attachment 5 70 RA6 Rainbow is still collectmg trash before 8 00 a in on a regular basis I have been informed by the City Public Works Page 4 of 5 Department and by Mr Templeton that they have no ability to control when Rainbow collects trash as long as it is after 7 00 a in 8 Leaf Blowers Gardeners use leaf blowers every Friday from around 9 30 a in to 2 30 or 3 00 p in with occasional breaks This violates the two- hour limit imposed by Municipal Code section 8 40 095(c)(3) I have complained to the church but nothing has changed I am not asking for mitigation—this is already illegal But this noise source is another factor in the total noise picture IV The Future Anyone viewing Bruce Templeton s Next Wave video presentation on the Church s Website knows this is not a simple remodeling project It is the start of the Church s vision for expansion for the next fifty years The vision is inspiring though it might be a bit too large for the present location,just as the previous locations for the Church were too small and eventually were replaced But my point here is merely to ask the Planning Commission to plan wisely by recognizing the long term impact of a project like this It will fundamentally alter a residential neighborhood of Huntington Beach near the midpoint of the three-mile length of Main Street Even if the traffic report is correct that there will be no immediate impact on traffic the noise study,Staff Report attachment 7 9 estimates a I%annual growth rate of traffic relymg on a conversation with the city s transportation manager This project is designed for the next 50 years Even according to this conservative traffic growth estimate in thirty years the traffic will be a third more than it is now There will be much more traffic flowing on Adams and 17'near the church and the schools However,there will be no way to widen those streets around the church without requiring demolition of structures and paying just compensation Under the law government can require a property owner to dedicate land for road widening to the government as a condition of improving property if the unprovements will increase traffic now or in the future Just as developers are required to dedicate land for schools and parks you can require the Church to grant an easement along Adams and 17' free of buildings for use in the future when the projected increase in traffic makes it obvious that these streets are too narrow to handle to the traffic If you are inclined to allow this potential transformation of our neighborhood please also plan to avoid future gridlock New traffic lights alone will not solve the problem Page 5 of 5 Attachment to David Treiman s August 27 2007 letter to the Planning Commission TRASH COLLECTION MITIGATION-Relocate trash receptacle to comply with the city ordinance and to mitigate noise of trash pickup An increase in activities including the cafe and bookstore will obviously increase the amount of trash to be collected HB Zoning Code 230 78 Refuse Storage Areas A Refuse storage area screened on three sides by a 6-foot masonry wall and equipped with a gate,or located within a building,shall be provided prior to occupancy for all multi-family residential commercial industrial and public/semipublic uses Locations horizontal dimensions,and general design parameter of refuse storage areas shall be as prescribed by the Director subject to appeal to the Planning Commission The trash area shall not face a street or be located in a required setback The design and materials used in such trash enclosures shall harmonize with the main structure [Emphasis added] Below View through the entry doorway of our home across Adams Ave of the church s trash enclosure I 1I p } X t t I�� Y Van Dorn, Kay From Dapkus Pat Sent Wednesday September 05 2007 5 21 PM To Van Dorn Kay Subject FW First Christian parking structure I would send this to Planning Building and Fire Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) -----Original Message----- FromHardy Jill Sent Tuesday September 04 2007 10 42 PM To Dapkus Pat Subject Fw First Christian parksng structure ----- Original Message ----- From Mary Pat Kettler <mpkettler@socal rr com> To Hardy Jill Sent Tue Sep 04 22 29 48 2007 Subject First Christian parking structure As a neighbor to First Christian church and a teacher at Smith School I have grave concerns about the proposed parking structure and cafe There seems to be little apparent benefit to the city especially those of us directly effected You will be chang-Lng a quiet neighborhood s whole atmosphere by allowing the cafe and parking structure to loom over Smith School The church property will be overbuilt for the surrounding neighborhood and the plan seems more appropriate for an industrial area Two safety issues come to mind as a teacher at Smith School First the structure will be facing our playground with the potential for an unobserved stranger to be overlooking our children at play Secondly the additional traffic caused by the enormous growth planned by First Christian will heavily impact dismissal & arrival of our students in an already congested area I see no advantage for the city and only wonder what motivation any City Council member would have to accept this proposal Sincerely Mary Pat Kettler 7246 Havenrock Drive Huntington Beach LATE U N I ATION B-3 .r,-„r a—1 1 --A'"1 m-f.a+r n A 1706 Shipley St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Aug 28, 2007 Mr John Scandura, Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission Mr Chairman, Commissioners Last night at a neighborhood meeting, we were discussing what one person thinks is beautiful and what another sees as beauty is in the eye of the beholder I think though that we can all agree that a three story parking structure is not a beautiful thmgI Not anywhere, let alone in a residential neighborhoods As I understand it, a small compromise from FCC such as staggered services and/or multiple services could eliminate this visual blight completely Where for 24 years we have been looking at lovely sunsets and palm trees to our southwest,we will now be looking at a monolith built on the highest elevation on the church property,blocking any view There it will stand as a stark daily reminder of Christian teachings FCC has seemed to forsaken at the expense of all their neighbors And all for an overly ambitious project much too large for their property Therefore I respectfully request the Planning Commission to prevent the homeowners from becoming sacrificial lambs and to stop FCC from turning our residential neighborhood into a"Bella Terra"or"Seacliff Center" Sincerely, t `Lou Austin RECEIVrL--3 cca I 1 We the undersigned are neighbors of the Huntington Beach First Christian Church We do not support the FCC plan to build a commercial restaurant We also take strong exception to the building of a three-level parking structure NAME ADDRESS 17// )17" ,Sri 3 q 4 �d 7 8 9 r� 10 tr c� 2 -2 7 { 15,0tmA)d Od Lv 13 ,a 15 S 1 tu,& 16 V/ Duz Lo � 17 y, rye 18 19 �1 v Za �' RECEIVED SEQ 112007 We the undersigned are neighbors of the Huntington Beach First Christian Church We do not support the FCC plan to build a commercial restaurant We also take strong exception to the building of a three-level parking structure NAME ADDRESS . _& 2 qA 'JV\/?-k !I­k �4 A 3 4 M �5 if , v) 6-A e mb�on. sf, OA& 11 V 7 8 . 7C 41 9 10 >/ r2 l -710 12 13 14 1-- 7 Ig 15 16 17 18 19 J 20 RECEIVES SP 112U01 We the undersigned are neighbors of the Huntington Beach First Christian Church We do not support the FCC plan to build a commercial restaurant We also take strong exception to the building of a three-level parking structure NAME ADDRESS 2 "IT2 7 (PA-0_, , U-M -t-'CAR �_ "1/,/' 2 //Nal� s N wr I 8 f 0 i ,7 71 12 13 A� 2�, a�C �r_7 S s 14 ? " 1'7 'l 16 16 17 1s 19 . ) 24 RECEIVED SEP 112007 We the undersigned are neighbors of the Huntington Beach First Christian Church We do not support the FCC plan to build a commercial restaurant We also take strong exception to the building of a three-level parking structure NAME ADDRESS 2 3 tz 4 � 5 ~ 7 ktwv/ �P� 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 RECEIVED SEP 112007 COMMENTS REGARDING FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH'S CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-035 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 06-008 To the Planning Commission and Planning Department of the City of Huntington Beach For the Planning Commission public hearing on September 11 2007 Tuesday September 11,2007 Submitted by David Treiman [I am also submitting a compact disk with additional information(visual) for the record A table of contents of this disk is attached] I am not opposing the Church s request to remodel and increase square footage approximately 41% lam not opposing any of the indoor activities that comply with Huntington Beach law I am merely asking 1 that this church be subject to the same rules as any other public/semi-public use, and 2 that the City recognize the impact on outside noise generating activities and the impact this has on the neighbors quality of life and property values 3 that the Planning Commission impose reasonable requirements to reduce and mitigate the harm caused by the outside noise activities Throughout the process including the initial environmental review and the negative declaration, these noise generating activities have been ignored overlooked or incorrectly minimized I continue to assert that the negative declaration should not be approved because of this Incorrect standards were applied public comments were ignored misconstrued or answered in an unfairly dismissive manner I can back up all these assertions and have done so in my written comments In addition there are continuing legal concerns that have not been adequately addressed I have raised these in my written comments,but I want to raise a few of the most critical ones again I the very questionable conclusion that this proposed cafe and bookstore do not violate the zoning laws 2 treating the failure of the noise study to address potentially significant noise sources as equivalent to a finding that these sources do not constitute a potentially significant noise source, 3 treating noise sources as insignificant because they do not violate an ordinance, 4 ignoring the findings of the State Air Resources Board on diesel equipment because the ARB did not study this particular construction site Page 1 of 3 ZQQ7 RECEIVED SEP 11 Many of these errors can be mitigated by adopting the Staff recommendations for mitigation found in item 5 attachment 14 and 15 to the Staff Report for September 11 I believe the staff adopted these limits because they believed the church was not proposing anything to the contrary The late filing by Mr Templeton on August 27 reveals that he in fact had a totally different scenario in mind I have attempted to raise this prospect numerous times in objecting to D-MND but was told that these activities were not addressed in the negative declaration because they were not part of the proposal Therefore failure to adopt the staff's alternative would effectively allow activities not addressed in the noise study or the negative declaration This would require a new initial evaluation and determination whether to require an EIR or a new negative declaration I urge you to hold the church to the promises made to neighbors by adopting the staff s alternative However I also raised the question of whether the restriction on special activities(5 f) leaves a large loophole allowing without permit many of the noise generating activities I have identified I discussed this in my Comments of August 27, 111 B 2 SUGGESTED MITIGATION See page 9 of my comments of August 8 and pages 3-5 of my Comments of August 27 My August 27 communication was placed on a table for distribution at the August 28 Planning Commission meeting by was inadvertently left out of the Staff Report for the September 1 I Planning Commission meeting I have explained the reason and need for some of these measures elsewhere, so I will just list those here 1 Require compliance with the current Zoning Code section 230 78 by requiring the church to relocate the refuse disposal area as provided in the code It is common to require compliance with current code standards as a condition for a CUP In addition, with new trash generated daily by the cafe and bookstore, this nonconforming use is likely to increase to more days and more trash bins per day This has a significant noise impact that was ignored in the D-MND so if not mitigated,would probably require an EIR 2 Pickup and Deliveries—Loading Docks Please move these areas further from homes or at least impose reasonable limits and mitigation, as was done with Target and Wal-Mart Despite the statement by the Staff there are large trucks and evening activities Also the Church should be officially informed of the state ban on excessive idling of diesel trucks and buses and should be expected to obey this state law 3 Require the church to eliminate the amphitheater in fact and not just in name and eliminate outdoor sound systems—as promised to the neighbors on June 18 and as stated in the revised narrative Item 5 f Church services weddings funerals fairs and other similar activities shall be prohibited outdoors unless approved via a Temporary Use Permit or Conditional Use Permit as a noticed public hearing Thank your However as I teach in my law school classes the term and other similar activities"creates a problem Are barbecues Polynesian feasts athletic games and contests and inflatable fun houses similar activities ?These have all occurred in the past I am not objecting to any of these in particular at least if there is no outdoor sound system but they can still be noisy Perhaps the limit needs to be broader or at least clearer Page 2 of 3 4 If the cafe is allowed restrict its use to an ancillary use with hours appropriate to church activities not as a commercial cafe open 14 hours per day Outdoor dining should not be allowed or at least it should be restricted to daytime hours and not weekends 5 The Tidal Plaza(or Court) designed to be the focal point of the campus and a central gathering area is surrounded by two-story buildings and sound walls to the south but opens up like a megaphone and an echo chamber to Adams Avenue to the north Please mitigate this by a requiring a sound wall to the north of the Tidal Plaza b requiring anything other than casual small gatherings to be governed by the city s permit system for special activities Do not allow evasion by letting the church claim that regularly scheduled activities(even if they are only scheduled once per year)are not special events and therefore don t require a permit, c requiring the church,as a condition of having evening activities to take reasonable steps to see that attendees do not linger and talk outside in the evening after events at night This was required of the Moulin Rouge restaurant in a commercial zone It can certainly be required in a P/PS zone across the street from residences 6 Construction End construction by 5 00 p m Monday through Friday and not allow it on Saturday or Sunday This is what Orange county requires and a church representative told the neighbors this is what they intended—they just would not put it in writing 7 Make a reasonable effort to acquire and post detailed information regarding monthly and weekly construction plans on the church website as it becomes available Page 3 of 3 Compact Disk Filed to be part of the record for conditional use permit 06-035 and mitigated negative declaration no 06-008 To the Planning Commission and Planning Department of the City of Huntington Beach Submitted by David Treiman September 11 2007 CONTENTS OF THIS CD Church Next Wave Videos From the church s Website I have included a Flash player so you can view them Diesel Air Quality issue Information about the findings and regulation of diesel construction equipment by the California Air Resources Board More Photos More Videos My PowerPoint presentation only includes short video clips to save time Longer clips and more photos are available in these two folders PowerPoint This is a presentation I intend to deliver at the Commission meeting on September 11 2007 The videos included are also in this folder They must be kept in the same folder as the PowerPoint file for the movies to run in the Presentation I have also included a PowerPoint viewer 1706 Shipley St Huntington Beach, CA, 92648 Sept 11, 2007 Mr Tom Livengood, Vice-Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission Mr Chairman, Commissioners, Ladies and Gentlemen I'm Ron Austin My wife and I live at 1706 Shipley St, the second house north of Adams Blvd on Shipley When we moved into our house over 23 years ago,the present Worship Center was just completed but the church had run short of funds and the parking lot and landscaping were unfinished We donated some shrubs and bushes in an effort to jumpstart the landscaping but it was years before the lot was fully paved and the trees and grass that you see today were planted We didn't complain, and we haven't objected when cars are parked in front of our house for a few hours.on Sunday When our grandchildren were small, they used to play and ride bikes in the church parking lot We figured it was a reasonable trade-off for considerate neighbors living together We are pleased to see that the 3-level parking structure has been dropped from FCC's proposal This is good for the neighborhood and I suspect is very good for FCC as well We still have some concerns with the proposal and although we have listed these in earlier letters to Mr Santos, and to you personally on Aug 14 , let me briefly summarize them again FIRST The bright colors of the"Bella Terra" look proposed for some of the new buildings I suspect that such bold colors are a passing fad Can't we tone these colors down to more reasonably blend with the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood and FCC's own chapel? SECOND The commercial bookstore and large full service cafe We are particularly concerned with the noise associated with these ventures due to increased traffic and the dramatic increase in deliveries and trash collection that will result Residents of Shipley, Aspenwood and some houses on Main St are especially vulnerable due to their close proximity to the delivery and trash sites As you know, except for the few days of Santa Ana's each year, the prevailing winds blow directly from the church to our property, carrying with it dust, fumes and exacerbating any noise I see no recommendations from staff to mitigate this noise problem In fact, staff has compared our situation to the local Home Depot, Wal-Mart and Target stores Those stores are commercial ventures in areas zoned commercial With the briefest of inspections, I found that Home Depot is surrounded by Ocean View school's athletic fields,tennis courts and commercial malls At Wal-Mart and Target, significant steps were taken to mitigate noise Wal-Mart's deliveries are contained in a U-shaped structure facing across Talbert to the cemetery Target's large truck deliveries are contained behind a sound wall Their one small delivery door that faces houses to the west has the following restrictions posted Deliveries—8am to 12 noon Monday through Friday only No trucks over 26 feet in length, no idling,no turnarounds RECEIVER SEP 112007 I urge you to require a sound wall enclosure and at a minimum the same limits observed by Target THIRD A huge increase in requested outdoor activities in the tidal court area, with voice and sound amplification A casual look at FCC's plans will show that the tidal court area is surrounded on the east, south and west by high walled structures and is open to the north Sounds from the tidal court will reflect off the walls and funnel directly across Adams Blvd toward our homest I am sure that most of you have experienced situations at receptions, clubs, sporting events and other occasions where the music is so loud that you can t talks Several times in the past year there have been events on FCC's parking lot that lasted for hours and where the sound amplification was so great that we couldn't watch TV in our home, and this with double paned windows closed) Recently, a function was being held at night in the area where the new tidal court will be It was noisy and had not quieted down by 1 Opm Another neighbor, who could not sleep because of the noise, finally called the police The police arrived about i Ipm and the group dispersed, not quietly but with shouted goodbyes and honking of horns I am sure that the churches intentions are good, but there are people, like contractors and especially DJ's and Masters of Ceremony who know only two levels—LOUD and LOUDERI Mr Chairman, I would like to speak from the heart, both to the Commissioners and to the folks that are here tonight supporting their church We understand and agree that FCC needs to upgrade their facilities But the folks supporting FCC are not the ones that will be negatively impacted by some aspects of their expansion WE are,and particularly relating to noise,there are a relatively small number of homes that would be seriously unpacted Excess noise is a major factor in the deterioration of our quality of life We desperately need substantial noise mitigation efforts to be taken in the trash and delivery areas, at least equal to or better than those used in commercial areas We need strict written restrictions on sound amplification and hours of outdoor activity, Mr Chairman,the folks here tonight expressing their concerns are neither radical nor obstructionist They are our neighbors,young and older, a wonderful cross-section of very nice people I urge the Commission to give serious consideration to all of our concerns Mitigate the noise and reach compromises on the other issues that FCC and all her neighbors can live with Respectfully, Ron and `Lou Austin Page 1 of 2 Santos, Ron From Fauland Herb Sent Thursday September 20 2007 3 26 PM To Santos Ron Subject FW Email regarding First Christian Church(rec d from citizen Michael Crose 9 18-2007) File From Wine, Linda Sent Thursday, September 20, 2007 3 25 PM To Blair Farley, Devin Dwyer(E mad), Elizabeth Burnett(E-mail), Fred Speaker, Joe Shaw, John Scandura , Tom Livengood Cc Hess, Scott, Fauland, Herb Subject Email regarding First Christian Church (rec d from cibzen Michael Crose 9-18 2007) From Michael Crose [mailto mcrose@coastappraisalinc com] Sent Tuesday, September 18, 2007 139 PM To Wine, Linda Subject Please forward to all Planning Commisioners Thank you for your efforts at the last Planning Commision meeting 1 remained up to the bitter end as did all of you FYI -here is a letter I forwarded to the City council which is probably only one of many they will be receiving from hundreds of residents Dear Honorable Council Members I commend most of you on your dedication and hard work on behalf of our fine city 1 know that generally speaking all of you have the best interests of this city in mind when you cast your votes and make your decisions regardless of whether or not I agree with you I am a neighbor who is active throughout the