Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Lamb School Residential Subdivision Location PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) SS. PROPERTY DENSITY) ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED,ON THE NORTH SIDE ,OF,,' COUNTY OF ORANGE ) YORKTOWN AVENUE,' EAST OF BROOKHURSTl STREET" SYNOPSIS: Zoning Map Amendment j am a citizen of the United States and a N61 08-05 represents a change in the existing, resident of the County of Los Angeles; I zoning designation of an -approximately 11.65- am over the age of eighteen years, and acre site from Public- Semipublic(PS)to Resk- not a party to or Interested In the notice dential Low Density(RL)I `to be consistent with the published. I am a principal clerk of the proposed General Plan Land Use Element desig-{ HUNTINGTON BEACH nation pursuant to C'h'a p t e r 2 4 7 INDEPENDENT, which was adjudged a amendments of the _ HBZSO to permit the newspaper of general circulation on subdivision the former) elementary school) September 29, 1961, case A6214, and (Lamb) site into 81 lots, with reduced lot ;sizes! June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the for new detached single-! family homes. City of Huntington Beach, County of PASSED AND ADOPTED by the-City Council of Orange, and the State of California. the city of.Huntington Beach at a regular meet- Attached to this Affidavit is a true and ing held . December 3,.2012 by the j complete copy as was printed and following roll call vote: AYES: Harper, Dwyer,' published on the following date(s): Hansen,Carchio < l3nkt� �S NOES:Shaw,Boardman Thursday, L, i n n ( ABSTAIN:None ABSG hursday, December 9 3, 201 G l�`'�r��,"� �, THE EFULL BTEXT OF THE I' -ORDINANCE IS AVAIL-; ABLE IN THE CITY( CLERK'S OFFICE. ' This ordinance is effec- tive 30 days after certif or declare under enalt adoption. Y � � P Y CITY OF HUNTINGTON CITY OFF HuarlNGroe of perjury that the foregoing is true BEACH LEGAL NOTICE HUNTINGTON NBREET and correct. ORDINANCE NO,3967 CA92648 714-536-5227 Adopted by the Cl y(oond JOAN L.FLYNN CITY on DE(EMBER 3,2012 CLERK "AN ORDINANCE OF THE Published H.B. Indepen-, CITY- OF HUNTINGTON dent 12/13/12 BEACH AMENDING THE-— Executed on December 21 , 2012 HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVI- at Los Angeles, California SION ORDINANCE. BY CHANGING'THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM PS (PUBLIC-SEMIPUBLIC) `TO RL (RESIDENTIAL- Please Note: Signature Counci lmember -Keith 5ohr voted yes on Ordinance No. 3967, which is noted correctly on the ordinance back page. However, there is a -typographical error on this Proof of Publication, which states Councilmember Bohr was absent. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ® Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachea.gov `FB�n ,so9 a e Office of the City Clerk o Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk Notice of Action Lamb School Residential Subdivision December 4, 2012 Thomas Grable TRI Pointe Homes, LLC 19520 Jamboree Road, Ste. 200 Irvine CA 92648 Applicants: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates, P.O. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA 92648; Thomas Grable, Tri Pointe Homes, LLC, 19520 Jamboree Road, Suite No. 200, Irvine, CA.92612 Property Owner: Fountain Valley School District, Stephen L. McMahon — Assistant Superintendent, 10055 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Request: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-05, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05, AND APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 08-13 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26 (LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION) MND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. GPA: To amend the existing Land Use Element designation of an approximately 11.65-acre site from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P-RL) to Residential Low Density (RL-7), which allows a maximum density of seven units per net acre. ZMA: To amend the existing zoning designation of an approximately 11.65-acre site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation. TTM/CUP: To permit (a) the subdivision of an approximately 11.65-acre site to accommodate 81 numbered lots with reduced lot sizes for new detached single-family homes and eight lettered lots A-H for streets with reduced widths and landscaping; and (b) development of an 81 unit single-family residential subdivision proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with varying lot sizes (min. 3,659 square feet, max. 6,695 square feet) that average approximately 3,600 square feet (45 feet wide by 80 feet deep) in lieu of the minimum 6,000 square feet and 60 feet wide standard for RL (Residential Low Density) lots, including associated infrastructure and site improvements, and mutual benefits that include offsite sewer, water and storm drain improvements. The request includes a review and analysis for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/ privacy issues, Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan 0 Waitakere, New Zealand NOA MND 08-13 GPA 08-05 ZMA 08-05 TTM 17238 CUP 08-26 December 4, 2012 Page Two such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout. Amend the General Plan and zoning to Low Density Residential and to subdivide the former elementary school site into 81 lots with reduced lot sizes for new detached single-family homes. The subdivision is proposed as a Planned Unit Development and includes mutual public benefits, such as, construction of offsite storm drain and park improvements. Location: 10251 Yorktown Avenue, 92646 (north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street) Project Planner: Jane James On Monday, November 19, 2012, the Huntington Beach City Council held a public hearing to consider your request, and the following action was taken: Approved Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 with findings and mitigation measures; approved General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 by approving City Council Resolution No. 2012- 82, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-05;"approved Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 with findings by adopting City Council Ordinance No. 3967, `An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation From PS (Public-Semipublic) to RL (Residential Low Density) on Real Property Located on the North Side of Yorktown Avenue, East of Brookhurst Street(Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05);"approved Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 with findings and conditions of approval, and, approved Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and conditions of approval. Attached to this letter are the findings and mitigation measures for MND No. 08-13, findings for approval for ZMA No. 08-05, and findings and conditions of approval for TTM No. 17238 and CUP No. 08-26. Also attached are pages 9 and 10 of the November 19, 2012 City Council Action Agenda, and copies of Resolution No. 2012-82 and Ordinance No. 3967. If there are any further questions, please contact the Staff Planner at (714) 536-5271. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn, CMC City Clerk JF:rl c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Jane James, Senior Planner Michael C. Adams, Michael C. Adams and Associates NOA MND 08-13 GPA 08-05 ZMA 08-05 TTM 17238 CUP 08-26 December 4, 2012 Page Three Attachments: MND No. 08-13 Findings and Mitigation Measures; ZMA No. 08-05 Findings for Approval; TTM No. 17238 Findings and Condition of Approval; CUP No. 08-26 Findings and Conditions of Approval; copy of Resolution No. 2012-82 and Ordinance No. 3967; Pages 9 and 10 of the November 19, 2012 City Council Action Agenda FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 172328 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL— MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment'period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08- 26. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures are incorporated to address impacts to geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. The proposed geology/soils mitigation measures would incorporate measures with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring requirements, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage, trench backfill, and geotechnical observation in order to mitigate against impacts to liquefaction and settlement at the subject site. The proposed hydrology/water quality mitigation measure would require that a Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis be prepared, reviewed and approved by the City with specifications that drainage improvements be designed and constructed to mitigate against potential impacts of increased runoff during development, or deficient downstream systems in accordance with the Department of Public Works. The proposed biological resources mitigation measure would incorporate a measure that would ensure that impacts to nesting birds in the project area are protected during site development and result in a less than significant impact. The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measure requires that a soils survey be prepared for the project site to ensure that any potential hazardous materials do not remain on site. The proposed noise mitigation measure will ensure that adjacent sensitive noise receptors (i.e., residential) are protected during site development through the incorporation of sound attenuation devices on construction machinery, requirements for properly maintained construction equipment, and that stationary equipment are directed away from sensitive noise receptors. The mitigation measures also specify procedures for the projection of cultural and paleontological resources are discovered during the development of the project. However, the mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant in the unlikely event these resources are discovered during grading and construction activities. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. Potential impacts from the project are minimized to a less than significant level through the project design, standard code requirements and the recommended mitigation measures. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 4 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-04 to rezone the 8.35-acre project site from Public- Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) is consistent with the goals, objectives, and land use policies of the General Plan as identified below. The proposed change is also consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, which is being processed concurrently. The land uses in the surrounding area are consistent with the proposed change in zoning because surrounding land uses include low density residential uses to the north, east, west, and south (across Yorktown Avenue), and Public-Semipublic (PS) to the west (Lamb Park). As discussed in the environmental assessment for this project, there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development. A. Land Use Element Goal LU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. There will be improvements made in conjunction with the project including private streets, storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. Policy LU 9.2.1. Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the use of complimentary building materials, colors, and forms, while allowing flexibility for unique design solutions and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. The proposed homes are compatible with existing homes in the area in terms of style, materials, and colors. They are well articulated and will have enhanced architectural elevations along street frontages. Although all the proposed homes will be two-story and, in some cases, taller than the homes surrounding the site, there will be increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet (twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) and greater second floor setbacks that will alleviate potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences. Furthermore, the proposed placement of the windows will avoid direct views onto existing residential properties. Policy LU 9.3.2: Require that residential subdivisions consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with the Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. The width of the streets for the proposed subdivision is 40 feet and 36 feet (curb face-to- curb face) and meet the minimum allowed with an approved Fire Master Plan by the Fire Department. The street width is in scale with the proposed residential units and creates a relationship between the scale and architecture of adjacent structures. The buildings will include fire sprinklers and the development will include increased fire protection measures. 1. Housing Element Policy H 2.4: Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 5 The project will result in development.of a residential PUD on a vacant school site and contributes to the City's housing stock. The project includes an affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. Policy H 3:6: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing. The project is proposing the incorporation of green building strategies into the construction of the buildings that will meet all mandatory measures of State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code, including providing energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards. 2. Circulation Element Objective CE 5.1: Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. The project proposes to construct an approximately 31 space public parking lot in conjunction with the proposed park improvements to the unimproved 2.6-acre park located at the southwesterly portion of the site. Additionally, the project will provide 118 additional on-street parking spaces. Appropriate wording will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. The parking demands that would be generated by the proposed residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets. The construction of the 31-space public parking lot and allowance for public on-street parking within the project will address parking within the neighboring area. 3. Utilities Element Policy U 3.1.1:Maintain existing public storm drains and flood control facilities upgrade and expand storm drain and flood control facilities. A new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain in accordance with the Master Plan of .Drainage that will run for approximately 2,080 linear feet will run to Kamuela Drive. The proposed installation of the storm drain will provide an upgrade to the City's storm drain system above the.minimum requirements for a standard residential subdivision. 4. Recreation and Community Services Element Objective 4.1: Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions. The project will develop a 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The park improvements include a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot- lot play areas. The project will upgrade and modernize the site with a fully functional park NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 6 containing the latest in park equipment and infrastructure. In addition, the project will pay park full Park Land In-Lieu fees required for the new 81 residential units pursuant to the Quimby Act. 2. Zoning Map Amendment No 08-05 would only change the land use designation rather than a general land use provision and would not affect the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the proposed zoning district. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes would expand the opportunities for housing and address the needs of a growing population. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The zoning map amendment would provide for compatible land uses and eliminate an existing zoning designation that is no longer appropriate for the site. The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use designations that are consistent with one another and would allow the property to be rightfully developed. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17238: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 for the subdivision of approximately 11.65 acres of land into 81 numbered lots for the purpose of constructing 81 detached single-family residences and 8 lettered lots for streets, landscaped areas, and a water quality basin is consistent with the requirements of the RL zoning district with exceptions that are proposed as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) design for the project. These exceptions include deviations to minimum lot width and size and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to Huntington Beach and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The proposed subdivision is consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that govern new subdivisions and residential development. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation, and drainage perspective. The proposed subdivision will result in a density of 6.95 units per acre (6.5 units/gross acre). The proposed density is below the allowable density of 7 units per acre of Residential Low Density land uses designation for which the project is proposing to be designated. The proposed density would be consistent with, or lower than existing surrounding developments. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The site has been previously used as a public elementary school by the Fountain Valley School District. The site does not contain any significant habitat for wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of Chapter 221 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance will ensure that the subdivision will not significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The project will comply with all mitigation measures identified in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The subdivision will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 7 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 for the development of a 81 unit single-family residential subdivision proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with varying lot sizes (min. 3,659 square feet, max. 6,695 square feet) that average approximately 3,600 square feet (45 feet wide by 80 feet deep) and associated infrastructure and site improvements, including mutual public benefits that include offsite storm drain and park improvements. The project, with conditions, will result in less than significant impacts related to.traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, including privacy. The project will have greater setbacks at a minimum of 20 feet 2 inches along the first floor and upper story setbacks to protect privacy impacts onto existing residences located to the north of the subject development. The project will provide mutual benefits for the residents of the project and the general public. The mutual benefits include the improvement of a 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property with a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. Additional public benefits consist of allowing park users to park on the tracts' private streets, and water quality and storm drain improvements including construction of a 2,080 linear -foot storm drain. Based upon the conditions impose and mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts onto adjacent properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding single family residential in terms of setbacks, onsite parking, lot coverage, and allowable building height. The project includes two-story homes that are compatible with surrounding developments in terms of each building's overall mass and scale. Increased rear setbacks will be provided for those lots located adjacent to existing homes. Enhanced landscaping will be provided throughout the development. The proposed detached single family residential subdivision/development will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. 3. The proposed project 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. Variations to lot size and width are permitted by conditional use permit as part of a Planned Unit Development. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density. In addition, it is consistent with the following policy of the General Plan: Policy LU 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The proposed homes are compatible with existing homes in the area in term of style, materials, and colors. The buildings are will articulated and will have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The buildings are provided with a setback buffer along the north, west, and east property lines. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 8 MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the reports listed below. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring requirements, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage, trench backfill, and geotechnical observation. i) The August 21, 2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Lamb School Site, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical. ii) The February 28, 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary of Existing Documents for the Lamb School Site Project, prepared by Petra. These reports suggest relatively uniform subsurface conditions exist across the project site. However, where existing school structures and improvements have precluded direct access to subsurface areas, additional borings and soil samples are recommended to provide deeper soil information. Although no new impacts or unusual subsurface conditions are anticipated, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is recommended prior to construction to complete site investigations. (Mitigation Measure) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, in order to complete the soils information in areas of the site where existing structures and improvements have prevented easy access to deeper soil, additional subsurface borings shall be conducted. The project shall comply with any additional recommendations resulting from this additional subsurface investigation. (Mitigation Measure) 3. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius (200 foot for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. (Mitigation Measure) 4. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the Project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius (200 foot for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. (Mitigation Measure) NOA GPA 08-05 MIND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 9 5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall have a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals (herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and metals) remain at the project site from past agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the soils report. (Mitigation Measure) 6. All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drivetrain, and other components. (Mitigation Measure) 7. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of the residential use. (Mitigation Measure) 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff,,the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (Mitigation Measure) 9. Prior to demolition, the whole of the existing Lamb School shall be fully recorded onto DPR 523 forms and the forms delivered to the South Coastal Central Information Center at CSU- Fullerton. Delivery of the data to the Center mitigates for potential direct and unavoidable impacts to the existing structure complex. (Mitigation Measure) 10. The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing activities an archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries. Full-time. monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low, as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease. Specifically, prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 10 If, during the implementation of the monitoring program, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are inadvertently discovered by the archaeological Inspector, the find(s) must be blocked off from further construction-related disturbance by at least 50 feet, and no further project-related earthmoving shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City approves the measures to protect or appropriately mitigate for the find. The Project Archaeologist must determine whether the find is a historic resource as defined under§15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the find(s) is not found to be a historic resource, enough data must be gathered so that the find can be recorded onto DPR523 forms sets and then project- related excavations can continue in the vicinity of the find. If the find(s) is determined to be a historic resource, the resource must undergo Phase 3 data recovery following professional guidelines. Any prehistoric artifacts recovered as a result of the mitigation effort shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Once the Project Archaeologist determines that the potential for impacts to buried cultural resources has been reduced to "low", active archaeological monitoring may cease. (Mitigation Measure) 11. The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontologic monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources. Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontologic monitor. If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then refer to PR-2 to PR-4. (Mitigation Measure) 12. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. (Mitigation Measure) 13. Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. (Mitigation Measure) 14. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. (Mitigation Measure) NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 11 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 7238 dated May 15, 2012 and July 9, 2012 (received and dated by City on October 15, 2012), shall be the approved layout except with the following exception: a. The primary right-of-way into the tract shall be a minimum 60 ft. wide between Yorktown Avenue to the northern terminus (adjacent to Lots No. 43 and 44). 2. Prior to submittal of the tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with the Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval by the City Attorney, and accepted by the City Council. Said agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. A total of 8.1 affordable housing units will be required at an offsite location that will be under the full control of Tri Pointe Homes or another City approved party. Tri Pointe Homes may consider new construction or substantial rehabilitation (as defined by Government Code Section 33413 affordable housing production requirements) of existing non-restricted units with the condition that upon completion of the rehabilitation the units become restricted to long-term affordability in compliance with City requirements. 3. The final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 shall not be approved by the City Council until General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 are approved and in effect. 4. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated: a. Payment of the In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee pursuant to the City's adopted fee schedule. b. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Building, Public Works, Fire, and City Attorney's office for review and approval. The CC&Rs shall include the following: i. Provide for maintenance, repair and replacement by a Homeowner's Association (HOA) for all common area landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities, water quality BMP's, water system lines, fire system lines, and private service utilities. ii. Incorporate a Fire Master Plan that provides a strategic plan for overall fire protection within the project with general guidelines outlining the creation and maintenance of fire access roadways, access walkways to and around buildings, and hydrant quantity and placement as required by the California Fire and Building Codes (CFC and CBC). iii. Prohibit the blocking or screening of fire hydrants or fire service facilities located in public right-of-way or onsite. iv. Provide funding sources for implementation, monitoring and maintenance of water quality treatment train BMP's and appurtenances per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The .approved WQMP shall be incorporated into the NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 12 CC&R's by reference, and shall be updated as required by local, state or federal law or regulation and the City of Huntington Beach Local Implementation Plan (LIP). V. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law and the LIP. vi. Appropriate language shall be placed into the project CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to utilize on street parking within the development. (Public Benefit) vii. Appropriate language shall be incorporated into the project CC&R's restricting on- street parking for recreational vehicles. (FD) c. Portions of the backyards of several existing homes adjacent to the proposed development currently drain through chain-link fences and to the subject property. The blockage of this flow by the proposed development walls could result in potential flooding of said adjacent backyards. The applicant shall provide to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval the proposed method to address this issue. (PW) 5. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a Grading Permit: a. 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 and Building Department. b. The proposed detention basin within the City Park shall be designed for a maximum ponding depth of 2 feet with minimum side slopes of 4:1. The maximum detention allowed shall be 1.5 hours. The proposed turf section for the detention area shall be designed by a Registered Landscape Architect for proper function as both water detention basin and playing surface. (PW) c. Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system can not meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (Mitigation Measure) d. The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the reports listed below. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 13 requirements, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage, trench backfill, and geotechnical observation. i) The August 21, 2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Lamb School Site, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical. ii) The February 28, 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary of Existing Documents for the Lamb School Site Project, prepared by Petra. These reports suggest relatively uniform subsurface conditions exist across the project site. However, where existing school structures and improvements have precluded direct access to subsurface areas, additional borings and soil samples are recommended to provide deeper soil information. Although no new impacts or unusual subsurface conditions are anticipated, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is recommended prior to construction to complete site investigations. (Mitigation Measure) 6. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed: a. A new a new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain shall be constructed in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that will run for approximately in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that will run for approximately 2,080 linear feet that will run to Kamuela Drive. (Public Benefit) b. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. 7. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13. B. Incorporation of 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.usgbc.org/DisplayPa.ge.aspx?CategorvlD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.orq/green-building.- guidelines-rating/). NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 14 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated May 15, 2012 and July 9, 2012 (received and dated by City on October 15, 2012), shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Any building elevations visible from public view or along the periphery of the development shall be architectural enhanced in a similar fashion to the front elevations (i.e., enhanced window and door treatments and contrasting building materials). b. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (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 designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. c. Incorporate a 10' by 10' visibility triangle for the intersection between Lots B, C, D and E. The visibility triangles pertain to the intersecting points adjacent to Lot Nos. 8, 21, 36, and 42. (HBZSO Sect. 233.88C) d. The plans shall be revised to reflect construction of new block walls on the perimeter of the former school site subject to approval by the adjacent property owners. 2. Green building strategies shall be incorporated into the construction of the residential units that meet all mandatory measures of the State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code, including providing energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards. Incorporation of 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.usgbc.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategorvlD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=guidelines). (Public Benefit) 3. Prior to demolition, the whole of the existing Lamb School shall be fully recorded onto DPR 523 forms and the forms delivered to the South Coastal Central Information Center at CSU- Fullerton. Delivery of the data to the Center mitigates for potential direct and unavoidable impacts to the existing structure complex. (Mitigation Measure) 4. Prior to ground disturbance activity, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius (200 foot for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 15 biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. (Mitigation Measure) 5. 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. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 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. All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drivetrain, and other components. (Mitigation Measure) i. Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of the residential use. (Mitigation Measure) j. The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing activities an archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low, as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease. Specifically, prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. If, during the implementation of the monitoring program, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are inadvertently discovered by the archaeological Inspector, the find(s) must be blocked off from further construction-related disturbance by at least 50 feet, and no further project-related earthmoving shall occur in the area of the discovery NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 16 until the City approves the measures to protect or appropriately mitigate for the find. The Project Archaeologist must determine whether the find is a historic resource as defined under §15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the find(s) is not found to be a historic resource, enough data must be gathered so that the find can be recorded onto DPR523 forms sets and then project-related excavations can continue in the vicinity of the find. If the find(s) is determined to be a historic resource, the resource must undergo Phase 3 data recovery following professional guidelines. Any prehistoric artifacts recovered as a result of the mitigation effort shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Once the Project Archaeologist determines that the potential for impacts to buried cultural resources has been reduced to "low", active archaeological monitoring may cease. (Mitigation Measure) k. The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontologic monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources. Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontologic monitor. If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then refer to PR-2 to PR-4. (Mitigation Measure) I. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. (Mitigation Measure) m. Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. (Mitigation Measure) n. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. (Mitigation Measure) 6. 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 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 NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 17 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 and Building Department. b. Blockwall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls; and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Building Department. Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct up to a six (6) foot tall wall located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum separation from the property line. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. The project applicant shall have a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals (herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and metals) remain at the project site from past agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the soils report. (Mitigation Measure) d. Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (Mitigation Measure) e. An arborist shall submit a report documenting the health, location, and size of existing on-site trees for review and approval. Any on-site trees deemed to be mature shall be replaced in conformance with adopted City policies. Replacement trees shall be in place prior to occupancy of the first residential unit. 7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Planning and Building Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 18 c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). d. In order to complete the soils information in areas of the site where existing structures and improvements have prevented easy access to deeper soil, additional subsurface borings shall be conducted. The project shall comply with any additional recommendations resulting from this additional subsurface investigation. (Mitigation Measure) 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning and Building Department; and submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning and Building Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. 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 Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following: i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type; ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale; iii. Location of the following: 1. Hydrants with travel distance between called out; 2. Red curbing; 3. Gate locations or opticoms (if required) and fences; and 4. Fire land dimensions, lengths, signage and striping, turning radii at corners and circles/cul-de-sacs. iv. A list of Alternative Materials and Methods (per the 2010 C.F.C. Section 104.9) of compliance to the road width requirements. The items the developer shall provide for the Fire Department include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Reduced hydrant spacing (increased water availability) provided at strategic locations approved by the Fire Department to accommodate Fire Department Operations; 2. Red curbing (additional red curbing beyond what's required in the Fire Department's City Specifications) to prevent parking near hydrants; 3. Signage at development entrances identifying the Fire Road locations, red curb areas, hydrant locations; 4. Increased Fire Protection System standards (i.e. Bell provided on each side of homes, instead of just one side, that will activate upon fire sprinkler water flow); and NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 19 5. Restrictions shall be incorporated into the development's CC&R's restricting on street parking for recreational vehicles. (FD) d. A public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Planning Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of any building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final building inspection. The public art element shall be integrated and be in a location that is visible to the public within the Lamb residential project. Public art shall incorporate the following: i. Artistic excellence and innovation; ii. Appropriate to the design of the project; and iii. Indicative of the community's cultural identity (ecology, history, society). e. All existing overhead 12kV electrical distribution and various communication lines along the Yorktown Avenue frontage shall be undergrounded. (PW) 9. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning and Building Department. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning and Building Department. c. 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. d. Development and completion of the improvements for the 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The park improvements shall include a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. (Public Benefit) 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning and Building Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 11. The development services departments (Planning and Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning and Building may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval 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 building permits. 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 action. 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. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 20 12. 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. 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. NOA GPA 08-05 MND 08-13 Lamb School Subdivision Page 21 2011-007 with findings and suggested conditions of approval; and, C) Deny Tentative Parcel Map No. 2011-138 with findings. Supplemental Communications (149) 20 Speakers Approved 7-0 (as amended to include applicant modifications to maintain existing site improvements: 1) Street Frontage Setback by reducing requirement to 10 ft(appropriate for the small size of the parcel and it is twice what the neighboring condo complex has provided); 2) Perimeter Landscaping - no landscaping in lieu of the 1,250 sf along the western property line and no trees in lieu of the 9 trees; 3 ft 8 inch planter in lieu of the 5 ft along the eastern property line; and, 3) Interior Landscaping:48 sf in lieu of 397 sf. Also include Councilmember Boardman's modifications: 1) limit dredging for project to times that do not affect Least Terns (November through March); 2) testing of sediments prior to dredging and mitigation of contaminants, if found, that could harm human or wildlife health; and Mayor Pro Tem Dwyer's modifications: 3) hours of kayak operations (dawn to dusk during winter hours); and, 4) FOB gating for docks). 22. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-04 by adopting Resolution No. 2012-79 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-04 by approving for introduction Ordinance No. 3965 (Wardlow School Site - Land Use/Zoning Amendments) Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action: A) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-04 by adopting City Council Resolution No. 2012-79, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-04;" and, B) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-04 with findings by adopting City Council Ordinance No. 3965, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation From PS (Public Semi-Public) to RL (Residential Low Density) on Real Property Located on the North Side of Pioneer Drive, East of Magnolia Avenue(Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-04)." Supplemental Communications (1) 12 Speakers Approved 7-0 23. Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 and General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 by adopting City Council Resolution No. 2012-82, approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 by approving for introduction City Council Ordinance No. 3967, and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and suggested conditions of approval for the proposed Lamb School Residential Subdivision Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action: City Council/ PFA Meeting November 19, 2012 Page 9 of 12 A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 with findings and mitigation measures; and, B) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 by approving City Council Resolution No. 2012-82, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-05;" and, C) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 with findings by adopting City Council Ordinance No. 3967, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation From PS (Public-Semipublic) to RL (Residential Low Density) on Real Property Located on the North Side of Yorktown Avenue, East of Brookhurst Street (Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05);" and, D) Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 with findings and suggested conditions of approval; and, E) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and suggested conditions of approval. Supplemental Communications (2) 34 Speakers Approved 4-2-1 (Shaw and Boardman-No; Bohr out of room) as amended to direct that the Developer and AYSO representatives meet and discuss what is appropriate for this field. 24. Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 (Pacific Mobile Home Park Subdivision) - Conversion from Resident Rental to Ownership — Reconsideration Recommended Action: Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17397 and Coastal Development Permit No. 10-017 with findings and conditions of approval. Supplemental Communications (6) 1 Speaker Approved 5-1-1 (Shaw-No; Bohr out of room) - as amended to include modified conditions of approval identified in supplemental communication. A motion was made by Hansen, second Dwyer to continue to do business after the hour of 11:00 PM. Approved 5-0-2 (Shaw and Bohr out of room) 25. Approve and authorize the execution of an Agreement to transfer funds for FY2012 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program Recommended Action: City Council/ PFA Meeting November 19, 2012 Page 10 of 12 RESOLUTION NO: 2012-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-05 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 proposes to amend the Land Use Element designation of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of the real property consisting of an approximately 11.65-acre parcel of land from P(R.L) (Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density) to RL-7 (Residential Low Density —7 dwelling units per acre) on a property located at the north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street; and Pursuant to California Government Code Section, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-05; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located at the north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and"B", respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, which amends the General Plan Land Use Element designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density — 7 dwelling units per 1 12-3496185067 Resolution No. 2012-82 acre (RL-7) for the subject site, is herby approved. The Director of Planning and Building is herby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map. A copy of said map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning and Building Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19 th day of November , 2012. REVIEP V APPROVED: Mayor Ci ger INITIAT PROVED: Director of Planning and Building APTROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Sketch 95067 Resolution No. 2012-82 BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST % AND THE SOUTHWEST'/ OF THE NORTHWEST Y OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO -LAS BOLSAS, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 12 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST '/ CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF BROOKHURST STREET AND YORKTOWN AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 88"54'51" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST Y4, A DISTANCE OF 722.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 4305, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 164, PAGES 12 THROUGH 18 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 01019'35" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 40.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 88"54'51" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228..00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 228.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01°19'35" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 496.45 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 260.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 88"52'08"WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228.D0 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01°19'35" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 88°52'08" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 501.57 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 4708, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 219, PAGES 10 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 01°24'21" EAST 0.11 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 4708; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY LINES OF SAID TRACT NO. 4708, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES; NORTH 88054'51" EAST 218.45 FEET; SOUTH 01°24'20" EAST 796.64 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST Y4; THENCE SOUTH 88054'51"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 821.13 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 12.40.7 ACRES MORE OR LESS NL LA/yp KLLEN�yq AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B"ATTACHED HERETO AND Q MADE A PART HEREOF, No. 7914 Exp. t2-31-13 Q- �9r� ALDEN & EX� IT "A S S GAL DESCRIPTION TO ACCOMPANY A SKETCH CIVIL ENGINEERS—LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 2552 Vi=ROAD,SUITE B •IRVINE,CA 92614-6274 W.O.No.1498-844-IYL Date: 09111/2012 (949)-660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Engg.7.W. Chk'd.J.W. Sheet 1 of-I . Resolution' No. 2012-82 I I ACT 4305 ALA A DR1 16 1 -18 M.M 219 10 12 237 236 235 234 Z33 232 231 23D 229 228 227 79 8D 81 82 83 N W52'08° E 601.57' N 88054'51" E 238 L3 218.45' 84 I 1 239 0 o i 85 1 0 o W 240 0 86 1 z z N N 12.407 ACRES GROSS W 241 11.553 ACRE$ NET 87 Z Q N 242 co L1 I �.�y� 88 U DI 243 w 244 \.,ti Lu 245 c�•��,• cn Cn cv I 92 246 1 0 z = 1 1 247 228.00' I z 93 1 c) 248 o I 94 z gl 249 L2 I 95 YORKTOWN AVENUE N 88°54`51° E 722.01' N 88054'51° E 821.13' SOUTHEAST CORNER WEST 1/4 CORNER OF TRACT NO. 4305 SECTION 5, TSS, R10W TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS POINT OF COMMENCEMENT LINE BEARING DISTANCE pNkt LAND L1 N 88°52'05' E 228,00' CSC ALLf/y slf L2 N 88054'51° E 228.00' L3 N 01°24'21" W 0.11, - 4 y L4 N C1°19135" W 40.00, No. 7914 s Exp. 12-31-13 Q SCALE:1 n=200' wss EN & EXHIBIT „BOcaTES SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION CIM LNCIMMS - LAND SiTRPRIrORS - PLANNRRS 2552 F= ROAD, SUM B •IRVM, CA 92614-6236 W.O. No. 1498-202-001 Date 09/11/2012 (949) ss�-o11D IAg sso-ogle Engr. J.W. Chk'd. J.W. Sheet 1 Of 1 Res. No. 2012-82 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on November 19, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio NOES: Shaw, Boardman ABSENT: Bohr ABSTAIN: None CK Clerk and ex-offici Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ORDINANCE NO. 3967 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZOING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM PS (PUBLIC-SEMIPUBLIC) TO RL (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05) WHEREAS,pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: 1. That the real property located on the north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street, and more particularly described in the legal description and sketch collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby changed from PS (Public-Semipublic) to RL (Residential Low Density). 1 12-3496/85069 Ordinance No. 3967 2. That the Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to amend Sectional District Map 5Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the changes contained in this ordinance. The Director of Planning and Building is further directed to file the amended map. A copy of such map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3 r d day of December , 2012. ATTEST: Mayor ity Clerk INITIAT APPROVED: REV AND APPROVED: irect r of Planning and Building Yiepanager APPR VED AS TO FORM: Ci Attorney ✓� �� ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Sketch 2 12-3496/85069 Ordinance No. 3967 BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST % AND THE SOUTHWEST Y4 OF THE NORTHWEST Y OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 12 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST '/ CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF BROOKHURST STREET AND YORKTOWN AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 88054'51" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST %, A DISTANCE OF 722.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 4305, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 154, PAGES 12 THROUGH 18 INCLUSIVE, OF .-.MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 01°19'35"WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 40.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 88054'51" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228..00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 228.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01°1935"WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 496.45 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 260.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 88052'08"WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228.00 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01°19'35" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 88052'08" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 601.57 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 4708, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 219, PAGES 10 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, 1N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 01°24'21" EAST 0.11 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO, 4708; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY LINES OF SAID TRACT NO. 4708, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES; NORTH 88054'51" EAST 218.45 FEET; SOUTH 01 024'20" EAST 796.64 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST'/; THENCE SOUTH 88054'51"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 821.13 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 12.407 ACRES MORE OR LESS NL LAND ALLE�y�yq AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND a `y MADE A PART HEREOF. No. 7914 Exp. 12-31-13 Q �9rF of C A�-�Fp��\ ATIDEN & EXHIBIT "A S S 0 CIATE S LEGAL DESCRIPTION VTO ACCOMPANY A SKETCH CIVIL ENGINEERS—LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 2552 WHITE ROAD,SUITE B o IRVINE,CA 92614-6274 W.O.No.1498-844-IYL Date: 09/11/2012 (949)-660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Engni.W. Chk'd.J.W. Sheet 1 of 1 Ordinance No. 3967 I I — TFW T 4305 LA A-bRl E M.M 16 1 -18 M.M 1219r82' 12 237 236 235 234 233 232 231 230 1229 1228 227 79 80 81 83 N 88°52'OT E 601.57' 1 N 88054'51" E 238 L3 1 218.45' 84 I 239 0 o i 85 o Co W W 240 a 9 I gg z z N �' 12.407 ACRES GROSS ► J 241 11.653 ACRE$ NET S7 z Q 242 rn L1 l ��p 88 U z p l y� �� � 243 89 6LI 5 ti CD 90 245 c�`� 91 �. ��` 1 o N I o 92 H 246 0 I o Ln = I I 247 228.00' r94 Y � I O 248 0 (O249 L2 �I YORKTOWN AVENUE N 88054'51" E 722.01' N 88054'51" E 821.13' SOUTHEAST CORNER WEST 1/4 CORNER OF TRACT NO. 4305 SECTION 5, T6S, R10W TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS POINT OF COMMENCEMENT LINE BEARING DISTANCE pNNL LANp L1 N 88052'08" E 228.00' L2 N 88054'51" E 228.00' L3 N 01024'21" W 0.11, A y L4 N 01°19'35" W 40.00' No. 7914 P. 12-31-13 sJq�F OF G N\-\ SCALE:1"=200' WSSOCIATES EN & EXHIBIT B SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION CIYII, ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERS 2552 THE ROAD, SUM B •IRVM, CA M14-6236 W.0. No. 1498-202-001 Date 09/1 1/2012 (949) 660-0110 FAX: 660-0418 Engr. J.W. Chk'd. J.W. Sheet 1 Of 1 Ord. No. 3967 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on November 19,2012, and was again read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on December 3, 2012, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr NOES: Shaw, Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Joan L.Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on December 13,2012. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk CV Clerk and ex-officio rk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ®E 1 4, ! TkD '614MV A� Council/Agency Meeting Held: 19 Deferred/Continued to: %i.Ageaveck ❑ Conditionally Apgp oved ❑ Denied i Cle 's Sig tune Council Meeting Date: November 19, 2012 Department ID Number: PL 12-028 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 and General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 by adopting City Council Resolution No. 2012- 82, approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 by approving for introduction City Council Ordinance No. 3967, and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 and Conditonal Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and suggested conditions of approval for the proposed Lamb School Residential Subdivision Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is General Map Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, and an appeal by Mayor Pro Tern Devin Dwyer of the Planning Commission's approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 for a proposed residential subdivision at the former Lamb School. The application represents a request by Michael Adams of Michael C. Adams and Associates and Tom Grable of Tri Pointe Homes, to amend the General Plan and zoning to Low Density Residential and to subdivide the former elementary school site into 81 lots with reduced lot sizes for new detached single-family homes. The subdivision is proposed as a Planned Unit Development and includes mutual public benefits, such as, construction of offsite storm drain and park improvements. The Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval. Financial Impact: None Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A) Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 1); and, B) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 by approving City Council Resolution No. 2012-82, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-05;" (Attachment No. 2) and, Item 23. --1 HB -1454- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/19/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-028 C) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 with findings (Attachment No. 1) by adopting City Council Ordinance No. 3967, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation From PS (Public-Semipublic) to RL (Residential Low Density) on Real Property Located on the North Side of Yorktown Avenue, East of Brookhurst Street (Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05);" (Attachment No. 3) and, D) Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1); and, E) Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1). Planninq Commission Action on October 23, 2012: The motion made by Mantini, seconded by Franklin, to approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 1) carried by the following vote: AYES: Shier-Burnett, Peterson, Mantini, Franklin, Ryan NOES: Bixby ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Delgleize MOTION PASSED The motion made by Mantini, seconded by Shier-Burnett, to approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 by approving the draft City Council resolution (Attachment No. 2) and forward to the City Council for adoption carried by the following vote: AYES: Shier-Burnett, Peterson, Mantini, Franklin, Ryan NOES: Bixby ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Delgleize MOTION PASSED The motion made by Mantini, seconded by Shier-Burnett, to approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 by approving the draft City Council ordinance (Attachment No. 3) and forward to the City Council for adoption carried by the following vote: AYES: Shier-Burnett, Peterson, Mantini, Franklin, Ryan NOES: Bixby ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Delgleize MOTION PASSED HB -1.455- Item 23. - 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/19/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-028 The motion made by Mantini, seconded by Franklin, to approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1) carried by the following vote: AYES: Shier-Burnett, Peterson, Mantini, Franklin, Ryan NOES: Bixby ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Delgleize MOTION PASSED The motion made by Mantini, seconded by Franklin, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1) carried by the following vote: AYES: Shier-Burnett, Peterson, Mantini, Franklin, Ryan NOES: Bixby ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Delgleize MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny General Map Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings for denial" 2. "Continue General Map Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicants: Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates, P.O. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Thomas Grable, Tri Pointe Homes, LLC, 19520 Jamboree Road, Suite No. 200, Irvine, CA 92612 Property Owner: Fountain Valley School District, Stephen L. McMahon, Assistant Superintendent, 10055 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Item 23. - 3 HB -1456- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/19/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-028 Location: 10251 Yorktown Avenue, 92646 (north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street) _Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 represents a request to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project pursuant to Section 240.04, Environmental Review, of the HBZSO and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 represents a request to amend the existing Land Use Element designation of an approximately 11.65-acre site from Public with underlying Low Density Residential (P-RL) designation to Low Density Residential (RL-7), which allows a maximum density of seven residential units per net acre. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 represents a request to amend the existing zoning designation of an approximately 11.65-acre site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Low Density Residential (RL) to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation pursuant to Chapter 247, Amendments of the HBZSO. Tentative Tract Map No. 17238/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 represents a request for the following: A. To subdivide an approximately 11.65-acre site to accommodate 81 numbered lots with reduced lot sizes for new-detached single-family homes and eight lettered lots A-H for streets with reduced widths, landscaping areas, and storm drain facilities pursuant to Chapter 250, General Provisions of the HBZSO. B. To permit the development of a 81 unit single-family subdivision proposed as a PUD with varying lots sizes (min. 3,659 square feet, max. 6,695 square feet) that average approximately 3,600 square feet (45 feet wide by 80 feet deep) in lieu of the minimum 6,000 square feet and 60 feet wide standard for RL lots, and associated infrastructure and site improvements, including mutual public benefits that include offsite storm drain and park improvements pursuant to Section 210.04, RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls, Residential Uses, and Section 210.12, Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions of the HBZSO. The request includes a review and analysis for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout pursuant to Section 230.22, Residential Infill Lot Developments of the HBZSO. B. BACKGROUND The Lamb School site, currently totaling 12.4 acres, is owned by Fountain Valley School District (FVSD). On March 22, 2005, the FVSD notified the City of its intention to surplus Lamb Elementary School. Resolution No. 2005-38 was adopted by the City Council on May 16, 2005 and FVSD was notified of the City's intent to negotiate the acquisition of the Wardlow and Lamb Schools sites pursuant to the Naylor Act. HB -1457 Item 23. - 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/19/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-028 A Surplus School Property Purchasing Plan, approved by the City Council on May 2, 2005, identified the need to acquire 8.6 acres at Wardlow School and Lamb School. Under the Naylor Act, the City was allowed to purchase the acreage at 25 percent of market value but was limited to purchasing a maximum of 30% of the School District's approximately 28.6- acre property (total size of Wardlow and Lamb). Therefore, the City's maximum allowable purchase for recreational purposes equates to a total of 8.6 acres. Through further negotiations with FVSD the City ultimately acquired 6 acres at Wardlow School and 2.6 acres at Lamb School. The 2.6-acre acquisition of the total 15-acre Lamb School site, included field area and a portion of the southwesterly portion of the school parking lot. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 at their regular meeting on October 23, 2012. Commissioner Delgleize recused herself and left the room. Staff gave an overview of the proposed legislative amendments, proposed subdivision, and environmental analysis. The applicant provided verbal testimony regarding the details of the proposed project and supported staff's recommendation for approval. There were 20 speakers who presented information to the Planning Commission during the public hearing. In addition to the applicant's team, four speakers were in favor of the proposed project and 14 speakers were opposed. Those in favor cited compatibility with the surrounding uses and the ability of the FVSD to accommodate AYSO soccer fields at other school facilities. Those opposing the project cited incompatibility with the adjacent residential uses, missing or misleading environmental analysis, traffic concerns, loss of AYSO soccer fields, conflicts with use of Lamb Park, too small lot sizes, too much density, dust control concerns, unattractive solar panels, lack of parking, loss of open field area, loss of property values, and concerns with access. The Planning Commission discussed the proposed project and asked a few questions of staff and the applicant regarding the project details. Overall, the Planning Commissioners expressed their support for the project based on compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, increased setbacks for the new homes adjacent to the existing residences, and mutual public benefits, such as Lamb Park improvements and storm drain improvements, proposed by the developer. Commissioner Bixby stated he did not support the project because the density factors underestimated the potential population generation of the project and because an AYSO U14-sized soccer field would be displaced with the proposed development of the residential units. The applicant indicated that the proposed field at Lamb Park can be increased to a U14-sized field. The FVSD submitted a letter stating that the district has three other sites available to accommodate AYSO and committed to providing replacement soccer fields to the organization. The school district letter, questions from Commissioner Bixby, attachments to the MND Errata, and the power point presentation were provided as late communications at the October 23, 2012, Planning Commission meeting and are included here as Attachment No. 11. Ultimately, the Planning Commission voted to approve the project as proposed with findings and conditions of approval. Item 23. - 5 HB -1458 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/19/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-028 D. APPEAL: Mayor Pro Tern Dwyer appealed the Planning Commission's approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08- 26 on October 25, 2012, (Attachment No. 5) to enable the Council to review the proposed project entitlements concurrently with the legislative amendments. General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 are automatically forwarded to the City Council for consideration. E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: A full analysis of the proposed legislative amendments and proposed development, all environmental documentation, and comment letters can be found in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 23, 2012, (Attachment No. 9). Subsequent to the Planning Commission meeting, the applicant submitted four communications: 1) a letter describing the feasibility of solar panels on the proposed homes and 2) a letter from their attorney describing that AYSO use of the school fields is not a CEQA issue, 3) an email communication regarding AYSO soccer field size, and 4) a packet of letters supporting the proposed project (Attachment No. 10). Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 based upon the following: — The project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will not have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Planning Commission and staff recommend the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 based upon the following. . — Consistent with surrounding zoning and land use designations. — Not result in the loss of an existing or planned recreational resource. — Provide for the creation of new housing units in the City. — Provide compatible zoning and General Plan land use designations. — With exception of the proposed residential lot sizes, complies with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). — Compatible with other residential uses surrounding the project site with respect to density, setbacks, onsite parking, and architecture. — Meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and has been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee for compliance. — Contributes to the City's housing stock, including affordable housing as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. — Developed as a PUD and provide mutual public benefits, including: o Development of a 2.6-acre undeveloped public park . located at the southwest corner of the subject property with a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite HB -1459- Item 23. - 6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/19/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-028 space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas; o Payment of the Quimby Act's In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee, in conjunction with construction of park improvements; o Allowing park patrons to park on the tract's private streets; o Storm drain improvements, including construction of a 2,080 linear feet of storm drain; and o Establishment of a green building program. Environmental Status: Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08- 05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13. Staff in its initial study of the project is recommending that the MND be approved with findings and mitigation measures. Refer to the October 23, 2012, Planning Commission Staff Report for a full discussion of the potential environmental impacts associated with this request, a copy of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, all comment letters received, the Response to Comments, and the Errata to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 (Attachment No. 5 of the PC Staff Report). The attachments to the Errata were provided to the Planning Commission as a late communication on October 23, 2012, and have now been included in Attachment No. 11 of this report. In addition, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program is included as Attachment No. 12. Strategic Plan Goal: Improve the City's infrastructure Attachment(s): 1. Suggested Findings and Conditions of Approval for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 2. Resolution No. 2012-82, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-05" 3. Ordinance No. 3967, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation From PS (Public-Semipublic) to RL (Residential Low Density) on Real Property Located on the North Side of Yorktown Avenue, East of Brookhurst Street (Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 " 4. Site plans, floor plans, elevations and project plans dated May 15, 2012 and July 9, 2012 received and dated by the City on October 15, 2012 5. Appeal Letter from Mayor Pro Tern Devin Dwyer received and dated October 25, 2012 Item 23. - 7 xB -1460- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 11/19/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-028 6. Existing and Proposed General Plan Land Use Designation Maps 7. Existing and Proposed Zoning Maps 8. Existing Land Uses Map 9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated October 23, 2012 10. Comment Letters 11. Planning Commission late communications from October 23, 2012 12. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for MND 08-13 13. PowerPoint Presentation - Lamb HB -1461- Item 23. - 8 ATTACHMENT # 1 ATTACHMENT NO. I SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 172328 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13: 1. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08- 13, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. Mitigation measures are incorporated to address impacts to geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. The proposed geology/soils mitigation measures would incorporate measures with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring requirements, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage, trench backfill, and geotechnical observation in order to mitigate against impacts to liquefaction and settlement at the subject site. The proposed hydrology/water quality mitigation measure would require that a Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis be prepared, reviewed and approved by the City with specifications that drainage improvements be designed and constructed to mitigate against potential impacts of increased runoff during development, or deficient downstream systems in accordance with the Department of Public Works. The proposed biological resources mitigation measure would incorporate a measure that would ensure that impacts to nesting birds in the project area are protected during site development and result in a less than significant impact. The hazards and hazardous materials mitigation measure requires that a soils survey be prepared for the project site to ensure that any potential hazardous materials do not remain on site. The proposed noise mitigation measure will ensure that adjacent sensitive noise receptors (i.e., residential) are protected during site development through the incorporation of sound attenuation devices on construction machinery, requirements for properly maintained construction equipment, and that stationary equipment are directed away from sensitive noise receptors. The mitigation measures also specify procedures for the projection of cultural and paleontological resources are discovered during the development of the project. However, the mitigation measures would ensure that impacts would be less than significant in the unlikely event these resources are discovered during grading and construction activities. Item 23. - 9'eport— 11/19/12 HB -1462- Attachment No. 1.1 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. Potential impacts from the project are minimized to a less than significant level through the project design, standard code requirements and the recommended mitigation measures. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-04 to rezone the 8.35-acre project site from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) is consistent with the goals, objectives, and land use policies of the General Plan as identified below. The proposed change is also consistent with General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, which is being processed concurrently. The land uses in the surrounding area are consistent with the proposed change in zoning because surrounding land uses include low density residential uses to the north, east, west, and south (across Yorktown Avenue), and Public-Semipublic (PS) to the west (Lamb Park). As discussed in the environmental assessment for this project, there will be appropriate infrastructure and services available to support the proposed development. A. Land Use Element Goal L U 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. There will be improvements made in conjunction with the project including private streets, storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. Policy LU 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the use of complimentary building materials, colors, and forms, while allowing flexibility for unique design solutions and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. The proposed homes are compatible with existing homes in the area in terms of style, materials, and colors. They are well articulated and will have enhanced architectural elevations along street frontages. Although all the proposed homes will be two-story and, in some cases, taller than the homes surrounding the site, there will be increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet (twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) and greater second floor setbacks that will alleviate potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences. Furthermore, the proposed placement of the windows will avoid direct views onto existing residential properties. Policy L U 9.3.2: Require that residential subdivisions consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with the Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. The width of the streets for the proposed subdivision is 40 feet and 36 feet (curb face-to-curb face) and meet the minimum allowed with an approved Fire Master Plan by the Fire Department. The street width is in scale with the proposed residential units and creates a relationship between the CC Staff Report— 11/19/12 HB -1463- Attacl Item 23. - 10 scale and architecture of adjacent structures. The buildings will include fire sprinklers and the development will include increased fire protection measures. 1. Housink Element Policy H 2.4: Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan. The project will result in development of a residential PUD on a vacant school site and contributes to the City's housing stock. The project includes an affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. Policy H 3.6: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing. The project is proposing the incorporation of green building strategies into the construction of the buildings that will meet all mandatory measures of State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code, including providing energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards. 2. Circulation Element Obiective CE 5.1: Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. The project proposes to construct an approximately 31 space public parking lot in conjunction with the proposed park improvements to the unimproved 2.6-acre park located at the southwesterly portion of the site. Additionally, the project will provide 118 additional on-street parking spaces. Appropriate wording will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. The parking demands that would be generated by the proposed residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets. The construction of the 31-space public parking lot and allowance for public on-street parking within the project will address parking within the neighboring area. 3. Utilities Element Policy U 3.1.1: Maintain existing public storm drains and flood control facilities upgrade and expand storm drain and flood control facilities. A new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that will run for approximately 2,080 linear feet will run to Kamuela Drive. The proposed installation of the storm drain will provide an upgrade to the City's storm drain system above the minimum requirements for a standard residential subdivision. 4. Recreation and Community Services Element Item 23. - 1 1 fort— 11/19/12 HB -1464- Attachment No. 1.3 Objective 4.1: Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions. The project will develop a 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The park improvements include a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. The project will upgrade and modernize the site with a fully functional park containing the latest in park equipment and infrastructure. In addition, the project will pay park full Park Land In-Lieu fees required for the new 81 residential units pursuant to the Quimby Act. 2. Zoning Map Amendment No 08-05 would only change the land use designation rather than a general land use provision and would not affect the uses authorized in and the standards prescribed for the proposed zoning district. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The changes would expand the opportunities for housing and address the needs of a growing population. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The zoning map amendment would provide for compatible land uses and eliminate an existing zoning designation that is no longer appropriate for the site. The zoning map amendment would result in zoning and General Plan land use designations that are consistent with one another and would allow the property to be rightfully developed. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 17238: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 for the subdivision of approximately 11.65 acres of land into 81 numbered lots for the purpose of constructing 81 detached single-family residences and 8 lettered lots for streets, landscaped areas, and a water quality basin is consistent with the requirements of the RL zoning district with exceptions that are proposed as part of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) design for the project. These exceptions include deviations to minimum lot width and size and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to Huntington Beach and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). The proposed subdivision is consistent with goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan Land Use Element that govern new subdivisions and residential development. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The project site is able to accommodate the type of development proposed from a public service, circulation, and drainage perspective. The proposed subdivision will result in a density of 6.95 units per acre (6.5 units/gross acre). The proposed density is below the allowable density of 7 units per acre of Residential Low Density land uses designation for which the project is proposing to be designated. The proposed density would be consistent with, or lower than existing surrounding developments. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The site has been previously used as a public elementary school by the Fountain Valley CC Staff Report— 11/19/12 HB -1465- Attad Item 23. - 12 School District. The site does not contain any significant habitat for wildlife or fish. Design features of the project as well as compliance with the provisions of Chapter 221 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance will ensure that the subdivision will not significantly impact the function and value of any resources adjacent to the project site. The project will comply with all mitigation measures identified in Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. The subdivision will provide all necessary easements and will not affect any existing easements. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 for the development of a 81 unit single-family residential subdivision proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with varying lot sizes (min. 3,659 square feet, max. 6,695 square feet) that average approximately 3,600 square feet (45 feet wide by 80 feet deep) and associated infrastructure and site improvements, including mutual public benefits that include offsite storm drain and park improvements. The project, with conditions, will result in less than significant impacts related to traffic, noise, lighting, aesthetics, including privacy. The project will have greater setbacks at a minimum of 20 feet 2 inches along the first floor and upper story setbacks to protect privacy impacts onto existing residences located to the north of the subject development. The project will provide mutual benefits for the residents of the project and the general public. The mutual benefits include the improvement of a 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property with a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. Additional public benefits consist of allowing park users to park on the tracts' private streets, and water quality and storm drain improvements including construction of a 2,080 linear foot storm drain. Based upon the conditions impose and mitigation measures, the proposed project will not result in significant impacts onto adjacent properties. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding single family residential in terms of setbacks, onsite parking, lot coverage, and allowable building height. The project includes two-story homes that are compatible with surrounding developments in terms of each building's overall mass and scale. Increased rear setbacks will be provided for those lots located adjacent to existing homes. Enhanced landscaping will be provided throughout the development. The proposed detached single family residential subdivision/development will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. 3. The proposed project 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. Variations to lot size and width are permitted by conditional use permit as part of a Planned Unit Development. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation of Residential Low Density. In addition, it is consistent with the following policy of the General Plan: Item 23. - 13'ort— 11/19/12 HB -1.466- Attachment No. 1.5 Policy LU 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The proposed homes are compatible with existing homes in the area in term of style, materials, and colors. The buildings are will articulated and will have enhanced building elevations along street frontages. The buildings are provided with a setback buffer along the north, west, and east property lines. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the reports listed below. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring requirements, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage, trench backfill, and geotechnical observation. i) The August 21, 2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Lamb School Site, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical. ii) The February 28, 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary of Existing Documents for the Lamb School Site Project,prepared by Petra. These reports suggest relatively uniform subsurface conditions exist across the project site. However, where existing school structures and improvements have precluded direct access to subsurface areas, additional borings and soil samples are recommended to provide deeper soil information. Although no new impacts or unusual subsurface conditions are anticipated, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is recommended prior to construction to complete site investigations. (Mitigation Measure) 2. Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, in order to complete the soils information in areas of the site where existing structures and improvements have prevented easy access to deeper soil, additional subsurface borings shall be conducted. The project shall comply with any additional recommendations resulting from this additional subsurface investigation. (Mitigation Measure) 3. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100- foot radius (200 foot for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. (Mitigation Measure) 4. Prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the Project CC Staff Report- 11/19/12 HB -1467 Attad Item 23. - 14 footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100- foot radius (200 foot for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. (Mitigation Measure) 5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall have a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals (herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and metals) remain at the project site from past agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the soils report. (Mitigation Measure) 6. All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drivetrain, and other components. (Mitigation Measure) 7. During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of the residential use. (Mitigation Measure) 8. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system can not meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (Mitigation Measure) 9. Prior to demolition, the whole of the existing Lamb School shall be fully recorded onto DPR 523 forms and the forms delivered to the South Coastal Central Information Center at CSU-Fullerton. Delivery of the data to the Center mitigates for potential direct and unavoidable impacts to the existing structure complex. (Mitigation Measure) 10. The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing activities an.archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low, as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine Item 23. - 15,:'ort- 11/19/12 HB -1468 Attachment No. 1.7 that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease. Specifically, prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. If, during the implementation of the monitoring program, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are inadvertently discovered by the archaeological Inspector, the find(s) must be blocked off from further construction-related disturbance by at least 50 feet, and no further project-related earthmoving shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City approves the measures to protect or appropriately mitigate for the find. The Project Archaeologist must determine whether the find is a historic resource as defined under §15064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the find(s) is not found to be a historic resource, enough data must be gathered so that the find can be recorded onto DPR523 forms sets and then project-related excavations can continue in the vicinity of the find. If the find(s) is determined to be a historic resource, the resource must undergo Phase 3 data recovery following professional guidelines. Any prehistoric artifacts recovered as a result of the mitigation effort shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Once the Project Archaeologist determines that the potential for impacts to buried cultural resources has been reduced to "low", active archaeological monitoring may cease. (Mitigation Measure) 11. The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontologic monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources. Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontologic monitor. If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then refer to PR-2 to PR-4. (Mitigation Measure) 12. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. (Mitigation Measure) 13. Identification and curation of. specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to CC Staff Report— 11/19/12 HB -1469- Attad Item 23. - 16 significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. (Mitigation Measure) 14. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. (Mitigation Measure) SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238: 1. The Tentative Tract Map No. 7238 dated May 15, 2012 and July 9, 2012 (received and dated by City on October 15, 2012), shall be the approved layout except with the following exception: a. The primary right-of-way into the tract shall be a minimum 60 ft. wide between Yorktown Avenue to the northern terminus (adjacent to Lots No. 43 and 44). 2. Prior to submittal of the tract map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accordance with the Affordable Housing Program shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval by the City Attorney, and accepted by the City Council. Said agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder's Office prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. A total of 8.1 affordable housing units will be required at an offsite location that will be under the full control of Tri Pointe Homes or another City approved party. Tri Pointe Homes may consider new construction or substantial rehabilitation (as defined by Government Code Section 33413 affordable housing production requirements) of existing non-restricted units with the condition that upon completion of the rehabilitation the units become restricted to long-term affordability in compliance with City requirements. 3. The final map for Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 shall not be approved by the City Council until General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 are approved and in effect. 4. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated: a. Payment of the In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee pursuant to the City's adopted fee schedule. b. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Building, Public Works, Fire, and City Attorney's office for review and approval. The CC&Rs shall include the following: i. Provide for maintenance, repair and replacement by a Homeowner's Association(HOA) for all common area landscaping, irrigation, drainage facilities, water quality BMP's, water system lines, fire system lines, and private service utilities. ii. Incorporate a Fire Master Plan that provides a strategic plan for overall fire protection within the project with general guidelines outlining the creation and maintenance of fire access Item 23. - 1Iport— 11/19/12 HB -140- Attachment No. 1.9 roadways, access walkways to and around buildings, and hydrant quantity and placement as required by the California Fire and Building Codes (CFC and CBC). iii. Prohibit the blocking or screening of fire hydrants or fire service facilities located in public right-of-way or onsite. iv. Provide funding sources for implementation, monitoring and maintenance of water quality treatment train BMP's and appurtenances per the approved Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). The approved WQMP shall be incorporated into the CC&R's by reference, and shall be updated as required by local, state or federal law or regulation and the City of Huntington Beach Local Implementation Plan(LIP). V. The CC&Rs shall restrict any revision or amendment of the WQMP except as may be dictated by either local, state or federal law and the LIP. vi. Appropriate language shall be placed into the project CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to utilize on street parking within the development. (Public Benefit) vii. Appropriate language shall be incorporated into the project CC&R's restricting on-street parking for recreational vehicles. (FD) c. Portions of the backyards of several existing homes adjacent to the proposed development currently drain through chain-link fences and to the subject property. The blockage of this flow by the proposed development walls could result in potential flooding of said adjacent backyards. The applicant shall provide to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department for review and approval the proposed method to address this issue. (PW) 5. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a Grading Permit: a. 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 and Building Department. b. The proposed detention basin within the City Park shall be designed for a maximum ponding depth of 2 feet with minimum side slopes of 4:1. The maximum detention allowed shall be 1.5 hours. The proposed turf section for the detention area shall be designed by a Registered Landscape Architect for proper function as both water detention basin and playing surface. (PW) c. Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system can not meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or CC Staff Report— 11/19/12 HB -14T- Attachme Item 23. - 18 detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (Mitigation Measure) d. The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the reports listed below. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation, fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring requirements, foundation design, concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage, trench backfill, and geotechnical observation. i) The August 21, 2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Lamb School Site, prepared by Southern California Geotechnical. ii) The February 28, 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary of Existing Documents for the Lamb School Site Project, prepared by Petra. These reports suggest relatively uniform subsurface conditions exist across the project site. However, where existing school structures and improvements have precluded direct access to subsurface areas, additional borings and soil samples are recommended to provide deeper soil information. Although no new impacts or unusual subsurface conditions are anticipated, Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is recommended prior to construction to complete site investigations. (Mitigation Measure) 6. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed: a. A new a new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain shall be constructed in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that will run for approximately in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that will run for approximately 2,080 linear feet that will run to Kamuela Drive. (Public Benefit) b. The final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. 7. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13. 8. Incorporation of 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.usgb" c.org/DisplayPage.aspx?CategoryID=l9) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.org/green-building-guidelines-ratiii�--/). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations dated May 15, 2012 and July 9, 2012 (received and dated by City on October 15, 2012), shall be the conceptually approved design with the following modifications: a. Any building elevations visible from public view or along the periphery of the development shall be architectural enhanced in a similar fashion to the front elevations (i.e., enhanced window and door treatments and contrasting building materials). Item 23. - 19.,ort— 11/19/12 HB -142- Attachment No. 1.11 b. Depict the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (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 designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non- obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. c. Incorporate a 10' by 10' visibility triangle for the intersection between Lots B, C, D and E. The visibility triangles pertain to the intersecting points adjacent to Lot Nos. 8, 21, 36, and 42. (HBZSO Sect. 233.88C) d. The plans shall be revised to reflect construction of new block walls on the perimeter of the former school site subject to approval by the adjacent property owners. 2. Green building strategies shall be incorporated into the construction of the residential units that meet all mandatory measures of the State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code, including providing energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards. Incorporation of 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.org/DisplayPage.asl2x?CategorylD=19) or Build It Green's Green Building Guidelines and Rating Systems (http://www.builditgreen.or�/index.cfm?fuseaction=,guidelines). (Public Benefit) 3. Prior to demolition, the whole of the existing Lamb School shall be fully recorded onto DPR 523 forms and the forms delivered to the South Coastal Central Information Center at CSU-Fullerton. Delivery of the data to the Center mitigates for potential direct and unavoidable impacts to the existing structure complex. (Mitigation Measure) 4. Prior to ground disturbance activity, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete (generally February 1 to August 31), as determined by the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius (200 foot for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. (Mitigation Measure) 5. 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. CC Staff Report- 11/19/12 HB -143- Attachi Item 23. - 20 e. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. f. Ensure clearly visible signs are posted on the perimeter of the site identifying the name and phone number of a field supervisor to contact for information regarding the development and any construction/grading activity. 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. All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drivetrain, and other components. (Mitigation Measure) i. Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of the residential use. (Mitigation Measure) j. The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing activities an archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low, as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease. Specifically, prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s) will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. If, during the implementation of the monitoring program, any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are inadvertently discovered by the archaeological Inspector, the find(s) must be blocked off from further construction-related disturbance by at least 50 feet, and no further project-related earthmoving shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City approves the measures to protect or appropriately mitigate for the find. The Project Archaeologist must determine whether the find is a historic resource as defined under §I5064.5(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the find(s) is not found to be a historic resource, enough data must be gathered so that the find can be recorded onto DPR523 forms sets and then project-related excavations can continue in the vicinity of the find. If the find(s) is determined to be a historic resource, the resource must undergo Phase 3 data recovery following professional guidelines. Any prehistoric artifacts recovered as a result of the mitigation effort shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Once the Project Archaeologist determines that the potential for impacts to buried cultural resources has been reduced to "low", active archaeological monitoring may cease. (Mitigation Measure) Item 23. - 21lort— 11/19/12 HB -144 Attachment No. 1.13 k. The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontologic monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources. Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays, and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates. Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontologic monitor. If the monitoring program results in positive findings, then refer to PR-2 to PR-4. (Mitigation Measure) 1. Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. (Mitigation Measure) in. Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities. Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. (Mitigation Measure) n. Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens. The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established, accredited museum repository, will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. (Mitigation Measure) 6. 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 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 and Building Department. b. Blockwall/fencing plans (including a site plan, section drawings, and elevations depicting the height and material of all retaining walls, walls, and fences) consistent with the grading plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning and Building Department. Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property line wall. If coordination between property owners cannot be accomplished, the applicant shall construct up to a six (6') foot tall wall located entirely within the subject property and with a two (2) inch maximum separation from the property line. Prior to the construction of any new walls, a plan must be submitted identifying the removal of any existing walls located on the subject property. Any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls shall CC Staff Report— 11/19/12 HB -145- Attaclu Item 23. - 22 include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. c. The project applicant shall have a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals (herbicides, insecticides, pesticides and metals) remain at the project site from past agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the soils report. (Mitigation Measure) d. Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (Mitigation Measure) e. An arborist shall submit a report documenting the health, location, and size of existing on-site trees for review and approval. Any on-site trees deemed to be mature shall be replaced in conformance with adopted City policies. Replacement trees shall be in place prior to occupancy of the first residential unit. 7. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and the processing fee to the Planning and Building Department for addressing purposes after street name approval by the Fire Department. c. Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). d. In order to complete the soils information in areas of the site where existing structures and improvements have prevented easy access to deeper soil, additional subsurface borings shall be conducted. The project shall comply with any additional recommendations resulting from this additional subsurface investigation. (Mitigation Measure) 8. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit a copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Planning and Building Department; and submit 8 inch by 10 inch colored photographs of all colored renderings, elevations, materials sample board, and massing model to the Planning and Building Department for inclusion in the entitlement file. Item 23. - 23" 11/19/12 HB -146- Attachment No. 1.15 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 Fire Master Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. The Fire Master Plan shall include but is not limited to the following: i. Building locations, height and stories, addresses, and construction type; ii. Property dimensions or accurate scale; iii. Location of the following: 1. Hydrants with travel distance between called out; 2. Red curbing; 3. Gate locations or opticoms (if required) and fences; and 4. Fire land dimensions, lengths, signage and striping, turning radii at corners and circles/cul-de-sacs. iv. A list of Alternative Materials and Methods (per the 2010 C.F.C. Section 104.9) of compliance to the road width requirements. The items the developer shall provide for the Fire Department include, but are not limited to the following: 1. Reduced hydrant spacing (increased water availability) provided at strategic locations approved by the Fire Department to accommodate Fire Department Operations; 2. Red curbing (additional red curbing beyond what's required in the Fire Department's City Specifications) to prevent parking near hydrants; 3. Signage at development entrances identifying the Fire Road locations, red curb areas, hydrant locations; 4. Increased Fire Protection System standards (i.e. Bell provided on each side of homes, instead of just one side, that will activate upon fire sprinkler water flow); and 5. Restrictions shall be incorporated into the development's CC&R's restricting on street parking for recreational vehicles. (FD) d. A public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Planning Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of any building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final building inspection. The public art element shall be integrated and be in a location that is visible to the public within the Lamb residential project. Public art shall incorporate the following: i. Artistic excellence and innovation; ii. Appropriate to the design of the project; and iii. Indicative of the community's cultural identity(ecology, history, society). CC Staff Report— 11/19/12 HB -147 Attachr Item 23. - 24 e. All existing overhead 12kV electrical distribution and various communication lines along the Yorktown Avenue frontage shall be undergrounded. (PW) 9. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Planning and Building Department. b. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning and Building Department. c. 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. d. Development and completion of the improvements for the 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The park improvements shall include a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. (Public Benefit) 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of the final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning and Building Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 11. The development services departments (Planning and Building, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning and Building may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval 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 building permits. 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 action. 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. 12. 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. 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 Item 23. - 25?ort-11/19/12 HB -149 Attachment No. 1.17 project. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. CC Staff Report—11/19/12 HB -149- Attaclu Item 23. - 26 ATTAC H M E N T #2 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-05 WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 proposes to amend the Land Use Element designation of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of the real property consisting of an approximately 11.65-acre parcel of land from P(RL) (Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density) to RL-7 (Residential Low Density—7 dwelling units per acre) on a property located at the north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street; and Pursuant to California Government Code Section, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-05; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property") is generally located at the north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street, and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits"A" and"B", respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, which amends the General Plan Land Use Element designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density — 7 dwelling units per 1 12-3496/85067 Resolution No. 2012-82 acre (RL-7) for the subject site, is herby approved. The Director of Planning and Building is herby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map. A copy of said map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Planning and Building Department. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th day of November , 2012. REVIE APPROVED: Mayor Ci ger INITIAT PROVED: Director of Planning and Building COVED AS TO FORM: 1/1 Jw'4L-A City Attorney 'V ) ?i ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Sketch 85067 Resolution No. 2012-82 BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST '/ AND THE SOUTHWEST'/ OF THE NORTHWEST Y OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO -LAS BOLSAS, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 12 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST '/ CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF BROOKHURST STREET AND YORKTOWN AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 88054'51" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST '/, A DISTANCE OF 722.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 4305, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 164, PAGES 12 THROUGH 18 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, -SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 01019,35" WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 40.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 88054'51" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228..00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 228.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01'19'35" WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 496.45 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 260.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 88052'08"WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228.00 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01°19'35" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 88°52'08" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 601.57 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 4708, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 219, PAGES 10 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 01°24'21" EAST 0.11 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 4708; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY LINES OF SAID TRACT NO. 4708, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES; NORTH 88054'51" EAST 218.45 FEET; SOUTH 01°24'20" EAST 796.64 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST '/; THENCE SOUTH 88°54'51"WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 821.13 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 12.407 ACRES MORE OR LESS NL LAlyp ���,S��y ALLEN�q GAG AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT"B"ATTACHED HERETO AND a (z MADE A PART HEREOF. No. 7914 Exp. 12-31-13 Q VWIDEN & EXHIBIT "A" S S O CIATE S LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO ACCOMPANY A SKETCH CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 2552 WHITE ROAD,SUITE B•IRVINE,CA 92614-6274 W.O.No.1498-844-1YL, Date: 09/11/2012 (949)-660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Enb.J.W. Chk'd.J.W. Sheet 1 of 1 Resolution No. 2012-82 i I -—" TR T 4305 HALA A-b RI E M.M*� 164V 1 -18 M.M 1219 10 12 237 236 235 234 233 232 231 230 229 228 227 79 80 81 82 83 N 88-52',08' E 601.57' N 88054'51" E 238 1 218.45' 84 I 239 0 CD1 85 WI o I Z 240 C) coco N 12.407 ACRES GROSS 86 J W 241 11.653 ACRES NET 87 Z Q 1 w Q 242 C6 L1 I '��y� CD 88 U QI 243 r ��p� I �Nq 89 0-I �?� I N\ 244 90�\D�,`ca�\'�`�' IMF, `��. °' I c�F' o 245 !- N91 F- 0 2 I a 92 246 ryI 247 Z 228,00' Ln I Z 93 0 248 o I 94 p Z of m 249 L2 �I 95 YORKTOWN AVENUE N 88054'51" E 722.01' N 88054'51" E 821.13' SOUTHEAST CORNER WEST 1/4 CORNER OF TRACT NO. 4305 SECTION 5, T6S, R10W TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS POINT OF COMMENCEMENT LINE BEARING DISTANCE pNpL LAND L1 N 88052'OS" E 228.00' �c5��� ALLEry�sO�, L2 N 88054'51" E 228.00' o L3 N 01°24'21" W 0.11, CIL- 2 L4 N 01019'35" W 40.00' No. 7914 Exp. 12-31-13 �fgTF 0F CA SCALE:1"=200' CSSOCIATES EN & EXHIBIT "B"SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERS 2552 WETrE ROAD, SUITE B •IRVINE, CA 92614-6236 W.0. No. 1498-202-001 Date 09/1 1/2012 (949) 660-0110 FAX: 660-0416 Engr. J.W. Chk'd. J.W. Sheet 1 Of 1 Res. No. 2012-82 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on November 19, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio NOES: Shaw, Boardman ABSENT: Bohr ABSTAIN: None Clerk and ex-offici Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #3 ORDINANCE NO. 3967 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZOING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY CHANGING THE ZONING DESIGNATION FROM PS (PUBLIC-SEMIPUBLIC) TO RL (RESIDENTIAL LOW DENSITY) ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: 1. That the real property located on the north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street, and more particularly described in the legal description and sketch collectively attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein, is hereby changed from PS (Public-Semipublic) to RL (Residential Low Density). 1 12-3496/85069 Ordinance No. 3967 2. That the Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to amend Sectional District Map 5Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance to reflect the changes contained in this ordinance. The Director of Planning and Building is further directed to file the amended map. A copy of such map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. 3. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 3rd day of December , 2012. ATTEST: oeodwi Mayor ity Clerk INITIAT A APPROVED: REVI AND APPROVED: irect r of Planning and Building Yilvpanager jAFPPRVED AS TO FORM: Ci Attorney c ATTACHMENTS Exhibit A: Legal Description Exhibit B: Sketch 2 12-3496/85069 Ordinance No. 3967 BEING THOSE PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHEAST Y AND THE SOUTHWEST Y OF THE NORTHWEST Y OF SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 10 WEST, IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 12 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, MORE PARTICULARY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE WEST '/ CORNER OF SAID SECTION 5, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF BROOKHURST STREET AND YORKTOWN AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 88054'51" EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID NORTHWEST%, A DISTANCE OF 722.01 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 4305, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 164, PAGES 12 THROUGH 18 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE NORTH 01019'35"WEST ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT, A DISTANCE OF 40.00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 40.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF SAID SOUTH LINE; THENCE NORTH 88054'51" EAST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228..00 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 228.00 FEET EASTERLY OF THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01°1935"WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 496.45 FEET, TO A POINT ON A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 260.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 88052'08"WEST ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE, A DISTANCE OF 228.00 FEET, TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID TRACT; THENCE NORTH 01°19'35" WEST ALONG SAID EAST LINE, A DISTANCE OF 260.00 FEET TO SAID SOUTHERLY LINE; THENCE NORTH 88°52'08" EAST ALONG SAID SOUTHERLY LINE, A DISTANCE OF 601.57 FEET, TO THE WESTERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 4708, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 219, PAGES 10 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 01°24'21" EAST 0.11 FEET TO THE SOUTHWESTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT NO. 4708; THENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERLY AND WESTERLY LINES OF SAID TRACT NO. 4708, THE FOLLOWING TWO COURSES; NORTH 88054'51" EAST 218.45 FEET; SOUTH 01°24'20" EAST 796.64 FEET TO SAID SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST '/; THENCE SOUTH 88054'51" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, A DISTANCE OF 821.13 FEET, TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS: 12.407 ACRES MORE OR LESS SS��yNA LA �sp AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND ,� a MADE A PART HEREOF. No, 7914 Exp. 12-31-13 Q kSDEN & E)UMIT "A" S 0 CIATE S LEGAL DESCRIPTION TO ACCOMPANY A SKETCH CIVIL ENGINEERS-LAND SURVEYORS-PLANNERS 2552 WHITE ROAD,SUITE B.IRVINE,CA 92614-6274 W.O.No.1498-844--1YL Date: 09/11/2012 (949)-660-0110 FAX:660-0418 Ena.J.W. Chk'd.J.W. Sheet 1 of 1 Ordinance No. 3967 I I ACT 4305 HALA A�b -I E TRACT 47nR m.m16 1 -18 M.M 219 10 12 237 236 235 234 233 232 231 230 229 228 227 79 80 81 82 83 N 8T52'08" E 601.57' N 88054'51" E 23s L3 I 218.45' 84 I 239 0 o i 85 wl w Cl I z z 240 N N 12.407 ACRES GROSS CD 86 LLJ 241 11.653 ACRES NET 87 Z i 242 L1 1 '�\ rn 88 U �I 243 � 1�y� I ��° r 89 0-I W 244 \D•`ca`�\1`ti IMF, 90 0 91 ne 245 Cl) 92 F- 246 I o I I z 1O i z 247 228.00' 193 rn O 248 0 1 94 of ne z i 95 m 249 L2 YORKTOWN AVENUE 788'�4�5E 722.01' N 88054'51" E 821.13' SOUTHEAST CORNER RNER OF TRACT NO. 4305 SECTION 5, T6S, RI OW TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS POINT OF COMMENCEMENT UNE BEARING DISTANCE TV �Nl LAAra L1 N 88052'08" E 228.00' �C-.) ALLF��y G� L2 N 88054'51" E 228.00' L3 N 01024'21" W 0.11, ' A L4 N 01°19'35" W 40.00' No. 7914 Exp. 12-31-13 CN SCALE:1"=200' *LDEN & EXHIBIT "B" SSOCIATES SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY A LEGAL DESCRIPTION CIVIL ENGINEERS - LAND SURVEYORS - PLANNERS 2552 WIME ROAD, SUITE B •IRVINE, CA 92614-6236 W.O. No. 1498-202-001 Date 09/11/2012 (949) 660-0110 FAX: 660-0418 Engr. J.W. Chk'd. J.W. Sheet 1 Of 1 Ord. No. 3967 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I; JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on November 19, 2012, and was again read to said City Council at a Regular meeting thereof held on December 3, 2012, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr NOES: Shaw, Boardman ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Joan L.Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on December 13,2012. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Flynn,Ci1y Clerk CV Clerk and ex-officio rk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California. ATTACHMENT #4 r w F FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE SHFETINDEX forme LsmOkesW lRe CS COVER SHEET" TENTATIVE TRACT MAP Z'd�Use 9'Wft.*.'1ee CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Reddeldsilee slryRremAv.eddemltl ARCHt3ECTWJtE AI FLOOR PLANS"FIRST FLOOR* An•fA.A^proniruh mnMs and A""'"ed... A2 FIAOR MANS I.35ECOND FLOOR WOW. er nepfaeeVMle.ed Rwlenfwlm A3 STREET SCENEI a.np lwnnwfeel eVewnfnrtldrtn MAY I Sth 2012 SUBMITTAL A, NE STREET SCENE Ileon ld see fAWrt A659 rt•6,dpSrt d,onrt-s,xsvrt -P A5 STREET SCE ..iea(n.l sa ds,nt u;nt AS ELEVATIONS PLAN IA:SPANI6H I A7 El:EVATIONS RMI t5:BEACH CWTYAGE Dade v.Aonf.t.Rf.1 rrlA nTA AB ELEVATIONS PLAN IC:MONTBREY ,a,l,•,,,„,„,.�, J U LY 9th, 2012 SUBMITTAL A.9 ELEVAIATIONSTPOM PLAN IB f PLAN TA:SPAANIS'CbTTAGE R.M In.7 is v v _ A.I I ELEVATIONS PLAN 2C c MONTEREY e vwawaK len.indaes as 2M,.4 +I-1 Al a"ATRONS PLAN)A!SPAN12H MleM,^f^.2A6} AI ELEVATIONS KM 3B:6FACI+COTTAGE Innnwsldelk.l s;tlmm.fp orlm n.s:s e.sS A.11 ELEVATIONS PLAN 3C:MONTEREY k10(min b1 sl..tsde py sdddfhl to hn^4 fo(nhl LANDSCAPE Fm,menn twepew) z.s x s LI CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN• �esr Mdxma folmh.lwro fsfmhlnefe L3 Ntl,"CONCE NALPL'ANTLL ELEVAT ^e"B +-ns .-350 L3 p@fGF.tBORP(OOb�WA4L ELEVATIONS L4 CONCEPTUAL WALL AND PENCE PLAN 'grr mme mj xp zo xo LS CONCEPTUAL WALL.AND FENCE DEFAILS �- mea of arre,fop CAVIL t 6 w hmp LI Amn now .19.00ew C.I TECHNICAL SITE PLAN' n«e�,esm-I ss =r-r p,�.) tr-z-Ima•.) C.I PRELMINARY GR'ADINC PLAN e C3 PRELIMINARY WET UTTUTY RAN Aneavnse.n.wa(n:l LS VIA WA C4 PRELIMINARY PARKING PLAN' " Msdmpm L.A— 1 sme ussn-e.essn e.msrf•axssrt CS FILE MASTER PLAN• Menk.ewW Nwnp sN m•cl a u pedocevev folk ce nvn "god.med ale cemr 517E PLARBNING p^k'z :.Ircbfed,x opm zencloeeyropen xenckfed,xopen SP.1 PROPOSED BURRING SETIACPS fm .cn.du..erleAdeA 9P1.1 ADJACENT PROPERTY WINDOW LOCATIONS' SP.12 ADJACENT PROPERTY WINDOW LOCATIONS' s ADJACENT PROPERTYJJACENT EXISTING HOMO- ` Sp.3 P.3 SITE EDGE-AD REVISED SHEET FOR 07A9,12 SUBMITTAL o7.of.i1 N Bassenian I La.oni ALI>E�A �°� op —1'ointe Ap[NRF6TApF-ALIRNIpN•IAAIOAA V1,9 "'� "'^= 1e FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE CS loaf 1gMef[n}V),4eA,�m�Hae'a Imep+.wn.• HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA M i MAWADwe — -- �.-- —. TENTATIVE M TRACT NO, 17238 N P 0 - IN THE C((Y OF HIIMWGTON BEACH,CO[1N7Y OF ORANGE A O STATE OF CAL FORNIA AI �a 1 A.P.HVS,; fss-125-19, 155-253-15 k 15 "{J .. _ _ .. AREA:12.90 ACRES �1 MAY 2012 �p� � rnm msrRlPnou: _ ...... �a " ae&x m rc .cunm.n owagm+ao d raw:or me twrn�r v+o-euurzn a ....x',012w ae or ms or wwsnnx. �o xsn.w r:z x1�na Gv sars,w*xo rm at ! F d vuur«.wF-r.,m., rum rw,rw, _=rwromaF�rsurt r -.. �f�• t LPr s Sm L rPT a6 Im al N t➢r H Lm u 1LT a Zt y W n inT W em W - wT M - tm xa M^ xF xx waft:a xeLn M1•o`T.�..e+mar�lo�sUllr)m .'sntt a]Bi1.. Inr lm x11x31'. "'aiar B,r. 'Isle 4r. ax)axdP, �rlwd.r, axml cP, 'xR36P, ti9WdP. blpl SP. •{N16 P. ,303SF. ^tl10SF. <otd S.F. �Ixa AF. k IDfH tI[(aual " r xs,aec. .,, o•_ r�or wi�wm,s-.,cx � n ur ..� . a"'nws4"xeG�tramFe ,ear.-_ .eC1riE-�d.�. :.Q,V �� . rl�m eun.�o 44 tls•n i I oT `�-' n• �Q6v1i uP.�y� Y' x,P. �� ni nruwin wcrmrc�.�,o.sxF r 1N �•• r�.'+��' b aa}e'p iwx .Vt Pry Or xeNW.a Axmt.�EN.PF"arw Uv¢efd 9 m,sF. .i59•„ "�r rysr �_ P pVA .,f s1x'� k r 6 6 wtT p �}",,q., �• _ _. ... 1, 1� -_ e,� ,x nr,�rM 1�.,.,,e[�. li r o c`"1Wt •5 '` em N "~ M,s ra9 �+Ir n mf xc"'r n,xn ixauwxr ri[uN eeulw owsemru,uwno nm wrn e,rme, �xlwsr. P1 „waF.2e N 41W9F dim SF k lnl w W G ur d,r. I � tn° 1T6utrPo� - e k - ema a emn S carve for tx tr �tx - In'w`T' Rmmsw.w uree • sr. muse. amdsr- ama sT. taxis I suai% a �'- vda nx I � S o1Nsc, k � ru"n"`"""" rx.me..uz�a�-n m rti enlxxr mwew scare xor =-- a�rw us.r LOT" h� tr I I,marwo*g o,x rfwm. I )m9 W. 5 ><r. all WBAF. 1 aoa. wrMm"m cF w, x eGM f..0 S h I G tr u g was°.a sum i e �xa°n eF �t�• � ,ei m � xrexe, ., Fe¢FGFTfr NmE4 - 1 m � �. - ..\ � e:: „°�,�.�na:�n;�m�,l�r�•.P�„a.,m„m��nFa,P� p�r}a��r 4 rA I 1-4 - ------- - --- ----- ;sr. W A. ...-.._.-......., er"„"tea a°w•olae,xeaw,ow ��rrnew.�.�. arm " mn nk 'k Y T,mwsNwoP ti :, aor xo �aee�. T � M1 I ®waeues W •i�1°a w.nxtri,mr,v� , i exa. rm�n rwus nw �rl ancrt wrnrnc o I h� - ieacar. I ,leOPss �r .00m",u,...x..r u"mr .wer"r.i»n'ow��"v� ,a"tlix`m'�".m t.- .. ...... r.r.e.e�w,rn�r r w P,w'S'.is° r.�,in o®"me,wtl..w.n u.u......wa T'I gootr 'I - lmyo.n.wr"y:`om9O41eFm ter.v.e.uasn .o„w„e. rk 1'ael aase>v. p s�sF. y • aaas c '� "Pr M ry. r",n'o-r'ro" s m��w.�.n iei`uri w,.w x�orn.wwm"wrau°`0i rccom = ear rs -d'• ._.... scmnra�e"o'y amr o��w"""i.Was mr`�icrlm r�i''�wri`�Rtl'o.wm�ia°ara��"ietl��r.�'.'.. p u,P, m auzdr. aeadF. - - zaacx.. ,o m armum m rx em n xumm.x eocx me '. 11OT A PART al' ' ,q sf CV M' �• 'fv I SY SS �� � ... LEGEHL - i.n.r i_ �'!� - d • pP. Pr' , 9 I F tell p k k 1M TI r ,. a1 eDi,s Ef tr I11L Iz 5 - ' ! `x. Gn:xrr ... n ean emu :;VN0d11 's i ',g �oyo � .reoa,r, ndlw. .aux.P, � anEr. "a„r,r, wcs,r. � r amexF. .. � 't(,_ - ,•___-.-r�ui,rs rr.e,T e.��rm n.u• I wT it rmw.ux:� x err F.0 w �• _ ` -it jar k —4�Iazz'l _11110 pp - E ri 2 emx k care rmx 0 w�ra b cars @ T i xen aP, 4L P Y •,,, mml, 39916P. 3aalBF. 1fe5SF. 8F. Ix•t LOT ___ .., 04 � y,`,p r LPr m• �09 � CIiI SP. ' Y r.E wa xsscF. I`IF'pll + 1 '; S ,i�r,».tca g sew=' `n7 3•' ,e,-p� 'r '). u � oItKT W AVENUE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.1T238 ,�'°� o-s..eAr P*T r� caw rn 10""•" 10251 YORKTOWN AVENUE HUNTMOTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA ocraR ,•Gxmm� elm-d.,-r°v Ni .c. �- �°'4' ALDEN & rml.nrm.evea tlnh�r/mve tl.c OR STR YORKTOVRt AVENUE .>�, WTERIEET a fe2c.co-ave �rdv:<ra e.,emP w :Vans �. nP RECEIVED U 4'6" L. 5'-0" k 5'-0" N F Dept.of Planning &Building W 4§= d _ j 1— I INRJ t i , Illf~ ,� k'xic' f,86 0-1 O `a z,lQ COVEAEb PATKS AT r a amn w Q ,g� __________ oa Z q6 GREAT a w 1 � ` n I ❑ -- I i - vf KRCJiEN KIT EN j K CNEN cc) 'ate- Im i ENTaRY i GA,a.T'E I I,. GAL�A''F I _ El &4TH 1 EMR4Y .'¢'AGE � dIO ,I I � I II II •'I 1'REoaOIX 4 I SFDRO m4 ! w. 4 �a O 9PO- RCH --___—_ as W _ _ A = 11 _—_—___ ia� I rx� p� NEOROOH 4 I I g w f 1 I I Q Z I 1 c I of of 3 I 45.00' MIN 47,00' MIN 47.00' MIN PLAN I C PLAN 2RB PLAN 3A 2,379 S.F. 2,574 S.F. 2.834 S.F. TARGET: 2,345'S.F. TARGET: 2,463 S.F. TARGET: 2,625 S.F.IST FLR: 1.1 13 S.F. 1ST FLR: 1.262 S.F. IST FLR: 1.225 S.F. F L O O R PLANS l 2ND FLR: 1,266 S.F. 2ND FLR: 1,312 S.F. 2ND PLR: 1,609 S.F. PORCH7GARAGE 42595.F. PORCH:GARAGE:F. 468S.F. PORCH:8 S.F. GARAGE45;S,F, �- A N S - 3 COVERED PATIO: 152 S.F. COVERED PATIO, 150 S.F. COVERED PATIO: 204 S.F. FIRST FLOOR ®scnl�,w,1•a• 0 T.09.11 Bas enian I Lei Pore ABeNIT£CTUE -KAN NINE I IN£ERIaRS FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE A ] RUN FS.I,.0 667.17016 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA Y4�C�Ci1/i»IJ OCT 1 V Z Dept, of Planning Building •'� F I 1 i i N$ i ----- .� 1 � "R" f MASTER I � 1 f I REOROOM i I 1 1 I ' I a I r----'"-----'..'1 4 1 MASTER I I I I �REOROOMD MA5T4 Tu —_—I T_ ._—_—.1.1 BEDR0017 I d I yrmxi. ®MAST E EAT" LOFT I A 11 rs4cx�e1 I �___—__—_--__s I :cam I tVSTERBATH 1i iI S �,51zh_ s 1 n... ss 1 A 1 BEDRLJOM 2 - 1 Ij Il,i zy I c 1 1 ' BEDROOM 3 I I I1 BEDROOM 7 EMKOOM3 i � I hwri�l Jt 11 ii>i`uhLi 7 RATH i J I 1 I I BEDROOM 7 I I I /lA BED`00112 ly LAU. I 1 3 1 cItI wux msx. I I t . t I 1 I t 1 I 1 I I I ImmI 1 1 � PLAN I C PLAN 2RB PLAN 3A i a� FLOOR PLANS PLANS I - 3 SECOND FLOOR M'-� ° 7scue w•.i'a• OS.15.t1 CD ' BsssenimILegoni FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE r�/�} Pc�mte ARCAITE Tl ItLKAAAIAI•IITEA1011 A•L ae7.ISBIA HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA �^ A W 00 1 � z r ru.=,a,s .fihi, •'��X' v ,. !f ,f°:.. 'Si. c„�5,4 '', f„> :aS ::.na F;t;rars{ 3 4>t'7s. �; 2y ,e^"xYAc��_^',1Y;.�ie.; .� •a k,y.. ��. � '{' .t .£'4. Mp�� ft.� t �s�y: ,-,r >�r��X.�`�r�fr.}a.s ,�'�y� �l i:, � � w :C`;a.$ ;��, rt`,' 3 t:• v•�1� 'fir,. 3 t.t,.,f�'.23��". '� i� ���s .x.� rhQu�',i ��'bSu}4.'� "� E �s � t F t A r .}1 v3 - .��; ,, t.1 r. a 5;:.. �; ��s� �,:trd ::�:'., ,� {; •s� •. �, � .tt�of r �..'3�: y i�;xe ti e� �` ,+�',�'$} ._{'�.:.- rr.; r� :r•,y`P ;' � �.:.'yy++"rAx A t ,' ':. ..,ts '�� � ..a+";� F.. r ,'d..L ��, ,u�f p;x}i )�,�r`vy f, r� �F a:'. -.B r �?,fi r3�'.A � }.. 4"x�.v.,�"' ,.r.,r: r�7.:�.plw]^»,«�. .s„r. v,. r A i ��.�..� Y�^2�. '�,�5 .:S- � '� ..a�4ea �_:..pnux. f•'!� � "� v JT�':c. i `� �' �� � 1 a K t� a,u ui'�,us.. @� �r r_•.T�v �! i r .x;'tr ,Ys 4d ;..tti Pa,�� :r�.:. h�F�r ySr� ��`���{y�. _�A:§'��. y v. .>:.,. .. :.:: ,.. ,-,�. _ . ., .:'. .. C k :... 11�.s• :, ....:'..; ::.s-,•; ''..; �.. ruu,,>>.._ �p it"� .+..r9 �^tF, =vr. f.S }� n;'.�..:A�'�':�� _,:,. }?,3n°+r x.v. nn. -.,;... _t. n.:.«„ o;;:::.a- �N:.a.r.^,v ;>:; .•� :a� u..-',.... ...} ;.. . >a� ::: - } M. w �:a �; �.{ ,� gp ,......-':' ° ��4 �..:.. I •v�aea na k . tc>'.g s,< r �rs+�'a"` ' ' : ., ', r S���St•� �.�: 1S ,y a 5 's� IrLE> 1:s 5�r •" �� :� ..: .:'. I; s -a i._ Ll IJ' �' Ate'."y ref` 7 _.Jr'J J `:.r w J 4 r} r ,N :-'R .,; t.zi .:r,''.: , :_. ,+li � ii;.�'� 1I �,ii s �.�iwa I ,.=;-..�.", �� _.�:UL'L,.�J.'��ts�vs'.,i•+ r yet,.?' � � -II __11 .14 a ;o�i >f.'r"„ti fit. r..;_ t t v°'°n�fS3 ,��,� ir' •,:,iz - w 4 x �'�' __�: ,:o.a::� ear :;::z `: `4'.�": "'> ;psr, `, 4-+c _ Srlrr qPt v: - r�ti ti•. ya t ,r,;r�a s f: a•` ,�, _,X ,;r— ,; Y �.,.�� ,`� aid"a �`a�.sPa�C.b". � � :S; ��,. t R, �• . .:e3yi r �,S".1s ;::� � '�-t �' ,^, �;'9��.,' ,.� � .t�i ��y� �4� �� 1 I � a r r i tid,e:. ;E., i r � :,'�.Y'- r :; i. C •�a fd$�f��tFi,� I �f il ��"� I' t � • i pp, Is ,; � � 1 y4� c ° a, • eaB 1 � r*"x .><: ??>'Y'd''I�r. "<- ..rC:r �,: Pl'y. ,.,.C,. MIA i'k u3 c s F€�' � ,i.':r }t,.a7.{s ,,�. v. df r A�, r ? .fi'•. s ,, -vt.. w.' 1 :s� },£ z°'>bik l r T r� t \ ,! k :nx --� ,r R,�- ^.,�`t ,�. t«*„. .1R '1;�, 'a xr�i;•�� �,..��;;, i�3 F �;. t nd t �'�.i :t v d :yy�t:i;W-�r.: .sl x. s•Y: '� ��' °�,,�4 r ro.� n._ ,���i, r 5�: .,,.., -a .�. � t� �: �t 'h'.. rvd-.5"'. t. 'd.t> r. 3• -��- `:'��_ a ,1w r•F rr 7x k lv. r �t €:a J- ,st"fa« � ;.:k�`a" 1 ,a� tr.i;.,,.tS`..,,z.1�.r ...3>•c.:�. �ir t'l «Y'n .a. r- .,r,. 1'. , '� rA- � �•� <5 i..: r .r�:" .'�.. �) 6< :>'s.> x! 5. � :b �i �fst:r�. rr '.bk� wf+at•�- 'D��,E. «i }�f. �.s,'• '`�. .f ,..3 c � x r-, >� l ..%'�: t• ?' ,r. v .3"' ,,qq .-�' ar,.�.:r ",k'ki 'r%-x�t. 'k x .� i. .ti, eN. t z"':'_,a ,. .Y1 t '. ..�.. ... s>9 vy a3sNC� k,4u tJ S...., # s � tt •, FF p .1..,:... i''f , ..C,.47:+. .,'N'+�t.,„a(•, Slp.t.. ...;r.�. ., �,. ... .. ......�.'�..f. ff r}rt.rynd�i,'. y � a 4 ��� _ f nr.> a'�<; ..c!.•u ^�:f'rc�i.Y ww'�5�,.,fit, ds+s� ��i .t y�s,:�. b1..a. J Ya_,. .'.i� �l % -9,;; _.h.1.F .� \:,.« t .y�'t..',��....... 3.y r :Erb. i„ ,.:.?. ..1- ,� t h. Y ,wJ•^YA t:Sd 'r,'::. '..S 4,. ,Y „.� .. ,�t r::t� _.. 3x�rr.,r...t :,. a-.r ,tt.. '�,<re� s_r.'� rcca �. -k, Y- •X..,:)�_ 'srt'<v a•::"r, � M r. �.. ro.., .. `'^ �. :.:s I i ,.# ,a' .�.-, a „,�`a +b:.,. .. .x n'kty;::� _• .. .. -, �.,-.s �s.S,_...t,: t-�,,-.R+1'0. ..:�y'� h .,.r. r Y. F xt :�<r k �td �. �k ar -:e .,�.✓ g,. Er, . . r{hr+... t -..i� b; r -.�.,.r,_ ,3..: '{ .t -.:,i. +.c..:� 1 u ,t"r + x" _2.v +x•�t S a ff II'' �. UI t J �E• �� '" �,..� ����—��: � '.:�. I - - L .,. .9, y AU .is.' .n`,,i ' r.={'•�� -Y.:s. .f`c +, i t�`F';� ,.� rs u • It�k�F�: �'�� :` , ,r��.:.Y,�.�i'-1� i v'��I ���._, � >T-„ �kPfi� ,BB 1 r+.� 'a r ,yr'i!"1v W 1{.f..;:17s 4!.ajlP�A� �li�'�!�,A��„r�`��aasTz�' f 't'•�+ � ��- u 'r� ^fr�'..n 3 ,,,'�:1Y.. v h'd.. R t i�;§ r.r�. r }4+`w,Ri•Y ,. ''�` a r .. .Y Y E#2 ',r' its art ?Z'-:�Yd ~;�a�_�vx .,.\ s,z �rLl`a��^x.�rj.�}�k"� li�,,,' i ;.,s ,p4n'. 4>'✓�( '...�' 'f ,•5,# 1. r .'t •r�"Fl�' jS". �L�1'^Yr.. •1� rr a;t.,, - r:^' t. �x- jk��2;t"� r yr � ; ��la.y�;,.?rlv r :�-;s �r Y��,�{a -/•�';�xtx. x,:,.r .>f.•`� .r.,. b �-�•^s.. an �� k..a, .a. � tlyC�t ,,,�."r n.: to t->k.,-+•ri. r� r,�,p�v yn r �. l�C..•5'.Y. F. '.rF 4., ` A f n�F"u, ��'t.. A J,. ...J.M+�3 '•5f.� A,, f•,tl•�j ( .iG. �:� yr.F� .,w1...S'';m ��� .��' S: ,.'�`�` .d .i#�i•. •�; n r. k;.: .r ,t: u•l,r,t'•F ,.h t�''. .,.."s�'�v <z --�::; m 't`-:.. ,�:1. . .;' {, � r ..J, c:,\;i •'s�e�`'': �r.:. :. , �l r..,r�. &,. Y$ a a ' .d, c. ,:z.,�,,.x,.�' .a 5, a yp4,s'�.•,,�r�.:Fa� ;�X: `t. •i t ,'t r ,� t� ':,r,,,t :,� ,s ��r t3 �•1. :f '.y.. ;s.t.,�)• .•?k�' ,,.,�,�',t.x� t.�n+vrkA.� .,r rd*t�.' a.6s_...,... ?� - 3; ..s'1'�pi� .(.< >,r,�.• •? v. �r�`'tS,�. � 7, {. rr..�. # ` ... -. .. D .a.'k. �1ouu. y,+ � 3;:�iT ,.;n � �xz. :u�. „ a. ,a ( rr. �,�r#s.$`�+�• 4. '>. c�`:� ,/3. �;,• r,n 4 r. ,(. f ;�f(� #�� � # + r,;},� �"� ,1 c. »; � t. �'SN'• Jt ,-c, ':v. ., �': ,.,.;.. lr lY'� 4'F'y e`S.ti.. :� Isar i ,. �,. ..Emry -hi, f a; S p.Ci; a 1'i}4$a ';i,;k. 'h� / 1i;. .r: ...1 t`4 ��.,4.:i.r �ll 4 Y,rn la< Y.A � 2. A♦ `—:�aytP Fr I'�. 3+. SR` y�.. yx`,! �� S FYp �X 1��,�; i4 {, Z,y 1_ � a+? rt'�1 4} L :�� ql: ':; � L �-W;+'t'.'f` ?..-..` + '�, .ct[.Y' • ,a,,Y,;,..: i 4.-'' f �,- .. , .r: S ��,?, ,... .. :rs�.a,xr:1,, .J r u .:, ... .,..,.,..-: Yk. ?;. ., t[ ., »,k v �..,.+G -�f ,t s? � n,,yC,•.. G K,s �.,+�3 � t-.a �.r•r,. ��s e��y ..,.,:;:... ..F' .f� C':v ¢t'. '�.:.?,.F.. h �,'i. :1,1 i /,.., }I .... L::$•?.'V,n ,�.: 1 �AJI: } /.54" 6'A�r Y'Z':Y."�. 3',�bCiri, i 3'i /..u .., 1!Y^_ x �`1t n rt' $YG` Tiia:rk �7v.F,•y.• .F° .,r �'r, �� ,�.. .'�t S t°' j <: L�•4u�:� �} 3 z 4. ,.;',.:� ,. § :.:.... .......... .. ::..:...... .... .... ;:..:,. .....•. �.,:�* ...-,. -. } �:µ...-gg ..-._....: �, .. ... ........... ...... : .:.'..'� ,,. `J.. l,T,i..Yr''k �....'�k.;{ �x`,.tiA ��,%;C. {,i p'' � 1 kI&.G gj.• .Fy 5 •?,¢;.r x .a„ $�. .. .., ;.._. ,y. ..,.....: -....., ._r.,.,.......n. ;7 .d.' .f±, , �'rT�$ ">,...£ s, �;t,. b. r t`' .:&:�' ,�. F� r a�. .,#I� .;. S.r•.}_cW.,'.� i h°.��, � ,. ; ;5,. 7 ..: ,_:....,, ..,:-... ��p„il, +os1a�'Sf; :� .�}+�� ,, 1ra -... '$ r�, r`"4y:, �.F�'�,ff„ � �' { ..I .�ir.. E. :+'� ,�.,: ;�• 1„ .: .. -.:. .. .r. ,.•t.�..:.. ,..•.s3��//''''i,�'r:,� ! :. ,; -r. ,: .rt ��,'l' L� .'}� —�xri( �'"�§Er,'�a� ''i }.-c.-. ,.'..t. .....:'• I :. : �tT.S. �f:..{,:,., SY)( �.{.�r 3..-..i.: 1.k.Y. 3'i.n:. :Nl:"'�Y/$ 1 . 1 4 �'. fY .V.F, K $, r3' J r,.,, 7 >.. ;::1''f.. ,�•S,,.,.1.;t� s a f q:. y e., 0/ IY il.Y} ""+l�" fc.. T{.r'Pmbm 'f, S 1 > t� c' '`5aa -,Lfi -.t$•r'�r aR ,±. s'r .iV.le`$'rs ;a ».,...-F.. a 1, Y'4"';5 � y tyr}•- .I .f?'�li'� rI t :L `i. ,II f I: ! .'�.:LJ�i"L_la' # /� I :I l P F i I .. - � � ) C' �� 1 .fir ,,, y, t, i ,• :1:.� ,.,:: '.:.,!` h — �i� �`�? ��rr r r: :il �,. .g . .., I =..v.. �,_, l J rl l f` F'L C x. �I i. - r LJ J,: I,`' - '.0 ��! - - ,.. .,A.1., r }4 -- { - ,i L $!` � � er: III �lil III I II I�Ilpl I� , �: 1 .d :.. ���.•ph2zh` v �' -• I' o / 1 t r ., r lky�r:,il ,,�, 1 �. a `s, _4 t�Y,� .�,#ii I� � 1 T��..AA��s�i I I I I .f A _ l •n yt•.�°b�.. y:.f'r'ri s .�Y} 4'.d� ', m4D15Y. r 1 &� y�t �``. �.f.-_ A - �!•��in A+"� if ' t1y 4 �u6 .1 �' lt�3'�s � t r'��'�" Iqt?� � F t✓�? ! 1{v Jx� AIM Ll LU Lij L } I IC—�^f� � 4+f%C L.. AY 'f��_"9 '4 Y .%•/ , o x` 9' Aro' .sL 6Y1 JYzE ex aT 1 k5 at T+F'a ai ti 1 INifllllll� '' �`J ® I� JI } A e t n,� l��r yrxx ty� S`t�jFi' q.rr�1 rLJr�S��'.n`,t r` t Y {i,�yt f r^7+i 6u. 1 y 4t _ 1 �II IJ�r � � -•g f ' �nttli I� �ti � <h ! '�Fs`c. 0~ � ���`r .rye". . .�,�,.:�' •w u Wed LLD. w dYY • ,�; �1 • w • w Ml •� ,�' the x r�:,� �'� - � a � 5 b g c &,' tar R, ..I h! F ! Mill r t I��I'lllCl� lluillll� .,y�a•.� ' � � � !g�� "'- I 1 r' z'�'�'���` � rI � .�,�s 6� ��r3 ��`{ � q� —'� ,dstsu�s��•,y�,o, -'I� ���a �A ; �� ' , ���?� � i I Cyr •e• ���� � .y � �� f��� r£�1 a r Ktutilli.0 OCT 15 ZOi2 w ning 1 MATERIALS LEGEND SMOOTH FMSH STUCCO DETALS STUCCO FAYE DECORATIYE TILE - ACCENT SHUTTERS CONCRETE T nu ROOF DECORATME WROUGHT IRON POT SHELF LEFT WROX HATE M74CE WUTiOM FRONT ---------- ' e k � ,40 : .. ----------- - `wau^wwwsr AjL ;..,.. ROOF PLAN A E, r.: nTar.s,xuraa no�ac+�aireiw,coucnf,csnu RIGHT MPRO%ICMTEFWaLOCAWN REAR 3 ELEVATIONS -n PLAN 2A SPANISH o �i eaEE iw•=rS 0 S.15.12 O Bassenian I Ugani 4 °� Pointe AACXiTECNAF•PEAXIJIXA•fAIER1013 FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE I�.I NONES.LLC ist�lzolcP" HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA >R A t � x.� { ; �J -rs> ¢ r s td °ic L{ k xiiY�f c�'t 4> ':�t)u iS.g 4 f • .. • �f�, � }�o '.•-''✓f�'a�ri.+r�s��r,',�t i4s rs �,of x :. h�.4>rK'.��`r�> 1sr��1z ..:{s _ • • .t .: cs t °a k s r ; r {a r, i+2't YS r Xl s t 1 fS ksx TEU El E '4R �t — o0 r Sl• t f � � I .:{+ a +'� 1E +- + �� I E ��•`,.�. 1 {:� rl sl � 12 i,YEaryi{6 1}s Ji_ �, I m • 17"DiLo 10 � 1-J I_J a u U 1I - i� �".��•�"rr s �,r�s73{77 r u�a',�yr �t 5 5 +'i tr i n zr �h �� ! . r e h o u r7rr t. �a1 MF.cg �t.�Mvti+ f� F�1`�} d3fii� {§ �S � k r t t3;rr� 1���i�\y k a�cic ti � �• u Gi f � Ne ' NIN' �. iy mu LJ LI,L s{�J a 'Fa,��+^"r't"'G�-`.,fti�t�i�``i� '�" 3i'��` �mlll�`r r�. F sy�L I '' rj�'*.k,.��. t I'•..c���� gda�3i��'�''�� d � .�'� a�����'��.�'��r I i' .`� ,�� �'.. de�; t�{1. �.,� I�"kl� �.,�i••,y'�KC � �L�h'°'�' ��a 5`�'�a���•� ,,s�'Yi 1; � f u}�a Y� :. r5tl� � x�2?" fi{;f'• '7d t(r t ;, �'Yd rxy.LIS' ix ". xr 1 II I W C r IT J. r�•n � xM+ � f� �'�"• 5 ms.s•s�,up Fs,�a{ e,{��Y. �k Y}�•..firnR'"�}1�t�, �r �y �;`llt'}it 2t�jtxt%,""'.�fi.�44r1��i� _ t _"fit; 'sly,. Y"f ='ir stt�577ss �er"ra Ms� �'l Y'r �y i$f��,�td c �-, 31I z� r<�'>� •�f4 ; "x � � tL �` �� JS #�krr�G3"'�ct9 ���to h�v!r)ra ,� � -,J ��'}��}'il -lJ � I'1 J� �.p �! �. x.'A�C..��fj�LJ❑��. �,� aab • • • � �` ee SR I t t n�E 1 .kid .di i �zx1f �TYd¢ V > � d 4 L y 17 f y,. W) f� �8{y�",�i'A .% r ° v �1�ylf Y.Sz fit ' � •. 7 t f ,AA p a ViO Ll u u rig 1 e - t Y JN{ ?R { f u ---C ..-- C❑ ❑C� u u uLl � i r f: ,,[[ e k •F h sek. L� I�FT ��, 5���C'��,,}}a s{'}r}( yY 1�,�K����[[" � , •f�s t `4� q sj�•�i"I �to Ys+r�#� 'r�'�-i+�r� z�,i��4t1 i yy} t�i � Mgt 1i a I11 1 -. ��T.� I �y,n :. 11! � •��� 'ii L ''.+�r�"j ,,I �,,.,. ";f .. tl�� � �='�tn �!� ��� �I II Imo" .. 't �..�L 11 ..— - „pJ;. _ fit*' ss� T [kE1t 3�'�? � �''��.J 9ta§ '�'�,�S�Liib�,...�....,.' .its '��;���`.,:•�;�.�.. I"�,a� .�� �' !.�� .`.� '�� ,��C� � �� ❑�.� { e� I�"1 , - ] 1 .J—t-�1 Tr T - Y •m. � 1 Y }� I O'�' }'� 'rya � •� � _ _ ' 1 F1�iSi s.�rm ��b�� ,a+�.X� T ,r*;,�*�,« �I �r�� 'w�a '���« � tAsp .•• �� ..I }� ' > I� �4�� 81123 i►> i • e8B 0 ' 5 2012 f Planning ilding MRg' i;'X'P" MATERIALS LEGEND ATE �-A wo molm stmco MISR %MMr NeNN6 $TV=EXTAItS MICK VINEER _g CelEwmeus WOOD SIDTISIG 18 WOOD TRhM AT SIDING ACCINT SHVrITRKS FLAT CONCRETE TILE FLOOF WOOD RALING&POM DOCOMIWE POT SHELF LEFT APPROMATS FFNU tDCATM4 FRONT ------------ A", 51= gg- ____7 r Wm em 'u. 4 7- "Poommm "NOR'31" pf A0 W 8M N tA, ­� ROOF KAN c .I:..?.4_ t"111216125-1.20. W_11�.. RIGHT APMOWMIERNMLOCATION REAR ELEVATIONS PLAN 3C MONTERET n FD Bassenian I Lagoni A.14 opbirke FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA rum P � 1 r N itiaak 4 rr— ii i iie • iE.. �� C AFT�� °w a �®n P� ���� ��G� Igd�'r e ��� + � r z t �q 4�7 ` �g9` I i��� ��I r �e Is® ,.'�a,lei- URIAWww t F .�.acr:,,*.si re kt-a •'oaa»y a 4a . •�d4fgs Man +n -a rtt aiS iq R msx tRIM@Yyp �Q !v2 -00 r'IPA N.`!. Y it®RI j.. �..e. :fib r Iu nm�g � se +�9Ir "��r'. k a . I' �� • ' t.t'tr pm =i ff ',''�'t i!. isP 'v`' F.7 a s.:• ts:j- h* � 5�� r'r i>: t s .�Jl...t P � �Jag�,.,. tiI ' "rza�asE ®4� 8 �� !Q � 4,A7dip6bi!+ ®Bi`ll'�q Q�tit7'S, �� 4 _ ®RI p� .dam r't . dre4Lf at` �.'mlmw hS'' bw I®C '10 ARE �•■ ® r €€�$: sa rYfog,, rt: wm `"�i"t`�S aye k1'� t '3 r to " RECEIN Dept. of Planning &Building TREE I PALM I LARGE SHRUB PALETTE B.wNAne,Rw nor mnl�awl SHRUB 1 GROUNDCOVER I VINE PALETTE nrrrf�el�R,�rmm�ea*e� FOCAL CANOPY TREM A,PALMSI Ac HUSroLU5 LAVANDlAA o NTATA IRRIGATICN NOTE STREET TREE PALMS AGAPANTHUS AFRICANUS LAVAN 'GOODWIN CREW GREY' PlfhndwPcd.rc=rrq E=E°m•mdyrnRn•e.,a,Av ALNUS RHOMPIFOLIA AGAPANTHIJS AFRICANUS U TINKERKW LAVAADA PRERMEDIA PROVENCE us u„d.,M°m,d e,vdrmn pv.n Tln vNNm CASSIA FISTULA AGAYS ATTENUATA UkVANA)UA STOECHAS —AMDIHLIM CAMM " A;,kEPTAN6 PURPLE TORCH' LIDHSTRUMJAP NICLIMTEXAN�M' =r �v l°sR lyd.�n�Hhd°r°^<•° COANIDP513 ANACARDIOM AWE ARPOROCEN3 UGULARIATUMI AGINEA »M'°'Lnm M%N Enwd an=m en.ra,nn aM w•w FAYTHRRA CORALLOMFS ALOE X SPMO%MM UMONIUM PERELI aOSYb•""w°rd'°Ilmrnarrrd FICUS RUNNOSA TLORIOA' ALOE NORM L[RIDPE MVSURI I .p°°d<sgdrce hMn�dn—•nll Ee°�Sbnm° FICUS RUBIGINOSA ALYD"E MUEGELR LDMCN AJAPONICA TALLIANA' dauumm°r°rRmd•pr.ymd atP F.ysm,..ld�v,d JACARANDAM CE.—A ANIOOZANTFFIOS 0.AYRXA RUSH DAIVHP MAHDNIAN V0.Y W+�rnnen've.bw ipmYlwM1en�er,Mibbbs. KOHREUlW IA RIMNNATA ANIGOZAHTFHOS PLA—A 4ED cg0W MAHONIA REFENS RmNwure FWGNKILIA GPANOBLORA R].O.RLANCHARLY ARCTOSTAPMYLOSUVA.UKA 7gNT RETES MSCANTHVS SINEN515'ADAGKI' e •R+^^In=menewerMe�a�=mrv.spw,yle.Fepy MAGNOLIA GRANOELORA TRAJEM BEAUTY A0.ME0.1A MARIMA MYOPDRIM LAETVM rv..ria•rogn Fronr E'n nHew.W 11'NIpA M 11ETRDSIDEROS OCCEUUS ASPARAGUS SPUNGERI'COMACTA' MYOP0kLN PARVWOLRM 4UTAH C0.EEK' rpFMblo,Tbmlp�anryrrem=1M bs oprFAorwN PHOENIX DACTYUFFRA PACCHARIS MU PRIS MYRSINE AFRICANA PO➢DCAAPLXGRACmk RAMBUS'A MULTIPLEX*COLDEN GODDESS' N NmAGDMBS'FICA rebge d•er.k rwnn•unadv hes 5YAGRUS ROMANLOFFIANUM BAMOUS'A OLOHAM NRPHIIOLEMS CORDTCUA 0•I�mw+<+e�l+°•m rq ae4+Rell Se meey.�ey TABEBULA1MIRI7 JO BEGONIA RKDAONDENSIS HIPHROLEPIS EXALTATA eoree repmi'e mpphmenv[wamrm onraaaml and TtP[LANA TIMI ROUGARNILLEASPECTARRIS NYMPHAEA �m,FFmeM1w.er w.�b<I°mdaa imunea xRlan de,mA ULMUS PARVIFDLIA ROUGAWV1LtFATU5PPERRYICE' OPMOPO.JAPONICLS hN wM1cmrP=nPok WASHINGTONIAROBUSTA ROUGAM LLEA ROSENRIN OPACPOGON PIANISCAPUS'NKSRFSCEN4 'US MICROPHYLLSJAPONICA PANOORPA ASMINC ES k.Fs dm.ym•.,_A Md,rsFdwl mror MAm.I,W° VERTICAL SCREEN TREES CALUANDRA HAEMATOCEPHALA PASSIFLOAA SPECIES �blasedtnawn mre'n HRemlz rrewwrwnd.n =M<amPmw,Tho nmmrwRl be.y.,ralr°dee°FRmr LYIPLSC OETJ GODDESS' CANNA HYBFe1D PELAkfbNRlM PELTATIIM .M yrp t„yRlen empMrtwdgr Ceurcy eFOni PRACHYCHITDN POPUWHJ6 CA PFs eAPeABnE PENNSI—M 5TACWIM'RUPRUM' Head Vour Lfine•.D.ee>n. k.Arrme w.wr m. FICUS NIT- CAR OMAN3 PHROD EMTRON BPINNATIFIDUM(SELLAVNTj ranplywd wweevRemea• •meoMnera. MELALEUU NESORHU6 CARE(PRAEGRACRIS PHORMRSM COOKIAMIM TNCOLOR' MEALE0UQURHQUENE0.VA CA,TUMCOA PHOR I M HYBRIDS'MADRI QLIEEM' MNUSIRDARICA CARISSA MACROCARPA PREEN CARPET PHORMRM ITI'RP.IDS'SIR�UOWNER' --CA—SPECI CARIiv.tucRDURPA TUTMF PHORMRrMsp V" P'R—CAROLRIIANA CEANOTHRISOLORLO UI5'POINTREYET PHOTIMA FRASERI TRISTANIACONFERTA CLIVN MRAATA PHYUOSTACHYS BAMBUSO®ES COPROSM PHYLLOSTACHYS NIGRA LIGHTING NOTE REE ACCENTTSA PALMS COPROSMA REFFNS VARIEGATUM PITTOSPOAUM CRASSIFOUIUM'COMPACTUT MCTFO NT— OPHW4 XCUN N NMGMAMLM CUPHEA HYST MFmK PITTOSPOKUM CRAAIFOLIUWNPN,t' T1•V!••M I°nnm.r•ir•.ALUAdme kMVYw�II CAAYOTA MITTS CUP HEA LLAVEA TIANff BA'NCO SAM PITTOSPORIMTONRAWHEEUIRSDWARF I Med®le d�,eergve enm edpiM.Ey�xq,sveeq« OWEA F00.5TERIANA CYATHEA COOPER POLYSTICFRJM MUNRUM PL�ri P�wrrn•wrk Idxemlrc M,r ME°rr nre .dammp.F.lt L.nAw,el�ndrwrR.red nnre WASWNGTONM ftOB115TA CYPERUS PAPYRUS PYRO6TEGIA VENECIES vhe v1°nR4d°E R.wmr Wr Pr•rlm DASA ON WWEELERI RMFPNIOLEPSSP ECIES w='- °Iryn n•mpmpee:dm pmMde IRlOERSTORYACCENTTPEESAPALMS DESCHAMPIACESPITOSA ROSAB SIAE vd.n,u uhp. ARO-USLJIM DO DESCHAMPIACESPITOSAWORTHERNUGHTS ROSAX'NOASCHJEE EIO TRYA DEFLEXA V=VEGE7A ROSAXIIOATRAUM PHYLLOSTAC.FN/S NIGRA 01STICTI66UCCUkTORIA RIVERS R05MARINUS 1"cINAU6'FROSTRATLS' STREIJ-JA NtCCRAJ DRACAENA MAACI A ROSMARINNS OM NAUS'n—AN PUr DYMONIDIA MARGAAETAE Rl1MOHPA AGMNTIPORMS SMALLACCENT TREES A PALMS ECHIUM CAN'DICAN SLUE SEFCT SCHEFFLEIIA ELEGAN"ISSIMA AGAVEATTENUATA BCHIUM FASR SLM SOSANUM IASHNOIDES CERCS OCCIDENTAUS EQUSF UM HYD4ALE SOLEIK0UA SOLRROUR CHAMAEROP6 HUMRJS E5CALLOWA TRADESE' SPIAEA RUMALDA'GDW AAW CITRUS'OLINDA VALENCW ESCALLONLA RUM S EPHANOTS FLORIBUNDA CITRUS SINFN515 FATSIAJAPONICA STRECITZIA REGINAE CYCAS REVOWTA FESTUCAOVINAG] UGR SUTERA CORDATA I JUNIPERUS CHINENSIS'BLUE POINT FICUS PLIMILA 7ERNSTROEMIAJAPOMCA F� LEP 0SPERMUM LAEVIGATUM FRAGARIA CH0.0ENEI5 THYMUS PRAECOX ARCTrJA PHDENN ROEBELENR GAKDEMAAUGIISTA TRACHELDSPFRMUM A5IATICUM AAPHKOLEM INUICA MAJI'SnC BEAUTY' GRMLLEA NOFLLII TRRCH&MP"MLM JASMINgDES O SOLANUM RAM70NNM STANDARD HEBE SPECIES TRADESCANTHA ZEERINA TUPfDANTHUS CALYFFRATUS HEDERACANANFNSS VARIFGATA' TUPIDANTHUS CALYFTRATLS YLrCCA GLAUCA PENOIJIA H EDERA HEUXVAKI�TEDTIEEDLEPOIMT V"NUMJAPONIGJM HEUC7OTRIC HON SEMPERVIRFNE VIBURNUM SUSPENSUM HEMEROCALLS SPECIES VIBURNUM TIMA HIBISCUS ROSASRJENSIE%HITEYANGV WISTERIA SPECES HYPERK'LIM CALYCIHLM XM—MA CDN6P—M IRB DOUGIASUANA YUCCA RUNCDLA fUNCUS PATENS KNIPHOIRA INAPJA i CONCEPTUAL PLANT PALETTE P1 BT.as.Iz I FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE L2 a Pointe HG AI ES.E,LL 2014.004 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA .r•I ....,...��..w•p•�+w.,.r«•r•,....r,-.-...�............. �n«I�x�i•rRo r N 1 1 if,t'S .-es't a� is jL.: tlh. Py± .•Six:*3Th �rr'� q '�'i �s "` 's^x. t�3a x2':5��,'F gii§-. z�tE NET— WARTA ✓t�' t av' i x' '3": r ` �; 'r� M ,rc ��6 -� i>k`t� t" ,�v ,4¢". �d I, t �tt$ � �" j `�t�r r4 k+� f ','�' a .,'i ry _; "����""�( � t,x�a``(f��E�`..;•;eu°•m� .fit+ y'���, � ��' v� ��, M ,��;+;�;ra� v f r Ya� ,s 4 = 4S r + °4t r ?v�Rak` "., fSd+xri�"J V t""*PP vfr Flow" -Wq MAW wiru _ " a mppow �� OIL' t • ffi* `l� �A�" .3 M1�+'�ix`4P�r xy�r��E A' 9" ' �'� t � f WON, ��i• +tr .tHa "5' C 'St { � r t Fv g..ham )1) Jtr. '�' �tNfl 4sr f1C ir`+t rSsr n '.. p,zr ir'� f..tII�� - � y- r'h !t' bx & + t p yv � ✓ w ^` ! � �t�.- p } r'✓ r" Y+ �f ' j _ y r r t .� y;•s RECEIVED OCT I Dept.of Planning EvmElll®'s.c roG'd'P9sc01PN A«RrtlultieR .� Ac�ihTE nKj°yYb qY !�-V--27 P79 [ 80 82 wNL TO RmRAcewsrwociwNUNR �TM w+aoAw000 rEN�O.Eabmka — 3 4 PREO➢ONBLOC%TO BE REMCED ATTr9? a ormNOETNEAn1ACErnkuadvwtm V-�__ 235 '714 233 Z3 ❑ 31 23 "� : ■DrrnnD rRr<uwNsoc¢wuivnrN _ _ O �p ; PAFCISIONAOCY.CPP -� 238 d �I 84 _- r .ErrP�APEYARD rd•rucElAur■bmcR 1 '°"—_________' °�� WALL AHD SILNP&OCR CN(rcPJ �� O fR O O EE O TJ�TJ1F,7 f 239El r=} 85 "B"STREET -- I I + ucllvanl eLouwAULm". rRNr PR 240 ggfq®x 5'dTP6d'PPEC6fON94OCYr gg , ' WALLTP PIPUCG GuiTNO CNAJN IAI(L S f M■LDI WOODifNONQ.i]9f1■J i ' rRcclyPN rI.O[KlO R[RFUQPATTI OETION OFTERAD7+KD0'HONEWnra � '■ (-- I 2 \ E'b•ro E'd'eRiebONB10CK P6119hTH( Ix F%POEF➢IfplllER Sd'NOM ALMP WALLTO RPIUKEEXIGIWOCEWNUkK •• •"v ALOCK WALIwtIEI AVPF 9IACR CEP t rr N1rt�PN 00D FBiOIV6�riNG 2" 3 vRPN PLATri0.wr WGxY rl ANb AT 1 R e " ° 1 � ]LOo�io RRFMCfL AT THE DNNJGE IN WAll MME � — I- I OPf10N Pr TIQADERCEIJI HDNEbWNE0. 24 R ° ..vve. WALL REfU1NS•E'AVIT 9tAR WALL I — ® ■ ., suer CN/JVD PFARYARDACTCfss®® 17E� J l 243 244 ■° F 90 r 1 ■ CIty Park 2.6 Acres a ■ —�. 245 Not a Pad 91 wai°To�ifmwaoPaarmo ow v u K � - ANDronwooD PBJCING e�smfP I � T R _ __ rRE[acON■fOUYO BERHIACFD AT THE I�_"^- r`1 oPTON orriewlAeT+rNoruvrn+Ex # ■ T ■ I C I 1.12411— 93 I ExrosGDGfDerNoa'd-EIIeNA�NebweR...... -� i WALL WiiE1 dLIMI AOCR CN(ITPJ e "U"STREET j Ii f�24 ] 9 —' jl j 249 IN _ � ® f o i — ip'ue —------- _ p -fir -------- ------------ ------ ----.K.. Erkt - -- — -------------- _�.... ------ - Yorktown Aven -- � ' ExIPADPEu✓.ETFI s'-E"Mck AVMP » I T CONCEPTUAL u NOTE: rG•E■r o-iANDwT 2 3 R.f.b 1."MMmbn.�u"p'6y 04k4GEN AILPWJG N. MII _ WALL AND FENCE PLAN 07.09.12 FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE LA 9 poine N `� W 2019.004 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA °d+ C RECEIVED w OCT 15 2012 Dept. of Planning v' & Building I � I Oa•�E ctW BLUTr DLOBK Lf m mR �6IX.ID ALL�LL6, �LpT L� i E WALL PE9901{GNS P R 3 OaLUT CLOC K Cur t O FmlcnFAL rw mxR r•6a COL"etun BL i t O CaMrACMP,ItEfeRACA}ER OOIiTI.BOLID ALL FAiI.L�. 5 ! 4 OEPRC{NICAL rerDRr O ADJA.EW Wu, 6 . .0 OCdLCWM FOO"atM AP a : O CQ00M P M4 ' rd'ilri�p:M:FBi btw—R 6N.MSR OOr O[Q NKJL MR 7 t 6 fM BII4RADE 6 iMBN OR.1DE PI01Ea 6 + L T POL AIR OAP MMnM HALL 11,I Tree GK BJiLOMz 6 ].r�RRTD lII WYl CON6nlCiICH la AV .•.I + (D Fla!CIa1a,BLOM WYL CAM. O dDJAf1X1 PdvMS MCRTM 1 FdO=CVT MTO RACL 6 6 O ice.PAIECIBIQJetcrK6auT romo- ALL�LLw 4 _ . L• R bme1rG 1 smE DEaI T5R 0TfJ1C'IVHdL QIY.KO2 O cONC%[i i00TRti _ 6LEYdit@L --i.�- LFi3TD It WALL CCNBm1CT10t1 W All O C""�fLRADE R7! I Dpmacm PER►1W1 Fn5Hi-Fm oifdR� "Infie MEAL KSPORT OFes®MJ PACE CF rRo�nPWALe t^nN dT adr eeru�l DBE.YATd7iIIALL lG4F!/i'.I'.O• L AND FAQ A•AUILDNS. PaLT-IYl[•Y.C-Oi WAX,V/ -V D' D}WW.L et-AI-k•If•..— HIGH SLUMP BLOCK WALL 3 SLUMP BLOCK PILASTER 2 5'-6• HIGH PRECISION BLOCK WALL 1 t I 9'-6• U ADJAaW WALL O 9-4VAV DUr BPF.10 TEE WM NMW!A ACN Wr X9 dWMNM 90TTp1 r . F`•i Y!TOP A!0 T.Py , _Y O vN.L i VJ X B„LAmle p raJlbl4'R.DE W T 09 1 X i BIDE vom FIWS O Cp•pdCtiy hmspdpK pfq 1 Im OEOfECJ411FA1 RCrOR! O 1 X 47G1JdR,OROOI!YNTL L11 4 &AM I H X C 0 vNTL MID RAILC mm, L m—m TO M—Arm DC E MAr ALJ-r ac A=TMEET LL-0. O a X P Pam,a4LL.JT®LLL ms P]R.ALL FMBIB:a,MA.TERIALB. e A p roar mW WLL-/•TuwLAD Da-oRa an BPacvJtATeoem . ? VA WAIL UP WLYANISD LAO fN h 7,CainPdCTDRaWtLL alGfErowO X T LQW E Pbara ro MAW WITH HARDuttleE TWC)6AY0AT rwmJ1 erps�NunaJ ro nmxduD VIM'L OA1E. LAHD8G A1GHRE MR 2NEW Waal ra TACIaGAnaL KMLL A�NBA—n rY MCUN ML Puunurs OMYARD ME BELT LATCNM9 OATS LCfCH a OATa T .�L�YATION DEw�aLona+E BCJLE.m4•.P-C wp REAR YARD ACCESS GATE 71 NOTE: C O N C E P T U A L WALL AND FENCE DETAILS oT.Bv.1z FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE L5 ° Pointe HOMES.LL[ 201%,004 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ., RECEIVE TYPICAL MINIMUM LOT SETBACKS OCT Dept.cif Planning Id 8r Building - C,overad:_it _ 'a8t OT _ i S! PBSIO - 1E' - Fu . r.'-..., B"STREEC 41 , YA _ ._.. n is - 1i R ..... .... ` I PLAN TYPE 1 PLAN TYPE2 j .". 6Wh[�.1G --BCAIE Y=W 4 -:. �1• .. _._. '... k � - J `76)wnuresernoe�r ` . City Park 2.6Acres Not aPar[PAO Vi a Site Summary Minimum Lot Size :45'xB0'-14(3,600 s.f.) L. Minimum Lot Slze :47'xB0'=67(3,760 s.f.) p a V STREET " H ; I Total Homes Site Area ;±11.65 Acres Density :0,95 HomeslAere --�• Ik .:- ..... -F~ .... ... ii YorkfownAvenrra. _.-- AL - Canberra berr l - -::- - -... an a Lane PLAN TYPE 3 ao TECHNICAL SITE PLAN CD 07.09,12 ALDEN& GMLENGINEENs C IAOAN)ERSm FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE Pointe N SSOCIATLS n'W'W „ C,1 3S0AS F.S,I.Lf W 25TWHERonn,soceR.I"E.CA6314 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA P4616DOIDM FAX-f6 415 m.nn aum Ct rn RECEIVED N OCT 15 L 012 w ; a3qa �3q t Tof a_nning wild► r;?ACT '36�35 34�33 72- 31 70 29 2a 27 26 7b. 24 23 22 � �--- __T-..�l _,{,� L_ tlFIbO.C➢ _ter. r 5 9Tft S TEC�B•B SECTION C.0 �� � I; � 39 �/��,'�". •�I * �� �+.+e _� �� �T1 C '..:C. 44 Y 11 45 „a164 60. -46 I 60 r 1 I . 17 59jr,", F aE�QN O-G 3CC110N E•E .;i � I� ��� __ �:�1�a^�#' •.•-•.e I � 1 II �.I t n� ,o 77 18 .. .:.,. .,.:,. " I ne..e ra.n I 89 .... 74 ��� � ` I ::r"i •e-,e. I - 13 sernoN v r l CITY PARK Fk' i NOT A PART 1 12 T53 ..i 9A �- 71�72, I 73 �#-1 12� r .e 10 V .... CI i:rL 11 j 1 J JaJ l . E� SECTION G-G YURK70 N AVENUE ... hQ '�`'ear wax.mnom pmnrvm maw rrcl n A ,awr pp lv j r — PRELIMINARY GRADING PLAN 07.09.12 ALD&M& "3Wvy�� Mpointe ssoc1Ar17s luaEva FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE C,2U}lF..S.Ltc 2351N1H1EMAG.3UGCB,IR.9JE,CA 82514 HUNTINGTON BEA H. CALIFORNIA v p RECEP'r-D �C�r •i ;� L���z ept of Planning __. - - --- I II � — ; .' �it IIl I "� -•� �,,,� ' I � ,. I I ;• I �. I I I ,. � � � � i. —z I, • d i r� ... w —14 III — 1 I ,• NL r,. �I I C r d P rw t II I 3 I I I CITY PARK NDTAPART ,T 1 i # �— �zll u . 0 .YORIfTOWNAVENUE ....._�- -- ram, - - ��` YORKTOWN AVENUE u ' ,m r� sFttrox Al � •'� � .� sEcrfaxeg ,,,,,�-_. C SECTIaN C•n , imry��enmc EWe �n�� �ET PRELIMINARY WET UTILITY PLAN XOe[,L 07.09,12 CD ALDEN& LAWSURMfORRS PLANNERS FORMER LAMB S C H O O L SITE C.3Mpointe,�a r c s,� f N �2WRIM ROM SUITE a,IRVINE,toW14 HUNT1NGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ta¢9I6GWI FAX MG-041A ai,b.rvwe I" V1 00 RECEIVED N W . - Dept. of Planning [TLsj Building ih 8 hCTp h I. tt i r i i A. ,I s 11 f+ sr .. 'N II '1 r I V City Park 2.6Acres Not a Part •' e Ali i >t I F t I /.7 v, j{II _ �. _.- t, Yorktorm Avenua s,-- — _ -- r= — --- Canberra Lana nT PARKING CALCULATION �J --- � � O I ; ON STREET RESIDENT PARKING m 93 SPACES --- ON STREET CITY PARK PARKING =20 SPACES DETAIL"A" —'� TYPICALPARALLELPARKINGDETAIL PRELIMINARY PARKING PLAN --snrteraa• . �7.O e.12 ALDEN& C"GUREY S SOC7A7T P�n`�s FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE C.4MPointe11nlir 1,u 295 ill Rm ROM,SURE FAX!l 4411 gi�eeaait^ E�z:560q�ie HEJNTINGTON BEACH,. CALIFORNIA �"� DECEIVED I OCi 5 ZOI . M Dept. of Planning Bullding FiRE MASTER PLAN NOTES J--I xfsnEaxPe,In.IP„�xE9NIRENroR,nrPePW�. -._ '_ 9E 9P w m{ w 9R w P MP E mnRs ti a r aI N, �P�ro w,PPP R. xo r xG W' _ I I I f. I ! _ - I u r..W PxuYN .YR w a4 Rmw.xP _ter---r-,•_�— ---r' —r�_-T•-.--r--- r--—r-••'T—`—r-—r----r-.._.L... .� w iwwvrm salu wrs sa r6o "WER P,A sx of w care n�P•a 'L ri' w m I a D M PEYElCPE9 FSF arE vEal f PP f� PPC n.Raum.ten} 'fro y - L s,Ra, E 1 PIS c. m i TY j I E I I I I I I I I I I LLYN/. .R6iiei JN'/I .Nll E i fi.4PY,lJ,£P NP 9W.SM.PS WENfIfIE9 1.F.F 116<PY P > KC9W'19xe a- EEo two--LI--.cs�r _.P. .Yro ___ r - C xN Nifi W'I. {A 9L4 u i M+eR6R' 1A1M-v,Ex IPCPMN PfR THE—ENf FP RF dr$FCL itG!rWS.fW - —— 9 ..... """ '^� ....... MM+G;S 'eWFx sNMJ PF od .N G 5 c-al C- n,m��Prwt�Lrro n':Iel£MD 1E01P.E F3P11�E maNWY F4 N ImCn TIE I: 19 � l- � _ _ �d°•.......,.,, ��'� p .\`i . Esc R,.�w,ev�a Yam nR<E -rv.E,P rin•: f K 6r GR59 94 N FRWY'p M1SraCuigN:.YP 914E PR W fA4-WVE M_m CINPIE.5 M THE ^s�taut P9ED fOR nrrc i� ,..y . 'WrA w. PI u'.1 R ssP"sTvRP'0 rv'ice'PaarswIe.,�.w.uFV1nm'no'a`eE'"�clxa;vc`R'urcE vw'"oo v.,°rrP oww xvr_ R, Il.�,�r x9f.IEss rWMrlRwx fR xwR,,xE wrwr,aw+ wu�yc fNf i�twat M FPI DIPW N! I �O W.All s-.rl raPi xE P'NFD W 61'U.NAs nP s.Kn Y:TJW-R R txW',. .tS a] — _ s Nd, .mx oP"a -y c"Pw,'srna. R aP.P r ennus,sx4�Reeve Rn mWNfrc',eWu aim�rnw mine cn a wxlu[,mx eriix�inE .. ��_�- '�;• J4r I F ----1-- ..._.-4-- -- --uns Cn�H•s ORSR' c P 1 ti I e,.PPRnu rWs xol e-erec:nJ[b as.pPgm.l er.N{NlaaMutp�+04 YPJa�cexMn,s D�ci�n rr"95e n�.n � 61 _ W rox,OICC,coTMihemxs�n Pc®CC�MV�C Of�Nxia W�LLB�If i0 e c�cu. rPnlanE mR==—Pwucsr wf • I'llPn. 1 I 41 iw n sRm.rYa Cr snu..EE Ncxn¢•s 3r+tI.p�rtoru .••...^ �IT`�`, _— —— — — ——— I .. .. ' lE a— :,WWJs xPE NEaP.WP , Na.xsE ewe,rLL..I,R.,......ue 4uu In,t ,aa"111H waPxr.—µe Nu u,xWP a rrrvw,E.ua I isl ALTERNATIVE MATERIALS AND METHODS — • ixM n srA�x:a-I«a,Pm AT 11 1f.-m IaAnws,P rmxnaP,re eRE PEr.x PrrRYna+9. --__. �i a9�19 .PPmcxu m,r�.a'I or RED G,RxWr RE,�xP>ror R Rf91W,a.,,K.,a P�xR.mr�P._ I a7 � •-- —— `— ' P�Y.Pr P.PxWP x�mPPw�- �r,�„RWr]sH.PE Mo"�9 i I .P�E� .©ExPWPw�R�E�a� • IM8£NiN FWC PRORmd 9YBrfY LWN1rNB B!'_fk,LL RF WOrn,l6 CN FA'.4 BD2 D,HdlEt'rMt MLL•.CirMr nrCd nM�xxW16ER M%18r 46 E { 6� n -� _ �/.�y�:� • rzE:rv_�',PrI o.eJl.GN1iINO -1xY1 N[WCLL.10 N 1,E ttYa11L'xl[aT cCmc ...- � 'yJ INDIVIDUAL BUILDING INFORMATION i ]EY _ - -- C' Pork "sinzrP- x�m xmWi 7-6 Acres --- 1P PPR P� vP R w — -- I a,Pe rW a zi- --: • Not a Part 1 LEGEND ° —.z aWP�•PR�uxr� �� I � I E] ' — [ I �9 � ... .s a,.�xRE oFx 1..a�xE.R erEorK:YY�9n I>,.Ie wEE�l Fellow p 7 I I II �1{�—I_ _ --- I NOTE XO PAR9gG �' ,. _ :: ' I�!"� _— A• (Y�TTRL CT,,.r�b',a�--7-- rr. I - FtR� AGJE nwfmmlr� .PIl+uxxrLP.wm I� I I I I t I n • 9 , [MRVIFF SIGM � SIGN#3 siilvr,Rl s Rix,GExW.wE 9rY. x Yorktown Avenue. . p s i[,sncr,—M.cafn II nP xxvhR,frc -.-- -. _ _ .. . 4a,A CwExsu m SP.z rcenox .. ....... ...... -.......... - .... .. .„ .. .. ..... ..wm.J .. - ...... .. ................. Canberra Lane — FIRE MASTER PLAN C. ez.e9., ALDEN B: w4r s ssocrnTEs PLANNERS FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE C.5EPointe z652WME ROAD,SLUE e.RVIW,CAsash HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA q.�_} 04915604119 FAX 66 41e m.ts�n+ RECEIVED oar 1 5 Z0Q N w _ s Dept, of Planning -- -- 4 Mlrlmum Setbacks: & iding •1 }5• Minimum Setbacks: �E © =0 BOO A,Front Building Setback:15' ^p RC a� A Front Building Setback: fS B.Front Entry Garage :20' B.Front Entry Garage :20' C.Interior Side Setback :4'-6'and S' I I C.Interior Side Setback :4'-6"and 5' D.Rear First Floor Building Setback D.Rear First Floor Building Setback P-1 :Min.l 1'-9%Max.23'-10" ;Mir.20'4",Max.32'-6" 4-6 E. Rear Second Remr P 1 F, Rear Second Floor Glazing Setback �cO Glazing Setback :23'-10" r-a• :32'-6" a� F.Street Side Setback :Min.6'to �` �� `I F.Street Side Setback Street Right of Way :Min.6'to Street Right of Way c AAo e®scue,one•.r.a ®'sexc ire•=rs i i N� O , -- -I, Minimum Setbacks: Minimum Setbacks: ���© A.Front Building Setback!IS' 4®�" IO A,Front Building Setback;IS' B.Front Entry Garage :20' r. B.Front Entry Garage :20' C.Interior Side Setback :S'and S' I C.interior Side Setback ;5'and S' '"�'" D.Rear First Floor Building Setback c-_- D.Rear First Floor Building Setback P-2 :Min. Max.23'-9" Minimum Setbacks: y P-2 :Min.or Glazing zi g Set back I" s s E. Rear Second Floor Glazing Setback s' E. Rear Second Floor Glazing Setback A.Front Building Setback: I5' :Min.Major Glazing Setback 2I'-5" ` h :Min.Mayor Glazing Setback 29'-1 I" B.Front Entry Garage :20' Q� :Max.Major Gluing Setback 27-2" i J a c :Max.Major Glazing Setback 35'-9" C.Interior Side Setback F.Street Side Setback LI F.Street Side Setback Minimum 10%of Lot width,but g + © :Min.6'to Street Right of Way LO :Min.6'to Street Right of Way not less than 3'and need not exceed 5' (9 except lots>50'wide shall use minimum 10%of the lot width. £"" ''° - `` w "+•'" D.Rear Building Setback : 10' ` F. Rear Second Floor Building Setback :Not Provided p F. Street Side Setback :Min.6,Max.10' - -- Minimum Setbacks: ;• Minimum Setbacks: =0=0b A.Front Building Setback; IS' "E©"C � �© A.Front Building Setback;IS' CJr 13.Front Entry Garage :2U-2" -- B.Front Entry Garage :20'-2" C.Interior Side Setback :Tand 5' C.Interior Side Setback :5'and 5' P 3 D.Rear First Floor Building Setback D,Rear First Roor Building Setback Mln,I 1'-5",Max,22'-5" P-3 :Min.20',Max.31' 's E. Rear Second Floor Glazing Setback e I s, E. Rear Second Floor Glazing Setback ` s :Major Glazing Setback 22'-5" Major Glazing Setback 31' Minor Glazing Setback 1 1'.5" :Minor Glazing Setback 20' F.Street Side Setback I I R Street Side Setback Min.6'to Street Right of Way :Min.a to Street Right of Way Proposed Minimum Proposed Minimum PROPOSED RL District Property Development Standards: Development Standards: BUILDING --I Development Standards Interior lots and Perimeter lots Perimeter lots adjacent SETBACKS Code Section: 210.06 not adjacent to existing homes to existing homes as.l s.la Bitssenian I Woni i w� aAtN17FLSUAF•PLAAXIAA•INtEAlOAA FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE SP.I xn Pon,e s,tee 1 667,120174 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA m " t '- rx M�Wuw REL JED OCI 152012 H - A L A W A D R. I V E Dept. of Planning &Building ® Approximate Minimum Rear Building Setback from property line for existing homes © Mlnimum Rear Building Setback from property line Second Story Primary Windows(Operable Windows) Accessible viewing(i.e.Master Bedroom Window) Second Story Secondary Windows (Minimal/Obstructed Viewing) Not easily accessible(i,a.Master Bath Window) "' a - Second Story Tertiary Windows(High Glass) Z :Non-view window(i.e.High Glass Clerestory Window for dayr Ln 31ght) q IF :First Floor MW:Medium Window q 2F :Second Floor LG :Large Window Z OA aa.a ez- SW Small Window D Door q ----------- 35.6' -I/B' �b,61,. I 40 Y l.' Y—• Y, 80 Egg PH ®' 0 Key Site Map Lot 37- Lot 41 ADJACENT PROPERTY N.ttoS'We WINDOW LOCATIONS - EXISTING TO PROPOSED 07.P9.12 imr► agon ian i Li Pointeua ! FORMER LAMB SCHOOL SITE Sp2•� l„ W rARt•AtANNEAA•INTEIIIAAS _ xas,i ;17 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA ,.°u•.� N ■ Y >`" ���`"�+i�i Sir.Y� ry ija s�p r.- - s r .•Y� Y�r� C�'��Y ul: . (.:. � ',�.. •r+,"Y, :Yf •,/ 's n;l� n � r;k i 6,':."3 e�pt`. - ,�,';;� g4�jy�x ih'?';;R ' I .li•" "-^� .''-_„�`„+�S,.�r 6 �1� {_, 'q.i,riSn'�eis 5 J r .. ,. .i��- ..,_. � =3:1�r. .!.? '� ,,. !t a-_ ,c,7����*:� �, .....: !;^b ,.I �r..P.I.:'€!a �;' C,.r,.,t.:.,. -.r.', ,,..;Fct r' ::: .v ^ "•�.•i+ s 'i� ,ft :::rr >f�� :,¢, :!a.u. �.lu.Y.. ,, x :;,,.:.. a ,e r.S, Ts :.,: .rr�'=ti�s:,� i.5 ✓�Zvr .:� .:!� ,i" .,<F.� .._::, L,.s+,W.ul , I :_J,:,?,::.,-�`FS as2ni .. :.., v r� ?�, arr,'r 1..y,�rx�' ,.. -ec.,t. ✓- „ I I I p:. •.M t��.r:.7}w.+3J `:.. ,.s: J rt�'Kd ki:�t r�{ - .•f> III BBgg��� 11 { Mimi .,.n= �� s ., .::• - •�,. h �' S< H� � .,ram �., _.. :.❑.:]� NO �..W `',:'• is -:;: '...:.. ': pp, f:.;'• -HIM" -:n !a�� :..r"",:;,. r ;+ I� �,.r,...i7 �..� .t ,:,. �.•<�i , „.,.: _. � ..,. ':ts..�. :� 7, I� I S 4 fa � 14, r._,+:'<,a°"MF; ,:;��.� :;-. -r�.xE>e:u$ �I ,yt,y hs�•. ,: � �,� �3 �, a N' A. h U�, � 0 t#,�: ':3 �. .,:,�.'� :.,, ..4:.::!h. »,. _.� +s4. �' �tirf •�'' �:4� I �r 1.-•. Pk{ j, Fs wi,..i...:9 �:.:.� '}.'�9�'.1. ;,�. ..�.� ..q,, 1:��. >_ ;r... 1j ,.l. s w1~r"!a.•n I ._ �. f 4+"s •6? .•'(�,' '_ .:. ..,,.q it iri s§i,,.. r4 , a'✓kE +!t "{ ,. ... ..., .:: r..... _'�I.;,,; °• ,:,aar ,»;I�i �Ii. :r,..�-�t — - .�`n'�����/1� .> .r i.:; �.w• , za:: ::�,.�, � n� t..,i t'�', r-=r ��■.��_. 1=oil ' gill �l1Lr� T..� ■ r• L a'aL 'iLi IGG�� �:fir� y'If� ■i r re� il.T'1•I ��it I� ��, •.- .. • . ifii ■Y 9p 1f�� I•���• a� la 1�1 ��"Y: �• t jE ii�..■�'.���S il•i.■1'��i: I''� I 'tilLlilu" e��iaYll.- r�i.�i�`�i' - �. • • ------------- .aa . ' ' i 1 b i 16 ",� kd ,�ea �� -■It � a IMMOU w �II 1'®� x't.4,=6:�C(�•`m� �a� ,� t���.� �Ikfi� ,�I !�- ���r� i I i. I oil 0 Pip rN • h •Yii F S - n III` I O iN ' ikJj IE��{IT■'I ��L� k�rrt�_+�1i1 I I•Fb1 Id{{f�l �'�' '�i� •�`��I� � LrSJli�Mlii `Ilr,��tll�L�� ;�k it k a r . • ■ • ■ ®tI � i • • r•lisle VIA +7� r;.tfx� ;, ��� ,!I ■h.l! _I ■■'d■ ■ ■ II ■ � 's x ':. a t-„ �.," I ikrIin�t;� L. Ir:'ir 1�E�1"—fl.fi,.■.I,'■. . :■I.IZ I■I• I� r,,.�..- '.cn a �y,t r °ar�' wr":'_. � r �, s f f F�' q �,,tU � r z Fy:�`,a NE ma i •�', _., — 1.T ! 1 :s o-( .n,;,, ffib x 4 w savx4b.a. v LL ■ .P 7g ¢ A 1I, 41 h�,.a + z' -k rj -i mr e r ?,•. �41 r II_ wtT.... 't r ,,;.a f ra ;III�al .,rll�■ i' .• ;` I� ��' I' ;-■.i It� �. i .�;' 1�h�:' 4t€�r l+y�i -; � ;' Y°:a,.;:'' lXr !�;•� n -€.,',x ' jL r r xv::; _ E aj .. r+ ■�.r [[��a11a JJ _i,y�11ag I �} •1 wrrfR ,rJ } „rt , t ..,;., s s f d,� •��� I I M : �. �'. •i? a t :.,v d s .n�'s P dw3u+•.L+ j (. a I '. '�111■■si 6 �!�� 1 r.C,I�_I ��� I •-a��, '�� 9b�' �s� .. .... I■ Qe�E�ItYrr�I 3� t � i r' r �, i Ir� r-a-I ■F_■�1II'■�I■�'■.� q' �-�tk t � xh�� 1 1 Z t Y r r' * r 1 i "�w — -• —— - -- .fin.■ 5 - rld •� t•=��!iru��V�*1Jtal .i � .�Y '7y�.�! � ,t riv �,:- , 7 ��' _. :s•--'� !f, ,-' -:Y , -r. x �.w•� II=� ■. - - - - _~I "+ F' ,Tl?31r �5 y 1 t�rf� t� � ■d■ 1 rd �7� '+✓ � S a ���,� 1<r-•'�+^H-"""t' +::''z: 1� '-: ■. ��:i ii°.0�ii■ ■ a. r■E■'^rl■7 � i;J ;.t ,.. t ,;.;�r _'. t. , .Ry�.4 .�'. rsf� � l, �r :r �lsst �ry�s :yr} Eh,�u'.■ ��u,�■���.■y.,. .�I, 'ixe� rs �_.t'.:..�� 1r-1{� ;,:.., -. ....,�. -.;_u _._.. S�V +, 2, i {,![_J <"■i - 1 t 1 '.■1 ! T'. .:, - ..k,i: ». tir,��e^. t ;.rr'� '�t.r r„'ryt?YY'Y{�Y 1 a 'J'" ,w-, .:;� Y+ � 1 .�_ ,ir■Z L:1 ' ,.t'�?�:� ,.,. .,. f. ;:�..r 'f'e� !s f '.o :,� :�■ �y„ +..•'.�A la S t !rya .) "2"" r#o-::N Yk I, 4 I�I� �.-.__ ,'■LGI L• yGE I ..' ...Xw: +ry. zxt,.A .;,, ,s+:..,. ..ar...•..: . .` d- „:r,t� ...Y' I,ag + r : n6t l:' i:i r.^'Y� Sr{� 1■�� wT ill .TII�: �� 1 .T■,�j �wT Fi.; �.■ -1,s,r,+: u :#...r••i.a,:_ a ,;.:;:. rt.., +r ) ed6 _- E att�?}''�..r"' .'t �* y t'.,it s5 2.� �'..i r ! 1 -7 01. 1■a lam . i■T`.�.i k� ;...: �','I �:.r-� ..Mr�tr.AeFe st -. , .;' M.' y r r � Ijia"� j ��Ta f_ Yr� `• 7 rCs, tat4^k._;{`S4t'E# Ft! 4'?}�a'+ °,v, : + $ �' 'l._ r rz; TU1S -'m F: ,r a.x. 'r ICI.■, ,ii �:i- �:, 'I t' .rt.6•n Cu',3 1 F-"r,a.w- •:r r < +✓..'FR I-. � lail I': ` el�� '; � ,q�,F i p, 1..:ws;C 1.. ,: x _ ':P�' - f - p-azrze r 't`e r ":as ;.+F;3 NaY•( `t€.,-y:. .■1 it :. I a �t ' ,,. � �.._ :i '14e{/, ds;; ., ��.+� I .,�.:: ;s: ,. .:,, ;Eiar"' -,,. I. ,.:#� - 7•'`""'�iv�'z v�i`�x-r� +'.�.,.t. }T..,v'f r a. x/7t a1dy�e3l 3.r.y': h-, t- I!r F•:7 i i�■ .��'.�`'-ll I; ..iA � � r , "5i� er... ..'� �..i ��y�k L I��+ �,,y.1s k;�;x. T 4t r.t a.�. t t +,i(• I���� tl.l•, ■ ,5 �� �l ,W�`J�,' ��'�+rx .�^z•,�' � ayta re;Ysl�(na n;�„ ,p> r/ t#,, ,.� r I r-1����17I �. '" ,.� s. v.,.: s -� t :s .t'�... I�,l+li''�'�`�� c�,'-Is'�a`�s,rfi�' yr �'b�ti�7.�I;•+2 � dr i=x 3.�R�11} .�„�' t � ---.-._-.._'___^---' . -■��] � t �. ..,f t 1 y,t• ...� x, r :...'.s :. S.y ,w a S i .,.,� aq d(fi n �f rr` ,'•"�z a lr•-}.° - +�6sF t� .. a. , �. p ■■ i I. ■, ■ -_�Y� .::.s; Ev'8: R 5_ r1:'`•,z!'.z:r. ,, .._, , .,,y ,.,.. 13` ._, x..,. ., ^51 t u .au. 7 m.eY r. ..,..:rM'.t. r.;5^ y ff:.ter. o-1'' 'r �V��■ ■ ■ G 1 - - t _k'�+ r f F' d.`L':ri,f;� w:uK r 34,.:,}l ✓;'J7 � Y' rP! :Y x�' �;� 'Gl •`�t.nt.� 1 °.I F t .;-i. �'. �+ �■ � 5 ���' -�i�,'.1 `�,�}'. �� 2 � ! sd,..:-.t`'H � � '. ,��4� ,�����y4{'G E�h�5� s�.'r,'i` {q=r :tr,.( x •,�,°tA-r _:. o. fay, ..:� 1 r. r .,.....s.-:-.;.u.�.:�::=.;= ::r. _...... ,,lea. ,..: a.•ai`�1..,.':., ry ,�.'..:.,... ,:.:.`.e s,??r i.:°.7r� .1u&w ` I:r '4 h s�ro j 1„• a• - d9 ■y!'�_r wl� '■`.r:1E�w�e�t��7'�� 66�u.�..'�. 1 rl�� ■.'I _ I���■��a■■I�� I�'1_ r r- �, a,.:: �rY �s,�.•n r �'k :.:R � s§ s�,.e.,'. �V��'-I� . ■:` • ■d rll■ �: : r K2 t ,;,r�# �,rf. �p�" tC� ti 4 w t d I �"� I sla ■ ■ J�YI■i"I_� �1�■1 f1l�i '•I �°i3'"•{ r=1�li,.� 7''. ''� .�!. >•. u:� S r Srl -i h , { ) 1 b �.... IIwl1�.- I� rG I ;�itG I J 5'S'i"r'fTMr�' . a.s x x ms• -< ..yam +T C��rI ■1�1 i'1 Lei � s7isr'r ��!}ti ,rh / -� � a � y- � � §� ...a � v F I NO e S r■�` 1 �I �� i-I tdt 4 .J 1 ,t jF Cc, `,• J!� 'i t I� NO j 1�■ �a+�'II�■•I f i1��7�7 R"�t r�.i' r,"e"F Yqt� _, I 1 ?.�"Pf � z ,i s , '�3 � e N . 1..., � IYP 11 'i ■_i ! 1 li 1'i- _� �i 1,1J .s:r' R; yr"�A�:.; '<I, - t' aF*: r* z 'x `? t �4r!'�"f`i� t . . � a 4 �� .+{.■,.n la■ .■�,�r�+i +��(��1�: ,s ` 'i,'.r r w,�" �� y �° r s� 9�fr���1 ', q•mt �t FP �4; l�I ATTACHMENT #5 ® City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street # Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ® www.huntingtonbeachca.gov s fB•I1,1999,a°• ® Office of the City Clerk ® Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Public Works Commission Decision or Police Department Decision/Action Date: October 25, 2012 To: Planning and Building Department City Attorney City Council Office Administration Public Works Department Police Department (only if Police related item) Filed by: Mayor Pro Tern Devin Dwyer Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13,Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 (Lamb Residential Subdivision) Date for Public Hearing: TBD Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: none Completed by: Rebecca Ross,Senior Deputy City Clerk IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE-HEARING ADVERTISING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE *FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ® Waitakere, New Zealand HB -1519- Item 23. - 66 HA,j CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 3City Council Interoffice Communication TO: Joan Flynn, City Clerk r I FROM: Devin Dwyer, Mayor Pro Tem�., DATE: October 25, 2012 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238, AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26 (LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08- 13, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No..08-26 for the development of a planned unit development consisting of 81 single family residences. The Planning Commission approved these entitlements with findings and conditions of approval on October 23, 2012. The reason for my appeal is to enable the Council to review the proposed development entitlements concurrent with the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05. Pursuant to Section 248.18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Chair and Planning Commission Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Fred A.Wilson, City Manager Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager Jane James,Senior Planner Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Kim DeCoite,Administrative Assistant �a 0 c� N UI Item 23. - 67 HB -1520- ATTACHMENT #6 Existing General Plan Land Use Element Designation =FT I',"" Wal ............. ................ ......................................... ....... .......Kamuela Dr. ......................... IM, r777T77---';V 2' fx, 7 19 k D.r. . ........ ................................... ——---------------------------------------- ...................... -a IM M I "J d AIN " em zSwo qm O --:11 M L, gyht sp Mill LA LO'L pp" ME S, ..................................... Yorktown-Me, "M-A, 'Ok ................. Forrestal Dt,. 1 9 4 N 'k 00 Legend P(RL): Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density RL-7: Residential Low Density— 7 dwelling units/acre HB -1521- Item 23. - 68 Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Designation VP EA _.. .......TGm ela D.r.... ­.- .............. aI _4 � \o ` ` 1 7 ",10 \ s o _-_ Halawa Dr. .... 3 W Ml "low SO MOP JIT F1,11111 y y \ 3 `NI Ca NO � E\ AAAFFF \ \ Ti i �i i M \\ NO \ \ \\ ad 1 or to-W - Mw o C s 21"l-f Legend P(RL): Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density RL-7: Residential Low Density — 7 dwelling units/acre Item 23. - 69 HB -1522- ATTACHMENT #7 Existing Zoning Designation M ebbu• ,: E ... KanWa Dr. . ......... Halawa Dr.. , ` a.\ no EL �sLL 0 s F: 777 NO, i c. ' p All .Forrestal Dr, " Iortit 5_ e Legend PS: Public - Semipublic RL: Residential Low Density HB -1523- Item 23. - 9 Proposed Zoning Designation ......—------- I PI AM A' 0 ''Ma OPINION LL Kwnuela Dr... ................. "WIT I INOWN ...... .. ..................................................... ................ Halawa Dr. 'A v qgvv" "S"Ri MR all, W—A a W '777-777- A m Mkv� % IL M Z 0 NMI RL Na"'! IN "Q, j,' P' 'Mm"',AN NIII — 8 S'' j 07 SO M �d a k T 41, _T _61-0 -- -forrestal Dr__ .... ............. Moo v M ASK, _3 Affl%�W' 71 Legend PS: Public - Semipublic RL: Residential Low Density Item 23. - T KB -1524- ATTAC H M E N T #8------Jl Existing Land Uses r ,w s d 3 ,ff r Y z2��, t "';_, �►Apr � i�-' ,y�y.,.-.-' ,s„�. , � t ,�a• � � 'r.,�`� .. �••� �she fib. sr., C } yky h r r � �• a �^ 4 � ;`o-_� � � :£„ a' za.. `tea` r� «�^ �,s Rd '�f^"� �J" rs;.�:."� � ��,.�' 'c�"f�'�+�"` maxi n `1�'x����•�., t+c�� N w z �^ k HB -1 s2s- Item 23. - 2 ATTACHMENT #9 �ngtc�m � eF��� xa��nnn ry �I r rF r i 1 r Fi • P' Y TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP,Director of Planning and Building BY: Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner CKf �V DATE: October 23, 2012 SUBJECT: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-05, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26 (LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION) APPLICANTS:Michael Adams, Michael C. Adams Associates, P.O. Box 382, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Thomas Grable, Tri Pointe Homes, LLC, 19520 Jamboree Road, Suite No. 200, Irvine, CA 92612 PROPERTY OWNER: Fountain Valley School District, Stephen L. McMahon — Assistant Superintendent, 10055 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 LOCATION: 10251 Yorktown Avenue, 92646 (north side of Yorktown Avenue, east of Brookhurst Street) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: o Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project o General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 represents a request to amend the existing Land Use Element designation of an approximately 11.65-acre former school site from P-RL to RL-7. o Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 represents a request to amend the existing zoning designation of an approximately 11.65-acre former school site from PS to RL to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element. e Tentative Tract Map No_ 17238 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 represents a request for the following: - To subdivide approximately 11.65 acres of the subject property to accommodate 81 numbered lots with reduced lot sizes for new detached single-family homes and eight lettered lots A-H for streets with reduced widths, landscaping areas, and storm drain facilities. Item 23. - 3 HB -1526- #B-3 i MENNEN ME ONE r INNS \ ,� 1IEEE SEEM N's- m- - Via13 M . '�� -_ , == :. _ z SE@ VICINITY MAP MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13,GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-05,ZONING1 ! 08-05,TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1 : RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONI O' O` P • * Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 Continued: - To permit the development of a 81 unit single-family subdivision proposed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD) with varying lots sizes (min. 3,659 square feet, max. 6,695 square feet) that average approximately 3,600 square feet (45 feet wide by 80 feet deep) and associated infrastructure and site improvements, including mutual public benefits that include offsite storm drain and park improvements. - To analyze the proposed residences for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout. * Staff s Recommendation: Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 based upon the following: - The project, with incorporation of mitigation measures, will not have significant adverse impacts on the environment. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 based upon the following. -- Consistent with surrounding zoning and land use designations. - Not result in the loss of an existing or planned recreational resource. - Provide for the creation of new housing units in the City. - Provide compatible zoning and General Plan land use designations. - With exception of the proposed residential lot sizes, complies with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). Compatible with other residential uses surrounding the project site with respect to density, setbacks, onsite parking, and architecture. Meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and has been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee for compliance. Contributes to the City's housing stock, including affordable housing as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. Developed as a PUD and provide mutual public benefits, including: o Development of a 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property with a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot "tot play areas", half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas; o Payment of the Quimby Act's In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee, in conjunction with construction of park improvements; o Allowing park patrons to park on the tract's private streets; o Storm drain improvements, including construction of a 2,080 linear feet of storm drain; and o Establishment of a green building program. Item 23. - 5Ceport 10/23/12 HB -1528 12sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 by approving draft City Council Resolution No. (Attachment No. 7) and forward to the City Council for adoption;" C. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 with findings (Attachment No. 1) by approving draft City Council Ordinance No. (Attachment No. 8)and forward to the City Council for adoption;" D. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1);" E. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 and direct staff accordingly." PROTECT PROPOSAL: Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 represents a request to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the project pursuant to Section 240.04, Environmental Review, of the HBZSO and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 represents a request to amend the existing Land Use Element designation of an approximately 11.65-acre site from P-RL to RL-7, which allows a maximum density of seven residential units per net acre. Zoning Man Amendment No. 08-05 represents a request to amend the existing zoning designation of an approximately 11.657acre site from PS to RL to be consistent with the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation pursuant to Chapter 247,Amendments of the HBZSO. PC Staff Report 10/23/12 HB -1529- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Item 23. - 6 Tentative Tract Man No. 17238/Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 represents a request for the following. A. To subdivide an approximately 11.65-acre site to accommodate 81 numbered lots with reduced lot sizes for new-detached single-family homes and eight lettered lots A-H for streets with reduced widths, landscaping areas, and storm drain facilities pursuant to Chapter 250, General Provisions of the HBZSO. B_ To permit the development of a 81 unit single-family subdivision proposed as a PUD with varying lots sizes (min. 3,659 square feet, max. 6,695 square feet) that average approximately 3,600 square feet (45 feet wide by 80 feet deep) in lieu of the minimum 6,000 square feet and 60 feet wide standard for RL lots, and associated infrastructure and site improvements, including mutual public benefits that include offsite storm drain and park improvements pursuant to Section 210.04, RL, RM, RMH, RH, and RMP Districts: Land Use Controls, Residential Uses, and Section 210.12, Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions of the HBZSO. The request includes a review and analysis for compliance with the Infill Lot Ordinance. The Infill Lot Ordinance encourages adjacent property owners to review proposed development for compatibility/privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout pursuant to Section 230.22, Residential Infill Lot Developments of the HBZSO. Planned Unit Development The project will be developed as a PUD because it proposes 79 residential lot sizes that are less than the minimum lot size requirement of 6,000 square feet of the Residential Low Density(RL) zoning standards while two proposed lots exceed 6,000 feet. PUDs allow for flexibility in development standards to encourage innovative land use development that achieves quality site planning, design, and aesthetically pleasing environments through architecture and landscape improvements. Interior lot sizes range from 3,659 to 6,695 square feet and perimeter lots (adjacent to existing homes) range in size from 4,078 to 6,299 square feet. The code minimum is 6,000 square feet. Although the request is for small lots, the project has been designed to exceed the minimum 10-foot rear building setbacks for the proposed perimeter lots (i.e., lots 9 through 41) that are adjacent to existing homes directly to the north, east and west of the project site. The proposed dwelling units will range in size from 2,400 square feet to 2,900 square feet. The proposed units are two-story with a maximum height of 28 feet 3 inches. Each unit will feature a four bedroom layout that includes a two-car enclosed garage and two-car driveway. The streets within the project will be privately owned and maintained and will feature a standard 40-foot wide curb-to-curb interior street section at the primary entrance into the tract and a reduced 36-foot wide section for the interior streets. The street sections will be designed with a four foot wide sidewalk and a six foot wide parkway on each street side. On-street parking will be provided within the tract to accommodate approximately 118 vehicles. An established homeowners association will privately maintain all streets, landscaping, and ofsite storm drain facilities. Item 23,--'Report 10/23/12 HB _1530- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision Public Benefits In accordance with Section 210.12 —Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions of the HBZSO, the project shall provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the project as well as the general public. The applicant is proposing the following public benefits that exceed the minimum code requirements for a residential subdivision: o Development of a 2.6-acre undeveloped public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property the project developer. The park improvements will include a multi-use practice field,two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. Furthermore the project developer will pay the Quimby Act's In-Lieu Parkland Dedication Fee in full pursuant to the recently adopted resolution by the City Council. The public park improvements and payment of a parkland in-lieu fee exceed the City requirements. o Allowance for the general public to utilize the approximately 118 on-street parking spaces within the private streets of the development. Language will be placed into the project CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to utilize on street parking within the development. o Incorporation of green building strategies into the construction of the residential units that meet all mandatory measures of the State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code, including providing energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards. o Construction of a new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that gill run for approximately 2,080 linear feet to Kamuela Drive. The proposed public benefits exceed standard City requirements and improvements for a standard residential subdivision. Affordable Housing Affordable housing is required to be provided as part of the proposed project. The project developer, Tri Pointe Homes, is proposing to provide the required 8.1 affordable units at an offsite location that will be under the full control of Tri Pointe Homes or another City approved entity. Tri Pointe Homes may consider new construction or substantial rehabilitation (as defined by Government Code Section 33413 affordable housing production requirements) of existing non-restricted units with the condition that upon completion of the rehabilitation the units become restricted to long-term affordability in compliance with City requirements. Background The Lamb School site, totaling 12.4 acres, is owned by Fountain Valley School District (FVSD). On March 22, 2005, the FVSD notified the City of its intention to surplus Lamb Elementary School. Resolution No. 2005-38 was adopted by the City Council on May 16, 2005 and notified the FVSD of the PC Staff Report 10/23/12 HB -15 31- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Su Item 23. - 9 City's intention to negotiate the acquisition of the Wardlow and Lamb Schools site pursuant to the Naylor Act. A Surplus School Property Purchasing Plan, approved by the City Council on May 2, 2005, identified the need to acquire 8.6 acres at Wardlow School. Under the Naylor Act, the City was allowed to purchase the acreage at 25 percent of market value but was limited to purchasing a maximum of 30% of the School District's approximately 28.6-acre property (total size of Wardlow and Lamb). Therefore, the City's maximum allowable purchase for recreational purposes equates to a total of 8.6 acres. Through further negotiations with FVSD the City ultimately acquired 6 acres at Wardlow School and 2.6 acres at Lamb School. The 2.6-acre acquisition of the total 15-acre Lamb School entailed field area and a portion of the southwesterly portion of the school parking lot. Study Session: The Planning Commission held a study session for the project on September 11, 2012, and discussed the following issues: • Open Space Commissioner Ryan requested clarification over the perceived loss of open space for the proposed residential development. The existing Lamb School site, which measures approximately 15 acres, is designated with a General Plan Land Use Element designation of Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P-RL) and zoning designation of Public-Semipublic (PS). Although the closed school site contains recreational opportunities such as playing courts and open green space, the site is not designated as open space. Therefore, the project development will not result in a loss of designated open space. • Anticipated Truck Trips During Grading Walden and Associates provided a break down of the total net import of soil required for the proposed project (Attachment No. 13). During onsite grading, a majority of the soil anticipated to be transported will result from shifting existing onsite soil rather than the direct import of new soil. The import of new soil will equate to approximately 4,400 net cubic yards. This will result in approximately 315 traffic trips as the standard tipper truck is capable of hauling approximately 14 cubic yards of soil. Over the course of site grading, which would be approximately 23 days, the number of traffic trips for soil transport will result in an average of 14 truck trips per day. The Department of Public Works has evaluated the earth moving quantities represented by Walden and Associates and supports their stance on the net import quantities provided. • Detention Basin/Drainage The proposed detention basin proposed within Lamb Park is required to address the development's own drainage and detention requirements and to mitigate impacts to the downstream public storm drain system. Consequently, it was conveyed by City staff at the Planning Commission study session that the Public Works Department will require that the project HOA maintain the detention basin as a suggested condition of approval. However, after further consideration, HOA maintenance will not be required because the applicant has provided sufficient information to show that the physical improvements of the detention system are minor in nature and typical of those maintained by city crews at other public parks. Item ' -u9`eport 10/23/12 HB -1532" . —L I2sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision ® Park Improvements The proposed project includes improvements to the adjacent Lamb Park as part of the mutual public benefits required for the development of a PUD. The park improvements will include a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. These improvements to the existing park will not require any further zoning review or entitlements. The Huntington Beach Community Services Commission reviewed the proposed improvements at their August 8, 2012, meeting and unanimously approved the improvements as proposed. The proposed improvements are considered to be approved by the City unless significant modifications are made which may require additional review by the Community Services Commission. ® Measure C Commissioner Bixby expressed concerns as to whether the proposed park improvements associated with the PUD's public benefits would require a public vote pursuant to Measure C. In discussions with the City Attorney's Office, staff has received preliminary verbal confirmation that Measure C is not applicable in this circumstance. Staff is awaiting a formal written opinion. ISSUES Subject Property And Surroun ding Land Use Zon i!!X And General Plan Desigm ations: I3 "I III GI � AIs Pl ��NTl�1G_ �Al K ry 1 i Jyr oil _,_.;:-: Subject Property: P-RL(Public with an PS (Public-Semipublic) Former Lamb underlying designation of Elementary School Residential Low Density) North, South (across RL-7 (Residential Low RL(Residential Low Single-family Yorktown Avenue), Density--7 du/ac) Density) residential East, and West of Subject Pro erty: General Plan Conformance: In addition to the request to subdivide and construct 81 new detached single-family homes on the approximately 11.65-acre site, the project applicant is proposing to amend the General Plan Land Use Element designation of P-RL to RL-7 and the zoning land use designation from PS to RL. The proposed tentative tract map and conditional use permit are consistent with these designations and the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan as amended pursuant to General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 as follows: HB -1533- Item 23. - PC Staff Report 10/23/12 6 12sr43—Lamb Residential auvuivnauii A. Land Use Element Goal L U 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. There will be improvements made in conjunction with the project including private streets, storm drainage improvements and flood control protection to ensure that the development is adequately served with infrastructure. Policy LU 9.2.1: Require that all new residential development within existing residential neighborhoods (i.e., infill) be compatible with existing structures, including the use of complimentary building materials, colors, and forms, while allowing flexibility for unique design solutions and maintenance of privacy on abutting residences. The proposed homes are compatible with existing homes in the area in terms of style, materials, and colors. They are well articulated and will have enhanced architectural elevations along street frontages. Although all the proposed homes will be two-story and, in some cases, taller than the homes located to the north of the site, there will be increased rear setbacks of a minimum 20 feet (twice the minimum distance of ten feet permitted within the RL zoning district) and greater second floor setbacks that will alleviate potential privacy intrusions onto existing residences. Furthermore, the proposed placement of the windows will avoid direct views onto existing residential properties. Policy L U 9.3.2: Require that residential subdivisions consider reduced street widths to achieve a more "intimate" relationship between structures, to the extent feasible and in accordance with the Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. The width of the streets for the proposed subdivision is 40 feet and 36 feet(curb face-to-curb face) and meet the minimum allowed with an approved Fire Master Plan by the Fire Department. The street width is in scale with the proposed residential units and creates a relationship between the scale and. architecture of adjacent structures. The buildings will include fire sprinklers and the development will include increased fire protection measures. B. Housing Element Policy H2.4: Utilize surplus school and park sites for residential use where appropriate and consistent with the City's General Plan. The project will result in development of a residential PUD on a vacant school site and contributes to the City's housing stock. The project includes an affordable housing provision as required by existing City requirements, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals. Policy H 3.6: Encourage use of sustainable and green building design in new and existing housing. Item 23_� Tleport 1.0/23/12 HB -1534- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision The project is proposing the incorporation of green building strategies into the construction of the buildings that will meet all mandatory measures of State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code, including providing energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards. C. Circulation Element Obiective CE 5.1: Balance the supply of parking with the demand for parking. The project proposes to construct an approximately 31 space public parking lot in conjunction with the proposed park improvements to the unimproved 2.6-acre park located at the southwesterly portion of the site. Additionally, the project will provide 118 additional on-street parking spaces. Appropriate wording will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. The parking demands that would he generated by the proposed residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets. The construction of the 31-space public parking lot and allowance for public on-street parking within the project will address parking within the neighboring area. D. Utilities Element Policy U 3.1.1: Maintain existing public storm drains and flood control facilities upgrade and expand storm drain and flood control facilities_ A new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that will run for approximately 2,080 linear feet will run to Kamuela Drive. The proposed installation of the storm drain will provide an upgrade to the City's storm drain system above the minimum requirements for a standard residential subdivision. E. Recreation and Community Services Element Objective 4.1: Improve and modernize existing parks and facilities to overcome existing design deficiencies and deteriorated conditions. The project proposes to develop a 2.6-acre public park located at the southwest corner of the subject property. The park improvements include a multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot, irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. The project will upgrade and modernize the site with a fully functional park containing the latest in park equipment.and infrastructure. In addition the project will he required to pay full Park Land In-Lieu fees required for the new 81 residential units pursuant to the Quimby Act. PC Staff Report 10/23/12 11B -1.535- 12sr43—Lamb Residential;Item 23. - 8 Zoning Compliance: The proposed project will comply with the requirements of the RL zoning district with exceptions that are proposed as part of the PUD design for the project. These exceptions include deviations to minimum. lot width and size requirements and are permissible with development of a PUD pursuant to the HBZSO. The proposed project complies with all other requirements of the HBZSO including regulations pertaining to subdivisions. Attachment No. 6 is a zoning conformance matrix that compares the proposed project with the development standards of the RL zoning and other applicable code requirements. Urban Desiyi Guidelines Conformance: The Huntington Beach Urban Design Guidelines contains guidelines specific to single-family residential development. The project generally conforms to the objectives and standards contained in the Guidelines. The project complies with general design objectives providing high quality architectural and landscape design in massing and scale with existing residential developments surrounding the project site. The project proposes to incorporate several guidelines for building siting/lot design including varied building offsets and varied building design. In terms of building design, the project is proposing to provide three different floor plans with nine variations of three architectural styles that include Spanish, Monterey, and Beach Cottage. The project is proposing "high-quality" architecture as encouraged by the design guidelines. Articulation and architectural details are proposed on all four sides of each home. In addition, the project is proposing enhanced window and door treatments, contrasting building materials, fagade breaks, upper story offsets, a mix of hip and gable roofs and vertical and horizontal roof articulation. The new private residential streets serving the project will connect with Yorktown Avenue to form a continuous neighborhood network of streets. The proposed subdivision is not proposed to be gated. The new sidewalks and parkway will be visually attractive with well-defined landscaping and use of enhanced decorative crossings provided throughout the development. Sidewalks will be four feet wide and separated from the streets by six feet landscaped parkways. The new sidewalks will connect with the existing sidewalks on Yorktown Avenue to provide pedestrian connectivity with the existing neighborhood and walkability within the project. Environmental Status: On August 14, 2012, the Environmental Assessment Committee (EAC) approved the processing of a mitigated negative declaration for the project. Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined the project would not have significant environmental impacts with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures that were identified for potential impacts to biological resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, hazards and hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance. Subsequently, draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-12 (Attachment No. 5) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of CEQA with the following key reports_ Item 23. - &pol 10/23/12 HB -1536- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision 1) 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at Lamb School Site prepared by Garland Associates (May 2012). 2) 2012 Water Quality Management Plan for the Lamb School Site Residential Development prepared by Walden and Associates(May 11, 2012). 3) 2012 Preliminary Hydrology Study for Lamb School Site Residential. Development prepared by Walden and Associates (May 2012). 4) 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary on Existing Documents, Lamb School Site Project prepared by Petra(February 28, 2012). 5) 2011 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report 10251 Yorktown Avenue, Huntington Beach, California prepared by Phase One Inc. (May 2011). 6) 2012 Noise Analysis for the Proposed Project prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. 7) 2012 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the Proposed Project prepared by Michael Brandman Associates. 8) 2012 Asbestos and Lead Survey Report for the Lamb Elementary School Site prepared by Focus Environmental Consulting, LLC (March 30, 2012), The Planning and Building Department advertised draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-12 for a 20-day public comment period commencing on August 23, 2012 and concluding on September 12, 2012. Written comments were received from: 17 interested parties with concerns in the areas of public services (i.e., parks), traffic, land use, cultural resources and biological resources. Staff has prepared a response to comments received and has included them with the attached draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment No. 5). Environmental Board Comments_ The Environmental Board submitted a letter (included in Attachment No. 5) during the initial comment period for the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). While the Environmental Board's letter did not raise major environmental issues to the draft MND, the letter expresses concern that the project will substantially impact the nature of the neighborhood. The following items are issues raised within the board's public comment letter: • Project density is not suitable for the project area; • Project benefits are not mutually beneficial to the general public to justify deviations from RL zoning standards for minimum parcel size and lot width, and • Insufficient analysis in determining the project's overall impacts, including economic impact onto surrounding residences. Staff does not concur with the Environmental Board's assessment that the project density is not suitable for the project area as it will continue an existing designation presently located within the surrounding area_ Staff believes that the PUD's variation in lot sizes allows fosters greater quality in site planning and design that provides for an aesthetically pleasing environment with enhanced connectivity/walkability to the existing neighborhood and greater community interaction with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, the proposed project is found to be compatible with the character of the neighborhood and PC Staff Report 10/23/12 HB__1537 12sr43—Lamb Residential Item 23. - 4 exceeds the design features found for a typical residential subdivision. Additional responses to the Environmental Board's comments are provided in the MND Response to Comments (Attachment No. 5). The project's environmental analysis is determined to be an adequate assessment of the potential environmental impacts associated with the project. Staff believes that the MND does not require any further environmental analysis. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13. Staff in its initial study of the project is recommending that the MND be approved with findings and mitigation measures. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Desizn Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: The proposed tentative tract map was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on July 11, 2012. Staff presented the proposed subdivision including the street patterns within the tract as well as access to the development, and the layout of the single family residential lots. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the recommended conditions of approval for the tentative map from the Planning and Building Department, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. The Subdivision Committee recommended unanimous approval of the proposed project to the Planning Commission subject to minor modifications that the applicant has incorporated into the project. They included slight increases in the right-of-way widths and adherence to the City's vehicular/pedestrian visibility requirements. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services and Planning and Building have reviewed the proposed development project. Recommended conditions from the Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Planning and Building are incorporated into the suggested conditions of approval and code requirements have also been identified. The other departments did not identify any necessary conditions of approval. Public Notifteation: For the October 23, 2012, public hearing, legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on October 11, 2012, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 1,000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning and Building Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, interested parties and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental documents. As of October 16, 2012, there have been several written communications received opposing the proposed PUD development project including a petition of opposition (Attachment Nos. 5 & 12). Item 23V tport 10/23/12 HB_-1538 12sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): a Draft MND; General Plan Amendment; Zoning Draft MND: Within 180 days of complete Map Amendment; Tentative Tract Map; application—December 11,2012 Conditional Use Permit: June 15, 2012 TTM: Within 50 days of adoption of MND — November 27,2012 CUP: Within 60 days of adoption of MND — December 7, 2012 GPA/ZMA:Not applicable. ANALYSIS: The primary issues identified below are the amendments to the General Plan Land Use Element and Zoning Map; the land use design and compatibility of the proposed 81-unit single-family subdivision development with the surrounding properties; and the proposed public benefits associated with the request to construct the project as a Planned Unit Development. General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan. Land Use designation is Residential. Low Density(RL), which allows for single- family residential units including clustered zero-lot line developments at a maximum density of seven dwelling units per acre. The amendment of the land use designation is consistent with the existing density and uses in the vicinity of the project site. The subject site is surrounded by single-family neighborhoods (max. 7 du/ac) with detached residential units to the north, residential uses to the south across Yorktown Avenue, residential uses to the east across, and residential uses to the west(See Attachment No. 11). The proposed land use designation will continue an existing designation presently located within the surrounding area. Staff believes the proposed land use designation and project will be consistent with the goals, polices, and objectives of the Land Use, Housing, Circulation, and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan by contributing to the City's housing stock, including affordable housing, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals while being designed to maintain the existing character of the surrounding residential neighbors by providing a land use that is compatible and harmonious with the surrounding development, and enhances the image and quality of life in the environment. The proposed project will not conflict with the identified goals, policies, and objective contained in the General Plan and with implementation of identified mitigation measures will not have a negative impact on the enviror nent. Staff recommends approval of the General Plan Land Use designation amendment request to Residential Low Density. PC Staff Report 10/23/12 HB -1539- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Item 23. - 6 Zoning Map Amendment The proposed zoning designation for the subject site is Residential Low Density (RL). This designation permits single-family residential land use in neighborhoods. Development standards permit a minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet, minimum lot width of 60 feet, maximum building height of 35 feet, and maximum lot coverage of 50 percent. Additional requirements are identified in Chapter 210, Residential Districts_ Properties to the north, south and east are zoned and developed with single-family residential uses. The proposed zoning reap amendment to RL would be compatible with existing zoning designations surrounding the project site as well as the proposed General Plan Land Use Element designation. The amendment of the zoning designation for the subject site from Public-Semipublic to Residential Low Density implements the proposed General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Low Density. Staff believes the residential designation is the appropriate zoning for the site because it provides a continuation of a compatible zoning designation that allows for single-family neighborhoods with detached single-family residences that continues the single-family residential character of the surrounding area. The proposed zoning permits development to be compatible in density, design, layout, and character to the adjacent single-family residential uses. Staff recommends approval of the zoning map amendment to Residential Low Density. Tentative Map/Site Layout/Compatibility Staff believes the proposed detached single family residential subdivision/development will be compatible with the surrounding single family residential uses in terms of density, layout and overall design. The proposed density for the project is 6.9 units per net acre (6.5 units/gross acre) which is compatible with the maximum permitted density of 7 units per net acre for the RL zone and within the surrounding single- family area that is developed at a density of approximately 4.7 dwelling units per acre(gross). The layout of the development is compatible with the neighborhood because it is designed as detached single-family residential neighborhood containing streets, parkways, and detached residences. A 40 feet wide street will provide the main access point into the development which will be reduced to 36 feet for all internal streets. Four foot wide sidewalks and six foot wide landscaped parkways will be provided on each side of the street throughout the development, including enhanced pedestrian crossings situated throughout the development. On-street parking will be provided on both sides of the street. The proposed layout is designed to serve as a walk able community that harnesses greater community interaction. The project proposes several parkway canopy street trees along the internal streets within the proposed project and a 10-foot wide enhanced landscape planter along Yorktown Avenue to match the existing neighborhood while visually softening the streetscape. Neighborhood signage will be located at the project entrance off Yorktown Avenue. The project proposes residential lot sizes that are less than the minimum parcel size of 6,000 square feet and the minimum lot width of 60 feet for RL zoning standards. With the interior lot sizes ranging from 3,659 to 6,695 square feet and perimeter lots (adjacent to existing homes) ranging in size from 4,079 to 6,299 square feet, the project can provide enhanced landscape belts and parkways with sidewalks. The Item 23.-Aepprt 10/23/12 HB -1540- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision variation in lot sizes allows for flexibility in development standards that provides an innovative land use development that achieves quality site planning and design, an aesthetically pleasing environment, enhanced connectivity/walkability to the existing neighborhood street system, and greater community interaction with the surrounding neighborhood. Although the variation in lot sizes creates flexibility in development, the proposed sitting of the proposed single family homes comply with all development standards for RL development and provides a design that visually emulates the neighborhood with similar building orientations (i.e., rear yards abutting rear yards and front yards facing front yards) which assists to maintain the overall character and design layout of the existing neighborhood. The project's building pad elevations are compatible with the neighborhood because the differential to the adjacent existing residential neighborhoods are minimized to a range from one foot five inches below the existing adjacent residential neighborhood pads to a maximum of one foot ten inches above the existing adjacent residential neighborhood pads and an average differential of only one inch higher than the adjacent existing neighboring lots. The project proposes building heights that range from approximately 26 feet to 28 feet 3 inches maximum. The proposed project will conform to the.base zoning district and in keeping with the character of the area. Additionally, the existing abutting residences is provided with increased rear yard setbacks for those 38 homes located along the northern, eastern, and western boundary of the project site, which is adjacent to the existing homes along Halana.Drive, Pitcairn Lane, and Mauna Lane. The rear setbacks are a minimum of 20 feet 2 inches, which doubles the setback requirement of the proposed base zoning district. The extended setbacks provide an adequate buffer for existing residences by providing additional protection from any associated light, noise, or privacy impacts. The existing homes in the vicinity are predominantly one story single family homes along the northern, eastern and western boundaries of the project site. The existing homes located to the south, across Yorktown Avenue, are a mix of single-family one and two story homes. The proposed project is compatible with the two story homes located in the vicinity because the homes will not exceed the height otherwise permitted by the proposed base zoning district. Furthermore, the homes are designed to minimize overall building mass and scale by incorporating facade breaks, upper floor setbacks, and roof variations into the design of each plan type which assists to aesthetically blend the homes into the surrounding neighborhood_ The proposed homes will be compatible with surrounding residences because the project is designed with detached single-family homes with similar yard setbacks and high quality architecture that is provided with a variety of design themes. The project proposes three building plan types with three architectural styles per plan which are named Spanish, Monterey, and Beach Cottage. Each architectural design style includes a variety of architectural elements such as smooth stucco finishes, stone veneer, wood siding, concrete tile roof, accent shutters, decorative pot shelves, and wooden style garages that provide high architectural emphasis for each design style. Many of the existing homes in the project vicinity have file or stucco exteriors with shingled roofs. The proposed homes onsite include components of the surrounding residences such as accent shutters and stucco details, which serve to enhance the architectural style of the proposed homes. The proposed design generally complies with the adopted Design Guidelines for residential development. PC Staff Report 10/23/12 HB -1541- 12sr43—Lamb Residential S,]tem 23. - 8 In fill The proposed project is in compliance with the City's Infill Lot Ordinance which analyzes proposed residences for compatibility and privacy issues, such as window alignments, building pad height, and floor plan layout. The proposed single-family residences will be compatible with the design and character of the neighborhood by integrating architectural features and treatments utilized on other single-family residences within the neighborhood. Minimizing the overall mass and scale of the proposed homes with facade breaks, upper floor setback, and roof variations that minimizes overall building scale and assists in blending the homes into the existing neighborhood. The proposed pad heights of the building will result in a minimal grade differential between the proposed homes and the surrounding single-family,uses. The heights of the residences will keep in character with the RL zoning district. The proposed project is designed with sensitivity to homes abutting existing single-family residences. A minimum 20-foot 2-inch rear yard setback is provided that will create and approximately 30-foot buffer to existing adjacent homes. The layout of the each floor plan has been situated to avoid direct window alignments with the existing adjacent neighbors. Mutual Public Benefits A Planned Unit Development (PUD) allows flexibility in land use controls and site design in order to produce a project that would not otherwise be achievable under the strict application of the zoning standards that would apply to a project. The HBZSO allows PUD projects to deviate from development standards such as minimum lot size and lot width which the applicant is proposing. Because a PUD affords more flexibility in site design, a mutual public benefit is required by code. The proposed project only deviates from the minimum 60 foot wide and 6,000 square foot lot size for the proposed subdivision while complying with all other development standards. Of the public benefits proposed the most significant are the physical improvements to the 2.6-acre unimproved future public park located southwest of the project site as well as payment of the recently adopted Quimby Act Park Land In-Lieu Fee. The proposed park improvements consist of a 150 feet by 240 feet multi-use practice field, two 60 square-foot tot-lot play areas, half-court basketball court, shade structure, picnic table, benches, bike racks, an approximately 31 onsite space public parking lot,irrigation, landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot-lot play areas. The improvements benefit the City,monetarily because the developer will bear the burden of upgrading the unimproved public park, resulting in a financial savings to the City and benefitting the surrounding neighborhood by providing additional recreational opportunities. Furthermore, the project developer will be subject to full Park Land In-Lieu fees required for the new 81 residential units pursuant to the Quimby Act. In this case, construction of the adjacent park improvements in addition to payment of the parkland in-lieu fees exceeds the minimum requirements. Therefore, the proposed public benefits provide both the fee for future parkland acquisition and additional recreational opportunities with a fully functional park site. The project will include construction of a new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain in accordance with the Master Plan of Drainage that will run for approximately 2,080 linear feet to tie into the existing storm drain in Kamuela Drive. The storm drain improvement will go above and beyond standard City requirements as the project would only be required to construct storm drain improvements to serve the Item 23.. Report 10/23/12 HB -1542- 12sr43—Lamb Residentiat Subdivision development. The improvements benefit the City monetarily because the developer will bear the burden of upgrading the storm drain system, resulting in a financial savings to the City and reducing the potential flooding in the surrounding neighborhoods. The project will feature green building strategies into the construction of the proposed homes. The projects green building construction will meet all mandatary measures of the State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code. Additionally,the project proposes additional green building features including but not limited to achieving energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the current 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards, providing solar electric photovoltaic (PV) systems as a standard feature and providing homes that are "EV Ready" with 120V/240V electrical plugs in garages. The proposed development of a green building residential development provides a number of benefits in that it contributes to the improvement of air quality, reduces operating expenses for each home, reduces waste output and energy consumption, and minimizes the strain on local infrastructure which benefits the entire community on both a local and global scale. Staff believes the proposed public benefits listed above and proposed by the applicant provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the project as well as the general public. These benefits provide goad reasoning for the proposed reduction in lot width and lot size, but more importantly address ongoing issues that have existed within the community for several years. If not for the proposed development, these ongoing issues would continue and would not be resolved with a standard subdivision as it is not required to provide any mutual public benefits for the community. SUNEVIARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 based upon the following: — The proposed Land Use Element and zoning designations are consistent with surrounding zoning and land use designations; will contribute to the City's housing stock, including affordable housing, thereby assisting to achieve the City's overall housing goals; and affords the property owner allowance to develop the property. -- The proposed project will, with exception of the proposed residential lot sizes, comply with the provisions of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) with respect to the RL zoning development standards. — The proposed homes will be compatible with other residential uses surrounding the project site with respect to height, setbacks, onsite parking, and architecture. - The project meets the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and has been reviewed by the Subdivision Committee for compliance. — The project will be developed as a PUD and provide mutual public benefits that will include development of an existing 2.6-acre unimproved park, additional on street parking opportunities, storm drain improvements, and establishment of a green building program. Overall, the proposed public benefits will exceed standard City requirements. PC Staff Report 10/23/12 1lB -1543- 12sr43—Lamb Residenth Item 23. - 90 ATTACIEWENTS: 1. Mitigated NV.r-wo z-u 5LIL V-Ck kkkttcaXVWL 2. , plftftS, eleV4605S, , , 2012; (reeeived 3. Project Narrative and community benefits summary dated & received May 15, 2012 (Updated September 9, 2012). 