community and can be seen at almost every venue where I shop eat and socialize I rarely see most of you except for perhaps Mr Carchio so I can only wonder how close your ears are to the actual pulse of the community With that said it saddens me and over 2 000 members of First Christian Church to once again see one of our council members stand in the way of progress instead of fostering progress Is the agnostic or atheist views of a council member at the root of this appear Why has a certain council member chose to thrust the cost of the appeal of the Planning Commission decision upon the taxpayers of this city instead of the complainants? It is apparent that the church is not asking for special treatment but rather only to be dealt with fairly My neighbors and 1 have watched promising budding protects and business opportunities flounder because of council intervention or from council inattention The budding projects in the past were completed at a snail s pace and the current projects are no better 1 am a neighbor and member of First Christian Church so I may be biased but that does not make my observations and opinions any less viable I attended the Planning Commission meeting to voice my disapproval of the pending medical marijuana clinics and surprise it was re-scheduled That was my 3rd meeting that I attended where the issue in question was continued or canceled Instead I was treated to the First Christian Church fiasco I implore you to read the transcripts of this meeting and actually listen to the complaints of the neighborhood The Planning Commission did a good job addressing all of the concerns and perhaps they even went overboard and legitimized even the petty complaints The complaints ranged from parking on the street to leaf blowers to trash trucks and get this even a complaint that H B High School kids might be tempted to visit the church and hang out for coffee Kudos to First Christian Church to lure these loitering teenagers out of the streets and out of the SeaCliff Shopping Center Perhaps we could use the church cafe to draw the wayward and intoxicated teenagers from the downtown Main Street bars also As for the parking issue the leaf blowers and trash trucks these are noise problems we have all accepted throughout Huntington Beach One neighbor 9/20/2007 Page 2 of 2 complained about a trash truck that is across the street and then further still across a parking lot I live in the downtown area and this same trash truck is right below a bedroom window while it collects trash for the entire block Ditto for the neighborhood gardeners and the leaf blowers As for parking issues in the neighborhood 1 personally have a HUGE parking issue everyday with beach goers who want the free parking in front of my house We live in a city with neighbors 1 ve accepted that The neighbors who are complaining about the church project are no more special than the rest of us We all deal with their same issues on a daily basis but of course that is required of us if we are to co-exist in this city Contrary to popular belief the pressing issues of this city are infrastructure issues(►e sewer and street maintenance)and increasing the tax base through progress (not through increased taxation) and providing a direction for the future development of the downtown area I find it amazing that the major attraction and gateway to our city which is the bluff walkway and bike trail between GoldenWest St and Main St is in such horrible disrepair 111 save the deplorable alleyways for another day Enough already with the ludicrous nanny state decisions like the mandatory dog sterilization program Are you kidding me? First Christian Church knows what the right thing is and they are doing it are you? Thank you to those of you who took the time to read the concerns of a resident and voter Michael Crose Coast Appraisal Inc p 714 969-8565 f 714 969-6009 mcrose coastappraisalinc corn www coastappra►salinc corn Linda Wine Administrative Assistant Planning Department finda w►neC�surfc►ty hb orq (714) 536 5276 9/20/2007 September 13 2007 Jeanne Zenk svp 17 200 304 W Springfield Ave t Mad Huntington Beach CA 92648 §� -1. t � � Attention Planning Commissioners and City Council Members Re Approval of First Christian Church"Next Wave Building Project Negative Declaration No 06-035J Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 1 want to thank the Planning Commissioners, who on the night of September l I O'made a bold and correct decision to approve the Conditional Use Permit for the construction and remodeling of First Christian Church of Huntington Beach It was a long night and there was much public comment and many conditions suggested and debated by you the Planning Commissioners in the end reason appeared to prevail For some of us in the audience it appeared that your attempts to place certain conditions on the project,to then take straw votes on the conditions and then to get a ruling by the city attorneys was more of a rights and ordinances lesson for all of us rather than an actual attempt to make these conditions a part of the Conditional Use Permit Let us hope that everyone in attendance that night became aware of one very important point, `If a small handful of people would propose to limit the rights of another group of people,rights that they are afforded under city ordinances, do we not run the risk of losing those same rights for ourselves in the future ' As all concerned await the appeal period and process we would hope that the neighbors would have a change of heart and come to realize that the improvements to the church will be beneficial to them in many ways, increased property values,a shelter in times of natural disasters a place that offers a clean and wholesome environment for all who choose to participate in the church activities and facilities a historical landmark on Main Street and a continuing community partner with the City of Huntington Beach All that being said,my husband and I do not live Aithin the 300 foot radius of the church, however,we do live within two blocks of First Christian Church and will be impacted in some way when construction begins, my husband and I will be able to hear the sounds of men at work but to us the sounds of progress are like music to our ears Please,keep Huntington Beach moving towards its goal of being one of the best cities in America to live in, let us not return to the days of its decline when life here left much to be desired Keep up the good work let reason prevail in all vour decisions,you are on the right course as it was once stated 'If you re not mox ing forward- you re not making progress i' Respectfully `'Jeanne Zenl, Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From Ron Ahrens [ronahrens@verizon net] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 9 12 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church APPROVED Project Esteemed Council Members Much ado about nothing The members of the planning commission in a unanimous vote approved a building project which will do nothing but beautify the city of Huntington Beach The old dilapidated buildings of First are just that The parking structure which was never really wanted by the church but at the time a way to handle the city mandated parking requirement was scrapped The commission plodded through the items of concern to the neighbors and approved the project after hours of thought and deliberation Now one of our Council members has decided to appeal on behalf of a handful of disgruntle neighbors some of which appeared to have a total disdain for the church Issues of concern all seem to be items that will continue to exist whether the project is approved or not First will still have trash They will still meet as needed for church purposes Kids will continue to attend and maybe even laugh a little Some of them may even get picked up by a bus once a year to go to church camp Cars will still park in the parking lot All of these items are going to happen whether the project is approved or not Some of these concerning issues were actually discussed and the commission made appropriate changes which were agreed to CLOSING down the church is not on the table The church existed way before any of the complaining neighbors moved in They could probably see it when they purchased their homes So why complain about the normal everyday activities like trash pickup and leaf blowers now Those will continue either way As a 20 year resident of downtown HB I understand noise and congestion I understand that the high school plays football I understand that kids attend schools and play outside at times I understand that Dwyer has a loud microphone over which the principle speaks I understand that people park on the street when they go to the beach or attend the 4th of July run or the parade I love it here regardless of living 5 feet from my neighbors It is the best so why complain about everyday things that just are the way they are Obviously our friends have nothing else to do The DVD that was made of the trash truck was priceless Unbelievable I pray for you council members the planning commission members and especially for the disgruntle neighbors who seem to need prayer as much as anyone especially Mr DVD With love Ron Ahrens Happy Resident 9/17/2007 1706 Shipley St Huntington Beach, CA Oct 2, 2007 City Council Huntington Beach, CA Mayor Coerper, City Council Members This letter is regarding the proposed conditional use permit (CUP) for First Christian Church(FCC) located at 1207 Main St, Huntington Beach We wrote a number of letters regarding neighborhood concerns with several issues in FCC's original proposal and spoke about those concerns at the Sep 1 Ith Planning Commission meeting Although several issues (parking structure, maximum seating capacity, hours for outdoor dining, sound wall on north side of tidal pool area)were disposed of satisfactorily, a few others were not, or got lost in the confusion that ensued toward the end of the meeting' We have three (3) ongoing concerns, all relating to noise Please note that these concerns are NOT about the normal noises of children at play during school hours or after church functions, nor about the normal noises of adults as they congregate before and after functions at the church) Our concerns are 1 Outdoor sound amplification There have been several instances of extremely loud outdoor amplification of voice and music in the recent past The planning dept staff had proposed no outdoor sound amplification, permanent or temporary The Commission removed all reference to temporary sound amplificationf We would propose a compromise that limits maximum sound (decibels), and puts reasonable time limits on any use of outdoor sound amplification 2 Trash pickup It would appear that the present trash location is illegal by city ordnance Some Planning Dept staff do not agree, but a reading of the ordnance and a quick review of the site would show that it meets neither the letter nor the spirit of the law There will be a substantial increase in trash when the bookstore and109 seat cafe commence operation We would propose that at a minimum, the trash gates be rotated away from Adams Ave and a sound wall be constructed to shield residents to the north from the noise A better solution might be for Rainbow and the church's architect to collaborate on a design that would be beneficial to all) 3 Delivery Truck noise As mentioned above, we can expect a dramatic increase in deliveries when the project is complete) Early in the discussion of this project, one of the Planning Dept staff compared our situation to that experienced by the neighbors of Target, Wal-Mart and Home Depots A quick visit to those sites showed that there were substantial noise mitigation efforts takenf In addition, at Target, where minor delivery did not take place behind sound walls,the hours were restricted to 8am-12noon M-F only I would hope that we would be given at least the same protections that are required at commercial sitesf Thank you for considering our concerns Respectfully, Ron and Mary Lou Austin Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Monday September 17 2007 6 23 PM To CharlotBark@aol com Subject First Christian Church CUP Thank you for vour comments on the. First Christian Church CUP Please be advised that a copy of your er a€I was received by all the Council A copy is also being forwarded to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record on this item should it come before the City Council rat opkus (714) 536 5579 (714) 536 5233 (FAX) From CharlotBark@aol com [mailto CharlotBark@aol com] Sent Monday, September 17, 2007 6 18 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject Att ]ill Hardy I m a Member of FIRST CHRISTAIN CHURCH Bence 1976 We are seeking to expand our CHURCH to win people for the LORD First let me thank you for voting to let us go ahead with new plans to have room to win more people to the LORD However now that an appeal has been filed this will set us back some Buy were not discouraged Thru pray I believe this will come about Our main reason for expanse this to have room to help more people We are really cramped at the present time Please vote so we may go forward Thank You In Christian Love Bill and Jean Barker See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepage 9/18/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Wednesday September 19 2007 4 10 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW Support First Christian Church Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Marbles143@aol com [mailto Marbles143@aol com] Sent Wednesday, September 19, 2007 4 06 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject Support First Christian Church Dear Council Members We have been members of First Christian Church for 8 years and we hope and pray that the building project will be approved by all members Our church is an important part of the community and has been for 100 years Our church family is growing and our church needs to house everyone that wants to come We hope that someday you all will come to visit and then you will understand how important it is to us Who knows you might want to stay i Sincerely Bill and Margaret Bergeron 714 374-4259 See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepage '-6� t lu YJ 9/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Wednesday October 03 2007 1 59 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CIVIL ACTION Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From BSk8bo@aol com [madto BSk8bo@aol com] Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 9 45 AM To Sharpe, Jean Cc CITY COUNCIL Subject NOTICE OF INTENT TO FILE CIVIL ACTION In that the City of Huntington Beach City Council cloaked in the authority of elected representatives did violate the inherent rights of John A Boag a sovereign citizen of the United States and resident of Huntington Beach by enacting legislation that enhances and promotes a religious organization known as the First Christian Church Such actions are clearly in violation of the intent of the First Amendment and subsequent rulings of the Supreme Court in regards to enhancing the rights of one religion or no religion over that of others therefore it is the intent of Boag to bring civil action against the City of Huntington Beach City council members and Does 1 through 30 John A Boag Oct 3 2007 See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepage 06,0 10/3/20n7 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Wednesday September 19 2007 8 38 AM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW First Christian Church Construction Project Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Doris Chambers [mailto dchambersl0@socal rr com] Sent Tuesday, September 18, 2007 10 14 PM To Doris Chambers Subject First Christian Church Construction Project Mayor Gil Coerper I m writing on behalf of the First Christian Church s building project The church had hoped to be well under construction by now However after over 200 conditions had been added to their permit it was finally approved on Monday Sept 10th Shortly thereafter an appeal was made by Councilwoman Debbie Cook on behalf of the neighbors Now there is another delay and wait before anything can be done Please consider that the Church has agreed to meet all the conditions and requirements that were discussed in last week s meeting and in prior meetings The parking garage is no longer in the plan sound barriers will be built outdoor sound systems are not permitted without a permit seating has been reduced in the cafe Hours for trash pickup and deliveries will beat more convenient times for the neighbors Lawn maintenance will limit blower hours Bus loading and unloading will be changed to the upper parking lot I have listed just a few of the conditions that will be met There are also 200 other conditions to the permit for the project The Church has tried to comply with neighbors requests Now there is an appeal What more can they ask? The property will be much improved in the Church s plan If anything this will improve the value of property nearby The older educational buildings will be replaced with new up to date facilities which will be much more pleasing and efficient than the present day fifty year old buildings The old church on Main Street will be redone in a totally new look The inner court will be a pleasant place for people to visit study and enjoy The Church has been a vital part of Huntington Beach for over a hundred years and has brought many people into its fold That s what church is all about They have shared many activities with the community They sent a large semi truck fully loaded to the top with supplies to help the people after Katrina Several different times crews of church members went to Louisiana to help rebuild They furnish a large trailer with restrooms and furnish thousands of bottles of water for the 4th of July Parade participants and viewers Wherever there is a need in Huntington Beach or in other states church help is on the way Missionaries all over the globe are recipients of physical or financial help There are many other ways that the church reaches out to people on a daily basis We as a church family just want to continue to bring the Word to many people We do need to make our facilities more usable efficient and attractive to the residents and visitors of Huntington Beach Please consider how important that this project is to this church family and to those it will add in the future cyf�m 8 r �-� 9/19/2007 Page 2 of 2 1 have been a member of Huntington Beach First Christian Church since 1961 1 live about a block and a half south of the church at 1010 Main Street We hear many football games at the high school Lake Park has many ourdoor activities every weekend We hear baseball games picnics weddings music children on the playground equipment It s a happy noise and we don t mind hearing people laughing and playing We never hear any noise coming from the church If we did the noise of people talking and enjoying time together would be an acceptable part of living here Please help to re approve this conditional permit and let us begin construction soon Thank you Doris Chambers 1010 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 536 2495 9/19/2007 Message Page I of I Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Monday September 17 2007 10 02 AM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW First Christian Church Pat apkus (714) 536 5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Ada Cole [mailto adabelieves@ca rr com] Sent Saturday, September 15, 2007 8 02 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church City Council Members We request that Debbie Cook s attempt to stop FCC from replaceing their old church buildings be viewed as with out merit With all building projects there is temporary noise as it was when Debbie's house was built Respectfully Dick & Ada Cole 714-966-3057 9/I 7/2007 Message Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Monday September 17 2007 4 38 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW FCC s Building Protect Pat Dapkus (714) 536 557 (714) 536 5233 (FAX) From Colley, Joanne [mailto Joanne Colley@ Hoag HospitaI org] Sent Monday, September 17, 2007 3 53 PM To CITY COUNCIL Sub]ect FCC s Building Project Unanimous approval by the Planning Commission brought renewed hope to the members of First Christian Church and our supporters in the community and neighborhood that progress on the modernization of the campus could at last move forward To learn that this has been successfully petitioned for appeal after many concessions to appease those in the community with objections to individual line items in the proposed plan is disconcerting I trust you will find in favor of approval for this project Thank you Joanne Colley Proud resident of Huntington Beach for 45 years Graduate of Huntington Beach High School Property owner and neighbor of FCC Member First Christian Church 00&Le 9/17/2007 Dear City Council Members, Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Lisa Curtiss [sky nurselisa@verizon net] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 11 00 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject Appeal Oct 15 for FCCHB Dear Cf,tU Cou o CLL Meet hers u I avl a wt.evttber of First Chrbst no, Church of uvt,Glerstavi,d here Ls avt, aPPeaL Process ovL October 15 200-f we certawUt uvt,d ersta" the s object ovt,s of worse avu'd tra ff c However Church has chav�z�0 to vi teet the vt.eeds o f the cove wt vvuLt� for this cevt,turl The churco v�,eeo's to vtteet the cowt.wtuvt,bt� s weeds espeCaUL the �ovnCA people Youvt,P -)eopLe v/aot,t to go sovv e,r/here that Ls posLtLve avtJ evtergtzbo,� This bool2store✓cafe vLLL vv.eet those v,,eeds vie are At,ot taL�,Ibvt,P a restauraALt we are tt2DZLo'q about a gatherb J place 'or ChrLstbav>,s avt,d those to reach �ouvZA people with probLewt.s I would vouch prefer that l ouvt q people would have a place Lb4 ,e thbs to rho to rather thavL bewzA ovt, the street d obvi o drvos or other bLLucLt behavbors I avvL a pubLbc heaLth vtLcrse I awt. ctuotwL D the SLtVOe rate for teewS bn OravZAe CoLcvutl accorAnq to a 2 report bssued bU the orav pe Couvt,tl Health DepartvitieAtt The tv✓o specLaL at rbsl2 groups are defwuO b� �teRZ�he PeopLe 2000 TheU are ACdoLescevt,ts 25-2J a o,d M a Les 20-S4 This report constitutes a study of suicide mortality In Orange County for Orange County residents Orange County death records for 1990-1997 comprise the suicide data Suicide was the 8th leading cause of all deaths for Orange County residents in 1997 accounting for 1 5%of all deaths For males suicide represented 2 3%of all deaths and for females suicide accounted for 0 8% of all deaths County of O a ge Health Ca e Agency 1997 Death F le Leading Underlying Causes of Death for Orange County Residents 1997 Rank Cause of Death Number Percent 1 Diseases of heart 5 157 32 3/ 2 Malignant neoplasms 3 852 24 1/ 3 Cerebrovascular diseases 1 146 7 2/ 4 Pneumonia and influenza 896 5 6/ 5 Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease 855 5 4/ 6 Accidents and adverse effects 598 3 7/ 7 Diabetes mellitus 328 2 1/ 8 Suicide 235 1 5/ 9 Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis 234 1 5/ 10 Atherosclerosis 204 1 3/ 11 Alzhetmers disease 186 1 2/ All others 2 270 14 2/ Total 15 961 100 0°/ When 1997 deaths due to injury were analyzed suicide emerged as a major underlying Cct 7%S.S 9/17/2007 Dear City Council Members, Page 2 of 2 cause of death Suicide was the leading cause of injury related deaths during 1997 During 1997 the suicide crude death rate was 8 8 per 100 000 person years C ty f O a ge Health Ca e Agen y 1997 Death F le During 1997 Orange County had a suicide death rate that was lower than both California and the United States Orange County had a suicide death rate of 8 8 per 100 000 population as compared to California (9 6 per 100 000)and the United States (10 6 per 100 000) 1 Orange County has attained the Healthy People 2000 objective rate for suicide of 10 5 per 100 000 population In addition Orange County has achieved the target rates for two special at risk groups defined by Healthy People 2000 adolescents 15 19 and males 20 34 The target rate for a third at risk group white males 65 and older has not been met The target set for Healthy People 2010 is 6 0 total suicides per 100 000 Orange County has not met this target yet Orange County Death Rate Comparisons with Healthy People Target Rates 1995 1997 Adolescents 15 19 8 2 6 4 Males 20 34 21 4 18 1 White Males 65 and older 39 2 40 3 Total Suicides 10 5 8 8 6 0 Cc my of Orange Health Ca e Agency 1995 1997 Death F les Tkawle v for �ovr Lv,� - �Ls vv-ptter P" I k pe �oL.� wbLL serve t-he weeds of tine wrote cowl wt Vo'bt� v�'otpst L2 few 9n 7/2007 Esparza, Patty From Colleen Drew[colleen@drapers com] Sent Monday September 17 2007 7 36 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church "ood Picrning tc, all I gust vvanted to pass along a note to all of you to encourage yo1 and thank those of you who are behind First Christian s remodel/expansion As a 20 year Huntington Beach resrdert and a 17 year born-again Christian (I don t attend First Christian as I go to another HB church but have many friends that do) I have been blessed by the diversity of our city I have been grateful for the continuous upgrades to our downtown area and our shopping centers as well as the different churches in our city I would ask that each of you would ccrtinue to support this awesome project and watch hog our city will be blessed Thanks so much Colleen Dreg 1i824 Beard Lane Iuntington Beach CA 92647 1 Esparza, Patty From Diane Ewing [dewing@ovsd org] Sent Monday September 17 2007 11 00 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject Church Dear Council Members When the First Christian Church moaernization plan comes before you please Tote in favor Since much of the church was built in the 1950s �t obviously needs remodel-Lng When the campus was built there were two pastors Now there are 14 plus support staff' They need offices There isn t a building that goes up or a building remodeled that doesn t hd-Ve some opposition It is dust the nature of people in general Many members of First Christian have made sacrifices to donate money towards the future of F C C and the future of Huntinaton Beach Please don t make them wait longer to start the pro]ect It is an enhancement to H B not a detriment to the community Thank you Diane Ewing H B resident 1 Page 1 of I Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Monday September 17 2007 5 01 PM To City Clerk Agenda Cc Dapkus Pat Subject FW HB First Christian Church Pat I}Qpkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536 5233 (FAX) From Kolhane Grooters [mailto kgrooters@micena com] Sent Monday, September 17, 2007 10 57 AM To Coerper, Gil Sub]ect HB First Christian Church Gil I hope your having a good week I wanted to take a moment to express why the expansion of First Christian Church is important to our city and the families that live here I moved to Huntington Beach 8 years ago and have enjoyed living here Two years ago my wife and I looked at selling our house and moving more towards San Diego the schools are good it was closer to our work and we could afford a beautiful ocean view home Everything was a go but our decision to stay in Huntington Beach was mainly due to First Christian Church We depend on our church for the strength and encouragement we receive each week First Christian Church and it s members are like family to us The growth and strength of First Christian Church not only builds a stronger community in Huntington Beach but it also attracts people to live work and play in our city There are some projects that are approved that are questionable this is not one of those projects Thank you for your time and consideration Kolhane Grooters Global Account Director MICE North America Direct 949 654 0400 Ext 12002 Mobile 714 421 0422 Fax 949 654 0733 6489 Oak Canyon Irvine CA USA 92618 www micena com<littp \N«u mic,ena coin> 61?9)70 9/18/2007 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Monday September 24 2007 5 17 PM To City Clerk Agenda Cc Pat Dapkus Subject FW Support for First Christian Church Project Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Lisa Holley [mailto holley lisa@gmail com] Sent Monday, September 24, 2007 5 13 PM To Coerper, Gil Subject Support for First Christian Church Project September 24, 2007 Dear Mayor Coerper, We are writing today to voice our support for the modernization project at First Christian Church We are both members of the church and neighbors to it (we live in Beachwalk), so we have carefully considered the impact of these changes in both ways as church members and as neighboring homeowners First, as neighbors, we have a unique viewpoint We are located across 17th Street from the church and back up directly to Huntington Beach High School, as a result, we hear many things during the course of our day The high school produces all of the noise we hear However, we look at it this way the high school was not invisible when we purchased our home Because we were aware of the impact the existing facilities in the neighborhood would have on us when we decided to buy our home,we are never bothered by the noise from the bells, the morning announcements, the graduation ceremonies, the band competitions, football games, or night-time softball games in the adjoining field that go on well past 10 00 p in on weeknights We have never heard any noise from the church It is difficult to imagine that the church would produce noise or traffic that would even come close to that generated by the three schools in the area, and particularly the high school In comparison,the church's effect on neighbors once the project is completed will be modest The plan for the cafe/bookstore is small and intended primarily for church members We've heard concerns that teenagers from the middle and high schools may use the cafe and/or bookstore We welcome thatf Living here, we see the foot-traffic throughout the neighborhood when school is let out How wonderful it would be to have a positive, supervised place for these teens to go rather than just roam all over the community, as they do now 9/24/2007 Page 2 of 2 As church members, we see the need for updated and new buildings Our teenage son is active in the youth group, and there is simply not enough room to accommodate all of the young people who wish to get involved Last year they had to turn teenagers away from the junior high school service because there was no more roomf In addition, the existing facilities are run down and in need of care First Christian has been a wonderful neighbor and has had a positive impact on our community in many ways In order for the church to meet the needs of existing and future church members and to continue to serve the community, this project is vital We urge you to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve the church's plans Your approval will have a long-term positive impact on all of Huntington Beach Sincerely, Mark and Lisa Holley 19490 Sandcastle Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 9/24/2007 Esparza, Patty From Jennifer Johnson bkjohnson1026@mac com] Sent Saturday September 15 2007 9 04 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church expansion project Gocd Evening I have been a member of First Chr-Lstian Church since 1990 I hale grown up in the church and I have many positive memories there I have watched the church grow in population and was very excited to learn of the remodeling project My husband and I are about to have our first child and we couldn t be more thr-lled to knov that through this remodeling our ch-Lld will be in a cleaner safer more up to date environment Through the 17 years that I rave been a member I have also been a witness to the community service acts that First Crristian Church provides I think the most obvious example is from this past 4th of July when the staff prodded executive bathrooms at NO cost to the community This build-nq project isn t just another construction project---it effects every member of our church I also believe it effects the lives of the community in positive ways I think that updating our church can only increase the value of our neighbor s homes by making the neighborhood even more presentable This is an exciting project---our church has called -Lt the next wave and I can only ask that you will join us in this adventure Sincerely Jennifer Johnson 1 ,T,) �5� Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Wednesday September 19 2007 11 44 AM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW (no subject) Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Bdnmm@aol com [mailto Bdnmm@aol com] Sent Wednesday, September 19, 2007 9 52 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject (no subject) Dear Council Members I am writing to you in support of Huntington Beach First Christian Church s building plans I am not a member of FCC but am a part of the Prayer Shawl Ministry group that meets on Tuesday night We are a group of ladies who enjoy knitting and have found a wonderful way for our knitting to reach and support people Our shawls go out across the nation to people who are going through a difficult time We want them to know that each time they put their shawl on the arms of God and the people who knitted their shawl are around them I have seen first hand what this has done for people in crisis and it is powerful First Christian Church welcomed me and is giving me an opportunity to give to my community I find all who I have come in contact to be nothing but hospitable What better use of property than to have a place where the community is welcome to seek fellowship As a resident of Huntington Beach and member of St Simon and Jude Catholic Church I implore you to extend your hand in helping FCC continue to offer the community of Huntington Beach a place to come and celebrate the beliefs and values that are often forgotten in our world today Sincerely Mary Johnson See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepage 9/19/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Wednesday September 19 2007 11 38 AM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW First Christian Church Improvements Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From ROBERT S KIRKSEY [madto nrkirksey@verizon net] Sent Wednesday, September 19, 2007 11 16 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church, Improvements Council Members After reading the article in the Orange County Register we are contacting you to ask that you you approve the permit for improvements at the First Christian Church Campus A city with active churches is a good place to live We have lived in HB since 1969 This church has been a positive force in the city for over 100 years The Planning Commission that you appointed has thoroughly examined this application and approved it already Please allow the church to update and approve their facilities without any further delay Thank You Robert and Nancy Kirksey 9/19/2007 Esparza, Patty From Rod Kunishige [rkunishige@hotmad com] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 6 20 PM To CITY COUNCIL zzm HB Independent Subject HB First Christian Bill Borden is right September 16 2007 HB F-Lrst Christian is merely trying to be a good citizen by upgrading its facilities for its congregation and community As a neiohbor I support their efforts despite one Councilwoman s attempt to veto the 5 to 0 jote of the planning commissior HB FC has served this community long before the City was incorporated and yet it has met nothing but hostility from just a few extremely powerful people I a Saint Simon & Jude parishner urge you to support this clearly beneficial upgrade It seems that not everyone knows that it is illegal for non-profits to conduct profitable enterprises Further it seems to me that they are the ones in need of some non-public school education Rod Kunishige 1107 Main St HB 714 374-8177 Kick back and relax with hot games and cool activities at the Messenger Cafe http //www cafemessenger com"ocid=TXT TACHM SeptHMtaglinel 1 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Terri & Harlan Lawson [lawsonpanda@verizon net] Sent Monday September 24 2007 7 26 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject FCC s building project Dear City Council Member We have lived here in Huntington Beach for 45 years and have attended First Christian for that entire time We have seen Huntington Beach grow and change in many ways and usually for the better of the community Our Church has always served the comunity and tried to help our neighbors and this new building project is just another way we want to better serve the people of Huntington Beach You have all the information you need to make the decision to approve the new building project This will make our long established church tradition of serving here continue with a newer and better looking appearance and one that will enhance the looks and service of the city of Huntington Beach We want to urge you to approve this project as it is proposed and to do so as quickly as possible Thank you for your service to our comunity as our elected City Council Board Member Made God bless and guide you in your decision Sincerely Harlan &Terri Lawson 64zJJ0 .J 9/24/2007 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From Cindy Martina [cindymartina@verizon net] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 2 37 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject FCC EXPANSION My name is Cindy Martina and I ve been attending FCC since 2002 I hope that we will be allowed to grow One of the things I am most looking forward to in our growth plans is the book store & cafe I believe it is very important to have places where people, especially young people, can hang out, and learn to grow to be more like Jesus And People behaving more like Jesus is not something to be afraid of but rather something to encourage, because ONLY good can come from itl As Christians, we have a true desire to love people And to help those in need and to be compassionate I remember when we FILLED an 18 wheeler with water & food to send cross country to Katrina victims And I believe FCC has sent teams two times back to Mississippi or Louisiana to help in the teanng down of destroyed homes Dirty, nasty work that needed to be done I think it is twice a year that the FCC youth travel down to Mexico to build a home for a family in need THESE are the kinds of things that Christians do Love & help & compassion We are growing because more & more people are attending, and becoming part of our family It seems logical to me that the more people we have attending FCC, the more we will be able to help And love And be compassionate And that is nothing to fear, instead, it should be something to welcome Thank you 9/17/2007 Page 1 of I Esparza, Patty From Bonnie Perry [bonnie perry@hotmad com] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 6 35 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church Expansion To the members of the city council I am writing in support of the expansion of First Christian Church expansion As a member of First Christian Church, I naturally take this very seriously As should members of the community We should all be able to rely on those that represent our community to the planning commission to keep everyone's best interests in mind I heard concern over children playing outside during the day, noise from trash collectors, too many people congesting the area, and the color of the church building I even heard people trying to single out First Christian Church with conditions that are not placed on any other church in the city I know that there is a gentleman who has been upset about the expansion to the point of showing video when trash is collecting and busses are keeping the cooler going in the heat of summer for the kids going off to camp I hope we can rely on our local government to keep our best interests in mind and not use local power as a way to stifle progress Boyw tel Perry More photos, more messages more whatever Windows Live Hotmail -NOW with 5GB storage 4 /u V 9/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Monday September 17 2007 5 48 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW First Christian Church Pat ba kus (714) 536 5579 {114, 536-5233 (FAX) From Kathryn Foster Pulcim [mailto kfpulcini@yahoo com] Sent Monday, September 17, 2007 5 40 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church My husband and I are members of First Christian Church We thank you so much for your positive vote on our church's remodeling project We have been so proud of our church and our minister, Bruce Templeton,but the church is badly in need of revamping We can understand the neighbors being upset about the parking building, although I don't believe it would have obstructed anyone's view That idea has been scrapped, though, and we will be considering other ideas for parking We would very much appreciate your vote in favor of our project when it comes up again I have been a Huntington Beach resident for 38 years and have always known our city to have a very fair city council Mr and Mrs Wayne Pulcmi 8371 Edam Circle Huntington Beach Thank you very much, Building a website is a piece of cake Yahoos Small Business gives you all the tools to �-),et online 9/18/2007 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat Sent Tuesday September 18 2007 12 31 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW First Christian Church expansion Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Dapkus, Pat On Behalf Of Coerper, Gil Sent Tuesday, September 18, 2007 11 13 AM To Veronica Ross Subject RE First Christian Church expansion Thank you for your comments on the First Christian Church CUP Please be advised that a copy of your email was received by all the Council A copy will also be forwarded to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record on this item should it come before the City Council Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Veronica Ross [mailto veronicaross@att net] Sent Monday, September 17, 2007 6 52 PM To CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church expansion Dear Ladles and Gentlemen, I hope you will accept an opinion from a resident of Garden Grove regarding the expansion of First Christian Church I lived in Huntington Beach from 1965 to 2000 I relocated to GG because I could not afford to buy a home in HB FCC is my church and I am proud of everything they do and everything they stand for I know that the appeal to the expansion was only brought forth by one council member, but I hope you will stand firm in your decision to allow to construction to go forth I plan on moving back to Huntington Beach next year now that I have the funds to do so I left my heart there in 2000 and am looking forward to moving back home Please allow us to reach more people who need our help by allowing us to begin construction this fall Thank you for reading my opinion Veronica Ross 13122 Newell St 9/18/2007 Page 1 of I Esparza, Patty From Teri Simorns [TSimonis@socal rr com] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 11 20 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church Dear Mayor Coerper and City Council Members, I am writing in favor of the building commissions decision to approve First Christian s building plans First Christian is endeavoring to meet the needs of the community it serves by updating and expanding its buildings At the same time, First Christian is keeping its neighbors in mind and that is why the parking garage plans were cancelled As with most plans to develop in our city, there are opponents, however I think this plan is to the betterment of the community and I praise the building commission for giving its support and ask the council to support the building commissions decision Teri Simonis Huntington Beach I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users It has removed 2507 spam emails to date Paying users do not have this message in their emails Try SPA/I_fighter for free nowt 9/18/2007 Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From SmeadlyHB@aol com Sent Sunday September 16 2007 3 15 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church Dear Members of the City Council As a resident of Huntington Beach and member of Huntington Beach First Christian Church I urge you to approve the First Christian Church s Text Wave building project Huntington Beach is very lucky to have First Christian Church and Pastor Bruce Templeton in its midst After reading Bill Borden s editorial in the Thursday OC Register it s hard to imagine why there are still objections from some of FCC s neighbors PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE approve this project so Huntington Beach can shine a little brihterli Thank you Gail Smea 51 Padua Drive Huntington Beach CA See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepage 9/17/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Mary Summers [summb@socal rr com] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 8 57 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Chnsitian Church Permit for building project Dear City Councel Members I am a member of First Christian Church of Huntington Beach (FCC) I have lived in this city since I was ten years old I graduated from Huntington Beach High School and Golden West College and have atteneded FCC for the last 13 years Our church only wants to add to the revitialization and improvements to the whole downtown area Since our current buildings are about 50 years old the modernization is badly needed As a whole we love to bring neighbors into our family" and count them as friends We always welcome any visitors who are interested in getting to know us I have heard that some of the complaints related to our request are related to noise but like any nieghbor we would prefer to work with those around us and include them in our actvities so that any noise is not a concern but a shared source of fun I would appreciate your support in the request to update and improve the FCC buildings Our hope is that the improvements will be a benefit to everyone If the church campus is attractive