4. Revised Code Requirements Letter(for information purposes only), dated October 16,2012 S. Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13 (Includes Environmental Checklist with supplemental reports, Mitigation Measures, Response to Comments, Errata to the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Comments Letters from the general public, Environmental Board, and the Orange County Sanitation District) 6. Zoning Conformance Matrix 7. 5 Q.C f.C k A A-Ul Z 8. 5 0c_ itCFc 9. igp.-AieR Map S I.�- R'kta't-�I. A0 • to 10. S�� EGA ArA1 • A4©' �( 11. ,s L Q. CFI Pit c�GG�n�nn P,vrk N o• $ 12. Petition of Opposition received and dated September 11, 2012 13. Walden and Associates Preliminary Earthwork Quantities dated September 18, 2012 14. Letter from Andreas C. Chialtas, Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, received and dated October 8,2012 SH:HF:AG:kdc Item 23. =91,ort10/23/12 HB -1544- 12sr43—Lamb Residential Subdivision REVISED LAMB SCHOOL SITE NARRATIVE (Lamb Residential Subdivision) 05/15/2012 General plan Amendment(No.2008-005) RECEIVED Zoning Map Amendment (No. 2008-005) Environmental Assessment(No. 2008-013) MAY 152012 Tentative Tract Map (No. 17238) Conditional Use Permit(No 2008-026) ©ep#.of Planning &Building Location: 10251 Yorktown Avenue (Former Lamb School Site) Project Desgb lion: The proposed project will be a Planned Unit Development; created by subdividing the 11.65 acre site to accommodate 81 lots for new single family homes. The proposed lots will feature varying lot sizes with a 3,600 sq. ft. minimum(45'x 80'). The lots backing up to adjacent single family tracts are proposed at 93, in depth to allow for an increased building rear setback. A proposed list of lot sizes is attached to this submittal. All streets, landscaping, storm drains and sewers facilities will be privately maintained by the Homeowners Association. The streets will be sized consistent with City public street standards, including parkways and on-street public parking (36' curb to curb, with a 4' sidewalk and 6' parkway on each side). All units will be designed and plotted to reflect the greatest sensitivity to surrounding developments. The units have been individually designed to create a more interesting streetscape. Each unit will be provided with a two car enclosed garage and two car driveway apron. All units will have a minimum yard area of 400 square feet. All existing school buildings and site improvements are proposed to be demolished with the project. - The project is adjacent to the City's 2.6 acre park site. A conceptual plan for park improvements has been included with this submittal. The extent proposed park improvements will be subject to firther discussion and negotiations with the City. Request: Ex. -GENERAL PLAN: P(RL) Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density Request—GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT to RL—Residential Low Density(Remove the"P") Ex. —ZONING: PS—Public-Semi Public REQUEST—Zone Change to: RL Residential Low Density with a PUD (Planned Unit Development) Standards See.210.12. The PUD overlay will be necessary to address the unique mix of public and private improvements and the variety of residential lot sizes. HB -1545- AT°�P T NO' I 23. - 92 Surrounding Uses: North-Single Family Residential East- Single Family Residential South-Single Family Residential West- Single Family Residential --Envirorunrienta Status: There are no binfic Mt impacts associ-atM with this project. The project site is not within a known hazardous waste and substance site. The project will incorporate sustainable and green building practices to the maximum extent feasible. The proposed sustainable building practices will meet the California Green Building Code. A comprehensive Green Building Program has been developed for this project including: • Building massing and orientation shall maximize south-facing vertical facades. • Window orientation and opening size shall be partially determined by a desire to balance summer cooling and winter heating. • Building and roof forms, shading devices and fagade designs shall be oriented to direct airflow that facilitates natural building ventilation. • Locally produced and recycled building materials shall be used whenever possible. Building materials shall be incorporated that obtain the maximum sustainability and achieve the best Green rating to the greatest extent feasible Land Use Compatibility The property is compatible with existing Single Family housing in the area. The proposed activity will not generate any unusual noise or traffic; or unusual demands on the City's infrastructure or public services. The proposed homes will be designed with greater rear yard setbacks and offset rear elevations to have a greater compatibility with adjacent residential. The roof designs and upper story window placement has also been proposed with consideration to the neighborhood. Overall the project has been designed for total compatibility with the neighborhood and the City's Design Guidelines for new single family developments Item 23. - 93 HB -1546- ATTACHMENT NO° 3 �' Former Lamb School Site RECEIVED TRI Pointe Homes, LLC Planned Unit Development Proposal SEP Q 9 2012 Community Benefits,Summary - Updated Dept.of Planning September 9 &Building The residential neighborhood development proposal by TRI Pointe Homes, LLC ("TPH") for the Former Lamb School Site property ("Project") has several added overall community benefits that it will provide the City of Huntington Beach ("City") that are significantly above and beyond those that would be provided by or could be required of a standard subdivision. Private Streets and Utilities Will Not be Maintained by City Funds • Streets within a standard subdivision are dedicated to the City as public streets. The City is responsible for the cost of maintaining those streets in perpetuity. ® As a public benefit of developing the Project as proposed, the streets within TPH's proposed Project for the Former Lamb School will be private and maintained by a homeowners association. This will alleviate the City from having to maintain the streets and not have to be paid for out of the City's budget. • Underground utilities consisting of stormdrain and sewer facilities within the Project will be private and maintained by a homeowners association and thus will not have to be maintained by the City and paid for out of the City's budget. © Landscape maintenance in the parkways will be maintained by the homeowners association as well and not funded by the City. Construct Certain Storm Drain Component of City Master Plan of Drainage • A stormdrain shown on the City's Master Plan of Drainage along Yorktown Avenue and Brookhurst Street is planned for future construction by the City as a capital improvement project utilizing a significant amount of City funds, • TPH proposes to construct the Master Plan of Drainage stormdrain as a major community benefit to developing the Project as proposed by making it a part of the Project. • The stormdrain line is based upon the existing needs in the area based upon recent hydrology analysis. HB -I 547 ATTACHMENTNO- Item 23. - 94 Install a Crosswalk Across Yorktown Avenue • There has been a request presented by certain residents living in the area of the Former Lamb School Property that if would be desirable to have a crosswalk f • To the extent the City will allow this accommodation to provide crosswalk access from the neighborhoods on the south side of Yorktown Avenue to the 2.6 acre park that is proposed to be improved by the Project, TPH will install the crosswalk as an additional community benefit. Green Building Program • The City of Huntington Beach requires that all new homes built meet all mandatory measures of the State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green Building Code. Not only will all homes in the Project satisfy all the mandatory measures, as a major part of providing additional community benefits, the homes will also have many additional green features and measures included. • A comprehensive 'Draft Green Building Program - Former Lamb & Wardlow School Sites" is being submitted with the Project's full tract submittal package. It outlines which specific State, City, local and building industry green building programs the Project contemplated, reviewed and from which specific green building components, methods and practices were selected for implementation, verification and certification. Some of these are highlighted in the following. • Energy Efficiency PLUS 30%: The homes in the Project will be designed and built to achieve higher energy efficiency than required by the City and State. At minimum the homes will achieve energy efficiency 30% greater than the current 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards. • Renewable Energy— Solar PV Standard: The Project will be committed to provide solar electric photovoltaic (PV) systems with every home as a standard feature. • Green Point Rated Homes: The Project will utilize the GreenPoint Rated program operated by Build It Green for independent third party green home certifications. • Certain direction and features from the "Steps Toward a Sustainable Huntington Beach" and the Surfrider Foundation's "Ocean Friendly Gardens" have been considered and incorporated into the Project's green building program. Item 23. - 95 HB -r s48 ATTACHMENT N . 7�" � • A PUD on the other hand is subject to a great deal of scrutiny from its onset through its completion of construction. Not only is the engineered technical site plan, tract map and grading plan thoroughly vetted during the City approval process, but so too is the proposed building architecture and landscape architecture. Unc.e a jec is appr represented are specifically conditions and tied to the implementation plan of the site. To propose a substantial change in building architecture, for example, could require the same level of design scrutiny and public review and hearing process. • For an infill site where surrounding property owners and residents are essentially promised what will be built next to them for all intents and purposes. • Beyond a tract reap approval, the Former Lamb School site's PUD's building architecture is clearly defined and conditioned in terms of styles, articulation along building planes, setbacks to first and second floors, window placement," perimeter edge treatments, etc. • The Project's PUD also has the advantage of being a privately maintained community as noted above and because of that can be designed more creatively from an engineering standpoint since a homeowners association and not the City will be responsible for funding the ongoing maintenance of certain improvements, facilities and landscaping. • One of the main aspects of the Former Lamb School property's PUD with its streets and certain utilities privately maintained by a homeowners association is that it specifically enabled the civil engineering team to utilize more creative solutions to aid in reducing pad elevations along perimeter lots adjacent to the existing residential neighborhood. The Project's building pad elevations were able to be lowered so that the differential to the adjacent existing residential neighborhoods range were minimized to a range from a minimum of one foot five inches ( - 1' 5" ) below the existing adjacent residential neighborhood pads to a maximum of one foot ten inches ( 1' 10" ) above the existing adjacent residential neighborhood pads. • To underscore the level of focus and attention that TPH's design team has place on the pad differentials between the Project and the existing adjacent neighboring lots, the Project's lots wiil achieve having an average differential of only one inch ( V) and a median differential of only two inches ( 2" ) higher than the adjacent existing neighboring lots. ® A standard subdivision would have to adhere to a different set of engineering requirements. Those would require lots to be drained individually out to the street rather than being able to combine the drainage of a group of lots into a single drain pipe that would run through common area and then connect directly to the stormdrain underneath the private streets. HB -1549- ATTACHMENT NO. 'Item 23. - 96 Y © � Cat ®f Huntineon ijeach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 � J DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Planning Division Building Division 714,536.5271 714.536,5241 October 16, 2012 Michael C. Adams Associates P.O. Box 382 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-051 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-051 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 08-131 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-261 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 17238 (LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION) REVISED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS Dear Mr. Adams, 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 and Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of project 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. 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 jjames@surfcity-hb.org or (714) 536-5596 and/or the respective source department (contact person below). Sincerely, J ne Ja es Senior Planner Enclosures: REVISED Public Works Department requirements dated October 11, 2012 REVISED Fire Department requirements dated June 18, 2012 Planning Division requirements dated July 23, 2012 Community Services Department dated January 3, 2012 iLdtv�a� ��vis�rn, dM" ZDI-L Item 23. - 97 HB -Isso- ATTACHET NO. � , 1 Cc: Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Jason Kelley, Senior Planner Mark Carnahan, Building Division Debbie Debow, Public Works Jim Brown, Fire Department Joe Morelli, Fire Department Luis Gomez, Economic Development Tom Grable, Td Pointe Homes, LLC, 20201 SW Birch Street, Ste. No. 100, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Fountain Valley School District, 10055 Slater Avenue, Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Project File HB -1551- ATTACHMENT Item 23.�- 98 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: OCTOBER 11, 2012 PROJECT NAME: LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2008-005; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 2008-005; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 2008-013; TENTATIVE TRACT I MAP NO. 17238; AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-026 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2008-0124 DATE OF PLANS: MAY 18, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 10251 YORKTOWN AVENUE (NORTH SIDE OF YORKTOWN AVE. EAST OF BROOKHURST ST.) PROJECT PLANNER: ANDREW GONZALES,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 7 1 4-374-1 547 1 AGONZALESJ§SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: BOB MILANI, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 71 4-374-1 735 1 BOB.MILANIASURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 11.65-ACRE SITE (FORMERLY LAMB SCHOOL) FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING 81 NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING VARYING LOT SIZES AT APPROXIMATELY 3,600 SQ. FT. (45 FT. X 80 FT.). ALL STREETS, LANDSCAPING, STORM DRAINS AND SEWERS FACILITIES WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED BY A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE STREETS WILL BE SIZED CONSISTENT WITH CITY PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND ON- STREET PUBLIC PARKING (36 FT. CURB-TO-CURB INTERIOR STREETS, 4 FT. SIDEWALK, AND 6 FT. PARKWAY ON EACH SIDE). THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE PARK SITE AS IS AND PROVIDE A PARK LAYOUT FOR CITY CONSIDERATION. ATTACHED: SITE PLAN,WQMP, HYDROLOGY STUDY & NARRATIVE Item 23. - 99 xI3 ->ss2- AT-r®r.WnAPIVT NO_ ,,A -3 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO RECORDATION OF THE FINAL TRACT MAP UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. BONDING MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION MAP ACT: 1. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Tract Map. (ZSO 230.OB4A&253.10K) a. The water system and appurtenances for the entire project shall be a public system. b. The sewer system and appurtenances for the entire project shall be a public system. c. A blanket easement over the private streets, sidewalk, and access ways for Police Department, Fire Department and public access purposes. d. A blanket easement over the private streets and access ways for access to water and/or sewer facilities for maintenance purposes. e. All vehicular access rights to Yorktown Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach, except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. f, A utility easement(s) shall be dedicated to and accepted by the City of Huntington Beach, covering the public water and/or sewer facilities and appurtenances located within the project site. The easement shall be a minimum total width of 10-ft clear(5 ft either side of the pipeline or appurtenance), unobstructed paved or landscaped surface, pursuant to City water/sewer 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/sewer 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, pavement overlay, parking lot re-striping, and parking lot reconfiguration. Utilities Division personnel shall have access to public utility facilities and appurtenances at all times. (ZSO 255.04) g. A storm drain easement for facilities and appurtenances covering the drainage pipes on private lots associated with relief of minor runoff from the backyard of existing homes adjacent to the proposed development. 2. The storm drain system located within private streets and access ways shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. The on-site private and off-site public storm drain systems shall be separated at the tract exit point, with a junction structure installed on- site, immediately behind the public right-of--way. 3. Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analyses shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by Page 2of8 HB -1553- AeTTP��� �TItem 23. - 100- the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (ZSO 230.84)The study shall also justify final pad elevations on the site in conformance with the latest FEMA requirements and City Standard Plan No. 300. (ZSO 255.04) 4. A sewer study to verify capacity within the City's sanitary sewer system shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for review and approval. A fourteen (14)-day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study. The location and number of monitoring sites shall be determined by the Public Works Department. (ZSO 230.84/MC 14.36,010) 5. Confirmation from the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), to accept the discharge from the new development into the existing OCSD sewer, shall be obtained. A copy shall be provided to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, 6. A qualified, Licensed Engineer shall prepare a detailed soils and geotechnical analysis. This analysis shall include Phase It Environmental on-site soil sampling in areas not previously investigated and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, foundations, landscaping, dewatering, ground water, retaining walls, pavement sections and utilities. (ZSO 251.06 &253.12) 7_ A Traffic Impact Analysis, prepared by a Licensed Traffic Engineer, shall be submitted to Public Works for review and approval. (GP I-CE 4) 8. The grading and improvement plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. The engineer shall submit cost estimates for determining bond amounts. (ZSO 255,16C & MC 17.05) 9. A Homeowners' Association(s) (HOA) shall be formed and described in the GC&R's to manage the following for the total project area: a. On-site private storm drain system and appurtenances b. On-site private streets and sidewalks c. Drainage pipes on private lots associated with relief of minor runoff from the backyard of existing homes adjacent to the proposed development. The CCR's shall include graphical exhibits clearly depicting the private storm drain easements to define the"No Build" zones over said drainage pipes. d. Best Management Practices (BMP's) as per the approved Water {duality Management Plan (WQMP) e. Onsite landscaping and irrigation improvements The aforementioned items shall be addressed in the development's CC&R's. 10. The Homeowners' Association (HOA) shall enter into a Speciai Utility Easement Agreement with the City of Huntington Beach for maintenance and control of the area within the public water and/or sewer pipeline easement(s), which shall address repair to any enhanced pavement, etc., if the said public pipeline(s) and/or appurtenances require repair or maintenance. The HOA 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 public water and/or sewer pipeline. The Special Utility Easement Agreement shall be referenced in the CC&R's. (Resolution 2003-29) 11. If the project is developed in phases, then a phasing map shall be submitted for approval by the Planning, Public Works and Fire Departments showing improvements to be constructed. All required infrastructures including all public streets shall be designed with the first phase. Item 23. - 101 xBe-l ss4- 2T `� ATTACHMENT N®. The phasing plan shall include public improvements including the park site, construction employee parking, model home locations and access to the model homes, utility relocation, material location, and fire access. (ZSO 253.12L) 12. A reproducible Mylar copy and a print of the recorded final tract map shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works at the time of recordation. 13. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9- 337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following item: a. Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. b. Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the County of Orange. 14. .Provide a digital-graphics file of said map to the City per the following design criteria: a. Design Specification: i. Digital data shall be full size (1:1) and in compliance with the California coordinate system—STATEPLANE Zone 6 (Lambert Conformal Conic projection), NAD 83 datum in accordance with the County of Orange Ordinance 3809. ii. Digital data shall have double precision accuracy(up to fifteen significant digits). iii. Digital data shall have units in US FEET. iv. A separate drawing file shall be submitted for each individual sheet. V. Digital data shall be in compliance with the Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen color and layering conventions. vi. Feature compilation shall include, but shall not be limited to: Assessor's Parcel Numbers (APN), street addresses and street names with suffix. b. File Format and Media Specification: vii. Shall be in compliance with one of the following file formats (AutoCAD DWG format preferred): ® AutoCAD (version 2000, release 4) drawing file: _.DWG . ® Drawing Interchange file: DXF i viii. Shall be in compliance with the following media type: a CD Recordable(CD-R) 650 Megabytes 15. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor and Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney, if it is desired to record the final map or obtain building permits before completion of the required improvements. 16. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. 17. If the Final Tract map is recorded before the required improvements are completed, a Subdivision Agreement and accompanying bonds may be submitted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (SMA) Page 4 of 8 r , H13 -1555- ATTACHMU Item 23. - 102. 13. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. Fees shall be calculated based on the currently approved rate at the time of payment unless otherwise stated. (ZSO 250.16) CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2008-026 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A PRECISE GRADING PERMIT: 19. The Final Tract Map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. 20. A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Final grades and elevations on the grading plans shall not vary by more than 1-foot from the grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Tract Map, unless otherwise required by these development requirements and/or conditions of approval, and as directed by the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05/ZSO 255.04) 21. Improvement Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZS0 255.04) The following improvements shall be shown on the plan: a. New curb, gutter, sidewalk and new pavement to the centerline of Yorktown Avenue per City Standard Plan Nos, 102, 202 and 207, along the Yorktown Avenue frontage within a 50-foot half-street right-of-way. (ZSO 255.04) b. Thirty-five foot radius curb returns, with the appropriate right-of-way dedication, shall be constructed at all Yorktown Avenue intersections. (ZSO 255.04) e. Curb ramps compliant with current ADA requirements shall be installed at all intersection curb returns. (ADA) d. All driveways on Yorktown Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter and sidewalk constructed per City Standard Plans 202 and 207. (ZSO 230.84) e. Intersection sight distance shall be provided at the intersection of Yorktown Avenue at "Lot FA. Sight distance criteria shall be based on Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 400. (GP CE 2.3.4) f. All onsite cut-de-sacs and street knuckles shall be designed and constructed per City Standard Plan Nos. 105 and 106. (ZSO 255.04) g. A 25-foot sight triangle shall be provided at all the intersections of this project. (ZSO 230.88) h. The sewer facilities shall be designed and constructed per the final approved sewer study and City Standards. i. All drainage facilities shall be designed per the final approved Hydrology and Hydraulics Report and current County and City Standards. Note that once the storm water from the proposed development is treated per the project WQMP, it shall be contained in an acceptable storm drain pipeline. (ZSO 255.04) j. A public on-site looped water system with two connections to the City's public water system along Yorktown Avenue shall be constructed per Water Division Standards. The water main shall be a minimum of 8-inches in size. (ZSO 255.04) k. Each dwelling unit shall have a separate domestic water service and meter, installed per Water Division Standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the California Plumbing Code (CPC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC). The domestic water service shall be a minimum of 1-inch in size. (ZSO 255.044) Item 23. - 103 xB 1556- 1. Each separate landscaping area (i.e.; Homeowner's Association (HOA) property, public common landscaping areas, proposed City Park, etc.) shall have a separate irrigation meter(s) and services. The irrigation water services shall be a minimum of 1-inch in size. (ZSO 232) m. Separate backfiow protection devices shall be installed per Water Division Standards for all irrigation water services. (Resolution 5921 and California Administrative Code, Title 17) n. The existing domestic water services and meters shall be abandoned per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 255.04) o. Due to the current State mandate to conserve water, the applicant shall implement water conservation measures and water efficient fixtures in the building and landscaping design to minimize adverse impacts to the City's our-rent water supply. The landscaping design and plant material proposed for the City Park shall be drought tolerant and water efficient. (MG 14.18) 22. Street lighting levels shall be adequately provided on Yorktown Avenue along the project frontage. Submit a photometric study, with calculations, showing the lighting levels for the roadway and pedestrian areas on Yorktown Avenue. If new street lights are required based on the photometric study, the street lighting plans shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Electrical Engineer and submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. Lighting standards shall be per the City of Huntington Beach guidelines. (ZSO 230.84) 23. A privately maintained street lighting system, consistent with City standards, shall be constructed along the private streets and access ways in this subdivision. A photometric analysis shall be provided which demonstrates that such lighting will not negatively impact the existing residences to the north. The photometric study shall also evaluate the impact of the park and parking lot lighting on the adjacent residences. (ZSO 255) 24. A signing and striping plan for Yorktown Avenue shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer and be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. The plans shall be prepared according to the City of Huntington Beach Signing and Striping Plan Preparation Guidelines. (ZSO 230,84) 25, 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) 26. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009- DWQ) [General Construction Permit] by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NO[) submitted to the State of California Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and another copy to be submitted to the City. (DAMP) 27. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the County of Orange (Order No. R8-2009-0030) [MS4 Permit] prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Page 6 of 8 HB -is5-7 ATTACH Item 23. - I04 Works for review and acceptance. The WQMP shall address Section X11 of the MS4 Permit and all current surface water quality issues and shall include the following: a. Low Impact Development. b. Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable). c. 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. d. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. (DAMP) e. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. f. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. g. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. h. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. i. Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs. j. After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works, three final WQMP5 (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 returned 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. k. The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 28.' 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). Contractor shall ensure that a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner (QSP) is continually implementing the project SWPPP. 29. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (MC 12.38.010/1%4C 14.36.030) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 30. A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued. Item 23. - 105 HB �1 Ss8 ATTACHMENT N . THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY OF FIRST UNIT: 31. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, and landscape and improvement plans. (MC 17.05) 32_ Prior to the first occupancy of Phase 1 (excluding model homes), all associated onsite and offsite improvements, including the public park and associated infrastructure, as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans shall be completed. Prior to the first occupancy of each succeeding phase, all associated onsite improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans shall be completed. (MC 17.05) 33. Prior to grading or building permit close-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 clean 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. 34. Traffic impact fees shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time and prior to final inspection. This project will be assessed a traffic impact fee based on the projected additional trips calculated by City staff or the approved Traffic Impact Analysis. (MC 17.65) 35. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) 36. 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 and available on the city web site at http://www,surfcity-hb.org/fileslusers/public—works/fee—schedule.pdf. (ZSO 240.06IZSO 250.16) Page 8 of 8 x>a -isss- TTnHMT Item 23. - 106 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT r�ur�nr Cro sic ` PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 18, 2012 PROJECT NAME: LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PLANNING APPLIGATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-124 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-005; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-OD5; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 08- 013; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 17238; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-026 PROJECT LOCATION: 10251 YORKTOWN AVENUE, 92646 (NORTHSIDE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET) PROJECT PLANNER: ANDREW GONZALES,ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: JOE MORELLI; FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: Joe.Morelligsurfci -hb.org or(714) 536-5531 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 11.65 ACRE SITE (FORMERLY LAMB SCHOOL) FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING 81 NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED AS A i PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING VARYING LOT SIZES AT APPROXIMATELY 3,600 SQ_ FT. MINIMUM (45 FT. X 80 FT.)_ ALL STREETS, LANDSCAPING, STORM DRAINS, AND SEWER FACILITIES WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE STREETS WILL BE SIZED CONSISTENT WITH CITY PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND ON- STREET PUBLIC PARKING (36 FT. CURB-TO-CURB INTERIOR STREETS, 4 FT. SIDEWALK, AND 6 FT. PARKWAY ON EACH SIDE)_ THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE PARK SITE AS IS AND PROVIDE A PARK LAYOUT FOR CITY CONSIDERATION. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated May 18, 2012. 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 should the project be approved. if you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. Item 23. - 107 HB -1560- ATTACHMENT NO. "f• It Page2of5 SITE DEVELOPMENT Fire Apparatus C � Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification # 401, Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. Driving area shall be capable of supporting afire apparatus (75,000 lbs and 12,000 lb point load), Minimum fire access road width is twenty- four feet (24') wide,with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6") vertical clearance. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) Fire Access Road Turns and Corners shall-be designed with a minimum inner radius of seventeen feet (17') and a minimum outer radius of forty five feet (45') per City Specification # 401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification #401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) No Parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification #415 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) 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 lame curbs, both in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted. No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) 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) Fire Hydrants and Water Systems Fire Hydrants are required. Hydrants must be portrayed on the site plan. Hydrants shall be installed and in service before combustible construction begins. Installation of hydrants and service mains shall meet NFPA 13 and 24 (currently adopted edition), Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification #407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards requirements. Maximum allowed velocity of fire flow in supply piping is 12 fps. Plans shall be submitted to Public Works and approved by the Public Works and Fire Departments. For Fire Department approval, portray the fire hydrants and reference compliance with NFPA 13 and 24, H -1561- Item 23. - 108 AT ACHMENT Nu. _-►• t Page 3 of 5 (currently adopted edition), Huntington Beach Fire Code Appendix B and C, and City Specification#407 Fire Hydrant Installation Standards in the plan notes. (FD) l Fire Suppression Systems Fire Sprinklers Residential(NFPA 13D)Automatic Fire Sprinklers are required. NFPA 13D automatic fire sprinkler systems are required per Huntington Beach Fire Code for new residential buildings. An addition of square footage to an existing building also triggers this requirement with "fire areas" 5000 square feet or more. Separate plans (two sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval. Automatic fire sprinkler systems must be maintained operational at all times. For Fire Department approval, reference that a fire sprinkler system will be installed in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code, NFPA 13D, and Gity Specification # 420 -Automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems in the plan notes. NOTE: When buildings under construction are more than one (1) story in height and required to have automatic fire sprinklers, the fire sprinkler system shall be installed and operational to protect all floors lower than the floor currently under construction. Fire sprinkler systems for the current floor under construction shall be installed, in-service, inspected and approved prior to beginning construction on the next floor above. (FD) I Residential(NFPA 13D) Automatic Fire Sprinklers Systems Supply. Residential NFPA 13D fire sprinkler systems supply shall be a minimum of a one inch (1") water meter service, installed per Fire Department, Public Works, and Water Division Standards. Depending on fire sprinkler system demands, larger water service may be required. Separate plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for approval and permits, and must be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit. The water service improvements shall be shown on a precise grading plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer. Contact Huntington Beach Public Works Department(714-536-5431) for water meter requirements. (FD) Addressing and Street Names Structure or Building Address Assignments. The Planning Department shall review and make address assignments. The individual dwelling units shall be identified with numbers per City Specification #409 Street Naming and Address Assignment Process, For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification#409 Street Naming.and Address Assignment Process in the plan notes. (FD) Item 23. - 109 xs -1 562- Page 4 of 5 Residential(SFD) address Numbers shall be installed to comply with G"rty Specification#428, Premise Identification. Number sets are required on front of the structure in a contrasting color with the background and shall be a minimum of four inches (4") high with one and one half inch brush stroke. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with City Specification #428, Premise Identification in the plan notes and portray the address location on the building. (FD) GIS Mapping Information a. GIS Mapping Information shall be provided to the Fire Department in compliance with GIS Department CAD Submittal Guideline requirements. Minimum submittals shall include the following: ➢ Site plot plan showing the building footprint. ➢ Specify the type of use for the building ➢ Location of electrical, gas, water, sprinkler system shut-offs. ➢ Fire Sprinkler Connections (FDC) if any. ➢ Knox Access locations for doors, gates, and vehicle access. ➢ Street name and address. . Final site plot plan shall be submitted in the following digital format and shall include the following: ➢ Submittal media shall be via CD ram to the Fire Department. ➢ Shall be in accordance with County of Orange Ordinance 3849. ➢ File format shall be in _shp,AutoCAD, AUTOCAD MAP (latest possible release) drawing file - .DWG (preferred) or Drawing Interchange File- _DXF. ➢ Data should be in NAD83 State Plane, Zone 6, Feet Lambert Conformal Conic_ Projection. ➢ Separate drawing file for each individual sheet. In compliance with Huntington Beach Standard Sheets, drawing names, pen colors, and layering convention. and conform to City of Huntington Beach Specification#409 -- Street Naming and Addressing. For specific GIS technical requirements, contact the Huntington Beach GIS Department at (714) 536-5574. For Fire Department approval, reference compliance with GIS Mapping Information in the building plan notes. (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING GONSTRUCTION: a. FirelErnergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction And Demolition. (FD) HB -1563- ATTACHMEN1 Item 23. - 110 Page 5 of 5 b. 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 response e parry_ Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at. Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 5t'floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfeity-hh.org If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at(714) 536-5411. I Item 23. - 111 xB -1564- ATTACHMENT 1141C. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT ;Hc�N IwcroN PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: JULY 23.2012 PROJECT NAME: IAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PLANNING APPLICATION NO, PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-124 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-005; ZONING MAP i AMENDMENT NO. 08-005; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 08- 013; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238; CONDITIONAL USE. PERMIT NO. 08-026 DATE OF PLANS: MAY 18, 2012 ' PROJECT LOCATION: 10251 YORKfOWN AVENUE, 92646 (NORTH SIDE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET) PLAN REVIEWER: ANDREW GONZALES,ASSOCIATE PLANNER TEL.EPHONEIE4V AIL: (714)374-1547(AGONZAL ES,�DSURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 11.65 ACRE SITE (FORMERLY LAMB SCHOOL) FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING 81 NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL. BE DESIGNED AS A i PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING VARYING LOT SIZES AT APPROXIMATELY 3,600 SQ. FT. MINIMUM (45 FT. X 60 FT.)_ ALL STREETS, LANDSCAPING, STORM DRAWS, AND SEWER FACILITIES WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE STREETS WILL BE SIZED CONSISTENT WITH CITY PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND ON- STREET PUBLIC PARKING (36 FT. CURB-TO-CURLS INTERIOR STREETS, 4 FT. SIDEWALK, AND 6 FT. PARKWAY ON EACH SIDE). THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE PARK SITE AS IS AND PROVIDE A PARK LAYOUT FOR CITY CONSIDERATION. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. 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 adapted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided should final project approval be received. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. i HB -1565- �-� � ItemI 23. - 112 Page 2 of 7 TBNTATTVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238. 1. Prior to submittal of the final tract to the Public Works Department for processing and approval, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 23026 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(HBZSO). (HBZSO Section 230.26) b. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final reap, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall identify the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map.(HBZSO Section 253.12.H) G. Final parcel tract map review fees shall be paid, pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule)_(HBZSO Section 254.16) i d. Park Land In-Lieu Fees shall be paid pursuant to the requirements of HBZSO Section 254.08 -- Parldand Dedications. The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule). (Ordinance No. 3562,Resolution Nos.2002.556 and 2002-57) 2_ Prior to submittal for building permits, an application for address assignment, along with the corresponding application processing fee and applicable plans (as specified in the address assignment application form), shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. The application shall be submitted a minimum of 14 days prior to permit submittal. (Gity Specification No.409) 3. Prlor to issuance of a grading permit, the final map shall be recorded with the County of Orange. (HBZSO Section 253,22) i 4. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, a Mitigation Monitoring Fee for a Mitigated Negative Declaration shall be paid to the Planning and Building Department pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule) 5. during demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, all requirements of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Code including the Noise Ordinance shall be adhered to. 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. (HBMC 8.4€1.090) 6, The Departments of Planning and Building, Public Works and Fire shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning and Building Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the tract map are proposed during the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning and Building Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. (HBZSO Section 241.10) Item 23. - 113 HB -ts66- ATT �� T 1 �� Page 3 of 7 i 7. Tentative Tract No. 17238 shall not become effective until the ten (10) calendar day appeal period has elapsed from Planning Commission action. (HBZSO Section 251.12) 8. Tentative Tract No. 17238, General Plan Amendment No. 08-05, Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05, and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval, which is September 25, 2012. An extension of time may be granted by the Director of Planning and Building pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning and Building Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. (HBZSO Section 261.14 and 251.16) 9. The subdivision shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards,except as noted herein. (City Charter,Article V) 10. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 11.The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$50 for the posting of a Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning and Building Department within two(2) days of the Planning Commission's action. (California Code Section 15094) 12_All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Building and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (HBZSO Section 232.04) l CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-26: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually 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. (HBZSO Chapter 231) b. The site plan shall include all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, backfiow devices and Edison transformers. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Backflow prevention devices shall be not be located in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (HBZSO Section 230.76) c. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from vier on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air condifioning, 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 permit(s). (HBZSO Section 230.76) HB -I567 ATTACHMENT NO. Its. - 114 i Page 4 of 7 d_ The site plan and elevations shall include the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items. 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. (HBZSO Section 230.76) { e. All parking area lighting shall be energy efficient and designed so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a time-clock or photo-sensor system. (HBZSO 231A8.C) f. Project data information shall include the flood zone, base flood elevation and lowest building floor elevation(s) per NAVD88 datum. (HBZSO Section 227-10.F) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits,the following shall be completed: i 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 PCBs. These requirements include but are not limited to: surrey, identftcation of. removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. (AQMD Rule 1403) b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos surrey shall be completed. (AQMD Rule 1403) c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management Efttrct (AQMD Rule 1403) 1 d_ The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. (AQMD Rule 1403) i e. All asbestos shall be removed from all existing buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any onsite building. (AQMD Rule 1403) f. 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 heightfor Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk)_ (CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15304) 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. Prior to submittal of a landscape plan, the applicant shall provide a Consulting Arborist 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 constructionlgrading shall be kept from the trunk. (Resolution No. 4W) b. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. (HBZSO Section 232.04)LFor private properties) I Item 23. - 115 xB -I s 68 -ATTACHMENT "A [cl Page S of 7 t c. A Landscape and Inigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (HBZSO Section 232.04) (For public erties d. "Smart irrigation controllers° and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSO Section 23204.D) i e. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (HBZSO Chapter 232) f. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (HBZSO Section 232.04.B) g. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible.(HBZSO Section 232.06.A) i h. A Consulting Arborist(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. Said Arborist signature shall be incorporated onto the Landscape Architect's plans and shall include the Arborists name, certificate number and the Arborist's wet signature on the final -plan. (Resolution No_4645) 4. Prior to submittal for building permits,the following shall be completed: a. The Planning and Building Department shall review and approve the following: 1) Special architectural treatment provided on all building walls. 2) Revised site plan and elevations as modified pursuant to Condition No. 1. 3) Proposed structures and/or building additions for architectural compatibility with existing structures. (HBZSO Section 244.06) ! b_ Residential type structures on the subject properly, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance with the State acoustical standards. Evidence of compliance shall consist of submittal of an acoustical analysis report and plans, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, with the application for building permit(s). (General Plan Policy N I.Zl) 5. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 230.26 of the ZSO. (HBZSO Section 230-26) b. A Mitigation Monitoring Fee for mitigated negative declarations shall be paid to the Planning and Building Department pursuant to the fee schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council. (City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department Fee Schedule) 6. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, 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. (HBMC B.40.090) xB -1569- ATTACHMENT Item 23 - 116 Page6of7 7. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released for the first residential unit until the following has been completed_ a. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans. (HBMC 17.05) i i b. All trees shall be maintained or planted in accordance to the requirements of Chapter 232. (HBZSO Chapter 232) c. 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 Planning and Building Department. (HBZSO Section 23204.D) d. An onsite 36" box tree or the palm equivalent shall be provided in the front yard,.and a 24' box tree shall be provided in the parkway to meet the Huntington Beach; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications, and the Municipal Code. (HI3ZS0 Section 232.08, Resolution 4645, HBMC 13.5U) e. The provisions of the Water Efficient landscape Requirements shall be implemented. (HBMC 14.62) 8, The Development Services Departments (Planning and Building, Fire, and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and canditions of approval. The Director of Planning and Building may approve minor amendments to plans andfor conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed planiproject revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted far building permits. 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 j Commission's action. 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. (HBZSO Section 241.18) i 9. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 shall not become effective until Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 has been approved by the City Council and is in effect. (HI3ZS0 Section 247.16) 10. Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning and Building Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. (HBZSO Section 241.16.A) 11.Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 shall not become effective until the appeal period following the approval of the entitlement has elapsed. ((HBZSO Section 241.14) 12.The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 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. (HBZSO Section 241.16,D) 13.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, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter,Article V) Item 23. - 117 HB -I50- Page 7 of 7 i 14. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMG 8.40.090) 15.The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $50.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Change Clerles Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Ora e and submitted to the Planning and Building Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's approval of entitlements. (California Code Section 15094) 16.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Building and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (HBZSO Section 232.04) r 1 1 1 i l j i i ! i xB ->5T- �� MT -/A Item 23. - 118 i i . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT :-Hut,MNG-ros; Ei1 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CORE REQUIREMENTS DATE: JANUARY 3, 2012 PROJECT NME: LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PLANNING APPLICATION NO., PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-124 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-005; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-005; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. OS- 013; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.08-026 PROJECT LOCATION: 10251 YORKTOWN AVENUE, 92W (NORTHSIDE OF YORK-TOWN AVENUE, EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET) PROJECT PLANNER: ANDkEW GONZALES, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: DAVE DOMINGUEZ, FACILTIES AND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION TELEPHO>NEIE-MAIL: (714) 374-53091 DDOMINGUEZZD-SURFCITY--HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 11.65 ACRE SITE (FORMERLY LAMB SCHOOL) FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING 81 NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING VARYING LOT SIZES AT APPROXIMATELY 3,600 SQ. Ff. MINIMUM (45 FT. X 80 FT'.). ALL STREETS, LANDSCAPING, STORM DRAINS, AND SEWER FACILITIES WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION_ THE STREETS WILL BE SIZED CONSISTENT WITH i CITY PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND ON- STREET PUBLIC PARKING (36 FT_ CURB-TO-CURB INTERIOR STREETS, 4 FT. SIDEWALK, AND 6 FT. PARKWAY ON EACH SIDE). ! THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE PARK SITE AS IS AND PROVIDE A PARK LAYOUT FOR CITY CONSIDERATION. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated September 6, 2011. The fist 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 Pianning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, wilt also be provided should the project be approved_ If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. Applicable park and recreation fees defined under Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) Chapters 230-Site Standards and 254-Dedications and Reservations shall be applied to the project based upon the proposed development of 81 residential units_ Item 23. - 119 HB -152- AT7AC.H F T NO. 4 � 2-3 JJ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH � PLANNING & BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ISION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: JUNE 14, 2012 PROJECT NAME: LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION PLANNING APPLICATION NO.: PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 08-124 ENTITLEMENTS: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-005; ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-005; ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 08- 013; TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238; CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-026 PROJECT LOCATION: 10251 YORKTOWN AVENUE, 92646 (NORTHSIDE OF YORKTOWN AVENUE, EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET) PROJECT PLANNER: ANDREW GONZALES, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG, P.E TELEPHONEIE-FAIL: (714) 872-6123 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN APPROXIMATELY 11.65 ACRE SITE (FORMERLY LAMB SCHOOL) FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING 81 NEW RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITH NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES. THE PROPOSED PROJECT WILL BE DESIGNED AS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT UTILIZING VARYING LOT SIZES AT APPROXIMATELY 3,600 SQ. FT. MINIMUM (45 FT. X 80 FT.). ALL STREETS, LANDSCAPING, STORM DRAINS, AND SEWER FACILITIES WILL BE PRIVATELY MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. THE STREETS WILL BE SIZED CONSISTENT WITH CITY PUBLIC STREET STANDARDS, INCLUDING PARKWAYS AND ON- STREET PUBLIC PARKING (36 FT. CURB-TO-CURB INTERIOR STREETS, 4 FT. SIDEWALK, AND 6 FT. PARKWAY ON EACH SIDE). THE PROPOSAL IS TO MAINTAIN THE PARK SITE AS IS AND PROVIDE A PARK LAYOUT FOR CITY CONSIDERATION. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans received and dated May 18, 2012. 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 entitiement(s), if any, will also be provided should the project be approved. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. I. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. None HB -153- ATTACH NI Item 23. - 120 Page 2of2 II. CODE ISSUES BASED ON PLANS&DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the current state building codes adopted by the City at the time of permit apalication submittal. Currently they are 2010 California Residential Code (CRC), 2010 California Mechanical Code (CMC), 2010 California Plumbing Code (CPC),2010 California Electrical Code(CEC), 2010 California Energy Code, 2010 California Green Building Standards and The Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC). Compliance to all applicable state and local codes is required prior to iss.jance of building permit. 2. Structural plans and calculations must be stamped and wet signed by architect/civil engineer licensed by State of California. 3. Structural calculations and soil report are required. 4. Fir2 sprinkler system is required. 5. Please contact me or our office to review preliminary code analyses to examine any possible building cote issue that may arise. **'**Planning and Building Department encourage the use of pre submittal zoning applications and building plan check meetings***' Item 23. - 121 HB -i 54- '�"'-€� , _-�. ,�sk&,vr^F"�� f'���9,:�' �cs,' f' ,�� ain't��.•.y,,r'T...sr y. r 4�c.jn'�,..x E„�.x -_- '�.y �, �� � � ;� .� --�� -�. :. µ•di �.f. 'F. g"+s�,a `ts �,, 051 IN - 4i°pia '".�;s.s .� n^�,x,,�` *Y-'"O1. ' 'R Ct`€1Cr.' `'" y; �r ° - z -'.#'�T�Yr� � � s $ �' x• r5 �"�' ' i.741q� 332 4Wel'' `w-=a. Sxy7' .y- ; �'", �.Y" t.^�' ., -.v.c`�t,,q'ti-x•�" y -rr is* '+. .�2+ �:.V'_.,.n.�.,:.: 1. PROJECT TITLE: Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Concurrent]Entitlements: General Plan.Amendment No. 2008-005,Zoning Map Amendment No. 2008-005, Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 & Conditional Use Permit No.2008-026 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Contact: Andrew Gonzales,Associate Planner Phone: 714.374.1547 3. ]PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located at 10251 Yorktown Avenue(north side of Yorktown Avenue,east of Brookhurst Street),at the former Lamb School site in the City of Huntington Beach, California. 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Tri Pointe Homes 19520 jamboree Road, Suite 200 Irvine,CA 92612 Contact Person: Thomas Grable Phone: 949.478,9674 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Existing:Public(Residential Low Density)(P(RL)) Proposed: Residential Low Density(RL-7) 6. ZONING: Existing:Public-Semipublic(PS) Proposed: Residential Low Density(RL). PROJECT DESCRIPTION(Describe the whole action involved,including,but not limited to, later phases of the project, and secondary support,or offsite features necessary for implementation): The project proposes to subdivide the 11.65-acre former Lamb School site to accommodate 81 lots for new detached single-family homes. All existing school buildings and onsite improvements are proposed to be demolished in conjunction with the project. The project is adjacent to an existing unimproved 2.6-acre park. The project proposes improvements to the City's park that will include a multi-use practice field measuring 150 feet across by 240 feet long, field Page I Ta Poime Homes Laub Residential subdivision �r GAGoanles\Wardlow LatnbIEACILamb Draft MND-XrAgorkeleased to Mdrew 007900'.uD - C.D-s_tS2012.doc }��"� °$� g . Item 23. — 122 111� J ATTACHMENT t #� �. lighting, one 4-foot square picnic table, shade structure,bike rack,two 60-square foot tot lot areas, two benches, at least 31 onsite parking spaces, irrigation and landscaping,and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas. This project requests a General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan designation of Public (Residential Low Density)(P(RL))to Residential Low Density(RL-7). This project also proposes a Zoning Map Amendment to change the existing zoning of Public-Semipublic(PS)to RL(Residential Low Density). The project also proposes to be developed as a Planned Unit Development(PUD). Specific project entitlements are as follows: General Plan Amendment No.2008-005 To amend the General Plan land use designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density(P(RL))to Residential Low Density(RL-7),which allows for a maximum density of seven units per acre. Zoning Map Amendment No.2008-005 To amend the zoning designation from Public-Semipublic(PS)to Residential Low Density(RL)_ Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 To subdivide 11.65 acres of land to accommodate 81 numbered lots for new detached single-family homes and eight lettered lots A-H for streets and landscaping. The project will incorporate varying lot sizes that average approximately 3,600 square feet(45 feet wide by 80 feet deep). The streets will be private and will feature a standard 40-foot wide curb-to-curb interior street section at the primary entrance into the tract and a reduced 36-foot section for the interior streets. The street sections will be designed with a 4- foot wide sidewalk and 6-foot wide parkway on each street side. On street parking will be provided within the tract to accommodate approximately 118 vehicles. Language will be placed into the project CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets. All street, landscaping, storm drain and sewer facilities will be privately maintained by an established homeowners association. Conditional Use Permit No.2008-026 To permit the development of an 81-unit single-family subdivision and associated infrastructure including site improvements,fencing,grading and construction of offshe sewer,water and storm drain improvements. The proposed project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development(PUD). The PUD is necessary because 79 of the lots are below the minimum 6,000 square feet standard for RL developments. The dwelling units will range in size from 2,379 square feet to 2,834 square feet. The proposed units are two-story with a maximum height of 28 feet 3 inches. Each unit will feature a 4-bedroom layout that includes a two-car enclosed garage and two-car driveway. The project will feature a green building program. As part of the project's program,the homes in will meet all mandatory measures of the State of California Housing and Community Development's 2010 California Green building Code. Additionally,the project proposes additional green building features including but not limited to achieving energy efficiency 30 percent greater than the current 2008 California Energy Commission Title 24 code standards;providing solar electric photovoltaic(PV) systems as a standard feature and providing homes that are EV Ready with. 120V/240V electrical plugs in garages. The project includes a water quality basin(ou lot G)that will treat water from the project site before being released into the public's downstream storm drain system. The project proposes to construct the Master Plan of Drainage storm drain, which will consist of a 33 inch reinforced concrete pipe that will run a total length of 2,080 linear feet beginning from the project's entry street and going west on Yorktown Avenue and north on Brookhurst Street to Kamuela Drive. The project proposes to provide crosswalk access from the neighborhoods on the south side of Yorktown Avenue to the 2.6-acre park that is adjacent to the project site. Proposed park improvements are described above. Page 2 ATTACHMEINT 1O, Item 23. - 1 2 3'II'b RC51d ` 'd" xB -15 - iw LambTAMmob Dmfl X D-Rev nonkeleased to Andrew 0079W �iS-ZOt2.doc The proposed project will comply with the City's affordable housing requirement by electing to provide a minimum of eight affordable units at an offsite location that will be under the full control of Tri Pointe Homes or another City approved party. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The site is bounded by single-family residences on the west,east and north and fronts Yorktown Avenue on the south., beyond which are single-family residences. The Lamb School site,totaling 14.25 acres,was owned by Fountain Valley Unified School District. The school was designated as a closed school site,and in 2005,the School District decided to sell the site. In November 2005,the City acquired 2.6 acres of the school site to be maintained as open space. The remaining 11.65 acres were acquired by the project proponent and are the subject of the proposed project. 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERNI.ITS NEEDED) (i.e. permits,financing approval, or participating agreement): None Page3 ATTACHMENT N^ Tri Paud't Homes La4nb Residential Subdivision GAGomaleslWmUow UmbTSACliamb Dnft N 1M-Revisio*l *eased to And:ev+{10'79001,HB -15"ag-15�2012.do Item 23. - 124 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 ® Hazards and Hazardous ® Cultural Resources Quality Materials ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGA'f 1'VE 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 MPTIGATED 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 mitigated 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 EIR or NEGATIVE ❑ DECLARATION pursuant to applicable 0, 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. (I �f 2zf t2. Signature Date Arff)eEW i S )g5SL>LA-[2f nAN#&Q Printed Name Title Item 23. — 125gblz�;de � ��� HB-159 ATTACHMENT �. G:1GpvaleslA'ardlowLamblEACtLambDruft M!II) 1� 1S4&D 08-15-2012_doc 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 Lwpact"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 offsite as well as onsite, 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 Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"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 may be cross-referenced). S. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program ER, or other CEQA process,an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier E1R or negative declaration. Section. 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XIX 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 XIX. 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 Code Requirements-The City imposes standard code requirements 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 code requirements identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 1_ SAMPLE QUESTION. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6.) � ❑ F1 Discussion: 77w attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). TriPa=eHu=sLambRc6aeaaialSub6v bn - HB -159- &TT CH1l ENT Item 23. - 126 GIGooks\'Qdar&ow 1.smbtEAC&=b Draft MND-Rewisionkekassd to Andrew 00790016 Lamb 1S-MND 0&15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1. LAND_USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or 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 mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1,2.) Discussion: The current General Plan land use designation is Public(Residential Low Density)(P(RL)). The project site's current zoning designation,Public-Semipublic(PS), does not allow for residential development, except for General Residential Care. As a result, in addition to the proj ect requests for Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 and Conditional Use Permit No.2008-026,the applicant requests the following: • General Plan Amendment No. 2008-005 to change the site's land•use designation to Residential Low Density(RL-7) • Zoning Map Amendment No.2008-005 to change the current zoning designation of Public-Semipublic(PS), to Residential Low Density(RL). General Plan Amendment As described above, the project will require a General Plan Amendment. The underlying RL designation indicates that if the public school use on site were to be discontinued that the future land use of R.I.,was contemplated in a broad sense in the City's General Plan. Due to the surrounding single-family residential development, the proposed General Plan Amendment would facilitate the development of a residential project that blends into the existing low density and single-family residential development in the project vicinity and will not conflict with the General Plan. Zoning Map Amendment The City Zoning Map designates the project site as Public-Semipublic(PS). This designation provides areas for large public or semipublic uses. However, a Zoning Map.Amendment is requested to allow for the development of 81 single-family residential units at the site. The proposed Zoning designation would be consistent with the requested General Plan land use for the site and with zoning designations of residential development in the vicinity of the project. Planned Unit Development The project will be developed as a Planned Unit Development because it proposes residential lot sizes that do not comply with the RL zoning standards. PUDs allow for flexibility in development standards to encourage innovative land use development that achieves quality site planning and design and aesthetically pleasing environments through architecture and landscape improvements. Within the City PUDs are required to provide a mutual benefit for residents of the project as well as the general public. Interior lot sizes range from 3,659 to 6,695 square feet and perimeter lots(adjacent to existing homes)range in site size from 4,078 to 6,299 square feet. The code minimum is 6,000 sq. ft. Despite the request for smaller lots,the project has been designed to exceed the minimum rear building setbacks for those proposed perimeter lots (i.e., lots 9 through 41)that are adjacent to existing homes directly north,east,and west of the project site. Based on the Propose, Building Setbacks plan,the rear setbacks are as shown in the table below. For those perimeter lots adjacent to existing homes, the proposed project provides rear setbacks in excess of the minimum 10 feet that is required Item 23. - _127 HB -158- ATTACHMENT NO. 'S _e_.mnb Reside"Subdivision G:\Gup aiesl'Wazdloa Lamb\EAC9,.b Draft WW-Ravisionlxe..d to Andrew 00790016 Lamb ISA CM 08-15-2017.doe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact under the RL zone. Table 1: Minimum Rear Building Setbacks for Proposed Perimeter lots Adjacent to Existing Homes �0k* .1" s k r 'r 7-5K."<r .a-a ""- R'C,a' '�rL -h ^'` - f rivr".sue N y sX t bF F '.`1` ° !?earr.SeGOIId.3f`g' `"x.cs`ra x £ Rea Y��xsN F�oor� lazingu N 4 x r Second y� AAlnimum-Jeatg awrsrum Be ngs T � Fist Fioor � � Flrstliior Minimum NlaJorx, t rSettsack` N4xBu�ldmg" z BudcmgGazing 1 rfillaxlmurriAaJors 07, 'ip:Setbacl _ MEMO Glazing Sek6acic k, s .at 1 21 feet 23 feet 8 inches 33 feet 1 inch 36 feet 2 20 feet 2 inches 23 feet 5 inches 30 feet 1 inch 39 feet 2 inches 3 20 feet 6 inches 23 feet 6 inches 1 20 feet 6 inches 34 feet 6 inches Source:Proposed Building Setbacks Map,Bassenian Latgoni,05.15.12 No significant environmental land use impacts are anticipated as a result of the lot size deviations proposed by the project because the project has been designed to provide additional setbacks to those existing homes located adjacent to the north, east, and west boundary of the project site. The project complies with all other zoning standards. The project site is not located in the Coastal Zone of the City of Huntington Beach;therefore,the project will have no impact regarding the Local Coastal Program for the City. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan ❑ ❑ ❑ or natural community conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 31, 34) Discussion: The project site is located in a developed area in the City of Huntington Beach, and there are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans in effect in the City. Therefore,no impacts would occur in this regard. c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1' 2') ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The proposed project involves the construction of 81 single-family units. The project site has been identified for development in the City's General Plan,and is zoned for development. The project site is currently developed with a former school(Lamb School). Due to the project's location in an already developed area in Huntington Beach,the proposed project would not physically divide an established community because the project involves infill development into a predominantly residential area. Therefore, INTTACHM NTItem 23. - 128 Tri Pointe I3orrrca Lamb Residual Subdivi�on G 1Cmn;a1es10VardLrw Lem6hl:AClLamb Drag MtTD-Revisioakeleased to Andrew 00790016 L. b IS-NM D8-15-2012.800 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact no impacts are anticipated. IL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 23) Discussion: The project will provide 81 single-family units and accommodate an estimated population of 208 residents (2.56 persons per household,per 2010 Census Huntington Beach Quiclfacts and per Table II-5 of the City of Huntington Beach Housing Element). The project will not induce substantial population growth due to the developed nature of the project site and surrounding area- Based on 2010 census data,the City of Huntington Beach has a population of 189,992 persons. If the estimated 208 residents were assumed to be new residents to the City of Huntington Beach,this would represent.I I percent of the City's total population. Per the Housing Element,the City's population is anticipated to grow to 217,822 by 2015. Thus,the population of the proposed project falls within the future estimates of the City's population. Regarding the affordable housing that will need to be provided as part of the proposed project,Tri Pointe Homes has elected to provide the affordable units at an offsite location that will be under the full control of Tit Pointe Homes or another City approved party. Tri Pointe Homes may consider new construction or substantial rehabilitation(as defined by Government Code Section 33413 affordable housing production requirements) of existing non-restricted units with the condition that upon completion of the rehabilitation the units become restricted to long-term affordability. It is not anticipated that either the construction or rehabilitation of homes to meet the project's affordable housing requirement will have a significant impact in this regard because the units would be either a rehabilitation of existing units,which means that the infrastructure has already been provided or will be developed in an area with infrastructure nearby, as it would be cost prohibitive to develop affordable housing units in an area where existing infrastructure is not easily available. Therefore,the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth in the area and impacts are considered less than significant. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 60.) Discussion: The project site is currently a closed school site, and no housing currently exists onsite. As such, no housing will be displaced. The project will comply with the City of Huntington Beach affordable housing requirements and the project would not result in the displacement of existing housing. No impact would occur. Item 23. - 129 ---_ Restde�al5ubdnmov 11� -1.58- ATTAcHiAENT N�, GAGo=des%Wardlow Lam6tSAC\Lamb Draf0,M-Rmisi=Vcleased to Audrew 00790016 Lamb LS MND 09-15-2011doe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Irnpact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? VIIJ (Sources: 60.) Discussion: The proposed project site is currently a closed school site and,no one currently resides on the project site. As such,no people would be displaced The project will comply with the City of Huntington Beach affordable housing requirements and the project would not result in the displacement of existing housing. No impact would occur. H1.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated I-117 on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault El Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Sources: 33, 55.) Discussion: The Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation conducted for the project site states that the project site is:not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and that therefore,the possibility of significant fault rupture on the site is considered to be low. The February 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary on Existing Documents states that no active faults are known to project through the site and the site does not lie within an Earthquake F ault Hazard Zone as designated by the State of California pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act. This report states that review of the published USGS fault file (USGS, 2008)indicates that a potentially active branch of the Newport Inglewood fault has been inferred to transect the subject site in a northwest-southeast direction and that it appears to be the southerly extension of what is known as Bolsa-Fairview fault. However,this report concludes that the potential hazards associated with the Bolsa-Fairview fault are considered to be less than significant for this project. Additionally,the proposed project will be developed in accordance with the 2010 California Building Code therefore,less than significant impacts are anticipated. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 55, 56.) Discussion.: As is the case with most locations in Southern California,the project site is located in a seismically active region that is characterized by moderate to strong seismic shaking. Per the February 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary on Existing Documents for the project site, structures within the site shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of strong ground motion in accordance with the 2010 D} p 'Aj9� 1 T6 Pointe Homes Lamb ResideaW Subdivision HB —158— ATTA HME` "T Item 23. 7 130 Cr..\Gonaales Wardlow LmnbEACVAmb Drefr NM.Revision\rdieased to Andrew 0079DO16 Lamb IS-NM 0e-15-M12.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact California Building Code. Although a potentially active branch of the Newport Inglewood fault has been inferred to transect the subject site as the southerly extension of what is known as the Bolsa-Fairview fault trace,the potential hazards associated with the Bolsa-Fairview fault are considered to be less than significant for this project(USGS, 2008). No active faults are known to project through the site and the site does not lie within an Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone as designated by the State of California pursuant to the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act. As detailed in Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation conducted for the project site, the proposed development must be designed in accordance with the requirements of the latest edition of the Uniform Building Code and/or the California Building Code. These codes provide procedures for earthquake resistant structural design that include considerations for onsite soil conditions, seismic zoning occupancy, and the configuration of the structures including the structural system and height Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 55, 56.) El ® F1 El Discussion: Per the Geotechnical Investigation and the Liquefaction Investigation conducted for the project site,liquefaction is the loss of strength in generally cohesionless, saturated soils when the porewater pressure induced in the soil by a seismic event becomes equal to or exceeds the overburden pressure. The primary factors that influence the potential for liquefaction include groundwater table elevation, soil type and grain si characteristics,relative density of the soil, initial confining pressure, and intensity and duration of ground shaking. The depth within which the occurrence of liquefaction may impact surface improvements is generally identified as the upper 50 feet below the existing ground surface. As detailed in Figure EH-7 in the Environmental Hazards Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,the project site is located in an area with High to.Very High Potential for liquefaction. As detailed in Geotecbnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation conducted for the project site,the project site is located in a designated liquefaction hazard zone. The liquefaction potential of the site was analyzed utilizing a peak ground acceleration of 0.40g for a magnitude 69 seismic event. The liquefaction evaluation was performed using a historic groundwater depth of 3 feet. The liquefaction analysis has identified potentially liquefiable soils at depths of 8.5 to 12(+/-)feet and 24 to 42(+/-) feet at Boring No.B-I and at depths of 6.5 to 8.5(+/-) feet and 32 to 51(+/-)feet at Boring No.B-5. Soils which are located above the historic groundwater table (3 feet), or possess factors of safety in excess of 1.1 are considered non-liquefiable, The zones of clays, silty clays, and clayey silts encountered near depths of 3 to 30 feet are considered non-liquefiable due to their fine grained, cohesive characteristics. Settlement analyses were conducted for the potentially liquefiable stratum. Based on the settlement analyses total dynamic(liquefaction induced) settlements of 5.5(+/-)inches and 6.4{+/-) inches could be expected at Borings B-1 and B-5,respectively. The associated differential settlement would therefore be on the order of 0.9(+/-) inch to 4.3(+/-)inches. The estimated differential settlement could be assumed to occur across a distance of 100 feet, indicating an angular distortion of less than 0.004 inches per inch. Minor to moderate repairs, including repair of damaged drywall and stucco, etc., could be required after the occurrence of liquefaction-induced settlements. Mitigation is recommended to reduce potential impacts from liquefaction and settlement, as follows: Item 23. — 1311,l;dl1LL11Ii„ HB -Ise- ATTACHMENT NO, CAGa=aleslWardlaw LamIDMACUsmb Draft NM•Rewmmlreiused to Aadrew 00790016 Lamb IS3vM 08-15-ni2loo Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact MM GEO-1: The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the reports listed below. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation,fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring requirements,foundation design, concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage,trench backfill, and geotechnical observation. 1. The August 21, 2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Lamb School Site,prepared by Southern California Geotechnical 2. The February 28,2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary of Existing Documents for the Lamb School Site Project,prepared by Petra. These reports suggest relatively uniform subsurface conditions exist across the project site. However,where existing school structures and improvements have precluded direct access to subsurface areas,additional borings and soil samples are recommended to provide deeper soil information. Although no new impacts or unusual subsurface conditions are anticipated,Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is recommended prior to construction to complete site investigations. MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of building permits for the project, in order to complete the soils information in areas of the site where existing structures and improvements have prevented easy access to deeper soil, additional subsurface borings shall be conduced. The project shall comply with any additional recommendations resulting from this additional subsurface investigation. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 and GEO-2,will reduce impacts in this regard to a less than significant level. iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1.) Discussion: Slope failures are common during strong seismic shaking in areas of significant relief. However, the project site is located in a relatively flat area and no significant slopes are proposed as part of the project. Additionally,as detailed in the Environmental Hazards Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (Figure EH-2),the project site is located in an area with no potential for having potentially unstable slope areas. Accordingly,no impacts to people or structures from landslides are anticipated. b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or F-1 El changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from L� excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: SS.) Discussion: As described in the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation report for the project site and MM GEO-2, following completion of the over-excavation, the subgrade soils under the building areas shall be evaluated by the geotechnical engineer to verify their suitability to serve as the structural fill subgrade, as well as to support the foundation loads of the new structures. Some localized areas of deeper excavation may be required if additional fill materials or dry,loose, porous,low density or otherwise unsuitable materials are encountered at the base of the over-excavation. Based on conditions encountered at the exploratory trench locations, some zones of very moist soils may be encountered at or near the base of the recommended over excavation. Where these soils are exposed at the over-excavation subgrade level, some subgrade stabilization Kin Tri Poiaie Hoq�es Lamb Rmdeatial Subdivison x.B -lss- ATTACHMEN �Item 23 - 132 &AGonzales\Wardlow Lamb)EAlLllamb DraftMI3D-Revisionlreleased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb IS-NM 08-15-2012,doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Dian Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact may be required. Per the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation report: scarification and significant air-drying of these materials may be sufficient to obtain a stable subgrade. If highly unstable soils are identified, and if the construction schedule does not allow for delays associated with drying, mechanical stabilization will be necessary- In this event,the geotechnical engineer will be contacted for supplementary recommendations. Typically,an unstable subgrade can be stabilized using a suitable geotextile fabric, such as Mirafr 50OX or 600X, and/or an 18-inch thick layer of coarse(2 to 4 inch particle size)crushed stone. After a suitable over excavation subgrade has been achieved,the exposed soils should be scarified to a depth of at least 12 inches, moisture treated to 2 to 4 percent above optimum moisture content, and compacted. The previously excavated soils may then be replaced as compacted structural fill. To mitigate for the potential need for subgrade stabilization Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is recommended,for the project to follow the recommendations of the geotechnical reports prepared for the proposed project. With implementation of MM GEO-1, it is anticipated that following the recommendations in the August 21,2007, Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation report will mitigate for potential impacts regarding very moist soils,which may be encountered at or near the base of the recommended over-excavation. As described in the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation report for the project site,most of the near surface soils possess appreciable silt and clay content and may become unstable if exposed to significant moisture infiltration or disturbance by construction traffic. In addition,based on their granular content, some of the onsite soils will also be susceptible to erosion. To mitigate for potential project impacts regarding soil erosion,Mitigation Measure GEO-1 is recommended. It is anticipated that adhering to the recommendations in the August 21,2007, Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation report will mitigate for potential impacts regarding soil erosion. With implementation of Mitigation Measures MM GEO-1, less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill. 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: 55, 56.) Discussion: As detailed in Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation conducted for the project site,the project site is located in a designated liquefaction hazard zone. To mitigate for potential impacts from liquefaction and settlement described in threshold a-iii) above,Mitigation Measure GEO-1 (in threshold a.iii) above)is recommended to reduce potential impacts from liquefaction and settlement. With mitigation,the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. Item 23. — 133,1�; >v�tbdms� HB=158— ATTACHMENT NO. �.� � ��..- G:1C+onMeslWa dlowL&u*W AManib Drsft MND-Revisioa4dleased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb IN-UND US-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Be located on expansive soil, as defuzed in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 55.) Discussion: Per the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation conducted for the project site,the expansion potential of the onsite soils was determined based on the results of soil samples,which indicated the soils onsite possess a low to medium expansion potential(Expansion Indexes 27 and 53). As shown in Figure EH 12,Expansive Soil Distribution Map, of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,the project is located in an area with low expansion(7 percent or less). The project is required to comply with Title 17, Excavation and Grading Code, in addition to implementing the recommendations of the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation(dated August 21,2007 by Southern California Geotechnical). Compliance with all applicable requirements and codes, in addition to implementation of site-specific recommendations of the August 21,2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction evaluation(per Mitigation Measure GEO-1 above),would ensure that the project would have less than significant impacts regarding expansive soils. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems El 1:1 where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater. (Sources: 55.) Discussion: Septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are not proposed with the proposed project. The proposed project will include connection to the existing City sewer system. Therefore,no impacts would occur. IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources: 43.) Discussion: The project site is within and,therefore, subject to the water quality regulations of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board(SARWQCB)_ The SARWQCB is authorized to implement a municipal stormwater permitting program as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) authority granted under the federal Clean Water Act. The general permit applicable to this project is the"Statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit"which addresses waste discharge requirements for discharges of stormwater runoff associated with construction activities. Consistent with municipal stormwater NPDES Permit No.CAS618030, issued by the Santa Ana RWQCB,the City of Huntington Beach is required to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)to minimize the incidence of construction- related pollutants entering the storm water system. Several items are required in a SWPPP,including the site T? ATTACHMENT "n Tri lloime Eiomcs Lamb P endendai Sabdivmon .H B -15 S Item 23. - 134 G:1Gomales\Wardio L=bW-AC\Lamb Draft 1&0-Revlsim\released to Andrew 00790016 Lamb 1S-MND o6-15-2012.6oc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact maps showing drainage and discharge locations and the location of control measures, a description of the pollution prevention best management practices (BMPs)to be implemented on the site,BMP inspection procedures, and requirements for stormwater monitoring. Compliance with these requirements would prevent violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during the construction of the site. Additionally, a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)has been prepared for the project, which is required by the City of Huntington Beach to be prepared prior to project construction. The WQMP identifies the Best Management Practices(BMPs)that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff, including: hydrologic source controls,biotreatment BMPs, treatment control BMPs, non-structural source control BMPs and Structural Source Control BMPs. Ti nplementation of the BMPs identified in the WQMP would assure that stormwat-,r from the project site during project construction and post development(operation)would not detrimentally impact the beneficial uses of receiving waters. As a result,impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere I;7/1 substantially with groundwater recharge such that there !_I L—1 !d 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: 43.) Discussion: The project site derives its potable water supplies from the City of Huntington Beach. The project does not propose any groundwater-extracting wells. Additionally,the project site is currently developed with school buildings,parking lots and other impervious hardscape areas,and as such does not function as a substantial source of groundwater recharge. As detailed in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)for the proposed project,with pre-project conditions,43 percent of the project site contains impervious surfaces. Per the WQMP, with development of the site impervious surfaces would be increased to 46 percent of the prof ect site. Thus,the proposed conversion to residential use would not substantially increase impervious areas or interfere with groundwater percolation and recharge. Therefore,the project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies,or substantially interfere with groundwater recharge. Thus,impacts associated with groundwater are considered less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the 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: 60.) Discussion: The proposed project is located on a previously developed site that contains a vacant school. Thus,the proposed project would not alter the course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in Item 23. — 135,b1,,�,�1s�d�on HB -15� ATTACHMENT �. `� G:1Go=alc*lWardlow LembV_AC Amb DrA MND-SeyWonkelemdto Anrew 00790015I.amb IS-MIID 08-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sficant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact substantial erosion or siltation offite or offsite. Also,by implementing the stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)during construction and WQMP for post-construction,the project site would have a less than significant impact for erosion or siltation on or offsite. Thus, less than significant impacts are anticipated d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of theEl F] ® ❑ 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: 43, 44) Discussion: The proposed proj ect site is currently developed with the Lamb school. No stream or river occurs on the property,nor would the course of any stream or river be altered by the project. As described in the Preliminary Hydrology Study for the proposed project,the site's current drainage is not consistent with the City's Master Plan because the site's drainage currently splits drainage flow to both the north and south,which is contrary to the approved Master Plan of Drainage. With development of the proposed project,existing drainage flows in the northerly direction to Mauna Lane will be diverted with the development of the project so that drainage patterns will be in a southwesterly direction consistent with the City's Master Plan. The project is required to detain the difference in runoff between the existing 25 year and proposed 100 year flows such that runoff is not increased from existing conditions and therefore impacts regarding flooding on or off- site are less than significant. Positive over flow is provided with the building pads being set a minimum of one-foot above the over flow elevation; therefore, all proposed residential dwellings are protected from inundation should the storm drain system become inoperable. Additionally, the project is required to detain the flow difference between the existing 25 year and proposed 100 year storms so that runoff from the site is not increased from its current condition.Thus,the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 44.) Discussion: Under pre-project conditions,43 percent of the project site contains impervious surfaces. With the proposed project, impervious surfaces would increase to 46 percent. The project is required to detain the difference in runoff between the existing 25 year and proposed 100 year flows such that runoff is not increased from existing conditions. This requirement will alleviate any project runoff contribution to an existing deficiency in the downstream system which currently exists at Brookhurst Street and Kamuela Drive. Also,a storm drain shown on the City's Master Plan of Drainage along Yorktown Avenue and Brookhurst Street is planned for future construction by the City as a capital improvement project utilizing a significant amount of City funds. Tri Pointe Homes proposes to construct the Master Plan of Drainage storm drain. The storm drain line is based upon the existing needs in the area based upon recent hydrology analysis. The storm drain will consist of a 33 inch reinforced concrete pipe that will run a length of approximately 2,080 linear feet beginning from the project's entry street and going west on Yorktown Avenue and north on Brookhurst Street to Kamuela Drive. Additionally,the proposed project includes a water quality basin offite,which will treat its "first flush"before being released into the public's downstream storm drain system. Refer to Mitigation AT InCHMENT "zn ;— TT;Pointe Hermes Lamb Pusideuaa]Subdivision HB -15 9- Item 23. - 136 G:1Gonzz1 sAWx&ow Lamb-TAC and Doft WD-Recisionlydeased w Andrew 00790016 Lamb IS_.fND M15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Measure HYD-1, which will reduce potential impacts from the project regarding runoff water and stormwater drainage systems. MM$YD-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval(10,25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system can not meet the volume needs of the project runoff,the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option,the developer may choose to explore low- flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention,or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development,at no cost to the City. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1 the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? El (Sources: 43.) Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project would result in short-term water quality impacts during construction activities and these activities could contribute to significant cumulative impacts on water quality. Project compliance with mandatory National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES), Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan(SN PPP), and City of Huntington Beach building standard requirements as well as implementation of the required project specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)would ensure that all impacts regarding water quality would be less than significant. The required WQMP that has been prepared for the proposed project identifies BMPs designed to reduce impacts to water quality, such as the biotreatment BMP of onsite vegetated swales. The project would not otherwise substantially degrade water quality and impacts would be less than significant; g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation snap? (Sources: 1, 32.) Discussion: As detailed in the FEMA flood maps for the proposed project site,the site lies within Zone X,which is classified as"other flood areas"and is described as:areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 percent annual chance(or 100 year)flood. As detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Study for the proposed project,positive overflow is provided with the building pads being set a minimum of one foot above the over flow elevation,which would protect all proposed residential dwellings from inundation should the storm drain system become inoperable. As described above the project site falls within. Item 23. - 137 1113 -1590_ TTrICHMENT NO. .._.rob Residential Subdivision CrlCmnzz1c—s\ ardlow Lamb15ACEwnb Draft NM- to Ands 00790016 Lamb IS-NIND 08-15-2012-doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Zone X, Other Flood Areas,which includes areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depth of less than one foot,therefore due to the building pads being placed a minimum of one foot above the over flow elevation should the storm drain system become inoperable,a less than significant impact is anticipated. However, projects within Zone X are not required to be flood proofed/elevated to satisfy FEMA requirements. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: ❑ F ice! ❑ _1 Ill Discussion: As described in"g}" above,the site lies within Zone X,which is classified as"other flood areas' and is described as: areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than I foot or with drainage areas less than I square mile; and areas protected by levees from I percent annual chance(or 100 year)flood. Areas within Zone X are not expected to flood and as such, a less than significant impact is anticipated. 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: 1.) Discussion: The project site is not anticipated to be located within an area that may experience flooding as a result of a levee or dam failure. Although the failure of the Prado Dam is identified as a flooding threat to the City of Huntington Beach in the Hazards chapter of the City's General Plan,a flooding threat would only be realized if this flood control basin were nearly full during an earthquake. The chance of flooding of the project site due to failure of the Prado Dann is low. Additionally,the project site has been designed with the residential pads being set a minimum of one foot above the overflow elevation. Less than significant impacts are anticipated in this regard. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 1.) Discussion: As detailed in the Environmental Hazards Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, tsunamis are long period, seismically generated sea waves caused by seaflood displacements and previous evaluations put the tsunami hazards potential for the City of Huntington Beach at very low. Additionally,per Figure EH-8,the project site is not located in a Moderate Tsunami Run-Up Area. Per the City's General Plan, seiches are generated by the sloshing of water in an enclosed or partially enclosed body of water caused by displacement within the water body, or longer period earthquake motions. The project is not adjacent to or near a water body. Asa result,the project site will not be detrimentally impacted by a seiche. Due to the flat nature of the project site,and that it is not within a potentially unstable slope area,per Figure EH-2, in the Environmental Hazards Element of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, impacts from mudflow are anticipated to be less than significant. Therefore, inundation by seismic seiche,tsunami, or mudflow is anticipated to be less than significant. Tri Pointe Bocnes Limb Resideaial5ub&vsion HB -1591- A°�TA NT Item 23. - 138 &.W,onmdes\WaTMl L=blEACgA=b Draft b,M-RevisionVdcued to Andrew 00790016 Lamb—B WD 08-15m-2612.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sipfficant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction activities? (Sources: 43.) Discussion: The project site is subject to the water quality regulations of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board(SARWQCB). The SARWQCB is authorized to implement a municipal stormwater permitting program as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)authority granted under the federal Clean Water Act. The general permit applicable to this project is the"Statewide General Construction.Stormwater Permit"which addresses waste discharge requirements for discharges of stormwater runoff associated with construction activities. Consistent with municipal stormwater NPDES Permit No. CAS618030, issued by the Santa.Ana RWQCB,the City of Huntington Beach is required to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)to minimize the incidence of construction-related pollutants entering the storm water system. Several items are required in a SWPPP, including the site maps showing drainage and discharge locations and the location of control measures, a description of the pollution prevention best management practices(BMPs)to be implemented on the site,BN2 inspection procedures, and requirements for stormwater monitoring. Compliance with these requirements would prevent violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during the construction of the site. Additionally, a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP)has been prepared for the project,which is requirr by the City of Huntington Beach to be prepared prior to construction. The WQMP identifies the Best Management Practices(BMWs)that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff, including: hydrologic source controls,biotreatment BMPs, treatment control BMPs, non-structural source control BMWs and Structural Source Control BMPs.Implementation of the BMPs identified in the WQNT would assure that stormwater from the project site during project construction and post development(operation)would not detrimentally impact the beneficial uses of receiving waters.As a result,impacts associated with stormwater runoff from construction would be less than significant. 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- construction activities? (Sources: 43.) El 0 VIA Discussion: By implementing the Water Quality Management Plan for post-construction water quality, combined with the requirement for the proj ect to detain the flow difference between the existing 25 year and proposed 100 year storms,runoff from the site will not be increased from its current condition.Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated. in) 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: 43.) Discussion: The proposed project involves the development of single-family dwellings. �Theerefoore the project ATTACHMENT 1 . j Item 23. - HB -1592- CrlGom kWardlow Lamb'EAL'1T s ib Draft MAID-Re mmv xekmad to Andrew 0079D016 7am6 IS-1,OM 09-15-20n4nc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting 10mmation Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact site would not contain areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance,waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas,loading docks or other outdoor work areas. Per the Water Quality Management Plan for the proposed project,no vehicle wash areas are provided as part of the proposed project. Although project residents may maintain or wash their vehicles this is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on water quality because each lot will drain flows through a vegetated swale BMP. The vegetated swale will remove pollutants from routine vehicle maintenance and washing and as such a less than significant impact is anticipated. n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources: 43,44.) Discussion: The project site is subject to the water quality regulations of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board(SARWQCB). The SARWQCB is authorized to implement a municipal stormwater permitting program as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)authority granted under the federal Clean Water Act. The general permit applicable to this project is the"Statewide General Construction Stormwater Permit"which addresses waste discharge requirements for discharges of stormwater runoff associated with construction activities. Consistent with municipal stormwater NPDES Permit No.CASb 18030, issued by the Santa.Ana RWQCB,the City of Huntington Beach is required to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan(SWPPP)to minimize the incidence of construction-related pollutants entering the storm water system. Several items are required in a SWPPP,including the site maps showing drainage and discharge locations and the location of control measures, a description of the pollution prevention best management practices(BMPs)to be implemented on the site,BMP inspection procedures, and requirements for stormwater monitoring. Compliance with these requirements would prevent violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during the construction of the site. Additionally,prior to construction,the project applicant would be required by the City of Huntington Beach to prepare a water quality management plan(WQMP). The WQMP would identify the Best Management Practices(BMPs)that will be used on the site to control predictable pollutant runoff, including source control BMPs, and treatment control BMPs. Implementation of the BMPs identified in the WQMP would assure that stormwater from the project site during project construction and post development(operation)would not detrimentally impact the beneficial uses of receiving waters. As a result, impacts associated with this issue would be less than significant. o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources:43.) Discussion: Refer to the discussion in threshold"1" above. Pane 14 ATTACHMENT min L. . �Cl TriPoiT"HDrnesLamb Residential Subdivision H.B -1593- Item 23. - 140 G:1Gon leslWa�owLe b\EAM=bDraftMI.ID-Revis;Wrelmsedto Andrew 00790016..w..w_w..:.:........3-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? (Sources: 43.) Discussion: Due to the flat nature of the project site and the lack of hills and steep slopes onsite,the proposed project is not anticipated to create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. As detailed in the Water Quality Management Plan for the proposed project,the project consists of constructing 81 single-family homes with associated sewer, storm drain,water,curb,gutter, sidewalk, and street improvements on an i 1.65-acre site. Landscaping will be planted on the front, side,and backyards of the homes. Therefore, due to the developed nature that the project site will have upon completion of the proposed project, there will not be large expanses of undeveloped land,which could be subject to erosion. Additionally, landscaping onsite will reduce the amount of exposed dirt and soils onsite. Thus, less than significant impacts are anticipated. 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? (Sources: 61.) Discussion: Air quality impacts can be described in a short-term and long-term perspective. Short-term impacts will occur during demolition,site grading, and project construction and consist of fugitive dust and other particulate matter,as well as exhaust emissions generated by construction-related vehicles. Long-term air quality impacts will occur once the project is in operation. The project will be required to comply with existing South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)rules for the reduction of fugitive dust emissions. SCAQMD Rule 403 establishes these procedures. Compliance with this rule is achieved through application of standard best management practices in construction and operation activities, such as application of water or chemical stabilizers to disturbed soils, managing haul road dust by application of water, covering haul vehicles,restricting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph, sweeping loose dirt from paved site access roadways, cessation of construction activity when winds exceed 25 mph and establishing a permanent, stabilizing ground cover on finished sites. Based on the size of the project area(approximately 11.65 acres)a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification would not be required. Short-term emissions were evaluated using the CalEEMod version 2011.1.1 computer program. The model evaluated emissions resulting from fugitive dust as well as exhaust emissions generated by earthmoving and grading activities, and subsequent painting/coating and paving. Construction of the project would begin no sooner than December 2012 and last until December 2014. Demolition of the existing school is expected to take approximately 1 month. Grading will occur after demolition. Construction of the model homes,production homes,and water quality basin will occur after grading,painting and paving can occur during construction;therefore,emissions from those phases were added to Item 23. — 141bRe5id� ,subs. HB -1594 ATTACHMENT NO, O'1Goa7a1es%Wasdiow Lamb1EACliamb Draft M"-Y-mAssonkeleased to Andrew 00790015 Lamb IS-bm mi5-20uAm Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the emissions from the construction phase. Table 2 below shows the equipment used for each phase of construction. Table 2: Construction Phasing Summary r � �t+iumberof s �i x '.�� �Pt�ase 1 'w,►orfcdays"` � OonStrlUctaon:Equipment _ a $ day', ��?r 1-Demolition 20 3 excavators 8 157 2 rubber tired dozers 8 358 1 concrete/industrial saw 8 81 2-Grading 23 2 tractors/loaders/backhoes 8 75 1 rubber tired dozer 8 358 1 grader 8 162 2 excavators 8 157 i 2 scrapers 8 356 3a-Construction of 66 1 Crane 7 208 Model Homes. I 3 Forklifts 8 149 3 Tractor/loader/backhoes 7 75 1 Generator Set 8 84 1 Welder 8 46 3b-Construction of 369 1 Crane 7 208 Production Homes 3 Forklifts 8 149 and WQ Basin 3 Tractor/loader/backhoes 7 75 1 Generator Set 8 84 1 Welder 8 46 i 4-Paving 81 2 Paving Equipment 8 82 2 Pavers 8 89 2 Rollers 8 84 5-Architectural 76 1 Air compressor 6 I 78 ` Coating 6---Installation of 50 1 Crane 7 208 Storm Drain 1 rubber tired dozer 8 358 11 Tractor/loader/backhoe 7 75 7—Grading for 15 1 Excavator 8 157 Adjacent Park I Grader 8 162 1 Rubber Tired Dozer 8 358, 1 Tractor/LoaderBackhoe 8 75 8 -Construction 50 1 Forklift 8 149 of Adjacent Park 2 Tractor/loader/backhoes 7 75 I Generator Set 8 84 1 Welder 8 46 HB -1595- AT rACHME Item 23. - 142 Tri Pointe Hennes Lamb Residential Subdivision ... ..._ ,..._..._-_..__u......•_—..-.-n.,..., ,._.____a__.____�.._e_��.nmtwH[i...l.rex mn�SLom9 Anr Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4-Paving for 10 1 Paving Equipment 8 82 Storm Drain and 1 Pavers 8 89 Park I Rollers 8 84 2 Cement and Mortar lviixers 6 9 1 Tractor/LoaderfBackhoe 8 75 Source: CaIEEMod Output. Table 3 below shows the maximum daily construction emissions during the approximately 2 years of construction. Table 3: Maximum Daily Construction Emissions 3 •' r4a''� w c •-. ^+.r �,,..i�n .y � r - y ..K "`r y .^rc - � �. . s, �, � PkDa�ly Emissions ll�/days z at .�"- �4 7 `y i.*i" .h, �'F , y �' •t -_ C' �yy.� � •t_&3 2 y�'�+� h � 1 � 1 e7' }� �i�'�1 ,.43 qJ+C 3'�. .'T.J"`.3-T�." (Y.3� '•-.��xt���"t' � S'-\�:� t���S'�,{ .'�eP .,5``._.LT. .+'•{:. e �i1 � ,�..,r.� H�=.'w.. � .. .:: ..r.u.. ,., .-Y'f �Y-.. .'a ycy.�'. Demolition-2012 10.20 83.07 50.02 0.08 12.04 4.18 Grading-2013 11.96 97.59 54.18 0.10 7.48 5.90 Construction-20131 5.47 36.22 26.30 0.04 2.87 2.36 Paving-2013 5.62 33.90 21.89 0.03 3.17 2.95 Architectural Coating-2013 10.66 3.00 2.34 0.00 0.36 0.36 Overlapping construction totals' 21.75 73.12 50.53 0.07 6.4 5.67 Construction-2014 5.02 33.48 25.83 0.04 2,61 2.1 Site Prep and Installation for 4.00 33.44 IT06 0.03 3.97 2.79 Storm Drain' Grading for PW 5.31 41.58 26.03 0.04 4.70 3.42 Construction of Park3 3.06 17.77 13.65 0.02 1.38 1.38 Paving' 3,26 18.64 13.12 0.02 1.82 1.60 Overlapping construction totals' 10.33 75.06 51.86 0.08 7.31 3.48 Maximum Emissions 21.75 97.59 54.18 0.10 12.04 5.90 SCAQMD Daily Construction 75 100 550 150 150 55 Thresholds Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No 1 Construction of the production homes will generate more emissions than the construction of the model homes;therefore,these emissions values are reported 2 Both painting and paving can occur at the same time as construction;therefore,the emissions were added together. 3 The tinning of Park and Storm Drain is unknown at this time,but could potentially occur during the final stages of construction during 2014;therefore the phase with the highest emissions(grading for Park)was added to Construction 2014. Source.Michael Brandman Associates Air Quality Data PR17071J ATT�CHfENT N®. Item 23. - 143,zz�id-o,- S,dbd�,on HB -1596- u:suonzaiesswuwcw L=b1EACV-=*Draft MND-Revi9onVel and to Andrew 00790016 -t;i-2012,doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): impact Incorporated Impact No Impact As shown by the results in the Table 3 above,the construction of the project will not exceed SCAQMD's regional thresholds for construction during any year of construction. Table 4 below shows the maximum daily operational emissions from either summer or winter. As shown by the results in the table below, the proposed project will not exceed any of the SCAQMD criteria pollutant operational emissions thresholds. CO Hotspots Analysis The proposed project is anticipated to generate 970 trips per day. Based on the analysis presented below, a CO "hot spots" analysis is not needed to determine whether the change in the level of service(LOS)of an intersection in the project would have the potential to result in exceedances of the CAAQS or NAAQS.It has long been recognized that CO exceedances are caused by vehicular emissions, primarily when idling at intersections. Accordingly,vehicle emissions standards have become increasingly more stringent. Before the first vehicle emission regulations,cars in the 1950s were typically emitting about 87 grams of CO per mile (USEPA nd). Since the first regulation of CO emissions from vehicles (model year 1966)in California, vehicle emissions standards for CO applicable to light duty vehicles have decreased by 96 percent for automobiles, and new cold weather CO standards have been implemented,effective fox the 1996 model year (CCR). Currently,the CO standard in California is a maximum of 3.4 grams/mile for passenger cars(with provisions for certain cars to emit even less). With the turnover of older vehicles, introduction of cleaner fuels and implementation of control technology on industrial facilities, CO concentrations in the SCAQMD have steadily declined. The analysis prepared for CO attainment in the South Coast Air Basin by the SCAQMD can be used to assist in evaluating the potential for CO exceedances in the South Coast Air Basin. CO attainment was thoroughly analyzed as part of the SCAQMD's 2003 Air Quality Management Plan and the 1992 Federal Attainment Plan for Carbon Monoxide. As discussed in the 1992 CO Plan,peak carbon monoxide concentrations in the South Coast Air Basin are due to unusual meteorological and topographical conditions, and not due to the impact of particular intersections. Considering the region's unique meteorological conditions and the increasingly stringent CO emissions standards, CO modeling was performed as part of 1992 CO Plan and subsequent plan updates and air quality management plans. At build out of the project,the highest peak hour intersection volume would be 2,142 for 2015 plus project scenario at the intersection of Adams Avenue and Bushard Street,which is much lower than the values studied by SCAQMD (in the 1992 CO2 plan a CO2 hot spot analysis was conducted for busy intersections which reached a daily traffic volwne of approximately 100,000 vehicles per day.) At build out of the project, none of the intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project site would have peak hourly traffic volumes exceeding those at the intersections modeled in the 2003 AQMP,nor would there be any reason unique to the local meteorology to conclude that this intersection would yield higher CO concentrations if modeled in detail. Therefore,emissions from both the construction(including demolition of the existing facilities)and operation of the proposed project will not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation and no CO hotspots are anticipated; impacts are considered to be less than significant. Table 4: Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions �ct�vEtylY'ear RUG Af0' CO fu. $0- z laM�a > Mzs` Mobile Sources T ( 5.15 9.99 48.47 ' , 0.10 11.14 ~c0.80 1 �T [A [-49V E Kinn Tu Pointe Hoam Lamb Residernizl Subd vision HB -1597 Item 23. - 144 CklGntvnleAW ardlow LarobkP AC'Camb Draft WD-lteviannkeleased w Andrew 00790016 Lioub_LS-NM 08-15-2012,doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact T � �,, <; eak Daly Em�ss�or<s(IbltlaYl Tu a- A'c v�fyli'ear�T z k l I2OGf'# �� 1y0 �;i CQ `�`-' ..1..��F--, x x" �3� - --- Energy 0.10 0.86 0.37 0.01 } 0.07 0.07 Architectural Coating 0_3 1 - - - - - Consumer Product 2.89 I --- - - f - - Hearth 8.62 1 0.40 26.81 0.06 4.28 4.28 Landscaping 0.22 0.08 6.89 0.00 0.04 0.04 Park 0.02 j 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.00 Project Total 1731 11.26 82.72 0.17 15.57 5.19 SCAQMD Daily Operational Thresholds 55 55 550 150 150 55 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No No No Source:CaIEEMod Output b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 61.) ❑ V17--\11 El Discussion: As part of the SCAQMD's environmental justice program, attention has been focused on localized effects of air quality. Staff at SCAQMD has developed localized significance threshold(LST)methodology that can be used by public agencies to determine whether a project may generate significant adverse localized air quality impacts(both short-term and long-term). LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a project that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, and are developed based on the ambient concentrations of that pollutant for each source receptor area (SRA). The project is located within SRA 18. Short-Term Analysis According to the LST methodology,only onsite emissions need to be analyzed. SCAQMD has provided LST lookup tables and sample construction scenarios to allow users to readily determine if the daily emissions for proposed construction or operational activities could result in significant localized air quality impacts for projects that disturb 5 acres or less per day,which is the case with the proposed project. The SCAQMD published a"Fact Sheet for Applying CalEEMod to Localized Significance Thresholds." CalEEMod calculates construction emissions based on the number of equipment hours and the maximum daily disturbance activity possible for each piece of equipment. In order to compare CalEEMod reported emissions against the localized significance threshold lookup tables,the CEQA document should contain in its project design features or its mitigation measures the following parameters: 1) The off-road equipment list(including type of equipment,horsepower, and hours of operation) assumed for the day of construction activity with maximum emissions. 2) The maximum number of acres disturbed on the peak day using the equipment list from above and Table 5,which is from the CalEEMod appendix. ATTACH Item 23. - 145,�R�;d ia,svbd iaa HB -1598 IVIE S NO. � G1Cmn esNWa dlaw LamMEAOL=b Draft AND-Rz isionWke d to Andrew 0079M16 Laralr IS-MIND 08-15-2012_doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated impact No Impact Table 5: LST Guidance Table from CaiEEMod Appendix Crawler Tractor 0.5 Graders 0.5 Rubber Tired Dozers 0.5 Scrapers I 1.0 3) Any emission control devices added onto off-road equipment. 4) Specific dust suppression techniques used on the day of construction activity with maximum emissions. The off-road equipment details are listed in Table 2. The grading phase for residential construction uses the most equipment of the type listed in Table 5 above. For the calculation, equipment used corresponds to 2 excavators(crawler tractor), 1 grader, 1 rubber-tired dozer, and 2 scrapers. Using the CalEEMod table above, the maximum daily acreage disturbed would be 4 acres((2 x 0.5)+0.5+ 0.5 -+-(2 x 1). The LST thresholds are estimated using the maximum daily-disturbed area(in acres)and the distance of the project to the nearest sensitive receptors(in meters). Existing residences are located to the west of the project site and the closest sensitive receptors are the existing residences adjacent to the northern and eastern portions of the project site. To ensure a worst-case analysis,the sensitive receptor position of 25 meters(85 feet)was used,which is the closest distance that can be used under the SCAQMD localized significance threshold methodology. The results are summarized below. Table 6: LST Results for Daily Construction Emissions a ��`pollu�nt�r�`��4','h��O�_1bs�da`,}i) CQ Ibsf�a�,j�" PNlao�lbslcEay�,�X PA1I5251i'�I�"ayl:-= SRA 18 LST Threshold 170 1379 11 7 for 4 acres at 25 meters Demolition 75.14 44.19 4.97 3-80 Grading 97.47 52.85 7.16 5.88 Construction 34.66 23.45 2.28 2.28 Paving/Coating 36.77 22.83 3.20 3.20 Exceeds Threshold? No No No No Source:CaIEEMod Output Emissions from grading/earthwork of a total of 11.65-acres were accounted for in the analysis of the projects air quality impacts. Thus,impacts from truck trips associated with earthwork removal from the project site was accounted for in the emissions analysis for the project. Emissions from construction of the project will be below the localized significance thresholds established by SCAQMD for the project;therefore,the impact is considered less than significant. TriPoirftHomesL=bResidential5ubdMsion HB-1599- ATTACHM NIItem 23. - 146 G:1Gonz daMardlow I93nb1EAC%Lamb Draft MND-Revisionlreleased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb_IS-MND 09-15-2012.6m Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Long-Term Analysis This project involves the construction and operation of a residential land use. According to SCAQMD LST methodology,LSTs would apply to the operational phase of a project,if the project includes stationary sources,or attracts mobile sources that may spend long periods queuing and idling at the site--such as warehouse/transfer facilities. The proposed project does not include such uses. Therefore,due to the lack of stationary source emissions,no long-term localized significance threshold analysis is needed. c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial 17 number of people? (Sources: 61.) Discussion: Land uses typically considered associated with odors include wastewater treatment facilities, waste-disposal facilities,or agricultural operations. The project does not contain land uses typically associated with emitting objectionable odors. Diesel exhaust and VOCs would be emitted during construction of the project,which are objectionable to some; however,emissions would be short-term in duration and disperse rapidly from the project site;therefore,odors should not reach an objectionable level at the nearest sensitive receptors. During construction,certain activities such as laying asphalt pavement,applying paint/protective coatings,and applying some roofing materials,would generate odors that may be noticeable to nearby residents/landowners. Such odors are not unusual in residential areas and last only a matter of a few days. Though noticeable,such odors do not result in significant nuisance or health risk Due to the residential nature of the proposed project,it is not anticipated that upon project completion there would be activities,materials, or chemicals that would have the potential to cause odor impact affecting a substantial number of people. The impacts are less than significant and no further analysis is required d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 61.) Discussion: The South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)has established the Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP)for the South Coast Air Basin(Basin)to achieve state and federal air quality standards. The AQMP is the primary planning document by which air quality standards and objectives are monitored. Projects that are in compliance with their area's general plan are also considered to be consistent with the air quality plan, as set forth by SCAQMD. The current General Plan land use designation is Public (Residential Low Density)(P(RL)). The project proponent is requesting a General Plan Amendment No. 2008-005,to change the site's land use designation to Residential Low Density(RL). As the underlying RL designation was already contemplated in the General Plan for the site's long-term use,the project is not considered in conflict with the AQMP. Furthermore, according to the SCAQMD,the project is consistent with the AQMP if the project would not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations,or delay timely attainment of air quality standards or the interim emission reductions specified in the AQMP. As shown in the responses to V a) and b) above,the implementation of the project will not result in an increase in the frequency or severity of existing air quality violations or cause or contribute to new violations. A,TTA HMENT NO- `-S- "?�_ Item 23. —1.4 d �Subdl, Hg -1600- G:1GonzftksSWar&Dw LambTAC9.b Dca81,9qD-revision\1.].ed to Aadrm 007900I6 Lamb LS-)ND 06-I5-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Therefore, as the project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the air quality plan established for this region,and impacts are considered less than significant. e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of f� any criteria pollutant for which the project region is 11 El non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 61.) Discussion: The South Coast Air Basin is in non-attainment for ozone, particulate matter(PM10 and PM2.5), and nitrogen dioxide,which means that concentrations of those pollutants currently exceed the ambient air quality standards for those pollutants. As shown in the response to V a), the proposed project's emissions would not exceed SCAQMD significance thresholds during either construction or operation of the project for any criteria pollutants. Therefore,impacts associated with a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant would be less than significant. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAMC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy ® 4 establishing measures of effectiveness for the F] performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and nora-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? (Sources: 48.) Discussion: A traffic impact analysis was prepared for the proposed 81 unit single-family residential project which established the existing traffic conditions, developed the projected future baseline conditions without the project,estimated the levels of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project,conducted a comparative analysis of traffic conditions with and without the project and identified potential mitigation measures/roadway improvements. Analysis in the traffic impact analysis for the proposed project is based on the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes on the streets and intersections in the project vicinity. The levels of service at the following eight intersections were analyzed. • Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue(signalized) • Brookhurst Street at Yorktown Avenue(signalized) • Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue(signalized) xB -1601- ����C�� � T Item 23.�- 148 Tri Po6me Soma Iamb ResideW ai subdivision Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information,Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact • Ward Street at Garfield Avenue(signalized) • Bushard Street at Yorktown Avenue(signalized) • Bushard Street at Adams Avenue(signalized) • Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane(stop sign on Canberra Lane) • Yorktown Avenue at future site access street(stop sign on access street) Manual traffic counts were originally taken at the seven study area intersections in February and July 2009, during the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods on days when the local schools were in session. Subsequently, similar traffic counts were taken in 2012. Both sets of data are in the attached traffic study. The Public Works Department has.determined that use of the counts from.2009 is more conservative than the use of the 2012 counts,which showed slightly lower vehicle trips. Existing Intersection Levels of Service Level of service is a qualitative indicator of an intersection's operating conditions that is used to represent various degrees of congestion and delay. It is measured from LOS A(excellent conditions)to LOS F(extreme congestion),with LOS A through D considered to be acceptable per the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. To quantify the existing baseline tragic conditions,the seven existing study area intersections were analyzed to determine their operating conditions during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The six signalized intersections were analyzed by calculating the intersection capacity utilization(ICU)values and corresponding levels of service(LOS),which are based on the peak hour traffic volumes,the turning movement counts,and the existing number of lanes at each intersection. The levels of service for the unsignalized intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Canberra lane and the fixture unsignalized intersections of Yorktown Avenue and the site access street were determined by using the Highway Capacity Software's two-way stop methodology,which calculates the average delay for vehicles waiting at the stop signs and relates the delay value to a level of service. Existing intersection levels of service are shown in Table 7 below. Table 7: Existing Intersection Levels of Service .rtl'B31S��-10a.'Sg".,v� ,S� �•;,.�.- -��' s.;:�_ ,.,9ntersectian, ��. .:,�.. . ..max :A7V1rPeaEc-Nou��= �F,:..-`1S��,h�.:W�. ._ ._�- _ �,.�_-��- a SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU value&LOS) Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue 0.488-A 0.672-B Brookhurst Street at Yorktown Avenue 0.456-A 0.622-B Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue 0.871 -D 0.870-D Ward Street at Garfield Avenue 0.677-B 0.659-B Bushard Street at Yorktown Avenue 0.418-A 0.433-A i Pnup 7R ATTACHMENT NO. Item 23. - 149°Residentia1 Subdivision HB -1602- �­ =%w¢xuww v amb%aA CUzmb Draft MAID-RevisicmVd ased to dM Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Bushard Street at Adams Avenue 0.59' -A 0.673-B i UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (average vehicle delay in seconds&LOS) i Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane 15.1 -C 12.4--B Source:Garland Associates. 2012 Traffic Impact Anaiysis for the Proposed Residential Development at the Lamb School Site 10251 Yorktown Avenue East of Brookhurst Street Tract No. 17238. Huntington Beach(May 2012). As shown in the table above,all seven of the existing study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service(LOS A,B, C, or D)during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. Future Baseline Traffic Conditions The future baseline traffic conditions without the project for the target year of completion(2015)were estimated by considering the effects of general ambient regional growth and the cumulative increase in traffic volumes that would be generated by other development projects proposed in the vicinity of the project site. To estimate future baseline traffic volumes,the existing traffic volumes were expanded by a factor of three percent,which represents a growth rate of one percent per year for three years. This growth factor accounts for the traffic increases associated with general regional growth and development projects not in the immediate vicinity of the project site. Next, an estimate was made of the increased levels of traffic that would occur at the study area streets and intersections as a result of the traffic that would be generated by the proposed development projects; i.e.,those that are within a 1-mile radius of the project site. The list of development projects was obtained from the Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department(Planning Applications, updated February 2012). The volumes of traffic that would be generated by these projects were estimated for the morning and afternoon peak hours. The development projects that were included in the cumulative traffic analysis are listed below. As shown, there are three other development projects proposed in the vicinity of the project site: • Beach Walk Apartments- 19891 Beach Boulevard(west side south of Utica Avenue), 174 units • Wardlow School Site- Single-Fawily Residential Development 9191 Pioneer Drive, 49 units • Hoag Medical Office Building Expansion- 19582 Beach Boulevard, 52,177 sq ft. The estimated volumes of traffic that would be generated by the three proposed development projects are shown in Table 8 below. Table 8: Traffic Generated by Other Proposed Development Projects t �� 1 P#o1e�U ian`�1 lls�� `:�,s ' `Traffic- '� �Tatail "'-=k Irr'' r but ��,�`�' `�ntal�`�� �-�•�In�'�,�x� Out��`�:' Trip Generation Rates j Apartments(per unit) 6.65 0.51 201/16 80% 0.62 65% 35% Single-Family Residential(per 12.0 0.75 25% 75% 1.01 63% j 37% 1 unit) Medical Offices (per 1,000 36.13 2.30 79% 21% 3.46 27% 73% ,TTACHMEN Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential snbdwision HB -1603- Item 23. -3150 ry A1PelWa lnm T.x h\Fa(Ua nh haR MT3n-Revx nnlydPnn�tu Andrew 06790016 Lamb iS MEID OB-15-2012.doe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 4 � +� AM Peak Hourtz BM Pea`1c Ho`u� �� y '. iL �'7�, ��� ��.��� � Y.r? � .'?-?. y ,.rk4<ti� 7C' r`� ', S�rt��-�y�.��r x rh �,gr - � `u �'�ix.4�y�'�urt,�w ry,z,tn�•'- � Generated Traffic 1 1.Beach Walk Apartments 1,160 89 18 l 71 108 70 1 38 (174 units) 2.Wardlow Residential(49 590 37 9 28 49 31 I 18� t units) i 3.Hoag Med Offices(52,177 1,890 120 95 25 181 1 49 ! 132 sq ft) TOTAL 3,640 246 122 124 338 150 188 Source: Garland Associates. 2012'Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at the Lamb School Site 10251 Yorktown Avenue East of Brookhurst Street Tract No. 17238. Huntington Beach(May 2012). The table above shows the trip generation rates for each land use type and the volumes of traffic that each project would generate during the peak hours on a typical weekday. The table indicates that the projects,in total,would generate an estimated 246 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour(122 inbound and 124 outbound), 338 trips during the afternoon peak hour(150 inbound and 188 outbound);and 3,640 vehicle trips per day. The trip generation rates shown in the table above are from.the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual(8th Edition, 2008), except that the daily rate for the single-family residential use is 12.0 trips per unit instead of the manual's rate of 9.57 trips per unit. Use of the 12.0 trips per unit daily rate represents a highly conservative daily trip factor. Project Generated Traffic The volumes of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project were determined in order to estimate the impacts of the project on the study area streets and intersections. Table 9 below shows the estimated volume of project generated traffic for an average weekday and for the morning and afternoon peak hours for the proposed 81-unit residential development. The trip generation rates(vehicle trips per dwelling unit) represent values from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual(8th Edition,2008)for the single-family detached housing residential land use category, except that the daily rate for the single-family residential use is 12.0 trips per unit daily rate. Regardless of which daily trip rate is used,the proposed project results in less than significant impacts,as described below. For purposes of comparison,the table below also shows the estimated volumes of traffic that were generated by the elementary school that formerly occupied the project site. Item 2 - ,ATTACHMENT NO. `� 3. 1511d15 HB 1604 G 1Gonzaies%Wardlow LrmbWACE emb Draft M11D-Revisionkeieased w Andrew 00790016 L=b 1S-MND 08-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Table 9: Project Generated Traffic t t� ! t �"r �' �ss� ^�' '. �` S � ,r ,.�a. S 1 "h a:T4� "-ram r.,; g sn�F �' `"'�•�` y � - � Trip Generation Rates Single-Family Residential k (trips per dwelling unit) 0.75 ( 25% 1 75% 1.01 63% 37% 12.0 I Elementary School (trips per student) 0.45 55% 1 45% 0.28 45% 55% 1.29 Project Generated Traffic l Lamb Residential Project I (81 units) 61 15 46 82 52 30 970 Former Lamb School (650 students) 293 161 132 182 82 100 840 Source_Garland Associates. 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at the Lamb School Site i 10251 Yorktown Avenue East of Brookhurst Street Tract No. 17238. Huntington Beach(May 2012). The table above shows that the proposed residential development would generate 61 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour(15 inbound and 46 outbound), 82 trips during the afternoon peak hour(52 inbound and 30 outbound),and a total of 970 vehicle trips per day using the conservative 12.0 per unit daily trip rate. As a comparison,the former elementary school generated 293 trips during the morning peak hour, 182 trips during the afternoon peak hour,and 840 trips per day. Therefore,the proposed residential development would generate less AM and PM peak hour traffic than the former elementary school use and more traffic on a daily basis. With existing conditions,no traffic is generated from the project site. Addition of the proposed project would increase traffic compared to existing conditions(i.e., 970 daily trips),but as detailed below,less than significant traffic impacts are anticipated from the proposed project. Significance Criteria Per the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, a transportation impact at a signalized intersection shall be deemed significant in accordance with the following criteria: For levels of service E and F,final ICU value is >0.900 and project-related increases in ICU are equal to or greater than 0.010 Although the City does not have adopted significance criteria for unsignalized intersections, it has been assumed that an unsignalized intersection would be significantly impacted if the project would change the level of service from an acceptable LOS A through D to an unacceptable LOS E or F.The intersection would not be significantly impacted if the intersection's level of service would remain at LOS D or better. Intersection Impact Analysis .An analysis of traffic impacts was conducted by quantifying the before and after traffic volumes,then determining the ICU values for the signalized intersections,the delay values for the unsignalized intersections, and the levels of service at the study area intersections for the"without project"and"with project" scenarios. The before-and-after levels of service at each of the study area intersections are summarized in Table 10 for the morning peak hour and Table 11 for the afternoon peak hour. The tables show the existing traffic conditions,the existing plus project conditions,the future baseline traffic conditions without the project for the Hs -16os- prTTAHMENTIt m 23.z 4152 Tri Poir&-Home lI Residential Subdivision G-\Go—°.AWadlouv La MRAClLamb M fl AIND-RavisionVdemed m Andrew 00790016 T+mb IS-UND 08-15-2012.doe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact year 2015,the 2015 traffic conditions with the addition of the project traffic,and the change in ICU or delay values associated with the project. The last columns in each of the tables below indicate if the intersection would be significantly impacted by the proposed project. As shown,the proposed residential project would not have a significant impact at any of the study area intersections during the morning or afternoon peak hours. Table 10: Project Impact on Intersection Levels of Service-AM Peak Hour Z iyu�,.�z��.:. v ,ea .: w ,f- t sr - 'r1'r � + '�"N-w,. '- t,Z` rz,'�, '� �p�, _�Le.Vdf ofiS2ri�CQEGzs' �. - ,� -dr' '`a `^. .%` "'a+,. rs"la �.�x �'` c"' r,�55w�..r,,..,�t-, '..'�'t-•�'-..i` _ `ti` ✓ f. - 3 3;'r �i�-" ,.,,-"ci'C+.."`'-�„� r.'YY ca z } � 9kt� 30 r st" t SE` w -� c��a�t'o- `tu- t-.: �.�`S � �-,�X1Sf[r1C�`�=�r.� PtG �•F. x�Itt10U��"�•�.,. ��lw f� PIOJeCt'4"'. .E -1Can� �-1 tntersectton�� h *Fond dons � $,Pro eE#. { �'Pro ec �.�z;Prolect �� Impact� �impac$� SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU value&LOS) Brookhurst/Garfield 0.488-A 0.491 -A 0.505-A 0.508-A 0.003 No Brookhurst/Yorldown 0.456-A 0.465-A 0.469-A 0.480-A 0.011 No Brookhurst/Adams 0.871-D 0.872-D 0.898-D 0.899-D 0.001 No Ward/Garfield 0 677-B 0.685-B i 0.700-C 0.708-C 0.008 No Bushard/Yorktown 0.418-A 0,418-A 0.433-A 0.434-A 0.001 No i Bushard/Adams 0.593 -A 0.593 -A 0.613-B 0.613 -B 0.000 No UNSIGNALIZED WMRSECTIONS (average vehicle delay in seconds&LOS) f Yorktown/Canberra 15.1-C 15A-C 15.7-C 16.0-C 0.3 No Yorktown/Site Access N/A 10.7-B i N/A 10.8-B 10.8 No l Source:Garland Associates. 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at the Lamb School Site I 10251 Yorktown Avenue East of Brookhurst Street Tract No. 1723 8_ Huntington Beach(May 2012). The table above shows that the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue, for example,would operate at an ICU value of 0.488 and LOS A for existing conditions during the AM peak hour and at an ICU value of 0.491 and LOS A for the existing plus project scenario. The table indicates that this intersection would operate at an ICU value of 0.505 and LOS A for the year 2015 without project scenario and at an ICU value of 0.508 and LOS A in 2015 with the project,which represents an increase in the ICU value of 0.003. The last column indicates that the intersection would not be significantly impacted. It should be noted that there are several other unsignalized intersections along Yorktown Avenue in addition to the intersection of Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane,which was evaluated for this analysis. For example, Mauna Lane, Pitcairn Lane, and Independence Lane also intersect with Yorktown Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The Canberra Lane intersection was selected for the analysis because it has the highest volumes of traffic entering and exiting Yorktown Avenue and it is the closest intersection to the project site. As the analysis for the Canberra Lane intersection indicates that the intersection would not be significantly impacted by the project, it can be concluded that the other unsignalized intersections along Yorktown,which have low, traffic volumes than Canberra Lane,would likewise not be significantly impacted by the project. -- ,� ATTACHMENT NO, Item 23. - xB -1606- G:1GowalestWardfow 7ambE AMemb Draft N M-Bcvidon4domd to Andim 00790016 Larch TS-k[1,0 08-15-20I2-doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Table 11: Project Impact on Intersection Levels of Service-PM Peak Hour • ,ti'�. '•t Y +cs yw >a z..�"tT ''�£� gs 1 "'' `'''{ •'�..r=Y s +''" M s !x'r�"`� `'�` .rk`L`�" - °`"'%s3 3 t" �' ": ° n -.✓ U .SSY'VIC� y Y L� �{r w j �r -•i n`� E b Y S'+ .7 M .(°,� :�"�''�'���. �`�:+� 4 �� a-,��+r` Y 1=XIS�f)��£ ..��y ?r P1L1$ ��,.��.��I�tOL7�'Sf�. 3��'1q+•w�.�0 �'prOleG � � IGaTIt.� `�f '`# r�.x;.,..; Aa�.'F• �,A T &x+t a� ''xP'r sP 4�+.,,c-.,- s 'S "a `.�, p,,za arc.'{ ,,� r[""'3 Sys' r s Vim.r"�pee��1 _s,..,.a• ,f.,,,.r t_.. - �'�_- _ ? -_ � 1,� �"*'•e.�a''' -'Y.. .X'4.-s r w: _ SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS(ICU value&LOS) Brookhurst/Garfield 0.672-B 0.674-B I 0.693 -B 0.696-B 0.003 No j Brookhurst/Yorktown 0.622-B 0.627-B ' 0.647-B 0.651-B 0.004 No Brookhurst/Adams 0.870-D 0.871-D 0.896-D 0.899-D 0.003 No Ward/Garfield 0.659-B 0.669-B 0.682-B 0.691 -B 0.009 No Bushard/Yorktown 0.433-A 0.435-A ? 0.450-A 0.451 -A 0.001 No j Bushard/Adams 0.673-B 0.673 -B D.695 -B 0.695-B 0.000 No UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS(average vehicle delay in seconds&LOS) Yorktown/Canberra 12.4-B 12.5-B 12.6-B 12.8-B 0.2 No Yorktown/Site Access N/A 13.1-B NIA 13.4-B 13.4 No Source: Garland Associates. 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis for the Proposed Residential Development at the Lamb School Site 10251 Yorktown Avenue East of Brookhurst Street Tract No. 1723 8. Huntington Beach(May 2D 12}. i Both Table 10 and Table 11 immediately above indicate that none of the study area intersections would be significantly impacted by the project and that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable conditions(LOS A through D)during the AM and PM peak hours for the existing conditions and year 2015 analysis scenarios. The last rows in each of the two tables above show the projected delay values and levels of service for vehicles at the proposed stop sign where the site access street would intersect with Yorktown Avenue. As shown,this unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS B during the morning and afternoon peak hours. It was assumed for the level of service analysis that a left-turn pocket would be provided for vehicles turning left into the site from eastbound Yorktown Avenue. There are no delay or level of service values for existing conditions or for the 2015 without project scenario at this intersection because the intersection would not exist unless the project were to be developed. Year 2030 Analysis An analysis has been conducted to determine the impacts of the project on the intersection levels of service for the long-range future(year 2030) scenario. The project-generated traffic was added to the projected baseline traffic volumes and the levels of service were re-calculated to quantify the project's impacts at each intersection. The results of the 2030 analysis are shown in Table 12 below. ATTACHMENT "n `--. �1 c^ rri Pointe aoues Lamb Residentia[SubdMs;on HB -1607-7 154 Item 23. — CY.IGo=ales\Ward1Dw Laznb1EACU amh Draft NND-RevWonkeleased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb IS-U10 08-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Table 12: Project Impact on Year 2030 Intersection Levels of Service S�grnf��rrt r r2,��K'- Jntefsec6on,�..� *��; � Wtha�tProtect &s � With�rolecx v�- ''�;�Jrnpact y • `11 pact;5'�� AM Peak Yours Brookliurst/Garfield 0.73-C 0.73-C 0.00 No i i BTookhurst/Yorktown 0.57-A 0.58-A 0.01 No Brookhurst/Adams 1.10-F l 1.10-F 0.00 No Ward/Garfield 0.86-D 0.87-D 0.01 No Bushard/Yorktown 0.64-B 0.64-B 0.00 No Bushard/Adams 0.77-C 0.77-C I 0.00 No PM Peak Hours BrookhurstlGarfield 0.87-D 0.87-D 0.00 No Brookhurst/Yorktown 0.67-B 0.69-B 0.02 No BrookhursVAdams 1.06-F 1.06-F 0.00 No Ward/Garfield 0.57-A I 0.58-A 0.01 No j BushardfYorktown 0.64-B 0.64-B 0.00 No f Bushard/Adams 0.82-D 1 0.82-D 0.00 I No Source_Garland Associates. 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis for the.Proposed Residential Development at the Lamb School Site 10251 Yorktown Avenue East of Brookhurst Street Tract No. 17238. Huntington Beach(May 2012). As shown in Table 12 above,the project would not result in a significant impact at any of the study area intersections for the year 2030 analysis scenario. It should be noted that the traffic impact analysis is based on the traffic that would be generated by the 81 proposed residential units. Although a park/open space area is shown on the site plan adjacent to the southwest comer of the project site(as Not A Part),the park is offsite and is not a part of the proposed project and would not result in an increase in traffic volumes or parking demand because it is an existing city park that is currently operational. As the proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact at any of the study area intersections, no capacity-related mitigation measures wouldd be necessary. As a measure.to enhance traffic operations and safety, it is recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis that the intersection of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street be provided with a stop sign on the southbound approach and a left-tam pocket on the eastbound approach of Yorktown Avenue. This left turn pocket could be provided by restriping the existing two-way left-turn lane on Yorktown Avenue. As there would be no significant traffic impacts,no capacity-related mitigation measures would be necessary_ The following features are recommended for the proposed intersection of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street: • A stop sign on the southbound approach of the site access street at Yorktown Avenue. Page 34 ATTA HMENT NO, � 'A Item 23. - 155'.'�'AC1A bdDraftn amb�bA,C�Lemb Drag MIQD-Revis"sonkekaxd to Andrew 40790016 1 H B -1 6 0 8 5-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact • A left-turn pocket on the eastbound approach of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street,which could be provided by restriping the existing two-way left-turn lane on Yorktown Avenue. Based on the information provided, less than significant traffic impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including,but not limited to level of service El standards and travel demand measures,or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 49.) Discussion: The Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)is the County's designated Congestion Management Agency(OCTA CMP). The OCTA is responsible for developing the Orange County Congestion Management Program(CMP). The goals of Orange County's CMP are to support regional mobility and air quality objectives by reducing traffic congestion;to provide a mechanism for coordinating land use and development decisions that support the regional economy; and to determine gas tax fund eligibility. The Orange County CMP states that since 1994,the selected traffic impact analysis process has been consistently applied to all development projects meeting the adopted trip generation thresholds(i.e.,2,400 or more daily trips for projects adjacent to the Congestion Management Program Highway System(CMPHS),and 1,600 or more daily trips for projects that directly access the CMPHS). The project is estimated to generate 970 trips per day. Thus, no CMP traffic impact analysis is required for the proposed project. Therefore,a less than significant impact is anticipated. 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: 24.) Discussions: As detailed on AirNay.com,there are no airports or airstrips in the City of Huntington Beach. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 4.5 miles from the project site. The proposed project involves the construction of 81 single-fancily residences that would two stories tall and as such would not impact air traffic patterns. Therefore,the project will have no impact. AT Page35 nITACHMENT NO. S 2J`� TriPorde Homes Lamb ResidentWSubdMsion HB _1609_ Item 23. - 156 0.\Conzales\War&aw Luab1EAC\L.amb bra@ MI ID-Revision\rdeased to Aadmw 00790016 2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 28.) Discussion: The project will be designed to conform to street standards and comply with all public safety requirements for emergency access,including police, fire, and emergency medical services. The proposed project will be reviewed by the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department related to emergency vehicle access,as well as fire suppression and emergency notification systems. Thus,the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 28.) }� Discussion: Project construction and internal circulation will comply with all relevant fire codes and is subject to site plan review and approval from the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Thus, impacts related to emergency access for the proposed project will be less than significant. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources:48.) VIA F] Discussion: The Lamb School site currently has a total of 146 parking spaces, which is comprised of 102 spaces in the lot at the southeast corner of the school site and 44 spaces in a rear lot north of the school buildings. These 146 parking spaces would be displaced as a result of the proposed development. In addition, a parking lot with 96 spaces is located at the southwest corner of the school site on land that is partially owned by the City of Huntington Beach(approximately 38 spaces)and partially owned by the school district(58 spaces)(See Attachment No. 4). This lot provides parking for a City park that is located on land that was previously occupied by playfields for the former school. As detailed in the Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed proj ect, observations at the parking lots indicated that the north and southeast lots rarely had any parked vehicles in the lots(sometimes one or two cars)and the southwest lot typically had fewer than 10 vehicles parked in the lot. Therefore,proposed elimination of the two school lots and the reduction of the lot near the park to approximately 31 spaces with the proposed park plan would not result in an adverse parking impact because the typical parking demands generated by the park, even with the proposed improvements, could be accommodated in the lot that would be provided. The parking demands that would be generated by the residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets, as the project provides 118 on street parking spaces. Tri Pointe Homes is offering to construct the City's future planned improvements to the 2.6-acre park. The scope of the improvements to the park that Tri Pointe Homes will construct include the design elements depicted on a conceptual drawing given to Tri Pointe Homes by the City staff from the Community Services Department on June 2, 2011. The facilities designated on the City's park plan include a"Multi-Use Practice Field"measuring 150 feet across by 240 feet long,field lighting;one 4-foot square picnic table,shade structure,bike rack,two 60-foot square"Tot Play Areas",two benches, at least 31 onsite parking spaces, irrigation and landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas. AYSO ATTA Item 23. - 157 HB -1610- rl5 1nCH ENT NO. in roans n m Lamb RcsidentW Subdivmw T Kr—mles\Wwrdlow LembTAC\Tamb Ihaft b.M-Rcvison d=ed m Andrew OD790G16 Lamb Is-mm mn-2012dm Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Tmpact soccer practices and games are currently held on the 2.6-acre park,and the park improvements include a field so that this may continue. Although the project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development with private streets, governed by CC&Rs and a homeowners association board of directors,language will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. Therefore,the 119 spaces would be available to park users. In the event that the project is developed without the park improvements, approximately 30 to 38 parking spaces will continue to remain on the existing park site. The final number is dependent on the installation of a driveway onto Yorktown Avenue,which would be required to access these spaces. The 119 spaces would also be available in this scenario. Less than significant impacts related to parking capacity are expected as the proposed park and internal streets will be able to accommodate the parking demand generated by the proposed project. g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs El f7 regarding public transit,bicycle,or pedestrian facilities, Lf�N or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources: 1, 29, 30.) Discussion: Pedestrian access to the project site is available from Yorktown Avenue. Development of the project would eliminate the pedestrian access-way that currently exists along the westerly property line of the project site. However, because there is alternative access to the project site via Yorktown Avenue,the project will have less than significant impacts in this regard. Existing Class It bicycle trails are located along Yorktown Avenue,south of the project site and Garfield Avenue,north of the project site. The majority of bike routes in the City of Huntington Beach are Class H lanes,which are striped lanes for one-way travel. The project is located near the Brookhurst/Adams Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)bus Route 35 along Brookhurst Avenue, located west of the project site,with a bus stop at the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Yorktown Avenue. As access would be available from Yorktown Avenue,the project would not conflict with adopted policies,plans or programs of public transit,bicycle or pedestrian facilities in the vicinity. During project construction, soil transport would occur,however,truck trips related to earthwork and soils transport will be temporary in nature,will cease after completion of project construction,and will comply with City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department requirements for material removal and offsite hauling. As such,no construction traffic conflict with adopted policies,plaits or programs of the City would occur. VH. 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 US,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 54.) ATAPage 37 ,�1� 11-1c 1E NT f�®• L Tri 1'oivm Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision L Item 23. - 15 8 GAGo esVardlow LamblF-Ai' amb Draft N9M-Rew s on relrased to Andrew 00790016 HB -1 V 1 1--7Al2.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated linpact No Impact Discussion: The project is located on the site of the former Lamb School in the City of Huntington Beach. Onsite features include several school buildings,a warehouse,playground areas, grass-covered areas, athletic fields, and school parking lot. Established trees such as eucalyptus,pine and other varieties are located onsite. The mature trees onsite range from approximately 10 to 30 feet high. In addition to trees,the site also has non- native ornamental landscape vegetation. Due to the urban/developed setting, the site does not contain riparian habitat, sensitive natural vegetation,protected wetlands or jurisdictional waters. Vegetation on the project site primarily consists of mature trees, ornamental bushes and the grass/athletic fields. Ornamental landscaping onsite provides minimal habitat to those species that have adopted to urban settings. The project site has the potential to provide roosting and nesting sites for raptors and migratory birds. The project site within an urbanized setting is unlikely to provide habitat for candidate, sensitive or special status species. However,the project site currently contains existing large mature trees that provide suitable nesting habitat for a number of migratory birds, such as California towhee,Anna's hummingbird,American crow, and bushtit. As a result,Mitigation Measure BIO-1 below should be implemented to reduce any potential impacts to bird species. MM BI0-1: Prior to ground disturbance,the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present,construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete(generally February 1 to August 31),as determined by the biologist If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August, a preconstruction nesting biro survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius(200 foot for birds of prey)of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. Implementation of the above mitigation measure will reduce project impacts to a less than significant level, b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat 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.) Discussion: The project site and surrounding residential area are devoid of riparian habitat and any sensitive natural community. As detailed in Figure ERC-2 of the City's General Plan,the project site does not contain any generalized habitat areas. Therefore,no impact is anticipated to occur. 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, AT NO, S Item 23 - 159,,e ,end i snb.,isioa HB -1612- C kGanralesMardlow LambTAC—imb DrA MND-Rev cn\released to Andrew 00790016 Lamb IS-MND 09-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources 1, 30.) Discussion: The project site is fully developed with a school and the surrounding area is developed with residential housing and as such,no natural hydrologic features or federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act occur onsite or in the project vicinity. Therefore,no direct removal, filling,or hydrological interruption of a wetland area would occur with development of the project site. Therefore,no impact would occur, and no further study of this issue is required. 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.) Discussion: The proposed project is currently developed with a school with no habitat for fish. Therefore,the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any migratory fish. Additionally,per the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,there is no established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors identified in the City and thus,there are none existing within or adjacent to the project site. The project site is not located in any of the generalized habitat areas identified in Figure ERC-2 of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, including: freshwater marsh and associated habitat,coastal salt marsh, grassland, coast sand dunes and open water/inarine. Thus,implementation of the project would not impact movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, nor would the project impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. No impact would occur,and no further study of this issue is required. e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1, 33.) Discussion: The project would be required to comply with Chapter 13.50,Regulation of Trees,of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, regarding trees located on streets,parkways or public places within the City. In addition,the project will comply with local policies of the City with regard to tree removal and replacement. Therefore the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact with adherence to City of Huntington Beach policies and ordinances. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation.Plan,Natural Community Conservation v�s Plan, or other approved local,regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 31, 34.) HB rt1620 &TTA► HMENT Tti Pointe I3.omes Iamb Raide�tial Subdivision Item 23. - 160 GAGanza1es\Wardlow Lamb1EAC%.amb Draft MhID-Rmsionkeleesed to Andrew 00790010 Lamp Aa-nuvu uri5-2012.doe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project site is located in a developed area in the City of Huntington Beach. No habitat conservation plans(HCPs)or natural community conservation plans (NCCPs)are identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan as such no HCPs or NCCPs are applicable to the project site or project vicinity. Therefore,no impacts would occur in this regard. VHL ld'].INERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1.) Discussion: As detailed in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan,the City has been the site of the extraction of oil and gas, sand and gravel, and peat products over many years. Large-scale oil and gas production has occurred since the 1920s and is currently occurring. The project site is currently a closed school site. Mineral extraction activities are not present onsite. Both the project site and the surrounding area are not identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan as sources of important mineral resources. Therefore,no impacts on mineral resources 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, 2.) Discussion: As described above,the project site is currently a closed school site. Mineral extraction activities are not present onsite. Both the project site and the surrounding area are not identified izi the City of Huntington Beach General Plan as sources of important mineral resources. Additionally,the project site is not identified in the City's Zoning Map as being within an Oil Production Overlay District,which relates to areas which accommodate oil operations. Therefore,no impacts on mineral resources are anticipated. IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the �I environment through the routine transport, use, or El disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 4,59.) Discussion: The proposed occupation and operation of the project site as a residential use would not involve the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials in any significant quantities. Although small ATTACHMENT NQ. `,��� C Item 23. - 16 sue- HB -1614- txuso=e51w awiow LambT_&0L=b Draft WM-Revimonhelea d to Ands 00790016 Lamp is-t uNu us-n 2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant ISSUES (anti Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact amounts of hazardous materials may be used during construction,the long-term occupation and operation of the site as a residential development, including the generation of hazardous materials in the form of household cleaning products is not expected to result in the use of hazardous materials in any significant quantity or concentrations that would pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Therefore the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact in this regard. Pnav Q l ATT CH ivi Kin `�: ` l Tri Pointe Hno Lamb Residential Subdivision HB -1615- Item 23. — 162 G-.Zonza1csNWardlowL=b1EAC\LwnbAraft AND-Reviso*deasedtoAndrew00790016Ld,,,,,.,-..u.., .,-20I2.doo Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the F environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 59.) Discussion: The potential for upset or accidental release of hazardous materials is discussed in relation to several recognized environmental conditions at the project site in this section. Agricultural Chemicals. As detailed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(ESA),the review of aerial photographs of the project site indicate that the site was used for agricultural purposes prior to construction of the school in 1964. As a result,the possibility exists that agricultural chemicals remain in near surface soils and that future occupants of the project site may be exposed to these chemicals. To address this possibility, it is recommended that further sampling of the near surface soil take place to determine if any agricultural chemicals(herbicides, insecticides, pesticides,and metals)remain at the project site from past agricultural use. Mitigation is recommended to reduce this potentially significant impact to a less than significant level. MM HAZ 1- Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall have a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals (herbicides, insecticides,pesticides an metals)remain at the project site from past agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the soils report. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above, potential impacts associated with exposure to agricultural chemicals are reduced to a less than significant level. Polychlorinated Biphenyls(PCBs). Given the pre-1979 date of development of the subject site,the presence of fluids containing PCBs was considered in the Phase.I ESA. Pad-mounted transformers were observed on the subject property. However, as no leakage or staining is visible on or around the transformers,no action is required based on visual observations and a less than significant impact with regard to PCBs is anticipated. Within the school building,all light ballasts found not to have the"No PCB s"labels, thermostats with mercury tubes and all fluorescent light tubes must be either recycled or disposed of according to local, state, and federal regulations. Asbestos Containing Material and Lead Based Paint. The former school buildings located at the proposed project site include asbestos-containing materials and lead-based paint. Without adherence to federal and state regulations, demolition and removal of the existing building could result in the release of hazardous materials. Survey and sampling results for these recognized environmental conditions is summarized below: Asbestos- Given the pre-1981 construction date of the school buildings on site, some of the building materials were suspected of containing asbestos. At the time of inspection, all of the materials appeared to be intact and undisturbed, and in good condition. Bulk samples of materials from identified areas containing suspect asbestos-containing materials(ACM)were collected and analyzed in accordance with methodology approved by the U.S.Environmental Protection Agency. A total of 108 suspect asbestos containing material bulk samples were identified and collected for analysis during the survey. The asbestos materials found on site are classified as non-friable material(meaning that the asbestos fibers are bound/locked into the product matrix, that fibers are not readily released). Lead-Based Paint-Given the pre-1981 construction date of the school buildings on site,the past use of lead ATTACHMENT NO. ��-- Item 23. - 163,b ;d ;�S, � HB -1616- - G_\("roazales\'WardtowL--11a4CJ bDmffA'tTiA-RevisionkdensedmA.Wv.00790016Lamb IS-NM08-1y20J2-dvc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact based paints was suspected. The State of California,Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD), and the Environmental Protection Agency define Lead Based Paint as paint or other surface coating with lean content equal to or greater than 1.0 mg/cm2 of surface area by X Ray Fluorescence(XRF)or 5,000 parts per million(ppm)by paint chip analysis. The project site survey found that components tested(i.e.,doorjambs, window fames,walls,etc.)have coatings with lead concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/cm2 as determined by XRF testing. Prior to demolition,abatement of asbestos-containing materials and removal of lead-based paint containing materials will be required in accordance with current federal and state regulations and recommendations of the Asbestos and Lead Survey Report for the Lamb Elementary School Site(Focus Environmental Consulting, LLC 3/30/12). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. Use of any hazardous materials during constriction activities would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, State,and local regulations. With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 above, impacts related to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials would be less than significant. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or ❑ ❑ ❑ acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 30.) Discussion: The project site is located approximately.13 mile from the school campus at the intersection of Shangri Lane and Lexington Lane,which consists of The Pegasus School located at 19692 Lexington Lane in Huntington Beach,which is an independent pre-K through 8 school. Although a small amount of hazardous materials may be used during construction,the proposed residential development is not expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance,or waste in sufficient quantity and concentrations to pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment. Use of any hazardous materials during construction would be conducted in compliance with all applicable federal, State, and local regulations. Therefore,impacts would be less than significant d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of �i hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to ill El Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 41.) Discussion: As detailed in the Phase I Environmental Site Assessment(ESA)prepared for the project site,the proposed project is not listed on the Cortese list,which is a planning document used by the State, local agencies and developers to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. The Phase I ESA stated that a review of the computer-generated, environmental records search document(included in Appendix D of the Phase I ESA) found the project site is a regulatory-listed site. The project site is listed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act(RCRA)as a small quantity generator and no violations were noted. The project site is also listed under the Hazardous Waste Information Summary(HWIS-CA)as having asbestos containing materials (ACM) disposal and that it was a recycler of photo processing chemicals with no violations noted.Due to the Tri Pointe Humes Lamb Residential Subdivision HB -161. ff-11 NT N Item 23. — _164 G-\Gonzaks\Wardlow Lamb\RACV—.b Drn$hM-Revisionkdcased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb 154M 08-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact fact that the school site is no longer in operation and that the buildings will be demolished to develop the proposed project,a less than significant impact is anticipated. c) 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? (Sources: 24, 25, 26, 27.) Discussion: Airport Environs Land Use Plans(AELUPs)exist for each of the airports in Change County, which include John Wayne Airport,Fullerton Municipal Airport and Joint Forces Training-Base Los Alamitos. Additionally,there is an AELUP for Heliports. As detailed on AirNay.com and in the AELUP for Heliports, although there are no airports or airstrips in the City of Huntington Beach,there are several heliports. The nearest heliport is the Civic Center Heliport, located approximately 2.8 miles from the project site. The proposed project involves the construction of 81 two-story single-family residences,which is not anticipated to impact heliports in the City because the AELUP notification area for heliports is a 5,000 foot radius around the heliport and the proposed project's distance is approximately 2.8 miles(approximately 14,900 feet). The northern part of the City of Huntington Beach is within the AELUP for the Joint Forces Training Base L Alamitos. However,the project is approximately 9 miles from the base and is not located in the AELUP area for the Joint Forces Training Base. Therefore, impacts from the base and impacts to the project resulting from potential aircraft safety hazards would be less than significant. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 24.) Discussion: As detailed on AirNay.coni,there are no airports or airstrips in the City of Huntington Beach. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 4.5 miles from the project site. The proposed project involves the construction of 81 2-story single-family residences, and, as such,would not impact air traffic patterns. Item 23. - 165bTLesdmttalSubdivsion HB -ibis ATTACHMENT N�. G:1GonmateslWacdiowL=b'E&Cl=bDraftMND-lteviaonkdeasedtoAndcea00790016Lamb—IS-NM 09-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an El ❑ iC�l Li—1 ICI adopted emergency response plan or emergency � evacuation plan? (Sources: 1.) Discussion: The project includes vehicular and emergency vehicle access from Yorktown Avenue to an internal loop road to service all areas of the proposed project. Compliance with City of Huntington Beach Fire Department codes,regulations, and conditions will ensure that implementation of the proposed project will not interfere or impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El F1 F71 injury,or death involving wildland fires, including 4I1 where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1.) Discussion: The proposed project is located in an urbanized area and is surrounded by residential developments and is adjacent to a City Park. Therefore,the proposed project would not expose people or structures to significant risk of loss,injury, or death involving wildland fires. No wildland fire impacts would occur. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in El I� excess of standards established in the local general plan LJ or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 62, 63, 64.) Discussion: As described below,both short-term construction noise and long-term operational noise from the proposed project are anticipated to be less than significant. Noise monitoring was performed using a standard specification sound level meter and microphone,which were mounted approximately five feet above the ground. The noise monitoring locations were selected in order to obtain noise measurements of the current noise sources impacting the project site and the project vicinity, and to provide a baseline for any potential noise impacts that may be created by development of the proposed project. The sites are shown in Appendix C, which includes a photographic index of the study area and noise level measurement locations. The noise measurements were taken at four(4) locations at the project site. The results of the noise level measurements are provided below in Table 13, and further discussed in this section. L? AT T Kin � f� xri Pointe Homes Lamb ResickmilaI Subdivision HB —1 6 1 9— - Item 23. — 166 V•1C zaleslWanllow r=bl-AClLamb Draft]AND-RevisionVelemd to Andrew 00790C 16 Lamb IS-?AND 09-I i-2012doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Table 13: Existing Noise Level Measurements 4 tiv'.3.t S� a F ' .�� ♦G '�'->� i��.�s.+ 'l�a"�4,� ��'�n� `.i���5�„F'�' a�-r, ��`r .a. � a''1;'�-s��"ems-...'� Site 1 10 feet from the western boundary of the project site 48.4 59.6 43.3 on the turf field;approximately halfway between the southwest and northwest corners of the site. Site 2 10 feet from the northern boundary of the project site � 50.1 60.3 45.4 f on the turf field,approximately halfway between the northeast and northwest corners of the site. Site 3 10 feet from the eastern boundary of the project site 55.0 69.7 44.9 in the eastern parldng lot,approximately halfway between the northeast and southeast corners of the site. Site 4 10 feet from the southern boundary of the project site 63.4 78.3 44.9 adjacent to the ingress lane to the southern parking lot. Note:The noise measurements were recorded between 10:59 hours and 12:08 hours on Tuesday,February 28,2012. At the start of the noise monitoring,the temperature was 54V,the sky was partly cloudy with calm wind conditions ranging between 0 and 5 mph Source:Noise metering output(see Appendix C). The table below shows the City's residential exterior noise standards. Table 14: Residential Exterior Noise Standards 3�loase Zane islorse-Level Time Feriod 55 db(A) 7 are - 10 p.m 1 50 db(A) sl 10 P.M. -7 a.m. The table below shows the City's residential interior noise standards. Table 15: Residential Interior Noise Standards 1 55 db(A) 7 a.m.-10 p.m. 45 db(A) I 10 p.m.-7 a.m.. Item 23. - 167 Hs -1620- ATTACHMENT IN In roame Ain iamb Residential SktcF ision r­kr--1—\W-6—T—M1P A('Vxmfi Draft MM}-RrviximiKrelmud to A.ui-007900161.amb TS-1,01D M15-2612.doc Potentially Signfficant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): hnpact Incorporated Impact No Impact The primary sources of long-team operational noise associated with the proposed project include typical activities of residential development uses. These activities do not generate excessive amounts of noise,and typically occur during the day. Residential land uses are located north and south of the project site. Noise generated by project operation will therefore be similar to existing types of noise in the project area. Noise from residential activities is not expected to exceed the City's noise standards and therefore,the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact regarding long-term operational noise. Short-term construction noise impacts from the project are discussed below. The nearest existing residences to the project site are located at least 19 feet or more away from the northern and eastern project boundaries. These adjacent residential uses are separated from the project site by an existing 6-foot tall barriers,which are the existing block walls/fences along the backyards of the homes to the north, east, and west of the site. Grading is considered the noisiest phase of construction;therefore,the anticipated grading equipment was modeled. Modeling for construction-related noise was performed using the U.S.Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration's(FHWA)Roadway Construction Noise Model(RCNM). The RCNM is the F'HWA national model used for the prediction of construction-related noise and to determine compliance with noise limits for a variety of types of construction projects of varying complexity. The RCNM includes an extensive compilation of built-in reference noise levels for dozens of types of construction-related equipment based on manufacturer and actual monitored sources. Results from RCNM analysis are shown below. Table 16:Construction Equipment Noise Levels �et)CI[171Af�1OISP. EY@I Q Alozse,L°e AVl S Sstance toTj Molse Level (Leq dBA} � t t+a. BgwpmentILmax�BAI 3Recepor'6N� Lma7t�tlBV:l �escnntion "` 5d laser � ��'�`ffeet)1�= ��at F3eceptor�a '�R,eceptor23 Excavator 80.7 189 69.2 I 65.2 Grader 85 189 � 73.5 � 69.5 Dozer 81.7 t 70.1 66..1 Tractor 84 189 715 ' 68.5 1 Reflects an average distance of construction equipment from project boundary. 2 Leq represents the average noise level emitted during the duration of active use (usage percent in RCNM)of equipment Source:RCNM output,MBA 2012. Typical operating cycles for these types of construction equipment may involve one or two minutes of full power operation followed by three to four minutes at lower power settings. Although there would be a relatively high single event noise exposure potential, resulting in potential short-term intermittent annoyances, the effect in long-term ambient noise levels would be small when averaged over longer time(24 hours for CNEL or Lam). As shown by the ambient noise level measurements in Table 13,the existing maximum noise levels in project vicinity can be as high as 78.3 dBA. The results in the Table above show at an average construction activity distance of 189 feet from receptors,the maximum noise level would be 73.5 dBA. However, the noise from construction equipment will be transitory, intermittent,and not a source of 71 nn.._ X 7 IT TA HMENT �T-}— . . ._.1 R Tr Poste Romm Iamb Residemial Sub&vision Hl� -1621- 1 l em — 1 `i WGoazaleslWardlow LambGA0L=1;Drn8 NM•Revisioalreleasad to Andrew 00790016 Lamb Z-h00 06-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact continuous noise. Grading of the site is anticipated to take approximately one month. As stated previously, in the Municipal Code, Special Provisions Section 8.40.090(d), "Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling,or grading of any real property construction...shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter...provided a permit has been obtained from the City; and provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays; including Saturday, or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday." The construction activities associated with the proposed project will comply with the Noise Ordinance and would be consistent with the above goals, objectives, and policies. In addition, as discussed in Responses X c) and X d), construction noise and long-term noise impacts,respectively,would be less than significant. However,to reduce construction noise levels further, the following mitigation measures are recommended. MM[N0I-1: All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition, all equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, drivetrain,and other components. MM N01-2: During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and as far as possible from the boundary of the residential use. Traffic Noise The existing noise level 10 feet from the southern boundary of the project site,adjacent to Yorktown Avenue is approximately 63.4 dBA,which is in excess of the 60 dBA exterior standard;however,the project proposes the constmaimi of a 5'6"tall slump stone perimeter wall around the project site. With the incorporation of the proposed wall, traffic noise would be reduced by 5 dBA to approximately 58.4 dBA,which meets the 60 dBA exterior residential standard as required in General Plan Policies N 1.2.1 and N 1.2.3. Typical structural attenuation of residential buildings is approximately 20 dBA; therefore, interior noise levels would be approximately 43.4 dBA, which also meets the interior noise standard of 45 dBA. No further mitigation is required. b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 62.) ]Discussion: Neither the City of Huntington Beach General Plan nor the City's Municipal Code contains provisions specifically regarding groundborne vibration or groundbome noise levels. The human response to vibration greatly depends on whether the source is continuous or transient. Continuous sources of vibration include certain construction activities,while transient sources include large vehicle movements. Generally,thresholds of perception and agitation are higher for continuous sources. Table 17 illustrates the human response to both continuous and transient sources of groundborne vibration. Item 23. - 169 - ATTACHMENT O. L` _�Residerat Subdivision I-IB -1622- G:1GomalesCWardiow T,=b\ZAC11.amb DraftMND-Revisionlreleasai to Andrew 007990016 Lamb-IS-NM 08-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant TISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Table 17: Human Response to Groundborne Vibration -=r�,t,� ;'1?eakP�rticle,l�e�oclty`_ 'dy'.`°.nzas �* 3 :i -r Cor�fi Ycrous r......nt man Reams oose;` `� ...' a 0.40 2.00 Severe 0.10 0.90 Strongly perceptible 0.04 0.25 Distinctly perceptible 0.01 0.04 Barely perceptible Source: California Department of Transportation., 2004. Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibration velocities of 50 VdB or lower. These continuous vibrations are not noticeable to humans whose threshold of perception is around 65 VdB. Offsite sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains,and traffic on rough roads,while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible groundborne noise or vibration. Acceptable vibration levels for an office environment would be 84 VdB;78 VdB for residential uses during the day. The table below shows the vibration levels generated by construction equipment. Table 18:Vibration Levels Generated by Construction equipment y.,,. 'S'�,z-k�.�e„-j..` J�. w, �•sZ.ny t .y,�x 4 a� x�� x�1 x �sx x rxy �e'�"i ,,yr 4 I�3.r�n.u� �`�i .r. `'t��' ��`1 L¢ +,r¢'�'�, ''! "''-F..-�--fi.,w'+ -��� �� !IF-� s-s�'F e•�"„3 .. 1.518(upper range) 112 � Pile driver(impact} 0.644(typical)ical 104 Pile driver(sonic) 0.734 upper range 105 0.170 typical 93 Clain shovel drop(slurry wall) 0.202 94 Hydrornill 0.008 in soil 66 (slurry wall) 0.017 in rock 75 Vibratory Roller 0.210 94 Hoe Ram 0.089 i 87 Large bulldozer 0.089 87 Caisson drill 0.089 87 Loaded trucks 0.076 86 Jackhammer 0.035 I 79 Small bulldozer M 0.003 58 Source:Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment,Federal Transit Administration,May 2006. Tri Pointe lfomesLurb Residential Subdivision HB -1623- ATTAC ENT Item 23. - 10 r.ir T...,MrAMr—Ur .fe era.o W170nmA1-1,TVLi,. rM-1s_2mIAn� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Construction activities can produce vibration that maybe felt by adjacent uses. The construction of the proposed project would not require the use of equipment such as pile drivers,which are known to generate substantial construction vibration levels. The primary source of vibration during project construction would likely be from a bulldozer(tractor),which would generate 0.089 inch per second PPV at 25 feet with an approximate vibration level of 87 VdB. The vibration from the bulldozer would be intermittent and not a source of continual vibration. While long-term operations of the proposed project would not generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, short-term construction could potentially introduce groundborne vibration to the project site and the surrounding area. The closest receptors to the project site include the homes located adjacent to the northern,eastern,and western boundaries of the project site and those homes just south of Yorktown Avenue. However,the bulldozer will mainly be used during the demolition of the existing school and will operate at least 100 feet from the closest sensitive receptor. It is anticipated that vibration levels generated by a bulldozer and experienced at the nearest offsite structure will be approximately 68 VdB,which is below the acceptable level of 78 VdB for residential(sensitive)uses during the day. Grading and earthmoving activities would occur on the project site. Demolition of the existing onsite buildings will not require the use of blasting,wrecking ball, or other groundborne vibration-generating equipment. Therefore, impacts associated with the vibration from construction equipment are considered to be less than significant c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 62.) Discussion: An increase of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible to most healthy ears. Typically an increase of 5 dBA or greater is considered one of significance,as it is considered readily perceptible. The primary source of project-related noise impacts would be generated by project-related traffic. The Traffic Study performed for the project determined which roadways are likely to be used by vehicles accessing the project, Average daily traffic(ADT)volumes for those roadways under various scenarios were calculated and offsite noise levels were calculated along road segments in the project vicinity for the following scenarios: existing conditions;existing plus project conditions; year 2014 conditions,with and without project; and year 2030 conditions,with and without project. A maximum noise increase of 0.3 dBA due to project- related traffic would occur on Yorktown Avenue,from Brookhurst to the prof ect site(see Appendix C for calculation table). This increase in noise over existing conditions is less than the 5 dBA threshold of significance. Furthermore,the proposed project is a residential use and not considered a substantial source of stationary noise. Other sources of noise produced by the proposed residential project in the long term (i.e. project operation)would be consistent with the surrounding residential area and therefore are not anticipated to be significant. Proposed improvements to the adjacent City Park include a"Multi-Use Practice Field"measuring 150 across by 240 feet long,field lighting,one four foot square picnic table, shade structure,bike rack,two 60 foot squa. "Tot Play Areas",two benches,at least 31 onsite parking spaces, irrigation and landscaping,and sidewalks in Item 23. - 1 Tan6 Readeopelsubdi,+ision HB~1624- �`IT�`��I�MENT ��. ��`�'� (r:iC�oarakst�a'ardWwLarn6\FAG1L.ambDceftMN1�-RevisionVr1c sedtoAndrewOV79Wt6 W-ti-2612.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas. Noise generated by parks and school playgrounds depends on the age and number of people utilizing the respective facilities at a given time, and types of activities they are engaged in. School playing-field activities tend to generate more noise than those of neighborhood parks, because the intensity of school playground usage tends to be much higher. At a distance of 100 feet from an elementary school playground being used by 100 students,average and maximum noise levels of 60 and 75 dBA, respectively, can be expected.At organized events such as high-school football games with large crowds and public address systems,the noise generation is often higher.However,the noise generation of parks and school playing fields is variable (Ambient 2010). Maximum noise levels from a typical tot lot(for 12 children)range between 43 and 65 (dBA) at 50 feet from the noise source(i.e.,play area). (Huntington Beach 1998). These noise levels are maximum noise levels, are single-event-type in nature, and are not anticipated to last more than a few seconds. The noise standards are in CNEL,which are averaged over 24 hours.As the spikes in noise emanating from:children playing are intermittent and not a source of continual noise,this type of noise would not be in violation of the 60 dBA exterior residential standard as required in General Plan Policies N 1.2.1 and 1.2.3. Therefore,the project will not cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project and impacts are less than significant. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ without the project? (Sources: 62.) Discussion: Temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels would occur during project construction. Earth moving activities and the truck trips associated with soils removal from the project site would temporarily increase noise in the project area. However, this noise would be temporary in nature and would cease upon completion of grading/earthmoving activities. Construction noise impacts associated with the proposed project would be at a similar level to existing noise levels already experienced by adjacent receptors, therefore impacts would be less than significant. However, to reduce construction noise further and to be consistent with General Plan policies to minimize the potential for construction noise impacts to sensitive receptors,the incorporation of Mitigation Measures NOI-1 and N0I-2, as identified in Item X a)above, are recommended. 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: 24,25, 27.) Discussion: The northern part of the City of Huntington Beach is within the AELUP for the Joint Forces Training Base Los Alamitos. However,the project is not located within the AELUP area for the Joint Forces Training Base. Therefore,the project would have a less than significant impact regarding exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels,due to the project's distance from the Joint Tri Pointe Hanes Lamb Residential 5nbdivisim HB -1625- ���M H_-" N T "Item 23. — 12 MGonzaleslWardlow L2mb1EAC wnb Draft1&ID•RevWan\released to Andrew 00790016 L-mb IS-U ND 08-15-2012.do Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Forces Training Base(approximately 9 miles from the project site). f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 24, 25,27.) Discussion: As detailed on AirNay.com,there are no airports or airstrips in the City of Huntington Beach. The nearest public airport is John Wayne Airport located approximately 4.5 miles from the project site. Therefore,the project would have no impact regarding exposure of people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels because there are no airstrips in the City of Huntington Beach. XL 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 times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 36, 37, 38, 30, 23, 51.) Q El �I Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach Fire Department provides fire protection,rescue,emergency medical, and hazardous materials control and response services to the City of Huntington Beach. The Fire Department maintains eight fire stations throughout the City. The nearest fire station to the project site is Fire Station No.3 - Bushard,located at 19711 Bushard Street, approximately 0.25 mile east of the project site. Fire Station No.3 - Bushard opened in 1964 and was remodeled in 2002. This station serves the residential areas bordering Fountain Valley and apparatus at this station includes a paramedic engine company. An increase in development within the Lamb residential plan area may require a proportionate increase in the amount of public safety staff,fire station facilities, and fire apparatus,training and equipment. However,the Huntington Beach Fire Department did not indicate that the proposed project would have any adverse impacts to the Fire Department. Based on information from the 2010 Census,the City has a population of 189,992,with 2.56 persons per household The project proposes 81 homes,which results in an estimated increase in population of approximately 208 persons. Thus,the proposed project is estimated to increase the population of the City by approximately .I I percent,which is slightly over one-tenth of one percent of the City's current estimated population. Thus,the proposed project would not result in a large increase in population,which would need to be served by the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Project construction and internal circulation will comply with all relevant fire codes and is subject to review and approval from the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Therefore, less than significant impacts regarding fire protection are anticipated. - r . ATTACHMENT NCB.��2- Item 23. - 13ambRe ,,,ni;ds¢bdio)ion HB -1626- CAGonzWeslWardSow 14mb1'EAC11amb Draft MND-RevisionVeleased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb IS-MND 08-15-71112.doo Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Police Protection? (Sources: 47) Q Discussion: Per information provided by the City of Huntington Beach Police Department, the project would be served by the Huntington Beach Police Station located at 2000 Main Street in the City of Huntington Beach. One to two officers are assigned to the beat are for the proposed project 24 hours a day depending on the time of day. The entire jurisdiction ranges from 8 officers to 25 officers, depending on the time of day. The Police Department has a helicopter,K-9,Gang and narcotic officers, SWAT, School Resource Officer, traffic enforcement and detectives,which are available for the entire jurisdiction. The City's Police Department has a county wide mutual aid agreements and communication capabilities with all Orange County cities and County agencies. Based on information from the 2010 Census,the City has a population of 189,992,with 2.56 persons per household. The project proposes 81 homes,which results in an estimated increase in population of approximately 208 persons. Thus,the proposed project would not result in a large increase in population, which would need to be served by the Huntington Beach Police Department. Based on crime data for the project site and reporting district, from 2011 to June 2012,there was one commercial burglary and one vehicle burglary reported at the project address. Within the reporting district(RD) in which the project is located(RD 427)there were 14 assaults, 1 rape, 1 robbery, 8 burglaries 27 incidents of larceny(i.e., shoplifting,vehicle burglary etc), 1 auto theft and 4 vandalisms. The current average crime rate for the City of Huntington Beach is 79.51. Using this information, the reporting district in which the project is located had a total of 56 crimes from 2011 to June 30, 2012. Therefore,the crime rate in the projects reporting district did not equal or exceed the City's current average. Given that the project proposes single-family residential land uses and that the land use surrounding the project site is similarly residential, it is not anticipated that the proposed project would result in a substantial increase in.crime in the project area. No adverse impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project and existing facilities,manpower and equipment are adequate to maintainn a sufficient level of service throughout the jurisdiction. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated on police services as a result of the proposed project. c) Schools? (Sources: 39, 40, 57, 58.) Discussion: The proposed project falls within the attendance boundary of the Fountain Valley Unified School District(FVUSD)and the Huntington Beach Union High School District(HBUHSD). The FVUSD would accommodate students from the proj ect attending elementary and middle schools and the HBUHSD would accommodate students from the project attending grades 9-12(high school)only. Potential impacts of the project on schools within each of these districts is discussed below. Fountain Valley School District According to information from Stephen McMahon,Assistant Superintendent,Business Services for the Fountain Valley School District,the schools that would accommodate students from the proposed project are as follows: Oka Elementary School in Huntington Beach at 9800 Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach and Tri Pointe Ron=Lamb Residential Subd ision HB -1627 ATTAC H ENE N"Item 23. 1?�. G.1GmmgeslWsrdlow Lamb\EACEamb Draft NDO-RevisnmVukased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb LS-hDW 08-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Talbert Middle School at 9101 Brabham Drive in Huntington Beach. Oka.Elementary School has a 2011-2012 enrollment of 480 students,with a projected enrollment(2012-2013)of 425 students. Talbert Middle School has a 2011-2012 enrollment of 715 students,with a projected enrollment(2012-2013)of 695 students. There are no planned expansions to increase enrollment capacity. Both school sites are at capacity and additional classrooms may be necessary. Using the student generation factor of.5 student per household for K-8 residential development,the Lamb project,which proposes 81 units, is estimated to generate 41 new students who would attend Oka Elementary and Talbert Middle School. Per the information form Stephen McMahon, impact fees charged are$2.97 per sq.ft for residential development The proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to schools in the Fountain Valley School District because the proposed project will pay required school impact fees(per City code requirements). Huntington Beach Union High School District According to information from Carrie Womack,Assistant Superintendent, Business Services for the Huntington Beach Union High School District,the high school that would accommodate students from the project is Edison High School located at 21400 Magnolia Street in Huntington Beach. The design capacity of this school is 2,760 students and the current enrollment is 2,664 students. There is no planned expansion to increase enrollment capacity at this school. Therefore, Edison High School can accommodate 96 additional students. The District's quantitative student generation factor used to estimate the number of students from single- family residential development projects,with respect to high school is .2. Per the letter from Carrie Womack, regarding the proposed Lamb project: it is unlikely,based on generation factor,that any new school facilities or expansions to existing facilities will be required to handle the estimated number of students that would eventually reside in the proposed project. Using the student generation factor of.2, the Lamb project, which proposes 81 units, is estimated to generate 17 new students,which would attend Edison High School. As this school can accommodate 96 additional students,the addition of 17 new students from the proposed project is not anticipated to result in significant impacts. Per the information from Carrie Womack, impact fees charged are$2.97 per sq ft for residential development. Given that addition of the anticipated 17 students from the project would not exceed the capacity of Edison High School and given that the proposed project will pay required school impact fees (per City code requirements), the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on the Huntington Beach Union High School District. With compliance with the Cityrs code requirements to pay school impact fees, less than significant impacts are anticipated with regards to the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Fountain Valley School District. d) Parks? (Sources: 1, 2,23,41.) E1 Discussion: In the City of Huntington Beach there are 71 parks and public facilities,totaling 752 acres of parkland,with 169 playground apparatus. The City also has 150 acres of public beach. The closest park to the Paap 5,4 ATTACHMENT NCB. Item 23. - 15,—b Resided al Snbd isinn HB -162 —w�... ..—Ow LBmbTACQ,nmb DafthM-RevisianVeleased to Andrew 00790016..0.,_...r......... 5-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact proposed project site is the 2.6-acre City of Huntington Beach park,located directly west and adjacent to the proposed project site. Amenities at this park include: a multi-use practice field. Parks near the project site include: the approximately 2.6-acre Alevalos park, located at 10441 Shalom Drive, approximately.2 mile south east of the project site and the approximately 2.4-acre Bushard park,located at 9691 Warburton Drive approximately half a mile southwest of the project site. The City of Huntington Beach identifies recreational opportunities in the Recreation Element of the General Plan and on the City's Parks webpage. Per the City's open space and park inventory(dated February 2012), the City currently has a total of 1,062.39 acres of park and open space,which includes City beach acreage and Meadowlark Golf Course and as such,the City does not have a parks shortage. The residential project site is not identified as a City park in the Recreation Element of the General Plan. The project site is listed in Table RCS-2, School Park and Recreation Facilities, in the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. The playfields on the residential project site are unfenced,and are accessible to the public. However,these playfields are a part of the former school grounds owned by the project applicant. The playfields are not designated as open space or recognized as public parkland by the City. The playfields were not provided in fulfillment of any Quimby Act requirements. The proj ect will comply with Chapter 254, Section 254,08,Parkland Dedication, of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code which intends to implement the provisions of the Quimby Act that authorizes the City to require the dedication of laud for park and recreational facilities or payment of in-lieu fees incident to and as a condition of the approval of a tentative tract map or tentative parcel map for a residential subdivision. Per Section K of Section 254.08, if the subdivision provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land other than those referenced in Section 254.08(F),the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit towards the payment of fees or dedication of land required by this Section. The project is adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach 2.6-acre park Tri Pointe Homes proposes improvements to the 2.6-acre park,based on input from the Community Services Department. The facilities would include a"Multi-Use Practice Field"measuring 150 feet across by 240 feet long,field lighting, one 4- foot square picnic table, shade structure,bike rack,two 60-foot square"Tot Play Areas",two benches, at least 31 onsite parking spaces,irrigation and landscaping,and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas. With improvement of the adjacent 2.6-acre City park, impacts from the proposed project regarding parks is anticipated to be less than significant. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? l—1 (Sources: 14,46, 52, 53.) F-1 Discussion: Per communications with representatives of Verizon, Southern California Edison and Southern California Gas Company,telecommunications,electrical and natural gas service will be provided to the project site subject to the terms and conditions of these utilities. The proposed project is located within established areas for telephone and television services. Additionally,as described below,the proposed project will pay fees to mitigate any potential impacts of the project on library facilities in the City of Huntington Beach,per Chapter 17.6,Library Development Fee, of the City of ss ATTACHMENT NO, ,�--_ r ��. Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Reside-dial Subdivision HB -1629- Item 23. — 16 GAGonraleslW ardiow Lamb\EACd amb DmA WND-H.ev=onlreleased to Andrew 00790016 Jyamb la-MNL m-a 5-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Huntington Beach Municipal Code. In addition,the proposed project is subject to fees per Chapter 3.4, Community Enrichment Library Fee, of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code,which is due and payable at the time of issuance of the building permit for the construction of residential, commercial or industrial units or buildings, or for the construction or reconstruction of any mobile home park- Therefore,with payment of applicable fees described above,project implementation is not anticipated to result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with public facilities or libraries in the City of Huntington Beach. Therefore,the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. )(II. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources:42) Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project would result in the generation of wastewater. As detail in the Sewer Study for the proposed project,the medium density residential project would result in 3,200 gallons per day per acre of wastewater discharge (which equates to a total of 37,280 gallons of wastewater per day). Per the sewer study the park would generate 200 gallons of wastewater per day per acre(which equates to a total of 520 gallons of wastewater per day). When compared to the previously existing school use onsite, which produced 3,600 gallons per day per acre of wastewater discharge(which equates to a total of 41,940 gallons of wastewater per day),the proposed project would generate less wastewater than the school use previously on site. Thus,because the sewer system could handle the higher amount of wastewater discharge from the school use when it existed onsite,it is anticipated that the proposed residential land use onsite,which results in less wastewater discharge would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally,the proposed project will be in adherence with all applicable standards, regulations, and policies of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board to reduce potential impacts to less than significant. 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? (Sources: 42 45, 50, 66, 67, 68) Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project would generate an increase in water and wastewater treatment, each of which is described below. Water According to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,the proposed project site fronts Item 23. -_ 1elLa„�Residerdal3nbdvison HB -1630- &TTAGf1ET N®. (r.\Gonza1es\Wwd1owL=b\V&C1ambDraf YA-M-BeisiWztkasedtoAndrew0079D016Lamb I&+AN)308-1-2012doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact incorporated Impact No Impact Yorktown and there is an existing 8-inch AC pipe along the north side of Yorktown centerline. The Public Works Department has indicated that the City has multiple redundant water supply and storage,ranging from tanks and reservoirs throughout the City boundary, as well as groundwater storage that can be extracted when necessary. According to the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan,there is sufficient water supply to meet the need of the project area.. The City does not anticipate any adverse impacts as a result of providing water service to the proposed project. The addition of this project area will not require increased facilities, manpower and equipment to provide sufficient level of service throughout the City. Therefore,based on the information from the City's Public Works Department,the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts regarding water treatment facilities. Wastewater The January 2012 Sewer Study prepared by Walden and Associates for the proposed project analyzes the adequacy of the proposed 8 inch sewer line based upon the ability of the sewer system to convey peak flows at a depth of flow not exceeding D/d of 0.5 for 8-inch pipes. The proposed point of connection would be at a new manhole located approximately 395 feet west of the intersection of Mauna Lane and Yorktown Avenue. Sewer maps show the gross acreage and peak flows of the vacant Lamb school and the City park site and proposed project that are tributary to the existing 10-inch sewer main located in Yorktown Avenue. The adequacy of the proposed 8-inch pipe is substantiated by the modeling in the Sewer Study for the proposed project,which shows that the depth ratio (D/d) does not exceed 0.5 with the proposed residential flows and therefore is within City of Huntington Beach acceptable standards. This will be verified in the design phase of the project Per the project code requirements,the developer will be required to meter the actual flows in the City system to verify capacity. Per information provided by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,the proposed project site will drain into a 10 inch VCP pipe in Yorktown Avenue,which flows westerly and gradually increases in size to 18 inch VCP pipe and flows into a 72 inch Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD)trunk main that ultimately flows to Reclamation Plant 42. The City of Huntington Beach operates,owns,and maintains a wastewater collection system that connects to OCSD regional trunk sewer lines. Reclamation Plant 92 is located in the City of Huntington Beach and has a primary treatment capacity of 168 million gallons per day of primary treated wastewater and 150 million gallons per day of secondary treated wastewater. The current average flow is 103 million gallons per day,which results in a remaining primary treatment capacity of approximately 65 million gallons per day. Thus,the proposedd project's estimated generation of 37,280 gallons per day of wastewater discharge(as described in threshold a)above)is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on OCSD's facilities and less than significant impacts are anticipated. c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing 1'1 facilities,the construction of which could cause L_1 significant environmental effects? (Sources: 43, 44.) Discussion: As described in the Preliminary Hydrology Study for the proposed project,the site's current drainage is not consistent with the City's Master Plan because the site's drainage currently splits drainage flow to both the north and south,which is contrary to the approved Master Plan of Drainage. With development of the proposed project, existing drainage flows in the northerly direction to Mauna Lane will be diverted with ATTAIN M E T NO `-- �� -7 Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision HB -1631- Item 23• - 18 G:iGonzales\WardlowL=ib\EAC\L=bDreftN2b-Revition�wdeasedtoAn&ewCC79W16L=bIS4aMOS-IS-2012,doc ' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated impact No Impact the development of the project so that drainage patterns will be in a southwesterly direction consistent with the City's Master Plan. The project site is currently developed with school buildings, parking lots and other impervious hardscape areas. As detailed in the Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP)for the proposed project, under pre- project conditions, 43 percent of the project site contains impervious surfaces. With development of the project site impervious surfaces would be increased to 46 percent of the project site. Per the project code requirements,the project is proposing to detain the difference in flows between the proposed 100 year and existing 25 year storms. This is to assure that downstream City storm drain systems are not impacted. However,the project proposes to construct the Master Plan of Drainage storm drain by making it a part of the project. The storm drain line is based upon the existing needs in the area based upon recent hydrology analysis. The project proposes to construct the Master Plan of Drainage storm drain,which will consist of a 33 inch reinforced concrete pipe that will run a length of approximately 2,080 linear feet beginning from the project's entry street and going west on Yorktown Avenue and north on Brookhurst Street to Kamuela Drive. The construction of the proposed Master Plan of Drainage storm drain is anticipated to have a less than significant impact on the environment because the improvements will occur within street rights-of-way, construction activities will be temporary,and the overall ability of the system to handle storm drainage flows will be enhanced. Thus,the proposed conversion to residential use is not anticipated to result in significant environmental effects as a result of the.need for construction of new stormwater drainage facilities because it will meet the needs of the area. The City of Huntington Beach will review the proposed project for conformance with City standar( thus less than significant impacts are anticipated. d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Q project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 50, 69) Discussion: Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in demand on the existing water supplies. However, according to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, per the 2010 Urban Water Management Plan,there is sufficient water supply to meet the need of the project area. The City does not anticipate any adverse impacts as a result of providing water service to the proposed project. Using information from the City of Huntington Beach 2010 Urban Water Management Plan(UWMP),the City's population was 204,831 in 2010 and single-family residential land uses used 13,754 acre feet of water in 2010 (which equals 12,278,796 gallons per day in 2010). With a population of 204,831,this results in an average water use per capita which of approximately 60 gallons per day. The projects estimated population is 208 residents, which equates to an estimated demand of 12,480 gallons per day for the proposed project. As detailed in Tables 4.2-1 and 4.2-2 in the UWMP, the Metropolitan Water District projects a water surplus in the future. Table 4.2-1 in the UWMP summarizes single dry year demand and shows surpluses in all years ranging from a low of 148.3 percent(projecW supply during a single dry year as a percent of single dry year demand) in 2015 to a high.of 182.3 percent in 2020. Table 4.2-2 in the UWMP shows surpluses in all years ranging from a low of 118.6 percent(projected supply during an average year of multiple(three)year dry period)as a percent of average multiple dry year demand)in 2015 to a high of 142.5 percent in 2025. The addition of this project area will not require increased facilities,manpower, and equipment to provide Item 23. — 19 � dential5�n HB —1632— ATTACHMENT NO. S a St , G-TM kSkWardkrw ra WBAC\L=b DYa Wm-ltevisioniteleased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb Lc4fND 08-1S2012-doe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact sufficient level of service throughout the City. Therefore,based on the information from the City's Public Works Department and the Citys 2010 Urban Water Management Plan,the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts regarding water supplies, as surplus supplies are projected into the future. e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment r provider which serves or may serve the project that it El F1 1-1 has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 42 ,45, 66,67, 68) Discussion: Per the Sewer Study conducted for the proposed project site,the residential project would result in 3,200 gallons per day per acre of wastewater discharge(which equates to a total of 37,280 gallons of wastewater per day). Per the sewer study the park would generate 200 gallons of wastewater per day per acre(which equates to a total of 520 gallons of wastewater per day). When compared to the previously existing school use onsite, which produced 3,600 gallons per day per acre of wastewater discharge(which equates to a total of 41,940 gallons of wastewater per day),the proposed project would generate less wastewater than the school use previously on site. Per information provided by the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department,the City of Huntington Beach operates, owns,and maintains a wastewater collection system that connects to OCSD regional trunk sewer lines. Reclamation Plant 92 is located in the City of Huntington Beach and has a primary treatment capacity of 168 million gallons per day of primary treated wastewater and 150 million gallons per day of secondary treated wastewater. The current average flow is 103 million gallons per day,which results in a remaining primary treatment capacity of approximately 65 million gallons per day. The estimated 37,280 gallons per day of wastewater discharge anticipated from the proposed residential project comprises a fraction of the remaining daily primary treatment capacity of Reclamation Plant 92. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts on wastewater treatment capacity. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted CQ capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 15, 16,17, 18, 19) Discussion: The project would generate solid waste from construction and demolition debris during the short- term construction period and from long-term project operations. Rainbow Environmental Services is the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach. Rainbow Environmental Services operates a transfer station,located at 17121 Nichols Street in the City of Huntington Beach,and two Materials Recovery Facilities through which all solid waste is processed. Rainbow Environmental Services' Transfer Station has a design capacity of 2,800 tons per day,and current utilization ranges between 53 and 71 percent. Assuming a worst-case scenario of 71 percent utilization,the daily solid waste contribution to this transfer station under the proposed proj ect would be less than one percent at approximately 0.01 percent of its entire design capacity. Utilization of the transfer station would not be noticeably impacted with implementation of ATTACHMENT k,r% ` `` TdPacrteHomes Lack Residential5ubdivmon HB -1633- Item 23. - 10 G\GonzaleslWarmowLamb\EACV-=bDtaftUND-Rcv .\relmed to Andr 00790016Iemb SMIQIDO&152012d0c Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the proposed project_ Remaining solid waste is then transported to the Frank R Bowerman Landfill located at 11002 Bee Canyon Access Road in the City of Irvine (Caballero,pens_ comm.). The Frank K Bowerman Landfill is approximately 725 acres with 341 acres permitted for refuse disposal. It is permitted to receive a daily maximum of no more than 8,500 tons per day. It is scheduled to close in approximately 2053. According CalRecycle(formerly the California Integrated Waste Management Board), an estimate of solid waste generation rates for a residential use is 12.23 pounds per household per day. Thus,the proposed project, with 81 homes is estimated to generate approximately 991 pounds of solid waste per day(which equates to .495 tons of solid waste per day). It is anticipated that the Frank R Bowerman Landfill will have enough capacity to accept the project generated waste because the proposed project is estimated to constitute approximately.005 percent of the landfill's daily maximum of 8,500 tons per day. Therefore,the project impacts are considered less than significant. g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and ® ❑ regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 20,21.) Discussion: Assembly Bill 939,the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 requires each city or county plan to include an implementation schedule that shows diversion of 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transformation facilities by January 1, 2000,through source reduction,recycling, and composting activities The City of Huntington Beach surpassed the mandated benchmarks set by the state and in 2000(the latest reporting year)had a diversion rate of 67 percent,which was the second highest rate in Orange County.In 2008, California enacted Senate Bill (SB) 1016,which modified the system of measuring a jurisdiction's compliance with solid waste disposal requirements previously under AB 939. SB 1016 established a per-capita disposal-rate as the instrument of measurement. The City of Huntington Beach is subject to a per resident disposal rate target of 10.4 pounds per person per day(PPD). The most recent information from the City of Huntington Beach is that the City's PPD rate dropped from 5.5 in 2007 to 4.6 in 2009, demonstrating compliance with SB 1016. The proposed project is not anticipated to conflict with any of the policies of the City of Huntington Beach because it will comply with City requirements regarding solid waste disposal and the project site will be served by a solid waste franchise hauler. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment El M ❑ control Best Management Practice(BMP), (e.g.water I�1 quality treatment basin, constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources: 43, 44.) Discussion: As described in the Water Quality Management Plan for the proposed project,with project buildout,the majority of the stormwater runoff from the project site will be conveyed into a proposed private storm drain system,where the water quality"first flush" flow will be pumped to the surface and discharged into a vegetated swale prior to discharging through a grated inlet and the extended storm drain line in Yorktown Avenue. Each lot will drain to surface swales and a series of area drains and underground PVC pipe,which will then outlet through curb cores to the gutter or directly to the curb inlet catch basins. The inclusion of the above described swales is anticipated to have a beneficial impact regarding water quality and hydrology onsite.As detailed in the Preliminary Hydrology Study for the proposed project,existing drainage Item 23. - 1$.bReadeaialsubdvi - 1-113n1634- ATTACHMENT NO. uxu"=es�wwwuow Lamb\EAC1i.amb Deaf MM-RevisianVdeesed to Aadiew 00790016 L.amo Iz-mmu m-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact flows in a northerly direction to Mauna Lane will be diverted with the development of the proposed project so that drainage patterns will be in a southwesterly direction consistent with the City's Master Plan. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated. XI1I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The project will not have a substantial adverse impact on a scenic vista due to its distance from the Pacific Ocean and that the proposed project will not block views of the distant mountain ranges or other scenic resources. Therefore,the proposed project will have no impact. b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not limited to,trees, rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 22) Discussion: The proposed project is not located adjacent to or near an Officially Designated State/County Scenic Highway or Eligible or Officially Designated Route as designated by the California Department of Transportation's (Caltrans) Scenic Highway Program.Therefore,the proposed project will have no impact on scenic resources within a State Scenic Highway. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 60.) Discussion: The prof ectts building architecture is clearly defined in teams of styles,articulation along building planes, setbacks to first and second floors,window placement,perimeter edge treatments, etcetera and is designed to be compatible with the neighborhood and City Urban Design Guidelines. Building Architecture and Materials The project includes a variety of architectural designs for the 81 homes proposed onsite. The project proposes three site plan styles,named:Monterey,Beach Cottage and Spanish,each of which is described briefly below. The project plans that show examples of the building architecture proposed. The Monterey design includes a smooth stucco finish,with stucco details,brick veneer,cementitous wood siding,wood trim at the siding,accent shutters,a concrete the roof,wood railing and posts and decorative pot shelves. HB -1635- jT � rItem 23.r- 18 Tri Pointe Homes Lamb P&*idenU Subdivision G:\Gou7stes\Wardlow Lamb\EAM1zmb Draft 10W-RevincuVeleased to Andrew D0790016 Lamb IS?&M 08-15-2012.600 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The Beach Cottage includes smooth stucco finish with stucco details, cementitous siding,wood trim siding, wood box bays and wood pilasters as well as a concrete file roof. This design:is cottage-like and includes rafter tails near the roof and wood pilasters,which provide a cottage-style design. The Spanish design includes smooth stucco finish, stucco details and eaves, decorative tiles, accent shutters, a concrete"s"the roof and decorative ;NTought iron pot shelves, cementitous shingle siding, stone veneer,wood trim at siding and stone and a concrete the roof. This design is a Spanish style. Building Height The project's building pad elevations were able to be lowered so that the differential to the adjacent existing residential neighborhoods was minimized to a range from a minimum of one foot five inches(1 foot 5 inches) below the existing adjacent residential neighborhood pads to a maximum of one foot ten inches(1 foot 10 inches)above the existing adjacent residential neighborhood pads. The project's lots will have an average differential of only one inch(1 inch)higher than the adjacent existing neighboring lots. Per the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 210,maximum building height (as measured from the top of curb)is 35 feet. The project proposes building heights that range from 26 feet to 27 feet 7 inches maximum. Therefore,the proposed project conforms to the City's height restrictions. Conceptual Landscape Plan Per the conceptual landscape plan dated May 15, 2012,the project proposes several parkway canopy street trees within the proposed project. The project also proposes perimeter landscaping along Yorktown Avenue, where the project faces the street.Neighborhood signage will be located at the project entrance,where the project intersects with Yorktown.Avenue.Additionally, enhanced paving will be provided at the neighborhood entrance. Several parkway canopy streets trees are proposed between the proposed project and the offske City owned 2.6-acre City park. Between the homes onsite there will be a slump block wall with slump block cap and rear yard access gate. The landscaping in the front yard of the homes is provided by the homeowner.Along the northern,western and eastern edges of the project site, a perimeter 5 foot 6 inch high precision block wall with precision block cap is proposed. Pour foot wide sidewalks will be located along the internal streets and four enhanced pedestrian crossings will be provided. Project Integration with the Surrounding Community The existing homes in the vicinity of the proposed project are predominantly one story single-family homes. The existing homes located adjacent to the northern,western and eastern boundaries of the proposed project site are single-family one story homes. The existing homes located across Yorktown Avenue(to the south of the project site)are a mix of single-family one and two story homes. Therefore, the proposed project fits in with the single-family homes located in the vicinity of the proposed project.Additionally, as described above, the project has been designed with sensitivity towards the existing neighborhood by including increased rear yard setbacks for those homes located along the northern,western and eastern boundaries of the project site. The materials used for the proposed project consist of stucco and file roofs.Many of the existing homes in the project vicinity have stucco exteriors with shingled roofs. The proposed homes onsite include components such as accent shutters and stucco details,which serve to enhance the architectural style of the proposed homes. It is not anticipated that the proposed project will substantially degrade the existing visual character the project site or its surroundings because it will develop new homes with landscaping,which will replace t existing former Lamb school site,which is currently boarded up and vacant. The project proposes to make improvements to the adjacent 2.6 acre park,which include the design elements Item 23. - 18 HB -1636- ATTACHMENT NO. '_-,, � Z. Tci P=m-So-es Iamb$vaa�&Axhi isnn ..�..�,�. . ..- . ­1 __..T...Ik. A rkT....,w ix.w Tenn_a..a.;..a..�.-.a..,e.a—m7onm K T, h Turin nc.i"01?A— Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact depicted on a conceptual drawing provided(See Attachment No. 4). The facilities designated on the City's park plan include a"Multi-Use Practice Field"measuring 150 across by 240 feet long, field lighting, one 4- foot square picnic table, shade structure,bike rack,two 60-foot square"Tot Play Areas",two benches, at least 31 onsite parking spaces,irrigation and landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas. The proposed project will serve to enhance the aesthetics and appearance of the project site and surrounding area. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which F] would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the �J area? (Sources: 60.) Discussion: The introduction of light-from interior and outdoor uses can be a nuisance to adjacent residential areas and can diminish the view of the clear night sky.Perceived glare is the unwanted and potentially objectionable sensation as observed by a person as they look directly into a light source.Light spill is typically defined as the presence of unwanted light on properties adjacent to the property being illuminated. The project site consists of a former school facility with a parking lot(see Exhibit 2).Existing light sources at the project site include light from vehicle headlights occasionally enteringlexiting the former school and city park parking lot during evening hours.There are no significant existing sources of light and glare at the project site because the school is not lit at night. The exterior lighting,which is located on the side of some school buildings and mounted on the roof of some buildings is not lit at night. The area surrounding the project site consists of developed land,with residential uses and a City park adjacent to the western border of the project site. Sources of light and glare from offshe uses include lighting from the following sources: * Residential units along Yorktown Avenue and from residential units located north, east and west of the project site are a source of light both from the interior and exterior of those homes. i The City park adjacent to the project site is not lit at night. Street lighting located along the southern side of Yorktown Avenue • Additional offsite lighting will be from vehicles traveling along Yorktown Avenue Implementation of the project would introduce additional sources of light and glare including light from residential structures,street lighting, lighting from improvements to the adjacent 2.6 acre City park, and vehicle headlights.Any field lighting constructed as part of the proposed park improvements will be required to conform to City standards and as such is not anticipated to result in any offsite light/glare.Vehicle headlights from those exiting the project site at night on to Yorktown Avenue would be visible to homes located across Yorktown Avenue from the project site.Under current conditions vehicle headlights exit the project site/park site at night.The Traffic Impact Analysis estimates there will be 30 PM peak hour project trips for those exiting the project site. A limited number of projected peak PM hour trips will be generated by the proposed project and there are block walls located along Yorktown Avenue which separate the existing homes from the sidewalk that fronts Yorktown Avenue.Therefore, light from vehicles exiting the project site at night(as well as the City park)will be blocked by the block walls. Therefore, lighting impacts from vehicle headlights are anticipated to be less than significant because conditions with the proposed project are not anticipated to be substantially different than existing conditions regarding vehicle headlights, although the HB -1637 ATTACH EN1Item 23. - 14 Tri PoinlcIIames Lamb Residential subdivision Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact existing former school facility is no longer being used as such. The parking lot lighting for the school is not lit at night and the parking lot for the park is also unlit at night. The detached single-family homes would introduce new sources of light in the area;however,because the proposed residential units are similar to those surrounding the project site,light levels from new residential units would be similar to the light levels of surrounding uses.Additionally,the new roadway within the development would include new streetlights, which would be installed in accordance with City requirements. The project access road intersection at Yorktown Avenue is proposed in the vicinity of the existing driveway entrance to the parking lot for the park and school. The conceptual park site design from the project applicant would result in the entrance/exit point to the park parking lot to be shifted to the west along Yorktown compared to what currently exists. The residential uses immediately south of the project site along Yorktown Avenue currently experience light and glare from vehicles exiting the existing park parking lot.However, as mentioned above,the block walls for those existing homes along the south side of Yorktown would help to block headlights from vehicles. The project would increase evening vehicle traffic along Yorktown Avenue and additional headlights from project vehicles would be visible along this street.However,the volume of traffic along Yorktovm Avenue would not be substantial and therefore, any associated headlight glare would be less than significant. Thus,no mitigation measures are required and there will be a less than significant impact. X11V. CULTURAL RESOI7RCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources: 35, 58.) Discussion: According to the Fountain Valley School District, the Lamb school was built in 1964. As such, structures on the site as of this date qualify as historic age for the purposes of cultural resources assessment under CEQA.Any of the Lamb School structures built in 1964 or earlier should be recorded on DPR 523 form(s) and evaluated for significance. This evaluation includes determining whether the resource is eligible for inclusion in any federal, State or local registers of significant resources.Visual observation of the school facilities,which have been closed since at least 2009, indicates that the buildings have not been maintained, and they are in a dilapidated condition, lack maintenance and restoration appears infeasible. Therefore,it is not expected that the school buildings would be considered significant historical resources.Nonetheless, Mitigation Measure CR 1 is required due to the age of the buildings. MM CR-l: Prior to demolition,the whole of the existing Lamb School shall be fully recorded onto DPR 523 forms and the forms delivered to the South Coastal Central Information Center at CSU-Fullerton. Delivery of the data to the Center mitigates for potential direct and unavoidable impacts to the existing structure complex_ With implementation of mitigation measure CR 1, impacts regarding historical resources are anticipated to be less than significant. b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to S 15064.5? (Sources: 35) Item 23. - 18 H13 -1638 �TTnCH ENT N®. �, ,�'l TriPointe Homes I.amh Residential Snb�Stvision _... ••..-.+_._.r�.xert.._�a._a...nm n--�..a.�f.......a...s�w«....mm�nniF i.Mt.rc..:nm n¢.ie.omo.t,.., Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than: Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ]Discussion: Results of the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC)records search indicate there are no known cultural resources located within the project area,and that the closest known resource is situated about 0.25 miles from the project area boundaries. Therefore,no known cultural resources will be impacted by the proposed project.However,based upon the large site size and resource types known in the vicinity of the project area,the potential for subsurface excavation to impact significant deposits is considered high. This determination is based upon the presence of numerous prehistoric age interments in the area,and the knowledge that singular, seemingly sporadic burials have been detected nearby.Therefore,the cultural resource sensitivity of the project area is considered high and mitigation monitoring is recommended during development MM CR 2: The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing activities an archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries.pull-time monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low,as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas,or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring,all monitoring shall cease. Specifically,prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit,and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth,the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s)will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2 above,the proposed project will have a less than significant impact regarding archeological resources. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 35) Discussion: The proposed project site has been previously developed with a school and as such,no unique geologic features exist onsite.MBA contacted Dr. Samuel A.McLeod of the Los Angeles County Natural History Museum(LANBM),requesting a paleontological records check. The paleontological review from Dr. Samuel A.McLeod indicated that the project area is situated on surface deposits of younger Quaternary Alluvium associated with the nearby Santa Ana River. Younger Quaternary alluvial deposits do not typically contain fossil resources,at least in the uppermost layers. However,these sediments may overlie older Quaternary deposits,which are known to yield fossil remains within the general vicinity. While there are no recorded paleontologic localities within the project area, localities are known from older Quaternary deposits nearby.The nearest locality from older Quaternary deposits is LACM 1339, situated about 0.50 miles from the project area. This locality is recorded along Adams Avenue,just east of the Santa Ana River,and excavations at approximately 15 feet from the modern ground surface yielded fossil specimens of mammoth and camel.In addition, a series of fossil localities(LACM 7422-7425)are known within the City of Huntington Beach, east of Lake Avenue and between Atlanta Avenue and Ocean Avenue. These localities produced fossils of mammoth,bison and horse from older Quaternary deposits. The presence of these localities from older Quaternary deposits aptly demonstrates the fossil bearing potential of subsurface sediments within the project area if older Quaternary deposits are encountered during construction-related ATT Talloi eT3ommL=bRed&nfalSubdivision HB -1639- M1 or-1 CHMENT1Item 23. -�16 0*oWz1 %Wffdlow I ombEAC'a.Mb Draft MND-ltk"Mon4dews d W Andrew W 790016Iamb IS-bQW 08-15-2012.doc _ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact ground disturbance. The project area has moderate to high paleontologic sensitivity at varying depths below the ground surface. This potential is considered low in the younger Quaternary deposits, and moderate to high for older Quaternary deposits. Therefore, a paleontologic monitoring program is recommended by MBA to mitigate potential adverse impacts to paleontological resources in the older Quaternary deposits at depth. Refer to Mitigation Measures PR-1 through PR-4 below. NM PR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontologic monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources.Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits.Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed,to avoid construction delays,and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontologic monitor. If the monitoring program results in positive findings,then refer to PR-2 to PR-4. MIl4 PR 2: Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. 3V M PR 3: Identification and curation of specimens into an established, accredited museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. MM PR4: Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory of specimens.The report and inventory, when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established,accredited museum repository,will signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. With implementation of the mitigation measures above, it is anticipated that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact regarding paleontological resources. Item 23. _- 18 iT nTTVI H ENT NO. ; .,.....es Lamb R®dential Subdivisron i LB -1 U40- - G..\G'Qa Nk'=UnwL mbl£AC\Lamb Draft MND-Revision\rdl and to Andrew 00790016 Lamb IS-MPD 08-15-2012.dw Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 35.) (Discussion: As there are no known archeological sites in the immediate vicinity of the project, it is not expected that the project will disturb human remains. In the event of a discovery or recognition of any human remains,Public Resources Code(PRC) §5097.98 must be followed.In this instance,once project-related earthmoving begins and if there is a discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery,the following steps shall be taken: 1)There shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the County Coroner is contacted to determine if the remains are Native American and if an investigation of the cause of death is required.If the coroner determines the remains to be Native American,then the coroner shall contact the NAHC within 24 hours, and the Native American Heritage Commission(NAHC)shall identify the person or persons it believes to be the"most likely descendant of the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent may make recommendations to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work,for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity,the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC §5097.98, or 2)Where the following conditions occur,the landowner or his authorized representative shall rebury the Native American human remains and associated grave goods with appropriate dignity either in accordance with the recommendations of the most likely descendant or on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance: ® The NAHC is unable to identify a most likely descendent or the most likely descendent failed to make a recommendation within 48 hours after being notified by the commission, ® The descendant identified fails to make.a recommendation;or • The landowner or his authorized representative rejects the recommendation of the descendant,and the mediation by the NAHC fails to provide measures acceptable to the landowner. Compliance with State Law and Public Resources Code Section 5097.98 will reduce any potential impacts from the proposed project to less than significant levels. Therefore,the project will have a less than significant impact regarding disturbance of human remains. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, community and regional parks or other ++----�� recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 2, 41.) 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? (Sources: 1, 2,41.) c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 1, 2, 41.) LT ii]] - ATTACH ENT �,r, -7 7riPohftRamesLambResidentialSubdiAsion HU —1641— Item 23. — Is G\GouzAes\1Wmd1ow Lamb\EA0Lamb Drag MIND-Aevisim\rekased to Andrew 00790016 Lamb B-MND W 15-2012.dce Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: a)-c)The residential project does not propose any recreational facilities within the proposed subdivision. The project could result in up to 208 new residents to the City. Some of these residents will use local and regional parks as well as other recreational facilities,such as the adjacent approximately 2.6 acre City park.However, due to the limited increase in population from the proposed project,the increase in park use within the City is not anticipated to be such that it would result in substantial deterioration of recreational facilities in the City. Additionally,the project will comply with Chapter 254, Section 254.08,Parkland Dedication,of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Code,which intends to implement the provisions of the Quimby Act that authorizes the City to require the dedication of land for park and recreational facilities or payment of is-lieu fees incident to and as a condition of the approval of a tentative tract map or tentative parcel map for a residential subdivision.Per Section K of Section 254.08,if the subdivision provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land other than those referenced in Section 254.08(F),the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit towards the payment of fees or dedication of land required by this Section. The project is adjacent to the City of Huntington Beach 2.6-acre park_ A conceptual plats for park improvements has been submitted to the City. Tri Pointe Homes is offering to construct the City's future planned improvements to the 2.6-acre park. The scope of the improvements include the design elements depicted on a conceptual drawing given to Tri Pointe Homes by City staff from the Community Services Department. The facilities designated on the City's plan include a"Multi-Use Practice Field"measuring 15C feet across by 240 feet long,field lighting,one 4-foot square picnic table, shade structure,bike rack,two 60- foot square"Tot Play Areas",two benches, at least 31 onsite parking spaces, irrigation and landscaping,and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas. During construction of park improvements to the 2.6-acre City of Huntington Beach park there will be a temporary displacement of both AYSO soccer practices and games,however, a less than significant impact is anticipated because the displacement of soccer practices and games will be temporary and park improvements will provide enhanced facilities for AYSO soccer practices and games upon completion of the park improvements. See also discussion in Section VI f. It is not anticipated that the improvements described above, as well as any similar improvements to the park, as approved by the City would result in an adverse physical effect on the environment due to the nature of the types of improvements. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated regarding an adverse physical effect on the environment. Item 23. - l�ambRnsideidslSubdivaioa HB-1642- TTGH4� T Nth. Y � CIW,onz \Ward3ow LmnbtiEACVT--b Ara&NeO-RevW m4released to Au&mw 0079 0 0 1 6 1anb 15-M1-D 09-15-2012.doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Sipificant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XV1. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are siguificant 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: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1.) Discussion: The project site is not located on land that is designated as Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The project site is located on an urban/developed setting and does not support agricultural uses because the project site is developed with a former school. Therefore,no impacts will occur. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or aEl F-1 Q Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1.) Discussion: No Williamson Act contracts exist on the project site. Additionally,the project site is not zoned for agricultural use and is developed with a former school. Therefore,no impacts will occur. 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: The project site and surrounding areas are urbanized and developed with predominantly residential land uses, and are not used as farmland or for agricultural purposes. The proposed project would not result in the direct or indirect conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Therefore, no impacts will occur. ATTRCHN4N�+ �"� ` '1 TriPoime Homes Lamb ResidectlalSubdivision I B -1643- Item 23. — 170 G.1Co=1os\'Rardlow Le UEAC:LT.amb aaftNM-Revisionl[elmsci to fvudn-w 00790016 Lamb L',N lD 09-15-2011doc Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No bnpact XVII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ environment?(Sources: 61.) Discussion: A Draft Green Building Program has been developed and submitted by the applicant,the features of which would contribute to greenhouse gas reductions. Greenhouse gases (GHG)are not presented in lbs/day like criteria pollutants;they are typically evaluated on an annual basis using the metric system. The project is located within the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is in the process of preparing recommended significance thresholds for greenhouse gases for local lead agency consideration(SCAQMD draft local agency threshold);however,the SCAQMD Board has not approved the thresholds as of the date of the NOP(South Coast Air Quality Management District 2010). The current draft thresholds consist of the following tiered approach: ® Tier I consists of evaluating whether or not the project qualifies for any applicable exemption under CEQA. • Tier 2 consists of determining whether or not the project is consistent with a greenhouse gas reduction plan. If a project is consistent with a qualifying local greenhouse gas reduction plan, it does not have significant greenhouse gas emissions. • Tier 3 consists of screening values,which the lead agency can choose but must be consistent. A projecf s construction emissions are averaged over 30 years and are added to a project's operational emissions. Where SCAQMD is the lead agency on industrial projects, a threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e per year applies. SCAQMD is also encouraging other lead agencies to use the 10,000 MTCO2e per year for industrial projects. If a project's commercial/residential emissions are under one of the following screening thresholds, then the project is less than significant. All land use types: 3,000 MTCO2e per year - Based on land use type: residential: 3,500 MTC07e per year; commercial: 1,400 MTCO2e per year; or mixed use: 3,000 MTCO2e per year • Tier 4 has the following options: - Option 1: Reduce emissions from business as usual by a certain percentage - Option 2: Early implementation of applicable AB 32 Scoping Plan measures - Option 3, 2020 efficiency target: 4.8 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 6.6 MTCO2e/SP/year for plans; - Option 3,2035 target: 3.0 MTCO2e/SP/year for projects and 4.1 MTCOZe/SP/year for plans • Tier 5 would allow the purchase of mitigation offsets to achieve target significance threshold. To determine whether the project is significant, this project uses the SCAQMD draft local agency threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. Construction The project would emit greenhouse gases from upstream emission sources and direct sources (combustion of fuels from worker vehicles and construction equipment). Table 19 summarizes the output results. (See Section V and Ca1EEMod output for details on construction timing). __ TTNNT N�. Item 23. - 191 1xB -1644- .....ib Resiaentiel Subt&c�on G;Goazalm\wu&m Lamb1EAC4.amb rhafi WD-RevLmun dewed to Awi,n 00790016 L mb 1S-NAID 06-15-20t2.&. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated impact No Impact Table 19: Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions . i•.€. 5 ^,. 'MA,_._ x ', III�UdI 1SSIOr1 *r hn Phase �11ATG�2e)r Demolition-2012 80.09 Grading-2013 115.89 Construction-2013-2014 732.58 Architectural Coating-2013 12.13 Paving-2013 113.97 Park and Storm Drain 164.90 Total 1,219.56 Total Amortized over 30 years ? 40.65 MTCOzc=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents(includes carbon dioxide,methane,and/or nitrous oxide). Source: CaIEEMod output(Appendix B). Operation Operational or long-term emissions occur over the life of the project. The operational and amortized construction emissions for the project are shown in Table 20. As shown in Table 20,the major sources of operational greenhouse gases are from vehicles, contributing approximately 74 percent of the subtotal emissions. Table 20: Project Operational Greenhouse Gases "tea )rfi11SS10f1S 11lITC0' Der]/2ar i :y Constriction 40.65 1 Mobile Sources 1,453,65 Energy 336.89 Area 61.18 Water 35.61 Waste 43.27 Subtotal 1,971.25 i MTCO2e=metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents(includes carbon dioxide, 1 methane,nitrous oxide,and/or hydrofluorocarbons). k Source: CalEEMod output(Appendix B). 4 The residential uses would only generate approximately 1,971.25 WCOze per year,which is below the SCAQMD draft threshold of 3,000 MTCOze per year. Impacts are considered to be less than significant. xB -1�4s- ATTACHMEN Item 23. - 192 Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residmtiai SubdMsloa G--\Gonz9-\W-low L—MPAMT— D A NMD-Revisi..Velea d to Andrew 00790016I.emb ISI m 08-15-2C12,doe Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant IS SAS (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of 17l greenhouse gases? (Sources: 61) L S Ili Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach adopted an Energy Action Plan in April of 2011. Related specifically to energy issues,the Energy.Action Plan(EAP)focuses Huntington Beach's attention on the twin challenges of peak oil and risks from climate change. A significant number of the mitigation measures overlap between the twin challenges. The most effective strategy is to eliminate energy waste,which will reduce pollution and reliance on declining oil production. Additionally, introducing resilience as a decision-making criterion will build least wasteful practices into business as usual. However,the EAP does not provide specific measures for non-municipal projects. The project will comply with the applicable Goals,Objectives, and Policies stated in the most recent update(1996)of the General Plan Air Quality Element. The project's emissions are well within SCAQMD draft thresholds and the level of GHG emissions generated by the project would not conflict with the goals of the State's Scoping Plan, adopted pursuant to AB 32. Impacts are considered less than significant. XVIIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality ❑ of 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 animal 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, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 54.) Discussion: With mitigation,the proposed project is not anticipated to impact any fish or wildlife,natural plant or animal communities, and/or rare and endangered species, and it is not anticipated to degrade the quality of the environment(refer to impact questions 7a-f, above). Further, with mitigation,,the project would not have a significant impact regarding historical or cultural resources(refer to impact questions 14a d, above). The project proposes to develop single-family homes, infrastructure and park facilities on a previously developed site. Therefore, with mitigation for potential biological and cultural resources impacts, less than significant impacts are anticipated to occur. Item 23. -_1_93 HB -1646- ATTACHMENT N O, _. ,—.2b Residential Subdivision G-\Gomale5\Wwd1ow LarnBNEAMl b Draft MND-Revision4elrased to Andrew 0079W16 Lamp M-hOW 09-15-2012.dm Potentially Signifiicant. Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Does the project have impacts that are individually ® F-j limited, 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 fixture projects.) (Sources: 1 to 65.) Discussion: It is not anticipated that any cumulatively considerable impacts would occur because all potential impacts were found either to be.less than significant or were reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of mitigation and/or adherence to the City's standard code requirements. The project does propose an amendment to the General Plan and Zoning designations of the project site; however, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan regarding estimated growth within the City of Huntington Beach (per the Population and Housing section above). As described in the sections above,with mitigation, the proposed project would not result in a significant negative impact to the environment Therefore,the project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will ® 0 cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either L_1 directly or indirectly? (Sources: 1 to 65.) Discussion: The project includes various design features and commitments that;together with compliance with standard codes and regulations,would reduce potentially adverse impacts on human beings to a less than significant level. As discussed in responses for each of the preceding environmental topics,with mitigation, potential environmental impacts are anticipated to be reduced to a less than significant level. Tn Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivu HB -1647 TT CH Item 23. - 194 G:ttron a1�slWerdkiw L..h%EACVl b ih aft MM-Itevisionirmiea ed to Andrew 00790016 Lamb N-MM CS-IS 2012.do . EARLIER ANALYSIS/SOURCE LIST. 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 used in this analysis, as well as sources of information are as follows: Reference# (Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan. City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept.,2000 Main St., Huntington Beach and on the internet at http://www.huntingtonbeachea.gov/Go vernment!Departments/Plai3ning/gp/in dex cfm 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Ordinance. Office,2000 Main St.,Huntington Beach and on the internet at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/go vernmenVelected_officials/city clerk/ zoning code/index.cfm 4 Summary of Mitigation Measures. See Attachment No. 2. 5 Project vicinity and aerial maps. See Exhibits 1-3. 6 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report. City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept.,2000 Main St., Huntington Beach. 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (December 3,2009). S CEQA Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993). 9 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook. " 10 Trip Generation Handbook, 7'h Edition,Institute of Traffic Engineers. 11 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training " Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17, 2002). 12 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map. " 13 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List. On the internet at www.calepa.gov/site,o,leanup/cortese Item 23. - 195 HB -1648 ATTACHMENT NO. —D R.eadenntiW Subdivision G:�GoazaleslWardlow Lamb1EACliamb J)tefi Ml+ID-R.evivionUrkased to Andrew D079D016 Lamb JS•1,MM OS-15-2012.doc Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office,2000 Main St.,Huntington Beach and on the internet at http://www.huntingtonbeachea.gov/go vernment/charter_codes/municipal_co de.cfm 15 City of Huntington Beach Solid Waste and Disposal. Website: http:l/www.huntingtonbeachea.gov/Go vernment/Departments/Public_Works/ maintenance/solidWaste/ Accessed December 15,2011. 16 Rainbow Environmental Services Website.Accessed Available on the internet at December 15,2011. http://www.rainbowdisposal.com/inde x.php 17 Caballero,Jennifer,Customer Service Representative Not Applicable Rainbow Environmental Services Personal Communication: telephone. December 15, 2011. 18 CalRecycle Solid Waste Facility Website Accessed http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacil. December 15,2011. ities/Directory/3O-AB-0360/ 19 CalRecycle Residential Water Generation Rate Website http://wcvw.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastech Accessed December 15, 2011. ar/WasteGenRates/Residential.htm 20 CalRecycle History of California Solid Waste Law 2009 http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov Website Accessed December 15, 2011. /Laws/Legislation/CalHist/1985tol989 htm. 21 City of Huntington Beach AB 939 Website Accessed http://www.huntingtonbeac.hea.gov/fil December 15, 2011. es/users/publie—works/Diversion%ZOR ates.htm 22 Caltrans Scenic Highway Program Website Accessed http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LaiidArch/s December 15, 2011. cenic highways/scenic_hwy.htm 23 U.S. Census Quiclfacts Website Accessed December 16, http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/ 2011 . 06/0636000.html 24 Air Nav Website Accessed December 16,2011. http://www.airnay.com/airports/ 25 OC Aincom. Website Accessed December 16, 2011. http://www.ocair.com/rommissions/al uc/ 26 Orange County Airport Land Use Commission,Airport " Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports,Amended June 19, 2008. Website Accessed December 16, 2011. 27 Change County Airport Land Use Commission, Airport " Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport,Amended April 17, 2008.Website Accessed December 16,2011. 28 City of Huntington Beach Fire Suppression Website http://www.huntingtonbeachea.gov/go Accessed December 19,2011. vernment/departments/Fire/f re_preve ntion code enforcement/ Txi Pointe Flames Lamb Residential Subdivision HB -1649- n,T MEN Item 23. - 196 U.Ar rvaI—\Werdinw T.r W ACiamh Theft)AIM-R-isiodweleued to Andrew 00790016 Lamb L4 NM 09-15-2012.doc Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 29 OCTA website Accessed December 19, 2011. http://www.octa.net/bus/febI Isystrlap/ index.html 30 Google Earth Program http://www.google.ronVearthli adex.ht MI. 31 CDFG NCCP Website Accessed December 19, 2011. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcou/nccp/st atus/index.html 32 FEMA Map Service Center Accessed December 20, 2011. https://msc.fema-gov/webapp/Wes/stor es/servlet/FemaWelcomeView?storeld =10001&catalogld=10001&langId=-1 33 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Website http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Go Accessed December 20,2011. vernment/Charter_Codes/municipal_c ode.cfm 34 Central&Coastal Subregion Natural Community Not Applicable Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan, Parts 1 &ll: NCCP/HCP,July 17, 1996,pg 1-15. 35 Michael Brandman Associates, 2009. Cultural Resources City of Huntington Beach Planning Records Search Results and Recommendations for the Lamb and Building Dept_,2000 Main St., School Site Project, City of Huntington Beach, California, Huntington Beach. March 9. 36 City of Huntington Beach Fire Department Website http://www.huntingtonbeachea.gc Accessed January 4,2012. vernment/departments/fire/ 37 City of Huntington Beach fire Operations Website Accessed http://www.huatingtonbeachca.gov/go January 4, 2012. vemmentldepartments/Fire/F'ire_Oper ations/ 38 City of Huntington Beach Fire Stations Website Accessed http://www.huntingtonbeachea.govigo January 4, 2012. vernment/departments/Fire/F'ire_Oper ations/FireStations/index.cfin 39 Huntington Beach Union High School District Accessed http://www.hbuhsd.org/dsp.page_cont January 5,2012. ent.cfin?pid=18 40 Fountain Valley School District. Website Accessed January http://www.fvsd.kl2.ca.us/ 5, 2012. 41 Phase One Inc.2011 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment City of Huntington Beach Planning Report 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, and Building Dept.,2000 Main St., California. May. Huntington Beach. 42 Walden and Associates. 2012. Sewer Study for the Lamb " School Site Residential Development Tentative Tract Map 1723 8,City of Huntington Beach. January. 43 Walden and Associates. 2012. Water Quality Management Plan for the Lamb School Site Residential Development. May 11. 44 Walden and Associates. 2012 Preliminary Hydrology Study City of Huntington.Beach Planninb for Lamb School Site Residential Development.May and Building Dept,2000 Main St., Huntington Beach. Item 23. - 197 HB -1650- ATTACHMENT NO. S,_7 In Yowte homes Lamb Ruideneal Subdivision !:-1f;nnrnL.oWr.fi�w lamh\F-AMI-oh rmr fi Vt-Zn-Revuion4el—ed to Andrew 00700016 Lamb IS-MM CS-15-2012-doc Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 45 Bob Milani, Senior Civil Engineer, City of Huntington " Beach Public Works Department. Response to Lamb Service Information Request Letter. 46 Robert Flores,Engineer,Verizon.Response to Lamb Service Information Request Letter 47 Lieutenant Mitchell O'Brien, City of Huntington Beach " Police Department.Response to Lamb Service Information Request Letter. 48 Garland Associates. 2012 Traffic Impact Analysis for the See Attachment No. 3 Proposed Residential Development at the Lamb School Site May. 49 Orange County Transportation Authority(OCTA)CMP. http://wwR>.octa.net/emp.aspx 2011. 2011 Congestion Management Program. Website Accessed February 9,2012. 50 Ducan Lee,P.E.,Principal Civil Engineer City of City of Huntington Beach Planning Huntington Beach Public Works Department.Response to and Building Dept.,2000 Main St., Lamb Service Information Request Letter. Huntington Beach. 51 Darin Maresh, City of Huntington Beach Fire Department. to Response to Lamb Service Information Request Letter 52 Jeanette Garcia,Technical Supervisor, Southern California to Gas Company. February 22, 2012 Response to Lamb Service Information Request Letter 53 Karen Darney,Design Service Representative, Southern " California Edison. February 28,2012. Response to Lamb Service Information Request Letter. 54 Personal correspondence with staff biologist Scott Crawford, Not Applicable Michael Brandman Associates(MBA),Natural Resources Management Division,Irvine office. 55 Southern California Geotechnical. 2007. Geotechnical City of Huntington Beach Planning Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed and Building Dept,2000 Main St., Residential Development Lamb School Site. August 21. Huntington Beach. 56 Petra. 2012. Geotechnical Review and Commentary on Existing Documents, Lamb School Site Project. February 28. 57 Carrie Womack Assistant Superintendent,Business " Services,Huntington Beach Union High School District. March 9,2012. Response to Lamb Service Information Request Letter. 58 Stephen L.McMahon,Assistant Superintendent,Business " Services,Fountain Valley School District. March 15,2012. Response to Lamb Service InforDmation Request Letter. HB -1651- ATT C I E T Item 23. t 198 Tti Pointe Homes Lamb Resideadal Subdivision i. r._..._.._ia:r__,._—.v—..+vT A—nn--T--- —1S 1.1.1 yin. Reference # Document Title Available for Review at: 59 _ Focus Environmental Consulting,LLC. 2012. Asbestos and " Lead Survey Report for the Lamb Elementary School Site. March 30. 60 61 Michael Brandman Associates. 2012. Air Quality and City of Huntington Beach Planning Greenhouse Gas Analysis for the proposed project(data runs and Building Dept., 2000 Main St., as an appendix with analysis contained in the text of the Huntington Beach. IS/MND). 62 Michael Brandman Associates, 2012. Noise Analysis for it the proposed project(data runs as an attachment with analysis contained in IS/MND). 63 Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Chapter 8.40,Noise http://www.huntingtonbeachea.gov/fil Control. Website es/users/city_clerk/MC0840.pdf. 64 City of Huntington Beach. General Plan. Hazards Chapter, http://www.huntinotoubeachca-gov/fil Noise Element. Website es/users/planninglnoise_element.pdf. 65 Noise Element Information for the City of Huntington Beach http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/fil es/users/city_clerk/MC0840.pdf and http://www.huntingtonbeache,a,gov/fil es/users/planning/noise elementpdf). 66 Orange County Sanitation District Website Accessed July http://ocsanitationdistriet.org/cou t 12, 2012. ion/p2/defaultasp 67 Orange County Sanitation District Comprehensive Annual http://www.ocsd.com/Modules/Show Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30,2011. Document.aspx?documentid=12718 Accessed July 12, 2012. 68 Personal Correspondence via email with OCSD Not Applicable. representative C.Daisy Ovarrubias, Senior Staff Analyst on July 12,2012. 69 Psomas. 2011.City of Huntington Beach 2010 Urban Water http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/fil Management Plan, June.Accessed on July 13, 2012. es/users/public_works/urban-water- plan.pdf Pape78 h9 ACHME T NO �> •-7 Item 23. — 199,Rmde�Sabdivlsica HB -1652- Lamb\EAC1I.emb Drag MND-Aevi�onlreleased to Andrew 007KOif........._......... --.5-2012.dm C in Fl- Los Angeles County Chrr�c,Hilts -Y F. Qran`ge County 'ay� ez Fullerton` Yorba!bnda f 1' Anahe" .i_ ..Project SRe —, b I i —Orange a — — —' ;' I r ~1`•� ClevelandN NOT TO SCALE c _ tiaagplReservoir r ii F l Seal Beach 1 i 5anta'Ana - Fountain,valley "HwmOton Bea h 1 Project Site I Cos f Me r , �t.. t `L 7 k forest VL Newport Beach Laguna H11is� a t}� 'Laguna Niguel r. •. Pact is o� ea i tJ ;San Juan Capistrano 16 Poi4, r- 4. x a C 4 - - Source:Census 2000 Data,The CaSIL,MBA GIS 2012. NM�I® 7 5 2.5 0 5 Exhibit 1 L!L®®1 Z Miles Regional Location Map Michael Brandman Associates 00790016•0312012 1 1_regiona1.mxd HB -1653-N OF HUNTINGTON BEACH-LAMB RESIDENT—Item 23- - 200 INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCARATION &. ,�. q::r tG ( Y`��ter s i •r y e l Ts �r 5 , r i b s ai < �} r�Cf�;N ""'. .,s�—' ¢kyy r ,;aJ;?: • 1 • • i -F. ,;, >�rr sx r a 4 } ,•7 '.�.. - ,a 'itt T 7 Yai �r-•$±ii {r�i.,.. a �, - _ f_: 't y'::t'' -TJ�5v-L7',',"a +.w;'ti8•Y t ..4. (saq ,a 4 r..�'t;l• L h�,.y;# k-..9s«t, k.:, °Jk.F1', r ...t,_t ,,:g s. � r }� �, -#. ,fcr r7- �✓ � �r� s I' "i�'t � � .,t �ti„r t'' '.��gqgqlIrr _��'® I r•� �'., :� « pr'i4', f" sst,a � 'O :y o r ;,., �' 1'.',:.'� g y� y .�.ti.;. f r, :'r 1 s _ ,-',Yr J: • , x. .�j q _..Ty:, y _r,,. ...5.,.t• �'�:,1, a ._.:y�:F7��!'4`-:t r„rrr rr W-;�... :T` Ji,r;�� �Y'.t; '�i9, a fi�i�t :! ',-- oSe,a .rr� Sc,; J }''.'. „f � , brelw"t,". �� a , '•.. :;tts :Fd��':� f ', I-� �j'•r.![.,}x't yyI,:}'..:''},✓ r.'�F�1"i} n;" a r.:�$ ;:R 'r,w'31�^s ,ar,« s•�'�:r-y j..i.,,�^i J` �t ' �s t F*:1i E<9� �y,, � .c�_ N•I� � d 'C. r f i~ t.rf's k•.,R yf � .r st r�"Yt'P '4� .3 7,», s! �r t al r t ^ t` r t ?= iq� t{ _ ,,}, .bg is-•,:: , :. ��,t - .rrr' �z �yrr ;"fir' i r41,7 :.��rr.}�t`:r� t�ti ?tr yt5•', ,i�32r. .t' ;71 -t a4 X5''2 S't.� {f '� ,:aE' r 1 r i I f - t Y !yy, 'tF,.r• 'f.. ! ' vf t. {'� a,?.r M� i4y3"' •%�q s r �i s'SF 5` }, � S x. '� �i r��:t:i� �i ;r; �', 4; F'dr -i. �=ems rr 'd.£`C::,:::"7 t�l :'.,• it'u'�4•.-"v.v 7"'��r�C^'"):s� 4' r :i•^� v 7q�r;�,.sG� r r s �,� r t.w �•.��,� 1 &pI�9 ] 7bgi.. �� � _ rii��.r �f LL y,Xr"3 ra crx.r"5 .� � .la;: w� r Jra.:y •i ,7 su.,8� ':' ""66 --'� #t � i,14,1"`f: rW, i�.e�','��- s:.+ "" 4 %'a:"r" ^- ,�.. +� 9 'J'' � ..i�'�.r ji'� ad�{a -°�:•: �Y 1 } , ':rnli%ryf�3� d r� •y} ytl � :� < [�f > l-.t {i t ::.. ,r'71}�i:. y�� '��� r }.:' S' �: ;61:' r�,h.: n #`-w r 1 r j•.� ..,�h r ,.@ m�.�tT.. {r�„ei f:,.1,�`3�'StJ �nff 7 `d 4j aA--r,' ,!bh�Er � � iE t .A !. �I :S�i ax�... # y.,s,d`L :`' y .'�.^£. .cf ^.'r, i'�1•; � �. Y:r }.{.r,: Ys.,r�r,+ /-y 3 r.7d ��tJ:a J, (, ! s- ,.,.y.� b z�u. ,,w. ,J�, Y pW ...s- n"'•�.�;��j���';'; ' N4 - ,i r d ��,.Si r y''� �_�"N:#. +f,:)✓e:;ni n.'l��r r' :;e�R-vf}• �!{�f,I��"rY!�;�:`I .j'?P1,- it irj r � .rw'`' �'l�9': � w.:�i f� 1 a :i. ys7.efi'._ rr: )-: a '�li.mtra t �� �i•-!•:, �.,; ,Ad �'P. A ..T: r. • .. : 3 •,� f %�R -r-�`^ a,. 'kd �7"� e' .'rk}�w .r/,'.Yy.T'F. -7'b` f1..„a+-•n 4 +x s :j•�;''4 ,y P`��.. 'S;' ' @L . _ � i b} ? :w+V '� � 1 z5r a^'�:`• I .«� '-� -.A+ ;;s. '.�.". ,+;,y -? :. �4� ;�� C^!- � 'S.,�s�t' ,i'l; u r y"7rJ } 1 ` F..:r#r�;? 3 .t: � x ,•�� .oi�'�::r q&'# %.. ���:�' afn ww. �.: � '�.�. �.;r �� �A' ''�:8, �lu i`lY l�{ If�� -.71� � S'{� it � �� t5:.+.,yt:r?."• `.r s •j;� ,s.. is� rt� r: "i. 'C, y,.r• ' r '.y':r t7 r., lr1ef.� l�•y7.;,�,.t�� �, ,rs�-;=, 3�{�.r;�-,get^ �'t�'"4.rs� �I�::' _ L't? r.�•r?.'t'1..v,- ,-:.a'' � i•:ri.. Y: - r W. ,,J•An-�!d ... -.. x•�r,"�� 7[{ .i i ^'1- t (�a.: r , a k- [ , • �rvr r.•.. 111' a,-T•: �:"'v'-'•`m Ik .•!i 1-fS'S). :�L}L. S 6, '' '-i ..r'�.T7.7. J,•3• %E :F... I...:}. , ) i !I >x •.e t "r ..7Y air 5� a d : t - ,r} y ,a7� r ��••'!�k Y : "�' !'„' wY ■�cl$�+�.J:'� 1st � s. f '� it, 4 j' y:;y�,l�Vl' ,h#YI" �t"t'. 1 _' �.f¢y,, *�SN .li�. �t F'•fiR :..4. 1� �'j TS� �T @3S�:i i �11� .,R< e� ':: �°,'tAS }5 '}f% }Srr,-.isu.. at .r: ,r ,3 .. x'• 1 ;1, - +:Yi ^;'�.# ,.r...bx'a a}. 1i:'. `.-'fi 14.., -:j. C,c:: r sE • �. �K�'. y ., „'�!a;� , i�, s r J Yi. 'nV { t. ';� '^1J. t°,t,� r n :,.q t r '1F-.hq ,_,,•,�2.:;,Jc i •. 'y. 7 y ') M fit' '•4„3.,.,>,, .. CJ 9I 'W t @06 � �:;t. ��i�..�'}} w"" �ki Tlr 7-fr �. s'•_ 't,.,,1're`rryn„s[�p'SN` 7r�-,G,-, `? �` �J%ws���:it .r;. �.;: �3,�+:,7.• �..,�... �i % .t '� r r� s, ''A' „L. }1'.1 rY',�cu �wP1Ks •'!lti�ff11; ) ,'` ':t t, { �'�r J }`. ,it 'ir"� {i'Ifw }''07'n �,<.. ^',.n^' ' '?y..,•.,'J t x t3�'•a••:t} 1� s✓i�l'Sy -�' r.wu:•rttsk 1a ,r .4 z °i }f.,.,,.s.r�:.4 a•, J kt 1 i.. �l4 .�it�:"`� [:r!)� :3�:. .yrn,•..�I'7 i,.yr a.. -a. .;L 1 `p,'^i r ,P.r.:;.+t9 >.f# 'i -J..s .'":`T ..� :n � -7�'>.;•+ 'n': -a,\: �1: r.�}, ,;, f •7,. x..,'r-, ��,7^. }3'�' 7 .1 't"»�` 4.9,'S. "°""".,�,;, I `i .. ,i, 1 a�'tY.'_pl<,+r' t.•Ai.'r.YS�,��.: •��''?"J ..:�:ltz�+,,�.,t}.. :.1r ,.,xv �,�, 3�, !: � v� \•.: 7 '?:i • �i'E.7gx;. 1�i J..:a p,: ::+.:�.t,�, .r :, ,i,:q;. � .,.:tt-ra..:ay.�rr �. r�i,J_ � •nTMr •< �"rJ t�'sri` w�'. %'j�iR ; 'i y !,]t;ih { +,;�• 7. �'!� �:r ' r-�,,;,�; „Ik;i,I.. � :?i�. �".r,::i L�::�#':. '�,1; :a:,:, .:.::.., ,, �y,•,L, ...t,:i. r, �i'Y'lt;: . .�$..?_IF a7]'Air:. t �f .�� 4 a ..r=.�Y,FLS'7't y. -�,� ,x•t':'o-,Ts.x�li ,....E� & ".-.`�; I)'�'•;':'.�rA•v., ,.. .i; ;..: 1 .:.5:}"!' �i a k, ��-s �1 ?,.�>;.;.r.-�... �r' ,,. n e-r i �Itlm. er„ .•' r e' "'"a -=" Y :cia',.:.;> ,r „ :y;;..II ss.. ,. _ i%.71.'- y '� r.,� ry#2, 1.��:. 4: f .r' •, ., r.v is ,.li }} r;'t 'ka'. .ri. - :4` `,. .IyN•t ••is.+y't) a,- -u.¢. 1. '}".7.1,i�•><`ft. e.a� rp��s��i�'a{l�'1 .C'tn: �b tM1c?L I"S .ar. 'mi ' - - .s f:. '�'•, 'V f..ia.-•z.,...:rwr' p :.If: yr. P 7 ir,rst;.). ,1-1 it.,.i•: Hm rt-;1 q...gt'a"�-.. SG ti '�.�-:.,-.a x'.t_-rk.. .�.�trt;> ati ).may i•+f }VeF :-..v.,t�`r ,3 •l) ly.:, -i7 r,, rr: Y.r, .rr.�'s7 „ •}I• •,q r. T. ;•y 'u 1 (.r•{y�i : r b:ts'.istA'' n:ram'� �1y,.::: ... � ,- ,; }!, .7 n;..-.: '�•'j'rr. W,,,':. ;,,n�I I �ti.,..: r ss a`a'I 's4 r P �tS,,.YT ,)A:,i; I51vT•.i'.. t�n /;•,a,l k 1 it rr-� 'f..,1"S 1i7. },,,. 1 1S l fir: { t!e �1„'r7I�lA:-re''.1t., 7.�'.-tt. ,I xn.ts; L R�. h. , - .. +-.+', F';•Y.'. �. ,:.� }3. :d. .y�. !f. {, � �"qr '.�(rv, "t-�Sir�,]�ii: t.9r�`r. .1 �: ,~:., ,,,..^' ,,,: .,.•#; • �2 )( ids+r q, {{ �.� •7 .�,.'I „ r,r...-...> _.,:_,.qa. 7,. 148.a� .,,»:.,',.,i.. tC., ,. -,. .- ,r.."?- _:': F' '- .•Y_ ,r.. 'q, au ® y %s.f L'?x;r :•,!...,1.YL..,r.. tr, <... .. 4�. r .i. ..� .:v r1„tr. _.., ,. ::r:,t ,1.¢ :H ..,, •.•. �... : -�,. 1, :. Jj '.f'it:. - .,, tl' .R !w'. ,.,F .:.. ,. r' a=,.. .: r .�I� .&e,�..:y+•e..n:>; ..,a&,.:..-..r,..f. .7 :'t tr,_�, 11 .�i,: :� d"�� -B .b. ,�+il.4.�,�,�:1:,IriY �t Y5 Fl`l; l.,c-.ti. ..{'r ,i,..•.;'s r Sty ia '`hsl, # •tsw . ',, .pY. .,,.;a �...,t.. 1.. Sr,`rw,af. -i,:�..., 1,,.r•7 r r'r'iti r ..Sr:L. ! ,.4'- 'tiY: t.-f K, ''tip' x... .�.. -.. •:e ins?,.,wri.. :.,-' .__..:-. ..,•:.--.:.::r: 'k ','s.. a r.�aw, P;.u• 3 .+J•i il! �.f.r•�. ..4:� .: ,.. .: ..�..- :ec_� .,,,,.,M i_••G{ikr::3-r 5�,xvfi � :., Jl �p,.ti l'3xr ?ll �S )' :�2-! 6� LI?. ':i+;•` u+,•/. � '4�i- is nC.:pd:�t'`:!n':t ,�,+y_7 iS=�7: ,�.. y,' --�� m1` ) :G: f n.5 ;.J�.;c'6', r �jA� 'i:. �}y�nr�..?'rr, �t•'M..Qi, -y.. un:. � {F �'r� �f.. 7J. :•l:t ''T rt ,va, ��;;1. ;r q'" ;.r :S 4 t :.'..r� �y rr. sr„S r �!� :? r [ •:# ;,1:. } .t af. -e ;fft le.. ,uw, '{ ifi.;tFi. y�.'P!I•., %S',r. ,} .t+n,: f ..t. : ,,,...}.. -rt .+,•..axt'r. r. x:^r-,rrk,.,:.r 1 ,�y _:..; „ .:. ;';��.�ur'�C,yf�,�.ikit.,:L Wt m:>::.ri,.,a t"(r ,.r:k�t 1. yi .t..!. R t x•:�Cs� �.,.nW ;,• ;: �+„,tr rl,y.•, :�, yF ., ,t: t /' tl, fs� s rrs ! 4 a; lt�l�, , _ y ,t t x:y 3''�rs ,t.. ..� ) R•-. ! ,.Y.✓f:� ..xt, N.H_.� ;;s•r,':tr.. L'!i": ""' ts•t% G^s•J'F; :A9` ,.r�N,a�?d% �v"( +.p p t �. % i `f.d4¢•:,v' �Fr;:!. :� N 'i.: r _i •;:'.a r -i{'qr..+t' 't'Y ,,. . -J•ti rrk €�z r :i� �+NJ,a 1{7•.iy �a517�?y' irst�tX' �' � -::t �� �•l..i�f' ..a D � a � Mh t :i•:s.1 ,ij '§ - ,. '�i , .r'18➢`1' i}' 'i �7`r a.+ . • ., �/ ,.zt p�,r.,rw•*iM:: . .:••...,� s ' r. ,I v.�..� r� ti t 4.11:' °'{# <� Ia�k'.i: 5.�7, Yr '�'2"•b}}"? 1}, i 1 .z;�, #.,t� it. y p•f .t a y �,. �. Y �: ?; ir/`. � :sr };kw.l Q 5l•1•+. ^t-- yp� r,A...Y >e�l.- •' .6. 'r'I rl .:,,..r t �. 3 A •. � vt7 „p• ,..v611 Yu W'. ,ee1'�' t 'y J„"1 �{..� ie %, - [, rt .:r„i.,, :.nT�f:�p���]7!!tt, 9A. � .,,; -.5y'R��y^,r�•,�+, ,'liy9 � -� .3 <y�,.• r•}: � �'�-' �".�... �. ; � 1. - #fin f: J _n,•:.l`5�.i :7 Y',. r.tYLa,n I a jJ ,y ,-; 1:.• .�'re''1.�'',7., y.�"' 1rrr rSTj_ .-1"�k�j ea 31�1L:... ,.� = �1 �s '4..'4:•z•,ir,.+ :�:":LP•r hr�3...-ti h s•,:i-.+ S v I .•,T x� f 5..1'�,. L- '` *z .,.''iE3iiC:r'« t:I '2,^.a"' :,a. ---it.�% at#/ Rr'r'3,.,i5P+ , ..{fi!, k �`+�7 r iiv stir.;fl:'t.- r sy f 'Si' ♦' •s r:;tY i72 1-�'1 nr�', `.:.! 1,1,`,-,•u a: .'�y...,%' .� t. nll,.r u•„ �s 'M * -i:37 :f ..#.,.;cs: 't�;J. `>.w••- 114,f' r gt x fit' N r I M y14 N e f sTMr % f ,::�#,'1db .::.Xr"- F..,,Iy t '�•� � $:,. �r'F .:.., fi,,.._�7..}'—=.1 1M't"�Y..nd „a 4 ;.}'- Y;'. y rvy„ '.�.a. "�'jr:"' t:•T _ Y...�,,. {i }� y rt i Te .-.. i' .,: :• a,l. ..: J,.y..ii. .,,�1:..T:'17•'",: t i �r�rn hh9. i4! +IFrr a,t Y*'Y+3 .,r',6Ith:?p^`:q-c' a r rya._ I`, . ••{{r7pJ7pJy... 1.. 1. }, ..y R,...,A i .4.it` `9' ,.N TT u 'Ytit• i, t -+ V. ;., 7 r ti 'N ,, 3 .; 6i.,.R ,Q 1.,�''i4.N 1(,.. S. ,�,xtd ��.t ,y'{f :• ,. A. :!ff.fL' '1:` p .e.f,"-J ,{1 7tt_ �' % d,.w .r"".,r 'Sr '>'r'.,s.r. �`�-&:#'i:r. ,r. 4 Y!{'fY: �;yLl"� ..; .:r,';!i, A•. Y`l' - it�.w*':.. %u.. .�.,_yq t�,, le'i ar se, N�; .,;.,s i'.. r 'Q} t#, t,� �c-it `S. ,t ..�' l i. ' rF'P. -3,�it .:Ysrir�� .tt'��'{{ ... ":� t Ia, :'��-^%-tl.-tl.+' }ot,t' �t%a r.. S� P. PY? Ti,- ,a•- `l t,7 •r+- -Ti'. '�'' )1.• ..t:.. 'v ' #'�,ii "•.q4 t:a 'jf ' u: ',n"+sr� j'�'ssi'ar-ai �� �.`F .�`2:'.. �".'��- =�S't�. Fr`!" s't�•7�f war t. .)�, {( ti� 3�:.:. i'v'-t'..i r..t rr,.: :1 fi,.f ��� '�.yS•• s�j4�rrr ;•.P t»•�., • `t'�--,::. "' r �•tt 154.k 't.•. •,,�y r ,P.,.•,•.:a „ia�1f7 �fi :-nir .r .5 C. ",.r v" `t:-•.. ,` ..r. �.!.r.!, ^s s!a:.q. ..:.,,..�I ti< .-:i,r „•-as� Ls ;' � � ai 2 r•,"'�, .+•,� t�.�k•' r p�� s fi,t�Ng. �1. �' ��cya�' `�; !^:!. i '�xE r.,' ;i.s. a r�.thl�:t{ k....{,q���yyr.. 'yr. .1. �rY .� •:r i q; �•P:` :8:r✓ ;)y": �,:,,1ti=:_a v. ,: w`tai �•. . ':i'rr �•.�-, �'°� .. ,. <r ,rn #:ra. ..,sr,'�rr ,'-..-, ;1 �,�. ,_v g •, .' tiT, .'-.,.". .7j,Ssr 7, ., r :;.: �fis' r.t „f� nk".:;�,t '•f . ',yi':" c Y...r y r g {I Ps�� •i` .�.r � 3j.";A..a y �, �f''. x rur�::.1'� AC4 :�.�.I�:" �. <:r ,°�tr 'P• ,P. s r�°<, s sni td7� l -•i� d t,, S� r F.:...i.3a.•3.:�S1- !' '�,;:5 1-� -�` t �p `t'e. : 't. ..£�d t _;fit l'". il., .�I .. ;�i r 5t,)��? 'tl,e•. „l..q'. ..1: r �',, ,-,tB •3. 1a#. �.„:C, r', '•s,• t '� .�. �,,�,�G �% ✓' �;`sjr•�1 •7 't ?{�y 'Na �'- .�3,#'i `r'rrt. 1 jv_:rY �-::�.lyY:yJr .f(' tk-...7".',"+T '� t� a:: r ,t,.. -::A, yy� s;'cv ,r5� ` �1p!!� :"�•r4 ,x ,�:•f 13.�' ;i(' r •i 'f?ttY�::rlc, :t• :5 s:;ar �u;:�: % z:,,qq; � },-:r+r ,..# aa,, ;:•: � K.';'�:t r. , ';?�,3 - - � :rr.�',1„r�,r ,,i.-i :;z R ;rd� .�.,',, a .,x,. w.,: i-��r�•9»d , � a;z� ry„ is 1 :.� f. � u�t,Xet, )y i ,-r: t. e'..a:;..$» $• �:'' �... ,t,.f ,.�t'r.r a:e... S .3 . Trtr'�. ! X Y7.t.. �, .r„ fi'a�^Is..: M 'ri%vn.-�..:r ..x F: o...� Le. fi :�,.k.s i3$'w,..�. ,�! 1,. 11�..,.M., �' 1:,,.•^.• k� ,„ :rr:rp! t:,r.'t:,. �..r... .t +d± :� •��! L±}.' ,w �.:. ,..e� �,.,E .,.-^� Fl f. ..::,,}t .'�..�.'r�� �..:. i..s ,,: a -aa..,a{�ilri.u:, Jl_ f •? ..+, ,., ..�_ 4i.,,a1d: ,:ti .-I•i;T:i•.gZ;.}}�� f'tw,,e���_�� �..,r 3'-� -J,F. *�+, t 77++ .9!r .r.1,rs. ,�:;: 1„� , 7s., #i r%i#..:..-,..I YL .,,� .�s: rt ,Y.a, `i.}}!" ,�'J.t,....rr,#p :'+x*, gins M,7�. -.,e'r"t . )a.:y1..( q$�} I i�:e!'.5,.:.r-.,�•�sr:. Li p -a r:.t S.�,t...f 7 .T' :;.r ,Sr' e, f SY�fi.a?:.. ,,f, >dj .+-...♦"r'-r..,,-.:, r } .kP: •t 'i't,..}�4. 'a I h 4nu. �� r5 ��- t ..�;. <�,�s _,,: r4 k, '• d,. `, ?S. >..w�. ,.Y+ - : :.+i i1-; .'j+a-,. ,,.i.,,• h. :;...ia A.:S<f'x 7:e1 ter':'§,_ i i --�' t .rp,'i y ,:1. "i :,s-�'b at.... ..`J'..`I••�`i. � rt �j( g} f-�;e'k.•�5��11�Hjn ->rb a-it�s•,,,-,;l:�+i..''.tt'�gf7'a�l'•ki"+i 'fir,a �S} 7... a i. '>!. � ..,s. ... r x n .'i m:l.' ,. - Al u "T Y I. �t.r'r_:tti,�'' i ',t}]• c4 tw7�'S:�'� 4a ;i J�"'}:g,�.u.� �r"»li• ��A`^%'•yr y'r' 2s Y 4.Yr ..'�' + #' j`'"t1 4J`` ;f:''f+ a..._s-:WS.{?z,.,' ft ,i "" .F,r.� •:r'f, y P:ovf,.9Y_t ifj"t�"M ,7,,. r', ) _• , x�tr3, �., 'lj.S.!' 'S a4•.� 1, •..: ?r? 3. ;. S } 1t tc`r ,�F 0,.i< .i at'dt'i� ^.�„ tl J� ,. '1'�b) P yS at �r r � 4J^'a.`.l-�: I v`� �a. r�..,'& .5� w�� .� s i,' ..ngfsq'��p'; r f-:s I. '%:r,-?ii .�•.,;1 y `4..%'^Crr 9�#yt �1r^ .ri..t, r s.' .tr � �# `� y '`�; `�' 1 .�:� ,: �'Y�,.t+ : �`e e 't u 5' E 9. t ° #N'�' ti.`tea �C.tXi� •� � rT.:, -a I. �,_ • . :.,a r'T �r-{ay# c x. � •,. c .,_ 3 r ?.uffi :: °F?'� 's`4 i. ,•t ! ,7 rs4 y!r;'. yfi + ':.t i� ay•�r. r )�. t" sJm `Xr A.Wl %..t r: :..'rt r''w� :�� ,r..•%'€t.1.:.s- 1 ..?�1 # '.t1. rI ,.:'m.. q," ,u'5,. '.. vT` s i. ,riX r .l, '?a4,.. I` •., �[3{ fia -r n$ r .�r'w, S"��•* }e-- ' aF`il 5 t'f i;rf��t^',,yr•3 9 � f,: • .,:.::.:.. .:..:• , ::t;,. .. :-. +,..,. .: T,, s ;.,. 1{ �, ,,s,4a•+.� .l!-A., r 9 -:+ r .:f."� t',y.1/.�T.l r�:�•aa.� k..'XS.'s;;,'9 .,c;y ik:.:r "U� T':: r�J ilT r:, •:r „. - 4: ri :"r'. q':,.„ )t# T$-:, :,e C P , (s :.t,,.,� w.+..�{y 4;j.. e'• }9. .i L P..: +sT<�e:a:' :S�.v'�'::�•P�:y "Y� "'Y iJ:'!'': T iFr •r.F^ :r :�'.�I.;: ,�:' �;` .w x��' ,q x{$ .try.t. ;,I i:s f.. .�t:, K t :-:�' x''.r�a Y -.a" i'3 i?: 3�r'� ) i'. t7� 7: ,r7 n .�',x ...5'.e•.1"'k z �'. —111, l r,�'+,. _],q.%(ifii y, i'42 Jr i ti 3aq .,. i - .,:�.•: a��1<J •, .. ._ ,✓._y *�_. a ... �— �� _.� , n TA R - . --I`:1`- a a� 31 ts: ]S 'sr'T7i a izii ti ffi x ]f a °•! 47 1 _ — .............. k C- 74 an .� �L .. •11AII- n �� I I, A � u ---^--� LEI_, . Not Afart �— — 61 70 Is 55 0. 71 /7 R x of:AS.d__ 4�' J'ls•.. �I T �an6�ra lane ATTACHMENT NO Source;Bassenian-Lagoni Architecture,Planning,Interiors,April 30,2012, ®�®®� Exhibit 3 ❑�®®z ciates Conceptual Site Plan Ivfichael Br�dmaa Asso 00790016.0512D12 13_site_jplan.cdr HB -1655-Y OF HUNTINGTON BEACH•LAMB RESIDENT[Item 23. - 202 INITIAL STUDYIMITIGATED NEGATIVE wry Attachment No. 2 Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Impact Mitization Measure Liquefaction and settlement MM GEO-1: The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the reports listed below. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation,fill placement and compaction, seismic design features, excavation and shoring requirements, foundation design,concrete slabs and pavement, surface drainage,trench backfill, and geotechnical observation. 1.The August 21,2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Lamb School Site,prepared by Southern California Geotechnical 2.The February 28, 2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary of Existing Documents for the Lamb School Site Project,prepared by Petra. These reports suggest relatively uniform subsurface conditions exist across the project site. However,where existing school structures and improvements have precluded direct access to subsurface areas,additional borings and soil samples are recommended to provide deeper soil information.Although no new impacts or unusual subsurface conditions are anticipated,Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is recommended prior to construction to complete site investigations. Preclusion of direct access to MM GEO-2: Prior to issuance of building permits for the project,in order to subsurface areas complete the soils information in areas of the site where existing structures and improvements have prevented easy access to deeper soil, additional subsurface borings shall be conduced.The project shall comply with any additional recommendations resulting from this additional subsurface investigation. Potential for bird species on MM BIO-I. Prior to ground disturbance,the applicant shall provide the City of site Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project.footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If nesting birds are present, construction activity shall be avoided in the area until nesting activity is complete(generally February 1 to August 31),as determined by the biologist If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and August,a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to any ground or vegetation disturbance. Any active nests identified shall have a buffer area established within a 100-foot radius(200 foot for birds of prey) of the active nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area at the discretion of the biological monitor. Potential impact from MM DAZ-1: Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the project applicant shall have agricultural chemicals. a soils survey conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals(herbicides, insecticides,pesticides and metals)remain at the project site from past agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in the soils report. Reduction of construction MM NOI-I: All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression noise devices and properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle manufacturer. In addition,all equipment shall be maintained in good Item 23. - 203 HB -1656- r � {AGE [J�e9..°@pt b•tt:��.���P� i��.so �w Description of Impact Mitigation Measure mechanical condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine,drivetrain, and other components. MM NOI 2: During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be Reduction of construction placed such that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and noise as far as possible from the boundary of the residential use. Runoff systems and MM 11YD-1: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit,Hydrology and Hydraulic stormwater drainage analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval(10,25,and 100- year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems.Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency.Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows,which must be established in the hydrology study.If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system can not meet the volume needs of the project runoff,the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option,the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives,onsite attenuation or detention,or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. Building recordation NM CR 1:Prior to demolition,the whole of the existing Lamb School shall be fully recorded onto DPR 523 forms and the forms delivered to the South Coastal Central Information Center at CSU-Fullerton. Delivery of the data to the Center mitigates for potential direct and unavoidable impacts to the existing structure complex. Potential for cultural NM CR 2: The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing resources activities an archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries.Full-tune monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low, as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease. Specifically,prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth,the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s)will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. Potential for Paleontological MM PR-1: The project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified resources paleontologic monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources.Based upon this review, areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits.Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed,to avoid construction delays,and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. n^ -.. 3 HJ3 -1657 Item 23 - 204 Description of Impact Mitigation Measure be reduced or eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential to contain fossil resources, or if the parameters of the proposed project will not impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the qualified paleontologic monitor. If the monitoring program results in positive findings,then refer to PR-2 to PR-4. Potential for Paleontological XM PR-2: Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and resources permanent preservation, including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and vertebrates.Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. Potential for Paleontological NM PR-3: Identification and curation of specimens into an established,accredited resources museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.Mitigation of adverse impacts to significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an established museum repository has been fully completed and documented. Potential for Paleontological MINI PR-4: Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory resources of specimens.The report and inventory,when submitted to the appropriate Lead Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an established,accredited museum repository,wiU signify completion of the program to mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. Cam• J F Item 23. - 205 HB -1658 Attachment No. 3 Traffic Impact .Analysis KB _L6s9_ Item 23. - 206 TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE LAMB SCHOOL SITE 10251 YORKTOWN AVENUE EAST OF BROOKHURST STREET TRACT NO. 17238 HUNTJCINGTON BEACH Prepared for MICHAEL BRANDMAN ASSOCIATES CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Prepared by GARLAND ASSOCIATES 16787 Beach Boulevard, Suite 234 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-840-9742 MAY 2012 Item 23. - 207 HB -1660- -� TABLE OF CONTENTS Rage 1. Introduction and Project Description 1 H. Existing Traffic Conditions 2 Street Network 2 Existing Baseline Traffic Volumes 2 Intersection Levels of Service 3 III. Future Baseline Traffic Conditions 5 W. Traffic Impact Analysis 8 Project Generated Traffic 8 Significance Criteria 9 Intersection Impact Analysis 9 Year 2030 Analysis 11 Parking Analysis 12 Recommendations 13 V. Summary of Impacts and Conclusions 14 APPENDIX A. Site Plan B. Traffic Volume Figures C. Level of Service Calculation Sheets i HB -1661- Item 23. - 208 AT".. 7,r-5 i KL,df� �'a9y :;,`it -A 2 LIST OF TABLES Pate 1. Relationship between ICU Values,Delays, and Levels of Service 3 2. Existing Intersection Levels of Service 4 3. Development Projects for Cumulative Analysis 5 4- Traffic Generated by Other Proposed Development Projects 6 5. Year 2015 Baseline Intersection Levels of Service Without Project 7 6. Project Generated Traffic 8 7. Significance Criteria for Traffic Impacts 9 8. Project Impact on Intersection Levels of Service—AM Peak.Hour 10 9. Project Impact on Intersection Levels of Service—PM Peak Hour 11 10. Project Impact on Year 2030 Intersection Levels of Service 12 ii Item 23. - 209 HB -1662- _ LIST OF FIGURES (IN APPENDIX B) 1. Existing Roadway Characteristics&Lane Configuration 2. Existing Traffic Volumes—AM Peak Hour 3. Existing Traffic Volumes—PM Peak Hour 4. Cumulative Traffic from Proposed Development Projects—AM Peak Hour 5_ Cumulative Traffic from Proposed Development Projects--PM Peak Hour 6_ 2015 Traffic Volumes Without Project—AM Peak Hour 7. 2015 Traffic Volumes Without Project—PM Peak Hour S. Project Generated Traffic—AM Peak Hour 9. Project Generated Traffic—PM Peak Hour 10. 2015 Traffic Volumes With Project—AM Peak Hour 11. 2015 Traffic Volumes With Project—PM Peak Hour HB -1663- _ _ _F Item '//�23. - 210 I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report summarizes the results of a traffic impact analysis that was conducted for an 81-unit single-family residential development proposed by TRI Pointe Homes at 10251 Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach. The project site, which is located on the north side of Yorktown Avenue east of Brookhurst Street, is currently occupied by a closed school site(Lamb School). The methodology for the traffic study, in general, was to 1) establish the existing traffic conditions, 2) develop the projected future baseline conditions without the project by considering the cumulative effects of regional growth and traffic generated by other development projects in the study vicinity, 3) estimate the levels of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project, 4) conduct a comparative analysis of traffic conditions with and without the project, and 5) identify potential mitigation measureslroadway improvements. The analysis is based on the weekday morning and afternoon peak hour traffic volumes on the streets and intersections in the project vicinity. The levels of service at the following eight intersections were analyzed. • Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue(signalized) • Brookhurst Street at Yorktown Avenue(signalized) • Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue (signalized) • Ward Street at Garfield Avenue(signalized) • Bushard Street at Yorktown Avenue(signalized) • Bushard Street at Adams Avenue(signalized) • Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane(stop sign on Canberra Lane) • Yorktown Avenue at future site access street(stop sign on access street) A site plan for the proposed residential development is provided in Appendix A. As shown,, vehicular access would be provided by a new north-south street that would intersect with Yorktown Avenue west of Canberra Lane. 1 Item 23. - 211 HB -1664- IL EXISTING TRAFRC CONDITIONS The street network in the project vicinity,the existing traffic volumes, and the levels of service at the affected study area intersections are described below. Street Network The streets that provide access to the project vicinity include Yorktown Avenue, Brookhurst Street, Adams Avenue, Bushard Street, Garfield Avenue, and Ward Street. Yorktown Avenue is a four lane east-west street that abuts the south side of the project site. It intersects with Brookhurst Street approximately 800 feet west of the project site. Brookhurst Street is a six lane north-south street that serves as a primary arterial route through the study area. Adams Avenue is a six lane east-west street located approximately one-half mile south of the project site. Bushard Street is a four lane north-south street located approximately three-quarters of a mile west of the project site. Garfield Avenue is a four lane east-west street located approximately one-half mile north of the project site. Ward Street is a two lane north-south street located approximately one-quarter mile east of the project site. Eight intersections in the project vicinity have been analyzed for this traffic study, as listed in the Introduction. Included is the future intersection of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street, which is shown on the site plan. Six of these intersections are within the jurisdiction of the City of Huntington Beach, while the intersections of Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue and Ward Street at Garfield Avenue are on the boundary of Huntington Beach and Fountain Valley. A sketch that shows the existing roadway characteristics and lane configuration for the study area streets and intersections is included as Figure 1 in Appendix B. Existing Baseline Traffic Volumes Manual traffic counts were taken at the seven existing study area intersections in February and July, 2009, during the weekday morning and afternoon peak periods on days when the local schools were in session. Traffic counts were also provided by staff at the City of Huntington Beach for the Brookhurst/Adams intersection. As these traffic counts are three years old, sample traffic counts were taken at several locations in February, 2012, to determine if conditions had changed since 2009. As the 2012 counts were slightly lower than the 2009 counts, it was determined that it would be acceptable to use the 2009 traffic counts to represent existing conditions. The results of the traffic count program for the seven existing intersections are provided in Appendix B on Figures 2 and 3 for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The exhibits show the existing peals hour traffic volumes and turning movements at each intersection. Although the weekday traffic counts were taken from 7:00 to 9:00 am. and from 4:00 to 6:30 p.m., the traffic volumes shown on the exhibits represent the peak one-hour interval of traffic flow at each intersection, which generally occurred from 7:00 to 8:00 a.m. and from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. 2 HB -1.665- _ Item 23. - 212 Intersection Levels of Service To quantify the existing baseline traffic conditions, the seven existing study area intersections were analyzed to determine their operating conditions during the weekday morning and afternoon peak hours. The six signalized intersections were analyzed by calculating the intersection capacity utilization (ICU) values and corresponding levels of service (LOS), which are based on the peak hour traffic volumes, the turning movement counts, and the existing number of lanes at each intersection. The ICU values are essentially a comparison of the volume of traffic passing through the intersection to the overall capacity of the intersection. The ICU calculations are based on an assumed capacity of 1,700 vehicles per lane per hour of green time and a clearance interval of 0.05, as specified by staff at the City of Huntington Beach. The levels of service for the unsignalized intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Canberra Lane and the future unsignalized intersection of Yorktown Avenue and the site access street were determined by using the Highway Capacity Software's two-way stop methodology, which calculates the average delay for vehicles waiting at the stop signs and relates the delay value to a level of service. Level of service is a qualitative indicator of an intersection's operating conditions that is used to represent various degrees of congestion and delay. It is measured from LOS A (excellent conditions) to LOS F (extreme congestion), with LOS A through D considered to be acceptable per the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. The relationship between ICU values and levels of service for the signalized intersections and the relationship between delay values and levels of service for the intersections with stop signs are shown in Table 1. TABLE 1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ICU VALUES,DELAYS,AND LEVELS OF SERVICE ICU Value Delay Value(seconds per vehicle) Level of Service At Signalized Intersections At Stop Signs A 0.000 to 0.600 0.0 to 10.0 B >0.600 to 0.700 > 10.0 to 15.0 C >0.700 to 0.800 > 15.0 to 25.0 D > 0.800 to 0.900 >25.0 to 35.0 E > 0.900 to 1.000 > 35.0 to 50.0 F > 1.000 > 50.0 The results of the level of service analysis are shown in Table 2 for existing traffic conditions. As shown, all seven of the existing study area intersections currently operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS A,B, C, or D)during the weekday morning and afternoon pear hours. The level of service calculation sheets are included in Appendix.C. 3 Item 23. - 213 I­113 -1666- T :.?hR �'7 TABLE 2 EXISTING INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Level of Service Intersection AM Peak hour PM Peak Hour SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU value&LOS Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue 0.488—A 0.672—B Brookhurst Street at Yorktown Avenue 0.456—A 0.622—B Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue 0.871—D 0.870—D Ward Street at.Garfield Avenue 0.677--B 0.659—B Bushard Street at Yorktown Avenue 0.418--A 0.433—A Bushard Street at Adams Avenue 0.593—A 0.673--B UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (average vehicle delay in seconds&LOS Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane 15.1—C 12.4—B 4 HB _1667 Item 23. - 214 M. FUTURE BASELINE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS The future baseline traffic conditions without the project for the target year of completion(2015) were estimated by considering the effects of general ambient regional growth and the cumulative increase in traffic volumes that would be generated by other development projects proposed in the vicinity of the project site. The first step in estimating the future baseline traffic volumes was to expand the existing traffic volumes by a factor of three percent, which represents a growth rate of one percent per year for three years. This growth factor accounts for the traffic increases associated with general regional growth and development projects not in the immediate vicinity of the project site. The second step in estimating the future baseline traffic volumes was to estimate the increased levels of traffic that would. occur at the study area streets and intersections as a result of the traffic that would be generated by other proposed development projects; i.e.,those that are within a one-mile radius of the project site. The list of development projects was obtained from the Huntington Beach Planning Department ("Planning Applications — 2012," updated February 2012). The volumes of traffic that would be generated by these projects were estimated for the morning and afternoon peak hours. The development projects that were included in the cumulative traffic analysis are presented in Table 3. As shown, there are three other development projects proposed in the vicinity of the project site. TABLE 3 DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS FOR CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS Project/Land Use Location Size 1. Apartments 19891 Beach Blvd. (west side 174 units south of Utica Avenue 2. Wardlow School Site—Single Family 9191 Pioneer Drive 50 units Residential Development 3. Hoag Medical Office Building 19582 Beach Blvd. 52,177 sq. ft. Expansion The estimated volumes of traffic that would be generated by the three proposed development projects are shown in Table 4. The table shows the trip generation rates for each land use type and the volumes of traffic that each project would generate during the peak hours on a typical weekday. The table indicates that the projects, in total, would generate an estimated 246 vehicle trips during the morning peak hour (122 inbound and 124 outbound.), 338 trips during the afternoon peak hour (150 inbound and 188 outbound), and 1,890 vehicle trips per day. The trip generation rates shown in Table 4 are from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation.manual (8t'Edition, 2008), except that the daily rate for the single family residential use is 12.0 trips per unit as directed by City staff instead of the manual's rate of 9.57 trips per unit.- 5 Item 23. - 215 HB -1668 ` '£'ABLE 4 TRAFFIC GENERATED BY OTHER PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Project/ Daily AM Peak Hour I PM Peak Hour Laud Use Traffic Total I In I Out I Total I In J Out TRIP GENERATION RATES A artmL.- er unit 6.65 0.51 1 20% 80% 0.62 65% 35% Single Family Residential (per unit) 12.0 0.75 25% 75% 1.01 63°% 37% Medical Offices er 1,000 s . ft. 36.13 2.30 79% 21% 3.46 27% J 73% GENERATED TRAFFIC 1.Apartments 174 units 1,160 89 18 71 108 70 38 2. Wardlow Residential 49 units 590 37 9 28 49 31 18 3. Hoag Med Offices (52,177 s . ft.) 1,890 120 95 25 181 49 132 TOTAL 3,640 246 122 124 338 150 188 The traffic from the other proposed development projects was geographically distributed onto the street network to quantify the cumulative impacts at each study area intersection. Figures 4 and 5 in Appendix B show the estimated cumulative increases in traffic that would occur at each intersection as a result of the related projects for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The projected future baseline traffic volumes without the proposed project, which accounts for general area-wide growth and the cumulative volumes of traffic that would be generated by the other proposed development projects, are shown on Figures 6 and 7 in Appendix B for the morning and afternoon peak hours,respectively. Based on the peak hour traffic volumes,the turning movement counts, and the lane configuration at each intersection, the future (year 2015) baseline ICU values and levels of service were calculated for the seven existing study area intersections for each peak period, as summarized in Table 5. As shown, all seven of the study area intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service (LOS A, B, C, or D) during the weekday morning and afternoon peals hours for the year 2015 scenario without the proposed project. 6 1413 -1669- Item 23 - 216 TABLE 5 YEAR 2015 BASELINE INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE WITHOUT PROJECT Level of Service Interseetion AM Pear Hour PM Peak Hour SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU value&LOS Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue 0.505—A 0.693—B Brookhurst Street at Yorktown Avenue 0.469—A 0.647—B Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue 0.898—D 0.896—D Ward Street at Garfield Avenue 0.700—C 0.682—B Bustard Street at Yorktown Avenue 0.433—A 0.450—A Bustard Street at Adams Avenue 0.613 —B 0.695—B UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION (average vehicle delay in seconds&LOS Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane 15.7—C 12.6—B Item 23. - 217 HB -160- _ aY« r.z 1 k D.. ,... r.._ F• ,i n IV. TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS The following sections summarize the analysis of the project's impacts on study area traffic conditions. First is a discussion of project generated traffic volumes. This is followed by an analysis of the impacts of the proposed project on traffic volumes and intersection levels of service. Project Generated Traffic The volumes of traffic that would be generated by the proposed project were determined in order to estimate the impacts of the project on the study area streets and intersections. Table 6 shows the estimated volume of project generated traffic for an.average weekday and for the morning and afternoon peak hours for the proposed 81-unit residential development. The trip generation rates (vehicle trips per dwelling unit) represent values from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation manual (8th Edition, 2008) for the single-family detached housing residential land use category, except that the daily rate fox the single family residential use is 12.0 trips per unit as directed by City staff instead of the manual's rate of 9.57 trips per unit. For purposes of comparison, Table 6 also shows the estimated volumes of traffic that were generated by the elementary school that formerly occupied the project site. TABLE 6 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC AM Peak hour PM Peak hour Daily Land Use Total I In Out Total In Out Traffic TRIP GENERATION RATES Single Family Residential (trips per dwelling unit 0.75 25% 75% 1.01 63% 37% 12.0 Elementary School (trips per student 0.45 55% 45% 0.28 45% 55% 1.29 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC Lamb Residential Project 81 units 61 15 46 82 52 30 970 Former Lamb School 650 students 293 161 132 182 82 100 940 Table 6 indicates that the proposed residential development would generate 61 vehicle trips daring the morning peak hour(15 inbound and 46 outbound), 82 trips during the afternoon peak hour (52 inbound and 30 outbound), and a total of 970 vehicle trips per day. As a comparison, the former elementary school generated 293 trips during the morning peak hour, 182 trips during the afternoon peak hour, and 840 trips per day. The proposed residential development would, therefore, generate less traffic during the peak hours than the former elementary school use and more traffic on a daily basis. 8 HB -16T- r Item 23. - 218 To quantify the increases in traffic that would occur at each intersection as a result of the proposed project, the project generated traffic was geographically distributed onto the street network using the directional percentages shown on Figure 8 in Appendix B. This distribution assumption is based on the layout of the existing street network and the existing travel patterns observed during the peak periods. The volumes of project traffic on each access street and at each study area intersection were determined by using the generated traffic volumes shown in Table 6 and the geographical distribution assumptions shown on Figure 8. The volumes of traffic that would be added to each intersection as a result of the new residential development are shown on Figures 8 and 9 in Appendix B for the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The projected.traffic volumes for the year 2015 with the project are shown on Figures 10 and 11 for the morning and afternoon peak hours. These traffic volumes represent the 2015 baseline traffic volumes plus the traffic that would be generated by the proposed project. Significance Criteria According to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, a transportation impact at a signalized intersection shall be deemed significant in accordance with the criteria outlined in Table 7. Although the City does not have adopted significance criteria for unsignalized intersections, it has been assumed that an unsignalized intersection would be significantly impacted if the project would change the level of service from an acceptable LOS A through D to an unacceptable LOS E or F. The intersection would not be significantly impacted if the intersection's level of service would remain at LOS D or better. TABLE 7 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA FOR TRAFFIC IMPACTS Level of Service Final ICU Value Project-Related Increase in ICU E,F >0.900 Equal to or greater than.0.010 Intersection Impact Analysis An analysis of traffic impacts was conducted by quantifying the before and after traffic volumes, then determining the ICU values for the signalized intersections, the delay values for the unsignalized intersections, and the levels of service at the study area intersections for the "without project" and "with project" scenarios. The before-and-after levels of service at each of the study area intersections are summarized in Table 8 for the morning peak hour and Table 9 for the afternoon peak hour. The tables show the existing traffic conditions, the existing plus project conditions, the future baseline traffic conditions without the project for the year 2015, the 2015 traffic conditions with the addition of the project traffic, and the change in ICU or delay values associated with the project. The last columns of Tables 8 and 9 indicate if the intersection would be significantly impacted by the proposed project. As shown., the proposed residential project 9 Item 23. - 219 HB -162- i EA would not have a significant impact at any of the study area intersections during the morning or afternoon peak hours. TABLE 8 PROJECT IMPACT ON INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE-AM PEAK HOUR Level of Service Existing 2015 2015 Signif intersection Existing Plus Without With Project icant Conditions Project Project Project Impact hn act SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (ICU value&LOS Brookhurst/Garf eld 0.488-A 0.491 -A 0.505-A 0.508-A 0.003 No Brookhurst/Yorktown 0.456-A 0.465 -A 0.469---A 0.480-A 0.011 No Brookhurst/Adams 0.871 -D 0.872-D 0.898-D 0.899-D 0.001 No Ward/Garfield 0.677-B 0.685-B 0.700-C 0.708-C 0.008 No Bushard/Yorktown 1 0.418-A 0.418--A 0.433-A 0.434-A 0.001 No Bushard/Adams 0.593-A 0.593 -A 0.613 -B 0.613 -B 0.000 No UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (average vehicle delay in seconds&LOS Yorktown/Canberra 15.1-C 15.4-C 1 15.7-C 1 16.0-C 0.3 No Yorktown/Site Access N/A 10.7-B NIA 10.8-B 10.8 No Table 8 indicates that the intersection of Brookhurst Street at Garfield Avenue, for example, would operate at an ICU value of 0.488 and LOS A for existing conditions during the AM peak hour and at an ICU value of 0.491 and LOS A for the existing plus project scenario. The table indicates that this intersection would operate at an ICU value of 0.505 and LOS A for the year 2015 without project scenario and at an ICU value of 0.508 and LOS A in 2015 with the project, which represents an increase in the ICU value of 0.003. The last column indicates that the intersection would not be significantly impacted. Tables 8 and 9 indicate that none of the study area intersections would be significantly impacted by the project and that all of the intersections would continue to operate at acceptable conditions (LOS A through D) during the AM and PM peak hours for the existing conditions and year 2015 analysis scenarios. It should be noted that there are several other unsignalized intersections along Yorktown Avenue in addition to the intersection of Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane, which was evaluated for this analysis. For example, Mauna Lane, Pitcairn Lane, and Independence Lane also intersect with Yorktown Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The Canberra Larne intersection was selected for the analysis because it has the highest volumes of traffic entering and exiting Yorktown Avenue and it is the closest intersection to the project site. As the analysis for the Canberra Lane intersection indicates that the intersection would not be significantly impacted by the project, it can be concluded that the other unsignalized intersections along Yorktown, which have lower traffic volumes than Canberra Lane,would likewise not be significantly impacted by the project. 