and inviting it should improve property values and provide facilities we are happy to make available to the community at large The audtonum has been used by several community and school groups for as long as I ve attended FCC Thank you for your consideration of this matter Sincerely Mary Summers 9/18/2007 Esparza, Patty From Kristi Templeton [kristitempleton@mac com] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 9 34 PM To Coerper Gil Dear G-1 I an a member of First Christian Church in Huntington Beach My husband and I grew up at this church I am now in my 30 s and can honestly say that besides arranging the rooms a bit differertly nothing has changed I am now a mother of two small children who are meeting in the same buildings and the same classrooms that I did crov,ing up While that can be sentimental and sweet I also know that my kids deserve something better than this Wouldn t you want the best for your children' Would you remodel your home their schools whatever was possible if it meant that their environment kould be safer cleaner more up to date" I have two friends that are teachers One ,corks at a inner city school and the other at a very wealthy school in the suburbs One has all the resources that you could imagine and the other is lacking what you and I would consider necessities We all want the best for our children s eaucation We want them to have the tools that they need We want them to stay interested zr learning In the same way I want the best for my children at church I wart them to aunt to go there to learn about what I believe to be the most important thing they could e%er learn - that they have a Savior who loves them who died for them has a purpose for them and wants to spend eternity with them I don t expect your views to match up with m-Lne and you might even think I m crazy The world thinks that message is crazy which is why this building project is so important to me If church is an invitina safe fun place where they want to go & where they want to bring their friends they call remain open to rot only the church but to the message that it brings I understand the neighbors concerns but as a church we have worked so hard to meet on common ground We je made several concessions trying to be friendly neighbors In return we are met with frustration and anger because they are concerned about their community property values etc I am not a real estate agent but I know that when old dilapitated buildings are torn down ano beatiful current buildings are built it takes property values up One only has to look at the increase in value of the homes near Bella Terra and the new Seacliff shopping center to know that I urge you to take a look at our current buildings and compare them to the new plans We are in line with the city s desire to modernize downtown Shouldn t �,e start with one of the oldest buildings in Huntington Beach? In regards to the cafe which I am aware is a very LARGE problem with the neighbors I worked at a church in Nevada that had over 10 000 attendees We had a full service cafe serving breakfast lunch and dinner We were busy on the weekends but did not have a lot of traffic throughout the week It did not create any problems for our neighboring famillies but it was a nice service that we were able to offer our attendees I say that because I believe it is hard for the neighbors to envision what the cafe truly is That was evident the night of the City Commission Meeting with the numerous references to the restaurant that we were building The cafe proposed at FCCHB is much smaller than any restaurant or even the cafe that was a part of our church in Las Vegas Though the public is invited we are not running a full service restaurant nor are we trying to run a for profit business Again it is just a place to offer our church families & attendeees It is a place to meet with friends who might need a cup of coffee and a conversation with a friend I know it s different than what a lot of churches do but we are a growing church a church for the new generation and this is a part of our vision After months and months of delay we were pleased to finally have our voices heard at the September 11th City Council Meeting It was a vote that was approved unamiously Although it does not shock us about the appeal it is frustrating You see we are invested into this church with our hearts and with our finances There are hundreds of families in this church who have given up many things that the world deems necessary to see this project happen There are people who have taken 2nd and 3rd jobs to fulfill their commitment to the church This isn t something we 1 tyke licTht�y We are desperate to see this project started We believe in it with all of our hearts We are not an ordinary business We are a church We have fulfilled everything required of us and we simply ask that you let our church build it s bullainus let us step into the future and offer something new to our kids Let us be the church that we know we need to ne Trunk you for your time Kristi Templeton Jirship Leader First Christian Church of Huntington Beach 2 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Jnjthaler3@aol com Sent Saturday September 15 2007 11 23 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church To All Seven Council Members I respectfully request that everyone on the Council consider the good that First Christian Church has done for over one hundred years During these years the church has needed to expand to meet the needs of the people FCC has always been good for Huntington Beach and now it is Huntington Beach s time to return the favor There is nothing in the upgrade and expansion that will harm Huntington Beach in any way No profit making projects or anything else detrimental to the City or its residents Quite the contrary the expansion will be a tremendous asset Please do not do anything to undermine delay or deter the expansion or the upgrades Respectfully from a Huntington Beach resident and member of First Christian Church Joan Thaler jnjthaler3@aol com See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepage 9/17/2007 Page 1 of 2 Lugar, Robin From Dapkus Pat Sent Thursday October 04 2007 8 57 AM To Wait—John Cc City Clerk Agenda Subject RE In Favor of First Christian Church s Planned Improvements Thank you for your comments on the First Christian Church CUP Please be advised that a copy of your email was received by all the City Council Members A copy is also being forwarded to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record on this item should it come before the City Council Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Walt—John [mailto Walt_John@Allergan com] Sent Wednesday, October 03, 2007 11 31 PM To CITY COUNCIL Cc Jenn Walt Subject In Favor of First Christian Church s Planned Improvements Dear City Council, I am writing to favor my support for all the remodeling plans by First Christian Church I think the 50 year old property needs a nice modernization and I am in complete agreement with all the plans and support and the new upgrades planned by the church I look forward to construction commencing soon and thus also completing soon We bought our current home back in 2003 as a new next-door neighbor to FCC As a homeowner buying next to a large church I expected them to have many cars parked there on Sundays and special events I expected people to gather there for their purpose, meeting, eat, drink coffee, sell books and make noise I do not see any of their new plans differing from these normal expectations of purchasing a home near a 50 year old church property They were there first I am only 47 I lived on PCH for 15 years, I can tell you about real noise 22 hours a day The noise from FCC is miniscule At our house we are surrounded by three large facilities having daily loud events with loud outdoor noise, outdoor gatherings, severing thousands of full meals, and big bright lights at night These are Smith Elementary School, Dwyer Middle School, Huntington Beach High School and the highly lit and late operating Softball Field All these facilities currently do in our neighborhood what FCC wants to do, and it does not disrupt our living We do hear the daily bi-hourly bells of Smith School, and all their daily loud PA announcements and our life goes on We also hear Disneyland s fireworks EVERY summer night starting at about 9 28 and ending at 9 43 Come to our home one weekend fall/winter night, sit inside with the windows closed and listen, it is amazing I think the late evening noise of DL is louder than anything we have ever heard from the FCC property Again I am in favor of all of FCC's plans including the coffee shop, bookstore, the nice esthetically l �A 10/4/2007 Page 2 of 2 appealing tower and the outside amphitheater with sound system It looks like a nice neighborhood modernization and will provide less utilization than what happens daily at Smith, Dwyer and HBHS We do overlook Smith School's ugly prison style cyclone fencing and portable classrooms with their exposed piping and ugly, exposed, and massive noisy air conditioning units FCC's modernization proposal is a much nicer aesthetic improvement over the buildings the city planning department approved a few years ago in our same exact neighborhood on Smith's public property Remember FCC has been there for over 50 years and they just want to improve their very large piece of the neighborhood to make it nicer for all I expect noise from the church with parking and people gathering, eating, reading, and talking This is what all three neighborhood schools do That is what I expected when I bought a home near a very large church property I am not a member of FCC,just a neighbor and proud HB homeowner Kind regards, John Walt 828 14th Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 (714) 969-2774 10/4/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Monday October 01 2007 9 24 AM To LWeiss5260@aol com Subject FW first christian church building project Thank you for your comments on the First Christian Church CUP Please be advised that a copy of your email was received by all the City Council Members A copy is also being forwarded to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record on this item should it come before the City Council Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From LWeiss5260@aol com [mailto LWeiss5260@aol com ] Sent Saturday, September 29, 2007 8 25 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject first christian church building pro3ect Dear City Council Member I urge you to vote in favor of First Christian Church to go on with the remolde project When my children attended ECDC in the 80 s the facility was is bad shape The heaters were scary the plumbing bad and just so out of date way back then Now it is even worse If you look at the pictures from way back then you will notice that the church was there before the houses People moved next to the church They had a choice to move there There hasn t been any problems before now that it will look modern I don t see why there should be any new thing that could bother the neighbors Please don t let a few ruin it for thousands Thank you Barbara Brown an HB resident since 1975 See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepage 10/1/2007 Page 1 of 1 Esparza, Patty From Linda Wheaton [lindawheaton@verizon net] Sent Sunday September 23 2007 11 21 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject First Christian Church Dear HB City Council Members This letter is in support of the proposed building improvements at First Christian Church(FCC) The project has been approved 5-0 by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission, and I urge you to uphold this decision My family has lived in Huntington Beach since 1975 Although we attended a church in Fountain Valley, it was an annual tradition for us to visit FCC's Drive-Thru Nativity when our children were young Two years ago my husband and I began attending First Christian Church In addition to it being a church that clearly teaches the truths of the Bible, it's a church where we're becoming acquainted with more of our Huntington Beach neighbors and discovering ways to be involved in our community In a small town, the church is often the hub of the community Huntington Beach is not a small town, but it seems to us that FCC is that hub in our city Thirty years ago when we began attending the church in Fountain Valley, we chose it because it was a Bible-based church that had wonderful outreach programs for children and teens If I were the mother of young children today I would choose to attend First Christian Church for those same reasons Huntington Beach needs First Christian Church, and FCC needs to expand to adequately meet the needs of this community Please vote to approve all of the improvements proposed in First Christian Church's New Wave building project Sincerely, Linda Wheaton 20141 McKinley Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 963 1449 9/24/2007 Page I of I Esparza, Patty From Amanda Wright [AWright@mdestonepromise com] Sent Monday September 17 2007 8 27 AM To CITY COUNCIL Subject Church Expansion Project Distinguished council members As all the residents of Huntington Beach know the High School students usually hang out at Del Taco across the street from the school The patrons are understandably annoyed by this What a blessing it would be to have more High School students hanging out at a Church after school where they will probably be more mindful of their language and behavior After all regardless of your beliefs who feels comfortable cursing and acting like a fool at Church? The same people that are complaining about the expansion are the same people that complain that things aren t like they used to be Bringing more kids to Church is a step toward getting back to how things used to be As reasonable people we understand that providing more places for families to gather is a foundation for building a safer city If a bar in Down Town HB were to remodel I am sure the plans would pass without question yet we are nitpicking over the remodel of a Church that has been part of the neighborhood for years and is in desperate need of upgrades due to the age of the building Furthermore just about everyone in my neighborhood has had some form of remodel of their private residence take place I have had countless nails in my tires as a result however I would not force someone to live in a rundown home in need of repairs just so I didn t have to see the dumpsters on the street When the time comes that I remodel I would hope my neighbors would have the same consideration for me If I don t want my neighbors to control what I do then I cannot control what my neighbors do DO UNTO OTHERS Amanda Wright Persona(ftnes Manager Mitestone Risk Mgmt & Insurance Svcs 8 Corym ate Pal k Ste 130 Irvine CA 926o6 949 852 o909 Ext 203 fax 949 852 1131 aft tight avnttc-�tonq)ioznise t om Click hei efor information on our 2007 Educational Series This message including any attachments contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law If you are not the intended recipient please contact sender immediately by reply e mail and destroy all copies You are hereby notified that any disclosure copying or distribution of this message or the taking of any action based on it is strictly prohibited Milestone Risk Management&Insurance Serx ices 9/17/2007 Page I of 1 Esparza, Patty From Steve Yatauro [syatauro@socal rr com] Sent Sunday September 16 2007 7 23 PM To Coerper Gil Subject First Christian Church Modernization Project Support Mayor Coerper Please take a minute to read the following email I sent to Mayor Pro Tern Cook regarding FCC s modernization project Please support the Planning Commission s unanimous vote of approval of this project when it comes before City Council for approval Respectfully Steve Yatauro 10072 Stonybrook Drive Huntington Beach CA 92646 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Mayor Pro Tem Cook I am a resident of Huntington Beach and a member of First Christian Church I attended the HB Planning Commission meeting this past Tuesday and after listening to almost four hours of discussion was very excited when the Planning Commission members unanimously approved the CUP allowing First Christian Church to proceed with our modernization project l was then equally disappointed and surprised to find out that you are appealing the Planning Commission s vote of approval Please take a minute to read this article from the OC Register regarding our project http//www ocregister com/news/church first neighbors 1844880 one cafe Mr Borden does a very good job summarizing my thoughts regarding both the project and the Planning Commission meeting l urge you and the rest of our city s council members to support the Planning Commission s unanimous vote of approval of this project Respectfully Steve Yatauro 10072 Stonybrook Drive Huntington Beach CA 92646 9/18/2007 ATTACHMENT #7 1 FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 06-008/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 06-035/ VARIANCE NO. 07-001 1207 MAIN STREET PROJECT PROPOSAL : ■ Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 06-008 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project. ■ Conditional Use Permit No. 06-035 to permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex. ■ Variance No. 07-001 to allow temporary joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site. y ' y cv PROJECT DESCRIPTION ■ Demolish 4 buildings ■ Construct 3 buildings (Children's, Multipurpose, Administrative/ Cafe/ Bookstore); ■ Renovate A-Frame Chapel , install steeple/ cross w/ overall height of 96 ft; ■ Expand/ renovate worship center's nursery and bathroom facilities, ■ Landscape/hardscape improvements; ■ Re-configure parking lot, ■ Outdoor dining ; ■ Joint Use Parking (47 @ Smith School , 298 @ HBHS during construction) PROJECT DESCRIPTION (coot. ) ■ Joint Use Parking (298 spaces) located approximately 570 ft. from project site (at HBHS ) , in-lieu of 250 ft. max. distance permitted by HBZSO , during construction . ■ Church proposes to operate shuttle between project site and HBHS to mitigate distance — — — — — — — — — — — — — = ADAMS STREET \ C ���f� O 1 tii� IUl L � s D m EXISTING \ 1 � �✓ WORSHIP I— w L / r /ids LL Lu Lu W g 080706 m r ✓ 104-03 10 sP`'`��G U + �aCap � ardC i crd _J -- - v a j VILLAGE GATEWAY w ugiLldI L C 11C CHAPEL GARDEN w ~ A WORSHIP CENTER(Existing) 3 TIDAL PLAZA Si CHILDREN S BUILDING 4 LITTLE SQUIRTS COURT F— SCHOOLFIELD C, MULTIPURPOSE I YOUTH 5 PRAYER GARDEN m LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHAPEL(Existing) 6 WAVE WALK 0. 7 6E ADMIN I CAFE M 7 PORTAL GARDEN F NURSERY EXPANSION CHILDREN S OUTDOOR PLAY a Q- m 9 PARKING {.+ SCALE 1130 =1-0 10 FUTURE PARKING STRUCTURE Mitigated Negative Declaration ■ Determined no significant impacts anticipated with mitigation . ■ Supported by Phase 1 , Traffic, Noise , Geotechnical and Air Quality studies . ■ Identified mitigation measures pertaining to Hydrology/ Water Quality and Noise . ■ 49 comment letters were received ( representing 31 properties) PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION, ■ APPROVED PROJECT SEPT. 11 , 2007 with conditions of approval : • Eliminated Parking Structure • Restricted Assembly Capacity based on available parking to 1 ,450 • Limited Cafe Hours: 9 . 00 am to 6 00 pm • Required Sound Wall at Courtyard • Prohibited Permanent Outdoor Sound System(s) ANALYS IS : ■ STAFF RECOMMENDATION - Approve MND/ CUP/ VAR based on suggested findings ■ Furthers General Plan goals/ policies which encourage modernization and expansion of uses that support needs of HB residents ■ Complies w/ applicable zoning regulations, w/ exception of variance ■ Divergent hours of operation and use of shuttles support approval of point use parking and variance ■ Contemporary architecture and design features minimize bulk and mass, provide for compatibility w/ surrounding land uses ■ Project (w/ mitigation) will have no significant environmental impacts RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT Planning SUBJECT Appeal of Planning Commissions approval of MND 06- 008/ CUP 06 035/VAR 07-001 (First Christian Church) COUNCIL MEETING DATE I October 15 2007 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Tract Map Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Applicable ❑ Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Attached ❑ (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases Third Party Agreements etc Attached ❑ (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudgeted over $5 000) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Attached ❑ Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Commission Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached Not Applicable ❑ EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Deputy City Administrator (Initial) ( ) City Administrator (initial) ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM s RCA Author SH HF IRS $ / }� ! �4 � | ! a < - ����® ) �, ply �� ! First Christian Church » a > \ r) ( ® « a : ƒ2 e }� \ Presented By Commissioner Tom Livengood Planning Commission \ AV City of Huntin9 ton Beach , r � f ^ �!:- S1 - First Christian Church Ast j F ❑ Elimination of Parking Structure 1-1 Permitted Seating for Church } � Services a Applicant's Original Request a ® 1 ,763 Seats Traffic Study � 0 1 ,655 Seats o Elimination of Parking Structure 0 1 ,450 Seats F 6 4 g ,Ity - First Christian Church b Special Activities/Events outdoors ® Requires Temporary Permit (same requirement � for all organizations/churches) LI Visual/Noise Mitigation Orientation of Buildings 3 Along Adams Avenue Sound Wall Height of ; H = b" Seven Feet by Length of Sixty Feet ® Children's Play Area South Sound Wall Height of Seven Feet r su ChristianFirstChurch 'Sj ,Pity i El Conditions/Codes/Nexus = ® Departments (Planning , Building , Public Works , Fire) ® 201 -Code Requirements/Nexus Items Construction Rules a n Repair/replace sidewalks/curbs ti° 7 ® Landscaping E �9� P I A fn First Christian Church 7 � i `*- �A f - A CC Conditional Use Permit J 11 Nineteen conditions and site plan ® Parking structure eliminatedI � , 11 Sound walls required a a Cafe Outdoor Dining Hours 9 00 AM to 6 00 PM Daily _ 19 Church Service Seating Limited to 1 ,450 EA Designated Bus Drop Off/Pick lJ Area in Southwesterly I ' g p p Y � Corner of Parking Lot Parking During Construction F)I Building Orientation 11 Loma Street Cul-de-sac — no through traffic/emergency access only 11 No permanent outdoor sound system � � I Page 1 of 1 Lugar, Robin From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Monday October 08 2007 5 09 PM To JTTIMEOUT@aol com Subject RE re First Christian Church Thank you for your comments Please be assured that all the City Council Members have received a copy of your email A copy will also be forwarded to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record should this item come before them Pat bapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From JTTIMEOUT@aol com [ma►lto JTTIMEOUT@aol com] Sent Monday, October 08, 2007 4 54 PM To CITY COUNCIL Subject re First Christian Church I am a 11 year resident of Huntington Beach and a 7 year member of First Christian Church I urge you to support and approve FCC s budding project for the following reasons 1 the old outdated buildings are not safe 2 remodeling and improving the campus not only benefits our members but improves the real estate values of everyone that surrounds the church area 3 Improving our downtown as well as surrounding areas such as our church attracts new homeowners and businesses and thus new taxes I understand and sympathize with the surrounding residents I live across from Seacliff school and get to enjoy lots of laughter from the kids but also the annoying classroom changing bells Unfortunately when you live in a community and not on a large farm out in the middle of nowhere you must take the good with the bad I also get to enjoy all of the cars parking on our private streets as parents bring their kids to school With that comes more congestion and speeding parents Do I love where I live? Yes Do I have to put up with certain annoyances that come with living by a school?Yes I believe Pastor Bruce and all who are involved are being considerate neighbors throughout this process I ask you to support this project and not let the a select few homeowners dictate If they are successful I will definitely find out who they are so I can see what can be done about all of the annoyances we have to put up with in our neighborhood that happens to be by a school Sincerely Janet Doe See what s new at AOL com and Make AOL Your Homepaae �0 eo 7-- ��- Col-7tncom/ cat�� 10/9/2007 Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From Dapkus Pat on behalf of Coerper Gil Sent Thursday October 11 2007 12 27 PM To City Clerk Agenda Subject FW Appeal of First Christian Church Remodel/Expansion Importance High Pat Dapkus (714) 536-5579 (714) 536-5233 (FAX) From Mays, Thomas [mailto TMays@PacificLife com] Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 12 05 PM To Coerper, Gil Cc Bruce Templeton Subject Re Appeal of First Christian Church Remodel/Expansion Importance High Re Appeal of First Christian Church Remodel/Expansion Dear Mr Mayor and Members of the City Council I am writing in support of the First Christian Church Remodel/Expansion The replacement and remodel of 50 year old buildings with modern facilities will be a benefit to our community It will provide a modern and secure environment for our community to come together to worship and enjoy the many programs that are offered I believe the applicant has worked hard with the city and the surrounding neighbors to resolve their concerns There are over 200 conditions on this project The parking structure has been eliminated from the project, a sound wall has been added, outdoor sound systems eliminated, restrictions put on the book store and cafe and many other conditions have been added In addition, I would also like to bring to your attention a potential tax benefit of this project to the city In 1995, the Board of Equalization passed a resolution allowing local taxes from construction projects to be allocated to the local jurisdiction where the construction is taking place That could translate into hundreds of thousands of extra tax dollars going to the city The church will be working with the City Treasurer to allow for this to happen First Christian Church has been around since 1895 It is the first church established in Huntington Beach I urge you to support the decision of the Planning Commission and deny the appeal Thank you for your consideration 10/11/2007 T _� Page 2 of 2 Thomas J Mays Former Mayor and State Assemblyman 7406 Paloma Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The information in this e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the inten 10/11/2007 MILLAR HODGES @ BEMIS ATTORNEYS AT LAW LARRY R BEMIS ONE NEWPORT PLACE SUITE 900 L STEPHEN R BEMIS 1301 DOVE STREET K ENNETH R HODG ES r{ r�4g�g RICHARD W MILLAR JR NEWPORT BEACH CALIFORNIA 92660 2448 Or, 1 L. RM1 'F' 5 TELEPHONE (949) 7S2 7722 October 15, 2007 Honorable Mayor Coerper and City Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor Huntington Beach CA 92648 Re First Christian Church, Variance No 07-001, MND06-008 Dear Honorable Mayor Coerper and City Council Members I write on behalf of the Crystal Island Homeowners association to voice opposition to the request of the First Christian Church to utilize the Huntington Beach High School s parking lot for church services and other events I understand this matter is set for hearing next Monday before the City Council As the City is aware, the Association is in litigation with the City and the High School (Crystal Island Community Association v Huntington Beach Union High School District, et al Orange County Superior Case No 06CC01729) concerning the purportedly private access road known as Estate Circle Insofar as the proposed church parking arrangement proposes or allows churchgoers and other visitors to access the Huntington Beach parking lot via Estate Circle it would further overburden and conflict with our clients easement rights and our clients adamantly oppose this use Should the City allow use of the High School parking lot for the Church that use should be conditioned upon utilization of the Utica Street entrance and exit solely the placement of barriers at the present connection between the parking lot and Estate Circle along with appropriate signage making it clear that Estate Circle cannot be used by the Church for ingress and egress to the High School parking lot and directing such traffic to the Utica entrance ery truly yours ON Richard W Millar Jr RWM ms cc Crystal Island Community Association NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, October 15,2007, at 6 00 PM in the City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items 1 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-008/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06- 035/VARIANCE NO 07-001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/ EXPANSION) APPLICANT Art Cueto Visioneering Studios APPELLANT City Council Member Debbie Cook REQUEST MND To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project, CUP To permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex VAR To permit joint use parking (298 spaces)located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site(at Huntington Beach High School) during the construction phase LOCATION 1207 Main Street 92648 (southeast corner of Adams Ave and 171h Street) PROJECT PLANNER Ron Santos NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the initial environmental assessment for Item#1 was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act It was determined that Item#1 with mitigation would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted Prior to acting on the request,the City Council must review and act on the Negative Declaration This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach California 92648 and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning(714) 536 5271 ON FILE A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 for public inspection and comment A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties in the City Clerk s Office on Friday, October 12 2007 ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above If you challenge the City Council s action in court you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing If there are any further questions please contact the Planning Department at(714) 536 5271 and refer to the above item(s) Direct written communications to the Office of the City Clerk Joan L Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor Huntington Beach California 92648 (714) 536 5227 n-�"4-IL - M-610�- CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEA ING REQUEST C F{(R-ST Ctp w pl+l/ CK to Rot &Xf ATnrsfW R G►�wCx�L, , SUBJECT kfP E/kL, OF f L-ArN1V*!;r c 6;MM�S Sr`�jrJ'S prF Fj2 c17 L _Cjf- M I'(1&ftT-` > "0&1 0 54- coo--wb votF- O—t-co\ DEP TMENT S C�P%W K/ GT- MEETING DATE CO ACT RO N/ S AW"TVs PHONE ` r S 5G I N/A YES NO { ) { ) Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) 04 ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ) If an appeal,is the appellanes name included in the notice? `K i ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Perrrut,does the notice include appeal language? { ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council, { ) { ) Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size ( ) ( ( ) Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? { ) ( ) Are the appellwif s mane and address part of the mailing labels? { ) ( ) If Coastal Development Pernut,is the Coastal Commission part of the maigmZ labels? i ( , ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached' ( ) ( ) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept items only) Pleas complete the following• i Minirium days from publication to hearing date t C> 2 Number of tunes to be published { _ 3 Number of days between publications N [A- 21 i 023 063 17 023 084 05 ' 023 093 32 Garddcas DG Living Trust William& Dana Ingram Cross 1734 Main St_ 930 Arden PO Box 1049 Huntngton Beach CA 92648-2723 Pasadena CA 91106-4002 Wailuku, III 96793-1049 023 282 22 023-302-09 Dwight E &Catherine A Collins Darwin & Brenda West 19707 Seashore Cir 19781 Deep Harbor Drive Huntington beach CA 92648-3037 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I Occupant Occupant 7218 Seaworthy Drive 7232 Seaworthy Dave Huattngtou Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I 023 052 52 023 081 11 023 081 15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 522 W Adams Ave 1210 Main St 1216 Maur St Huntington Beach,CA 92648 1 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023 084 10 023 191 16 023 191 17 Occupant Occupant Occupant 921 13'St 818 San Nicholas Cir 822 San Nicholas Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA92648 023 10009 023 19109 '023 191 15 Occupant Occupant Occupant 770 17t'St_ 843 14'h St 812 San Nicholas Cir Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023 191 18 023 282 18 023 292 32 Occupant Occupant Occupant 828 San Nicholas Cnr 19727 Seashore Cir 7285 Pterport Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023 292 47 023 282 1 023 292 33 Occupant 19721 eash e C Occupant 19832 Watervtew Ln H ungt B CA 92648 7281 Pnerpount Dr Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ( Huntington Beach,CA 92648 023 320 13 Occupant 19751 Deep Harbor Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 /611S 7- a6 -c)J f` T"O"VaTWw"P"s ��� � — 'l p�T 023-191-19 023-191-20 023-191-21 Occupant Occupant Occupant 832 San Nicolas Cir 838 San Nicolas Cir 842 San Nicolas Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-191-22 023-191-23 023-191-24 Occupant Occupant Occupant 848 San Nicolas Cir 852 San Nicolas Cir 858 San Nicolas Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 , Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-280-06 023-280-07 023-280-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7332 Veering Cir 7322 Veering Cir 7312 Veering Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-280-09 023-280-10 023-280-11 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7302 Veering Cir 7292 Veering Cir 7301 Veering Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 fl2/Vee fl23-28fl- fl23-28 24 Oc Occup t Occu nt 73g Cir 7331 eer g Cir 19 6 S rn LnHuBeach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 /023-22 fl23-28 26 023-281- Occu nt Occupaern Ln 19 6 Ster n 1966 Ster Lnon Beach CA 92648 Huntingto Beach CA 92648 Hun ngt Beach CA 92648 023&18 fl23-28 29 023-282-0 Occ Occu nt Occupan 196 196 St n Ln 19676 ter nHunh CA 92648 Hu ington Beach CA 92648 Hun ngto Beach, CA 92648 fl23-28 fl2 fl2K 03 fl23-282- Occup t Oc 0c6upa 196 St n Ln 19 rn Ln 1970 Ster LnHun ington Beach CA 92648 � Huon Beach CA 92648 1 H ingto Beach, CA 92648 i 023-282-05 023-2 -06 023-282 7 Occupant Occ ant Occup t 7292 Waterside Dr 73 Wa rside Dr 7308 ate side Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hun ing n Beach CA 92648 023-282-08 023-282-09 023-282 0 Occupant Occupant Occup t 7312 Waterside Dr 7318 Waterside Dr 7322 ate ide Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntingt Beach CA 92648 IF10 S �� Ads® tmf� 023-282-22 023-292-31 023-292-32 Mrcha P T tcher William Borden Ronald H Wood 197 Se T heUA�6 7312 Pierpornt Dr 19681 Quiet Bay Ln tr ton Be h CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-292-33 023-292-34 023-292-35 Merage William A Ptotner Edith B Elvis *B* 3150 Bristol St 500 19791 Waterview Ln 19781 Waterview Ln Costa Mesa CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-292-36 023-292-37 023-292-38 Thomas & Terry Miller Bonnie B Scott *M* Dennis R & Annette Anderson 19777 Waterview Ln 19771 Waterview Ln 19772 Waterview Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-292-39 023-292-40 023-292-41 R & Amanda Anderson John Orouke James Townsend 19776 Waterview Ln 19762 Waterview Ln 19792 Waterview Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-292-42 023-292-43 023-292-44 Martinez Linda D Light Ronald D & Teri Bennett 19796 Waterview Ln 19802 Waterview Ln 19812 Watervzew Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 11 023-292-45 023-292-46 023-292-47 Candace A Moyer Phyllis Butland Donald E Michaelis 19816 Waterview Ln 19822 Waterview Ln 16501 Peale Ln Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92649 023-2 -56 94 023-302-13 023-302-14 Be wa Ho owners Assn Angelo Segalla Arthur G Hovland *B* Ar nau 100 PO Box 2082 19745 Deep Harbor Dr Flis Vre o, CA 92656 Costa Mesa CA 92628 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-302-15 023-302-16 023-302-17 Klan Mc Gowan Timothy Von Dula► Joanne Bumm 19741 Little Harbor Dr 19735 Little Harbor Dr 19731 Little Harbor Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-302-18 + '� 023-302-19 -023-302-20 Louise S Anderson Lori J Bell Stanley J Uavickas 19715 Little Harbor Dr 19711 Little Harbor Dr 19701 Little Harbor Dr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 D23-302-4 024-051-01 *** 179 Printed *** Beachwa Ho eo us Assn Frances Dunn 31 J me 50 1030 Main St 41i o V jo 92656 Huntington Beach (,A 92648 a� t +g0965 UVWW31 OAMW"n i; ecAverv®51 Tt8ibQqaqejpea AM3 023-280-12 023-280-13 023-280-14 Howard Ross Terry 0 Dooley Seacliff Partners 7321 Veering Cir 7331 Veering Cir 520 Broadway 100 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Santa Monica CA 90401 023-281-24 023-281-25 023-281-26 Susan H Wuchner Huntter & Fay Mc Lean I Catherine Jackson 19646 Stern Ln 19652 Stern Ln 19656 Stern Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-281-27 023-281-28 023-281-29 Loren D Felts Donald H & Sylvia Gunderson Ronald H Wood 19662 Stern Ln 19666 Stern Ln 19681 Quiet Bay Lit Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-282-01 023-282-02 023-282-03 Robert F Fordiani Jerold J Griffin Lawrence & Celia Carter 19676 Stern Ln 19682 Stern Ln 19692 Stern Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-282-04 023-282-05 023-282-06 Conrad M Larsen Shirley Shaver *M* Joan W Farr 19702 Stern Ln 19852 Maritime Ln 7302 Waterside Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-282-07 023-282-08 023-282-09 Bruce F Granneman Leslie K & Susan Whitaker Lawrence A Castro 7308 Waterside Dr 1240 Country Club Dr 139 Hiilcrest Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Riverside CA 92506 Fairfield Bay AR 72088 023-282-10 023-282-11 023-282-12 Richard H Keisel Robert Peterson Virginia B Contarsy 7322 Waterside Dr 7328 Waterside Dr 19718 Seashore Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-282-13 023-282-14 023-282-15 £rlinda R David Fred P Bloomfield Robert J Peduzi 19722 Seashore Cir 19728 Seashore Cir 19732 Seashore Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1, Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-282-16 ' { 1 023-282-17 023-282-18 Kyoko Kent Thomas D Burson Debora E Mc Phelan 19734 Seashore Cir 19731 Seashore Cir 16774 Eagle Peak Rd Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Riverside CA 92504 023-282-19 023-282-20 023-282-21 Ronald H Wood Iuelsdorf B Sample 19681 Quiet Bay Ln 19717 Seashore Cir 19711 Seashore Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ANiaT UV7dML -"61! i Now �nvPrAvvQJ®� 1ratt� g7 023-19 - 2 023-191-05 023-191-06 X 1[ ing Beach ElemE Douglas S & Benay Moore Sean C & Tiffany Kanaley raim Ln 845 14Th St 847 14Th St gto Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-191-07 023-191-08 023-191-09 Bruce E & Connie Templeton Shirley Siracusa *M* Char L Lovelace 853 14Th St 859 14Th St 20431 Mansard Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 1 Huntington Beach CA 92646 023-191-10 023-19 11 023-191-13 Douglas Howe Scho H ing Beach E em( Church First Christian of Hut 839 14Th St 20 1 aim Ln 1207 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 untingto Beach CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-191-15 023-191-16 023-191-17 David W Courdy Brian F Goebel Darrell W & Sharon Henne *B* 812 San Nicolas Cir 818 San Nicolas Cir 822 San Nicolas CTr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-191-18 023-191-19 023-191-20 Edward R Baney Ted Dickson Steven Brilliant 828 San Nicolas Cir 832 San Nicolas Cir 838 San Nicolas Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 �i Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-191-21 023-191-22 023-191-23 Zan Welsh *M* Jeffrey B & Corrine Sellberg James C Song 842 San Nicolas Cir 848 San Nicolas Cir 852 San Nicolas Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-191-24 fl23-191- 023-i9 Ol ��� Richard M Lobin Seacl f rtn s Hun ngt �Bch Co 12020 Chapman Ave 520 ro wa 00 P Bo 139 Garden Grove CA 92840 Sa to oni a, CA 90401 ake sfi d CA 93302 K- 9O ZOX 3 91t( 023-280-04 on ach Co ea Co Beachwalk Homeowners Assn 3 92 39 Argonaut 100 eld, CA 93302 �� d CA 93302 , Aliso Vielo CA 92656 023-280-06 i '� 023-280-07 023-280-08 Louis J & Dale Jimenez Meg han y John F Briers 7332 Veering Cir 7322 Bring /chC 7312 Veering Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Hu ington Be 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-280-09 023-280-10 023-280-11 Matthew V & Kathleen Hunt Le Kim Lan Lawrence Ross 7302 Veering Cir 7292 Veering Cir 7301 Veering Cir Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 e Av B'I wd"83 023-081-07 023-081-08 023-081-09 Mark D Florez Jon T Moseley *B James L & Sharon Du Val 1221 Park St 23974 Aliso Creek Rd 392 1203 Park St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-081-10 023-081-11 023-081-12 Richard M & Linda Ester Jack K Clapp Mark S Williams 1209 Park St 1210 Main St 422 Loma Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-081-13 023-081-15 023-081-16 John Boyd Eon Jiang Arvid & Vera Melquist 1220 Main St 6902 Dresden Lir 1212 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-084-01 023-084-02 023-084-03 Martin A & Karen Sundy Robert J & Julie Van Herk Johann Assigal 410 7Th St 18170 Santa Lauretta Cir 1112 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-084- 023-084-06 023-084-07 Eilee Knee Donald A Mac Allister Joseph Perry *M* 110 Main St 1121 Park St 1111 Park St H ntington be CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-084-08 023-084-09 023-084-10 Robert F Eckhardt Thomas Lazear Michael D Robertson 1109 Park St 1105 Park St 519 Ali-so Ave Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92663 023-084-11 023-084-12 023-093-03 Gary A Glenn Donald A & Nu Powell *M* Joyce L Anderson 1106 Main St 1110 Main St 1111 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-5nqt -18 023-093-27 023-093-28 Mare pe John G Walt David Silveria 8 828 14Th St 830 14Th St unt n Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-093-31 023-093- 2 023-093-33 Utterberg C H & O T Family (milli M Haze Cross Douglas Young 1129 Main St 1123 in t 1119 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hunt gton each CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-093-34 023-100-09 023-100-10 '( /Av Lisa Scott-Chavez School Huntington Beach Drst Sch H L1 on Beach Dist 1115 Main St 20451 Craimer Ln 2 51 rai r Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 u ngt Beach CA 92646 TY �� 1 T OAJSAV 8511 t� S ® w , i�d 023-053-05 �� vY�Si 023-053-06 023-053-07 Terry & Jicki Johnson David Mauro William J & Kathleen Fenerty 1721 Aspenwood Ln 1725 Shipley St 1721 Aspenwood Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-053-08 023-053-09 023-053-10 John T & Tracy Blackburn Joseph & Mary Churilla Charles R Walker 1717 Aspenwood Ln 1711 Aspenwood Ln 1705 Aspenwood Ln Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-053-11 023-053-12 023-059-01 Sander Gelfand *B* Virginia F Muschetto Huntington Beach Company 1711 Shipley St 1707 Shipley St PO Box 1392 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Bakersfield CA 93302 023- 9-0 \ 023-OS 03 ; 023-059-0 \ P H tin on Be ch Company Hunt gt Be Company Hunt A�xl Be C any 0 B 139 PO ox 39 PO Bakersfie d CA 93302 akersfieId, CA 93302 Ba ersf 'Id, C 93302 023-!ng'�'O/ D- y 023-063-03 023-063-05 Hun Company Michael P & Cindy Chislock Bertha H Bray P Bx 1711 Park St 1701 Park St ake feA 93302 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-063-09 023-063-10 023-063-12 J F & M Manning Craig C & Kathy Colbert Sandra Edgington 1705 Park St 1715 Park St 1746 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-063-13 023-0 -1 023-063-19 Scott W & Ellen Prior Ste & arl e Patton Jack & Consuelo Marshall 1717 Park St 1 4 in 1721 Park St Huntington Beach CA 92648 untingt Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-063-23 023-063-24 023-063-25 Simon C Zeller Cole Fulwider Bergevin 1728 Main St 1732 Main St 1702 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-063-26 023-063-27 023-063-28 Nancy E Manning Christian B & Kathie Vanschyi Frank J Biondi 1708 Main St 1712 Main St 1720 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-063-29 023-063-30 023-081-06 Ross W Atkinson Donald C & Marie Deering Frank S Kurisu *M* 1716 Main St 1724 Main St 1215 Park St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ir log T - Ojv 0 6 - OA3-- 023-02 16 023-020-21 023-051-0 Cit Of nti ton Beach School Huntington Beach Union City Hunt on ach P Box 90 10251 Yorktown Ave PO ox 1 �` Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92646 Huntin on Beach CA 92648 023-051- 023-051- 023-052-11 City Hu in on Beach City O Hun ngto Beach Seth & Dianne Schiller PO ox PO 8 19 1726 Shipley St Huntington each CA 92648 Huntington Be ch CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-052-28 023-052-29 023-052-33 William M Bruce Sau an George & Kelly Eddy 19350 Ward St 1 5 in St 1707 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92646 Hunt ngton Bea, CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-052-34 023-052-36 023-052-38 Matthew J Westergaard John P & Jill Bates Roger D Slates 1711 Main St 1733 Main St 1701 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023- -39 D� 023-052-40 023-052-41 Jo P & 11 es George E & Marilyn Camps *M* Matthew R & Alexa Kruse 33 n S 1735 Main St 1745 Main St Hunt ngton Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-052-44 023-052-45 023-052-46 Earl H Moyer Stephen & Karen Kluewer David & Karen Gray 1721 Main St 1710 Shipley St 1714 Shipley St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-052-49 023-052-50 023-052-51 James E Ellis John W Gallagher Ronald R Austin 1722 Shipley St 1718 Shipley St 1706 Shipley St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 023-052-52 023-0 52-53 023-052-54 Rita Mc Curdy David Treiman Louis E Gallo PO Box 430 1704 Shipley St 1732 Shipley St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ' Huntington Beach CA 92648 i 023-052-55 023-052-56 i 023-052-57 Daniel & Christine Orozco Michael P & Ann Acosta H & Linda Heumann 1736 Shipley St 1832 17Th St 1808 Shipley St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-052-58 023-052-59 023-052-60 Todd & Deirdre Gan Martin H Richards Edward J & Sandra Jarema "B', 1804 Shipley St 1749 Main St 1751 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 R9T3"qs Uaw""1166S V T 14 qoq@1!wi AWj J'�— 023-302-14 023-302-15 023-3JL-16 Occupant Occupant Occupant 19745 Deep Harbor Dr 19741 Little Harbor Dr 19735 Little Harbor Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-302-17 023-302-18 023-302-19 Occupant Occupant Occupant 19731 Little Harbor Dr 19715 Little Harbor Dr 19711 Little Harbor Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 ' Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 023-302-20 024-051-01 *** 158 Printed *** Occupant Occupant 19701 Little Harbor Dr 1030 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 023-052 26 023 Os2 56 023 281 14 JOSEPI'C &NA01A1 O WHEELER MIC 4AEL P &AM C ACOSTA PAUL WITTENBERG 1821 MAIN ST 1832 17TH S T 7212 SEAWORTHY OR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 2724 HUN TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 2764 HUN TRW,-TO"BEACH CA 92648 3038 023 281 15 023 281 16 023 281 17 JEFFREY A C"MA" GLENN L GEARHAR r FRANK MONACHELLO PO BOX Isis 7222 SEAWORTHY OR 4161 FLEFTHAVEN RO "rINGTON BEACH CA 92647 1975 "UN TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 3038 LAKEW000 CA 90712 3833 023-281 18 023 281 19 023 281 20 PATRICIAC GOFF STEf'HEN 13 &HE101 J KLINC STEVEN &ORENOA SCAPELLATI 7238 SEAWORTHY OR 7242 SEAWORTHY OR 7248 SEAWORTHY OR tI Y94GTON BEACH CA 92648 3036 HUN TING TON BEACH CA 92646 3038 HUN TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 3038 023 261 21 023 281 22 023 5 71 01 LON R CREECH RONALO W &L1NOA 8 MERTZ VINCENT HO LE 7252 SEAWORTHY OR 7258 SEAWORTHY OR 19731 ESTATE CIR HUNTNVGTON BEACH CA 92648-3038 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 3038 HUNTiNGTON BEACH CA 92648 3076 023571-02 023 571-03 023 571-04 PATIOCK C &ELS7_ABETH M LUS TIG RONALO V &GEORGINA M TROXEi L S TEVEN T NAWO 19T71 ESTATE M 19801 ESTATE CIR 19831 ESTATE CIR MN"NGTON BEACH CA 92648 3076 H(JW(NGTTON BEACH CA 92648 3078 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 3078 i 023 571-05 023-571-06 023 5 71-07 RICItARO T OAVfiT MAC"VAN GANG DANA &KURT SC"ILL(NG 19671 ESTATE CIR 19762 ESTATE CIR 19812 ESTATE CIR t1lA4"f4GT0N BEACH CA 92648 3078 HLINTINGTON BEACH CA 92648-3077 HUN77NGTON BEACH CA 92648-3079 R27 C(Agros l��os V N0N6VR, V p6T6��s ceujyo" Ro ZAVi or, C A 'I ZG4 5 /D Ty HB Coastal Cotnia ties Assoc 43 Huatingtoa Valley Litde League 47 HB Fietd Lfockey* 47 David Gtudo Reaee Aumt$er PadIn. 