10 HB -163- Item 23. - 220 TABLE 9 PROJECT IMPACT ON INTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE—Ply PEAK HOUR Level of Service Existing 2015 2015 Signif Intersection Existing Plus Without With Project icant Conditions Project Project Project Impact Impact SIGNALIZED 1NTERSECTIONS (ICU value &LOS Brookhurst/Garfield 0,672—B 0.674—B 0.693—B 0.696—B 0.003 No Brookhurst/Yorktown 0.622—B 0.627—B 0.647—B 0.651 —B 0.004 No Brookhurst/Adams 0.870—D 0.871—D 0.896—D 0.899—D 0.003 No Ward/Garfield 0.659—B 0.669—B 0.682—B 0.691—B 0.009 No Bushard/Yorktown 0.433 —A 0.435—A 0.450—A 0.451 —A 0.001 No Bushard/Adams 0.673—.B 0.673—B 0.695 --B 0.695—B 0.000 No UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (average vehicle delay in seconds&LOS YorktownlCanberra +12.4 —B 12.5—B 12.6—B 12.8—B 0.2 No Yorktown/Site AccesN/A 13.1—B N/A 13.4—B 13.4 No The last row on Tables 8 and 9 shows the projected delay values and levels of service for vehicles at the proposed stop sign where the site access street would intersect with Yorktown Avenue. As shown, this unsignalized intersection is projected to operate at an acceptable LOS B during the morning and afternoon peak hours. It was assumed for the level of service analysis that a left-turn pocket would be provided for vehicles tinning left into the site from eastbound Yorktown Avenue. There are no delay or level of service values for existing conditions or for the 2015 without project scenario at this intersection because the intersection would not exist unless the project were to be developed. It should be noted that the traffic impact analysis is based on the traffic that would be generated by the 81 proposed residential units. Although a park/open space area is shown on the site plan at the southwest corner of the project site (as Not A Part), the park would not result in an increase in traffic volumes or parking demand because it is an existing city park that is currently operational Year 2030 Analysis An analysis has been conducted to determine the impacts of the project on the intersection levels of service for the long-range future (year 2030) scenario. The projected baseline traffic volumes, lane configuration, ICU values, and levels of service for the year 2030, as provided by City staff, are represented by the level of service calculation sheets from the traffic analysis for the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan. The project generated traffic was added to the projected baseline traffic volumes and the levels of service were re-calculated to quantify the project's impacts at each intersection. The results of the 2030 analysis are shown in Table 10. As shown,the project would not result in a significant impact at any of the study area intersections for the year 2030 analysis scenario. 11 Item 23. - 221 1113 -1 64- TABLE 10 PROJECT IMPACT ON YEAR 20301NTERSECTION LEVELS OF SERVICE Year 2030 ICU Values &Levels of Service Without With Project Significant Intersection Project Project Impact Impact AM PEAK HOUR Brookhurst/Garfield 0.73-C 0.73 -C 0.00 No Brookhurst/Yorktown 0.57-A 0.58-A 0.01 No Brookhurst/Adams 1.10-F 1.10-F 0.00 No Ward/Garfield 0.86-D 0.87-D 0.01 No Bushard/Yorktown 0.64-B 0.64-B 0.00 No Bushard/Adams 0.77-C 0.77-C 0.00 No PM PEAK HOUR. Brookhurst/Garfield 0.87-D 0.87-D 0.00 No BrookhurstJYorktown 0.67-B 0.69-B 0.02 No Brookhurst/Adams 1.06-F 1.06-F 0.00 No Ward/Garfield 0.57-A 0.58-A 0.01 No Bushard/Yorktown 0.64-B 0.64-B 0.00 No Bushard/Adams 0.82-D 0.82-D 0.00 No Parking Analysis The Lamb School site currently has a total of 146 parking spaces, which is comprised of 102 spaces in the lot at the southeast corner of the school site and 44 spaces in a rear lot north of the school buildings. These 146 parking spaces would be displaced as a result of the proposed development. In addition, a parking lot with 96 spaces is located on the southwest comer of the school site on land that is partially owned by the City of Huntington Beach and partially owned by the applicant. This lot provides parking for a City park that is located on land that was previously occupied by play-fields for the former school. This 96-space lot would be reduced to an estimated 3 8 parking spaces as a result of the proposed project. Observations at the parking lots indicated that the school lots rarely had any parked vehicles in the lots (sometimes one or two cars) and the lot at the City park typically had fewer than 10 vehicles parked in the lot. The proposed elimination of the two school lots and the reduction of the lot at the park to approximately 38 spaces would not, therefore, result in an adverse parking impact because the parking demands generated by the park could be accommodated in the lot that would be provided. The parking demands-that would be generated by the residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets. The project would not, therefore, result in a significant parking impact. 12 HB -165- :. Item 23. - 222 Recommendations As the proposed project would not result in a significant traffic impact at any of the study area intersections, no capacity-related mitigation measures would be necessary. As a measure to enhance traffic operations and safety, it is recommended that the intersection of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street be provided with a stop sign on the southbound approach and a left-turn pocket on the eastbound approach of Yorktown Avenue. This left-turn pocket could be provided by restriping the existing two-way left-turn lane on Yorktown.Avenue. As the project would not result in a significant parking impact, no parking-related mitigation measures would be necessary. 13 Item 23. - 223 HB -166- �:r F . . 6 ;fit �.,���;.. . ° �`,.�n. 3,t SUMMARY OF IMPACTS AND CONCLUSIONS The key findings of the traffic impact analysis are presented below. ® The proposed 81-unit residential development would generate 61 vehicle trips during the morning.peak hour (15 inbound and 46 outbound), 82 trips during the afternoon peak hour (52 inbound and 30 outbound), and a total of 970 vehicle trips per day. • An analysis of eight intersections in the vicinity of the proposed project indicates that the additional traffic generated by the development would not result in a significant impact at any of the intersections according to the City of Huntington Beach's significance criteria. • As there would be no, significant traffic impacts, no capacity-related mitigation measures would be necessary. • The proposed project would eliminate the former school's parking lots and would reduce the capacity of the lot at the adjacent City park from an existing 96 spaces to 38 spaces. This reduction in parking capacity would not result in a significant impact because the parking demands generated by the park could be accommodated by the parking lot that would be provided(which is not a part of the proposed development project). • The following features are recommended for the proposed intersection of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street: - A stop sign on the southbound approach of the site access street at Yorktown Avenue. - A left-turn pocket on the eastbound approach of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street,which could be provided by restriping the existing two-way left-turn lane on Yorktown Avenue. 14 HB -167 Item 23 - 224 APPENDIX A SITE PLAN Item 23. - 225 HB -169 22 N- 6 s�i.G �i u:? ���i�[iz-a[9ct ti'���,w✓tE { I_' >L J' i �lui�3• I �� Site Summary 57 I 1� Min' m Lot Size :45'x80'-14(3,600 s.f.) t3i) 31�(30 29 2e Tzi) 95 24 23 22 ff Minimum Lot Size :47'x80'=67(3,760 s.f.) _- z Q,m l7 '.,._:,!, Total Homes =81 ;i Site Area :M1,65 Acres 54 �-- -- -- "" �L, I: Density 't6.95 Homes/Acre 43 62 I, 41 72 I4 41 15 18 F, tl fff el Ifr 46 19 74 es /7� OwnerlDeveloper `-IRI a, I „—. .. _lk� Pointe --..._ 11 f)Al C 1 Not A Part I ,6 �. — -� �- -- 1A620 J Ine,CAD,Suite 290 .i• 2.6 Acres 76 - Irvin9,CA42812 . I'1 es `arl (4ij u `L 0i) 14 1 ' Architect Civil Engineer 51 —`---........11 7A �;„'.,_ BassenlanI La9 590 onl ,unLrrx ,ma Q, _.• 1 1 .a, ,..:. } .., CIhTEB Pum��s 1 Iffrrrl�l{I{ dILRhIF Gil tE-vupklRA-IIrfIWRi ,, 2031 Orchard Drive,Suite 100 2552 White Road,Sulte B .. -_r Newport Beach,CA 92460 IMre,CA 82614 52 U •p � >VNa M ILFII ���� _ 1Q 1 2 S 641 1 5 T,3 4 ---------- Conceptual Site Plan n Tract 3 172 8-Yorktown(Lamb) 56'Street ROW - Huntington Beach,California " N Canberra Lane 1Rprl155,2012 W APPENDIX B TRAFFIC VOLUME FIGURES Item 23. - 227 HB -160- f- �- Garfield Ave 4 LANES "Ntt + V � r 4sh��a m sf U a cn Project Site 4- 4- j r 4 LANES 44k* r Yorktown Ave 4 LANES V, Dy �' m m Cr C �u � r a� c-tl ,441 6 LANES 4414W � Adams Ave v�tf" . SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS N`s�s�CsO= STOP SIGN FIGURE 1 EXISTING ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS & LANE CONFIGURATION LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HB -16$- � Item ^23. - 22 o� '%-40 5 00o *-150 000 �40 ���► �130 r10 Garfield Ave 300J 380.E t r w 350-0- o 0 0 0 0cr, 0 130� 30� s� CD Project Site A.50 °° '�60 4-210 0 0 0 +-270 a o 0 4✓180 r 10 i o 4)d to, Vr 30 •� k* r 70 Yorktown Ave 60J *1 t e 130,.E 'It 460°� o w o 420"-' o w N 580--> o 0 70� 807 0 0 10� C� Cr W r w — Jk,140 co AL220 0 o p0 4a 420 0 0 o 4-480 j kx r 130 e)$ko, r200 Adams Ave 60J 1tf 180J �lt�` 1470-°' 00 - o 2070-.-* t ca 40- 80N 0 0 0 14�.. 0O ��`r�� s� FIGURE 2 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - AM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Item 23. - 229 HB -168 x n-� 23 100 AL 100 cc M 'k„zo W to0 0 0 4-300 o Q E, �20 ,t)bto, r230 4) r10 Garfield Ave I 160J t f' 400� W N C31 290-1` n Sc 10-111 to 140-N 0 50� S� U) Project Site k-90 ^' k-60 0 0 0 4--460 don 4�380 �580 $J 130 ,t'-180 r 30 Yorktown Ave 70J *1te 160.E �ti' *% e 360°'P o �i o 200"'1 r i w .p 1101 o 0 70-V 70-k o 110� n v Cr co Qs W 130 360 o a o 4r 1740 D o n 4--1790 4041�) r 350 Adams Ave 70J 'Nt I'W 250,E "t f, 870-+ o m o 930-4- allo t i o0 140 4 o �r O0 Sl` FIGURE 3 EXISTING TRAFFIC VOLUMES - PM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT " U 1 HB -168- a r. SItem 23. - 230 h T. fTC e' �[�'-_t\C k'�Fo N --2 N 4^1 Garfield Ave 3 . t 1 .� t 3 � 2 � 4S W Project Site 4-6 4-2 4- 2 A Yorktown Ave 1J *1 6J 12 -' 6 6 C7 W (D w r 4-g - 4-5 4) Adams Ave 16 11 ­40, 41 �r 00'� FIGURE 4 �4rs:s CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC FROIVI�PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS -AM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Item 23. - 231 HB -164- a m 4-3 Garfield Ave j r 2 3`� t 2� t 2 cn CD Project Site e®13 rn 4-6 4- 6 Yorktown Ave 2 5 � 11 4 � 4 `� 1 2 � 0 W Z3 a cn M r 4-17 4-12 Adams Ave 14 Cn 2 4 er FIGURE 5 CUMULATIVE TRAFFIC FROM'PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS - PM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 'p- t xB -168- Item 23. - 232 rn k-41 '� ED ni rn N 42 M N E--157 4'� `' `" 40 r134 Garfield Ave 312J ')t I' 392J CA) M 364� °ior.�i 54 moo 134� 6, 31, w s , hqr M f C Project Site 52 CD 'L 62 wwri +-284 P�. `' 4'187 *--218 r 31 ti r 72 r 10 Yorktown Ave 63J 41 t r 140J "It t' 1) r co w 439-0' nMi m n� 603—> 2) 486 �. co 5 ca � 72'N 82_ o, 10 7r C7 m m cn r w 144 227 CO csti W - W A-441 � OD tn 4-499 �1to, 134 j)tk,,, r("206 Adams Ave 62.E �t� 185J �tr 1530-'0' w r? 2143--0' �, N w 42� 87 er h� NI- s� FIGURE 6 2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT -AM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT EIL.. Item 23. - 233 HB -168- rncn �21 � s00 imcM 312 o sU' 4-22 .�� r 237 r 12 Garfield Ave 168J 11 t for 414—t �t� 10"- m c C:) n 301'� CD � N w 144� w 52� q � Project Site iv k� 62 s. �93 co o i 4-397 4-603 w 1 4-487 jr 134 185 31 Yorktown Ave 74J 4)tr 170J s -' 262—* N 382—* w m N 210'"'� cNn 113� 73� 74� s C7 cn sn r AL. �� � �371 w - m 4-1809 Cnn Cnn 4W 4-1856 4)j k,,, r(r41 e#I k,,� r361 Adams Ave 72J �t" 259.J �t 910"1' cch rn N 967"1" N ao 146� A 97 N °' 0 w er 00 �hGrs11 s/ FIGURE 7 2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITHOUT PROJECT - PM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HB -169 ,,.:���. ;.� r. „�Item 23. - 234 30% 30% 5% Garfield Ave *Nt 4& s�s�dr 35% 30°l0 9' a. s� Project U) Site 7 1 5% 9 5 4-5 Yorktown Ave 2 10 14 2 -` W 70% n 20% m 4-2 5% t� 5% Adams Ave 10% ~�O s� FIGURE S PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC - AM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Item 23. - 235 HB -168 _ Garfield Ave 1 b 3 D C S� CL Project Cn Site ED 4 4-4 6 A) 16A� 16 16 Yorktown Ave 36J 9-0. v 0, co r 4-1 � %W � 3 Adams Ave 2 t CP �r 0. hG St FIGURE 9 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC - PM PEAK HOUR. LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HB -169- Item 23. - 236 rn JIL.41 5 Mto My 157 coN3 4-42 .4) 134 4)1`e r10 Garfield Ave 312J 'NT� 392 �tr 364-0' n r°v° 54-* a' o 135-N 31 O' a s Project C Site k-52 °w° N k-78 w wwN 4--291 194 ^' AL5 4-223 ,1 31 81 4-- 280 ,r 10 Yorktown Ave 63,E *1 t e 1401` ©1 T C° 10 j' s17-1, 48$"• cwa w 441-0, ni can tv 613-`� 10 4 1 72Al 82` co n CD tv r w AL 144 cn cn k 228 w *-'443 rn w 4-499 ,� Fy t'134 ,� 6y r�'zos Adams Ave 62J �tr 1531-`1' w j ns 2143-0 - V 42 r9 87 cn w w er 00� h� ~sf s� FIGURE 10 2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT - AM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Item 23. - 237 HB -1690- _ N3 -> �163 � � �21 � ccn 4-312 0 cn t®22 ��L1s r237 4)1%0, r12 Garfield Ave 168..E *1 t e 414,E t 301� own�'i 16� wwcn 147� O0co 52$4 co Project Site CA k.,,,93 N k,73 N � w - � �491 �--401 16 4-619 4) r 134 �� �191 A� t* 644 31 Yorktown Ave 74J �t� 170J �t� 36.� 2711 2184-'� 375 113N00 390 w � N 7 �' N 73 C� m CD r yw AtL.134 Rd374 w - w 4 -181Q rn a''i A--1852 4�$1,g, r41 r361 Adams Ave 72J �t� 261J �tr 912-+ cis, rn N 967"' m '" o 146� 97� `' `" �r h�~sf cS� FIGURE 11 2015 TRAFFIC VOLUMES WITH PROJECT PM PEAK HOUR LAMB SCHOOL SITE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HB -1691- Item 23. - 238 APPENDIX C LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS Item 23. - 239 xs -1692- y _ LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Brookhurst Street/Garfield Avenue Time Period: AM Peak Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, & 2015 With Project Existing Existing 2a15 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 11700 80 0.047 82 0.048 82 0.048 84 0.049 NBTEtEl 970 0.206* 984 0.209* 1NBR 80 S 80 S 82 S 82 S x SBL 0.012* 20 Q.0�122 0 118 622 0122 6216 0023 w SBT 600 12* 0. SBR 90 0.053 90 0.053 95 0.056 95 0.056 171-1 EBL 300 0.176* 300 0.176* 312 20.184* 312 0.184* EBT 350 0.141 350 . 0.141 364 0.146 364 0.147 EBR 130 S 131 S 134 S 135 S WBL 1 1700 130 0.076 130 0.076 134 0. 134 0.079 WBT 2 3400 150 0.044* 150 0.044* 157 0.046* 157. 0.046* f. WBR 1 1700 40 0.024 40 0.024 41 0,024 J 41 0,024 a � � � ,�, 0.458 Suin of Critical V/C Ratios ''3 0,438 �xiP , 0.441 Clearance Interval z1 r ' *T. sq 0.050m; 4r" 0.050 ��"'�`. d' 0.050 t read i 0.491 0.505a� 0.508 ,..., ICU Value 4n ' 0.488 x x A A. Level of Service 'Y. ; A NOTE: "S" indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. -�N — O � N •`'' LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS N INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Brookhurst Street/Yorktown Avenue Time Period: AM Peal,,Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions,Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peakl3our Volume/ peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 1 1700 5Q 0.029 50 0.029 52 0.031 52 0.031 NBT 3 5100 930 0.206* 930 0.206* 958 0.212* 958 0.213* NBR S S 120 S 123 S 124 S 127 S JSBT 1 EOO 20 0.012* 25 0.015* 21 0.012* 26 0.015* 3 810 0.175 810 0.175 834 0.180 84Q.180 S 80 S 80 S 86 S 86 S ' EBL 1 1700 130 0.076 130 0.076 140 0.082 140 0. 082 EBT 2 34Q0 420 0.147* 422 0.148* 439 0.153* 441 0.154* EBR S S 80 S 80 S 82 S 82 S > WBL 1 1700 70 0.041* 79 0.046* 72 0.042* 81 0.048* +� WBT 2 3400 18Q OA71 187 0.077 187 0.073 1.94 0.080 =`r WBR S S 60 S 76 S 62 S 78 S ' l° gr T. 0.4300.419"H0,406_Sam o£Critical V/C Rafios00 0.0 0 0.050 . 5 Clearance interval ` x� . f 4 , �� �pth 0.456 ` :s�� t,� 0.465 ` h*xl, �l 0.469 0.480 ICU Value +� k �a 9 Level of Service MI.g � rFa;; A k s. . ��7r gg A A x NOTE: "S" indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. A N c� LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Time Period: AM Peak Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project,2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Pius Project Without Project With Project Movement Of peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 2 3400 Ito 0.032 110 0.032 115 0.034 115 0,034 NBT 3 5100 720 1 0.212* 721 0.212* 742 0.218* 743 0.219* NBR S S 430 0.253 430 0.253 443 0.261 443 0.261 SBL 2 3400 490 0,144* 492 0.145* 505 0.149* 507 0.149* td SBT 3 5100 930 0.204 935 0.205 958 0.210 963 0.212 SBR S S 110 S 112 S 114 S 116 S "' EBL 2 3400 180 0.053 1 181 0.053 185 0.054 186 0.055 EBT 3 5100 2070 0.406* 2070 0.406* 1 2143 0,420* 2143 0.420* > EBR 1 1700 80 0,047 80 U.U4 I 87 0.05I 87 0.051 _ WBL 2 3400 200 0.059* 200 0.059* 206 0.061* 206 0.061* t_-z .7) WBT 3 5100 480 0.094 480 0.094 499 0.098 499 0.098 WBR 1 1700 220 0.129 221 0.130 227 0.134 228 0.134 {1 v� f ,, 0.822 K77 `f r 0.848 -w }'; 0.849 t7ulll Of Critical V/C RatioSs`3r��r _*�� ! 0.821 '�'�'.y�yxe� %�ev"`rsi ° - - ''` Clearance Interval °�� � 0.050 " ''r 0.050 u`A k ,rY r 0.050 >rft 0.050 Ii�&`�"Vi . 0.872 , =a ,� 'x 0.898 0.899 ICU Value sF y, r 0.871 !z k a, Iit Dba.t..r;l"�i1`.i }' l] Level of Service � ,,���_��, � ; D - �,., s w NOTE: "S" indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. -P v N a-- w LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS N INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY w Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Ward Street/Garfield Avenue Time Period: AM Peal-,Hour ,Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &.2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement a Peak Hour Volume) Pear Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity 'Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL S S 30 0.018 30 0.018 31 0.018 31 0.019 NBT 1 1700 580 0.365* 594 0.373* 603 0.379* 617 0.387* NBR S S 10 S 10 S 10 S 10 S SBL S S 20 0.012* 20 0.012* 21 0.012* 21 0.012* SBT 1 1700 160 0.094 165 0.097 167 0.111 172 0.114 SBR 1 1700 220 0.129 220 0.129 228 0.134 228 0.134 a, °1 EBL 1 1700 1 380 0.224* 380 0.224* 392 0.231* 392 0.231* EBT 1 1700 50 0.029 50 0.029 54 0.032 54 0.032 =� EBR 1 1700 30 0.018 30 0.018 31 0.018 31 0.018 z:< WBL 1 1700 10 0.006 10 0.006 10 0.006 10 0.006 WBT 1 1700 40 0.026* 40 0.026* 42 0.028* 42 0.028* W13R S S 5 S 5 S S S 5 S 9 ' t „t''x �3' r�p1� a�yr ) J n✓ F � e7��,<i Sum of Critical V/C Ratios G,/t�, ti� {, r ;f 0.627 4 0.635 Fa �q 0.650 ;+ Clearance Interval qr,{ 0.050 ; 'F'`..,f ,w,s_ 0.050 :`, T i 0.050 0,050 r^l�r'fi pi+'� 'hi '`v k,: }o 2 ICU Value >tt e'{ {,' �-{ ; 0.677 .� .r 7, r#}x. 0.685 -Y 1€:��.� 7:` 0.700 `,.�r 0.708 (i is f✓ �„ dv $- Srx J i r 4 jam: ca y"'' C Level of Service �� #. :1..,� t., B s x_ B x ti ,,f<, . 1 rf S- W ! r S hf '1; i ht� C °✓1 .(', ri; f L NOTE: "S" indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. c-� LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Bushard Street/Yorktown Avenue Time Period: AM Peale Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume! Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 1 1700 90 0.053* 90 0.053* 94 0.055* 94 0.055* NBT 2 3400 380 0.138 380 0.138 it 391 0.142 391 0.142 NBR S S 90 S I 90 S 93 S 93 1 S x SBL 1 1700 50 0.029 50 0.029 52 0.031 52 0.031 b� SBT 2 3400 420 0.141* 420 0.141* 433 0.146* 433 0.146* SBR S S 60 S 60 S 63 S 63 S EBL 1 t700 60 0.035 60 0.035 63 0.037 L 63 0.037 EBT 2 3400 460 0.156* 462 0.156* 486 0.164* 488 0.165* EBR S S 70 S 70 S 72 S 72 S 4 WBL 1 1700 30 0.018* 30 0.018* 31 0.018* 31 0.01$* WBT 2 3400 270 0.094 277 0.096 284 0.09�211 0.101 WBR S S 50 S 50 S 52 SS � autriv i,Y� ?� 0.36$ r �Fdt$r'"P-yiYf' Q.383xot� �� Q.3$4 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios �x�d �� �� 0.368 +,firs � � r� f 5 3 ,t� "rl'�rr't' hv"p <„ 0.050 `ia O.Q50 Clearance Interval ,, , , 0.050 f,axe 0.050Y r "t �x� '�hG1 "if't*�yx; # ' .' 0.418 0,433 y,<< wt,�z: 0.434 ICU Va1ue I 0.418 �� .'.fi"rw��3 W ��p nh il�'(N'hi-s^.: A § � �'�'��cn{ A Level of Service <� r, �, �,. a.l A €, z ,� U tj NOTE: "S" indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. N f�a -P CD N LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Bushard Street/Adams Avenue Time Period: AM Peak Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 1 I 1700 60 0.035 60 0.035 63 0.037 63 0.037 NBT 2 3400 1 310 0.112* 310 0.112* 319 0.115* 319 0.115* NBR S S 70 S 70 S 72 S 72 S SBL 1 1700 100 0,059* 100 O.D59* 1D3 0.061* I03 0.061* SBT 2 3400 360 0.121 360 0.121 371 0.125 371 0.125 SBR S S 50 S 50 S 53 S 53 S EBL 1 1700 60 0.035 60 0.035 62 0.036 62 QA36 EBT 3 5100 1470 0.296* 1471 0.296* 1530 0.308* 1531 0.308* EBR S S 4D S 40 S 42 S 42 S ��..1 WBL 1 1.700 130 0.076* 130 0.076* 134 0.079* 134 0.079* WBT 3 5100 420 0.110 422 0.110 441 0.115 443 0.115 WBR S S 140 S 140 S 144 S 144 S Sum of Critical V/C Ratios "fii ztar ;,xtF.r 0.543 0.543 � ':� * �r y 0.563 �x 4 f f i 0.563 Clearance Interval t i a t e - ;t aar ;,`. J� *�i^ w �} 0.050 t '} xr�r, 0.050 r�1 0.05Q f f� D.QSQ ICU Value ' y:; 0.593 � � p " r' 0.593 �aF pia 0.G 13 X �' 0.613 ctK f i one r i1G it �1� ro gar r1 u y i Level of Service ' 1 � Aa i�,,f., � A B s ,�, B E" NOTE: "S"indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. x� ti LEVEE r OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Brookhurst Street/Garfield Avenue Time Period: PM Peak IIour Scenarios: Existing Conditions,Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peale Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 1 1700 200 0.118 202 0.119 206 0.121 208 0.122 NBT 3 5100 1330 0.273* 1339 0.274* 1375 0.282* 1384 0.284* NBR S S 60 S 60 S 62 S 62 S SBL 1 1700 150 0.088* 150 0.088* 155 0.091* 155 0.091* x SBT 3 EE 0 1090 0.214 1105 0z SBR 1 0 220 0.129 220 0.129 231 O.I36 231 0.136 EBL 1 1700 160 0.094 160 0.094 168 6.099 168 0,099 EBT 2 3400 290 0.126* 290 0.127* 301 0.131* 301 0.132* EBR S S 140 S 143 S 144 S 147 S 1 WBL 1 1700 230 0.135* 230 0.135* 237 0.139* 237 0.139* WBT 2 3400 300 0.089 300 0.088 312 0.092 312 0.092 WBR 1 1700 100 0,059 100 0,059 103 0.061 103 0.061 a Sum of Critical V/C Ratios 0.622 a ir' ' r� 0.624 } T 0.643 0.646 0.05Clearance Inter .b50 0 val Js , f i i i r` ,.` ti.ln Yl S;y� ��` a icL".fi ICU Value � , � �Y�a; 0.672 + ;n err"0rM.: 0.674 Uz i{G �> 0 693 t Jtr t 0.69G Level-of Service f}1 „rN � ; B � r� B r � 4 r>ri A',} B y$ "Ftk'� 3 � B NOTE: "S" indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. 4!-IJ ,) N -P P C N w LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development intersection: Brookhurst Street/Yorktown Avenue Time Period: PM Peak Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, & 2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Panes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 1 1700 120 0.071* 120 0.071* 125 0.074* 125 0.074* NBT 1 3 5100 1370 0.296 1370 0.298 1411 0.305 1411 0.307 NBR S S 140 S 150 S 144 S 154 S SBL 1 t700 20 0.012 38 0.022 21 0.012 39 0.023 Cd SBT 3 5100 1250 0.278* 1250 0.278* 1288 0.288* 1288 0.288* SBR S S 170 S 170 S 181 S 181 S 0 EBL 1 1700 160 0.094* 160 0.094* 170 0.100* 170 0.100* EBT 2 3400 200 0.079 208 0.082 210 0.084 218 0.086 EBR S S 70 S 70 S 74 S 74 S WBL 1 1700 180 0.106 186 0.109 185 0.109 191 0.112 WBT 2 3400 380 0J29* 384 0.134* 397 0.135* 401 0.139* WBR S S 60 S 71 S 62 S 73 S r Stun of Critical V/C Ratios =f` € ,17 F� , jk 0.572 0.601 ^ Clearance Interval `a hl ' �r (,tf�i {' ada �L',y a ��gt yoy�a " a k l?t 0.050 «�„ , . �..,. 0.050 .... �t,rx„ 0.050 ., ,; .err--: 0.Q50 a9 ,y x x 7d1 ra rr f ICU Values rx 0.622 } 5�1y 0.627 &,`4' ,fi,�,s 0.647 0.651 Level of Service i dfrr-�rVi , k �'�.i� d��4?`. ,,�� r,, i't�5'^` ?'u . , ���y+ y' NOTE: "S"indicates shared lane. indicates critical movement. LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Tluntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Brookhurst Street/Adams Avenue Time Period: PM Peal-,Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions,Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 2 3400 280 0.082 280 0.082 293 0.086 293 Q.086 NBT 3 5100 1200 0.271* 1205 0.272* 1236 0.279* 1241 0.280* NBR S S 1, S 180 S 185 S 185 S SBL 2 3400 420 0.124* 422 0.124* 433 0.127* 435 V.12.8* b� SBT 3 5100 1160 0.257 1163 0.258 1195 65 1198 0.265 0.2 s� SBR S S 150 S 151 S 155 S 156 S ~ EBL 2 3400 250 0.074* 252 0.074* 259 0.076* 261 0.077* EB`1 3 5100 930 0.182 930 0.182 967 0.190 967 0.190 EBR 1 1700 90 0.053 90 0.053 97 0.057 97 0.057 WBL 2 3400 350 0.103 350 0.103 361 0.106 361 0.106 WBT 3 5100 1790 0.351* 1790 0.351* 1856 0.364* 1856 0.364* WBR 1 1700 360 0.212 363 0.214 371 0.218 374 0.220 V' ;ja� 0.820 �t#°zi �}�r; 0.821 s�,�f' �, �1�' - 0.846 Sum of Critical V/C Ratios Clearance interval 0.050 °' ' sit. 0.050 1" ,"" "�`x 0.050 TCU Value ?i; i`,r,,� , '?tr 0.870 1 � ' 0.871yy 0.896 F1 b`� 0.899 I®- Level of S0Tv1ce4�E F is_: # D r .. _ CD NOTE: "S" indicates shared lane. "*" indicates critical movement. �N 00 N LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS N INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Ward Street/Garfield Avenue Time Period: PM Peals Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions,Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes 'Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL S S 30 0.018* 30 0.018* 31 0.018* 31 0.018* NBT 1 1700 290 0.191 299 0,196 303 0.199 312 0,205 NBR S S 5 S 5 S 5 S S S SBL S S 5 0.003 5 0,003 5 0.003 5 0.003 SBT 1 1700 560 0.332* 576 0.342* 581 0.345* 597 0.354* SBR 1 1700 590 0.347 590 0.347 610 0.359 610 0,359 N EBL 1 1700 400 0.235* 400 0.235* 414 0.244* 414 0.244* EBT 1 1700 10 0,006 10 0.006 10 0.006 10 0.006 EBR 1 1700 50 0.029 50 0A29 52 0.031 52 0.031 WBL 1 1700 10 0.006 10 0.006 12 0.007 12 0.007 WBT 1 1700 20 0,0241, 20 0.024* 22 0.025* 22 0.025* WBR S S 20 S 20 S 21 S 21 S E 0.632 ' F 0.6415um of Critical V/C Ratios 0.609 0.619 MI !� 4,+p v �f1r'4 srA,.���' r`'f Clearance Interval , ,4�i 0.050 �_�,,: 0.050 0.050 s,r,..,,b�}.:, 0A50 a� d$. ru s L, 0.691 ICU Value sle�, 0.659 fS '• sGrr 0.669 .� e. "� r,;. Level of Service B i .:' B t. . NOTE: "S"indicates shared lane. ""indicates critical movement. fir". LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Bushard Street/Yorktown Avenue Time Period: PM Peak Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project,2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of peal-Hour Volume/ Peal-Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 1 1706 90 0.053 90 0.053 93 0.055 0.055 NBT 2 3400 4700.156* 470 0.156* 484 0.161* tA9t3 0.161* NBR S S 60 S 60 S 62 S S x SBL 1 1700 40 0.024* 40 Q.024* 41 0.024* 41 0.024* SBT 2 3400 380 0.124 �380 0.124 391 0.128 391 0.128 SBR S S 40 S S 43 S 43 S w EBL 1 1700 70 0.041* 70 O.Q41 74 0.044* 74 0.044* EBT 2 3400 360 0.126 368 fl.129* 382 0.134 390 0.136 EBR S S 70 S 70 S 73 S 73 S ea WBL 1 1700 130 0.076 130 0.076* 134 0.079 134 0.079 WBT 2 3400 460 0.162* 464 0.163 487 4.171* 491 fl.172 WBR S S 90 S 90 S 93 S 93 S 9 xy �Nt rP -0 r�,z; mx M Q.400 +� a��x 0.401 Suxn of Critical V/C Ratios , r airs 0.383 w , 0.385 �� Clearance Interval nF 0.050 = rx oa* 0.050 r s ry ICU Value r �ti` { r a 0.433 yy� ,`r�3 ��{s� 0.435 `�t 0.4,550 nY��yh��;f���i� �� 0.451 �- �i ar,'S�h r`Kn'i,'�t�1�Z�l A �;'�h F`aZ"'N t'+�C'�i �'i f. A ��N T.��'� ,�"*°+�""r�' A A Level of Service _ �;,,, r.,�, N NOTE: "S"indicates shared lane. indicates critical movement. o � r+ N •`'' LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS lv INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION METHODOLOGY Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach Project: Lamb School Site Residential Development Intersection: Bushard Street/Adams Avenue Time Period: PM Peak Hour Scenarios: Existing Conditions, Existing plus Project, 2015 Without Project, &2015 With Project Existing Existing 2015 2015 Direction/ Number Capacity Conditions Plus Project Without Project With Project Movement Of Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Peak Hour Volume/ Lanes Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Traffic Capacity Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio Volume Ratio NBL 1 1700 90 0.053 90 0.053 95 0.056 95 0.056 NBT 2 3400 450 0.156* 450 0.156* 464 0.161* 464 10161 NBR S S 80 S 80 S 82 S 82 S Z SBL 1 1700 100 0.059* 100 0.059* 103 0.061* 1Q3 0.061* SST 2 3400 350 0.132 350 0.132 361 0.136 361 0.136 Q SBR S S 100 S 100 S 103 S 103 S EBL 1 1700 70 0.041* 70 0.041* 72 0.042* 72 0.042* EBT 3 5100 870 0.198 872 0.198 910 � 0.207 921 0.207 EBR S S 140 S 140 S 146 S 146 S WBL 1 1700 40 0.024 40 0.024 41 0.024 41 0.024 WBT 3 5100 1740 0.367* 1741 0.367* 1809 0.381* 1810 0.3$1'" im WBR S S 130 S 130 S 134 S 134 S Sum oCritical V/C Ratzosfk1L�� t11"' 0.623 �q �iv ; � 0.623 .645 t �0 ; 0.645 " i` 0.050zFv, � 0.050 ' Clearance Interval 0.050 rt � � 0.050 � ¢ ry '�;F'1, �!y'nPteta- t c4�} i ' Q.695 t, f zhr 0.673 �?1 of 0.673 i f 0.695 .i ICU Value F F f r, .0 �:E R irr r- B � �YkM,,2r'y�n('+�.�. B Level O to 0rV lce {r" ,�p k f� K}d�: B B NOTE: "S" indicates shared lame. "*" indicates critical movement. M 'Pxvo- Nay stop contras Page I of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Sfte lnfar .-Alon ktown anberra AvelC Instysis st R Garland s�tersection Yor af1°toPer€bnn�ted 7127120(1 &Aiction !tyOfHunn Beach Time F'etiot! KY Peak Hour Anaiyzis Year tst�r3 ro•ect Description Lamb School Site Residential Devekprnent EastlWest Street: Yorktown Avenue rthfSouth Street Canberra Lane lntersecUonOrten4afw: Easf-Vt/esf [SWdy Pesio rs: 0,25 ehicle.Volumes an Adjustments � or Street I Eastbound Wesd=nd overnent 1 2 3 4 5 5 L T R L T R %Agurne vehllt 580 10 10 210 Peak-Hour Factor.PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1-00 curly Flow Rate,HFR 0 580 10 10 210 0 veh/h Percent Hea Veluaee g — — 0 — Median Type t Ur�vided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 n-f oguration r 7R L T upstream Slgraal f1 0 onor Stet Northbound Sauthbound Movement 7 a 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R calume veht;, 60 1 40 Peak-Hour Factor,P lF 1,00 9.0 1.00 1.00 1,00 3.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HI=R 60 0 40 0 0 0 i reha ;percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 configuration LR Delay,Queue Lown th,and Level of SeMce Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 a 9 1Q 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vehfh) 10 100 (rn)(veh/h) 995 455 - 1a 0.01 0-22 5%queue lengt 0.03 0.83 Control Delay(slveh) S-7 #5.1 LOS A C )Approa&Delay(sfveh)1 15.1 pro2ch LOS — — G Copyright®2005 UNversiiy of Rolda,An phis Reserved HCSJIT Version 521 Ger atsr.; 212512012 6 41 PM file://C;:IDneuTnent-,ar►d 1S�inpglRichlT,acn1 ge€#.ingglTemn\t321c79F..tmn 21^rJnnrn HB -1 05- Item 23. - 252 Two-Way Stop Control; Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information st R Garland Intersection Yorktown AvelGanbcrra La ne � en lCo. Garland Associates Jurisdiction of Nunfi tan Beach ate Performed 2116'2012 Analysis Year Existin 1us P t na sis Time Period Peak Haar Project Descri on Lamb School Site Residerfiia/Developrnent ast/West Street: Yorktown Avenue rth/South Street: Canberra Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West tud Period rs: 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street 1=astbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R oiume veh/h 594 10 10 215 eak+iour Factor,PHF 1,00 1.00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flaw Rate, HFR 0 594 10 10 215 0 l vehfh Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 -- — 1 0 — — Median Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T U strearn Signal 0 0 mor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 a B 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume(yeh/hJ 60 40 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1,00 ourly Flow Rate,HFR 60 0 40 0 0 0 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach fV At Storage 0 0 RT Channeiized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue L.en ;and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vef9h) 10 100 (m)(veh/h) 984 447 We 0.01 0.22 5%queue length 0,03 0.85 Control Delay(slveh) 8.7 15.4 OS A G Kpproach proach Delay(stveh) - - 15.4 LOS — — C Copright02005 Universigrof Fbrica,AIt Rights Reserved HCS+T?4 version 521 Generated:W512012 5:34 AM Item 23. - 253 HB -106- At -_ 4 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Yorktown Ave/Canbaml a st R Garland ntersection Lane Atgen 1Co. [Garland Associates urisdiction of Hunti or)Beach Date Perfor aced 211612012 a s Year 2015 Without Project Analysis Time Period KM Peak Hour Project©esei 'on Lamb School Site Residential Deve!o ment astWest Street: Yorktown Avenue NorthlSouth Street: Canberra Lane intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period (firs): 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Ma'ar Street Easthound Westbound Moverreent 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume(vehthl 603 10 10 218 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 603 10 10 -218 0 (Veh1h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — edian Type Undivided T Chanrerzed 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 1 i 12 L T R L T R Volume dyh 62 41 Peak4-lour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 62 0 41 0 0 0 (vehlh Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 oration _ LR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 .7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vehlh) 10 103 (rn)(veh1h) 976 440 is 0.01 023 95%queue length 0.03 0.90 Control Delay(slveh) a 7 15.7 OS A C Approach Delay(siveh) — - 15.7 Approach LO S — — C coWright0 2005 Unhersdty of Florida,All Righis Reserved HGS+TM Version 521 Generated: 5115t2D12 Z48 Atli HB -107 Item 23. - 254 4:1—l1f'.I --A Ca+F;r-olP;,hlT n QI Q-ftsn tsnn ri/15/7f117 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Informatim nal st R Garland Intersection Yorktown AvelCanberra ane Agfmlco. Garland Associates Jurisdiction C' of Huntington ton Beach Date Performed ?J1 Gr2012 sis Year 2015 With Pro"ect Analysis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Description Lamb School Site Residential Develo ment st/West Street: Yorktown Avenue NodWSouth Street_ Canberra Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West IStudy Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westllaund Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume VeLVh 617 10 10 223 Peak-Flour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 617 10 10 223 0 (vettih Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 -- -- Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume vehlh 62 41 Peak-dour Factor,PHF 1.00 1,00 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Floyd Rate, HFR fit 0 41 0 0 0 (vehlh)' Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Percent Grade(%} 0 0 Flared!Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channei"szed 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration J LR Delay,Queue ,and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Souhhbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 10 103 C(m) (vehlh) 965 431 V/c 0.01 0 24 95'%queue length • 0.03 0.92 Control DeJay(s/veh) 8.8 16_0 OS A C Approach Delay(s/veh) — - 16.0 pmach LOS — -- C Copyright 021005 University of Ftorids,Alt Rights Reserved HCS+fM Version 5.21 Generated:' 5r1512012 2-48 AM Item 23. - 255 HB -108 Al file://C:1Documents and Setdngs\,Richll,ocal Setdna.glTemn1u2k1AF.irnn 5/15/�iit2 = ° Two-tray Stop Contmi Page 1 of 1 . TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site lnfdrme on ; st R Gadarxf r�tersr� Lane Yorktown Rve/s✓arrfrra n lCa. arlard Assodates rtsdiction of Nut�ti on Beach lEate ' T127l2001� a s€s Yea i k Hour sis Time Period Phi rojea Description Lamb Sdroot Sge Residerfiaf DeveloWent asgWest Street. Yoridown Avenue Street: Carberra Lane r t seoGon Orlent on- Fast-West tud periotf hrs: 0.25 e jet_-Volumes and Adiustrr> nts or Street EastWund Westbound ve Atsomerft 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R bhtme veh3h 250 110 30 580 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1:o0 1_00 1.00 1.00 s Hourly Flow Rate,HFR veh/h 0 250 710 30 580 0 Pent Heavy VeKUes 0 — — 0 — Median Type UrtdiMad T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Con`sguratbn T TR L T stream Si real 0 0 hw Street Norftound Southbound Movement 7 8 S 10 1 t 1 12 L T R L i R Volume veh/h 40 I B Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 40: 0 60 0 0 0 veh Percent Heavy Vehides 0 0 0 0 0 0 ercent Grade(°/a) 0 0 Fred AMroach 1 N N Storage i 0 s 0 T Channetized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 ccj±Duration LR Deta ,Queue Lena and Level at Se€trice Approach Eastbound Westbound ` Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7_ 8 9 10 41 12 Lane Configuration L tR (vehlh) 30 120 (m)(vehlh) 1210 609 v/c 0.02 0.20 95%queue length 0.0$ 0.73 Control Delay(stveh) 8.1 124 pS A & Pproa&Delay(stveh) — - 124 Rproact LOS - -- $ Cp tiytd 20D5 l3ttt emsih at Florida,A!1 RWds Resc�ved HCS+Tr1k Version 521 Generated:2126t7Pf 2 6,42 PM , F T 3e:l/C`\ �rrim�iftc afai1 fiQtfingal3Zir htT nevi `HB -109-'Y` 'n� t i.tm:s 7J Item 23. - 256 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Genera[ Information Site information rok alyst R Garland ntersection Yorktown Ave/Canberra La ne en lCo. Garland Associates urisdicbon City of Hunts on Beach ate Performed 2/16/20i2 Analysis Year Exist 2g Plus ESEd jAnalysis Time Period P1W Peak Hour Project Descrf tort Lamb School Site Residents!DeVeL ment East(West Street. Yorktown AvenueNorth/South Street Canberra Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West to Period hrs: 0.25 Vehicle Volumes an Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume vehfh 259 110 30 596 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 259 110 30 596 0 vehlh Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 1 0 — — Median 7ype Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T stream Signal 0 1 1 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Io` lume vehih 40 80 ak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 urly Flow Rate, HFR 40 0 80 0 0 0 ehmrcent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configurabon LR Delay, Queue Len94 and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vehth) 30 120 C(rn)(vehlh) 1201 599 la 0.02 0.20 S%queue length 0.08 0.74 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.1 12.5 LOS A B Approach Delay(sNeh) — — 12.5 Approach LOS — — B Copyright©2005 Universffy of Florida,AP F*his Reserved HCS+TM Version 5.21 Generated: V512012 6:35 AAA Item 23. - 257 xB -lTo- file.//C :1T3ctcttrrtent� and ,ge4.ingslRich%T,)cal Settinggr Ternnitt2k15C:.tmn 1/5/2012 Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL.SUMMARY General Infoffnafion Site Information na st Garland Intersection Yorktown AvolCanbena en /Co. Garland Associates Lane ate Performed 2/1fi/2012 Jurisdiction ot'HunBn on Beach of sis Time Period PM Peak Hour Analysis Year 2015 Wdhout Pra'ect Project Description Lamb School Site Residential Development astNVest Street Yorktown Avenue osthfSouth Street Canberra Lane Intersection Orientation: East-West ISjudy Period hrs- 025 Vehicle Volumes and Ad'ustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 fi L T R L T R Volume vehfh 262 113 31 603 Peak-Hour-Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1-00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Tautly Flour Rate, HFR 0 262 113 31 603 0 (veh/h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — 1 0 -- — Median Type Undivided T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 lilEinor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume vehfh 41 62 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF . 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 0 82 0 0 0 vehlh Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared P,pproacb N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Conft uration LR 'Delay,Queue Le aid revel of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 31 123 C(m)(VM M) 1195 594 We 0.03 0,21 95%queue length 0.08 0.77 Control Delay (slveh) 8.1 12.6 OS A 8 Approach delay(stveh) — — 12.6 proach LOS -- — B Copyright 0 2DD5 University of Florida,AH Rights Reserved HC.-T M Version 5.21 Generated: SA W2012 Z42 AAA HB -ITI- Item 23. - 258 Ito./lr •111n...,.,,a,.+� .—A 1 AR trnn 5/15/3l)1I) Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Yorktown Ave/Canberra a st R Garland ntersectian Lane gencyfCo. Garland Associates Jurisdiction of Huntfn ton Beach ate Performed 2J1fi/2012 Analysis Year 2015 With Project nalysis Time Period PM Peak Hour Pra ect Descri lion Lamb School Site Residential Development East/West Street Yorktown Avenue jNoWSoufli Street: Canberra Lane intersection Orientation: East-West -oudy Period rs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume vehlh 271 113 31 619 Peak-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 0 271 113 31 619 0 veh1h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — — Median Type UncMded RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 0 1 2 0 Configuration T TR L T Upstream Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 1 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume vetith 41 82 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 41 0 82 0 0 0 veh1h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 D 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 T Channeled 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 onfi ration LR Dela ,Queue Len ,and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR v(vehfh) 31 123 C(rn) (veM) 1186 583 fo 003 0.21 5%queue length 0.08 0.79 Control Delay(s/veh) 8.1 12.8 LJ LOS I A. B Approach Delay(Slveh) — -- 12.8 Approach LOS — — B CoNright Q M5 University of Rorida,An Rights Reserved HCS+T�A Version 5.21 Generated: 5/15/2012 2.49 AM %t iiS kG ham! irtla-Y t'. yf Item 23. - 259 xB -IT2- - � f41a //C`1T��r-: ante and CPttinaciRir:hlT.nrsni P.ttin��lT�rnnlZt7.k7R�-tarn liV91117. Two-Way Stop Control Page 1 of 1 IWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Artatyst R Garland InWsection Yorktown Ave/Site Access Agency/Go. Garland Associates Jurisdiction Ci of Huntington Beach Date Performer! 211612012 Analysis Year ExisUng Plus Project Analysis Time Period AM Peak Hour ro'ed Desc' tion Lamb School Site Residential Deve ment astMfest Street: Yorktown Avenue orth/South Street: Site Access Street E itersection Orientation: Fast-West tudy Period(hrs): 025 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R Volume veh1h 10 590 270 5 Pea%-Hour Factor,PHF 1,00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 10 590 0 0 270 5 Vehih Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 L — — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 V 1 2 0 0 2 0 uration L T T TR eam S' oat 0 0 Street Northbound Southbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume vehlh 14 32 Peak-Hour Factor,PH 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 14 0 32 vehlh i Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ercent Grade(%} 0 0 aced Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR e Queue Length,and Level of Service pproach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound overment 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 r-ne Configuration L LR (vehfh) 10 46 C(m)(veh/h) 1300 681 Vic 0.01 0.07 5%queue length 0.02 0.22 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.8 10.7 OS A 9 B Approach Delay(s1veh) — — 10.7 Approach LOS --77± — B Copyrrght C 2005 University of Florida,AR Rights Reserved HCS+Tm Version 5.21 Generated: aJS!?o'i2 5:37 AM 66 C:' HB -1 T3- Item 23. - 260 fi1�•1/CAT? rnmentc and gPtfinuclRichlT,ncal 9&hnuclT&,mnli0.k1 FS.tmn 1�/5/7C117 Two-Way Stop Control page I of 1 TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information Analyst IR Garland Intersection Yorktown Ave/Site Access en fCo. Garland Associates Jurisdiction City of Huntington Beach Date Performed 16/2012 Analysis Year 2015 With Pro' Analysis Time Pedod 'M Peak Hour rojeciDesciiption Lamb School Site Residenffal Development st/West Street: Yorktown Avenue orth/South Street: Site Access Street Intersection Orientation: East-West tud Period irs : 0.26 ehicle Volumes and Ad"ustmen— a"or Street Eastbound Westbound ovement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R olums vehlfi 10 613 280 5 eak-Flour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 hourty Flats Bate,HFR 10 613 0 0 280 5 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — Median Type Undivided T Channeled 0 0 Vinor es 1 2 0 0 2 0 figuration L T T TR tream 5i nal 0 Street Northbound Southbound ement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R Volume vehlh) 14 32 Peak-Floor Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1,00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 14 0 32 vehlh Percent Hem Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%r 0 0 Flared Approach M N Storage 0 0 T Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Con1guration LR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 a 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (vehih) 10 46 (m)(veh/h) 1289 669 Vic 0.01 0.07 5%queue length 0.02 0.22 Control Delay(s/veh) 7.8 10.8 OS A 8 Approach Delay (s/veh) -- - 10:8 Approach LOS Copyright 0 2005 University of Horida,Ati Rights ReserVed HCS+T" Vsrsion 521 Generated_ 5115=12 2:54 AM Item 23. - 261 1;1P'IIC`'�T7nrl�mPn1G�nr1 �etlrnuGlR7chlT.nca1 fietlinrsclTemn1u21e1 RS.imn i/15/7f?10 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site Information fist Garland Knalysis on Yorktown Ave/Site Access enc /Co, arlandAssociates on if of Huntington Beach ate Performed 1612012 Year Existing Plus Project al sis Time Period M Peak Hour Project Descrt bon Lamb School Site Residen€ial Develo ment EasttWest Street: Yorktown Avenue 114orthlSouth Street: Site Access Street Intersection Orientation: East-West tud Period{hrs: 0.25 ehicle Volumes and Adjustments projor Street: Eastbound Westbound loak-Hour vement 1 2 3 4 5 6 L T R L T R iurne vehlh) 36 360 620 16 Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Pate,HFR 36 360 0 0 620 16 vehltl Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 — — 0 — Median Type Undivided RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 onfiguration L T T TR stream Si nal 0 0 kw Street Norflibound Souftound Movement 7 8 9 1[1 11 12 L T R L T R Volume(veh/h 9 21 Peals-Hour Factor,PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 ourty Flow Rate,HFR 0 0 0 9 0 21 veh1h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 J 0 0 0 4A 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 LR on uration eta ,Queue Length,and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Wound. Northbound Sorthbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR . (veh/h) 36 30 C(m)(vehlh) 957 476 vfc 0.04 0.06 95%queue length 0.12 0.20 Control Delay(slveh) 8.9 13.1 OS A B pproach Delay (s/veh) — — 13.1 pproach LOS Copyright®2035 University of Florida,All Rights Reserved NCS+TM Versinn 521 Generated: 315=12 5:38 AM fife-/IC:1F)ncl�mentc and fieitino IRtchlT.ncat HB -1�5-.rnnlu�klwtmn Item 23. - 262 Two-Way Stop Control Page I of I TWO-WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY General Information Site lnfolrenation Analyst R Garfsnd ntersection Yorktown Ave/Site Access Agency/Co. GarlandA&soctates Uurisdicbon GUY of Hunfington.Reach Date Perforated 1&W12 a sis Year 2015 With Pro' ct a sis Time Period PM Peak Hour jErpjectDesc6ption Lamb School Site Residential Development Vtlor st/West Street. YorktownAvenue orfh/South Street; Site Access Street ersection Orientation: East-West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 hicle Volumes and Ad €�strnents Street Eastbound Westbound Movement 1 2 3 4 5 5 L T R L T R Volume vett/h 36 375 644 16 Peak-Hour Factor, PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate,HFR 36 375 0 0 644 16 veh/h Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 — I — 0 — — edian Type Undivided T Channerized 4 0 Lanes 1 2 0 0 2 0 Configuration L T T TR trearn Signal 0 0 Minor Street Northbound Sorthbound Movement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R oiume yehlh 9 21 Peak-Hour Factor PHF 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 0 9 0 21 (vahth Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade(%) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 0 0 0 0 Configuration LR Delay,Queue Length,and Level of Service proach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration L LR (veh/h) 36 30 (rn)(ve") 938 _ 461 1c 0.04 0.07 95%Queue length 0.12 0.21 Control Delay(s/veh) 9.0 13.4 LOS A B N roach Delay(stveh) — — 13.4 roach LOS — — B Copyright 0 2005 University of Rodda,All Rights Reserved HCS+Tm version 5.21 Generated: 5J15120'i2 2:50 AM f i�.''lVl�,-e'�`� •:! a Va. .57 Item 23.�263ADocumeuts and Settinvs\P cll\Loca14,HB 1�6 rnn\u2kiB8.tmn 5!15/2012 79. Buslwd St k Garfield Ave 2030 General Plan 2030 BeaWEdinger Specific Plan AR PK HOUR P9 PK M. AR PK H01,TR PR PK ROUR LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C V0L V/C l 1AIERS CAPACITY VOL V/L IDOL V/C NBL 1 1700 100 CS* 180 Ail HBL I 170D 100 .03" 190 .1I4 NBT 2 3400 540 16 740 .22 NBT 2 3400 550 .18 740 12 I16R d 17D0 310 .18 100 .05 ABR d 1700 330 '19 103 _D6- SBL 1 1730 70 .04 110 .06 SE 1 1700 70 .04 100 .06 SET 2 34W 530 .18" 790 Z3* SBT 2 3400 530 .16* 790 .23* 5BR d 1790 250 .15 110 .05 SBR d 170D 250 .15 100 .06 EEL 1 1700 2DD .12 100 .06* EEL 1 1700 250 .15 M '06* 39 2 3400 810 .24* 640 .19 EST 2 34DO 830 24" 610 .18 m d L700 180 it I .08 E3R d 17CD 180 it 120 .07 W L 1 i 700 50 03* I20 .07 1T3I. i 1700 50 03* 120 .07 WBT 2 3400 320 .09 960 .23* WBT 2 34M 300 .09 960 .28* WBR d 1700 90 .05 60 .04 RBR d 170D 90 .05 50 .03 Clearance Interval C6* 05* Clearaxe Interval .05* .054 TOTAL CAPACITY UTL"NATION .54 .73 TOTAL C AMAY UTILMTIOK .54 .73 80. Br='Last St a Garf'sld Ive 2030 General Plan 2030 Beach/&Uuger Specific P3au All PK TOUR PN PR HOUR AM PK BDUR Ph PK HOUR LANES CAPACITY VGl V/C VOL V/C LANES CAPACITY VE V/C VOL. V/C NBL 1 1700 110 .06 270 I6s ABL 1 170D 10D 71 .06 270 Z- .16* N3T 3 5100 1280 .25* 1790 .35 NBT 3 - 5100 1310 V1 .26* 1760 -1 .35 HDR d 1700 240 .14 90 .05 M d 1700 220 .13 90 '05 5BL 1 1700 50 .03* 80 .05 SIB. I 17M 50 .03* 80 .05 5BT 3 5100 980 i9 1550 .3D* SBT 3 5100 950 -+ .19 1580 i§r.31* _ i( SBR 1 1700 ILO .06 530 .31 SBR 1 17M - IO .06 490 .29 EB? 1700 520 .31* 390 .23* EBL 1 1700 510 .30* J 360 _21* BET 2 34DO 490 .14 380 .11 EBT 2 3400 520 .15 380 _i l EBR d 1700 170 .10 210 .1.2 IBR d 1700170 I .i0 210 3 .12 NBL 1 1700 130 .08 200 .12 WBL I 170D 130 .08 190 .11 WBT 2 3400 300 099 460 .14* F, 2 34M 300 .09z 490 .14* WBR 1 17DD 120 17 130 111 IBR 1 1700 1213 07 111 .08 Clea.mice interval 05" .05' Clearance Interval 05* .05* TOM CP.YA> =UTT_ ELTION .73 .88 TOTAL WAL'Ti Y UTILI7,ATIOA .73 .e7 z03a£W,i nsw cv"3� B-107 20 23. 264 xB -1 T7 ��� :.=i j, $1. ward St&Garfield Ave 2030 General Pia:. 2030 BeachlE3inger Specific Plan AN PK HOOT, P11 PK HWR AV PK HOUR PW PK POUR I.AHPS CAPACITY 'VOL VIC VOL Y/C LANES OPACITY VOL Y/C VOL Y/C NBL 0 0 10 20 1.01j* NBL 0 0 10 20 Coll* N1?r 1 1700 620 .38* 420 .26 NOT 1 1700 63014 .ST1.3,1420 S .26 4BR 0 0 10 10 Ng 0 0 i0 10 SE, 0 0 30 (.021* 0 SBL 0 0 30 {.021* 0 SBT 1 17Cr0 270 .i8 540 .32* SET 1 1T00 260 J�-.17 530$ .31* v SBR 1 i70a 230 .34 420 :25 SBR 1 1700 230 .14 440 ,26 EBL 1700 6K .38* 290 .17* E8L 1 1700 6W .39° 280 .16* LT 1 1700 30 .02 i0 '01 0 1 1700 30 .02 10 .01 EBR 1 1700 30 .02 40 .2 EBR 1 1700 30 .02 40 02 WBL 1 1703 10 .01 i0 .0i EL 1 1700 10 .01 10 .01 i WBT 1 17CO 20 .02* 30 .0-0 WBT 1 1700 20 .02* 30 .04* "42 0 0 20 40 WER 0 0 20 40 Clearance Interval G5* _05* Clearance lr!terval 05* 05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTZ,-1ZATTON .85 .59 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILIZATION 86 .57 -97 83. .Soldeawsst 8.t s YorktCM Ave 2030 Gworal Plan 2030 Besch/Sdinger Specific Plan X PK EttR PV PK HOUR AV FK liOUP. PM?K HOLR LEES UPACITY Y0L V/C V01- V/C LAVES CAPACITY VOL V/C V1 V/C WL 0 0 0 0 NK 0 0 0 0 NHT 3 5100 940 . S` 1140 22* RBT 3 5M 920 18` 1130 .22* NBR i 1700 470 .28 410 .24 NE 1 1700 440 Zn 410 .24 SBL 2 3400 5i0 .15* 750 .22* R 2 3400 500 ,15* 750 ,22* SET 3 5100 660 .13 SK .17 SBT 3 5100 660 .13 870 .17 SRR 0 0 0 0 S3R 0 0 0 0 sy, 0 0 0 0 EBL 0 0 0 0 EBT 0 0 0 0 EI 0 0 0 0 aR 0 0 0 EBR 0 0 0 0 WeL 2 3400 370 .11* 0 .19* ICL 2 3400 370 .li* 560 .19* W6[' 0 0 0 0 WBT 0 0 0 0 wBR 1 1709 430 .25 690 .41 WR 1 ITm 423 .25 660 .39 Rig't Turn.AUjusmnt 1Rult3 .10* WBR 11* Right Turn Adjustment Multi .08* 'MR .09* Clearance lnimai ,05a '05* Clearance Interval 05* 05* TOTAL CAPACITY UTILMA71014 .59 .79 TOTAL,CAPACITY WILIZATIGa .57 J7 Ti-t08 Item 23. - 265 HB -1 T8 EE� Et.,..1 2ulF oi' 30. BushaTd St a Yorktosm Avs 2030 General Plan 2030 Beach/1&n5sr SPecifia Plan A PK M PM PK HOUR t AV PK M N PK€XR , €,A"IFS CAPACTTY VOi; K n V/C LAZES CAPACITY VG VIC VOL V/C K9L I i7Ct1 110 .06 M .15* K3L 1 17M 100 .05 250 .15; NBT 2 3400 740 .22* 710 .2t HBT 2 34M 759 ,22* T40 .22 NBR d 1700 180 .1! 50 '03 MR d 1700 190 .!1 50 .03 SBL I 1700 120 _07* 40 .02 SBL 1 1700 120 .0'I* 50 .03 SSf 2 3400 550 .16 5BO .17$ SBT 2 3400 550 .16 580 .17* OR d 1700 80 .05 140 OB SBR d 1760 80 .05 120 .07 EBL 1 1700 90 .05 Sc1 M EBL 1 1700 100 .05 i46 '06 MT 2 3400 980 .25* 500 .15* 1 BT Z 3400 810 .26* /JO��? .15* MR d i700 170 .IG 130 .OB EBR d 1700 170 .10 140 OB €Fd 1 17X 60 .04* 220 ,13* NBL i i700 60 .04* 210 12* SBT 2 3400 460 it SO .17 M 2 3400 4ID4-T .14 _ 610A4 ,18 WER d 1700 50 .03 70 _04 WNR d 1700 50 .03 70 .04 Clearance Interval ,03* 05* Clearance Interval 05£ 05F TOTAL CAPACITY U711T M9 63 .6'a TQ'PAL CAPACITY Vi UZATION 64 ✓ .64 Z 9I. Brmkhurst 8t a Turku An 2030 General Plan 2030 Beach/Wcger SpeciEic Plan AM PK HOUR PR R HOUR i AEI PK OR ff PK HOUR L40 CAPACITY VOL VI"C VOL V/C LAWS CAPACITY U V/C VOLL V/C NBL 1 1700 70 .04 150 09 IZl3' 1 1700 70 .04 150 .09 NBT 3 5100 1380 .27* 1730 .34* IIBT 3 5!00 1390 .27{ 1720 .34* WBR d 1700 80 .05 110 .06 t1BR d I700 803 .05 110 .06 SBL , 1700 50 .03= 90 .05* SBL 1 1700 50 5 .034 ' 80 F8.05* S3T 3 5100 950 .19 1390 0 SBT 3 .5100 M .18 1400 .27 SBR d 1700 t90 .11 41 .25 SE d 1700 190 •11 440 .26 E,BL 1 1700 260 .15* 220 .13* EBL 1 1700 263 i5* 210 12* Er. 2 3400 480 .14 W .11 RBT. 2 340C 490 Z- .14 380 ' .11 EBR d 1700 190 .11 160 .09 EBR d 1700 M ,I1 170 .10 WBL I 1700 IGO .N 2l0 .12 WBL 1 1700 I00 f, .06 a L• .12 W'BT 2 3400 260 C.8" 390 II* UT 2 WO 250 7 .07*f 390 -t.I1* } V,BR d 1700 70. .04 50 .03 WBR d � I700 70 It .04 40 k` 02 Clearance €nten+al .05* .05* Clearance lntarval .05* 05* RGTAL CAPACITY U7IIIZA?i0N 58 .5$ 3aTg7+WACM UTn7_ZATION 51 s .57 icy B 112 4 HB -1T9- Item 23. - 266 gg1 96. Piagwlia St &Adams Ave 2030 GPmeral PLan 2030 BeaehJHainM Specffia Plan Aid PX HOUR P9 PK W R M.PK HOUR PM PK 1 i§p S 'MrVITY *VQ V/C Wf V/C LANES CAPACITY WJL V/C VOL VC NBL i 1700 190 190 .11 VA t 170D 180 .11 200 .12 KBT 2 3400 730 .21* 680 .20* 1iBT 2 3400 720 .2V 670 .20* M d 17W 310 .18 130 .08 NBR a 1700 320 .19 130 '08 SBL 1700 250 .15* 280 .16* SBL 1 1700 250 .15' 240 .14* SBT 2 3400 670 .20 700 2i SBT 2 3400 660 .19 710 .21 SBI d 17W 60 .04 410 24 SBR d 1700 60 .04 390 .23 EEL 1 1700 110 .06 130 08 RK 1 1700 Do .06 130 .08 EBT 3 5100 1990 ,39* 1210 .24* Ear 3 5'_00 2010 .39* 1i60 .23* EBR a 1700 90 .05 IZO .07 M. d 1700 90 D5 Ila .06 WBL 1 >700 120 .07* 310 -IS" WBL i i700 130 .08* 32C 19* WBT 3 5100 750 .l5 1560 .31 BT 3 5100 630 .12 1570 .3i WBR, d 1700 250 .15 3i0 .22 WI R d i700 240 14 370 .22 Clearance Inte1~ial 05* .05* Clearance Interval 05* .05* TOTAL CILA=MIZATIQA 187 .63 "_'OUL Cok=UTILIZATION .88' $i 97, Fabard St &Adorns Are 2030 Goeraa Plan 2030 Beachtniwer Spscifie Play FK Ii0'dR AY PK 11011R Pit PK hoiR NES UPACI T Y VOL V;C a V/C i LANES UPACITY WL VIC 5/0I V/C NBL L 1700 I:0 '06 il0 .05 f 4BL I 1700 Ila ,06 Ila '05 NBT 2 340D 500 t5# 490 .144 ) F 2 340D 480 .14� 490 i4* NBR d 1700 140 .05 80 .05 0 d 1700 170 .15 50 .04 SBL I i 700 Z80 '164 230 W SEL 1 1700 280 .16' 230 ,i 4* SBT 2 3400 510 .15 330 10 SBT 2 3400 510 .15 320 .C9 SBP, C '700 70 .04 93 .05 SBR d 1700 70 .04 100 .06 EBL 17W 130 .09 120 .07* EBL I L700 150 .09 120 .07* EBT 3 5100 1890 .37* 1070 .21 0 3 5100 19{0 1 .37a 1410 z 20 EBR d 1700 140 .08 100 .05 EBR d 1700 140 .08 100 .06 VBL 1 17W 90 .05* 200 .12 KBL 1 170<J 90 .05* 190 Al WH 3 5100 970 .19 2120 .42* RT 3 5100 860-t a--.17 f 2140 1 .0 OR d 170D 80 .05 380 .22 WBR d 1700 80 05 399 .23 Clearance Interval .05* .05* Clearance Intend ,05* '05* T(2AL CAPACITY UTILIZATION .78 B2 TOTAL CAPACITY UTILI MOR 77 V, B-114 Item 23. - 267 xB -120- tst.�.. .`. f .. � � 98. Braollurst St &kdms be i 2030 Ganerai Pim 2030 5mablEdinger Specific Plan AR PR HOUR N PK HOUR All PK HOUR N PK HOUR. LANES CAPACITY VOL V/C VOL V/C LADES CkFACITY YOi Y/C a V/C ka i 34CO 1140 D4 3I10 .09 EL 2 340D 130 .04 290 .09 NIlT 3 5100 B60 .25* 1290 .31* 112T 3 5i00 860 .25*-/1280 -J .31* 113R 0 0 630 .37 29D RBR 0 0 M .37 330 r SBL 2 3400 49D .141 480 .144 SBL 2 340G 500 2 _15* 480 z .1.4* SST 3 500 94D 2i 1340 .29 ; S_T 3 5103 930 n .21 1340 .n SBR 0 0 130 160 I SBR D 0 130 7- 160 1 CBL 2 34M 240 .07 340 .IT EBL 2 3400 250E .07 340 'Z- .10' ✓ 3 5100 2480 49* 00 .25 EB'C 3 5100 2530 .50*V 12W .24 EBR 1 1700 80 .05 100 .06 SR 1 170D 70 .04 90 .05 WEL 2 3400 200 06* 460 14 ;431, 2 34i0 240 ' .07*V 470 14 w 3 5100 750 i5 2300 .45* WBT 3 51DO 660 _13 2330 AV °✓ WBR 1 1700 280 .16 380 .22 '4BR 1 17� 230 .16 380 3 .22 RiShC Turn Adjustsent ER .09* Right Tur&Adjustuant W .08' Clearance Interval .05* ,05* Clearance Intend 06* .05* T6PAL OPACITY ULILMT109 1.08 1.05 TOTAI C")XIRY MLM710N 1.10 1.06 �p j,l v 101, Beach Blvd &indianapOLs R430 Geaeral Plan 2030 Bewl/Edinger Specific Plan A PK HOIIR PR PR M, AK A MUIR PA N iiOiJR LADES CAPACITY ItiOL V/C VOL Y/C LADS CAPACITY VOL VIC YOL VIC NE i 1700 30 .02 20 .01 ABL 1 17M 20 01, 20 .01 hBT 3 5100 780 i9* 1070 ,23* Pr 3 5100 73D .1811 1M .23* fU C 0 170 80 NBR 0 0 180 70 L I POD 240' 14* 210 .12* 1 SBL 1 1700 240 .14* 190 All SBT -3 5i00 880 .18 1010 22 SBT 3 5100 9`s0 .19 1010 .22 SM 0 0 40 90 SBR 0 0 40 100 EBL I 17CC 220 .13* 90 .05* El N_ 1 1700 230 .14§ 90 .05* EBT 1 1700 260 iT l20 .09 EBT 1 17DO 250 '16 120 .09 EBR 0 0 30 40 EBR 0 0 30 30 WBL 1 1700 60 04 70 .04 ul, 1 17T 60 .04 70 .04 7B1 i 170J - ISO ,Ils 230 M* ET 1 1700 170 .IV a .13* WBR I In 230 .14 150 .09 WBR 1 1700 22O '13 ISD .09 Clearance Interval 05* 05' Clearance Intern .05, .05* MAL WACIYY OTI MTiON 152 lium CAh= OTI M ION .61 ,57 B-115 44 HB -121- `rr :, . 'f `ar'"p Item 23. - 268 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.2008-013 I. This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision as of September 12, 2012 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. This document contains six sections. In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, Errata to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013, 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. 2008-013. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of September 12, 2012. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. The Errata to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013 is provided to show corrections of errors and inconsistencies in the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. 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. 2008-013. Based on the information 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. Il. 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 No. 2008-013 had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013. 1. An official 20 day public review period for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013 began on August 23,2102 and 1 Item 23. - 269 HB -122- ATTACHMENT NO ended on September 12,2012. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through September 12, 2012. 2. Notice of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013 was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on August 23,2012. Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals. III. COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of September 12,2012 are contained in Appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. Responses to Comments for each comment which raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of 20 days. The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through September 12, 2012. Copies of all documents received as of September 12,2012 are contained in Appendix A of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses. correspondingly 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 Negative Declaration No. 2008-013, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context 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. 2 HB -123- ATTACHMENT �Item 23. - 20 LIST OF COMMENTORS Orange County Sanitation District.................................................Letter 1 HB Environmental Board .............................................................Letter 2 The Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Fields Committee......Letter 3 MarkD.Bixby...............................................................................Letter 4 Phyllis Bricknell,Rosalyn Mahr and Theodore Mahr ..................Letter 5 Carlyn and Darien Causer..............................................................Letter 6 Sharon Causer ...............................................................................Letter 7 Sharon Causer ...............................................................................Letter 8 James Elliott ..................................................................................Letter 9 HelenFord .......................................................................•............Letter 10 Stanley L.Friedman ......................................................................Letter 11 Alan Gandall .................................................................................Letter 12 Jean Hefferon ................................................................................Letter 13 NickKoch .....................................................................................Letter 14 Cheryl Quiroz ...............................................................................Letter 15 Robert and Melody Sawyer ..........................................................Letter 16 Robert A. Zordani,PE ..................................................................Letter 17 3 Item 23. - 2T HB -124- ATTACHMENT NO. 5 , Orange County Sanitation District, September 7, 2012-Letter 1 Response to Comment 0CSD-1 This comment acknowledges that the Orange County Sanitation District has received and reviewed the MND for the Lamb project. This comment states that the project site is within the jurisdiction of the Orange County Sanitation District. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are necessary. Response to Comment OCSD-2 The commenter states that the Orange County Sanitation District(OCSD) does not anticipate any capacity issues but would like the numbers to be verified to ensure the figures reported in the Draft MND are correct. The commenter requests that the flow factors listed in the comment letter be used to estimate current and future flows. Currently the project site contains a vacant school,therefore the institutional flow factors provided by the OCSD do not apply. Regarding future flow estimates,the Draft MND Sewer Study conducted for the proposed project conservatively estimates the residential project would result in 3,200 gallons per day per acre of wastewater discharge (which equates to a total of 37,280 gallons of wastewater per day) and the park would generate 200 gallons of wastewater per day per acre (which equates to a total of 520 gallons of wastewater per day). However,using OCSD's flow factor of 1,488 gallons per day per acre (gpd/acre) for low density residential (4-7 dwelling units/acre) and 129 gallons per acre per day for recreation,the proposed project is estimated to generate approximately 17,672 gallons of wastewater per day. Utilizing either the estimated flow factor in the project Sewer Study or OCSD's flow factor,the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on wastewater treatment capacity because the estimated gallons per day of wastewater discharge anticipated from the proposed project comprises only a fraction of the remaining daily primary treatment capacity of Reclamation Plant#2. OCSD's comment letter states that more specific flow factors may be used if it will more accurately portray the project's estimated flows and impacts to the local sewer system. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are necessary. Response to Comment OCSD-3 Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are necessary. 4 HB -125- ATTAGHMEI Item 23.-22� HB Environmental Board, September 12, 2012 -Letter 2 Response to Comment HBEB-1 These are aerial images of the Former Lamb School Project site and the Former Wardlow School Project site. The aerial images of the Former Lamb School Project site are provided in support of comments HBEB-4 and HBEB-6. Refer to Response to Comments HBEB-4 and HBEB-6.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment HBEB-2 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment HBEB-3 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment HBEB-4 This comment addressing both the Wardlow and Lamb school site projects is acknowledged. This comment does not raise an environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment HBEB-5 Comment acknowledged. The discussion in the MND regarding the proposed project not substantially degrading the existing visual character of the project site or its surroundings states that the currently boarded up and vacant school site will be replaced with new homes with landscaping. The point of this discussion is to state that the vacant school site will be replaced with homes. The mention of landscaping is for descriptive purposes and is not the sole justification for there being a less than significant visual impact. Response to Comment HBEB-6 Pages 61 through 64 of the Draft MND discuss the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project. As detailed in the conceptual landscape plan for the proposed project, a 5 foot 6 inch high slump block wall with slump block cap and pilasters will be located along the southern boundary of the project site along Yorktown Avenue and along the northern boundary of the existing City park.Along the northern, western and eastern edges of the project site, existing walls are to be replaced with new slump stone walls, as authorized by individual property owners. Refer to the errata for modified text which clarifies the location of the 5 foot 6 inch high slump block walls proposed on site. All comments will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment HBEB-7 The comment that the Board recognizes that residential development is suitable for the project sites is noted. However, this comment does not raise an environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to decision makers. 5 Item 23. 7 23 HB -126- ATTACHMENT Response to Comment HBEB-8 Comment acknowledged. However,the project does not require a zoning variance. Response to Comment HBEB-9 Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment HBEB-10 The comment does not raise an environmental issue. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. b HB -la7 ITT fErItem 23 - 241�" The Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Fields Committee (LSNSFC), September 11, 2012 - Letter 3 Response to Comment LSNSFC-1 This comment provides information about the Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Fields Committee(LSNSFC). Comment acknowledged.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment LSNSFC-2 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. However, the comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. A discussion of Measure C can be found in the October 23, 2012, Planning Commission Staff Report. Response to Comment LSNSFC-3 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. However,the comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment LSNSFC-4 The walkway in question was established for convenience as an alternate direct access to the school. With the closure of the school, this walkway is no longer needed for its original intended use. Further, the comment fails to recognize that alternate methods of access to the park exist, which will remain in place during construction and after the project is completed. The public, including members of the public approaching the project site from the west, will continue to have full access to the park by traveling south on Mauna Lane and then east on Yorktown Avenue. Access to the park site will not be closed or prevented in any way by the proposed project, and therefore section 66474, subdivision.(g), does not apply. The walkway in question is dedicated to the City on Tract Map 4305. As with any dedication, when it is no longer needed for the intended use the agency can "quitclaim" or "vacate" its interest in the dedicated property and offer it to the adjoining property owners. The Subdivision Map Act section quoted (66474(g)) indicates that "....the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to the ones previously acquired by the public." In this case, access to the City's Public Park exists via Mauna Lane to Yorktown Avenue. The walkway in question was established for convenience and as an alternate direct access to the school. But with the closure of the school several years ago this walkway is no longer needed for its original intended use. This walkway may remain but with the closure of the school and the proposed new development this would be a collecting point for undesirable activities and not conducive for the local neighborhood. Response to Comment LSNSFC-5 This comment does not raise an environmental concern and will be forwarded to decision makers. A discussion of public benefits can be found in the October 23, 2012, Planning Commission Staff Report. 7 Item 23. - 25 HB -125 .1 ATTACHMENT NO., Response to Comment LSNSFC- 6 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. However, the comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment LSNSFC-7 This comment expresses the commenter's disagreement with the information provided in the Draft MND regarding the soccer field at the 2.6 acre City park. Currently the 2.6 acre City park contains a soccer field. With the proposed improvements to the 2.6 acre City park, one lighted multi-use practice field would be constructed on site. Thus, use of the 2.6 acre park for soccer could still continue with the proposed project. Based on a site visit to the project site, it does not appear that the two soccer fields on the school site are Et,.as three light poles currently exist on the 2.6 acre City park site and are used to light the field on the City's park(and not the two soccer fields on the former Lamb school site). This comment is regarding the loss of open space(fields) that are currently used at the Lamb site for soccer practice,training, special clinics and game fields. Recreation is addressed in Section XV of the Draft MND. Parks are discussed in threshold d), on page 51 of the Draft MND (in Section XI, Public Services).As detailed in the parks threshold of the Draft MND, the project site is not identified as a City park in the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. The project site is listed in the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan as a school park and recreation facility. The play fields on the Lamb project site are a part of the former school grounds. Although it is within their purview to do so,the Fountain Valley School District has not yet fenced the playfield area or denied access to the public to the school grounds. The fields on site are not designated as open space or recognized as public parkland by the City and were not provided in fulfillment of any Quimby Act requirements. While the soccer fields on the Lamb project site may be regarded as a community asset currently available to organizations such as the AYSO that utilize portions of the project site for soccer,the Draft MND adequately addresses the.impact upon the environment associated with the proposed conversion to residential use in Sections XV (Recreation) and XI (Public Services) of the Draft MND. While the AYSO has been able to play soccer on the project site, the site could have been fenced off by the school district to restrict access. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment LSNSFC-8 Refer to Response LSNSFC-7 above. Response to Comment LSNSFC-9 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. However,a discussion on compatibility can be found in the October 23,2012,Planning Commission Staff Report. 8 � HB -129- � Item 23. - Man Response to Comment LSNSFC-10 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. However, a discussion on compatibility can be found in the October 23,2012,Planning Commission Staff Report. Response to Comment LSNSFC-11 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. However, a discussion on compatibility can be found in the October 23,2012, Planning Commission Staff Report. Response to Comment LSNSFC-12 The project will comply with local policies of the city with regard to tree removal and adherence to City of Huntington Beach policies and ordinances. Additionally, the project is required to comply with the City's standard conditions of approval regarding tree removal and new trees will be planted in accordance with city landscaping requirements. As such,any trees removed as part of the proposed project will not be in violation of any City regulations related to mature trees. Response to Comment LSNSFC-13 This comment is acknowledged. The conditions of approval for the project specify that the park improvements must be completed prior to occupancy of the first residential unit. Response to.Comment LSNSFC-14 The 2.56 persons per household referenced in the Draft MND for the proposed project is derived from Table II-5 of the City of Huntington Beach Housing Element. As detailed in the City's General Plan,per the 2000 Census, 73,657 households reside in Huntington Beach, with an average household size of 2.56 persons,this represent a slight decrease in household size from 1990. The City's smaller household size reflects its lower incidence of family households and aging population. The 2010 Census average household size for Huntington Beach is 2.55, which is consistent with the downward trend in size of households and indicates that the use of 2.56 is slightly conservative. The number of vehicle trips (i.e. traffic) that the proposed project is estimated to generate is based on 12.0 trips per dwelling unit (per Table 9, Project Generated Traffic, on page 31 of the Draft MND) and is not tied to the 2.56 persons per household figure from the City's housing element. Use of 12.0 trips per dwelling unit is a more conservative estimate of traffic generation in that it is a higher estimate than 9.57 trips per unit from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. The 12.0 trips per dwelling unit is a rate that the City of Huntington Beach uses. The average trip rate for single-family residential use is between 9 and 12 trips per unit. Studies have shown that the rate is influenced by factors such as the unit size and proximity to other uses, with the high end of the rate associated with larger units and greater distances from other uses such as shopping and employment centers. For the Lamb project, staff concluded using the higher rate would be appropriate for the residential units proposed for this project. Note that the higher trip rate(12) was used only to determine the average daily traffic the project would generate. The peak hour traffic volumes, which are the critical volumes used to determine whether the project contributes level-of-service impacts to the study 9 Item 23. - 27 HB -130- ATTACHMENT ."t_:45�, area intersections, are determined based on the number of units proposed for each site, and has no correlation with the average daily traffic trip rate. Regardless of the trip rate used for determining the average daily traffic, 9.57 or 12, the result of the traffic impact analysis is not affected. This comment does not raise any environmental issues that were not addressed in the Draft MND for the proposed project. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment LSNSFC-15 This comment questions the MND's statements regarding aesthetic impacts. The Draft MND analyzes the aesthetic impacts of the proposed project in Section XIII,pages 61 through 64. The Draft MND discuss the potential aesthetic impacts of the proposed project in light of the existing deteriorated condition of the Lamb school site,the proposed project architecture and materials, building height, conceptual landscape plans, and project integration with the surrounding community. Also, see Section 1. Land Use and Planning,pages 6 and 7 of the Draft MND that discuss consistency with the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, and proposed building setbacks under the PUD. This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment LSNSFC-16 Comment acknowledged. As shown in Table 3,Maximum Daily Construction Emissions, on page 22 of the Draft MND, the construction of the project will not exceed the South Coast Ai-r Quality Management District's (SCAQMD)regional thresholds for construction during any year of construction. Additionally, as shown in Table 4, Estimated Maximum Daily Operational Emissions, on page 23 of the Draft MND,the proposed project will not exceed any of the SCAQMD criteria pollutant operational emissions thresholds. The Draft MND for the proposed project found that there would be less than significant air quality impacts. This comment will be forwarded to the PI nn�ng Commission for consideration. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment LSNSFC-17 Comment acknowledged. Section VI, Transportation/Traffic of the ISIMND analyzed potential traffic impacts with the proposed project and concluded that all impacts would either be less than significant or no impact. Section Xl, Public Services ,threshold c) schools, of the Draft MND analyzed potential project impacts to schools and concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact with payment of required school impact fees (per City code requirements). There has been no specific financial analysis of the costs of students being added to local schools, however as explained above,payment of required school impact fees will reduce potential project impacts to a less than significant level. As detailed in threshold c) schools of the Draft MND,the schools that would accommodate students from the proposed project are: Edison High School located at 21400 Magnolia Street in Huntington Beach; Oak Elementary School located at 9800 Yorktown Avenue in Huntington Beach; and Talbert Middle School, located at 9101 Brabham Drive in Huntington Beach. Therefore the Draft MND for the project adequately analyzes the potential impacts to schools and traffic from the proposed 10 HB -131- ATTACHMP Item 23. - 29- project. This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment LSNSFC-18 As detailed in Section VII, Biological Resources, of the Draft MND,the project includes Mitigation Measure BI0-1,which states that prior to ground disturbance, the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained. The City should be contacted to obtain information about the findings of the biologist. Per Mitigation Measure BIO-1,the biologist will be hired prior to ground disturbance (i.e. grading) on the project site. It is not known at this time specifically when the results from the biologist will be available. As detailed in Mitigation Measure BI0-1 a certified biologist must be retained. It is anticipated that the biologist's fee will be paid by the project proponent, however this has not been ascertained at this time. The City of Huntington Beach should be contacted if there is an inquiry regarding the findings of the biologist hired to implement Mitigation Measure BI0-1 for the proposed project. Response to Comment LSNSFC-19 A Preliminary Grading Plan along with a Preliminary Hydrology Study has been provided in the entitlement submittal package for review by the City's engineering staff. The design has provided for area drains and drain lines on each lot with the perimeter lots connecting to an additional underground collector drain pipe under the sidewalk. These collector drain pipes that will be maintained by the HOA,not the City, will connect directly to the storm drain system. This allows the lots to be set as low as feasible in relation to the development's streets, therefore,minimizing the grade differential between existing and proposed residences. The City usually allows for a plus or minus (+/-) variation of grades as shown on the preliminary plans of up to one foot. However,the preliminary design of this project has been refined well beyond the normal preliminary basis;therefore,only very little nominal variation are expected, if any, from what is shown on the submitted preliminary plans. The applicant has minimized the grade differential with respect to the adjacent homes. Response to Comment LSNSFC-20 As reported in the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation for the project site, the organic laden soils(peat)appear to be discontinuous, are relatively shallow and are of limited thickness. Because of their low capacity for supporting additional loads, they should either be removed or bypassed. For the Lamb school site, Petra Geotechnical (Petra) will be using a method to bypass these materials and support the proposed dwelling units on caisson-type materials. Unlike conventional caissons that are made of reinforced concrete or steel beams, the proposed method consists of installing columns of soils that are extended though the peat layers and embedded in competent soils below. The soil columns will be installed by creating cylindrical holes through the upper soil layer and the peat material to the competent layer below and the backf I ling the cavity by compacted sand and gravel. In this method no removal of peat material will become necessary as these materials will be compressed laterally Ieaving room for the compacted soils column. These soils columns will be constructed relatively closely to each other and, therefore, the weight of each home's structure will be supported by these columns. 11 Item 23. - 29 HB -132- ATTACHMENT ENT NO `�� As such,there is no removal of the peat soils required and its presence will not adversely impact the development. Response to Comment LSNSFC-21 Per Section X,Noise, on page 48 of the Draft NMD, in the City's Municipal Code, Special Provisions Section 8.40.090 (d), "Noise sources associated with construction, repair,remodeling or grading of any real property construction...shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter...provided a permit has been obtained from the City; and provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday,or at any time on Sunday or a federal holiday."Although at this time the specific number of Saturdays construction will occur is not known,the proposed project will conform to the City's noise regulations regarding construction days and times. Mitigation measures are included for the proposed project regarding noise to further reduce construction noise levels. Response to Comment LSNSFC-22 Section XIII,Aesthetics, of the Draft MND for the proposed project discusses potential light and glare impacts. The Draft MND states that the detached single-family homes would introduce new sources of light in the area; however, because the proposed residential units are similar to those surrounding the project site,light levels from new residential units would be similar to the light levels of surrounding uses. The project site has been designed to increase the minimum setback of the proposed homes from the property line for those proposed homes that are adjacent to the existing homes along the western,northern and eastern project site boundaries. Additionally,the proposed homes that are adjacent to the existing homes have been designed with windows which provide more privacy for existing homes and which will reduce the amount of light from the proposed homes.Refer to project plans (plan page SP.2.1 through SP.2.3), which accompany the Draft MND for details. Additionally, page 6 of the Draft MND indicates the project has been designed to exceed the minimum rear building setbacks for those proposed perimeter lots (i.e. , lots 9 through 41)that are adjacent to existing homes directly north, east, and west of the project site. For those perimeter lots adjacent to existing homes,the proposed project provides rear setbacks in excess of the minimum 10 feet that is required under the RL zone and typical interior residential lights are not anticipated to spill across the greater setback area. Refer to Table 1 on page 7 of the Draft MND, which shows the minimum rear building setbacks for proposed perimeter lots adjacent to existing homes. Response to Comment LSNSFC-23 The project will construct a storm drain that is shown on the City's Master Plan of Drainage and planned as a future capital improvements project by the City along Yorktown Avenue and Brookhurst Street. This entails installing a 33 inch reinforced concrete pipe that runs 2,080 -linear feet from the project's entry, west on the frontage road along Yorktown Avenue and north along the frontage road on Brookhurst Street to Kamuela Drive. This storm drain will mitigate existing surface flow conditions on Brookhurst Street and Yorktown Avenue. It will help alleviate significant drainage issues that currently exist in the neighborhoods adjacent to the north and west of the 12 HB -133- AST C MENT NItem 23.- 20 development. It will eliminate all surface runoff through the existing alleyway near the northwest corner of the former school site to Mauna Lane. Surface flow downstream on Mauna Lane and Kamuela Drive to the existing catch basins on Kamuela Drive west of Olana Lane will be reduced resulting in less ponding and flooding that frequently occurs in that vicinity. The majority of the former Lamb School site runoff will be collected and surface runoff on to Yorktown Avenue will be reduced resulting in much less flow width along Yorktown Avenue and Brookhurst Street downstream of the development. The installation of this storm drain is planned to be installed by the City at some point since it is on its Master Plan of Drainage,however it is not currently on the City's near term capital improvements forecast. The installation of this Master Plan storm drain as a part of the project will be significantly ahead of the City's timing and at the project proponent's cost and not the City's cost. The timing of this storm drain is estimated to take approximately 50 working days total. Normally construction of a storm drain installation project like this would take about 21 working days to complete. This is based upon being able to install storm drain pipe of this size and depth at a rate of approximately 100 linear feet per day. However,there are 16 driveway frontages of existing homes and three street intersections that will be crossed within the public street right-of-way in the course of installing the storm drain. This is what adds time to the schedule. The actual installation would be phased so that only access to two existing homes' driveways or one intersection at a time will be affected during a four day period--one day to dig a trench in the street, one day to place the storm drain pipe, one day to backfill and one day to pave. So, of the 50 working days total, 32 of those days will involve crossing in front of existing residents' driveways two at a time with another 12 days for street crossings. Although the City allows for construction to take place Monday through Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. (HBMC 8.40.090), excluding federal holidays, the schedule contemplates installing the storm drain between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. to minimize the impact to the existing residents and access in and out of their driveways at peak hours. The trenches in the street would be covered at the end of each work day with the normal heavy metal plating that residents can drive over to access their driveways while work in that area is in progress and during the time that the street has open trenches underneath. In addition, there will be traffic control measures put in place and the City will be inspecting the work as it progresses. Response to Comment LSNSFC-24 The proposed multi-use practice field on the City's 2.6 acre site is proposed not just for soccer use, and as such it is not regulation size. The facilities designated on the city's plan include a"Multi-Use Practice field"measuring 150 feet across by 240 feet long, field lighting, one 4-foot square picnic table, shade structure, bike rack,two 60-foot square"Tot Play Areas" and two benches. It is anticipated that families can watch the game from along side the field. 13 Item 23. - N HB -134- ATTACHMENT ,-. .l�fir' Response to Comment LSNSFC-25 This comment about the parking for the proposed City park at the Lamb site is acknowledged. Currently,parking for the City park is provided with parking on City land and this will continue to be the case with the proposed improvements to the City's 2.6 acre park. Additionally, language will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and assuring the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. The Wardlow project is a separate project on a different site with different parking circumstances. Response to Comment LSNSFC-26 Section VI, Transportation/Traffic,threshold f) on pages 35-37 of the Draft MND addresses parking. As detailed on page 35, observations at the parking lots indicated the school lots rarely had any parked vehicles in the lots (sometimes one or two cars) and the lot at the City park typically had fewer than 10 vehicles parked in the lot. Therefore, proposed elimination of the two school lots and the reduction of the lot at the park to approximately 38 spaces would not result in an adverse parking impact because the parking demands generated by the park could be accommodated in the lot that would be provided. The parking demands that would be generated by the residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets, as the project provides 118 on street parking spaces.Additionally, language will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. The Draft MND concludes the project would not result in a significant parking impact. Response to Comment LSNSFC-27 Comment acknowledged. As detailed in Section XI, Public Services,threshold d)of the Draft MND,per the City's open space and park inventory,the City of Huntington Beach does not have a parks shortage. However, see Response to Comment LSNSFC-7 regarding loss of open space. The fields on site are not designated as open space or recognized as public parkland by the City and were not provided in fulfillment of any Quimby Act requirements.No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment LSNSFC-28 The City has a total of 75 parks, 41 of which are less than three acres in size. Response to Comment LSNSFC-29 This comment asks about payment related to the adjacent City park is acknowledged. This comment does not raise an environmental issue. Response to Comment LSNSFC-30 This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to City decision makers. 14 HB -135- ATTACHM Item 23. - 28 Response to Comment LSNSFC-31 These exhibits supplement the comments related to open space, city codes, project design and recreation(Comments LSNSFC-1 through LSNSFC-30). Refer to Response to Comments LSNSFC-1 through LSNSFC-30. 15 Item 23. - 28 HB -136- ATTACHMENT NO, � � Mark D. Bixby,September 11, 2012 -Letter 4 Response to Comment Bixby-1 This comment does not raise an environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to decision makers. Please refer to the October 23, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report for a discussion on park improvements. Response to Comment Bixby-2 This comment quotes a statement in the Draft MND from Section 1, Land Use and Planning. This comment does not raise an environmental concern. All comments will be forwarded to decision makers. Please refer to the October 23, 2012 Planning Commission Staff Report for a discussion on park improvements. Response to Comment Bixby-3 Petra Geotechnical(Petra)has reviewed the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project for the measured depth to groundwater within the site during the subsurface investigation period. This report indicates that a total of 8 exploratory borings were excavated within the site. The shallowest depth to groundwater table was found to be about 13 feet below ground surface. Based on Petra's geotechnical engineering knowledge of the site, the groundwater level is expected to be within a foot from the groundwater elevations reported in the geotechnical report. Further,based on the site subsurface conditions,the depth of remedial over-excavation is expected to be on the order of 3 to 4 feet below the current ground surface. Therefore,it is Petra's professional opinion that dewatering will not be necessary during site remedial grading. As such,the groundwater is not expected to be disturbed during the remediation process and, therefore,the potential for the subsidence of adjacent properties during the grading operation is highly unlikely. Based on the information provided in the geotechnical report prepared for the proposed project, we do not anticipate to encounter groundwater during grading. As such, Petra does not expect any impact on water quality as a consequence of grading. Response to Comment Bixby-4 The detention basin will have mild turf sided slopes(4:1 or flatter) and will be accessible and useable at all times during non-storm events. During major storm events runoff detention will occur in which rain flows will be detained and discharged at a slower rate than the storm.inflow. This basin is intended to be fully maintained by the City in the same manner as the remainder of the existing City park. No special maintenance is required beyond normal mowing. This is the same concept that exists at the recently dedicated Ralph Bauer Park. Response to Comment Bixby-5 Refer to Response to Comment Bixby-3 regarding dewatering. Any potential water quality treatment will be mitigated in a manner acceptable to the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department and the State Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. 16 11B -137 ATTACH EI1tem 23. - 2& As detailed in Section IV, Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft MND, a Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) has been prepared for the project. The City of Huntington Beach is required to implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (S WPPP) to minimize the incidence of construction-related pollutant entering the stormwater system. The Draft MND concludes that compliance with requirements of the SWPPP would prevent violation of water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during construction. Response to Comment Bixby-6 To respond to this comment, additional information concerning possible risk from failure of the Santa Ana River, located approximately 1,500 feet east of the project site has been included in the errata of this document. Response to Comment Bixby-7 To respond to this comment, Mitigation Measure CR-2 has been revised to strengthen the mitigation regarding cultural resources. Revised language for Mitigation Measure CR-2 is included in the errata of this document. The revisions to Mitigation Measure CR-2 provide additional detail and clarity with regard to the procedures to be followed in the event that cultural materials are identified on the project site. Response to Comment Bixby-8 The detention basin will have mild side slopes(4:1 or flatter) and will be accessible and useable at all times during dry weather and non-storm events. During major storm events runoff detention will occur in which rain flows will be detained and discharged at a slower rate than the storm inflow. The system is to be designed so that storm flow detention subsides within the basin within one and a half(1-1/2) hours after the storm event. This basin is intended to function in the same manner as the recently dedicated Ralph Bauer Park. Response to Comment Bixby-9 This comment is regarding the displacement of American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) soccer practices and games. As detailed on page 68 of the Draft MND, during construction of park improvements to the 2.6-acre City of Huntington Beach park there will be a temporary displacement of both AYSO soccer practices and games,however, a less than significant impact is anticipated because the displacement of soccer practices and games will be temporary and park improvements will provide enhanced facilities for AYSO soccer practices and games upon completion of the park improvements. This comment references public comments made at the September 11, 2012 Planning Commission Study Session, regarding the loss of existing fields on the school site and the reduction to non-regulation size of the playing field on the park site. This comment states that the potential impacts that may caused by displacement of AYSO activity to other area facilities are not analyzed in the MND. Refer to Response to Comments AG-3 and AG-7. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. 17 Item 23. - 28 xB -138 ATTACHMENT N0.5,VcA Phyllis Bricknell, Rosalyn Mahr and Theodore Mahr, September 12, 2012- Letter 5 Response to Comment BM-9 This comment is expressing opposition to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration. Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-2 This comment is expressing opposition to the proposed re-zoning of the project site. Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-3 This comment does not raise an environmental issue. Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-4 This comment is expressing an opinion regarding use of the project site as open space. Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-5 This comment is a request for the Planning Commission to permanently re-zone the Lamb School site as Public Open Space. Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-6 This comment is expressing opposition to the proposed re-zoning of the project site. Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. This comment is expressing an opinion that the proposed 81 homes on site is too:many to build on the project site. The proposed project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density (RL-7), which allows for a maximum density of seven units per acre. The project proposes 81 units on an 11.65 acre site, which equates to approximately 6.95 units per acre. Therefore,the proposed project complies with the Low Density(RL-7) designation which is requested as part of the project's General Plan Amendment.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-7 This comment is expressing disagreement with the estimated population increase of the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-13. This comment asserts that the Public Services section of the Draft MND will need to be re-written based on the commenter's population estimate for the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-14 regarding the population estimate for the proposed project. 18 HB -139- AT j U H E Item 23. - 28) Response to Comment BM-8 This comment provides an assertion about the number of residents of the proposed project who will drive. Comment Acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-9 This comment states that using the estimated number of persons stated in Comment BM- 8 (405 new residents)that statements made in the Draft MND would be contradicted. Comment acknowledged. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-14 regarding the population estimate for the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment BM-10 Comment acknowledged. As detailed on page 37 of the Draft MND, language will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. The 2.6 acre park adjacent to the project site is a City-owned park and will remain City-owned with development of the proposed project. Response to Comment BM-91 As detailed on page 8 of the Draft MND,Tri Pointe Homes will provide affordable units at an offsite location that will be under the full control of Tri Pointe Homes or another City approved party. The proposed project will comply with applicable City conditions of approval regarding affordable housing. Response to Comment BM-12 Comment acknowledged. This comment requests that the Draft MND be revised and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment BM-13 Comment acknowledged. This comment requests that the Planning Commission permanently zone the Lamb School site as open public land and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. 19 Item 23. - 29 HB -140- $IA'U' H ENT ( ` Carlyn and Darien Causer, September 12, 2012 -Letter 6 Three comments were received by those in the Causer family. Therefore, each letter has been given a different letter designation. Response to Comment CDC-1 Comment acknowledged.. The City itself is not proposing to change the zoning of the Lamb School site but is in fact processing a zoning map application from the developer, Tri Pointe Homes. Letters regarding the public comment period of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration were mailed to all property owners and tenants within a 500 foot radius of the site. The radius was increased to 1,000 feet for notification of the public hearing before the Planning Commission. Response to Comment CDC-2 Comment acknowledged. This comment is expressing opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment CDC-3 This comment is acknowledged. As detailed in Section XV,Recreation, of the Draft MND,there project proposes improvements to the existing 2.6 acre City park and parking improvements will provide enhanced facilities for AYSO soccer practices and games upon completion of the park improvements.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CDC-4 This comment is acknowledged. This cominent is expressing an opinion regarding parking and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Refer to Section VI, Transportation/Traffic, threshold f), which concludes that the project will provide adequate parking. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment CDC-5 This comment is acknowledged. This comment is expressing opposition to the lot sizes of the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment CDC-6 .The comment summarizes the commenter's opinions regarding park area,parking, and lot size/numbers. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. 20 HB -141- '` Item 23 28 A 1, is Sharon Causer, September 12, 2012 - Letter 7 Response to Comment SC1-1 This comment asks who will purchase the homes built for the proposed project. This is not a CEQA issue and as such no further response is necessary. This comment states that the project's proposal to build homes on smaller lots will create problems with the over crowding of people, homes,public schools and parking. Each of these issues is addressed in the Draft MND for the project(Section H, Population and Housing; Section XI, Public Services; and Section VI, Transportation/Traffic) and as such no further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC1-2 This comment provides historical information that does not raise any environmental issues and as such no further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC9-3 This comment provides an opinion regarding the use of the project site. Comment acknowledged. Regarding the comment about school capacity, the project's potential impact to schools is addressed in Section Xl, Public Services,threshold c) schools of the Draft MND. As stated in the Draft MND, Edison High School has capacity for the students estimated to be generated by the proposed project. Both Oka Elementary School and Talbert Middle School are at capacity and additional classrooms may be necessary. The proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to these schools because the project will pay required school impact fees (per City code requirements). Response to Comment SC1-4 This comment states that 81 homes is too many to build on the project site. Comment acknowledged. This comment incorrectly states that if the proposed project were low density, that there would be no need to have a change of zone and as such the proposed project is not low density. As described on page 2 of the Draft MND, the project proposes to amend the zoning designation from Public-Semipublic (PS)to Residential Low Density(RL). The reason for the zone change is to remove the zoning for the previous land use (the former school) and change the zone to Residential Low Density (RL) so that it matches the proposed General Plan designation for the project site,which is Residential Low Density (RL-7). No further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC1-5 This comment states that parking from the proposed project would overflow onto Yorktown and into the surrounding neighborhoods. Section VI, Transportation/Traffic, threshold f) on pages 36-37 of the Draft MND addresses parking. The parking demands that would be generated by the residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets, as the project provides 118 on street parking spaces. No further response is necessary. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-14 regarding the number of persons estimated to inhabit the proposed project. 21 Item 23. - 28 HB -142- ATTACHMENT NO.c- `��'$ Response to Comment SC1-6 This comment provides an opinion as to whom would be living in the proposed project and how they would use their garage. Section VI, Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND analyses potential parking impacts of the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment SC1-5.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment SCt-7 This comment inquires about the ability of emergency vehicles to maneuver through the project site. Page 36 (threshold e) of the Draft MND states that project construction and internal circulation will comply with all relevant fire codes and is subject to site plan review and approval from the Huntington Beach Fire Department. The Draft MND concludes that impacts related to emergency access for the proposed project will be less than significant. Per threshold d) of the Draft MND,the project will be designed to conform to street standards and comply with all public safety requirements for emergency access, including police, fire, and emergency medical services. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment SC7-8 This comment does not reference the project.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC1-9 This comment states an opinion about how the parking spaces at the 2.6 acre City park will be utilized. Currently parking for the City park is provided on City land and this will continue to be the case with the proposed improvements to the City's 2.6 acre park. Additionally, language will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. No further response is necessary. 