1 Mea venue 209 aztfotd 1778 Metzler Or Orange Hun gton Beach CA 92648 Hun oa Beach CA 9 47 Downtown.Busmess Association �44 AYS Region 143 47 HB P Wamer Footb ** 47 Mr Steve Damels Co sstoaer Phdhp Luce Maras Stoic 200 Main Street#106 5552 old Place PO B x 5066 Huntngton Beach CA 92648 Hunan oa Beach CA 9 47 Hunan oa Beach 92615 (Downtown Restdents Association 4 Fountain alley Youth B eball* 47 North Soccer 47 Ms Marie St Germain Al Letua Pr+estdeat orge tton 505 Alabama 14591 Yucc Ctrcle 18601 Ne d S et,994 Hunangtoo Beach CA 92648 Huntingtoa ach CA 2647 Hunttngto Bea CA 92646 (7raupersou 46 H B !c All eacan ootball** 47 Robtnwood t League 47 /Toagva Ta Couacd Gregg Nutt Sandy Huber Box 693 P O Boa 2245 16722 Algonq St #D S Gaback CA 91778 Huntington Be 92647 Huntington Be CA 92649 ]cat o Band of Miss a ladtans 46 Huntington Beach cer League* 47 Seaview Little ague 47 Aq e_,nrn Natton Felipe Zapata Brett Sba.a 31411 La Matanza S et 18442 Steep Lane 20141 M e San] Captstcmo 92675-2625 Huntington Beach 92648 Huattagtoa CA 92646 South Soccer b** 47 Ocean View U Le 47 Wesauuister HOA 48 Ptrsidcnt B Cathy Van Doo um restdent 5200 B R 8921 6881 Steeple #H Westmtnst CA 3 Heattngton CA 92646 HuaUnigtna CA 2648 West Co Family CA* 47 South HB Gtds ast Pitch ftbell** 47 Guy Bco 49 Laval Beewex Mane Enscy Coastk 2100 Mara 21401 Pinetzee 441 Old ewport Blvd_ a 103 H—ft%'t— 92646 Huattngtoa CA 9264 Newport CA Regional J Offir"for Calf 5o Fort Irvin 50 Fort H Leggett 50 Western R Fla office u CoL Paul ccznez W Pet Rubin US Air Forage Dtncctoc of bkc WO&S Nat'l zaintag Cate Du+ect of Public Wodcs 333 Madret Suite 5 P O Boa f0 7 Comb SuppovtTntmog ter Saa Fcartctsco 94105- 196 Fort Irww 92310 B790 St Padcs A Duhha CA 94568 Sheila Dono 50 Pita& tena ,Dtcector 5Q Comtnuatty dr L""Oa drnatoc westcm egtoa Fnvrmnmmtal Ct e US Navy (ISM Corps Budding 1164 1220 Pacific Box 555 46 Sat Diego CA 92132-5190 Caarp P dktoa CA 92055-5246 ut=ttes faa'tes a p 960"" „fit t,aittomia k-oastai t_,oaacotsstoa G!) joa Nt Ardubald 32 Sally Graham 39 Theccsa Heoiy Wes ter Sc tract adowlark Area So th Coast Area Office ION ood Aven 5 t 1 Gelding Cirde 200 Oceangate 10th Flooc Wes to CA 9268 H tington Beach CA 9264 Beath,CA 92802-4 Cahfo Coastal Comnus ton 25 Stephen Rater 33 Che Browning 39 South ast Area Office HB Union Htgh School Dtsact Meado lark Area 200 to 10th Floo 10251 Yorktown Avenue 16771 sevelt Lane i otig CA 92802 4 2 Ruattagton Beach CA 92646 Hunan o Beach,CA 2649 Ryan P dun 26 34 Heacthside omen 40 Calwans tact 12 6 Egecuttve cde S to 250 3337 Midi n Dave to 380 lcvuie CA 9 14 h.vme CA 9 12 16" Dtceetor 27 Goldeaw College 35 Bolsa Chica d rust 41 Local Solid Was a Ea Agy Atta-Fmd wens 5200 Wainer A ue Ste 108 O C Health Caj r y 3744 Gold west St Huntington CA 92649 P O Box 355 Huntington. ach CA 9264 Santa Aaa,CA 70 New Growth 6 oc for 28 OC County rs Bea 36 Bolsa Chica Lan t 41 Huatusgtoa Bea st Office and Parks Dep Evan Henry P i at 6771 Wamer A P O Box 4048 1812 Port Ti P e Huntington CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92 2 48 Newpoct CA 2660 Marc Ecker 29 Huntuigtoa Beach 37 Steve Homer on 42 Founum Valley School Dist Attu.Pat Rogers-La SEHBNA 17210 Oak 7777 Edinger Ave # P O Box 5696 Fountain Valley CA 2708 Huntington Beach C 2647 Huattogton CA 2615 Dr Gary Ruth rfotd, r 30 Couatry View Esta H A 38 OC Samtatto District 42 HB City tart' Dist Carve Thomas 10844 Ellis enue 20451 C»tm Lane 6642 Trader Dnv Fountain V ey CA 927 8 Huntingtna CA 2648 Huatiagtoa Beach 9 David Perry 30 Countty View Es tes HOA 38 Eac Pen h,Plant c 42 HB City Lary i Dist Gerald Ch pmaa AES Hui gt m Beach, 20451 Laae 6742 Shtm Cu+ck 21730 Ne and Street Hun Beach,CA 9 E{uatiagtoa CA 92648 Runtiagt Beach CA 92646 1' 1 Richard Lw 42 �01 tittgton Gtds Softbak* 47 AYSO gioa 56 47 9062 Kali ut Dave Ea Commis r Cathy%lute Huah" Beach CA 926" Sox 3 22041 taLna Circle Haatingtoa ach,CA 92605-3 3 Rua Beach,CA 92646 John 42 AYSO R on.117 47 AYSO gioa 55 47 22102 a Lane John stoaer Duane Hurtado Hun a Beach CA 92646 9468 Co orant Cc P O x 1852 Fountain alley CA 92708 Hun ton.Beach,CA 92647 `>%uettes fadles a el � Jl gdj b} Lei feema l� �S ` on low= Prestdeatt E[uat�Won ifa&or POA i0 Sue Jobason t6 1iB Ckumbec of Commence �J P O x 791 19671 Qwet Bay Lane 19SW Beads Blvd Ste 140 Sunse Beach CA 90742 fnuagtoa Beach CA 9 648 Hunbngton Beach,CA 9Z648 D e StcFanrdes 2 William Holman 1 f O County Assoc f Realtors PLC 2555 La Paz Road 19 Corpo to Plaza D ve 1 HALs CA 9 53 Newport ach CA 2660 7912 President 3 Jeffrey M_ 12 Pact c Coast Arrha logical 18 Amigos De a Cluca RUTAN 8r R, LLP Sots ty far P O Box 1 611 Anton Blv 14&Roor P O x 10926 Huahagton CA 92647 Costa Mesa C 26 1950 Costa Mesa CA 9 27 Attn_ ale Gothold Sunset unity Assoc 4 Pees H Mst Socte 13 Dtrecto 19 Pat President C/O House eum O G P 8c De Semces Dept PO x 215 19820 Blvd P O Bo 4048 Bea*CA 9074 215 Hun a Beach,CA 9 Santa CA 9 702-4048 I I Pces+tdent ( 5 f Community Semces Dept_ 14 Bryan Spee e 19 Huntttagton Beach To �� CIMIPecson O C Reso 8c Develop Mgt Dept PO Boa 865 Historical Resources Bd P O Box Huntington Beach,CA 9YAS Santa Ana, 92702 4048 Julie Vandetmosr 6 al on Aging 15 Planning Dtr oc ZO BLA I7 Otaage Ave City of Cos esa 177 Padc Crrde 917 Hun Beach,CA 926 P O Box i lrvuw 926114441 Costa Mes CA 2628 1200 Richard 7 Jeff Me 16 Planning cto 21 SCAG Seacliff A City of So taro alley 818 West 7th, 12th r 19391 Harhor 10200 r Ave_ Los Ames 17 Huntington CA 2648 Fountain alley 92708 l E_T L Conrad 1 8 John Roe 16 Planning roc 22 May BeR Seatdtff H?A Gty of N wpoct Be 20292 Fastw Cis 19382 Surfdale P O Bo 1768 Huntington ach CA 926 Hunhagtoa 92648 Newport Beach CA 2663-8915 Ray iLtemstra Lout Mannone 16 P Director 23 Ramomumtal Board Chaumaa Seachff HOA City of estminster 214 1"Sheet 95 19821 Ocean Bi 8200 W tramster Blvd Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington CA 8 Wes ter_CA 92683 Plannurg Director Mary Lou Be 31 HB tons HOA 38 of Se each Ocean view Q tacy Sch Dtstact P stve Community t 211 t St 17200 Ptah Lane 2740 Puerta Real,#300 CA 90740 aHunhagton CA 92647 Mission Vtego CA 92691 uettes fadles a elljld�4b; MUMEM u eutlle � u sow 4yls�t�s mm �� �.r-A -7 - -0-�r Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 1994 case A50479 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING negative declarationis warranted Prior to act BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ing on the request the ust I am the Citizen of the United States and a OF THE CITY OF view and Countil act on the resident of the County aforesaid, I am over HUNTINGTON BEACH Negative Declaration NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV This FN that on Monday Oc environmental as sessment is on file at the age of eighteen years and not a party the City of Huntington in the City Council to or interested in the below entitled matter tuber 1 20 600 Beach Planning Depart Chambers 2000 Main C ment 2000 Main Street Ch Huntington Beach Cali am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON Street Huntington forma 92648 and is a er of Beach the council available for public in BEACH INDEPENDENT, a news pub newspaper will hold a public hear spection and comment mg on the following by contacting the Plan general circulation printed and published in planning and zoning ning Department or by items telephoning (714) 536 the City of Huntington Beach Countyof 1 APPEAL OF PLAN 5271 g NING COMMISSION S ON FILE A copy of the Orange, State of California, and the GATED NEGAPPROVAL AF MITI IIVE DEC proposed request is on LARATION NO 06 file in the City Clerk s attached Notice is a true and complete copy oosi CONDITIONAL Office 2000 Main USE PERMIT NO 06 Street Huntington as was printed and published on the USE VARIANCE 06 Beach California 92648 following date(s) C ection 7 001 (FIRST and cfor ommenublic t A copy of REMODEL/ I CNURCN the staff report will be L EXPAN available to interested SION) APPLICANT Art parties in the City Cueto Visioneenng Stu Clerks Office on Friday dios APPELLANT City October 12 2007 Council Member Debbie ALL INTERESTED PER Cook REQUEST MAD SONS are invited to at October 4 2007 To analyze the potential tend said hearing and environmental impacts express opinions or sub associated with ample mit evidence for or mentation of the pro against the application posed project CUP To as outlined above If you permit the expansion challenge the City Coun and remodel of an ex cil s action in court you istmg church complex may be limited to rats VAR To permit joint mg only those issues use spaces)a located at 9 a you or someone else distance m excess of raised at the public 250 ft from the project hearing described in this site (at Huntington notice or in written cor Beach High School)dur respondence delivered mg the construction to the City at or prior to the public hearing If phase LOCATION 12on declare under penalty of perjury that the Main Street 92207 there are any further foregoing is true and correct (southeast corner of Ad questions pplease con ems Ave and 17th tact the Plannlng De Street) ppartment at (714) 536 PROJECT PLANNER Ron 5271 and refer to the Santos above item(s) Direct NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV written communications Executed on October 4 2007 EN that the initial envi to the Office of the City ronmental assessment Clerk for Item #1 was pro Joan L Flynn City Clerk at Huntington Beach California cessed and completed m City of Huntington Beach accordance with the 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor California Environmental Huntington Beach Quality Act It was de (714)536 52 92648 1 termined that Item #1 isle)53 with mitigation would BeaPublished Huntington �({(�� Oc not have any significant oberh4120007end1Qlent 90 environmental effects S i g n afiire and that a mitigated Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 1994 case A50479 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) negative declaratwn is NOTICEOFPUBUCHEARING warranted Prior to act am the Citizen of the United States and a Ong on the request the BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL I City Council must re resident of the County aforesaid I am over OF THE CITY OF view and act on the Negative Declaration the age of eighteen years and not a partv HUNTINGTON BEACH This environmental as NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV sessment is on file at to or interested in the below entitled matter EN that on Monday Oc the City of Huntington tober 15 2007 at 6 00 Beach Planning Depart am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON PM in the City Council Trent MainBeac Street Cali BEACH INDEPENDENT a newspaper of Street Huntington Chambers 2000 Main Huntington forma 92648 and is fordable for public inBeach the City Council g printed circulation ranted and published in will hold a public hear spection and comment mg on the following by contacting the Plan the City of Huntington Beach County of planning and zoning telephoning or by Orange State of California and the items1 cn4> 53s 1 APPEAL OF PLAN ON 1FILE A copy of the NINGattached Notice is a true and complete co APPROVAL COMMISSION S APPROVAL OF MITI proposed request is on p copy GATED NEGATIVE DEC file in the City Clerks LARATION NO 06 Office 2000 Main as was ranted and published on the o08/ CONDITIONAL p p Beach tCalifornia�92648 following date(s) USE PERMIT NO 06 for public inspection 03S/ VARIANCE NO and comment A copy of C 7 001 (FIRST the staff report will be REMODEL/ DEL/ EXPAN IAN CHURCH available to interested REMO SION) APPLICANT Art parties in the City Cueto Visioneering Stu Clerks Office on Friday dios APPELLANT City October 12 2007 October 4, 2007 Council Member Debbie ALL INTE are my red to STED PER Cook REQUEST MND SONStend said hearing and en at analyze the impacts express opinions or sub associenvironmental impacts mit evidence for or mentato with ample against the application posed project otect CUP To of the pro as outlined above If you posed challenge the City Coun permit the expansion cil s action in court you istand remodel of ex may be limited to rats VARchurch complex To permit jointing only those issues VAR use parking (298 you or someone else spaces) located at a raised at the public distance m excess of hearing described in this 250 ft from the protect notice or in written car site (at Huntington respondence delivered Beach High School) dur to the City at or prior I declare under penalty of perjury, that the ,ng the construction to the public hearing If phase LOCATION 1207 there are any further foregoing is true and correct Main street 92648 questions please con (southeast corner of Ad tact the Planning De ams Ave and 17th ppartment at (714) 536 Street) 5271 and refer to the PROJECT PLANNER Ron above item(s) Direct Santos written communications Executed on October 4 2007 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV to the Office of the City at Huntington Beach California EN that the initial envi Joan Flynn City Clerk ran mental Clerk assessment for Item #1 was pro City of Huntington Beach cessed and completed in 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor accordance with the Huntington Beach c California Environmental California 92648 Quality Act It was de (714)536 5227 termmed that Item #1 Published Huntington with mitigation would Beach Independent Oc Signature not have any significant tober4 2007 101 890 environmental effects and that a_mitigated Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 1994 case Ao0479 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) is I am the Citizen of the United States and a = NOTICE OF PUBUC H EARING negative do ac Prior t to t warranted Prior t BEFORE THE CITY(OUNCII mg on the request the resident of the County aforesaid I am over OF THE CITY OF City council must ray, view and act on the the age of eighteen years and not a party HUNTINGTON BEACH Negative Declaration NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV This environmental as to or interested in the below entitled matter EN that on Monday Oc sessment is on file at tabor 15 2007 at 6 00 the City of Huntington am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON PM in the City Council Beach Planning Depart Chambers 2000 Main ment 2000 Main Street BEACH INDEPENDENT a newspaper of Street Huntington Huntington Beach Cali Beach the City Council forma 92648 and is general circulation printed and published in will hold a public hear available for public in mg on the following spection and comment the City of Huntington Beach County of planning and zoning by contacting Plan items ning Department or by Orange, State of California and the 1 OF PLAN NING APPEAL COMMISSION S 5271honing (714) 536 attached Notice is a true and cam Leto co APPROVAL of MITI ON FILE A copy of the p Py GATED NEGATIVE DEC proposed request is on as was printed and published on the 008/ ON DI NA file m the 00ity Clerk s N r' 008/ CONDITIONAL Office 2000 Main following date(s) USE PERMIT NO 06 Street Huntington 035/ VARIANCE NO Beach California 92648 07 0 0 1 (FIR S T for public inspection CHRISTIAN CHURCH and comment A copy of REMODEL/ EXPAN the staff report will be SION) APPLICANT Art available to interested Cueto Visioneering Stu parties in the City dios APPELLANT City Clerks Office on Friday Council Member Debbie October 12 2007 Cook REQUEST MND ALL INTERESTED PER To analyze the potential SONS are invited to at OCTOBER C 4 2 0 0 7 environmental impacts tend said hearing and r associated with ample express opinions or sub mentation of the pro mit evidenre for or posed project CUP To against the application permit the expansion as outlined above If you and remodel of an ex challenge the City Coun istipg church complex cil s action in court you VAR To permit joint may be limited to rats use parking (298 Ing only those Issues spaces) located at a You or someone also distance m excess of raised at the public 250 ft from the project hearing described in this site (at Huntington notice or in written car Beach High School)dur respondence delivered declare, under penalty of perjury that the ing the construction to the City at or prior phase LOCATION 1207 to the public hearing If foregoing is true and correct Main Street 92648 there are any further (southeast corner of Ad questions please con ams Ave and 17th tact the Planning De Street) partment at (714) 536 PROJECT PLANNER Ron 5271 and refer to the Santos above item(s) Direct Executed on OCTOBER 0 4, 2 0 0 7 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV written communications at Huntington Beach, California ro that the initial envimen Cl the Office of the City g fo Item l assessment Joan L Flynn Cit Clerk for Item #1 was pro Y Y cessed and completed in City of Huntington Beach accordance with the 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor California Environmental Huntington Beach Quality Act It was de California 92648 termwith d that Item would Published 536 5227in with mitigation would Published Huntington Signature not have any significant ttober4,I2007end101 90 Oc environmental effects and that a mitigated Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Supenor Court of Orange County State of California under date of Aug 24 1994 case AD0479 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS COUNTY OF ORANGE ) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING negative declaration is Prior to I am the Citizen of the United States and a - BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ngronted the request the resident of the County aforesaid I am over OF THE CITY OF City council must re ' HUNTINGTON BEACH 1 view and act on the Negative Declaration the age of eighteen years and not a party NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV This environmental as to or interested in the below entitled matter to that on Monday 0 the City f on file at tober ]5 2007 at 600 the City of Huntington I am aprincipal clerk of the HUNTINGTON Chambers in the a0 council Beach Planning Depart Chambers 2000 Man merit 2000 Man street Street Huntington Huntington Beach Cali BEACH INDEPENDENT a newspaper of Beach the City Council forma 92648 and is will hold a public hear available for public in general circulation printed and published in ng on the following spection and comment planning and zoning by contacting the Plan the City of Huntington Beach COur'ty of items rang Department or by 1 APPEAL OF PLAN telephoning (714) 536 Orange State of California and the NING COMMISSION S 5271 APPROVAL OF MITI ON FILE A copy of the attached Notice is a true and complete copy GATED NEGATIVE DEC proposed request is on LARATION NO 06 file in the City Clerk s as was printed and published on the 008/ CONDITIONAL Office 2000 Main USE PERMIT NO 06 Street Huntington following date(s) 095/ VARIANCE NO Beach California 92648 0 7 0 01 (F I R S T for public inspection CHRISTIAN CHURCH and comment A copy of REMODEL/ EXPAN the staff report will be SION) APPLICANT Art available to interested Cueto Visioneermg Stu parties in the City dlos APPELLANT City Clerks Office on Friday Council Member Debbie October 12 2007 Cook REQUEST MND ALL INTERESTED PER To analyze the potential SONS are invited to at environmental impacts tend said hearing and OCTOBER C 4, 2 0 0 7 associated with imple express opinions or sub mentation of the pro mit evidence for or posed project CUP To against the application permit the expansion as outlined above If you and remodel of an ex challenge the City Coun istng church complex cil s action in court you VAR To permit joint may be limited to rats use parking (298 ing only those issues spaces) located at a you or someone else distance in excess of raised at the public 250 ft from the project hearing described in thi site (at Huntington notice or in written cor Beach High School)dur respondence delivered declare under penalty of perjury that the ng the