22 HB -143- ATTAC M tem 23_. _- 290t Sharon Causer, September 12, 2012 -Letter 8 The comments in letters 7 and 8 are from Sharon Causer. Comments in letter 8 are labeled as "SC2", so that responses in letter 8 can be distinguished from responses in letter 7, which are labeled as"SC1." Response to Comment SC2-1 This comment is regarding the September 11, 2012 Huntington Beach Planning Commission Study Session and does not pertain to the environmental analysis conducted for the proposed project. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC2-2 This comment expresses opposition to the number of homes proposed on site. Comment acknowledged. Response to Comment SC2-3 This comment does not raise any environmental issues and as such no further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC2-4 This comment expresses an opinion regarding the proposed project and does not raise any environmental issues. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC2-5 This comment expresses concern regarding the traffic from the proposed project. Section VI, Transportation/Traffic, of the Draft MND discusses potential traffic impacts of the proposed project. Thus, no further response is necessary. Comment acknowledged. Response to Comment SC2-6 This comment provides an opinion regarding the public noticing for the proposed project. This comment does not raise any environmental issues and as such no further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC2-7 This comment provides an opinion as to the affordability of the proposed homes and concludes that there will be parking issues. Section VI, Transportation/Traff c,of the Draft MND discusses potential parking impacts of the proposed project. Thus,no further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC2-8 The sharp turn where Yorktown Avenue and Ward Street meet at a 90 degree angle is an existing physical condition that will not be significantly impacted by the proposed project and will not be modified in conjunction with the development of the proposed project. This"L" shaped intersection currently has a volume of 840 vehicles traveling through the curve during the morning peak hour and 940 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour. 23 Item 23. - 291 HB -1.44- ATTACHMENT NO: .��T The project would add an estimated 19 vehicles during the morning peak hour and 25 vehicles during the afternoon peak hour,which would result in a negligible increase in traffic volumes of 2.3 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively. An intersection capacity utilization(ICU) analysis was not conducted at this intersection because an ICU analysis is based on the critical movements at an intersection, which is a measure of the left- turning traffic volumes plus the opposing through traffic volumes. As there are no left- turn volumes crossing paths with through volumes at this "L" shaped intersection,an ICU analysis would not be applicable. The project would add traffic to this location and result in a minor increase in the number of vehicles stopping at the stop signs; however,the relative impacts would be less than significant and no project-related mitigation or improvements would be required. Response to Comment SC2-9 This comment expresses an opinion and does not raise any environmental issues.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment SC2-90 This comment expresses an opinion and does not raise any environmental issues. Since the time at which the notice of public hearing was sent out,the date of the public hearing was moved back. The discrepancy in dates is due to the hearing being moved back. No further response is necessary. 24 xB -145- ATT HMEW Item 23. - 292 James Elliott, September 12, 2012-Letter 9 Response to Comment JE-1 This comment states that the commenter has reviewed Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013 for the Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision and references the comments which are attached to the cover email. Comment acknowledged. Response to Comment JE-2 This comment states where the commenter lives and asserts that several items in the Draft MND document require clarification or correction. Comment acknowledged. Response to Comment JE-3 The proposed improved park will have the same number of fixtures, three (3) total, that currently exist. The city will provide direction on the type of light fixture and the operational aspects of the lighting at the time of final design. In addition,depending on the style of light the city chooses, many light standards can be fitted with house side shields to mitigate the light spill-over into the existing homes. Regarding lighting the parking lot,typically the City of Huntington Beach Police request that at least one(1) Nostalgic style light standard be placed within public park parking lots and typically they are set on a photocell to turn on at dusk and off at dawn. The city will provide direction on the actual operational aspects of the lighting at the time of final design. Response to Comment JE-4 Language regarding the CC&R's and the requirement to the public to park on the private streets is included in the suggested conditions of approval for the project. Response to Comment JE-5 The sewer facilities for this site is will be a public system, owned and maintained by the City. The internal streets, storm drain and landscaping within the tract boundary are to be private and maintained by the HOA. Refer to Response to Comment JE-10. Response to Comment JE-6 There is no wood fencing proposed on the site. All walls proposed will be CMU (Concrete Masonry Unit) block. Response to Comment JE-7 As described on page 12 of the MND,per the Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation report, scarification and significant air-drying of materials may be sufficient to obtain a stable subgrade. If highly unstable soils are identified, and if the construction schedule does not allow for delays associated with drying,mechanical stabilization will be necessary. Thus, air drying, as well as mechanical stabilization are options. Owing to the nature of the proposed ground improvement method,the removal of unsuitable material is expected to be limited to 3 to 4 feet below ground surface. These materials are not expected to be excessively wet requiring extensive air-drying. Fill soils are typically placed at moistures near and slightly above their"optimum moisture content". At this moisture level, soil particles are typically moist enough not to 25 Item 23. - 293 HB -146- ATTACHMENT NO. ��Z generate dust. Therefore, air-drying of excessively wet materials, if required at all, will never reach a dust level. It is Petra Geotechnical's(i.e. Petra)professional opinion that at the time of grading the surf cial soils will be at or slightly below their respective `'optimum moisture content'. As such, Petra anticipates the grading contractor to spray the overexcavated soils with water further alleviating the concern for dust creation. If stockpiling of overexcavated soils is necessary for whatever reason, it is expected to be temporary,would be located to the extent feasible away from existing homes,and would include dust suppression measures consistent with SCAQMD rules and best management practices. Dust suppression measures will be included in the project specific SWPPP which is required prior to grading operations and will be prepared in conformance with the City's and State's NPDES requirements. This will 'include chain link fencing and green screen in areas where solid walls/fences do not exist. Response to Comment JE-8 Comment acknowledged. Response to Comment JE-9 By detaining the difference between the existing 25 year and proposed 100 year storm flows the project will be reducing the runoff from the site to pre-development conditions and mitigating the impacts of the project to the downstream public storm drain system. The developer is accomplishing the detention requirements partially with the design of over-sized on-site storm drain and partially on the proposed Lamb Park site. Regarding the installation of the proposed Master Planned 33" storm drain line, although there are under-sized downstream:facilities identified on the City's Master of Drainage that are not being upgraded at this time,the installation of the 33" storm drain line would significantly improve overall ponding of local streets by removing surface flows underground and within the pipe. Until such time that the City upgrades the under-sized downstream system some ponding will continue to occur. Response to Comment JE-10 The Parkways and the Lettered Lots will be landscaped by the developer. The private front yards, side yards and rear yards will not be landscaped by the developer as is typical in a subdivision of this nature. Refer to the Conceptual Landscape Plan.and Conceptual Plant Palette for details regarding proposed landscaping on site. Response to Comment JE-1 1 First occupancies for the production homes are projected to be at the end of April 2014 or early May 2014. Based upon the timeframes to construct the storm drain improvements (see Response to Comment LSNSFC-23) and the park improvements, TR1 Pointe Homes would not construct these facilities before early 2014. 26 HB -147 ATTACH MEN`.Item 23. - 294 Response to Comment JE-12 This comment states that the emissions from grading/earthwork was not analyzed for the 2.6 acre park site. This comment is not correct. Refer to Table 3, Maximum Daily Construction Emissions,which includes grading and construction of the park. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment JE-13 The traffic counts were first taken at all of the study area intersections in February of 2009 on days when school was in session. Subsequent to the preparation of the draft traffic report in 2009, staff at the City of Huntington Beach indicated that the traffic volumes shown in the report for the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue were lower than the counts that they had in their data files for that intersection. So new traffic counts were taken at the Brookhurst/Adams intersection in July of 2009 to provide additional data. Although school was not in session when the July counts were administered,the traffic analysis for the 2009 iteration of the traffic study used the highest volume of the February and July counts for each through and turning movement at that intersection. For the current(2012)traffic report,however, new traffic volumes were provided by the City of Huntington Beach for the Brookl urst/Adams intersection that were higher than either of the 2009 counts, so these new counts were used for the analysis of that intersection. The February 2009 counts were used for the other intersections. So the only counts that were taken in July 2009 when school was not in session were at the Brookhurst/Adams intersection and these volumes were not used for the traffic analysis. The traffic counts that were taken in 2012 were administered in February, as stated in the traffic report. Response to CommentJE-14 This comment is regarding whether particular schools were factored into the analysis of potential school impacts for the proposed project.As detailed on pages 53 through 55 of the Draft MND, the Fountain Valley School District(FVSD) and the Huntington Beach Union High School District(HBUHSC)were contacted regarding which schools would accommodate students from the proposed project. According to Stephen McMahon, Assistant Superintendent, Business Services for FVSD,the schools that would accommodate students from the proposed project are Oka Elementary and Talbert Middle School. Moiola School, Gisler Elementary school and Masuda Middle School were not analyzed because,according to the school districts, children from the proposed project would not attend those schools. Response to Comment JE-15 The proposed improved park will have the same number of fixtures that exist,three (3) total. The city will provide direction on the type of light fixture and the operational aspects of the lighting at the time of final design. In addition, depending on the style of light the city chooses,many light standards can be fitted with house side shields to mitigate the light spill-over into the existing homes. 27 AMCHMENT NO. Item 23. - 295 HB -1418 Response to Comment JE-16 The responses below correspond to the numbered points within comment JE-16 regarding questions about Public Works Implementation Code Requirements. 1.b. The sewer for the Lamb project will be public. Le. The sewer will be public and will require an easement. Lf. Since the parkway width is 10', a PUE will not be required and is deleted from the project Code Requirements. 4. The project will be required to provide a 14 day sewer flow monitoring of the existing downstream system for verification of capacity in the public system to support the project. Response to Comment JE-17 Comment noted. Project Code Requirement 411 has been revised to include phasing plan for those activities. Response to Comment JE 18 Comment noted. Project Code Requirement#23 has been revised to include photometric analysis of park and parking lot. Response to Comment JE-19 This comment is regarding rodents on the project site. This comment does not raise an environmental issue. The.project will comply with City and/or Orange County Vector Control regulations regarding rodent control on the project site. Response to Comment JE-20 This comment alleges errors in calculations and inconsistencies in the Traffic Study,but does not provide any specific examples. A check of the calculations did not reveal any math errors. It was observed that Table 3 of the traffic report (Development Projects for Cumulative Analysis)incorrectly states that the proposed residential development at the Wardlow School site would have 50 units_ This is a typographical error as the number of units should be 49. Table 4 of the report(Traffic Generated by Other Proposed Development Projects) correctly indicates that the Wardiow site is proposed to have 49 units and this is the number that was used to calculate the cumulative traffic volumes. Response to Comment JE-21 Comment acknowledged. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-25. Response to Comment JE-22 The comment is correct that Appendix B, Traffic Volume Figures, of the Traffic Impact Analysis does not show Mauna Lane's traffic. Per page 32 of the Draft MND,there are several other unsignalized intersections along Yorktown Avenue in addition to the intersection of Yorktown Avenue at Canberra Lane,which was evaluated for this analysis. For example,Mauna Lane, Pitcairn Lane, and Independence Lane also intersect with Yorktown Avenue in the vicinity of the project site. The Canberra Lane intersection was selected for the analysis because it has the highest volumes of traffic entering and 28 HB -149- ATTACHI TENT NItem 23�296 exiting Yorktown Avenue and it is the closest intersection to the project site. As the analysis for the Caberra Lane intersection indicates that the intersection would not be significantly impacted by the project, it can be concluded that the other unsignalized intersections along Yorktown, which have lower traffic volumes than Canberra Lane, would likewise not be significantly impacted by the project. The comment is correct that Figures 8-11 in the Traffic Impact Analysis show the turning traffic counts for the proj ecf s main street. The turning traffic counts are shown for the future intersection of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street. Figures 8-11 in the Traffic Impact Analysis show the project generated traffic, and as such, the turning traffic counts are shown in these figures. Response to Comment JE-23 These exhibits supplement the comment related to flooding(JE-9). Refer to Response to Comment JE-9. 29 Item 23. - 297 HB -150- AT IT aRaw Helen Ford, September 12, 2012- Letter 10 Response to Comment HF-1 This comment inquires about parking. As described on page 37 of the Draft MND, although the project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development with private streets, governed by CC&RS and a homeowners association board of directors, language will be place in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. The parking demands that would be generated by the proposed project would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets, as the project provides 118 on street parking spaces. The 118 on street parking spaces would be available to park users. Response to Comment HF-2 Refer to Response to Comment HF-1. Response to Comment HF-3 TRI Pointe Homes has proposed and agreed to include a'provision in the CC&Rs that requires the streets to remain open for public use, including parking, and that prohibits any amendment to that provision without the written consent of the City. The CC&R language is as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in this Declaration to the contrary, the Private Streets in the Community shall remain open to public use, including parking, pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Community. No amendment or other modification of this requirement shall be made by Declarant or the Association without the prior written consent of the City of Huntington Beach." Since the City's consent will be required to change the public parking rights described in the CC&Rs, the HOA will not have the right to unilaterally amend the CC&Rs to impose permit parking or other programs that could limit or eliminate public parking on the private streets. Response to Comment HF-4 TRI Pointe Homes has proposed and agreed to include a provision in the CC&Rs that requires the streets to remain open for public use, including parking, and that prohibits any amendment to that provision without the written consent of the City. The CC&R language is as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in this Declaration to the contrary,the Private Streets in the Community shall remain open to public use, including parking, pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Community. No amendment or other modification of this requirement shall be made by Declarant or the Association without the prior written consent of the City of Huntington Beach." Since the City's consent will be required to change the public access and parking rights described in the CC&Rs, the HOA will not have the right to unilaterally close off access to the private streets by placing a gate at the entrance. Response to Comment HF 5 The commenter's question appears to contain multiple questions, none of which are clear enough to provide a response under CEQA. That being said, it appears the commenter is asking questions similar to Comment Nos. 3 and 4 concerning the ability of the HOA to 30 ATTACHMENT Nr% HB -151- Item 23. - 298 somehow eliminate public parking on the private streets and access through the private streets to the public parking lot. Tri Pointe Homes has proposed and agreed to include a provision in the CC&Rs that requires the streets to remain open for public use, including parking, and that prohibits any amendment to that provision without the written consent of the City. The CC&R language is as follows: "Notwithstanding anything in this Declaration to the contrary, the Private Streets in the Community shall remain open to public use, including parking,pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Community. No amendment or other modification of this requirement shall be made by Declarant or the Association without the prior written consent of the City of Huntington Beach." Since the City's consent will be required to change the public access and parking rights described in the CC&Rs, the HOA will not have the right to unilaterally close off access to the private streets or impose a permit requirement for parking on the private streets that would effectively limit or eliminate public parking. Response to Comment HF-6 The City street standard widths apply city-wide. Response to Comment HF-7 As detailed on Tentative Tract Map No. 17238, included in the July 9, 2012 plan submittal for the project, the width of the streets in the proposed project are 56 feet and 60 feet in width. The width of Yorktown Avenue is 80 feet. The City of Huntington Beach should be contacted for any desired additional information regarding street widths in the project vicinity. Response to Comment HF 8 A discussion of Measure C can be found in the October 23, 2012,Planning Commission Staff Report. Response to Comment HF-9 The applicant will be constructing improvements at the park. Response to Comment HF-10 Refer to pages 1 through 3 of the Draft NI ND, which provide project information. Additionally, the staff report for the proposed project contains information regarding the on-site and off-site improvements. Response to Comment HF-11 The proposed project is requesting a General Plan Amendment to amend the General Plan land use designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density(RL-7), which allows for a maximum density of seven units per acre. The project proposes 81 units on an 11.65 acre site, which equates to approximately 6.95 units per acre. Therefore, the proposed project complies with the Low Density(RL-7)designation which is requested as part of the project's General Plan Amendment, 31 Item 23. - 299 HB -152- ATTACHMENT NO. '�� Response to Comment HF-12 This comment inquires about the traffic onto Yorktown and Ward and Bookhurst from the proposed project. The commenter should refer to Section VI,Transportation and Traffic, of the Draft MND,for information regarding potential transportation impacts of the proposed project. The Draft MND concludes that the proposed project will have less than significant impacts regarding traffic. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment HF-13 This comment inquires about increased traffic onto Ward. The commenter should refer to Section VI, Transportation and Traffic,of the Draft.MND, for information regarding potential transportation impacts of the proposed project. The Draft MND concludes that the proposed project will have less than significant impacts regarding traffic. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment HF-14 This comment inquires about the need for a traffic light on Yorktown. As detailed on page 34 of the Draft MND, it is recommended in the Traffic Impact Analysis that the intersection of Yorktown Avenue at the site access street be provided with a stop sign on the southbound approach. Response to Comment HF-15 The"L" shaped intersection where Yorktown Avenue and Ward Street meet at a 90 degree angle currently has a stop sign on each approach to the intersection. There is no need to signalize this intersection as a result of the project. The purpose of a signal is to assign the right-of-way for conflicting directions of traffic with the use of green and red lights. As the two directions of traffic flow do not cross paths at this "U' shaped intersection, a traffic signal would not be appropriate. Response to Comment HF-1 G This comment describes the approximate length of the storm drain. Comment acknowledged. Response to Comment HF-17 The storm drain line proposed to be installed from the project limits in Yorktown and Brookhurst is a line that is identified within the City's current Master Plan of Drainage and would ultimately be installed as a City Capital Improvement project,however,this is not on their current capital improvement forecast. This line will not alleviate all ponding during major storm events at Kamuela but it will help to alleviate surface flows within Yorktown and Brookhurst between the project limits and the Kamuela/Brookhurst intersection. In addition the project proposes to reduce surface flows on Mauna Lane by eliminating drainage through the existing walkway/drainage alley at the northwest comer of the project. Therefore, surface flows will be greatly reduced due to the project design and installation of the Master Planned storm drain line in advance of the City's timing for this line and at no capital expenditure by the City. 32 ATTACHMENT NO. c `-'c" HB -153- Item 23. - 300 As indicated on the City's Master Plan of Drainage there are additional facilities that are tabled for improvement throughout the City, including downstream of Kainuela/Brookhurst. It is the City's responsibility, through their capital improvement program and funds, to upgrade facilities in need, as necessary. This location has been identified as one of those and v4ill be done when deemed appropriate by the City. By detaining storm run-off onsite,the project is not contributing to worsen the existing situation and by voluntarily installing the Master Planned facility in Yorktown and Brookhurst the proposed Lamb Development is actually bettering the current situation in this area. Refer to Response to Comment JE-9 for additional information regarding storm drain improvements. Response to Comment HF-18 See Response to Continent LSNSFC-23. Response to Comment HF-19 This comment asks about a drainage problem and how it will be solved. As described in Section IV,Hydrology and Water Quality, of the Draft MND,per page 15, Tri Pointe homes proposes to construct the Master Plan of Drainage storm drain. The storm drain line is based upon the existing needs in the area based upon recent hydrology analysis. The storm drain will consist of a 33 inch reinforced concrete pipe that will run a length of approximately 2,080 liner feet beginning from the project's entry street and going west on Yorktown Avenue and north on Brookhurst Street to Kamuela Drive. The proposed storm drain improvements will improve existing drainage conditions. Response to Comment HF-20 Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-20 regarding peat. Response to Comment HF-21 Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment HF-22 AYS4 and football leagues enter into agreements for use of school sites with the appropriate school districts. Response to Comment HF-23 Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-24. Response to Comment HF-24 Refer to Response to Comment HF-1. It is not anticipated that park uses will park in the existing neighborhood because the proposed project will allow for park users to park on public streets in the proposed project as well as in the parking lot for the park site. 33 Item 23. - 301 1-113 -154- ATTACHMENT NO. Response to Comment HF-25 Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-25. Response to Comment HF-26 This comment is about the Tri Pointe Homes Wardlow Residential Subdivision project and does not pertain to the proposed Tri Pointe Homes Lamb.Residential Subdivision project. No further response is necessary. Response to Comment HF-27 The proj ect will comply with local policies of the city with regard to tree removal and adherence to City of Huntington Beach policies and ordinances. Additionally, the project is required to comply with the City's standard conditions of approval regarding tree removal and new trees will be planted in accordance with City landscaping requirements. As such, any trees removed as part of the proposed project will not be in violation of any City regulations. Response to Comment HF-28 This comment provides an opinion regarding the proposed homes. Comment acknowledged.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment HF-29 The project will pay required parkland in-lieu fees for the new development. Response to Comment HF-30 The comment states the children from the proposed project will attend Oka Elementary school and will cross Brookhurst. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. The commenter is correct that children from the proposed project are anticipated to attend Oka Elementary. Response to Comment HF-31 This comment discusses the lot sizes of the proposed homes and poses a question to the City. This comment is acknowledged and no further response is necessary. Response to Comment HF-32 The City has a total of 75 parks,41 of which are less than three acres in size. Response to Comment HF-33 This comment is acknowledged. The conditions of approval for the project specify that the park improvements must be completed prior to occupancy of the first residential unit. Response to Comment HF-34 This comment appears to quote a section of the City charter and no further response is necessary. 34 HB -155- ATTACHMEN Item 23. 302 Response to Comment HF-35 This comment is regarding the existing access from Mauna Lane to the project site. Page 36,threshold g)of Draft MND for the proposed project discusses pedestrian access. Pedestrian access to the project site is available from Yorktown Avenue. Development of the project would eliminate the pedestrian access-way that currently exists along the westerly property line of the project site. However, because there is alternative access to the project site via Yorktown Avenue,the project will have less than significant impacts in this regard. Response to Comment HF-36 This comment expresses an opinion that the existing neighborhood has to continue to have access to the park area from the existing easement. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment HF-37 This comment requests the removal of 10 homes and an increase in park space or parking lot. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. 35 3. - 303 0°Item 2 Stanley L. Friedman, September 12, 2812-Letter 11 Response to Comment SLF-1 Comment acknowledged. This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment SLF-2 Appropriate notice was mailed to property owners, occupants, and interested parties and also published in the local newspaper. Response to Comment SLF-3 Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment SLF-4 Comment acknowledged. This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment SLF-5 This comment provides the commenter's opinion that the proposed project promotes overcrowding due to substandard lot sizes. This comment will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment SLF-6 This comment provides the commenter's opinion regarding vehicle flow on the project site. This comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment SLF 7 This comment provides an opinion regarding future traffic conditions. The Draft MND for the proposed project analyzes traffic impacts of the project and concludes that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. Response to Comment SLF-8 This comment provides an opinion regarding future traffic conditions. The Draft MND for the proposed project analyzes both traffic impacts of the project as well as emergency vehicle access and concludes that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact. Response to Comment SLF-9 This comment provides an opinion. Comment acknowledged. Section VI, Traffic, of the Draft MND concludes that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding traffic.No further response is necessary. 36 xB -157 ATTACHMENT I Item 23. - 304 Response to Comment SLF-10 This comment states that the proposed project will further burden local school districts. As detailed in Section XI,Public Services, in the Draft HIND, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to schools in the Fountain Valley School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District and because the proposed project will pay required school impact fees (per City code requirements).No further response is required. Response to Comment SLF-11 This comment provides an opinion and will be forwarded to decision makers. Response to Comment SLF-12 The commenter does not provide any specific facts or legal grounds to support the statements that the proposed project is the "antithesis" of the Naylor Act's intent, or that the legislature's intent has been violated by the proposed project. Nor does the continent provide any specific facts or legal grounds to support the statement that the Fountain Valley School District ("District") has been "forced" into selling properties so the City "later maximize profits by destroying the quality of the asset." The District offered the project site for sale to public agencies under District's surplus property procedures set forth in Education Code sections 17464-17465 and 17485, et seq., and to public benefit non-profit organizations pursuant to Education Code section 17464. After extensive negotiations with the City, the District sold approximately 2.598 acres of the 15.005 acre Lamb site (leaving a remainder parcel of 12.407 acres to be sold as the result), pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated September 23, 2005, and sold approximately 6.0 acres of the 14.354-acre Wardlow property (leaving a remainder parcel of 8.354 acres to be sold as the result), pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated September 23, 2005, to the City, for twenty-five percent(25%) of fair market value under Education Code section 17485, et seq. (the "Naylor Act"). The District then went on to offer both remainder properties to the public through public bids and later through an RFP process pursuant to applicable laws. By offering the remainder properties (including the proposed project site) to the City under the Naylor Act at that time, the District fulfilled any and all requirements it had to offer or negotiate with the City for the proposed project's site. There is no further opportunity or legal obligation, under the Naylor Act or otherwise, for the District to sell or the City to acquire any additional portions of the Lamb School site. All applicable laws were complied with in the District's disposition of the Lamb School site. Response to Comment SLF-13 Comment acknowledged. This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. 37 Item 23. - 305 HB -158 ATTACHMENT r. Response to Comment SLF-14 The public hearing is scheduled for October 23, 2012 and notice has been mailed to all interested parties as well as property owners and tenants within a 1,000 foot radius of the site.Notification was also published in the local newspaper. Response to Comment SLF-15 Comment acknowledged. 38 HB -159- ATTACHMENT Item 23 306 Alan Gandall, American Youth Soccer Organization (AYSO) September 12, 2012 - Letter 12 Response to Comment AG-1 These comments are addressed to both the Wardlow and Lamb sites. Refer to Response to Comments AG-3 that follows concerning loss of open space at the former Lamb school site. Response to Comment A G-2 Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment AG-3 This comment is regarding the loss of open space (fields)that are currently used at the Lamb site for soccer practice,training, special clinics and game fields_Recreation is addressed in Section XV of the Draft MND. Parks are discussed in threshold d), on pages 54 and 55 of the Draft MND (in Section Xl, Public Services). As detailed in the parks threshold of the Draft MND,the project site is not identified as a City park in the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan. The project site is listed in the Recreation Element of the City's General Plan as a school park and recreation facility. The play fields on the Lamb project site are a part of the farmer school grounds. Although it is within their purview to do so,the Fountain Valley School District has not yet fenced the playfield area or denied access to the public to the school grounds. The playfields are neither designated as open space in the City General Plan nor recognized as public parkland by the City. Furthermore, they were not provided in fulfillment of any Quimby Act requirements.No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to CommentAG-4 Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to CommentAG-5 Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary. Response to CommentAG-6 Comment acknowledged. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Response to Comment AG-7 Refer to Response to Comment AG-3 above. While the soccer fields on the Lamb project site may be regarded as a community asset currently available to organizations such as the AYSO that utilize portions of the project site for soccer, the Draft MND adequately addresses the impact upon the environment associated with the proposed conversion to residential use in Sections XV(Recreation) and XI (Public Services) of the Draft MND. 39 Item 23. - 307 HB -160- ATTACHMENT -U- �' ' While the AYSO has been able to play soccer on the project site,the site could have been fenced off by the school district to restrict access. The fields on site are not designated as open space or recognized as public parkland by the City and were not provided in fulfillment of any Quimby Act requirements. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. 40 HB -lBl- ATTACHMENT Iteml23.t- 308 Jean Hefferon, September 11, 2012 - Letter 13 Response to Comment JH-1 This comment does not raise any environmental issues regarding the proposed project therefore no further response is necessary. Response to Comment JH-2 This comment does not raise any environmental issues regarding the proposed project therefore no further response is necessary. Response to CommentJH-3 This comment expresses the commenter's concern regarding construction air quality impacts of the proposed project. The Draft MND for the proposed project analyzed potential air quality impacts in Section V and concluded that emissions from construction of the project will be below the localized significance thresholds established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District; therefore the impact is considered less than significant. Response to Comment JH-4 This comment expresses concern regarding the safety of the children who will reside in the proposed project and that vehicles from the proposed project will increase traffic at the intersection of Yorktown and Brookhurst. The comment states the children from the proposed project will cross the Brookhust/Yorktown intersection to attend Oka Elementary school. Comment acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. The commenter is correct that children from the proposed project are anticipated to attend Oka Elementary. The Draft MND analyzed potential traffic impacts from the proposed project and concluded that impacts would be less than significant. Response to Comment JH-5 This comment expresses the commenter's opinion regarding how the project site should be utilized. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. 41 Item 23. - 309 HB -162- ATTACHMENT NO. 5 Nick Koch, September 12, 2012 -Letter 14 Response to Comment NK 1 Comment acknowledged. This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and to the traffic and congestion during project construction. The sale price of the homes is outside the scope of the environmental analysis for this project. This comment is in favor of more park space and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. 42 ATTACHMENT t ems HB -163- Item 23. - 310 Cheryl Quiroz, September 12, 2012 - Letter 15 Response to Comment CQ-1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project.The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment CQ-2 This comment expresses the commenter's opinion regarding the project site and development within the City of Huntington Beach. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment CQ-3 This comment states that the proposed project will impact surrounding neighborhoods with more cars, kids, school impacts, noise and traffic. The issues of vehicles/traffic, schools and noise are all addressed in the Draft MND for the project. This comment raises no environmental issues that are not addressed in the project's Draft MND. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment CO-4 This comment regarding Pegasus school does not pertain to the proposed project and as such no further response is necessary. Response to Comment CQ-5 This comment regarding the park does not pertain to the proposed project and as such no further response is necessary. Response to Comment CQ-6 This comment states that more cars will pas through the commenter's neighborhood. The Draft MND for the proposed project discussed potential traffic impacts from the proposed project and concluded that they would be less than significant. Response to Comment CQ-7 This comment regarding existing homes for sale and closed businesses does not pertain to the proposed project and as such no further response is necessary. 43 ATTA U11CHMEINIT NO, Item 23. - 311 HB -164- Robert and Melody Sawyer, September 6, 2012 -Letter 16 Response to Comment RMS-1 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment RMS-2 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project and states a preference for the project site to remain public. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment RMS-3 This comment states that the proposed project would increase traffic. The project would increase traffic compared to existing conditions (by 970 vehicle trips per day)however, intersection levels of service(LOS) would not be significantly,impacted and the project would have less than significant traffic impacts, as discussed in Section VI. Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND. This comment expresses concern regarding the project's impacts to schools.As detailed in the Draft MND, the proposed project would generate the following numbers of students: 41 new students in the Fountain Valley School District,who would attend Oka Elementary and Talbert Middle school and 17 new students in the Huntington Beach Union High School District, who would attend Edison High School. However, as detailed in the Draft MND, the proposed project is anticipated to have a less than significant impact to schools in the Fountain Valley School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District and because the proposed project will pay required school impact fees (per City code requirements).No further response is required. Response to Comment RMS-4 This comment expresses concern regarding light pollution from the proposed project. The Aesthetics section of the Draft MND discusses potential light/glare impacts from the proposed project. The Draft MND states that the proposed homes on site would introduce new sources of light in the area; however because the proposed residential units are similar to those surrounding the project site, light levels from new residential units would be similar to light levels of surrounding uses. As stated in the Draft MND the project will have a less than significant impacts regarding light/glare. Response to Comment RMS-5 Comment acknowledged. Refer to Response to Comment RMS-3 regarding schools. Response to Comment RMS-6 Parking for the proposed project is discussed in the Draft MND,which concludes that the proposed project provides adequate parking. Refer to threshold 0 in Section VI. Transportation and Traffic for a detailed discussion of parking.No further response is required. 44 HB -165- ATTACHMENT N(Item 23. - 312 Response to Comment RMS-7 This comment inquires about the 2.56 persons per household figure stated in the Draft MND. The 2.56 persons per household referenced in the Draft MND for the proposed project is derived from Table II-5 of the City of Huntington Beach Housing Element.As detailed in the City's General Plan, per the 2000 Census, 73,657 households reside in Huntington Beach, with an average household size of 2.56 persons,this represent a slight decrease in household size from 1990. The City's smaller household size reflects its lower incidence of family households and aging population. The 2010 Census average household size for Huntington Beach is 2.55,which is consistent with the downward trend in size of households and indicates that the use of 2.56 is slightly conservative. Response to Comment RMS-8 Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-14 regarding household size. The comment states that the impact is being underestimated. It seems that the commenter has misunderstood the trip generation information in the Draft MN-D. The number of vehicle trips(i.e. traffic)that the proposed project is estimated to generate is based on 12.0 trips per dwelling unit(per Table 9, Project Generated Traffic, on page 31 of the Draft MND) and is not tied to the 2.56 persons per household figure from the City's housing element. Use of 12.0 trips per dwelling unit is a more conservative estimate of traffic generation in that it is a higher estimate than 9.57 trips per unit from the Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation Manual. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-14 regarding the use of 12.0 trips per dwelling unit. This comment does not raise any environmental issues that were not addressed in the Draft MND for the proposed project. No further response is necessary and no changes to the Draft MND are warranted. Section XI,Public Services, threshold c) schools, of the Draft MND analyzed potential project impacts to schools and concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact with payment of required school impact fees(per City code requirements). Response to Comment RMS-9 The project proposes amend the General Plan land use designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density(P(RL))to Residential Low Density (RL-7), which allows for a maximum density of seven units per acre. This comment provides an opinion regarding the RL-7 designation and raises no environmental issues. No further response is required. Response to Comment RMS-10 This comment expresses an opinion regarding the number of homes proposed. Refer to Response to RMS-8 above regarding the 2.56 persons per household figure used in the Draft MND. No further response is required. 45 Item 23. - 313 HB -1�6- rTAA I� NT NO. 5 - ' ` " Response to Comment RMS-11 This comment states that the project would impact parking, crime rate,traffic and trash. Refer to Response to Comment RMS-8 above regarding the 2.56 persons per household figure used in the Draft MND and regarding the parking analysis for the proposed project.No further response is required. The Draft MND analyzed potential impacts to police services,including crime rate and found that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact. Refer to Section XI,Public Services, threshold b) for a discussion of police services and crime. No further response is required. The project would increase traffic compared to existing conditions(by 970 vehicle trips per day) however, intersection levels of service (LOS)would not be significantly impacted and the project would have less than significant traffic impacts,as discussed in Section VI. Transportation/Traffic of the Draft MND. The Draft MND analyzed potential impacts regarding solid waste generation in Section X11 Utilities and Service Systems. The Draft MND concluded that the proposed project would have a less than significant impact regarding solid waste(trash)because the project would be served by Rainbow Environmental Services(which is the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach). Additionally,the project site would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to meet the project's waste disposal needs.No further response is required. Response to Comment RMS-12 This comment is in regards to the size of the streets in the proposed project. Threshold e) in Section VI. Transportation and Traffic, discusses emergency access to the project site. Per the Draft MND,project construction and circulation will comply with all relevant fire codes and is subject to site plan review and approval from the Huntington Beach Fire Department. Thus, impacts related to emergency access for the proposed project will be less than significant.No further response is required. Response to Comment RMS-13 This comment is an opinion. Comment acknowledged.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment RMS-14 The 14.25 acre Lamb School site was owned by the Fountain Valley Unified School. District. The school was designated as a closed school site, and in 2005,the School District decided to sell the site. In November 2005, the City acquired 2.6 acres of the school site to be maintained as open space. The remaining 11.65 acres were acquired by the project proponent and are the subject of the proposed project. This comment expresses an opinion regarding what the land use on the project site should be. Comment acknowledged. No further response is required. 46 HB -167 ATTACHMENT NO. I Item 23. - 314 Response to Comment RMS-15 This comment expresses an opinion regarding what the land use on the project site should be. Comment acknowledged. No further response is required. Response to Comment RMS-16 This comment expresses an opinion regarding the proposed zone change on the project site. Comment acknowledged.No further response is required. Response to Comment RMS-17 Parking for the proposed project is discussed in the Draft MND,which concludes that the proposed project provides adequate parking and that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact in this regard. As detailed threshold f) in Section VL Transportation and Traffic of the Draft MND, the parking demands that would be generated by the proposed project would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets, as the project provides 118 on street parking spaces.No further response is required. Response to Comment RMS-18 This comment inquires about who will purchase the proposed homes and expresses concern regarding property values. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment RMS-19 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment RMS-20 This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment RMS-21 Section XI, Public Services, threshold c) schools,of the Draft MND analyzed potential project impacts to schools and concluded that the project would have a less than significant impact with payment of required school impact fees(per City code requirements). This comment expresses opposition to the proposed project. The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. 47 ATTACHMENT NO. z� Item 23. - 315 HB -1 68 Robert A. Zordani, PE, September 11, 2012 -Letter 17 Response to Comment RAZ-1 The language in the CC&Rs that will guarantee the right of the public to use the private streets for access and parking will require the written consent of the City to amend or otherwise modify that language, and would make any amendment to this provision invalid if the City of Huntington Beach's ("City") consent is not obtained. The CC&R language is as follows "Notwithstanding anything in this Declaration to the contrary, the Private Streets in the Community shall remain open to public use, including parking, pursuant to the conditions of approval for the Community. No amendment or other modification of this requirement shall be made by Declarant or the Association without the prior written consent of the City of Huntington Beach." Response to Comment RAZ-2 Parking for the proposed project is discussed in the Draft MND,which concludes that the proposed project provides adequate parking and that the proposed project will have a less than significant impact in this regard. As detailed threshold f)in Section VI. Transportation and Traffic of the Draft MND,the parking demands that would be generated by the proposed project would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets. The parking problems described in this comment are not relevant to the proposed project,as these are existing problems that are occurring. Response to Comment RAZ-3 Refer to Response to Comment RAZ-2. Response to Comment RAZ 4 Lot G is identified as such on attachment#4.2 (Tentative Tract Map No. 17238)to the Draft MND for the proposed project. Response to Comment RAZ-5 The project specific Water Quality Management Plan will be prepared in conformance with both City and State Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements which requires the developer to institute a long term funding source for ongoing maintenance of all water quality treatment BMPs. The first flush run-off will "flow"through a designated water quality swale and will not be standing water; therefore, vector control is not an issue. Trash clean-up and maintenance of the facility will be the responsibility of the HOA and will be so designated in the CC&Rs. Response to Comment RAZ-6 Refer to Response to Comment BM-11_ Response to Comment RAZ-7 Refer to Response to Comment HF-14. 48 HB -169- A ► ° Item 23. 316 Response to Comment RAZ-8 The project applicant proposes to amend the General Plan land use designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density (P(RL)) to Residential Low Density (RL-7), which allows for a maximum density of seven units per acre. The RL-7 designation is being applied to the project site because with an 11.65 acre project site and a proposed 81 units, the proposed project complies with the maximum density established under the RL-7 designation. Response to Comment RAZ-9 As detailed on the City of Huntington Beach General Plan land use map,the surrounding community has an RL-7 land use designation. The project proposes a General Plan land use designation of RL-7. As such,the adjacent tracks do not have a lower density rating. Response to Comment RAZ-10 The comment is in relation to the population and parking related to the proposed project. The 2.56 persons per household referenced in the Draft MND for the proposed project is derived from Table II-5 of the City of Huntington Beach Housing Element. As detailed in the City's General Plan, per the 2000 Census, 73,657 households reside in Huntington Beach,with an average household size of 2.56 persons, this represent a slight decrease in household size from 1990. The City's smaller household size reflects its lower incidence of family households and aging population. Section VI, Transportation/Traffic, threshold f) on pages 36-37 of the Draft MND addresses parking. The parking demands that would be generated by the residential development would be accommodated within the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal streets. Response to Comment RAZ-11 The impervious area of the existing school site is based on the school buildings,parking lot,black top play areas and other incidental hardscape which is generally concentrated near the building area with the pervious field areas surrounding. This impervious area for the existing school site has been calculated at approximately 43%. The impervious area of the residential development is based on the houses, driveways, sidewalks, and streets which are spread out over the entire site. The pervious areas include the parkways, common landscape areas along with the rear, front and side yard landscape areas. For purposes of the calculations in the originally submitted WQMP, Walden and Associates had taken a typical lot and had extrapolated that over the total number of lots and had added in the private streets and sidewalks for a total impervious area of approximately 46%. Neither of these calculations included the City owned public park site labeled as "Not A Part" on Tentative Tract Map No. 17238. However, in response to this comment Walden and Associates has further evaluated these percentages and have found that while the existing school site percentage remains the same, it became apparent that a portion of hardscape had not been included for the onsite typical lot calculations, that when extrapolated gave a lower percentage than actually exists. Therefore, Walden and Associates has recalculated the impervious area for the proposed residential development. 49 Item 23. - 317 HB -10- ATTACHMENT O. S - cl �' This updated total impervious area is now approximately 63%. (Refer to the errata for exhibits.) This percentage change has minimal impact on the project as designed. First,this has no impact on the hydrology study as those calculations are based on independent values from graphs and charts as provided in the Orange County Hydrology Manual and not the Water Quality Management Plan Model/Template. This also does not affect the Hydrologic Conditions of Concern(HCOC) since the downstream facilities are not potentially susceptible to hydra-modification. Nor does it impact the HCOC requirements for detaining the difference between the existing 2 year storm event and the proposed 2 year storm event since the City has required the detention of the difference between the existing 25 year storm event and the proposed 100 year storm event,which is much greater and has already been accounted for and remains unaffected. However,this does have a slight effect on the treatment requirements. If the site Best Management Practices (BMPs)were using a volume based BMP (i.e. infiltration), a larger storage capacity would have been required to accommodate the increased volume due to the larger impervious percentage. As with the previous analysis, due to soil conditions, it is not feasible to infiltrate at this site. Therefore,the selected BMP for this project is a flow based bio-treatment. The change in the impervious percentage has necessitated an increase in the flow based bio-treatment from 1.14 cfs to 1.41 cfs. This is a small increase and can more than adequately be accommodated in the current flow based BMP Bio-filtration Vegetated Swale as proposed for this project. Therefore, this results in no changed or increased impacts from what was reflected in the previous analysis. Refer to the errata section of this document regarding the updated Water Quality Management Plan for the proposed project. Response to Comment RAZ-12 This comment provides a statement as to where people will park their vehicles when visiting the City's park for a soccer game. Currently parking for the City park is provided via a parking lot for the park on City land and this will continue to be the case with the proposed improvements to the City's 2.6 acre park. Additionally, language will be placed in the CC&Rs specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets within the project. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFC-25 regarding parking for the proposed park. Response to Comment RAZ-13 This continent provides the commenter's opinion regarding solar photovoltaic panels. As detailed on page 2 of the Draft MND,the proposed project provides solar electric photovoltaic(PV) systems as a standard feature.No further response is warranted. 50 HB -1T- ATTACHMENTNO. Item 23. - 318 Response to Comment RAZ-14 The numbers cited in the comment refer to specific lines of the ICU calculation sheets that are provided in the Appendix of the traffic report. These calculation sheets, which were provided by the City of Huntington Beach, represent the projected 2030 General Plan scenario. The ICU calculation for the intersection of Ward Street and Garfield Avenue shows that the volume/capacity(V/C) ratio for the northbound direction is 0.38 for the AM peak hour, which is the projected traffic volume of 640 vehicles per hour (vph) divided by the capacity of the single lane that is provided, which is 1,700 vph. For the intersection of Brookhurst Street and Yorktown Avenue, the ICU calculation sheet shows that the V/C ratio for the eastbound through movement is 0.14 for the AM peak hour, which is the traffic volume of 480 vph divided by the capacity that is provided by two lanes, which is 3,400 vph. These individual V/C ratios represent one direction of travel at each of the intersections and are used to calculate the overall ICU value at each intersection. There is no relationship between the two V/C ratios and to subtract one from the other to get a difference of 0.24 does not have any implications regarding the volumes of traffic that are generated by the neighborhood. Response to Comment RAZ-15 The projection that the development would generate 46 outbound vehicle trips during the morning peak hour is based on average trip generation rates from the Trip Generation manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 8a' Edition, 2008) for single family residential units. This document is the industry standard that is widely accepted by agencies throughout the nation, including Huntington Beach, Orange County, and the State of California. This comment is regarding the traffic projections for the proposed project and the population estimate for the proposed project. Refer to Response to Comment LSNSFGI4. Response to Comment RAZ-16 The traffic analysis for the intersection of Yorktown Avenue and Canberra Lane indicates that an estimated 19 additional vehicles would pass through the intersection during the morning peak hour and that 25 additional vehicles would pass through the intersection during the afternoon peak hour as a result of the project. This represents 30 percent of the project generated traffic and it is assumed that the traffic would be traveling east-west through the intersection on Yorktown Avenue. This additional traffic would result in a slight increase in the average delays experienced by motorists at the stop sign on Canberra Lane; i.e., an additional 0.3 seconds during the morning peak hour and an additional 0.2 seconds during the afternoon peak hour. The impacts would not be significant because the level of service at the intersection would remain unchanged at LOS C for the morning peak hour and LOS B for the afternoon peak hour. It is possible that some motorists traveling to and from the project site would cut through the neighborhood between Adams Avenue and Yorktown Avenue to access the site via Canberra Lane; however, the number of vehicles using this route would most likely be negligible because it is more circuitous and requires more travel time. The geographical distribution assumptions for the project generated traffic were.based on the existing travel patterns observed during the peak periods. It was assumed that 30 percent of the traffic would use Ward Street to the north, 35 percent would use Brookhurst Street to the north 51 -ATTACHMENT NO, Item 23. - 319 HB -12- with 5 percent turning onto Garfield Avenue, 20 percent would use Brookhurst Street to the south with 10 percent turning onto Adams Avenue, and 15 percent would use Yorktown Avenue to the west. This is a reasonable distribution of traffic that is consistent with the layout of the street and freeway network and the existing traffic patterns. The analysis indicates that traffic conditions at the study area intersections would be impacted by the project because of the increase in traffic volumes; however, the impacts would be less than significant based on the criteria used by the City of Huntington Beach. Response to Comment RAZ-17 The traffic study indicates that 20 percent of the project generated traffic would travel through the intersection of Adams Avenue and Brookhurst Street. The report indicates that this additional traffic would have an impact at the intersection because it would result in an increase in the ICU value of 0.001 during the morning peak hour and 0.003 during the afternoon peak hour. This increase in the ICU value would not constitute a significant impact and would certainly not require mitigation because the impact is well below the significance threshold. This is a reasonable conclusion because this intersection currently has six eastbound lanes, six westbound lanes, five northbound lanes, and five nouthbound lanes,which could readily accommodate the additional project generated traffic. This comment expresses the commenter's disagreement with the findings of and opinion of the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed project and will be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Response to Comment RAZ-18 The traffic study indicates that 30 percent of the project generated traffic would travel through the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Ward Street. The report indicates that this additional traffic would have an impact at the intersection because it would result in an increase in the ICU value of 0.008 during the morning peak hour and 0.009 during the afternoon peak hour. This increase in the ICU value would not constitute a significant impact and would not require mitigation because the impact is below the significance threshold. Response to Comment RAZ-19 Tables 4 and 6 in the Traffic Impact Analysis indicate that a single family residential development is estimated to generate an average of 12.0 vehicle trips per day. On Table 6 (Project Generated Traffic), it is correctly shown that the proposed 81 unit development would generate an estimated 970 vehicle trips per day (12 x 81 =972,rounded to 970). The 840 daily trips shown on a different row of Table 6 indicates, for purposes of comparison, that the elementary school that formerly occupied the site generated an estimated 840 vehicle trips per day. Response to Comment RAZ-20 This comment correctly cites the discrepancy between the number of units for the Wardlow project listed in Tables 3 and 4 of the Traffic Impact Report prepared for the proposed Lamb Residential Subdivision project. The proposed residential development at the Wardlow School site is planned to have 49 residential units,which is accurately 52 HB -13- TTAT NO. -Item 23. - 320 shown in Table 4 of the traffic report. Therefore the reference to 50 units in Table 3 is a typo. The traffic volumes for this site that were calculated for the cumulative traffic analysis are based on the correct quantity of 49 dwelling units.No further response is necessary. Response to Comment RAZ-21 The tables in the traffic report indicate that the project would have an impact at the Brookhurst/Adams and Ward/Garfield intersections because the traffic volumes and the ICU values would increase. The impacts would not be significant,however, because the impacts are below the thresholds of significance. During the morning peak hour, the ICU value at the Brookhurst/Adams intersection would be 0.871 for existing conditions, 0.898 for the year 2015 conditions without the project, and 0.899 for the year 2015 conditions with the project. The level of service rating at the intersection would not change and the intersection would not be significantly impacted because the increase in traffic and the resulting impacts would be below the significance thresholds. Similarly,the ICU values for the afternoon peak hour for this intersection are 0.870 for existing conditions, 0.896 for 2015 without the project and 0.899 for 2015 with the project. For the Ward/Garfield intersection, the ICU values for the morning peak hour would be 0.677 for existing conditions, 0.700 for the year 2015 without the project, and 0.708 for 2015 with the project. For the afternoon peak hour,the ICU values at this intersection would be 0.659 for existing conditions, 0.685 for 2015 without the project, and 0.691 for 2015 with the project. These values clearly indicate that the traffic volumes and the ICU values would increase as a result of the project. The impacts would not,however, be significant and mitigation measures would not be needed. Response to Comment RAZ-22 Comment acknowledged. 53 Item 23. - 321 xB -14- MACHMENT NO. 5 .2. U V. ERRATA TO DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2008- 013 The following changes to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013 and Initial Study Checklist are as noted below. The changes to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration as they relate to issues contained within this errata sheet do not affect the overall conclusions of the environmental document. The changes are identified by the comment reference. Revisions to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration The revisions are listed below by comment reference and page number. All additions are shown in underline format. Add deletions are shown in strikeout. Response to Comment Bixby-6 Page 17: The following information is added to threshold i) on page 17 of the Draft MND to analyze flooding risks from failure of the Santa Ana River levee, located approximately 1,500 feet east of the project site.Note that the following information does not alter the impact conclusions reached in the Draft MND. The project site is anticipated to be protected from flooding in the event that the Santa Ana River levee located approximately 1,500 feet east of the project site,were to fail. The FEMA flood maps show that the proposed project site is within Zone X,which is classified as "other flood areas" and is described as: areas of 0.2 percent annual chance flood; areas of 1 percent annual chance flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 1 percent annual chance (or 100 year) flood. The Santa Ana River channel falls within an area designated as "special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the 1 percent annual chance flood."The Santa Ana River channel is called out on the FEMA flood map as "1% Annual Chance Flood Discharge Contained in Channel."Thus,the project site is designated as an area that is protected by levees from the 1 percent annual chance flood. The project site has been designed with the residential pads being set a minimum of one foot above the overflow elevation should the storm drain system become inoperable. Thus if the Santa Ana River levee were to fail and fill up the stormdrains and flood the area in which the project is located a less than significant impact is anticipated due to the desim of the building pads. The County of Orange maintains 350 miles of concrete rock lined and earthen flood control facilities Flood control facilities are designed to handle water flow from storm drains and other runoff and"channel" the water into the bay or ocean. Operations&, Maintenance conducts regular inspections and performs cleaning as needed.1 The Santa 'bM2://www.ocRubliewoTks.com/ocoandm/FloodControl.aWx,Accessed September 20,2012 54 xB -15- ATTACHMENT NO. Item 23. - 322 Ana River Channel/levee is Orange County Flood Control District Facility E012 and is inspected regularly for integd1y and maintained by the Orange County Flood Control District, and as risks from flood from the Santa Ana River Channel/levee_ are anticipated to be less than significant. Response to Comment Bixby-7 Page 65 and Attachment No. 2 Summary of Mitigation Measures: This revision to Mitigation Measure CR-2 is made to strengthen the mitigation measure. This revision does not alter the impact conclusions reached in the Draft MND, nor does this revision reduce the effects of the mitigation previously identified. Mitigation Measure CR-2 on Page 65 of the Draft MND and in Attachment No. 2, Summary of Mitigation Measures, is revised as follows: Mitigation Measure CR-2 The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing activities an archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries. Full-time monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low,as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring, all monitoring shall cease. Specifically, prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth, the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s)will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. If, during the implementation of the monitoring program any historic or,prehistoric cultural resources are inadvertently discovered by the archaeological al Inspector, the find(s)must be blocked off from further construction-related disturbance by at least 50 feet, and no further project-related earthmoving shall occur in the area of the discover until the City approves the measures to protect or appropriately mitigate for the find. The Project Archaeologist must determine whether the find is a historic resource as defined under §15064.5(a)(3)of the CEQA Guidelines. If the find(s) is not found to be a historic resource. enough data must be gathered so that the find can be recorded onto DPR523 forms sets and then project-related excavations can continue in the vicinity of the find If the find(s) is determined to be a historic resource, the resource must undergo Phase 3 data recovery following_professional guidelines. Any prehistoric artifacts recovered as a result of the mitigation effort shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution 2hqp://www.ocflood.com/Docs DM.aspx Accessed September 25,2012 55 Item 23. - 323 HB -16- ATTACHMENT NO. r 2 r approved by the City where they would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. Once the Project Archaeologist determines that the potential for impacts to buried cultural resources has been reduced to "low" active archaeological monitoring may cease. Response to Comment HBEB-6 The following text from page 62 of the text is edited as follows: Along the northern,western and eastern edges of the project site, a perimeter 5 foot 6 inch high precision block wall with precision block cap is proposed subject to approval by the adjacent property owners and a 5 foot 6 inch high slump block wall with slump block cap and pilasters will be located along the southern boundary of the project site along Yorktown Avenue and along the northern boundary of the existing City park. Response to Comment RAZ-11 In response to Comment RAZ-11 the following attachments are provided as part of the errata for the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration: Attachment 1: Pre-project pervious/impervious area for the Lamb School Site Attachment 2: Post-project pervious/impervious area for the Lamb School Site Attachment 3: Revised Water Quality Management Plan for the Lamb School Site Residential Development. 56 HB -17 ATTACHMENT N rItem 23. - 324 Orange au 'Sanitation District �i . r 10844 Ellis Avenue,Fountain Valley,CA 92708 (714)982-2411 rvww.ocsewers.com ,��• fg� G Letter 1-OCSD r Page 1 of 2 ` 3 MA k =e "•4 September 5, 2012 Andrew Gonzales, Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 = _4 � I SUBJECT: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lamb Residential Subdivision y� i Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Notice of Intent (NO[) to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Lamb 4 Residential Subdivision project within the City of Huntington Beach (City). The project site.is located at 102�1Yorktown Avenue ­3 p 1 , east of Brookhurst Street: ocsn The proposed projebt;would.allow for division of the former Lamb School site for=the_development of 81 lots.for new tingle-family homes. The . project site is within the jurisdiction of'the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD). ` ?.. OGSD records show that this area has a sewer system that eventually ^` connects to an OCSD sewer Brookhurst Street. Although OCSD does not anticipate any capacity issues, we would like the numbers to be verified to confirm/ensure the numbers reported in the Draft MND are correct. Please use the following flow factors to estimate current and future flows: • 727 gpolacre for estate density residential (0-3 d.u. /acre) Q - $ Y. 1488 d/acre for low density residential 4 7d.u. /acre • 3451 dpd/acre for medium density residential (8-16 d.u./acre) °GSD 2 i • 5474 gpolacre for medium-high density residential (17-25 d.u.lacre) 7516 gpolacre for high density residential (26-35 d.u./acre) 2262 gpolacre for commercial/office . �4G �' �� • 3167.gpd/acre for industrial . a - • 2715 gpolacre for institutional • 5429 gpd/acre for high intensity industrial/commercial 9�fFy:..y= - �$ • 150 gpd/room for hotels.and motels cr�Ns rare �y��4� t`� • 50 gal./seat for restaurants 129 gpd/acre for recreation and open space usage F We protect public health and the environment by providing effective Item 23. — 325 wa_s_..._._-collection,area d f s xB -1� i Letter 1-OCSD Page 2 of 2 I Andrew Gonzales Page 2 September 5, 2012 _ I You may use more specific flow factors if you think it will more accurately OCSD-2 portray the projects estimated flows and impacts to the local sewer system. Inc_ Also, please note that any construction dewatering operations that involve discharges to the local or regional sanitary sewer system must be permitted by OCSD prior to discharges. OCSD staff will need to review/approve the -water quality of any discharges and the measures necessary to eliminate I materials like sands, silts, and other regulated compounds prior to OCSD-3 discharge to the sanitary sewer system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed development, if i you have any questions, please contact Jim Burror, Engineering Supervisor at (714) 593-7335. i Daisy Covarrubias Sr. Staff Analyst DC:sa EDMS:00396465411.6f . I i SAKfT GO � 9. I c/ys T E y�t1 Hs -a g- ATTACHMENT Item 23. - 326 _i y a -ten- —� - �=-. .su^-�....a.-.a.,�. ° £ -�'— r G-�•'-�lI--- - — e WAR JR -�. ---tee' Yaai ° 77 • NK AMA � AY �— x F T - �T _ �= J a - - s s ISM - =•i' e U!F f i.. • •• ■ fimaLIMIMHOMI '. .Y = r.�C• .r. i fora.I.1 Ir■to►I C. i. -. . . : :.: s r •' • to •. . .• •' • • ' • fi- .• • I e • Letter 2-HB Environmental Board(HBEB) Page 3 of 4 this special designation, the projects violate ordinances concerning minimum lot size requirements and setbacks, and are not possible as presently conceived. The draft MND appears to rely on setback HBEB-3 allowances and modest park improvements (in the case of the Lamb development) as the primary Cont. justification for the PUD designation. As outlined below, the board is concerned that fundamental zoning requirements are being ignored in this case without proper justification. In terms of relationship to the surrounding community, the Wardlow project may at least arguably fit the classification of a separate planned community, as it borders an existing neighborhood on only one side,and does not appear to impact the surrounding community other than to eliminate a public access right of way to what is now open space (please see satellite image above). The proposed Lamb HBEB-4 development is far more problematic. This much more dense development would squeeze between an existing community on three sides (see above image), and severely impact the nature of that existing community. The board feels that insufficient attention has been given to the potential consequences of the Lamb development upon that neighborhood. Mitigated Negative Declaration Assessment With regard to the potential effect of the project on the surrounding community, the draft MND finds that "lilt is not anticipated that the proposed project will substantially degrade the existing visual character of the project site or its surroundings because it will develop new homes with landscaping, HBEB-5 which will replace the existing former Lamb school site, which is currently boarded up and vacant" [Emphasis Added.] The allusion to landscaping seems superfluous here, as landscaping would be an essential component to any proposed development In any case, the board does not consider this enthusiastic endorsement of the proposed project to be a serious or realistic consideration of the potential environmental impacts of the project from the perspective of the surrounding community. j Members of the board have visited the Lamb project site. As clearly illustrated by the satellite imagery of the project site contained with this letter, the site is surrounded on three sides by an existing =residential-cornmu-nity-Mast-or aftf—the-homes-immediatel�r-s -otrrwding=the-pMeet appeal=t-o--Piave neighborhood enjoys a pedestrian access point from the residential streets to the open lawn. A casual observance of the site for a brief period of time informs the observer that the community makes HBEB 6 ...._...._._... ..imp of-this... .. ... . . . - r .a -.re ular......._...._._.. —will be replaced by a ten-foot retaining wall,topped by 28 foot high homes. In addition,the pedestrian _ a��s .rnt-tch-turvivirig-cnmmunity greenbeitvaill beliminated entireffarcing-esidents to Leave--_. _........._.__._....ti the neighborhood and travel out to Yorktown Avenue before re-entering the proposed parkspace.The IVIND's allegation that the community will actually be enhanced by this action because the new domes will contain "landscaping"is obviously unpersuasive on its face, asthe existing community will view only the ten foot retaining wall. The language included here therefore reads as an advocacy document, rather than an impartial study of potentially serious environmental impacts. As this is an environmental planning document, there is no discussion of the potential economic impact on the existing perimeter homes by the erection of a ten foot barrier and densely-packed, 28-foot homes looking down into their 3 ATTACHMENT NO ` Item 23. - 329 HB -IS- Letter 2-HB Environmental Board(HBEB) Page 4 of 4 respective properties. However,the board recommends these questions be seriously considered before /� ccogt6_s granting approval for the project. Again, the board recognizes that residential development is suitable for the project sites. The broader question here is whether the. project meets the stated requirements of a "Planned Unit Development," namely that"PUD's are required to provide a mutual benefit for residents of the project as well as the general public." [Emphasis Added.] There is no evidence in the draft MND that there has been serious consideration given as to whether the general public and adjacent community is better served with the proposed, very high-density project than with an alternative site plan requiring standard lot sizes- The only difference between the proposed project and an alternative which complies with existing zoning HBEB-7 requirements appears to be the maximization of revenues from the site, and such consideration should not, in itself, qualify a proposed project for PUD status. If planning staff is inclined to approve the project based upon projected revenues to all stakeholders, such would be a fair and legitimate finding based on current market conditions and the overall best interests of city residents. However, the project should not be approved based on some purported benefit to the existing neighborhood, when said neighborhood will be clearly disadvantaged by the imposition of the proposed development on the project site. In summary, the board is left speculate whether a request for zoning variance should be favored unless mitigating circumstances are persuasive enough to deny it, or whether such a request must overcome a HBEB-a presumption of denial with a specific and identifiable condition which necessitates the variance. The former scenario appears to be at play in this draft MND, and the board is concerned about the broader environmental implications for such a stance in the future. Concerns Regarding Lamb Parkspace Y, _ p eposed Lamb park"improvements' will include only picnic BEB-9 ~---- Finally, board takes notice that the e,r..,.....�..�.. p "� p one picnic HBEB-9 table and two benches. This sparse accommodation does not appear to encourage general use by the --_,.--,---�xistirfig-scrrrorrttdir�otrtrftra�ty=�-�t�i�ntr�-e� is�ioi}=is-irtelit�et�=t�e�prt�e=this=M�d , . ggests that the developer be required to pw ids additinnal fahtnc anti h,a YSP community at large. i ................._........_...._..__.. -------- -.............._...................... E e - _... :..... .r.... ..,.. __..---��,� _,- .,::..:� �.-... ., HBEB 10 or assignment regarding this important milestone in the further development of our city. Respectfully Submitted, Michael Marshall,Chairperson HB Fnvironmental Board 4 x B -j�- ATTACHMENT NCItem 23. -7330 ~ Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 1 of 17 To: Andrew Gonzales,Kim DeCoite&the Huntington Beach Planning Commission I From: The Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Fields Committee FZE-C ;E) RE: Lamb School Site—Questions on MND Date: September 2,2012 EP ! 3 201 I Background: The Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Fields Committee(LSNSFC)was formed in April of 2012 in response to the proposed development by Tri Pointe Homes on the Lamb School site. The group has been holding semi-monthly meetings and has been active in going door to door throughout the neighborhoods surrounding Lamb School in addition to an outreach to the 4 mobile home parks and retirement centers that also surround the Lamb School site. We have consulted vrith experts in city planning,land use,engineering,community organizing and other relevant sectors and based on their advice we have retained the legal counsel of The Law Offices of Hutchens & Hutchens,based in Bellflower;CA who will be representing our group. In addition,the law office of Stanley L.Friedman,former federal prosecutor with the United States Department of Justice has also offered the resources of his office to our group as well so we will be bringing a thorough review and examination to every step of this process. LSNSFC-1 The group is comprised of a core, active group of 20 people,and our ever-growing email distribution list has currently over 150 names that receive our updates and information on the project. In addition we have collected close to 500 signatures on our petitions to stop the project. These signatures have all been collected from the people living in the Lamb School neighborhood,and so far our results have shown that the neighborhood people oppose this development by about 10 to 1.We strenuously object to TriPointe's assertion that this development has been a"consensus"driven project when our neighborhoods have rejected it on a 10 to 1 basis. j The group is now concentrating on making the AYSO groups that use the field aware of this proposed development and we expect that the numbers of supporters will rise sharply with the addition of that large constituency. i The LSNSFC is a grass roots group of Huntington Beach citizens that are joining with neighborhood groups from the LeBard School area and the Wardlow School area, along with support from Huntington Beach Tomorrow and the Bolsa Chica Land Trust organizations to ask our city leaders to support the preservation of our last few pieces of open space. Questions on Lamb School NV,'D City Code and General Plan Questions: i 1. Does Measure C apply to the Lamb School site development?to Wardlow? The HB LSNSFC-2 Community Services Department sent out a notice about a hearing concerning the"Lamb ATTACHMENT tP Item 23. - 331 HB -19- Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 2 of 17 Park Master Plan'. Since this is designated as a park does Measure C apply?If not,why LS SFC-2 not? 2. Does Measure M apply to the Lamb School site development? If not,why not? LSNSFC-3 ' 3. There has been a long standing easement entry way onto the Lamb School field from Mauna St that will be closed down under the current plan.We believe this may violate ' the code listed below and would like an answer as to how this code would be upheld Subdivision Alap Act-CA Government Code 66474(g): "That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of,property within. LSNSFC-a the proposed subdivision.In this connection,the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use.,will be provided,and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public.This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision." 4. Under the SB Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance#210.12 on PUD's there must be a mutual benefit to both the new residents and the current residents.If 6000 square foot lots with single story homes are the current size of the existing homes,how does the Planning Department staff justify approval of lot sizes of 3600 square feet with two story LSNSFC-5 homes? What is the"mutual benefit"to the existing neighborhoods of having this relatively densely packed development built overlooking into their home,while losing the only open space in the entire southeast area of HB? 5. On Pages 12-14 in the Surplus School Property Plan for HB 2005 it shows the open 3 space heeded for Lamb as 14.4 acres and Wardlow as 24.6 acres.How can you approve LSNSFC-6 4 home development on open space until this need is met? 6. The RIND states: "soccer practices and games are currently held on the 2.6-acre path,and the park improvements include a field so that this may continue."Considering that this park will be replacing 3 full sized soccer fields that are used non-stop during soccer season,it is patently absurd to state that one sub-sized field will"allow this to continue". Considering how little research it would have required to find out the full use of these fields, it is surprising and disturbing to see this blatant misstatement in the MIND and it LSNSFCa raises questions on what other areas of the MND are also subject to what can only be described as sloppy, if not biased work.How was this statement justified?How do we know that this type of negligence is not in other areas of the MNTD?These fields are one of only two lighted fields in HB—how does one sub-sized field with no lights substitute for 3 fall size lighted fields?How is the city going to replace these playing fields for all these children and adults? HB -IS- NrITACHMENT N Item 23. - 332 i' Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 3 of 17 7. From the HB General Plan: RCS 2.1.1 states that the city's need for recreational space and consideration of current facilities must be considered.How does eliminating three LSNSFC-8 full size soccer fields with night lights that were bought by the city show that consideration? I 8. The HB General Plan states that new developments must build houses that that are"like in kind"to the existing neighborhood.How does the Planning Department staff justify LSNSFC-9 saying that two-story houses crammed into lots that are 45%of the existing lot sizes that are filled with single story houses represents"like in kind"? 9. The HB General Plan states that new developments must build houses that are"like in land"to the existing neighborhood. How does the Planning Dept. staffjustify saying that a development with a"Planned Unit Development"is'like in kind"to the existing neighborhood?What will the city do to avoid the social issues that will be inherent in such an arrangement?This does not build cohesive neighborhoods,but pits groups against each other. This PUD will have a geographical sense of ownership of the small LSNSFG10 park that will be built within their development and there will be parking and playground area disputes. The nature of this design makes it look and feel as if the park belongs to this homeowners association, and once you have blocked off the neighborhood access easement off of Mauna Dr. the isolation from the current neighborhood will be complete. How will the city include the current homeowners in the issues of park use and access? 10.We are attaching a reap of the current neighborhood showing the number of houses that have been remodeled to include a second story.The percentage of homes with second LSNSFC- stories is 5% of the existing homes.The proposed development will bring that total to L5N5FG 25% of the homes, as well as increasing the density from 5.4 homes per acre to 6.5 per acre.How is this possibly"like in kind'? 11. The LSNSFC has identified 27 mature growth trees on the Lamb School site. How do 3 the Planning Department plan.to deal with the requirements in the city codes regarding I LSNSFC-12 these mature trees? es Questions on 119ND Assumptions and Statements: 12.Page 37 of the MND says"in the event the project is built without park improvements". How would this scenario even be possible? Why doesn't the HIND state the developer LSNSFGI3 must complete the park improvements before a certificate of occupancy is issues? i 13. The MND uses the figure of an average of 2.56 persons that they claim would be occupying the new houses in this development.If the houses are all 4 bedroom homes, how does the Planning Dept. staff justify this very low number to use as an average in determining traffic and other demographic data?According to the RealistReport for the LSNSFe 14 homes in our neighborhood, the average occupancy for our neighborhood.in 2011 was 3.21 persons per home. You have based many assumptions on this low number that affects the traffic impacts and other important issues--how do you justify this? i i Item 23. - 333 HB -lg- R. MT �� Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 4of17 14. The N1ND states that it does not believe that this development"substantially degrades the visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings"and is"designed to be compatible with the neighborhood". These are subjective descriptors and honest people can disagree but how does the Planning Department staff justify saying that turning a LSNSFC-15' large piece of open land,the largest openn,space left in southeast HB,into a densely packed two-story development does NOT"substantially degrade the visual character or quality of the site"? 15. The MID stated that based on the project area size that a Fugitive Dust Control Plan or Large Operation Notification would not be required.After reading through the list of highly toxic chemicals that will be released throughout the entire two years of building time,how does the Planning Department staff justify allowing the surrounding homes to be coated in toxic dust and chemicals for a two year period without insisting on every i possible mediation being required?Anyone that lives on the field will tell you that there LSNSFc-1s is often a very strong ocean breeze that blows everything from the field into the adjacent homes.There are many neighbors on this field with high chemical sensitivity and this development could easily render their homes unusable to them for a two year period. What compensation would be available for those with high sensitivities?lf'they need medical attention as a result of the construction who will cover those costs?Who will clean our cars,windows, and homes of the toxic dust?How often? 16. The MND states that there are no traffic impacts to be considered,but did not mention the issues surrounding where the children that move into this development go to school and what streets they will be crossing to get there. The corner of Yorktown and. Brookhurst is a known dangerous intersection and the residents will vouch that it is the scene of many accidents.How will the city deal with the bids crossing Brookhurst to attend Oka School or any other school? There is already historical precedence of LSNSFC-17 community opposition to this as a group of parents drew up petitions when kids were relocated to other schools in the past.How will the city deal with where these children attend school and the resulting traffic and safety implications?Will this development's children cause the current resident's children to have to switch their schools?Has there been a financial analysis of the costs of these children being added to our schools?If so, how can we get a copy of that analysis? 17.We are very concerned about the 27 mature trees that are currently on the site and for any nesting birds that may be living in them. How will we be unformed about the findings of the biologist who will be hired to study the trees,when will he/she be hired,when will LSNSFC-18 their results be available and.what is the process used in selecting and hiring this person? Is this person's fee paid for by the developer, and if so,how does a citizen's group insure that this is a fair and impartial analysis? i Additional Concerns: 18. Our group's engineer came out with very different numbers on the drainage and grading estimates given out by Tri Pointe and we believe that the grading height is going to be LSNSFc-1 s much higher than their estimates.How do we get verification of Tri Pointe's work in this L - MT HB -19 Item 23. - 334 Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 5 of 17 area and who will address our engineer's questions? According to other city codes,Tri Pointe's grading estimates can egad up being up to 1 foot higher than the numbers they submit. This could mean that in some areas of the development these two story houses would start with up to 2.5 or 3 feet of grading,resulting in homes towering over the LSNSFC-1 s existing neighborhood. How does the city justify allowing these buildings to tower over cost the single story homes in such a blatant example of these homes not being'like in kind"? i 19.It is our understanding that there is a high level of peat in the ground of the site.What is going to be done with the peat, and what are the dangers involved in its removal or LSNSFC-20 inclusion in the project? 20. The proposed work schedule for the construction crews shows that they can work 8 hours F a day, 6 days a week. How many Saturdays will they be working?Most of the neighborhood works and Saturdays are our one day to rest.How will the city compensate LSNSFC-21 the neighbors for the loss of the quiet use of their homes on Saturdays for two years? i 21.We are very concerned about the issue of lights coming into our homes from the second story houses that will be looming over us. How does the city plan to mitigate the effects of this light? Tt has been shown that light can disrupt sleep patterns and cause other health LSNSFC-22 implications. How will the city make sure the lights from upstairs rooms are not shining into the surrounding homes? 22. We are very concerned about the proposed drainage and sewage work that is being proposed. Can you please describe what streets would be tom up,and for how long?How LSNSF. is the drainage problem being solved? 21 The proposed soccer field is not only not regulation size but also does not have any space for spectators and families to sit and watch the game.How are families supposed to LSNSFC-24 watch the game? i 24.Why does the parking for the open space have to be taken out of our small park lot?Why can't the development provide the parking space?This happened at Wardlow where they LSNSFC-25 reduced the number of houses to make room for the parking spaces—why can't we do that at Lamb? 25.There is shortage of parking spaces being provided and we will have overflow parking s spill onto our neighborhood streets. The street parking inside the PUD will be taken up by LSNSFC-26 the resident's cars and all other park parking will take place on our streets.When that happens,what recourse do current residents have in this issue? 26.It is our understanding that the City of Huntington Beach believes that it has enough open space and parks to be in compliance with the Quimby Act which outlines a certain amount of open space in relation to population density, and technically that may be correct.However, even a cursory look at a satellite map of Huntington Beach will show LSNSFC-27 you that southeast Huntington Beach is heavily impacted by a shortage of open space and . if you look at just our southeast section we are well below the amount of open space i i I t Item 23. - 335 xB -19 ATTACHMENT NO. Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 6 of 17 needed for our residents.How does the Planning Dept-staff justify taking away our very last piece of open ace when this art of city is already so acted? LSNSFC-27 P P P P tY y Cont. 27. The proposed park in this development is 2.6 acres.Doesn't the city have a minimum of LSNsFc-28 3 acres for a park site? 28.How much money out front does the developer have to pay to build the park before any LSNSFC-29 homes are built? j Closing Statement: The Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Fields Committee is grateful for this opportunity to share our concerns about this development with our Planning Commission and City Council. It is our contention that these public school sites were purchased with taxpayer's money and should be used for purposes that benefit the general public. They should not be sold at fire sale prices in a down economy($20M less than last time it almost sold?)to a private developer looking to cram it full of the highest possible square footage to extract the highest possible amount of profit at the expense and loss of this valuable public asset. Their profit becomes a LSNSFC-30 huge loss to the large community of children and adult soccer groups,neighborhood walkers, joggers, dog walkers, airplane and kite enthusiasts and many other constituencies that use and enjoy this open space year round. In addition to our assertion that this is a public space that should not be sold for private profit,it is apparent that there are also too many pressing questions and issues that need to be resolved just on the merits of the project so we believe that the city cannot proceed with the current schedule. The project proposal needs a complete revision to become acceptable and we ask that this development be postponed pending further study and clarification. i f ATTACHMENT � HB -1S- Item 23. - 336 tL - U m 2 T I, Y2 Vc 'u—d � y scr?us/eraa 4IY4710, 61/1y15///y/ � :x.i'.• :r.. �� {'r i�` � � Y. a � RIASIs I Q ova La I ' m r 06 Nw x - o® .O PN lz) wdY 0 is)i9r � 0? YN ffn a (� ® Ar © - ^ !Y r .B` U W la (,b� Qea lr aar „r O {�7 $.a o, U C� U 9 O •O U �J°a � a s.. p �) s �; Ol L� � 1or M�� .YY �, O O Co _VA 7HV7V{ b 3tlNO rY YMv7vN 0! V pill . 4 d L:l 8 ,aY p,Y v. � ec.� ,09 O Q t;J O ® ® O U Cam}a ar , o ® § fo R Q O © � .� w h �' n Wa 6l3 A'J• r` 93'3 F ,ou arr 1 .r .e_,- �` _..._✓ .ra Pk?z. .u.c. .Yy ,� , 8•.YTO$ � ~".esw� rf .fro.p° t!°,, �sxe 9' (�� Y'73/IfHVX� 1i1lHQ 'a �' - _ t'•r.�nwYN u o, .�A/uo `VT.�RIYVN s_ M ' ti:J LJ L"'J V k1 U to Q Ob Q �.:/ ® K.Y >r / eir 11 rr Yr1� N Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 8 of 17 ! I Huntington Beach - Government - City Charter: Section 612. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND PARKS AND BEACHES. (a) No public utility or park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City shall be sold, leased, exchanged or i otherwise transferred or disposed of unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council and by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is count. 31 submitted. (b) No golf course, driving range, road, building over three thousand square feet in floor area nor structure costing more than $100,000.00 may be built on or in any park or beach or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total membership of the City Council and by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of the electors voting on such proposition at a general or special election at which such proposition is submitted. i xB -191- ATTACHMENT NO. 23. - 338 Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 9 of 17 'i t i I From Huntington Beach General Plan, Land Use Section: LU 13.1.6: Encourage surplus schools and other public properties to be made available FIRST for other public purposes such as parks, open space, - adult or child care and secondarily for reuse for private purposes and/or other land uses and development. LSNSFC-31 cunt. City must "work with residents of surrounding neighborhoods in the formation of the reuse plan. Utilize appropriate design features such as the maintenance of active, usable open space for the use by the surrounding neighborhood. Allow for provision of buffering such as open space areas of landscaping between new and existing developments". Item 23. - 339 xB -192- ATTACHMENT NO. 51 ` ` V Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 10 o€17 Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances 210.12 Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions This section establishes supplemental development standards and provisions that shall apply to all planned unit developments. (3334-6/97) A Planned Unit Development shall provide a mutual benefit for the residents of the project as well as the general public. Examples of public benefits that may be provided in a Planned Unit Development include,but are not limited to:the creation of permanent open space,usable and appropriately located recreation facilities, the conservation of natural elements, land features and energy, and other public improvements. (3888-8l10) A. Maps. A tentative and final or parcel map shall be approved pursuant to Title 25, Subdivisions. (3334-6197) I-SNSFC-31 B. Project Desist.. cost. 1. Driveway parking for a minimum of fifty percent of the units shall be provided when units are attached side by side. (3334-6/97) 2. A maxin= of six units may be attached side by side and an offset on the front of the building a minimum of four(4)feet for every two units shall be provided. (3334-6/97) 3. A minimum of one-third of the roof area within a multi-story, multi-unit building shall be one story less in height than the remaining portion of the structure's roof area. (3334-6197) 4. The number of required parking spaces for each dwelling unit shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 231.In addition, one or more of the following alternative parking configurations may be permitted in a Planned Unit Development if it is determined that such configuration and location thereof will be accessible and useful in connection with the proposed dwelling units of the development. (3885-8110) a. Reqiired enclosed spaces may be provided in a tandem configuration provided that the minimum parking space dimensions comply with Section 231.14. (3888- 8/10) b.Required open spaces may be provided with a combination of off-street and on- street spaces as long as the total number of required parking spaces is provided with the development site. HB -193- ATTACHMENT Item 23. - 340 Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 11 of 17 As detailed in the Traffic h npact Analysis for the proposed project,obsereation>.s at the parking lets indicated that the north.and southeast lots raml V had any parked vehicles in the lots(sometimes one or two cars)and the southwest lot typically had fewer€hail 10 vehicles parked in the lot.Therefore.proposed elimination of the nvo school lots and the reduction of the lot near the park to approximately 31 spaces with the proposed park- plan would not result in an adverse parking impact because t11e typical parking dcnnands generated by the park, even with the proposed improvements,could be acconnmodated in the lot that would be provided.The parking demarnds that would be generated by the residential development would be accommodated writbin the project boundaries in the private garages and driveways and along the internal street&,as the project provides 118 on street parking spaces. Tri Pointe Homes is otlering to construct the City's future planned improvements to the 2.6-acre park.The scope of tine improvements to the park that Tri Pointe Homes will construct include the design elements del3icted on a conceptual drawring given to Tri Pointe Hornes by the City staff from the Community Services Department on June 2,201.1.The facilities designated on the City's park plan include a"Muld-Use Practice Field"measuring 150 feet across by 240 feet long,field lighting,one 4-foot square picnic table.shade structure;bike Lack,m o 60--fc*.t square'Tot Play Areas",two benches,at least 31 otnsite parking spaces, irrigation and lmm&caping,and sitleu•ailcs in and around the areas of the parking lest and tot play areas.A Y SO Page 36 .T:*,Pd.t Hv Lm!b&a.i.'air„ 5�'uticnn k G:tG<iva7o�1V�Lou L3:1;E.it'l.scd.:-•att nlr.i C:•[L>S'L1v'.JG!.C?!J:1-d9:�6G?,Y:iG L:wb LS•dLtiV�•i-i�3v 133� ISSUES(and sapporang iWformation sources): Potentially LSNSFC-31 Impact Cont. Potentially Sigtufrcaat . Unless Mitigation hicorporsted. Less Iliaan Significant E Impact No[7gpirct soccer practic_es and games are currently held on the 2.6-acre park, and the park improvements luclude a ffeld sty that this May cOntinUe.Although the project is proposed as a Planned Unit Development with private streets,gover;,ed by CC€zRs and a homeowners association board of directors,language will he placed in the `C&R.s specifically aliowi.-rg and guarantereing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private sweets wit do the project.Therefore,the 118 spaces would be available to park users. In the event that the project is developed without the park irnprovements,approximately 30 to 38 parldng spaces will continue to rmnam on the existing park site.' ue final;number is dependent on the installation of a driveway onto Yorkto,,vn A venue,w1dcb would be required to access these spaces.The 118 spaces would also be available zn this see-nar io- Less,tharn significant impacts related to parking capacity are expected as ttse proposed park and interval streets-,NiTi be able to accommodate the padding demand genierated by the proposed project. g)Conflict with.adopted policie&plans,or prob&nuts regarding public transit,bicycle;or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decease the performance or safety of such facilities: (So uites. 1,29.30,) I i "MEN ' Item 23. - 341 HB -194- Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 12 of 17 URL: I�tt /Inww. p 1o!r_a. rf/chi_ 13rCa_aS;4t?Ly?YO es ^.i1Gn-ed�C:&cOtja�'.dy=&h4ts-2v See: "Article 5. Surplus School Playground, Playing Field, and Recreational Property" 1-7485-17500 IJRL: bit =170017 18000&ftle= 7485-17500 If you are able to open the attached file, you will find the introductory paragraph to this code (which I highlighted and underscored thus. "17485. ( sl � siectltcf [ �.... 4/xl '^4 ; uyy-,}.�,j '. ��+. _ wsr OWN . �r'i �i.�iuL `�ef - -.