construction to the City at or prior phase LOCATION 1207 to the public hearing If foregoing is true and correct Main Street 92648 there are any further (southeast corner of Ad questions please con ams Ave and 17th tact the Planning De Street) portment at (714) 536 PROJECT PLANNER Ron 5271 and refer to the Santos above item(s) Direct Executed on OCTOBER 0 4, 2 0 0 7 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV written communications EN that the initial envi to the Office of the City at Huntington Beach� f f California o l assessment Clerk or Item #1 was pro Joan L Flynn City Clerk cessed and completed in City of Huntington Beach accordance with the 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor California Environmental Huntington Beach Quality Act It was de California 92648 termwith d that Item would Published 536 5227in �,. with mitigation would Published Huntington not have any significant Beach Independent Oc Signature environmental effects tober4 2007 101 890 and that a mitigated To the City Council of Huntington Beach From David Treiman � �� OCT D October 10, 2007 T 114G i 1. t C OBJECTIONS TO PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 06-008 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06-035 The Planning Commission approved on September 11, 2007, a conditional use permit(06- 035)that allows an amphitheater, outdoor sound systems, and activities that were not reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration (see Appendix 1 for proof of this assertion) or in the church's noise study (see Appendix 2). In fact, numerous statements in the Negative Declaration and staff responses to public comments specifically state that there will be no amphitheater or outside sound systems and that the Tidal Court is not going to be used for activities that the conditional use permit, as understood by the Planning Commission, allows. Therefore the project that was approved was not adequately described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Potentially significant impacts were ignored. The public did not have notice of these uses during the comment periods. In fact Mr.Hess stated that even the staff was not aware of the sound systems at the time it prepared the negative declaration. Therefore approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration 06-008 violates the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Mr. Hess and Ms. Mulvihill both cautioned the Planning Commission that allowing items which had been excluded by the Mitigated Negative Declaration would require recirculation of a revised negative declaration. To avoid this, the Planning Commission imposed some conditions, including a new sound wall along the north side of the Tidal Court,to mitigate the effects of these new items. Ms. Mulvihill repeatedly warned that Planning Commissioners that they would have to make a finding that the mitigation eliminated any potentially significant impact, and that this finding would have to be based on substantial evidence in the record. The Planning Commission made this finding on page 3 of the Notice of Action dated September 13,2007. The commissioners did not and still do not have substantial evidence to support this finding. In fact the record contradicts the finding as explained in Appendix 3. Furthermore,the changes made on September 11 were not just additional mitigation for the existing project. This was mitigation required by changes from the existing project as it was studied in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mitigation for new uses requires a new environmental study, and at a minimum a new negative declaration must be prepared and circulated. In addition, the conditional use permit allows use of a cafe and bookstore beyond the accessory use allowed by the Huntington Beach Zoning Code, and does not require that the refuse storage area comply with Huntington Beach Zoning Code §230.78. These matters were not addressed in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in violation of CEQA. I realize Mr. Santos disagrees with my conclusions.I raised these in my communications with the Planning Commission. The Notice of Action makes no findings on these matters even though I requested that the Planning Commission to review the staff s conclusion on the trash issue. I urge the Council to solicit legal advice on these zoning matters from the City Attorney rather than from the Planning Department. If there is no violation of the current law as staff claims, then there is no reason not to require compliance with current law—a common practice when old facilities are renovated or replaced,and Q 1;-"--1aeF a practice recognized under CEQA. , I do not wish to delay the Church's ability to begin construction on the renovation and expansion of the church. I ask the City Council to approve the project as mitigated by the Planning Commission on September 11 with the following exception: the Council must restrict the project approved to the one staff believed it reviewed in the Negative Declaration. Otherwise it is a different project than the one circulated for public comment,and the environmental review must begin again. Only two parts of the building plans need to be modified: the amphitheater, which the Church promised to eliminate from its proposal(Appendix 1),and the location of the refusal storage area if it does not comply with current city code. My other objections all relate to planned uses in or adjacent to the Tidal Court that either were not studied in the negative declaration, or that violate the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. I am not asking the city to require permits. I am merely claiming that the city cannot authorize those activities until they are studied,reviewed,and subject to public comment as required by state law. If the city now merely requires the church to limit its activities in and adjacent to the Tidal Court to those the staff reviewed in the negative declaration, I believe this would avoid a violation of CEQA. The church could apply for an amendment of the CUP in the future.' During this process I raised many other written objections to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration and made suggestions. For the record,I incorporate those in this appeal. However,this letter and the appendices focus on the clearest violations of CEQA and city ordinances. They are also the easiest to remedy and will avoid the issues that caused so much confusion at the meeting of the Planning Commission on September 11. This will allow the Church to commence construction without delay. It should also be in the interest of the Church to resolve the CEQA violations now, rather than face possible future judicial invalidation of the negative declaration after construction has begun. ' At the Planning Commission meeting on September 11, Mr. Templeton already volunteered to limit the weekday capacity of the cafe (video 1:46:54),the hours of operation of operation(video 1:47:27), and the cooking (1:48:16). This goes a long way toward addressing the accessory use problem, but it was not included in the Notice of Action. Times refer to the time elapsed in the meeting as shown on a video player. Page 2 i APPENDIX 1 USES EXCLUDED FROM THE TIDAL COURT BY THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION In the view of the Planning Department staff, the project it reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration excluded the amphitheater, outdoor sound systems,and formal gatherings or events in the Tidal Court. The July 10 Narrative, attachment 3 to the Staff Report of August 28, page 2: "A new `Tidal Court' will serve as the main gathering area for before and after church functions and will be open to the public. ... The court will include chairs and tables to support the cafd and hardscape improvements suitable for informal gatherings." "The church will not hold regularly scheduled outdoor gatherings on its campus,nor will the Tidal Court function as an amphitheater. Additionally, the church will not have outdoor amplified music." Letter from Ron Santos to Interested Parties dated July 16, 2007, giving notice of the third comment period regarding the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: "The document has subsequently been amended to reflect changes to the project plans and clarifications to the project description as follows: The amphitheater and pop jet fountains have been eliminated from the project plans. The project description indicates that no outdoor amplified sound system will be provided." STAFF RESPONSES TO PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments objected to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration because it did not address potential noise sources in the Tidal Court including an outdoor amphitheater,outdoor sound systems, a third play area(not the two adjacent to Loma Ave. which were addressed and required a seven-foot sound wall as mitigation), and other large gatherings and events. The following statements reveal staff s understanding of the project being evaluated in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS FOR DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO/06-008 [Staff Report of August 28, 2007, attachments 5.67-5.87: DT6 The Tidal Plaza represents a passive open space not intended for formal gatherings or events, and therefore does not represent a significant noise source. DT14 The project does not propose an outdoor sound system DT90 The project does not propose an amphitheater, outdoor sound system, parties, picnics, concerts,use of the parking lot for play,sports activities or unauthorized uses such as fireworks and auto racing Page 3 PB5 The outdoor gathering area adjacent to the planned new Multipurpose building was labeled as an amphitheater on the site plan initially submitted to the City as part of the CUP application.Based on the revised plans and project narrative,this area will not function as an amphitheater in that the church will not program outdoor meetings or gatherings but rather is proposed to be used by both church attendees and community members as an informal gathering area on Sundays and during the week.The church has agreed to not have outdoor amplified music in order to limit noise impacts on neighboring residential areas. PB 6 The project will not include an amphitheater or an outdoor sound system. LF9 The church will have no outdoor sound system. DG3 The outdoor gathering area adjacent to the planned new Multipurpose Building was initially labeled as an "amphitheater" in the entitlement drawing set submitted to the City. This area is proposed to function as an informal gathering area and will not be used to stage organized events. Furthermore,the church has agreed,as part of the project's Noise Study(Kimley-Horn,April 2007) to not have outdoor amplified music. The cafe will be an indoor facility complete with seating. Outdoor,seating will be provided adjacent to the cafe in the central court.The noise study concluded that the outdoor gathering areas will not be significant noise sources. KG3 The area previously identified in the proposed site plan as an amphitheater will not function as such,but rather will be an informal outdoor gathering area. The church will not program formal outdoor gathering in this pace nor have amplified outdoor music.The children's play areas will have a 7-foot tall sound barrier wall along their Loma Avenue frontage in order to mitigate potential noise impacts. SK 11 . . . . The church has eliminated their proposal for an amphitheater. LR 1 The outdoor amphitheater, tower and pop jet fountains are not part of the current proposal. SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, attachment 1.5 to Staff Report of August 28,2007. 5.e. "Outdoor sound system(s) of any kind shall be prohibited." This was modified by the Planning Commission to only limit permanent sound systems. No limitation was imposed on use of temporary sound systems. Comment of Mr. Hess at the Planning Commission meeting of September 11,2007: At the time the staff did the negative declaration they did not know about the outdoor amplified sound. Paraphrased from recording of meeting at 4 hours 17 minutes and 48 seconds. Comments of Deputy City Attorney Mulvihill at Planning Commission meeting of September 11,2007: She warns the Commission that eliminating condition 5.e. raises problems because it is contrary to the Negative Declaration. 4 hrs. 11 minutes. She suggests that in order to Page 4 comply with the California Environmental Quality Act it would be necessary for the Commission to make findings of fact that mitigation eliminated any potentially significant noise impact. She repeatedly warned the Commissioners that the findings would have to be based on substantial evidence in the record. Recording approxizr_ately 4:11 to 4:15, 4:23. APPENDIX 2 THE NOISE STUDY Under CEQA,to justify a negative declaration,the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate by evidence,not mere speculation,that the project will not create any potentially significant impact. The noise study commissioned by the Church is found in attachment 7 to the Staff Report dated August 28. The noise study does not justify the conclusion that the amphitheater, outdoor sound systems for activities, and the large outdoor events do not create a potentially significant effect. These items were not studied in the noise study. Attachment 7.9. Section 4.1. "Potential sources of noise assessed in this report include vehicular traffic, construction and demolition, the children play areas, outdoor amplified music, and the parking structure. No other significant sources of noise are anticipated." The children's play areas studied were the two designated playgrounds "on the east and west side of the Children's Building."Attachment 7-10.There was no mention of the Little Squirt's play area in the Tidal Court. "Weddings, church services, meetings and daycare would be held within the various buildings. There will be no outdoor amplified music;however,there would be a localized speakers system that provides low volume background music. Although a detailed plan showing the location of the speakers is not available, the speakers will be calibrated to emit 70 dBA or less at 3 feet from any speaker. The resultant sound levels would be less than 50 dBA at any project property line and comply with the City's noise ordinance requirements." Attachment 7-11. The noise study and the Mitigated Negative Declaration required mitigation of the noise generated by the two playground areas. This was based on what the noise study characterized as a"worst case scenario. "An outdoor children play area would be located on the east and west side of the Children's Building. It is expected that up to 35 children will use each play area at one time during the daytime hours.The number and distribution of children were provided by Visioneering Studios." "This estimate is a worst-case scenario,grouping all children into one large group in a recreation area for a one-hour period." "The results show that the hourly sound level would be approximately 58 to 60 dBA Leq at the adjacent property line and exceed the City's 55 dBA sound level limit." "Acoustical calculations were performed using Cadna/A to estimate the height of a noise barrier that would be required to reduce noise from the children outdoor play area to 55 dBA Leq or below.The play area west of Building B has a 6-foot high noise barrier planned along the site perimeter. Calculations show that the barrier height must be increased 7-foot. A 7-foot high noise barrier will also be required at the children play area between buildings B and C. Figure 4 shows the location, height, and length of the proposed barriers. The barrier must be solid construction without holes or gaps, and have a minimum mass of 3.5 pounds per square foot. Materials such as masonry would Page 5 satisfy this requirement." Attachments 7-10 and 7-12. i It should also be noted that the project studied in this noise study included a large tower adjacent to the nursery school. At the meeting with neighbors of June 18,Mr. Templeton said that this Tower was being deleted for cost reasons, and that this should please the neighbors who had aesthetic objections to the tower. During the comment period on the draft mitigated negative declaration, I pointed out that this would increase the potential for noise impact from the Tidal Court to the north. See attachment 5.146 to the August 28 Staff Report. This comment elicited the following staff response: "The Tidal Plaza represents a passive open space not intended for formal gatherings or events, and therefore does not represent a significant noise source." The approved project clearly does not conform to this vision. At the Planning Commission meeting of September 11, Mr. Bergman, an architect for the Church, stated the removal of the Tower did increase the possibility of noise impact from the Tidal Court. He used a PowerPoint presentation to show where a sound wall could be built to mitigate this impact. Time 3:32 of the video of the meeting. See Appendix 3 for discussion of why this is not adequate mitigation. However,it is further evidence in the record of a potentially significant impact not studied in the noise study or reviewed in the negative declaration. Commissioner Shier-Burnett also noted the potential noise problem created by the elimination of the tower. Time 3:35 of the video of the meeting. Page 6 APPENDIX 3 USES ALLOWED BY THE CUP AND INADEQUATE MITIGATION Uses excluded by the Negative Declaration but allowed under CUP As shown in appendices 1 and 2,the project reviewed in the noise study and in the Mitigated Negative Declaration did not include an amphitheater, outdoor amplified music and voice, or scheduled or formal outdoor gatherings or events in the Tidal Court. However,the CUP approved on September 11,2007,still contains the amphitheater,allows outdoor sound systems which are not permanent to be used without any limits as to frequency,duration,or time,and does not prohibit the outdoor events in the Tidal Court that are outside the scope of the small informal gatherings contemplated in the negative declaration. The Planning Department Staff attempted to make explicit its understanding regarding outdoor sound systems by proposing the following condition of approval:"Outdoor sound system(s) of any kind shall be prohibited at all times." Item 5.e. of Suggested Conditions of Approval - Conditional Use Permit 06-035Nariance No.07-001, Attachment 1.5 to Staff Report of August 28, 2007. It also partially limited certain outdoor activities by requiring a use permit. Item 5.f. on attachment 1.5. In response to this staff proposal, on August 27,2007,the eve of the scheduled vote on the conditional use permit, Pastor Templeton filed a request to include the following activities in the Conditional Use Permit,prefaced by the remark, "Item 5 Section e& f-Historically we have held outdoor events within the context of our property that are critical to the performance of our ministry. We submit these events to be included in this CUP in deference to e and V' LATE COMMUNICATION B-1. Following are summaries of the events: 1. Summer Season Kickoff Events for three hours for two days in the Tidal Court with sound system; one day for preschoolers and one day for elementary age. 2. Summer Preschool Event for three hours per day for five days in the Tidal Court with sound system; for 150-200 preschoolers. 3. Summer Elementary Event for three hours per day for 5 days in the Tidal Court with sound system; for 500 elementary age children. 4. Fall Carnival - Community Trick or Treat Alternative for four hours at night in the Tidal Court with sound system; for 500 preschool and elementary age children. 5. Annual Church-wide Celebration Event for one Sunday for four hours in the Tidal Court with sound system and live entertainment; for 800 people. Note: all uses of the sound systems were for spoken word and music. In addition,he requested that limits on outdoor weddings and funerals in the Tidal Court be removed to allow flexibility. The July 10 narrative had said that weddings and funerals would Page 7 typically take place in the chapel and that those with attendances in excess of 350 people would take place in the Worship Center.There was no indication in the narrative that these would occur outside. Attachment 5.58. The public had no advance notice of this request. Because property owners did not receive written notice of the hearing as required by the state Government Code,the Planning Commission meeting was postponed to September 11. At the Planning Commission meeting on September 11, there was enormous confusion regarding the status of Mr. Templeton's requested modification of the CUP. Planning Department Staff and Ms. Mulvihill realized that changing the CUP in this manner would require a new environmental review. However,at the Planning Commission meeting Ms.Mulvihill suggested that a new environmental review would not be required if the Planning Commission imposed additional mitigation and found based on substantial evidence in the record that the mitigation eliminated potentially significant noise impacts. That would be true if the mitigation was additional mitigation of impacts identified in the noise studied and found to be not significant if mitigated. That does not solve the problem if the project approved is different from the project reviewed in the noise study and the negative declaration,as is the case here. In addition,the finding(finding#3 on page 3 of the September 13 Notice of Action) is not supported by substantial evidence in the record. See discussion below. Although the Notice of Action dated September 13 said "Only the uses described in the project narrative received and dated July 10,2007,shall be permitted"(5.a.on page 6),the applicant has not met its burden of showing by substantial evidence in the record that there are no potentially significant noise impacts included in the project. The narrative states that the church will have special events. Staff had proposed a recommendation that would have required permits for perhaps some of the listed activities.However,the limit was on"church services, weddings,funerals,fairs, festivals and similar events"(5.f -Alternate Action,Attachment 1.5 to Staff Report of August 28). Mr.Templeton made it clear he did not consider the above activities to be fairs or festivals.4:05:3 8. He also objected to being required to get permits 4:02. Mr. Templeton said that Staff told him having a school assumes level of activity without permit. 4:04. Even though this limit would probably not have required permits for most of the events listed,even that limit was rejected by the commission. Several commissioners objected to limiting activities in the Tidal Court,especially ones that had occurred in the past. The Commissioners,Mr. Hess,and Ms. Mulvihill repeatedly stated at the meeting on September 11 that most of these proposed activities would probably be allowed to continue without permit, or with merely an"over-the-counter"temporary activities permit. It was acknowledged that some activities might,under some circumstances,require a permit,and that more information was needed to identify those situations. Dwyer, 1:34;Shier-Burnett 3:38;Dwyer 4:07; Shier-Burnett 4:16; Hess 4:17; Shier-Burnett 4:20;Mulvihill 4:22,4:24:58 ; Hess 4:51; Mulvihill 4:52; Shaw 4:55:12; Mulvihill. One commissioner made clear his intent at the conclusion of the discussion by saying if the church ever held a rodeo, it would have to get a permit. 4:55:50. The bottom line is that it was assumed at the meeting that many or most of the activities proposed by the church were activities the church would be allowed to continue, and that the Commission was not taking any action to limit these activities. The focus of my objection is not Page 8 about permits—it is about the fact that the scenario described above is plainly inconsistent with the assumption staff made in reviewing the potentially significant impacts of the project. Inadequate Mitigation Why the Findings Do Not Justify the Mitigated Negative Declaration Ms. Mulvihill suggested to the Planning Commission that the discrepancy between the negative declaration and the conditional use permit could be remedied by additional mitigation supported by substantial evidence that the mitigation eliminated potentially significant noise impacts. That does not remedy the fact that the project approved significantly differs from the project reviewed. But even if it did,the finding that the mitigation eliminates potentially significant impact is not supported by evidence in the record—it is contradicted by the record. It is also important to remember that the burden is on the applicant to show no potentially significant impact. This burden cannot be met by mere speculation. No noise study has been done about the amphitheater, temporary outdoor sound systems allowed under the CUP, or the large scheduled activities in the Tidal Court. The noise study identified significant impacts from the"worst case scenario"of 35 children playing in a playground for an hour without a sound system. The noise study required a seven-foot sound wall to mitigate this.Common sense suggests this is not adequate to mitigate a worse than worst case scenario of 500 children or 800 adults with sound systems for 3 to 5 hours. Mere speculation cannot support such a conclusion. To make matters worse,the Commission voted for finding#3 without any evidence that the sound wall would completely eliminate the problem. The sound wall is necessary and should be required to mitigate, but we don't have evidence that by itself it will eliminate the potentially significant noise impact. Commissioner Livengood proposed a sound wall that would be built along the north side of the Tidal Court from the nursery school building to the Administrative Building. However, the condition in the notice of action (item Lg, on page 6) does not contain any details about where the wall will be placed,other than along"the northerly side of the Tidal Plazza" [Note- the project refers both to the Tidal Court and the Tidal Plazza-I assume they are the same location, but I am not sure]. According to an October 2 e-mail from Mr. Santos, the Planning Department still has not received any plans for this wall. Therefore, when the Commissioners voted on September 11 to find that the wall would eliminate potentially significant noise impacts,they did not have noise studies or even plans upon which to base their finding. They didn't even have the finding —this was drafted later by the Planning Staff. The events and use of the sound system will be occurring in a Tidal Court that does not yet exist. It will be surrounded on most sides by two story buildings that don't yet exist. Only the side to the north, facing Adams Avenue, will be unobstructed by large buildings. As noted by Mr. Bergman,the architect,and Commissioner Shier-Burnett,the removal of the large tower makes the problem worse. One builder suggested to me that the Tidal Court,which is surrounded on all sides but one by large buildings,will act like a megaphone directing the sound to Adams. I concede that this is mere speculation, though based on common sense reasoning. However, I don't have the burden.The applicant has the burden to show this won't occur,and the"evidence in the record"does not support the conclusion that the potential noise impact has been eliminated. Neither does common sense. Page 9 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OF A PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTION (OR POLICE) Date 9/13/2007 To Police Dept(1 Copy) Date Delivered N/A City Attorney(1 Copy) Date Delivered 9/14/2007 Planning D ept(2 Copie s) Date Delivered 9/14/2007 Filed By Counctlmember Debbie Cook Regarding First Christian Church Remodel/Expansion Tentative Date for Public Hearing TBD Copy of Appeal Letter Attached Yes LEGAL NOTICE AND A P MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Joan L Flynn City Clerk ext 5227 Fee Collected N/A Form Completed by Rebecca Ross Sr Deputy City Clerk Via - CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH t f City Council Interoffice Communication To Joan Flynn City Clerk From Debbie Cook Mayor Pro Tern Date September 13 2007 Subject APPEAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06-0081 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06-0351 VARIANCE NO 07-001 (FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH REMODEL/EXPANSION) I am hereby appealing the Planning Commissions September 11 2007 conditional approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration 06-008 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 and Variance No 07-001 for the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex located at 1207 Main Street The appeal is based on concerns regarding the project as conditionally approved by the Planning Commission and potential adverse impacts to surrounding residential properties DC SH xc John Scandura Planning Commission Chair Penelope Culbreth-Graft, DPA City Administrator Paul Emery Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess Director of Planning Herb Fauland Principal Planner Ron Santos Associate Planner N Q C13 a FINDINGS, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06 008/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06 035/VARIANCE NO 07 001 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 06 008 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 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 over twenty (20) days Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No 06 035/Variance No 07 001 2 Mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval avoid or reduce the project s effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur 3 There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project as modified by elimination of the proposed parking structure the addition of a sound wall along the northerly side of the Tidal Court the limiting of hours for outdoor dining restricting seating capacity to not exceed 1 450 persons designating bus pick up and drop off areas prohibiting permanent outdoor sound systems of any kind and further as mitigated through the conditions of approval of Conditional Use Permit No 06 035/Variance No 07-001 will have a significant effect on the environment FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 06 035 1 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 to permit the expansion and remodel of an existing church complex 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 A mitigated negative declaration was prepared which analyzed the projects potential to generate detrimental impacts on surrounding properties The study concluded that mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval avoid or reduce the projects effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur The Mitigated Negative Declaration is supported by a Phase 1 environmental site assessment traffic noise geotechnical and air quality studies The project will provide adequate parking in accordance with applicable code requirements on site and via the use of joint use parking off-site 2 Conditional Use Permit No 06 035 will be compatible with surrounding uses because it provides for the continuation modernization and expansion of an existing long-standing (the site was developed for use as a church in the mid 1950s) community serving use which is consistent with the applicable General Plan Land Use and Zoning designations Proposed buildings feature a contemporary design and architectural features which minimize the visual bulk and mass of the buildings and provides for compatibility with surrounding land uses All of the proposed buildings comply with the applicable height limit in the zone and provide adequate setbacks from adjacent residential properties The project was recommended for approval by the Design Review Board 3 Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20 25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Page 1 of 5 Ordinance including the Public Semipublic zone permitted uses minimum parking requirements with the exception of the requested variance to the Joint Use Parking requirements maximum building height maximum floor area ratio and minimum building setbacks 4 The granting of Conditional Use Permit No 06-035 will not adversely affect the General Plan It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public— Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) on the subject property In addition it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan Land Use Element Objective LU 9 4 Provide for the inclusion of recreational institutional religious educational and services uses that support resident needs within residential neighborhoods Objective LU 13 1 Provide for the continuation of existing and development of new uses such as governmental administrative public safety human service cultural educational infrastructure religious and other uses that support the needs of existing and future residents and businesses Policy LU 13 1 1 Allow for the continuation of existing public and private institutional cultural educational and health uses at their present locations and development of new uses in areas designated on the Land Use Plan Map in accordance with Policy LU 7 1 1 Policy LU13 1 2 Allow for the continuation of existing and development of new religious facilities in any land use zone where they are compatible with adjacent uses and subject to City review and approval Public Faclllhes and Public Serv►ces Element Policy PF 4 3 2 Investigate the feasibility of permitting and/or providing child or elderly day care services at public and private institutional facilities such as churches temples other religious buildings hospitals and schools Conditional Use Permit No 06 035 provides for the continuation and expansion of existing religious educational and pre school services which support the needs of the surrounding community The proposed joint use parking and associated variance ensure that adequate parking is provided to serve the proposed use FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL VARIANCE NO 07 001 1 The granting of Variance No 07 001 to allow joint use parking (298 spaces) located at a distance in excess of 250 ft from the project site will not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and under an identical zone classification Properties which are being redeveloped in the City of Huntington Beach are typically allowed to continue to operate with reduced parking availability during construction with approval of a parking management plan or other mechanism to ensure adequate parking is provided and adverse impacts to surrounding properties are minimized The applicant is proposing shuttle service between the joint use parking lot and the subject property as its mechanism to ensure no detrimental impacts will result from the distance between the two properties Other examples of similar privileges enjoyed by other properties include commercial centers which are permitted to operate with reduced parking for limited periods of time while a portion of the available parking is displaced by Christmas tree displays or parking lot sales and other churches which are Page 2 of 5 permitted to operate with reduced parking on site during festivals which encumber parking areas 2 Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property including its location and surroundings the strict application of the zoning ordinance is found to deprive the subject property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under identical zone classification The special circumstances applicable to the subject property includes its location in proximity to a use (Huntington Beach High School) which underutilizes its on site parking coincident with the peak parking demands of the subject property Without the granting of the variance the subject property would be required to provide parking on-site which generally (excepting a single day each week) exceeds its parking demand and would thereby be deprived of the privilege to provide parking at a rate which corresponds to its typical parking demand and the privilege to continue to operate until such time as construction of required on site parking can be completed 3 The granting of a variance is necessary to preserve the enjoyment of one or more substantial property rights The requested variance is necessary to allow the church to meet its parking requirements and continue to operate during its construction phase 4 The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property in the same zone classification The church will provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot and the project site in order to mitigate the distance between the two properties and support the use of the joint use parking 5 The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan it is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of P(RL) (Public — Residential Low Density Underlying Designation) on the subject property including the following objectives and policies Land Use Element Objective LU 8 9 Maintain the pattern of existing land uses while providing opportunities for the evolution including intensification and re use of selected sub areas in order to improve their character and identity Policy LU 9 4 3 Encourage the development and public use of City/School District joint use facilities where City parks and school facilities adjoin on another in order to maximize the use of property minimize the cost of development and enhance the recreational and educational opportunities for the community Circulation Element Goal CE 5 Provide sufficient well designed and convenient on and off street parking facilities throughout the City MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS 1 The project shall provide (1) on site attenuation of increased storm water flow and/or (2) construction of upsized storm drain facilities in Main Street per the City adopted 2005 Drainage Master Plan 2 A 7-ft tall noise barrier (masonry wall) shall be constructed along the southerly side of the children s play areas Page 3 of 5 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 06 035/ VARIANCE NO 07 001 1 The project plans received and dated June 28 2007 shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications a The driveway entrances shall have textured and colored pavement (behind sidewalk on private property)for a minimum depth of 20 feet b All freestanding low walls planter walls handrails benches and other similar improvements within the hardscape and courtyard areas shall be designed to deter skateboarding c The outdoor dining area shall not exceed 400 sq ft and shall be depicted on the site plan d The proposed parking structure shall be eliminated and replaced with surface level parking designed in accordance with HBZSO standards e The project shall provide approximately 450 surface level parking spaces (including 49 off site parking spaces at Smith Elementary School) f The combined seating capacity and/or assembly area for the three assembly buildings (Worship Center Chapel Multi Purpose Building) shall be limited based on available on site surface level parking and the 49 off-site (Smith Elementary School) parking spaces (to approximately 1 450 seats or equivalent assembly area) pursuant to HBZSO parking requirements g A seven foot tall masonry wall shall be constructed along the northerly side of the Tidal Plaza 2 Incorporating sustainable or green building practices into the design of the proposed structures and associated site improvements is highly encouraged Sustainable building practices may include (but are not limited to) those recommended by the U S Green Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Program certification (hftp//www usgbc org/DisplayPage aspx?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green s Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (hftp//www builditgreen org/index cfm?fuseaction=guidelines) 3 At least 14 days prior to any grading activity the applicant/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500 foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number Prior to issuance of the grading permit a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning Department 4 New structure(s) cannot be occupied and the final building permit(s) cannot be approved until an as-built photometric study has been submitted to the Planning Department demonstrating that all on-site lighting has been designed installed and shielded so as to not produce glare or adverse impacts on adjacent properties consistent with conceptual photometric study referenced in Mitigated Negative Declaration No 06-008 5 The use shall comply with the following a Only the uses described in the project narrative received and dated July 10 2007 shall be permitted Page 4 of 5 b Hours of operation for the various uses shall be consistent with the project narrative received and dated July 10 2007 except that outdoor dining shall be permitted only between the hours of 9 00 a m and 6 00 p m daily c Concurrent attendance/ seating capacity for church services shall not exceed 1 450 persons at any time The church shall submit floor plans to the Planning Department which depicts the proposed/modified seating configuration during concurrent use of the three assembly buildings and demonstrates how the 1 450 capacity limit will achieved d Permanent outdoor sound system(s) of any kind shall be prohibited at all times e Use of parking areas for uses other than parking shall be prohibited at all times unless otherwise approved via a Temporary Activity Permit or Temporary Use Permit f Joint Use Parking at Huntington Beach High School (HBHS) shall terminate within 30 months of commencement of construction Church services shall be suspended and/or restricted based upon the availability of parking on-site and at Smith School pursuant to applicable HBZSO parking standards Upon (or prior to) termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS the church shall submit to the Planning Department for review and approval a parking area plan and an amended schedule for church services that demonstrates compliance with applicable parking requirements Following termination of Joint Use Parking at HBHS all church services shall be suspended until such time as the Planning Department has approved a plan and schedule demonstrating compliance with applicable parking requirements At any time the church may also file an Entitlement Plan Amendment application to the Planning Commission to request approval for Joint Use Parking at HBHS beyond the initial 30 month period g The church shall provide shuttle service between the joint use parking lot at Huntington Beach High School and the church property before and after church services on Sundays The frequency of the shuttles shall be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the demand h The church shall regularly encourage church members and parents of children attending pre school to utilize on-site and authorized joint use parking lots and shall discourage on-street parking i Bus drop off and pick-up shall occur only in the designated area of the parking lot southwesterly of the Worship Center INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project applicant if different from the property owner and each of their heirs successors and assigns shall defend indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents officers and employees from any claim action or proceedings liability cost including attorney s fees and costs against the City or its agents officers or employees to attack set aside void or annul any approval of the City including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council Planning Commission or Design Review Board concerning this project The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof Page 5 of 5 JJ HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL DATE AUGUST 7, 2007 PROJECT NAME FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH ENTITLEMENTS MND 06 008/ CUP 06 035/VAR 07 0011 DRB 06 025 PLANNING APPLICATION NO 2006 0150 DATE OF PLANS JUNE 28, 2007 PROJECT LOCATION 1207 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNER RON SANTOS, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONE/E MAIL 714 536 5561 / RSANTOS@SURFCITY HB ORG PLAN REVIEWER STEVE BOGART, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONE/E MAIL 714 374 1692 /SBOGART(cD-SURFCITY HB ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION TO PERMIT CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS IN CONJUCTION WITH AN EXISTING CHURCH THE PROJECT INCLUDES EXPANSION/ RENOVATION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CHURCH BUILDINGS, AND REMOVAL OF EXISTING MODULAR BLDGS AND A REQUEST FOR JOINT USE PARKING PURSUANT TO HBZSO 231 06 The site plan received and dated June 28 2007 shall be the conditionally approved layout except for 1 The following improvements shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan for the project a Existing curb and damaged sidewalk along the Main Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) b Damaged existing sidewalk along the Loma Avenue frontage (approximately 141 feet from the curb return at Main Street) shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) c Damaged existing sidewalk along the 17th Street frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) d Damaged curb and gutter along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works sidewalk along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan Nos 202 and 207 (ZSO 230 84) e The existing 5-foot sidewalk (approximately 220 feet) and non-ADA compliant sidewalk sections along the Adams Avenue frontage shall be removed and replaced per Public Works Standard Plan No 207 (ZSO 230 84) f The existing driveway approaches on Adams Avenue shall be removed and replaced with an ADA compliant driveway approaches per City Standard Plan No 211 (ZSO 230 84) g Any other existing obstructions (i a stepping stones shrubs backflow devices etc) in the public right-of way shall be removed from the parkway areas along the property frontages