^i� is th,e inter.' Cl. t2'a. Leg_i.sialure -Ci e.nc-cti C - this a Licie to a_'.lvyq si;hool distrilcts to recover z}l?1.y nyest.ment in surplus pz'opextay ie_rll? intalin- it possible -:Ji other agencies of go`•✓ernmeSil i.o acQuir"e the property acid E^ s it a a=lable for play ur 'rr.Q field or Curer outdoor" _ recr_eaticnai-and o;Q-gin-s pa. = purposes. ont cC 31 Also: Under Section 17491, Itsa s ost UNIMMIN And under Section 17486, R says: (a) Either the whole or a portion of the schoolsite consists of land which is used for school playground, playing field, or other outdoor recreational purposes and open-space land particularly suited for recreational purposes. (b) The land described in subdivision (a) has been used for one F or more of the purposes specified therein for at least eight years immediately preceding the date of the governing board's determination to sell or lease the schoolsite. I I f I AT TA CH M E N T kit) �._, `i_ :_it xB -195- Item 23. - 342 Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 13 of 17 SurAfus Soirool Prouerty Eurchasfnjs Plan a Figure 2: City Parks Located Within HBCSD Boundaries j 4 � • 1 City Park Size(Ac.1 T)ne. Sorts Fields : i Baca 10.0 Neighborhood NO Bailey 0.5 1vI NO Bartlett* 30.0 Conununity NO* i Burke 2.5 Neighborhood NO i Discovery Well 8.0 Neighborhood NO Eader 2-7 Neighborhood NO Edison 40-0 Community YES Farquhar 3.0 Neighborhood NO i Finley 0.5 Mini NO LSNSFC-31 Gisler 11-7 Neighborhood NO cent j I Green 4.0 Neighborhood NO Hawes 2.7 Neighborhood NO Helene 2.0 Neighborhood NO Lake 4.4 Neighborhood NO i Le Bard 5.4 Neighborhood NO McCallen 5.2 Neighborhood NO I Manning 2.5 Neighborhood NO i moffet 2.4 Neighborhood NO Pattinson 3.5 Neighborhood NO 0 P=Y 2.0 Neighborhood NO Seeley 3.4 Neighborhood NO Sowers 2.4 Neighborhood NO 1d+3.14 i Worthy 12.0 Cozyunity YES * Bartlett Park cmently has Newland Barn and historical Newland House with grass i between buildings and small parking lot developed--remainder of parr is not developed due to site constraints. Page 10 Item 2 - _ T MET O. j 3. 343 HB -196 AT t Letter 3-LSNSFG Page 14 of 17 Notes on Lamb Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact fees 17.76.010-Legislative findings. A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government i Code Sections 66001 through 66009 has authorized the City to Enact development impact fees. B. The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new development bears a proportionate share LSNSFC-31 cunt. Of the cost of capital facilities and other cost necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare. C.A well-planned park system, with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered is an important amenity to residents of the City. The City considers a mixture of passive and active park space uses optimal. Future residential development that does not require subdivision, will impact the City's existing park system by creating additional park users thus necessitating additional space for athletic fields, community facilities "tot lots," and other active uses and passive uses as well as passive space for businesses to enjoy. j D. Pursuant to the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for The City of Huntington Beach (Nexus Report) dated Oct 2011, as amended April 27 2012, which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full., the fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon and. do not exceed the costs of parkland acquisition, park development and community facilities attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development. HB -197 ATTACHMENT (Item 23. - 344 Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 15 of 17 i LSNSFC-31 cunt. 17.65.050 Establishment of a Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee ' A Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee is hereby established. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Chapter seeks to develop land, or modify the use of land within the City, by applying for a building permit or other entitlement for use, or an extension of a building permit or other entitlement for use previously granted, for a development project that will Generate net additional vehicle trips on City streets, is hereby required to pay a Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee in the manner and amount specified in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately adopted. f i i j 1 r i Item 23. - 345 HB -198 ATTACHMENT NO. c2 Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 16 of 17 From the Community Sports Facilities inventory and !Needs Assessment, 1999: Your sports are proven to be a major sontrib onto the development of a child's person soft eeern, goal seftq , motivallon, i err personal ski`iig, and appreciation for various etlirdo gmups and aoa- dem1c perforrna e, Youth sportsare driven by volunbwm- The au- LSNSFC-31 i erage youth sport group new one voluntear for each participant, cont. With over 15,000 participants In yob sports in Huntington Bewh, Mere are over 5,000 pares volunteerkV to make it happen for the parfielpants in youth sports. The relationship between the city,sal dfstdict and the youth groups is of m1orbanefft to the community as Bole. The following policy recommendations for adding "ft fields and youth sports faoilffies were developed wed on coraMemflon of the c#tyrs change In pracfica from r ung nd gbborhood parks to the schooL(park quarter seofion concept to corrwtiating on cwtraraed faoifiti ; curraTil estimated population plus the projected 9.8 perms population incmase by the year ;ofty and wool diWors fmarr- olal situatk�nsx and the lack of avaflabk i parldand to meet the increased need for active sports fields. ATTACHMEN- "- HB -199- Item 23. - 346 Letter 3-LSNSFC Page 17 of 17 From: Surplus School Property Purchase Plan 2005 i �. , t 1AW u LSNSFC-31 cunt. , Act.NEW Oil) rz • - u-- i Item 23. - 347 HB -1 8o MT NO, Letter 4-BIXBY Page 1 of 4 September 12,2012 City of Huntington Beach � � Planning& Building Department ATTN:Andrew Gonzales 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Re:TO Point Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 2008-013 Dear Mr.Gonzales, I am writing to express the following concerns with the Lamb Residential Subdivision Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) No.2008-013_ Project Description It is unclear from the project description whether the proposed park improvements are part of the Conditional Use Permit for the Planned Unit Development or will be processed as a separate entitlement. Staff gave verbal clarification during the September 11,2012 planning commission study session,but I would prefer to see that clarification in writing. In particular, please explain: • What park improvements if any can proceed to construction solely on the basis of BIXBY-1 community services commission conceptual approval with no subsequent planning commission and/or city council entitlement? a What park improvements if any require planning commission and/or city council entitlement in addition to community services commission conceptual approval? Land Use and Planning This section of the MND analyzes in part whether the project would "Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project BIXBY-2 (including, but not limited to the general plan,specific plan,local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?". HB -101- ATT °C, NTItem 23. - 348 Letter 4-BIXBY Page 2 of 4 City charter section 612(also known as Measure C) requires a vote of the people prior to entitling certain large-scale park improvements so that the public can approve or deny the project after evaluating the environmental impacts and other factors. BIXBY-2 cont, This project proposes major park improvements that may exceed the Measure C trigger thresholds. Please include analysis on whether or not Measure C applies. Geology and Soils This project will likely require remedial over-excavation during the grading process which in turn may require dewatering. Yet none of the referenced geotechnical reports assess the risk BIXBY-3 of subsidence to adjacent properties which may result due to groundwater disturbance during 3 the remediation process. Please include such analysis. I i Hydrology and. Minter Quality Stox�nA Water Detention Hasin Per staff verbal response during the September 11, 2012 planning commission study session, BEXBY-4 this project will require a large storm water detention basin to be constructed in the adjacent park to detain the difference between existing and post-construction project flows. This basin will be used exclusively for detention of PUD flows, and a license agreement will be negotiated between the city and the HOA regarding operation of the basin. Please describe the division of responsibility between the city and the HOA regarding operation and maintenance of the basin, rDuewattiring If dewatering is required during grading,where will these flows be discharged, and what steps BIXBY-5 I will be taken to prevent water quality impacts? Item 23. - 349 HB -i 02- �rTAC H,M ENIT N 0. c'� -2 Letter 4-BIXBY Page 3 of 4 FIGodi€ g Risks The MND includes analysis on whether the project will expose people or structures to flooding 13IxBY-6 risks from the failure of a levee or dam, but the only scenario considered is the failure of Prado Dam. Please include an analysis of the risks from failure of the Santa Ana River levee approximately 1500ft east of the project site. Cultural Resources The MND notes that the project area has moderate-to-high paleontological sensitivity at varying depths below the ground surface. As a result,mitigation measures MM PR-1 through MM PR-4 are proposed to provide thorough salvage, preservation, curation and documentation requirements. This is to be commended. BIXBY-7 However,the MND notes that"the potential for subsurface excavation to impact significant [cultural]deposits is high". Yet mitigation measure MM CR-z merely requires vague "monitoring"with no obligation to document or preserve discovered deposits aside from the implicit requirements of state law pertaining to human remains and grave goods. Please consider strengthening cultural resource mitigation measures to be more similar to the paleontological mitigation measures. i Recreation lmipacU from Stogy Water Dete tiv x Basi€, i i Please provide discussion of potential park recreational impacts from the storm water BIXBY-8 detention basin to be constructed on nearly half of the park site. How will the basin limit the types of dry weather recreational usage in the park? in years of average rainfall,how often will the basin area be unsuitable for recreational use due to it being filled with storm flows? A. UisplacerneWL BIXBY-9 The MND asserts that there will only be temporary displacement of AYSO soccer practices and games while the park improvements are constructed. However,according to neighbor and xB -103- Item 23. - 350. Letter 4-BIXBY Page 4 of 4 AYSO public comments at the September 11,2012 planning commission study session,the loss of existing fields on the school site plus the reduction to non-regulation size of the playing field BIXBY-9 on the park site will result in permanent displacement of AYSO activity to other area facilities ant. which may or may not have capacity to absorb this. The potential impacts that may be caused i by this displacement are not analyzed in the MND. Sincerely, Planning Commission Vice-Chair Mark D. Bixby 17451 Hillgate Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92649-4707 phone:714-625-0876 email:mark@bixby.org i I ATTACHMENT Item 23. - 351 HB -194- °�` Letter 5-Bricknell Mahr(BM) Phyllis Bricknell RECEIVED Page 1 of 3 Rosalyn Mahr Theodore Mahr SEP 12 201Z 19281 Fiji Lane Dept d Pla►zrung Huntington Beach,CA 9264f: nq September 12,2012 i Mr.Andrew Gonzales Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach,GA Dear Sir: RE:Draft Mitigated Negative DecIaration No.2008-13 Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision We beg to present a few of our objections to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration- BM-1 We have only dwelt with a few of the issues that arise from the basic assumptions represented in the declaration. Pg. 6,1 LAND USE AND PLANNING A. We obj ect to the proposed re-zoning of the Lamb School site. The land for the Lamb School was paid.for by those who originally bought the homes BM-2 built in the tracts surrounding the school property. The developer was required to set aside the land for a school as part of the subdivision,and the cost of that school land was paid by the buyers of the homes in the subdivision. Secondly, the taxpayers have paid for every facility built, every maintenance cost and every operating expense for school since it was established, and since it was closed and used first as a school district administrative center. BM-3 Thus we argue that the homeowners and tax payers have provided this property to the school district on trust for educational purposes, and when it is no longer needed for educational purposes,it should returned to the public as open space. This is in keeping BM- with the current General Plan as zoning Public-SemiRablic as sited in the declaration itself.. 1 HB -105- ATTACHMI Item 23. - 352j Letter 5-BriclmeU Mahr(BM) Page 2 of 3 We urge the planning commission to permanently re-zone the Lamb School site as Public I BM-5 Open Space. B. We object to the proposed rezoning of the Lamb School site to Residential.Low Density. Not only is the proposed 81 homes too many to build on this site,the lots are so small BM-6 that building a 4 bedroom home has to be designed as a two story house. This is NOT low density by any reasonable measure. Pg 8,11 POPULATION AND HQUSRq A. We object to the assumed increase in population as a result of this proposed project. The plan is to build 81 two story, 4 bedroom homes. The proposed homes do not target BM-7 either singles or seniors,they clearly target families,growing families. A much more realistic estimate of population impact has to be 4 to 8 people per house, or about 81 X 5 =405 new residents. This number of new residents would require rewriting the sections on Public Services. (Section Xl). Of these residents two thirds will either be young children needing elementary school or older children needing high school,half of whom will be drivers, or young adults who are sM-8 drivers. This more realistic estimate of new residents directly contradicts the statement made later regarding • The availability of needed school places • The statements made regarding number of automobiles per household BM-9 ■ The statements regarding street parking availability for users of the city park • The effect on traffic patterns (Section V1). This more realistic estimate of the new residents raises the issue that the new homeowners will need open space for their families and,therefore, also call into question the assumptions and the effectiveness of statements made about the guarantees in the BM-10 language of the Home Owner's Association that the City Park would remain open to the current users and that parking on the streets would be available to the current users of the fields at the Lamb School site. B. We object to Tri Point being allowed to shift and/or bury their responsibility for providing affordable housing to some unnamed site away from this project. They must BM-1 1 spell out their plan for providing affordable hosing before this report can be acceptable. 2 Item 23. - 353 HB -186- P ` ACN H NA E N T Non S -.-23 2- Letter 5-Bricknell Mahr(BM) Page 3 of 3 We request that the Draft Modified Negative Declaration be revised to present a more I 13M-12 realistic picture of the impact of this proposed project. i 1 We request the Planning Commission to permanently zone the Lamb School site as open Public land,which would be in keeping with natural justice and with the use of the land BM-13 that has,in fact,been available to the residents and youth of our area for the past 20 years. i Sincerely, F ffff CC: Hon-Chairperson Barbara Delgleize Planning Commission CC:Hon. Mayor Don Hansen 3 HB -107 Item 23. - 354! Sep 12 12 09:46a Causer 714-962-4G" p.l Letter 6-CD Causer(CDC) Page f of 1 September 12,2012 Andrew Gonzales,Associate Planner '�6c Vp0 City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building DepL 2WO Main Street SEP 21©1? Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dept, of RE_Lamb Residential Subdivision Mr. Gonzales: This is in response to being informed that the city would like to change the zoning of the Lamb School site to accommodate a new housing development-Diving in the area I befieve I should have been contacted in somne way by the city, v however,I as NOT informed by the city.Instead CDC-1 it was brought to my attention by a neighbor. We l don't believe the site should sit;,aeant,I am not in favor of the complete proposal as it � CDC-2 ' stands.-Fast,a soccer field should remain for the children of our community,free of metered parldng.If the housing development has adequate parking it shouldn't be an issue. Parking CDC-3 brings up an issue that has been a problem in this city with nett'developments.There shcnAd be f CDC-4 ample street parking on both sides of every street.Red zones should be reserved for fire hydrants [ only! Lastly,the size of tots and size of house ratio should have no exceptions than the rest of the 4 rroun&ng neighborhoods. In this area there are 60 by 100 lots,the new development coc-s should also. In summary.-more park area,free parking at the park,ample parking for the homes,larger lots CDC-6 adds up to LESS HOUSES! Best regards, Caarlyn and Darien Causer 10202 Kaimu Drive Huntington Beach,CA 92646 1 a i Item 23. - 355 HB -109 ATTACHMENT O.> . Letter 7-S Causer(SC1) Page 1 of 2 Sharon Causer ' 18011 Newland St Huntington Beach, Ca 92646 September 7, 2012 Lamb Residential Subdivision; With unemployment up, the housing market down,with aU-the foreclosures going on and a flood of homes going on the market, who is going to buy these homes?As I walked bath tracts of homes on each side of Yorktown I saw many vacant homes.A few were empty with `For Rent` signs,the rest of the houses were probably in foreclosure. And I am not speaking of just one or two. The current plans to build homes on smaller lots will create problems with the over crowding of people,homes,public schools and parking. In 1962 when the first South Shore tract was built,we were the first residents to move into one of the new homes.As other families moved into the neighborhood with older children they went to school in empty four bedroom Sc1-2 houses in the `South Shore'tract until `Lamb School'was built. The schools to accommodate the area are at capacity. This is open land for i using what its original purpose was. A school. Don't consume the land by building housing. Put it to some other use like Senior Facilities, Coastline Classes, or use it for a youth recreational facility;but leave it open for the rebuilding of a new school. You use this land for buildings now and what unfortunate family/families are going to loose their homes under eminent domain,to be torn down to make room for a new school_ The latter costing us Sc1-3 taxpayers a lot more money in the end. Their Target Our Wallet! The school district may want to keep the laud. The cry( `For Our Kids' and the bond issues) are not going over to well with the voters lately. The money from the sale, will have been spent, and it probably won't be spent on the children in the classroom anyway but for the retirement of some outrageously overpaid administrators. The proposal to build 81 homes on this.land covering this small elementary school property is way too many units in the Land Space . Not much better Sc1-4 than apartments, townhouses or condos. And changing the zoning to crowd in more houses and people will increase the density in the area. Low density HB -109- H M Item 23. - 356' Letter 7-S Causer(SC1) Page 2 of 2 is a lie! If it -was low density like the rest of the surrounding neighborhood sc1 � there would be no need to have a zoning change. So that means it is NOT Cont. low density, it is a rnedimn or high density. Parking from this housing structure would overflow onto Yorktown and into the surrouwding neighborhoods. Building 81,4 bedroom homes ,on the `Lamb sc1-s School'property would be crammed tightly together with an over capacity of residents. Families would probably be large. Children and young adults probably still living with parents. Two car garage and two car driveways don't mean much When the garage is congested with surfboards,bicycles and things people just can't part with. Is your garage able to park two cars? Or someone oft e. SC1-6 family living in the garage-And I know of many garages converted to living quarters,Dousing people not cars,illegal or not. Even though it is against the law in Huntington Beach. And the average family has three or four cars. Would streets of these units be wide enough to park cars at the curb on BOTH sides and still get emergency vehicles through or will this end up like the Continental Town Homes at Brookhurst and Adams. The plans approved sC1-7 by the city and after being built the rules and regulations changed. A sample of what is being proposed to build on Lamb School Land already exist on what was once the Fountain Valley District Offices at Newland and Talbert, the street entrance lighthouse Lane. There is very little on the street sc1-8 parking; most of the complex is red curbed. As to the parking at the tiny park they are planning. The parking spaces will be utilized and filled up with cars from the residence of these units, metered SC1-9 or not. Sharon Causer Item 23. - 357 HB -1$0- ATTACH MET NO, Leiter 8-Sharon Causer(SC2) Page 1 of 2 Sharron Causer t 7 P I .r 1 ,t 18011 Newland Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92546 September 12, 2012 F I attended the meeting of the HB Planning Commission Study Session on Sept 11 2012; I did not like the comments of the builder, abut the people who signed the petition against the Lamb development trying to save the soccer playing SC2-1 fields. Some of those that signed the petition may have been just people from the South Shore and Glenn hoar homes that just don't want the development of 91 homes going through and their signature-ray have just been an easy way out of having to write a letter. Only 3 letters you said and 500 signatures. I air not against developing the land. Just blend it in with what is already existing homes with same size lots. It is the amount of 81 homes; you are Sc2-2 overbuilding on the land. My house is on Olana Lane and I have two children that have purchased sc2-s homes in the South Shore tract in that area. I arm afraid that in years to come this Lamb project is going to be an up and coming Slater Slum. Where I am located now I have heard gunshots in the aright in the direction of Slater Slums. 1l4y mail lady used to deliver at Slater Slums, and because the mailboxes were in the rear of the complex, she had to sC2-4 walk through therm to get to the boxes. She mentioned to ire that she used to see spray painted, on the ground, figures of outlined bodies. I met a man from the glen Mar tract on the south side of Yorktown yesterday evening. He is the Cal Mrans employee whose input of info-.nation was dismissed about the moving of dirt with trucks. There is going to be a big problem with that many people driving through the Glen Mar tract from SC2-5 Adams Avenue to Yorktown where the exits now line up with the Lamb School. He would not have known anything about this project if it had not been for my youngest daughter and I walking both tracts of homes, on each side of SC2-6 Yorktown,with a copy of the public notice I received in the mail. Only reason HB -1$1- ATTACHMEN Item 23. - 358 Letter 8-Sharon Causer(SC2) Page 2 of 2 we did not deliver more is because we ran out of the 627 copies we had made. So you did not do a very good job of notifying the surrounding SC2-6 oant_ neigliborhood. If and when the 81 units are occupied there are going to be those that can not afford the home and will be renting out rooms and garages and that will double,triple, or quadruple the occupancy. PARKING WHERE? sc2-7 i I Another thought What are they going to do about the sharp turn at Ward and Yorktown. It is going to put an extra burden.of traffic at that spot_ sc2 s I am tired of the city planners and council steam rolling over the public and discarding their concerns, like yesterdays dead skin, and doing what they want for greed of the old tax dollar. All they look at is the 5% city tax they sc2-9 will get on tine utilities and property taxes. Oh well, this is not in them neighborhood so who cares. Oh, a-ad another thing. On the notice you sent it states the public hearing is October 9 2012; I visited another department there on the 2d floor and the papers there said September 25, 2012. This is the way you have no one show SC2-10 up at the public hearing. It is over and done with before anyone knows the difference. Sharon Causer ; Item 23. - 359 HB -1$2- Letter 9-James Elliott(JE) Page 1 of 22 Gonzales, Andrew From: Jim Elliott Uim92546e1liott@gmail.corn] Sent: Wednesday, September 12,2012 11:54 AAA To: Gonzales,Andrew Subject: Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 200MI3, Lamb Residential Attachments: lamb subdivision.pdf JE-1 Mr. Gonzales, I have reviewed the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration No.2008-013 for the Tri Pointe homes Lamb Residentail Subdivision.My comments are included in the attached document_ Please confirm that you received this email and its attachment. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. Jim Elliott i i i i i 1 Hs -1$3- Item 23. - 360 Letter 9-James Elliott(JE) Page 2 of 22 James Elliott, PE 19412 Mauna lane Huntington Beach,CA 926" RECEIVE© September 12,2012 SEP 12 2012 Dept.of Planning Mr.Andrew Gonzales &Building City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re; Draft Mitigation Negative Declaration No.2008-013 Tri-Point Lamb Residential Subdivision Dear Mr.Gonzales, I am one of the property owners that is directly adjacent to the unimproved City owned park that is adjacent to the proposed Lamb Residential Subdivision.As a registered civil engineer with over 26 years of experience in the State of California, I have reviewed the JE-2 City of Huntington Beach's Drat Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 200"13 (1111ND) and have found several items that require clarification or correction in this important environmental document. :L Itern #6, Zoning -- Project Description - It states that the project is adjacent to an existing unimproved 2.6 acre park and that the project proposes improvements to the City's park. The existing field lighting is are "dernand"and is shut off at 8:00 pm when JE-3 the west field is in use. Will this continue to be the case or will the field lighting be on constantly? Also, It does not state if the parks pariCing lot veil# also have lighting installed and whether or not it would be on constantly. 2. Item#6,Zoning—Tentative Tract Map Nm 17238 s It states that all streets are to be private and that the CC&Rs are to allow and guarantee the ability of the public to park on and use the private streets, but JE-4 nowhere in the Code Requirements in Attachment 1 does it state that it should be addressed. a It states that all street, landscaping, storm drain and sewer facilities will be privately maintained by the HOA. Please clarify if the ownership of these facilities and infrastructure will also be privately owned. On Attachment 1.9, JE-5 item 1.b.it states that the sewer system shall be a public system. Item 23. - 361 HB -1$4- AT�� h� T `�Oa �Z �� Letter 9-James Elliott(JE) Page 3 of 22 Mr.Andrew Gar►nies Page 2 of September 12,2012 3. Item#6,Zoning—{kmdltional Use Parmit No.20(f OZ6,"fencing"-Please clarify under the project description if it Is the intent of Tri-Point homes to install wood fencing in lieu JE-6 of block walls adjacent to the existing homeowners. 4. Environmental Factors,Section ill—Geology&Solis-It states that over-excavation will occur, deeper excavation, and significant air-drying will and may be utilized. any concern is the location of the air-drying and creation of dust. Will the chain link fence JE-7 along the perimeter of the site,including adjacent to the park be covered to reduce dust impacts? 5. Environmental Factors,Section IV—Hydrology and Water Quality—The NPI3ES Permit No. CAS 618030 refers to the WQMP and for construction purposes, the Construction General Permit Order No. 2003-00G9-DW0,!NPDES No.CAS000002 applies for SWPPPs. JE-s 6. Environmental Factors, Section IV — Hydrology and Water Quality— Item PVf.d) - It states that the project will detain the difference in runoff between the existing 25 year and proposed 100 year flows. Pictures included herein show that Yorktown,Brookhurst, Mauna and Kamuela currently experience localized flooding during heavy rain events. Also, in 1998, the mobile home park located along the west eide of Brookhurst Street JE-9 experienced severe flooding. Even though the developer will be Installing a 33-inch storm drain pipe along Yorktown and Brookhurst to the point of connection at Kamuela to service the subdivision, I am concerned that mentioned localized flooding will continue to occur due to the undersized downstream storm drain system. 7. Envilronrnental Factors Section IV-Hydrology and Water Quality—item IV.p) -It states that landscaping vAll be planted on the front,side, and backyards of the homes—it is JE-10 not typical of a developer to install landscaping to all the homes in the tract. Please clarify if this is the case. 8. Environmental Factors,Section V—Air Duality table 3— It states that the grading for the park was added to Construction 2014,in the Code Requirements for Public Works,it states that the park has to be completed prior to first occupancy. Is it the invent of the JE-11 developer to have first occupancy in 2014? Also the storm drain is,to be completed prior to the first occupancy. It seems as though the park and storm strain construction should have been analyzed in 2013 and not 2014,or at least be included for both years. 9. Environmental Factors Section V — .Air Quality item V.b)4) - The emissions from grading/earthwork was only analyzed for the tract and not the 2.6 acre park site. For JE-12 consistency of the Mitigated Negative Declaration,the 2.6 acre park should be included within the analyses for Air Quality and any other applicable sections. 10. Environmental Factors Section VI — Transporkatior/Traffic item V1.1) - it states that manual traffic counts were taken in February and July 2009 when schools were in session. The school year for Fountain Valley School District and the Huntington Beach Unified High School District ender) in raid June 2009. The same paragraph also states JE-13 that similar traffic counts were takers in 2012 but no month(s) were stated. Please provide further information and clarify this statement accordingly. HB -i$5- ATTACHWO Item 23.E-362 Letter 9-James Elliott(JE) Page 4 of 22 Mr.Andrew Gonzales Page 3 of 4 September 12,2012 11. Environmental Factors Section XI — Public Services Item Xi.c) - Was the closure of Moiola School accounted for in the analyses as well as the impacts to Gisler and Oka JE-14 Elementary and Talbert and Masuda Middle Schools? 12- Environmental Factors Section X111 —Aesthetics—item Xlll.d) -The city park adjacent to the project site has field lighting on demand that is turned off at 8.00 pm. Will this JE-15 continue to be the case? 13. The following comments pertain to the Pubec Works Project Implementation Code Requlrements,dated November 6,2011 from Bob Milani to Andrew Gonzales. • 1.b.—Clarify if sewer system is public or private? a 1.e. If sewer system is private then it does not need an easement in the JE-16 tract map. i a V.—Why is a public utility easement required when the parkway is IV? a 4.—Will a 7 day sewer flow monitoring be required for the sewer study? 11.—Phasing of the project should include; o Location of construction parking 0 Location of model homes and access to model homes—will it be the JE-17 same as construction traffic? o Phasing should also include park Improvements a 20.—The photometric study should also include the impacts of the park and parking lot Iighting to all existing adjacent residences. JE-18 14.The following comments pertain to the public Works Project Implementation Code Requirements,dated July 23,2012 from Andrew Gonzales: 1,b.—CC&Rs should also address the use of the private streets for the public park. • 2.—Priorto demolition permits—the developer shall address rodents on site. JE-19 a 3.—Prior to issuance of any grading permits—wind screens shall be installed along the perimeter of the site including the residences adjacent to the 2.6 arse park. • 3.-Prior to issuance of any grading permits—contact information for the site superintendent and developer shall be.given to residents. 15.The Ulo►nting comments pertain to the Traffic Impact Analysis, dated May 2012 from Garland Associates: • The math calculations within the analysis were not calculated correctly. Also there are inconsistencies with the cumulathm traffic generated for the JE-20 Wardlow project. i • Page 12, last paragraph - It is clearly apparent no one from the traffic F consultant visited the site on a soccer weekend. Otherwise, this paragraph JE-21 and its conclusions would have been written diflierently. i Item 23. - 363 HB -1$6- Letter 9-James Elliott(JE) Page 5 of 22 Mr:Andrew Gonzales page A-#f 4 September 12,.2fl12 Appendlx 8 _ Manna'-Lana`l traffic is nOt.accounted for'h the Fig0r.-es.:46- I HgUres k-11,turtling traffic counts are show' n fat the proliets main streets l+ JE-22 Thank you again fdrtheopportunityto ccammen!.on this Mild. Barnes Melt,.RE atta6ment i i i i HB -1%7 Item 23. - 364 h r ( F S Ml WE N. q. Y OE f t I -- I �'j01i 3 _ I , tt : 14 §��ir i s l 12 57 E5 d l/l I @@ r 3 t AA pp pp Ag pp t I 4 I.; III' �sr��F>i i t "1^^1""S� i>✓a f � +na�:.. YIYs IL _'�t+{ ......... s>},' •hl'+ c�,"i�' � 'w y� �t1Yi oa • t '�"�`iC��{Yt L,l k 1 I n I 40, DIY rt: i5k k;fil��. v r� a j II y - 1 f r _ �yi I t" Yfk Jr� l ti I IYt I.t 45 � i d�11,s5 J 11 Fdr t t 4,1e tr 4: 3 ✓ z x t . ti t r I i r �"`t '�i"'" �lsil " L RAN: tl, 49f{W� 4 5F , �E • 9 " U t " F y n J^ C F, � t y IVJ i a wJt�tkr ✓ + { '!'-�s F �{ p:h �' grw.RM'tYiaLm st'.aO rM�h'+Sb•�}a5Jv1��+'t0... ' :� .. s Y AV,a I s � ht� + .cn s�+ -ara W •rws-e. J.q�vF ibt+SFas t�.ka. f x w{esv�+ta a a5 r+t�Y�+k �' •.�_i : ,t _• � �6a t _.. ,J ��t(a ri � �ffi�4� 5 ryr .c s t� - Jrs7i V r }1 Grl k i en ��` �. •. -�: _ F rtl. �r !r��tr-, rr� ��tY^Ce`� + a� ! It : I + i i • �2r J ss t L <1 ,Y e [ � � M 1-_ N � •rr tm� tG F� �>+�`rty r "}� S I+ ' it.y.v....; � I �n�� � '� - S r.• �k ��<;ro s ����� 7 bl r (`{u:a�'r� s �w�iWtiwY'sa:y°^.�f��,. I } , to I+ Gf n i z s a rA rs{;Wa a i rv''11 i k F f I u fi'+ H* @� <S >r. -. � '- .naa �y+ •m11, -. �a{ � � Rm��a 3" ids tfW i s 7 r f5 � v � a s�+ t r���y Ai}` I ry �{�a^�.�t•"e'".. xF�� .,�'L -,c ! iY y ,+ �7nfy f Yr 17; Yi 15 r t !E !I I t� CD 5 N W r��t+-. irS,x��iat�'���--le>i}1 47 J{1 -:-(�4l!i➢- r _ 3 ij r I- s t -,.lr J .ri r.f�r 1 _1 7 t i i f § F .�Jr rr�1.-F_ fv i�'}r' 11>,.:-„ V d r �1,{•�� >.? f t tl turn try C11rf S '.PI ( 1 r rJ r_i.� 1 '�I it i_Y. F i trF(3� i' t t )li+ - h?,P ie`4 t- 1�1 r ��¢r.6�9j« t,l '^�.Z rtSa?� J -)"c.4 ,�flr�.l-jrgs- f 1 I kF,,M y r{,:r✓ i �t e, , t-r C2 ,3pr �-,__-ILx Y 'z. �4,t �f�r kr r�-btr�t..!� rin ;rt. .i:r � - yla,., �11 :�`rtp rr �RJ:4r1r5)+'U1ri � Y'tf �7liQ},4r�ffV�)191+�i�r�f:1"ils x{{..��� r (,:r�)71L)lfsi ��+yrs F (11, rt1G`yt�lYfJ �iksSrN!!(4s r 1 ��!>�"Fp)J. 1"^�rr', ,� --,�, t•�"�'�"`+,.,v..W.S,.f,��'3„`mad''+F� �a' r�,}� r" t r +k 1^r st 1�..1114 P��tl n.' , yr I i'rr w'n --r r ott><Y3j�t1'�Ore 1 A dfkYf � ¢ r9 lE11 ukpt yrl 1- s u rq t —f +uu'3j�rplE1 bierr�?k51'9 h Prt/rFll )., w tuu."'r s,1nrv7r t .. r 1#eC r - ,d- Y W N r« Mauna at Lamb School access/drainagre lane w� Looking east. CD m rn oa N \ N f17 0 8 1 « N w rP J CIC _.... M r _ -- r _r-t 'at r -� _�5 r r-. �' i f -':r t! :,;4 it � / tq�`r ry`r1f5•i'�'t N 't4 ! r f 1 t fi t2�.A,,k C,r i o #, rf r 3 f":f 1 t[ / � _r 5 ttf t ` -r 4 r, trS:� L'f r1r �a t5•ir`u `I(.S r /1Rl f'`;' �Wr�,1�h rF:r ��. ��----II J r yt�D •, 5 rt. "f ��f'n � r{� iµ--- q 1--�_ Y : 2,( {t'c rfG a I '>�^I r - � kf � t t :,g �1 �'p..� t t �w S}.>>rris ! rt 's! t:'..�'!y✓r!'S ty..p r✓ It 'J ,,.Z�r'7✓ ,.eb J'' a - t,/{�{:,,. �i, {�`6r�:kNN,:•lf; PIS- �i xa��JsJS L„f>Y'€L''tto-pr+y� :. ffdJ��s 1,�#�'t F ! ';r, i::s t rtyn r t s sZ.ii'i1{( ftti c4 >/[-r;t f?+ .t,il':y l,V: p y �,t4✓ rf t,S*jc�.f+`� h'`.k ! , -f"U.fi "1'--'<i`3:°fifr ~ t ',Sf r ,e;,,' r # f i1 pro .',I-''�! E-'.'::1!-r. i.-t D•{r rs,rS J'av;:;:4 !1 ..!'r:;� }� Y.,, f 1'1' -7_-'r !4 - - i 4/owt,;.,., -,y,fv r-(�1� -/f- §in ,1;�,.,1,,.# .„rs� ' ,,.�" + s�.fr sl...,:,; ,kr ', ,{� ,�Yz�'e.,i�sl! iu�'s:�D�t;aY3S, �r.+:�. 'r,' •„t.'E IrDd_ !; 5u-, us r rrr 1 :r�.f( r.5. .+'+:rr�$,�.�•: ��F`�trl r�stv' ',i�1 r}rn.,ri,(3_, .:.# ,h-4:.. -.i:', t, ! f r sl-. y,:, i , ;� ,r.. -.7 �f1 1 1 ,_.ar ss :�a•�..,ssM a fj.. �` sr�,�zr• <' ,?u sir, ,.;11�i 4�t.-;,•: 7r.',I s4 !. i V P ti 1.- s .,�!,a �-t`�4''~1:•u�ai 1 r I _.it }°, � r ( f iL r so.r-,r'iia:wd!••� `,�.$yF rS �'3J tt.'D r'.. f^1 � •,r.ANr.<' .:,�s. s':' r rFFj r'�'�.Y'yft Uk�lltft� ff'it((yi;" r::t� 5rr D>'V :�:fi -y.yi p�Y a'J'�y �.}2 i....+ � �I'!!,, 1 5!y l.:.f yf f p '.� --�'t { `S 1p-r �v�W arv�':3.. 1 r � ifk:. ',?(r,.Fltr�Sf 5r-: r �+i�t,;}Ja. - .•,;�{ f a k 1-,fcaN #i f rk,.;r f Vr4�.rt r. 4,4" - F k!,l1 1.}.,,.:P. s{ ; ! (. .=I -•.s3kt s a--} + ' ::'•�' 1, - t fir'- � a.!rs21�t,r -�`;ir�; �snr�t< Y;x+ f,f:t. �'/s. `r 7,! tµ ru7.,. Lf 4u. i',�Vt' v,r t,r, 'rar� .�.-�:1�, 1( ^!f�t''fC�;""Y sr gr•!c;'alr}(r`k cst�'�.�P'�J1hjX-n.�r^k+,1� I d-!{r;Y:!q-Y}' {,S y��_( t y �f-!< �r� r >, r _,.. e _ - a. -_,L ':e >4-� I ,:r, �r ,,..� � -� 3 f$�7 r -�f- -f 1 , d t t i� r ✓ F ,{, --r L r � r + E -'tA6�l�r�R 4A ri f}r{¢fir; CSb�tf`i�'fg}•{,!ac-r'. ' S1' ?;r;�fr' r �f`7!:`-�!`l.1° is '`'f$!t1�+E'T _kr�ril! -s-,1 J d j t. � ff 5 it ,. y I L-, �.r., r ��,r !I :,.5 J r) -1 �,C�. y p ��+.:r:.:, , Y.., I�b 9(1'l�+.l � f4lr r 1 �ry Y �'w�, /�''{ ,#:?',. t K,:i• !t y 1 f J,t}r �- - 1 --in ! D (t >/ t J r ;i :r."i�f vnz'd3ita('�� 1 2 :.j..-{ Cc1k. -�+fyRe y� -..�f, ,: �v Ii,:- .',l t A'.. .T! f , !`�; r r �-r, r�,�'_r.11•.rt R� 'D"�:�, / S ,._:} s� fs d�}�:.r•ji�:�J"� ror.�..�'r, �:..11F',6,.�5 r r r�,. ..�� il`f':��•�5'F:ft: ' ,Ct sy:Liv� il•:(i ' �'.+,r=!,rra f r... t I ;. 1 /'1I. -;•r., r.. s 3,r aV .o--air ,.k 'h'.r..,/I S.1S.. SY rre Lt -.-*7.� rt-..;tS :�,.f �v.13ll;q ..�:§k �a����r�r� 'L�tt"?�.,�, %: �i ;:Y•' r'r-r*s s-J ! ),cf. , r�,...,1., I r-! ?' rL I��f�f.,. r{ �yk�'r-'.Y=� k .��,F 1',ra.;h�,t{ I �.�r v+Y r;.��ac:-, r {vr�x..:. fR3ia',y.,,��( a �I�,�aiva:i;�k-rr �,e„f��,t, �j�.. �,�, ,a 4p t a- � r hall F�z�ta�,.1 ti ('n$o- r✓ y_L�" �"�` -,'fir rrfr L4 tal,•7 �, a :ti ��dd u„!,� i� ..� f fp,7!r< c f. r�sVia•.t,� �L I�i,�s t ns g t y -rat`f.f r7i i�{f<°f �k ,1l'�4H.,,s a x �°� -r�'}_".r .t,r'o�-d 'x7' ;. '"+i�'i'. ,�{FiC�rAeGll�i..�,I� A�i :� d�..SYS),�, r4..�ti�,.�a j��4�)�.,/!:1'4f �j�,,�r. � �.t. ;S '(` s •;tY��� :�:. rtsrd:J�6 "fie` �t- ,gip" - ���:fr�rlpfylt ila_r/�'I :'S, t� �rtP. � 5.,i:g3�F ��' �:.:Yirr.�}+.: �<,"��s�P'-., .�. ..#��.v:k. r4t,'.�!_rt.eF.'�x (t -v�yS.,d,•.,rM -•:.t7 ',�a ...i� ,._�. w °`{�;,.,b-)ry -;.M a� ..�. € ,3e w," '' ''�� ����,� YI I� �'il�a,�°f3?M pt•a'��d!A f1,t{d'''tni t�*y t:v'J 1'i�yCf<-h -- t, ,n,e Ei-.y�!' "1' :?-.- ��k �� .a+f� . 'fV B.S��wf,.�.t`:` -��� i���m � � ?'U'� � .�•�' '�� .� '� �� � k' r aI� 1r �,`I$dszsl`ra � 3 ro_: k"!��t t. r r�+-r r m ' w Mauna at vimirktown CD m ;o Looking s©uthQrly. NE 0m W mr pit trl p o N W W Pyp r'SU Nf h ors hi'r'(t 7aaFr fti r � -..r�tr r i 1 r .-1t•4i+, ? 1 '1- -d r � } r 1 ,.fr rr r.n.! } -I � 3"- �� :f, �{-. ,,r�4ul F, jsx- rl• .rr r +If .i � , r ,' t -'= r '1 '-,� f# x-- ! r� '3'IG 1jVvE r� 3 { ''7 Ji}if{ '.1. _-.--{rr7,S .n.. rp , �- .r.,, , - !5t r_r,-.�I oal 'r '{f r;';yi i 47 a rti u„S,�r�rs� -,E;•`>h "!,x,t,�s:(M�i+a�, y�l C,,.-rr 't� J WWI - ri s; h��p tte ys,L'Fr t r .', ''FJ I ti -:-• . IN���+ ��x� -3i7✓y f�Yagti ���tx_e�,i'r h9trrfr ,drrF, ru �f ir' ial.,a, 1 )ay.,.,�NT'J Nif-A I ?y rlV� s`t,rrV��sl��Jh�.��tr r�rr'tkr 2,: s -;�tSv. t' r�djSlr..sJ.it ti 'A�ill* 417+ r),.st �stSt�r-{ES!,jvj�+a4i' {fit�i F'T�,:. a s a!a v; ,,a,�,�a�dd``f>.ti„t,n n�1GE,,-a1+„,�}rY,nnir�,a- c,dis.•;i, S -.r.- t i,,f tr r.:•:f. t., .4. S +o.•.,•ey-R,jr t 1! -�kr itt� 34�{r.fl.ce.uy)uSiu? 'aft r. r;rc'±i.rt 1 r n ;v�{ "��;:.;a'��.}: ��:� :i� iC Sk r,�lY`(.rui•'{hY.! t:}l# .P`�,,,rt�L YF9J�;;'.:ICPxrCi<j..:FZi Si +!r ti la `-a,-.(1` yt ;r id. s1r,nr7} r+Cirj,,7,,{ ?i fr,r i rrlt�`s_.t:4yt !rr t:, i-f-Jir {`r is y -.I, '!r! ,.t tr r•"$:9E7S ui. < .., i{.6r).:{,r rii,. N K3�4i��i.ji.� r,!j. .rr,,>k .4+� •-t- V '(r r Xr., ?t.,.. �Z � �� (.r :t�i w , „t .t Cka}S?,C{�. . ialMOM.-m- k: -'rf8 W1 !:yx� ),idr ... ,.R:f {lyt'#"nelst:-anr} t l.i r.A r, -l. _tr•r.., n .+ :ry rry"hF :sir. MrA.ra�r,.>rt�nra�psl - ,rh 'v�?.R k`=J7far,.e,Y:rtvu�...F'�lY,rf t'7.,.,mom W.,,.',lr,,,�. hi t74{ �w.r. rn F -rof,�- e--ifs(. t,„r 7r ,„r{trv,.elt��ha,<9,t�#S�`�r s,i�i s rf xr ai7 .,-.q•n y ! N f .yyr7r}-ofr. S. ab.l-- 2. r w}i,'.- -r- e -fir-V tr..-svr-' lc.lF rirr• rEl n ,.,.bee rG�Y{ T'.f�. r -,ty S t.-S-S k r.:, 4 r �a,+t,. dt<1,,,I.rr_r,+4, ,h. - "h 1r r'pr hH- F !,<•, r;s*4�rr, p .f- ,,leE .!!a.1, �l. i-`�>f", ;c, i,1J': YI.. rf -t� f .i: J l -ns t'rn t t ,;r_E.�xt.fp..;.fa rt 'it 4ia+ r?:'°, a ,. •;T r. +14. S .y,. ., f, - 4- t, r.�+Sf-r +Vt t rrt "y rtr`Er. 1ISO, rl :'fr18a:wtX,.r��+rt3�.i._ „ /r.,.�,..{' 31 c i+,t,:rF., -� ` rr.t-+y:,. �7 ,pi.i'r ,ss 'r.-I •:l al,r til.- VON�(s it;fr.rT ISO, t;.r „r .�, rli.,,,�. _ 3 f', ,o r 1r7,Xr;,i d.l' t y.�` tK1aSi,>„yt ,�.<>,--�;i.'r..,:::• •�1 s_ .4f.i! �•5ri..t l�Yi}t,.,,(<_ 4 { 1}_4fu!r r r.n}I,7'lt,r t:!;t{,.1'rll:'. 5 }.v§i!"!f�}, WWI 14t.-h{.fvGw fil ,_{ Est v!s-t } u,d::s s 9 ai,,:j 4 .r":ty£, z i...a k f,�,i� n.r.•r},anr i yj'i.;�'. ,''}:1: �, -, $'i r - 4 r'�rta.Ef Jf d t+rQ�Yuw�..�§�Vr�� .�Alri;�.,nr=vl r� :.,,t Pf7 j,:,r„h ri,i•:.iR Vs Y+.ri ar'�.r:»Y lfr Y.� c'.r:'irwr�rR>r�s c,".vf try r .e(srlrF r`rr x1.3.1_fvfl� ,dT.�,"t1 �1 .�'r}JY,-rt 3S-_..i h� L(!it'St§'zr4-.,4uS�..+r rrhkf{1:�".r> �- .� W0 .'�rtf1L+�:;{1�,ru.ldf +- t'� s ���� ) :.r'�ixk'�rN�hr�'�a��,t`� afi:�is$fi,+r�'�4�il�n°��A�`1ffgC�pl rr.E`ttby.'%r,} +�i3 ?df�• (� li�i•t��4q 7��sk��io,--i�Fl{jrirr<i.a Q~:rrh�"1j-Ei11 9 4�I; �y^�i A: '�',y, _ �,. �_ � - al44 ar io�.�)1k1 ld`T�S{ x•{[Vi:+kd._t�ish` r.r Yi I�i E Yr '� � •£r � 1 1 r it r�1pt. '�r f Cd yF'{i f�Yt e� P ,T CD N Polatiew at ITUrKtC fn @ M b " Looking south. L \ N*m r t,7 r' s- a (F1g- t jt al y,+n<'4 t o fty', t r Pyi� A -L YS{ V f h ��1F.')�..n 9yE rile! ' r YYtt�� s s7r.''a4{ tihs„ x,� '2 r�tlr 3,rrtS, 1 A�5 q V- 'T���. js j��%k�F7 1'FI'111Y J . � t.0 �- 9 I� 1J I r•'I - d ' 1 KEjh�il�:�t ��k,�` �� !k' �vr rF2tr frt��� k0r '�;n,r� } �.. rj` � '�! 1oL .. ✓_,I 't L �r t�- _ r �`�f'�.y`����r�a y�"� }}��r� :�--v�tb�ldr ! �i� F r I S w�� rri f�' � � „>•?ti .''a�#e r�t J;�'t rr �� `: f}R 7 11:/� ��k•�,c-�i�l��L'iJ �s���N}, t,�y��lt©m� t�}� r�r,f r�:i�`�`,K! t 'a ! �.8'. � I ,_ t ',Y��r�l•�,)�i� • ) ti��{��'J°PyCj6 �,Y'�`;3y'�.(+wt Y ),,t�:j,�(t_,., dn(�', iirrbri�t•�sr�r;�' •,if o��'':tf-.�2•a �tr4 k:t;.i��"�`., ;lls���k��'31�ifrp{nrs���;'1 f d�fGa. �r"r� ..i � a- d` v""3, rx w tVc r � �,)s�f✓� � iI �r �.-�',f � �7 J'[Sxr� �.i�F' ��r}'isgx. -,.'�vw-Y, �. � M ty�yr`v�1 y $• �•. tc Srs"rr�. t t r, - GO r m '9 Brookhmst Frort'tanne. Road ° N Wo Looking north towards Kamuela. a �n °0 ti N w � W p" $ r r k I I,� 1 il4' ✓r f erg bye �+ not Atz too VOID ;mom 3 t i In..t , a fl a } �4yrf It'��f � S7 •� J � Yb � � r}!�&S � t 5.{ I I ,)11 J j f l I t I t � f �y�yy�a1�� .yy�lr a '��r At��1,� ,�A � i P t✓';y ;I 1 s !t,�1 l���jj^^Fl,�°Y i y"r•�., � tl } •1,A i I i `i ' fJ xrM I '(WiirrF� y� ! trY ' i r t I•, y -1 X 5r _ Z j°E tit rI- 4u�4� qA ji Sr rj f.BMW el��'��'"f'PjI�Iry -f *cht {p.Y ys,�in Is�rrJ11, it s, r > :r r6`d r N�tE L+l d�I ra fi'ct�� et j r ` :' � �'"�(•�'}«���h�,Is�r��aLJ�'�t�j�� �i J:�n or�4.�4 �! P`,r k a. L _ I t i r� 4,C �; t t;�.. r i, r u�. �, ,,��-f' �"E:.�� ���t.�_.>h ri�s�i- �" " s3Y`� �' Yr Yxzi "' €-4•. ,�,(�4f�Y't frs! I .�:',a � ?r f'a ,t r-^jlr-�1, ihRii'•r2 Jf�`'��f}r>,'N,)5,1�i�{6 F i '`' h Sti � �i,ti,.r,,� '3�!(k'#y9 5�{.�hf�"(��� �ki�v-?}'�'Riri��kNriY�.}��i�.} r1,v .,a g J r,�T �, .7 a;��y�,i? ,, l ajA ,r s 4�yhY�✓1,@ Wrr l-[�}Y I' $.+,�y�a�.•. P 7' ,��, .ylr h 4 °: �k Sf�i ,rr_�f/J( �r.E(�i{!a�� I.C� '}4.4�,rYPt 6)IpFJf (y. n' y�rJ?a�1 ay�r +•{. a�aA"a'Vtl ii� a. .w.) . r 'a a il-rhtiayh 2a i 754 t ,srr �� `kEt �i k s lr;rj iCyU-r�� i rn{ 'Ht FYyf tr£ u ;4fA � ,,s k - l y ty C'"�SIl.I ✓r'X^�.l I� j '+t}' c� t ti`i�,! �+Cr' :l w}� aWIN4 krS '+ 'TMacht .�,�r a ra rr f � ir✓�'r3n+�C�r SdrV W v m Ka muela and ro® u rst 0 m Looking east towards Olanaa N-- N I W CD N W i W h' - , r a r / t r fi•tii I+�� )) i, I— y�,yv3'�y-�rii�Yhc*��`l�g�"�i��°v 7 -r rr-d a `t �r yrc.f 't s t ii ti5•� ray ' 'I r7 Y �` f •? r k��"t /SJ�y.' �yy7�} s tw' -1rP r ''�r yi f ux s'rY r s r .,r�s TAl r�tia�t1 r y rf t s i^7' t��-II��> srti.4Sk irf � ,�e J�t�JF r' r _ a i i�rr'sr�s�Y ) i�' a��1��Jaef(97E'�t��t;' � - i r ✓f � I t -. H d57 1�f � f rri �3 11�y1t�'�',�a�y+yi)D•`� • ? -I r ` - r } +� r sxt{� r ar r 4s CC Y�r Xrrw gv'gi ^4 S.r 7` as t:,7 f J j F r�i rfr rr< .e t F - r 'r f 7i s3 q rr.w�` '�rr •t 7"yka atcrwq, ''�ru g Xtl nGa R'rd� 4 to �[I - a • 1 ya-.. r 7 ..� f � jfl �}y i �9 try 3,��, - �" ' i i o rn a.,• .?n.�;s i�Y dTrb�ty r9f`4�}ir'`,tt `6"r&�rirJT �, 7"r s Y x -. a -- of l}iz Ir ✓fp k ry •Ir�'�sk(. -4 1 •I.,r /rH Y 'r }4 fu lstS'�Ai�� fsu�CyS7Y�} F�,. 1. - r m m -mush (D m Looking east towards Olana. 0 m 7 az 0 8 � ' (� Yam•. N V j W r_ 1 rYAw :.�'� `� 1f,,n}tF`�'IfTrF,�*�ilf s cir SxtSr"7ss3fi swslcT�ltJr t s-I t i i 7 - r . �� , shaf 4YM y R-r•.+ v --� �f St Ar�fE' tJ rlflti ./ 3 � d k1h t6�y, 4 d a:lir r'{7g.. - �i �1� i1 bed 1'�PM�6��w �M4f _;) by t i �±ssryr w,�.c Sa)� T - 7'1 t t x r t- t i 2 t75rslt 64 �` ') tsSi`r trt ft lJ 1 ( J , iflr4 tr IF7' *!'Ja!'�t r"�`r' hu;r ai�X 7�1! v ., #i t`�' Y r Af,sii ,`,r .W fa rt i Fi s%'�{ t,a iv ui vR trl l''�r��a ` a7ryc n h t r i .s- r t- s - n r rry,F rdtr t v�jd. .. j r iu4 t l b w� W . 0 110 m m L rn q/ N .� Kamuela rn CO Looking west towards 8roakhurst Frontage Road, � CDN� N � N cO W � � ♦ y ti A T r . L M zi Aq el 70, , tr rl s r 4§tGM�tS�l`t * r'£m 'h ,yh .. �i: {jy 1 �... +;{`�n.Illli j}• f14_t t IN pri 21 1 Frt t ,yC y� i k1k'�J('".EAV`ptP f it�+'• ��a 'F�Rr�"11 SIkY'k�t �Y!(• � ��7+iY{ � A� ��l"�Rv (Hy��'�+f�nMs ........... ,�'•y�� rl. t,{Ag'FF"•Ji w� � 1. ' ,bii J34 �u7'R .Iy y t SS AI {1�. ;' ; �tlti A7 rt,e,, rt�n,E ts..4F it S£ frrl p,. t .'� ,� 1kj 3�r s a� i , •� ` We g rr;�.x{>+�zw c,y _ _ :+ 1� ,� s`' a�t� 18 1`�� f � } r: .. ,�a� f ''S'i}tr, �f. �`t[`���3+'�+t°a���FF" Ir t•}•.S 5''"vw✓Y�9�S� i x M � •. • 1 l a r M l r s tiI , a r f av 'J . � �• r Fr F` _ 7 � �, �r i �b a T,�t �y4��'. �tT� .�r a •� r -- .+f € ';t) H�t+ `.� ails •• s- i hi rEtar 3 y # rn p r s �trPT+'•"'pva �. .�-r'»^c1 > 64 rmCyp a F s n ^ th T Syr �r y ��1 s Ivk s t 4s ' iar � A ►' -j`>� S"3� f a ,irk ek 4t fk rir 1- ie rs t, r � r • 4. r A4 H ' N CD W ✓'G'� W �y � 'yt fJ,����yj #7pp Nti ! i YPaLfIt x1'4illf th '!!v ��' Y� 7•ri-a ff 4 t r 5�1a- .�4�- iRy hJ^r5rj flp?,flq. '�. f fM�p a{ '�U.gyp,- {4 N'r}r )"•(�rr,its- 71� �iWd. �u:> � - al3• > `� ,d,p,(. ,vlfi� ,t,_ rrF � }. r�l N��s(U'"+ Y'�,yJ�l�� i�{��� , J ' �N t't•� 3> �1��'i37f�, �.r ? �7' ;. (w.vya',S 6 +d �u• ,� a;. •-, - ,a,':�t4 �xi5.s I�(My9t4"jj{•fr AMA - OWI v' � f��f r yF tl ate F e ,f"n MMf ,�a Sr Y h"r`L'4..JJ'S,r.� .�.,Fie 1,�e r�v. }"F�+„#. F�,-"r'Sr• '-'{'rta} F 1r1 a�a§ ��r, � + - ;i t ��_ ' ✓av+.�it+ >':Fz �i�t"1 4}` 7At e�as-}t.�'�rv� b�k���1� ��4iQz h°^bin*. `h1r.1arc ys,r � y r �+ _ �! ! fir; r, . ��r'• t 'r J� r.,� tJ , tar # ?�cr fi cif .t P 1 x ^,�r �` Fr .r�j� ro._ � S{•�' "X i "f"" �,,t t1 $ .� r g i 't ,y{r�, ,' , afik �2!+S }f�(y{11rf. r•. ` ., �1!'..'.%1: s .v+�P.ff*�i� /r'TM 1-#•�. y 1,°W T'.t .7.''r'�.+, . •Ci -ai P 4f�'Y-' W�?kr� , +4 )} _irrF f } t{ -htFfiVTp.,� sr ftr!N:m,� SY. ��..,, i `{fl,arf'I3 - -?n.!J,>�3�i'i",Flh��f ''Mft`�.?s .r.• -,y RL'S. <f la-�3.°4'i .•°Sr'sr,es}�.e- tt+had.?';t'ri"rTF .R'f-,;,sSi rG,r rG;k;i�;, kF`:;:! 1 'r". - ,l i f$Y.'1 H r yy *., ig Na xnn��ht;rvf:'...v h x.� , :a,..�'Il+uf�iF�`!� tkixctfs*✓ �r.r,r�t!' F.(r:"'3�' Y,.�-r'Fa�an�;n N1i?•',rf,+., Jt-.7k,-(s.SYr{r ;fir , l,trtSf3�=i,„ �, d,T. S r .U�[f>,Jr h.w+�'� -� y�4"'1`'tr�4y,'w '} i.r.'fti:fi r:r{tpr-.J.:'r .�' .0 . 'X.s tt ,4,s;r,rd-it�S r. l'err, tr��,•.,� ('T l�: I-•,�,/ 1> t r [fSV'kepk r�., a .v i 9. 3 ...,(f,s. �,• rh;y, v+ �54�I�s{'y!�§4c'p�W�i({,..Fr ;Z rU'�{r iy;f a a I .-. ��: #:+ � uy r�Nh� x�"�,]t h�^r�{Yf7.�'�- hAy�h'r�ts ( 1�:. �4';c�1�',}3 S °�'t�t �-: q,, l• �,�v;P r a �J4zA! v jl`-fF �-,��i f Y,tk�'jYt� +"�T ,fi'Xt q'�( � '� . � d;'' ��,�' -�"q� fir,:•., t '� a >,w. ��r����f �n �;r 1.h,n�,, ���:,•rY , t..< ��� � »a;S;�, .�,+ �" !, , �.'." f.. f cA �1� e `{ ,J". _( 'e i '�K`z�hrtiip4 i� iv rNm v} frF { t3ry�f usdRr� Fi� f• ". �r.• r 3 � fish � m• ,�+ J"y3 sY M Mir' b'rM ,ils r,�'� ^�F tiM:Fr f �4N t� r}1t �nk�k -^(r y�a�r 4�j + f�o-t'iwKrr•� �"?ai�,�.Kd+ ��I t - r �(+ p seta �' ft{' �i lr'_�d v a i' .�'r r ��r r� 1^� u � r vonr rFn• r`t' ' P r W im fs'-A e fl r �' fD N Yorktown Pitcairn �m � M PQ Looking east. o �i � m - .. 1 Ill tt� J J VI - r _- � i,�a�Y���71. i; t tra ✓�I' antjMEN:fN�saa�ry�riak�F a y ,� x�Llg 1 1 4r �4�'�r f i�t , �"� Ff �.. r� ( #� �F(7r r5 p'I� ��y� s1r y�q 1(���,h itf{r � f y �( �r�#t;!��,'� r. � �y I •. i"'y`yFIA� r�S�� (t)(+ `rkttll�`6t7tfl��tlk d,� `� (�'�','2�+1��v�fair p���r�>r�� M'�(� �•� , .rp45��'>�r� - ��Rh i ! � 1- tLJ '�k�n4t Fi�e41�B��`v Pk '.s". � St- ,kRijLq`4 �ti $ "�� °ee?v�€�r x'�l yk or• 44�9 Y i �� J 4¢'� �4 llf.{xti6"�.�! � d•( n it � ,✓z C 1 w 1 lI� r m . tD w ' 3 ID Lamb School - Field N m O Looking northeast of parking lot. N m r r+� W » ry r1 W CD N W I d� t 5 t t7S 7T r yip f >.v a1+}S.f�(rtj °,}k rSrc{dll,l�, 99 ivif''v tEiw } 'IF sj+ 'f 1� l Y } 7 etx r r ilr lv rpr { .v^y{ f'ke�.ir6i te. r 3t,{ ' cry r r 7.fi - tl ✓<. f`�i�tr n� 3 ru.r IV-01_��'A. d, }i x fi :f f 7{ k j r. lh a p 9 r r! t J1 �7 }.`'�J� 1J�CIYA�N r t •f.+t. .•:! JrW,12 - .hh t rF { �x ^,r AI?'{-4; •t �t -��!!-t SV ✓a�'. Sri r �9i5. :M1 -.t.4. :r "}`t'4 .l}�{ff >1 + iDhrJa g F,+ its n 7,ut i�+ �+ fjs ... .. f;stN fr1rJ �}r^s.l.x,{�.}Ut,}� rtx �"{�i: E err ��} �)he _Fri o xs{r t4 a r.t p:. i.:�(.fJ• Y Y.{tN'+ +17 �tir� r �'��{,y 1-t..tYr 'ii+iy r9 d'PYf Sr 1 l-Y+ r r x1- .r 5t{`r)7 ,d2af d`Q J..yY 4 }i+'ya1f N� �sM�,"16r{y I#' d(r<r lei/r rrt yl �s 1V v,?3t �• t{t3,� ri rx 4+� ld Y �r 3 tr y tt f. 4-'1• YMjI W t CD C— Lamb School - Field w N m m Looking northwest of parking lot o Nm W Letter 10-Helen Ford(HF) �E1of 4 D SEP f'2 Z6,12 f MND No. 08-13 De t Proposed Lamb Residential Subdivision—Mitigated Negative Declaration P of Piarining Building Questions and Concerns: If the HOA has privately maintained streets and not required to park in their driveways, hove is the surrounding neighborhood or soccer families or HB park users going to be able to ever park in the proposed parallel parking stalls alongside the field or in the small HF-1 parking lot? Wardlow site has a huge overflow public parking problem with their site,How is the overflow parking going to be addressed and accommodated at Lamb? I HF-2 If the HOA has privately maintained streets,what is to stop the HOA from moving to permit parking,private streets eliminating any non-HOA parking alongside the field? I HF-s What is the possibility that the HOA will propose a gate across the one entrance in the future for their privately maintained streets? I HF-4 Now,will a HOA parking permit no longer be needed and again eliminating the public parldiag along the field to non-HOA residents and possibly eliminating the public parking HF-s in the lot as well? It says in the MND that the streets will be sized consistent A ith the city's public streets standards, including parkways and on-street public parking.Does the City take into HF-6 consideration the existing neighborhood streets? What is the size/width of the proposed HOA streets verses the existing size/width of the neighborhood streets? HF-a It says in the MND that the proposed park improvements will be subject to further discussion and negotiations with the City. Doesn't Measure C apply here?Any construction over$160,000 of any city park or pier HF-8 requires a vote of the people? A representative from Tri-Pointe homes said they plan on developing the proposed parr so that it will be finished early with the models so that they can sell the rest of the homes. Will the City be accepting money from Tri-Pointe Homes to develop the proposed park? HF-s It states in the MND besides the proposed residential unit the permit will cover associated onsite and offsite improvements.What exactly do these include? HF-10 It states that the project includes a General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan designation of Public(P)to Residential Low Density(RL-'I).Why not to Residential High Density?If the proposed new lot sizes(3,600 sq.ft.)are almost half the HF-11 size of the surrounding neighborhoods(6000 sq.ft.)how is this not high density? HB -135- �' "` Item 23. - 38A Letter 10-Helen Ford(HF) Page 2 of 4 The project proposes to provide crosswalk access from the neighborhoods on the south side Yorktown Avenue to the 2.6-acre park that is adjacent to the project site and includes striping improvements on Yorktown for vehicle ingress/egress to the site. HF 1z Tri-Pointe has stated that there will only be a stop sign exiting their HOA_ What do your city traffic studies show for the increased traffic onto Yorktown and Ward and Brookhurst from 81 homes? What do your city traffic studies show for the increased traffic onto Ward, now requiring Ward to be widened? HF-13 Will there be a traffic light now needed on Yorktown? HF-14 Will the stop sign at Ward and Yorktown now have to change to a signal? Tri-Pointe said any traffic signals needed and caused by this development won't happen until Tri-Pointe has moved on and long gone. HF-1 s The project includes water quality and storm drain improvements including construction of approximately 2,080 linear feet of storm drain. HF-1 s Tri-Pointe has stated that their HOA drains will come out of their property into Yorktown,over to Brookhurst and up to Kamuela. Then what?Kamuela has very HF-17 poor storm drainage. How log will Tri-Pointe take to complete this improvement/construction?The storm drains improvement on Adams/Ranger is going on 2-+-years?This will impact HF-18 the existing neighborhood and traffic for Brookhurst,Yorktown and Ward. 1. How are the drainage problem.solved? HF-19 2. Does the high level of peat in the soil need to be removed? HF-20 3. This is the LAST open space in SE HB - we voted for candidates who took this stand "F-21 4. Where will the AYSO and football leagues be able to play? HF-22 S. The soccer field proposed is not regulation size and does not have enough area outside the field for non-participants to watch. I HF-23 6. What about the overflow parking for the games going into the existing neighborhood rather than the HOA private streets? HF-2a 7. Why does the parking for the park have to be part of our field/open space? HF 25 S. Wardlow got the parking lot size increased and the amount of HF-26 proposed homes decreased. 9. What is your policy for replace any old growth tree you plan to I HF-27 remove? 10. The new homes are not cohesive with the neighborhood I HF-28 1 l.. How does the Quinby Act apply? HF-29 i i Item 23. - 33 HB -136- ATTACH ME NT N 001` Z _ Letter 10-Helen Ford(HF) Page 3 of 4 12. The new fami.ly's children will be going to OKA crossing I HF-30 Brookhurst, a dangerous intersection. I 13. Lot size reduction - 6000sq ft is the norm and these homes are 3600sq ft (a 45% reduction). This is what our city planners want? HF-31 14. This park is 2.6 acres. Doesn't the city have a minimum of 3 HF-32 acres per park? j 15. How much money out front does the developer have to pay to build the park before any homes can be built? I HF-33 i i i i i I i i 1 ! ATTACHMENT W) HB -137 Item 23. - 34 Letter 10-Helen Ford(HF) Page 4 of 4 City Charter I Section 612/Measure C Section 612 PUBLIC UI"ILITIESAND PARKS AND BEACHES (B) No building over 3000 sq ft in floor area nor structure costing more than $161,000.00 may be built on or in any park or portion thereof now or hereafter owned or operated by the City unless authorized by the affirmative votes of at least a majority of the total of the membership of the City Council and by the affirmative vote of at least a HF-34 majority of the electors voting on such a proposition at a general or special elccCVOn at which;uch proposition is s 2unnitted after the appropriate environmental assessment, conceptual cost estimate,and reasonable project description has been completed arld ,widely disse,,mated to the public. I can not find the city code or ordinance on this. Existing Established Neighborhood access/easement from Mauna would be closed/walled I HF-35 off. Existing neighborhood has to continue to have access to the park area from existing easment . HF-36 Removal of 10 homes requested and park space increased or parking lot increased. I HF-37 I j I Item 23. - 38 HB -188 ATTACHMENT Letter 11 -Stanley L.Friedman(SLF) Page 1 of 3 STANLEY L.FFJXDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW RECEIVED ECEI rED 5S �s Y G UNION BANK PLAZA r�oy 445 SOUTH FIGUEROA STREET L (1 TWENTY-SEVENTH FLOOR LOS ANGELES, CALIFOMA"071 Dept.of PlanningTELEPHONE (213)629-1500 `at Building FACSIMLLE (21a)489-5899 September 12,2012 By Messenger N&.Andrew Gonzalez Associate Planner Huntington Beach Department of Planning and Building 2000 Main Street,3`'Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 Re: Notice of Intent to Adopt a Nriitigated Negative Declaration for the Lamb Residetitial Subdivision(10251 Yorktown Avenue) Dear Mr. Gonzalez, I represent homeowners m regard to the above-described Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lamb Residential Subdivision(10251 Yorktown Avenue) SLF-1 who hereby notify the City of Huntington Beach that they strongly YoPPose the planned project. On a preliminary note,I call to your attention that insufficient notice of the planned project has been given to the affected landowners in violation of both City of Huntington Beach Policy Memo PP-57 and California.Environmental Qualify Act Section 21092 because adjacent and near- adjacent landowners and/or tenants were not given notice of the planned project As you know,the City ofHuntington Beach's own Policy Memo PP-57 mandates that,prior to approval ofthis project, 5LF-2 property owners within 500 feet of the project be provided with certain required information. This has not been done and, as such, and for this reason alone, the planned project cannot proceed. Indeed,the City of Huntington Beach would be in violation of its own ordinance,and the laws of the State of California,were it to approve(or even consider)the planned project, Sadly,even the meeting which occurred last night was not made known to the general public and so affected property owners,and the community at large,have been disenfranchised and unable to express their views on the planned project. Indeed,given the issues set forth below,it is obvious sLF s that the developer failed to publicly announce lastnight's meeting,or anymeeting,because itwishes . to avoid engaging the community in a discussion of the planned project. I challenge the developer HB -189- .41 i�.uHM T Item 23. - 3 8 . Letter 11-Stanley L.Friedman(SLF) Page 2 of 3 STANLEY L.FRIEDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW September 12,2012 Page 2 to identify the dates of community meetings and the efforts it undertook to advertise the occurrence of such community meetings. It appears that the developer merely wants to gloss over community opposition by failing to conduct meaningful meetings with the neighbors and ignoring the growing SLF-3 ground swell of opposition reflected in the petition presented in opposition to the planned.project. cont. Apart from the above-described procedural failures, the planned project is ill-planned, dangerous to theresidents ofHuntington Beach,will significantly erode propertyvalues andpatently designed to sacrifice quality of life issues in order to maximize profits for an out-of tovim developer SLF-4 who will"cut and run"with its profits once it has destroyed this portion of Huntington Beach. The following points are worthy of note: • The lots are substandard size which promotes overcrowding. The planned lot sizes are too small for single family residences and the only reason that the lots are SLF-6 substandard is so that the developer can squeeze many houses into the project. • There is only one exit out of the project and the morning commute will be a nightmare for the inhabitants who will have to wait in long car lines in order to twin onto Yorktown Lane. Additionally,those poor souls who purchase homes near the SLF-6 single exit will be faced with long lines of waiting cars(and the fumes coming from those cars)every morning. The developer has no plan whatsoever for dealing with this type of"carmageddon." • The planned park is directly adjacent to the inevitable traffic bottleneck which will be dangerous to children and seniors who will use the park. SLF-7 • Emergency vehicles,such as ambulances,fire trucks and police cars,will be delayed because of the inevitable traffic bottleneck conditions. SLF-6 • The planned project will create hazardous conditions on Yorktown Lane(arelatively small street) which will be the proximate cause of injuries, deaths, and property damage. Apart from the sad loss to human life,the City of Huntington Beach will be subjected to lawsuits for its poor planning and creation of hazardous road SLF-y conditions. • The dense housing pattern of the planned project will further burden already overburdened local schools. I SLF-10 • The planned park is too small for the number of lots in the planned project. I SLF-11 ATTACHMENT NO. Item 23. - 39 HB -1 40- Letter 11-Stanley L.Friedman(SLF) Page 3 of 3 STANLEY I—FRIEDMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW September 12,2012 Page 3 Significant to our discussion is the fact that the subject property was purchased in 2005 pursuant to the Naylor Act, which was enacted in 1980,to discourage school districts from selling surplus property to developers,requires districts to offer school playgrounds and athletic fields first to other government entities such as cities--at a reduced rate before putting the land up for sale or lease. The intent of the law is to safeguard school property for recreational use because surrounding communities have come to permanently rely on their use for recreation. The planned SLF-12 project is the antithesis ofwhat was intended under the Naylor Act and clearly violates the intent of the legislature. The Naylor Act was intended to safeguard the precious assets of our conununities; not to force schools districts into selling its-properties at a low price just so a city could later maximize profits by destroying the quality of that asset. The City of Huntington Beach has been awarded many impressive awards and accolades and can be proud of the quality of life provided to its residents. Please do not create urban blight in this wonderful citybyapprovingthisprojectwhich places profit abovethatofthewelfareoftheresidents SLF-13 and property owners and destroys a valuable community asset, I note that the public hearing is`tentatively"scheduled for October 9,2012 and I object to the bearing on that day because inadequate notice has been given to the community and so the period within which one may file a written objection is M'adequate and illusory. Because it appears that I SLF-14 may be the only counsel representing the aggrieved property owners,I respectfully request that the City of Huntington Beach check with me regarding my schedule prior to setting any public hearing in the matter. This letter does not constitute a complete listing ofthe faults of the planned project,there is no exTress or implied waiver of any faults not set forth herein,and all rights are expressly reserved. SLF-15 Sincerel , Stanle L.Friedman A r . HB -191- M.ACHMENTINICItem 23.^- 38 SOCCto 1:ZrARM 4 Q e REcE I? _ •4 0711", . . . R to Z 014 SEP 12 2012 Y sf Dept. of Planning ~' September 12,2012 &Building Letter 12-Alan Gandall(AG) To: Andrew Gonzales Page 1 of 2 Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 From,Alan Gandall ASYO Region 117 Commissioner 30 Year Resident of the War)ow Site 9082 Pioneer Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Comments on Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration from the Wardlow-Lamb sites Residential Subdivision Project Mr.Gonzales, The purpose of this letter is to comment about both of the above sites. I believe the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration lacks data regarding the communities impact of lost open space at both sites for our youth soccer league. Nor any attempt to AG-1 mitigate its loss. 1 am the Commissioner ofAYSO Region 117, our Region has used both sites for practice and games as part of our Youth Soccer Program. These sites have been used for many years.Region 117 members range is from 850 to 1200 players during AG-2 our standard season. First,the Lamb site currently services two fields for our under 8 years of age division,and one large field for players under 14 years of age division. Should this site be granted to build homes,the two under 8 years of age fields will be lost. Wardlow services one under 12 years of age field,this open space would be AG-s completely lost: These fields provide for open space currently utilized for soccer practice,training, special clinics and game fields. The Huntington Beach city owns the under 14 field at the Lamb site.The current plan does not take into account the actual functions of a live league soccer field. AG-4 Best sample would be the HVLL baseball field purchase by the city of Huntington Beach,whereas the council took into consideration entering,warm-ups,leaving field f ..y .:? �'�3:�c �"� - €:,,Uak....� s�fv"t= tea' . ti _�a.o .;..:',e �'45'$!'J'L <.s,- u �.,±�+,,t +.�•{.t^=r _•�•rf9i , ,,.. a �'�t.ys5:.. _-Qil: Item 23. - 38 At I ENT .``�."2.�: HB -1�2- Letter 12-Alan Gandall(AG) Page 2 of 2 areas. Youth Soccer fields have the same dynamic which the Lamb site concept does not take into consideration different team transitions, entering,warm up and AG-4 leaving dynamics. Cont. Currently, south east Huntington Beach already has a shortage of open space for our resident citizens and children to enjoy. The 1975 Quimby Act of California was AG-5 enacted in general,Cities are to maintain open space,depending on the number resident citizens and children in a given area. Bottom line here is my Region contains mostly your resident citizens and their children and grandchildren all whom have an expectation to a standard of living the AG-6 Huntington Beach life style. i I ask,and seek that the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration from the Wardlow- Lamb sites be updated to include the AYSO soccer impact as it is very much part of AG-7 these sites which will be negatively impacted. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. i Alan Gandall 714-350-2946 AYSO Region 117 Commissioner i HB -143TACHM-� Item23. - 390 ^� S'f`r Letter 13-Jean Hefferon(JH) Page 1 of 2 sp I Z September 11,2012 i To: Huntington Beach Planning Committee � �.'� �>t�:�_k� �=" �4 r- 4-`� RE. Lamb School Site-Concerns of Proposed Housing Development I have been a resident of Huntington Beach for forty-seven years, living in the same house in a quiet,friendly neighborhood enjoying the afternoon ocean breezes with no need for air- conditioning. My house borders on the old Lamb school area owned by the Fountain Valley School District. My children attended Lamb School. 1 have only good memories of my kids and JH-1 their friends feeling safe walking to school and of hearing children playing soccer, riding bikes, and people walking their dogs enjoying the open space. The city of Irvine has recently been selected as the a desired city to live in in the United States with one park of every 5000 residents and now Santa Ana is looking for"more green spaces"to create more parks to have "1.48 acres of space per 1000 residents" as quoted from the Orange County Register. "Their community is applauding their city council for taking this JH-2 on." Right now I wish we in Huntington Beach could be applauding our city council to stand up for their citizens and have the same goals for parks as Irvine and Santa Ana. The addition of 81 homes in our neighborhood will only contribute to the pollution problem with the toxic chemicals that will be released throughout the two years of construction and the additional pipelines,tearing up the streets for the drainage and sewage fines to accommodate the new homes. I am concerned for the children and the adults in the neighborhood being JH-3 exposed to these toxins. Many residents are in their golden years and already have respiratory conditions,allergies,etc. I am also concerned for the safety of the children, of which there will be an increase with an additional eighty-one 4-bedroom homes. The increase of traffic that these homes will bring to the neighborhood will definitely increase the traffic at the intersection of Yorktown and JH-4 Brookhurst. The children will be crossingthat intersection,which is one of the most dangerous in Huntington Beach,to attend Oka School. There have been many accidents in that intersection over the years. I would much rather see the existing space and building used as a Youth Center with activities for children after school. With so many parents needing to work the children need a JH-s safe place to go to keep occupied and out of trouble. The soccer field could be improved,• bleaches added, and possibly a refreshment stand. Walking paths,benches, and more trees NV Item 23. - 391 HB -144- TA,C H M INIT N 0. . '7 Letter 13-Jean Hefferon(JH) Page 2 of 2 could be added to increase the oxygen level in the area, rather than blocking the air flow with 2-story homes which are not needed in our neighborhood. JH-5 Thank you for your time and attention reading my letter. Cont. Respectfully,, .{ Jean Hefferon i 19341 Pitcairn Lane,Huntington Beach i HB -145- ` TAC;H Item 23. - 392 Print Request Page I of I Letter 14-Nick Koch(NK) Request: 12267 Entered on:09110/2012 8:53 PM Page i of 1 Customer Information Name:Nick Koch Phone:(714) 964-1254 Address:10351 Pua Drive Alt. Phone: Huntington Beach,CA Email:bison?@verizon.net 92646 Request Classification Topic:Planning Commission-Comments Request type:Question on Agenda Items Status:Open Priority:Normal Assigned to:Andrew Gonzales Entered Via:Web NK-1 Description I strongly oppose theproject to develop 81 new single family homes on the former Lamb School site(on Yorldown east of Brookhurst).The traffic and congestion during construction will make driving and living in the area more difficult for the local residents. The homes are so small they will only sell at reduced prices. Finally we need more park space not more congestion. Reason Closed Date Expect Closed: 09/24/2012 Enter Field Notes Below Notes Notes Taken By: Date: RECEIVED SEP 1:2 2012 Dept- of Planning & Building �z.govoutreach.com/surfeity/printreque-+-J,-9 =mid=105.4036&type� 9/12/2012 Item 23. - 393V HB -146- ATTACa F:N.r , C:;�, , '2-7 Letter 15-Cheryl Quiroz(Cn) Page 1 of, RECEIVED SEP 12 2012 -_....._.. DF,p Planning 1A rl h r9 �r�1, B6tJlCEIF} : f e �tahcm t 6 t s cv=r� t -�-' - a ? t CQ-s . ve ... r o w y tI _ ......._.............._ .._.... -- ................. ........... _... _ ....._..... e /' R �}?`y05 �S CQ 5 Co ., - Lam- CO-7 HB -147 ATTACHMENT NU, 23�,.� �94 Leger 16-Robert&Meiody Sawyer(RMS) Page 1 of 3 The Sawyer Family SEP `�` ' z 10212 Maikai Drive apt.Of"4wlr.* Huntington Beach CA,92646 &8rsli �t.g Draft Mitigated Declaration Andrew Gonzales Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept. 2000 Main Street i Huntington Beach,CA 92648 I am against you rezoning the Lamb School site to RU so you can increase the amount of houses on the site. 81 houses in 11.65-acre Lamb site is too many houses for that small area(Lot sizes of 45 foot wide RMS 1 and 80 feet deep).The zoning should stay the same as it is for all the neighborhoods in the area. Allowing them to have smaller lot sizes is not in the best interest of the surrounding neighborhoods. I do not want you to grant them PUD. Please maintain the 6000 square feet standard for the area.There should not be any amendments to the General Plan that is there to protect the community. The site RMS-2 should remain as public semipublic and become a park or something else useful to the community. The land was originally bought for a school and should be used for the public. I am against putting houses on the old Lamb school site, It will adversely impact the surrounding I RMS-3 neighborhoods_ It will increase traffic and put more burdens on the surrounding schools(according to the study you submitted,the schools they would be attending are at capacity),it will also Increase light I RMS-4 pollution. They are 4 bedroom houses.That either means large families or roommate's for most people. I RMs-5 Mat is a lot of kids for the surrounding schools to accommodate. Th You want to put two,four bedroom houses,on a lot that would regularly hold one house. You would be doubling the impact on the neighborhood. That means there is the potential to have 8 drivers per household. 2 people per bedroom if they rent out the rooms.Multiply 8 by 2 because of the proposed RMs- new zoning RL7. That will add 16 cars. Where are they going to park? They are going to park on the streets,in the new park,and the surrounding neighborhoods- The numbers in your study 2.56 people are an underestimate of the capacity of the new houses. 6 people per 4 bedroom house that make 486 people in that small area.That is a lot of cars on the driving on the streets and parking. I would really like to know why you fused your survey on 2.56 person occupancy per house. Your RMS-7 impact survey says only 208 residents in the new development? You know that is an underestimate. Is that to skew the results? Hmmmm... It's a long boring document to read but I did. I do not agree that it is not going to have any significant impact. I can't beCeve the impact survey actually try'sto guarantee there won't be parking issues. How are they going to do that? Are they going to make sure only 2.5 Item 23. - 395 HB -148 ATTA.0 M NT NO. S `��.1 Letter 16-Robert&Melody Sawyer(RMS) Page 2 of 3 people move into each house.HA! That's a joke. 6 people per house is 486 residents. 5 people per house that comes to 405 residents. 4 people per house adds up to 324 residence. 3 per house 2431 RMS-7 thought 1 would add the other half a person to make him real. cont- You state right in the traffic survey that it Is a highly conservative estimate on how many cars will be out on the road. I now understand how your impact survey says it won't significantly impact the area it is RM5-8 underestimating the impact. It is also underestimating the impact on the schools.The numbers are low and inaccurate I Where is the other half of the person?2.56 I think that we should rename zone RL 7 to medium density because it is between low and high but skews more on the high side.We should put that on the city councils agenda too. RL7 is not truly low density and should be renamed so that it more accurately depicts what it really is.The name and title misleads the public and should be changed to medium density so that they understand that it is RMS-s between high and low and it is NOT a variation of LOW.i truly feel any other proposals should explain to the public more accurately what the changes truly are and that the zone should not have such a misleading title.The city is misleading the public with that RL7 low density buy calling it low density. Shame on you lil Ok, let's look at two parents 3 teenage kids that are.5 drivers in one 4 bedroom house. Multiply that by RL7 low density. Two houses with 5 people that is 10 cars. In a true low density situation, it would be only Scars because you would only have one house 6000 lot. You are planning too many houses for that site. The zoning should not be changed so that you can put in more.According to the impact study RMS-10 you are only looking at 2.5 people is there even a half person out there? 5 people per house 81 houses that is 405 people and doubles the 208 residents you impact survey is not accurately depicting a proper amount of people in the housing development. The dense housing would impact parking,crime rate,traffic,trash,too. Oh,but your study only counts RMs-1 1 , 2.56 people per house. Shame on you! I I don't agree with the smaller street sizes they will be smaller than regular residential street it will make ; it harder for emergency vehicles to access the area. Make the houses public streets and make them RMS-12 regular lot sizes 6000 square feet. We do not need a private housing development with undersized streets. Many houses in a small area could evolve into site like the slums on slater. We don't need more RMS-13 houses in this area.There are lots of houses that have not sold and lots in foreclosure. Make it in to a park or another school since the other grade schools'(Oak Elementary and Talbert Middle school in the area are at capacity like your survey states).A school impact fee paid by the builder is not i going to make the problem magically go away. Where is the new school site going to be if you let this builder put houses on a site that is already set up for a school? We need the land for future schools not RMS-14 houses! Keep the land open use it as park,have the land available for a school if the community needs it. If the buildings are outdated then put in portable units. You could make it a satellite for coastline community college,community center,or a district office. Letter 16-Robert&Melody Sawyer(RMS) Page 3 of 3 Make it into a city park. You could add a dog park,tennis courts,soccer and baseball field please enhance our area instead of making it over crowded and destroying it. I live In the area,I would much rather seethe whole site as parkland. At least if you did need to make the land back into a school you RMs-15 i could.Keep the site open for another school if the community needs it.The other schools in the area are at capacity. Put in soccer fields if it needs to be made into a school again,it can be,there would be no buildings to maintain. All you need is water and a lawn mower. I do not want you to allow them to change the zoning to RL7 or allow the PUQ you will over crowd the I neighborhoods and it will adversely affect the neighborhoods. It is not in the best interest of the RMS-1s surrounding community. The people in the new houses which you know will be more than 256 will be looking for parking spaces and they will take the parks parking spaces. So the new park will be parked RMS-17 up and we won't be able to use it. They will be parking on Yorktown and surrounding track homes. The housing market is in a slump. Who's going to buy these homes? Will they become low income homes when they don't get their 800,000.00 for them? Bringing our property values down when people RMS-18 see there is no parking in front of the house they want to buy? If you decide to put houses in they need to be 6000 square feet and match the surrounding area. I would much rather see park land that can RMS-1 s once again be made in to a school since the other schools are at capacity.We might want to keep the land open for our kids. Tear down the old school make a park and leave the land open for another RMS-zo school your survey says that we will soon need it.The survey stated that the others schools would need portable units to keep up with the growth. Why overcrowd the other schools with portable units. We RMS-21 should make Lamb school back into a school site.,a school with all portable units if the existing building can no longer be used. The site should be left as open land for another school. Robert and Melody Sawyer L� 2 7- Item 23. - 397 HB -ISO- r1kI ATTA,G MENT N0. 22 Letter 17-Robert A.Zordani(RAZ) Page 1 of 3 September 11,2012 SEA 12012 Lamb Residential Subdivision Comments 1. Part of the justification for this Development is that this is a Planned Unit Development which will be governed by CC&Rs which will"._.specifically allowing and guaranteeing the ongoing ability of the general public to park on and use the private streets."What is to prevent the CC&R from being RAZ-1 modified in the future to change this? 2. Contrary to point#1,what is to prevent the Planned Unit Development residents from parking in the adjacent Glen Mar neighborhood (south of Yorktown),as is currently occurring due to parking problems associated with the town home development north of Adams and west of Brookhurst, also RAZ-2 the apartment style housing behind the Ralphs shopping center north of Adams and Cast of Brookhurst? 3. With the current prices of housing,the potential cost of each of these new homes,and the amount of income required to purchase these homes,what kind of guarantee will be given thatthese homes will not be occupied by multi-family/multi-generational inhabitants leading to issues with available RAz- parking and problems associated with comment#2?Will the city require ticketing and towing of PUD vehicles parking in the adjacent neighborhoods? 4. Lot has not been identified on the plans and submittals as such. RAZ-4 5_ Because of issues associated with storm water run-off,what provisions have been identified to RAZ-5 control vector/trash related issues associated with the treatment basin for the first flush run-off. 6. The Draft Measure does not indicate which community will be`stuck'with the low income housing referenced in this document.This detail should be established prior to the finalization of this environmental document so that all affected parties have opportunity to provide proper input.As it RAZE stands,this is something that will happen,sometime,somewhere. 7. What guarantee will be provided by the developer/City that a signal will not be installed on Yorktown when traffic becomes unbearable in the future or enough people are hit trying to make RAZ-7 turns into or out of the development? 8. Why is the RL-7 rating being applied to this track development? is this so that the City can justify the collection of the fees,taxes, permits,etc under the PUD rules without hindering the development of RAZ-8 the site and requiring substantial changes to the city zoning laws? 9. Why is the City allowing a RL-7 rating on this tract adjacent to the much lower density rating of adjacent tracks? RAz-s 10. The population estimates cited in the measure cannot be realistic. Based on income requirements, the demographics of the coastal area of Orange County,the likely hood of 208 individuals living in St,homes is unlikely.Single upper-middle class professionals do not buy bedroom,2300 sf. houses.Married professionals might buy 4 bedroom, 2300 sf. houses,but will have kids in the RAZ-10 future. Married couples with kids will buy these types of homes,and so will multi-generational families with multiple incomes.What provisions are being proposed to prevent over-crowding and those issues associated with over-crowding,specifically parking? HB -181- ATTACHMENT (Item 23. - 398 Leiter 17-Robert A.Zordani(RAZ) Page 2 of 3 11. Calculations are presented that show only a nominal increase in the impervious surface area(from 43 to 46%)_This is not physically possible since houses of this size,with driveways,sidewalks, streets, and foundation/patios will take up more than this amount. Developer should prove this with RAZ-11 written documentation available to the public for review. 12. Parking at the"Park" is not sufficient for even a moderate use of the field facility for a soccer game. Insufficient parking at the"Park"will lead to people parking in the adjacent neighborhood causing issues for current residents. Because the proposed development will be creating these issues,the RAZ-12 developer must mitigate them. 13. None of the developer supplied rendering showing the proposed house profiles indicates the presence of the solar photovoltaic panels identified as part of the green initiative.With 29 properties whose primary(front)view facing west,and 21 primary(front)views facing south,61.7% of the houses will have solar panels visible from the street,instal led on architectural roof lines that RAZ-13 are not conducive to the installation of efficient solar collection,thereby negating the effort of instaiNg there.Ancillary to this effect is the planting of trees in front of the houses for beautification of the track,which will in time negate the effect of installing the solar panels.This justification" used as part of the selling pitch for this project is laden with deception. 14. Traffic studies cited in the back of the report identify NB Ward Road traffic (AM) at 0.38,yet on Yorktown and Brookhurst, Eli(AM) is only 0.14.This means that the total amount of traffic generated by the adjacent housing tracks and one mobile home park generate 0.24.Since I live in RAZ-14 the neighborhood,and am in the roadway construction industry, I know this is highly skewed information being used to justify this development. 15- Traffic projections from the development indicate that only 46 trips exiting the development at peak hours.This is onlyRAZ-15 possible if you actually believe the residential number cited in the report as 208. 16- Traffic studies indicate that there are currently 40/80 cars per hour at Canberra and Yorktown and that the development will have absolutely no effect on the current traffic situation,when built. Because I live in this track, I know that non-residents use this track as a cut through to avoid the Service level F occurring at Brookhurst and Adams during peak hours.This will also occur when this I development is finished as most people arrive home via the freeway or major arterials.Since the j freeway is north of the track,and the traffic is already at levels D-F depending on the direction and RAz-16 time,traffic on Ellis at Ward will get worse and traffic at Adams and Brookhurst will also getworse. The traffic studies indicate that the majority of traffic will be on Brookhurst to EB Yorktown only provided that you suspend the belief that people will take the shortest/quickest route home and not the streets that have the proper capacity to support the additional traffic trips being generated. 17. Traffic on WB Adams,east of Brookhurst is at a virtual standstill during peak hours.Traffic studies indicate that there will be no adverse effect from the development,on the existing traffic and therefore no mitigation is required.This is a blatant falsehood and intentional manipulation of the RAz-17 traffic data. 18. Traffic studies and projections for the intersection of Garfield and Ward Road show no impacts due to the development being built.There is no way this could be possible as nearly all people who live in this area drive this road to get home unless they work to the south of Adams Ave,which is RAz-18 discussed in comment#16. Item 23. - 399 HB -182- ATTACHMENT NO. _2- Letter 17-Robert A.Zordani(RAZ) Page 3 of 3 19. Table number 4 in the traffic study report indicates that the total number of trips generated by a SFR is 12. Based on the math of 12x81 units=972 not the 840 trips cited per day.Justify the i reduction in the number of proposed trips based on the cited example not matching the math being KAZ-18 used. 20. Table 44 shows the wardlow school track development having 49 units and Table#3 shows it has 50 units.which information is correct?is the math being manipulated to justify the end results of"no RAz_zo impact,thus no mitigation is required?" 21. Table#2 vs.Table#5 vs.Table#8 shows that there is no decline in the level of service at Brookhurst and Adams due to this proposed development. Unless the developer can force every one only to drive south on Brookhurst,stay off of Ward Road entirely,or just stay at home completely,traffic on Ward will have to rise and traffic on Adams at Brookhurst will get worse(unless they cut through the RAZ-21 Glen Martract).With the significant discrepancies identified in the traffic studies alone,this entire mitigation report appears to be a sham to justify the development. I know how to manipulate this stuff, remember,I am in the business. j 22. The City of Huntington Beach has a fiduciary responsibility to scrutinize this information in a mariner not available to the general public,for the sole purpose of protecting the existing citizens of the city, not the potential citizens of the city.Additionally,if the City's sole interest is to sacrifice the existing RAZ-22 citizens for the purpose of generating future revenue/tax dollars,shame on you and your kind for selling out those of us who already live here,for money,and for enabling the developer to increase his return on investment at the expense of the existing homeowners. Sincerely, Robert A.Zordani, PE 10101 Valley Forge Dr. I Huntington Beach,CA.92646 { HB -183- FTAC H 400 D Item 2l - ZONING CONFORMANCE MATRIX LAMB RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION z GODS PRQYISflNT PRPSEzY 210.06 Lot Area Min.. 6,000 sq. ft, Interior Lots: Ranges from 3,659 sq. ft.to 6,695 sq. ft. Perimeter Lots: Ranges from 4,078 sq. ft. to 6,299 sq.ft. Lot Width Min.. 60 ft. Ranges from 47 ft.to 67 ft. Cul-de-sac width Min.45 ft. Ranges from 47 ft. 58 ft. Density 1 unit/6,000 sq. ft. lot; max. 7 1 unit/3,600 sq. ft. lot(average);max. 6.9 units/net acre units/net acre(only two lots are proposed to exceed 6,000 sq.ft.) 210.06 Building Height Max. 30 ft. from top of Ranges from 26 ft.to 28 ft.3 in. subfloor to roof peak; 35 ft. w/CUP 210.06 Lot Coverage Max 50% Complies 210.06 Setbacks Front Min. 15 ft. Complies Side Min. 5 ft. Complies Street Side Min. 10 ft. Complies Rear Min., 1.0 ft. Complies Garage Front entry Min 20 ft. Complies 230.70.0 Grading Max. 3 feet between high and. Approximately 1 feet 10 in. between high low points of existing grade and low points of existing grade 231.04.B Off-Street Parking- 2 enclosed+2 open/up to 4 Complies Number of spaces BR unit 210.06 Landscaping 40%front yard setback Complies 232.08.B 1-24"box tree per lot<45 ft. in width; 1-3 6"box tree per lot_>45' in width 230.88 Fences& Walls Max. 6 ft. high along 5 ft.6 in.high along perimeter,exterior side, perimeter of side and rear and interior walls of project yards;Max. 8 fL high along perimeter abutting open space;Max. 6 ft.high interior fencing separating properties Item 23. - 401 HB -184- ATTACHMENT NOe ' To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee 2 0 12 PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW A, SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE 4 0/1V Address `� 2. Signature ` Address fl 3. Signature ono Address > Signature V 2-4 ) Addrei? Signature t,j D Address Print Name L Print Name "4000 Print NaP7 —(f Lf-15�4i Print Name k 611 (- 0- 0 -j C Phone Number Email Address ret— z� c�(y,4-9 70G Phone Number Email Address 2- Number `ems /,. Y,?I/w . Email Address pf 1(p zv\dc, t Y- Pho4 Num- b e-r91 Email Address Phone Number' Email Address If Signature UAIT f 1UCT6,A1 6 H &-ri"C . i;o uTH 1 r& v c- e j o.A Print Name H -8 Print Name Print Name Print Name Email Address -714 W M7 Phone Number Email Address Phone Number E-mail Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address ."C-r 2. 1 Signature Address 3, to Si&a=e Address 4. Signature Address 5. M Signature Z w Address 1 0 To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. Fr., `"_ F- From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WA.b`►_C.OL®W SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE dq &L nt Name ,I Phone Number � ,�i a&fn ., A o!r� 4 M Print�Njn Email Address Phone Number Email Address Print Naive Phone Number Print Name Print Name Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address H To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. -�' From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee 0 PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WA LOW W. SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Ernml Address p � f 7_ _ 2. Signature Print Name Phone Number A) Address Email Address 3.= Signature ao Address > 2-4 Signature Address G� Signature z ® Address 1 N Print Name Print Name Print Name Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address e;aiVI To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WA LOW Signature Address Signature Name Name Address z)ignature Prh:iMame ) Phone Number Address Phone Number C d, Tr - Email Address Phone Number MJ 'EiAail Addy'ds Signature Print Name Phone Number >Address Email Address C-) ,sign arare Print Name Phone Number. CD tN 7 3iddress Email Address Signature Address Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WA LOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE 7 - ,' Print Name � Phone Number 3 = Signature —� Address 4. Signature YAddress 5. M Signature ®- Address Print Name �nt Name 01 b14$0 Print Name Print Name Phone Number % Email Address D I Z�,S Phone Number ��,C�,o Email Ad ess Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address 1. 2. 3, 4, F-', n,""', t-,,V "..'p -, ,;,.. , ".* � D To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. ; ,j From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO' PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Mql Signature Pnnt Name Address Print Name Phone Number Email Address 71,.,rl',- 40 0 - 9,?76 Phone Number Address Email Address . Signature Print -N-alme Phone Number Address Email Address Address Signature Address .rrint iName t-1 141 ct 6 Phone Number Print Name Phone Number Email Address (6� (D N W To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. o From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & 'WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE i. - '7r- �'6-j►-�6 0� Z. Signatur��'4 ` Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address �.�" ftc 1 ora6 �� ' / Y ICY —�o fib Signature Print Name Phone Number & dT. 72< y ,� may. ��`c'� �1►, �h Address �� E ail Address 3.� b� Signature Print Name Phone Number N Address Email Address t. 5. Signature Address Z Signature Z P Address lJ Print Name Print Name Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address W. 1. 2. M 5. Address L �Civ.c o, 9----�&-Y?e Print Name Print Name Print Name Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WALOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Nylav,;_1 plry-,::3. -7 Si2nalhze Prini Name Phone Number 9a��C C P one Number Address Email Address tan ture Prin Name Phone Number L�,,— os Signature Address 5. M MSignature z Address 41 Print Name Print Name Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address �J - tk To: The Huntington Reach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee "J PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE ,4,,,,tyyw Azd, 6—K�. d Reed . ?Iq Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address Signature Print Name --I k 4 CMG Phone Number � � * , Address 41 Email Address Signature Address 0 � Address EE M 11=FP Print Naive Print Name Print Name LV-1 - Phone Number Email k/dd ess -T I Lk — LA S-- — Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address L Signat�re I / / Address &OA 0A7_,2 Address S To: The. Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee 9 J PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Phone Number Print Name ol . Yku-,OLL-- �. � Print Name Print ame Get C Print Name iAl-�A kc'r-� C4 IA6 Q � Email Address Phone Number Email Address a r, I'VL W-- e I I )&,4460,60vtt Phone Number Email Address Phone Number A cla EI-Aail Address Phone Number jac(laco, Email Address 0\'�\ t (Zb�o-s A- I To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE 1 11-9/- �z. - a Print Name / 14 P.:,, Qjik 'I d-4, 1-4 & S atur Address Signature Name Print Name 7/4 - �& ;-1 - s� q:0 Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Al Ema"11 Address Phone Number t Address Email Address !�rlgnatare Print Name Phone Number > L co ?Z-4 Address Email Address e- kSignature Print Name Phone Number z --4 0 Address Email Address rib �m Address -I.-, Signature Address Signature SignAde Maress M ..e- Signature CD To: The Huntington Beach City Council and HuDtington each Planning. Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW 2 � SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE :j -,J II k Print Name Phone Number , �IH4S. Print Name 9.2-6 Print Name Print Name i+ '?) , 9 I hgd41Lr Name ? . Email Address v ) p V6 —J)?� !" Phone Number Email Address 7 N I q - Phone Number TL Email Address I Ur � - F-" /(,. I(/ Lq/) Y%, Email Address Phone Number Email Address O CD To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB.& WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE -7 4, 3 - ds-s-s- ignature d Print Name Phone Number 1�14L-(,& 6CAA. CA, 45�49,DSOCa/ rt- . ear address11 � ) Email Address ZZ. /4- §ignature Print Name Phone Number 74 6 Address Email Address tb Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address > dSignatw� Prirtt Name Phone Number C) :r Address Email Address Signature Prix it Name Phone Number A Z: Awaress ( en- �z, A: � / , 71 (cvl L( Email Address 1. 3 To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WA LOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature Trint Name Phone Number Email Address Signature Print Name S--3-- Phone Number Address Email Address , 8igna e� Address Print Name 7 /ff " 4 /,/ Print Name Phone Number ✓ Email Address ///7;/ Phone Number (Y-:�CD - �kgm Print Name Email. Address /V- �1,1" —G !;�" P�' Phone Number Email Address CD To.- The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. LJ From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SI ACE 71Z :j- 5.ipature Address ItA, 7 Signature Addr M - Print Name C& q�(eL('16- �CL r n,,OA t I Phone Number Email Ad-ffess Phone Number Email Addi ess V,j Phone Number Email Address Phone Number -J Email Address 7 lq- Pbone Number Email Address 1. Z. 3. Signature Address Signature - Address Signature 4-A M S. Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee j, PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW 11 TO SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE -114'1111�, 7 Print Name Phone Number Email Address Print Name Phone Number Email Address -2?29 74 371 Print Name Phone Number CA1).1 CCOI Email Address w 0 2- YZ P&tie Phone Number ek- 7 4" Address Email Address tu�c Signature Print Name Phone Nu�.per IM Y6 Address Email Address 2. Z. 5. 0 To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. ('f:-D From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE �P 17"J,6116 X , \ 1\�; R, Signature Print Name Phone Number 4� Address Signature Print Name ! -j r r Address Email Address T7 '7 4-4 Phone Number Email Addresg 7-- i Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address Address Print Name Print Name Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address V M z i v rrw The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept.,.,. 1J, From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Si tore Print Name, Phone Number AdF)Y. '4 Email Address 4. 2. Print Name Phone Number 3. 4. Address Email Address 7 Signature Print Name Phone Number 6L y Address Signature , 14 e� c Email Address -714 -dtL,� Y�V .rllunu 114ulliour Email Address Name Phone Number Email Address H W • �.� N i di �s.'t To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Iamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WA LOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE -72 Signature Print Name Phone Number S Signature Address � Signature Address Z ft atur Addresq V Print Name Print Name 1 77 —. r 1 r� } 1 Print Name a7 VA- iy Print Name \wk" vj beach U) n.LcL, 7 (J-Y" -1 i t+) 6 Sys 1 2 F, Phone Number -r,maiVAauress ��) 941 3. Phone Number Phone Number Email Address Phone Number C4 coGhv (Cir'ln Email Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach PIanning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO ]PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE 16�> - 9 3 119IJ Signature Print Name r Phone Number � ) �—<A Address Email Address 12, Signature Print Name Phonn Nu- u- tuber Address Email. Address ^ Signature Print Name GA Phone Number Address Email Address :;A Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address } �CD —1 Signature Print Name PhoneNumber 7 W Address ' Email Address y .p (D Signature / Dee( Print Name L; �,��. Print Name CZ Xk AJ V Print Arne Milt Name ..1 � r C _ cl 'Pv CC Print Name Phone Number Email Address 909 —24q — 3) g� Phone Number Phone Number ".Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address I To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/]Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature - ..� Address — Signature ,- Address Signature ignature - M I Signature Address ame 2A" C- � Print Name JJQAvx Y\ c it Name I H Print Name P'T t Name A 7 Phone Number 0 a (qu j Email"kddress' Phone Number Email Address V Phone Number Email Address Phone Number I Address Number Email Address Q Signature C To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Print Name Print Name 11�- -7r 1 5 Z, 4, 4 Phone Number Email Address '/ 41 — ?�q - 3G Phone Number .Z/ Email Address � Signature s > ./ygnature > C-) jdres5sj 9 3::: t" ! .4 ,, - I Print Name t Print Name & , (-/-A fz�% vi -C, Phone Number Email Address Phone Number t, T- d (-' 4 ")" I.,.— dnature n Print Name Phone Number z P Address Email Address L To: The. Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TOP SERVE THE LAMB & WALOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE D el � r-�' -714 - &26 q&2 Signature Print Name Phone Number 16� &ZI& 2 0 Address 0 Email Address r. Signature Print Name Phone Number Yz 0-- Email Address EM00 S iin at u'r e o Address Print Name MOAA 'I > 1-4 Signature V Print Name 5g 1qq01 -) Address CD Signatifte Print Name ell w � tr !6 . Phone Number Email Address -2 / V 9(a ; - 2 V.22 Phone Number -(motO WI -IL), M ('k,& a 0 C-0,07 /-7 Email Address Phone Number Email Address CD To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields (SOF) / Lamb & Wardlo'w Neighborhood Committees PETITIO 71V,'TO PRE SERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature Address Signature Print Name q�k4 �D 7 f� 11-N i Print Name "I kk4)%0--3- q tao Phone Num Email Address -7f� -qr- 3- i/zo Phone Num - Address Email Address Signature Address Signature Print Name �),,? C q� Print Name 3 Phone Num Email Address Phone Nunn Ad ss Email Address -9("CD Llw 0,,-05,C- M Tepr4 Print Name Phone Num Address Email Address VI) To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. �7 � From: The Save Our Fields (SOF) / Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committees PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature Print Name Phone Num q�UIYVZ(p V-et/(I0V7,yI.0 Address V Email Address Signature - k 6 13206 �T��d tti Signature Address Signature Address 42 yam, 0- f F I Signature , Address 0 Nan, r) Kcx- 4© rack_. Print Name h CM(a� M Print Name f P'rint Name r\-�ae- (;71 CZ-N-a rV\- Print Name /9- Phone Num kutw", I xtm Email Address ?,Az 5,;71 Phone Num 4610,09 Phone Num Email Address Phone Num Eve- r VI-,� Email Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Print Name 1-1 Phone Number r V Address Ej. Print Name Address > Signature r ess ZdA1 M L"w ILL 4_ Sign e A CD Address Print Name Print F4ame Print Name 6c_ in - Email Address q C1 tL3� - 7 v/ Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address -7 1 14 Phone Number Phone Number - En pail Xdgess S To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beaeli'Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Print Name Phone s'o '- Addless Email Address A-. Signature Print Name Phone Number Email Address Signature Print Name Phone Number L Address Signature 0 Address Print Name Print Name Email Address Phone Number �� - j� Email Address Phone Number Email Address in Signature Signature Address Signature Address e 0 zr EZ Address M Si tore CD Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Ir" Print Name Phone Number Email Address � Print Name IV) I' Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address ✓ 4- zz Print, Name hone Number Phone Number r-Mall .,�I4:v L 7/-ft- /I Signature, / To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dpt From: The Save Our Fields[Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee I-* 'j PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE ,,,I.4? kddxess Signa Address Sign tore - rAddress "ZIavp Signature A 6 r,- s 5. M V C --q Signatae'-" z 1v Address Print Name Print Name Print Name Print Name Print Narne rATC41 Ord Phone Number �? 4 z e114 01, Email Address Phone Number A PW i t 5 fi P P) E Cb- Email Address Phone Number Email Address . yj-��:r,7 Phone Number Email Address 'X. pz--, Phone Number Email Address M To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Reach Planning From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WA LOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE 4.Q iaxnn ifi, Utrp-. Print Name (4 -9V1,1 Phone -Number AddrcsEmail Address � IN Signature Address e Signature Signa Print Name 0-,41 Phone Number Email Address Print Naive Phone Number c A - Email Address Print ame Phone Number N' /d C,/,9 9z�4� Print Name Email Addre Phone Number 5- Email Address Address 2. L Address 3. To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Print Name - I Prijht Name Signature' Print Name Address Signature Prinf-Rame cv" 'V- 144 " �q or A � 5. Z: Print Name --4 Address 7 u. Phone Number Email Address 7 Phone Number Email Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Ernail Address Phone Number Email Address To; The Huntington Reach City Council and Huntington Beac I h Planning_pept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE 7 Print Name 41, Ph / �A .4yeA_t:;, ire Print NOTO ss _Siignature Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Address Email Address 4 _uk Phone Number Signature Print Name 11A ft�&] AddrLs Address 4V G) 7-9—ilur Print Name Phone Number c Address Email Address w. CD .p To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington- Beach Planning Dept. 01� srl-��) 1 From: The Save Our Fields[Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee 1 PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Print Name Phone Number Email Address Z. �M-- 151. M 5. 0 Signature Print Name Phone Number Akdss Email Address Print Nwhe "-"Phone Number 10- Signature "T - -% Address Print Name I Print Name Email Address 11 16 0 K L5 Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address. To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee z- 0 1 PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW "Ar 71Y Signature Print Name Phone Numbei' Arlriracc Email Address IN '-z C/- L7L, 2 Signature Print Name Phone Number <� Address Email Address Address Email Address Signature Address Print Name C,Z-1- ME= Signature Print Name 64 Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address CD To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARLOW SCH L SI S/OPEN SPACE 17 i tore Print Name Phone Number Addre�a' Email Address Signature Print Name Phone Number Address s. Signature AAAracc� Signature Addres I. >. ^ - ' Signatare Q 1 Address t�I O 9 Print Name Print Name Email Address r `f ._) -80 3 Email Address -7ILI Gj-j �5 Phone Number Email Address 70-fl 4TV- Y)(�L Phone Number Email Address I Signatuxe � ( , Print Name 03, Phone Number Exnail Address Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address L- -7 (4 LkA6�:n-411 CULL=- k LA Signature Print Name Phone Number ( Address Email Zddress Signature Print Name _7 11 "7! I/ tfj� /Zl�j to Signature Address Print Name Phone Number Email Address Phone'Number Email Address CD To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. IS From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE -71q) q619-67 Th u Ha n-xvi Signature Print Name J Phone Number - &ei a, 6A-,q.,)646,, ka.kiq�YCF ke*le Address f I 'f�mail Address Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address 3. x x U * * -el\j N �o 7/ q - q6 g - (-1, 75-7 Signature Print Name Phone Number 1+UA17-1A1GTZVV 364 Cat 64 q 26 4 jG Address Email Address '. e. —r , -i Name 11- �a -7- & T�e Print T\ Phone Number 04 q o Address Email Address A I') 5. M -1 4 F Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address 1. - AoTess,—) VSi a ire td Address 1. 1> Signature AAddre M �- 5. Z Z ignature CMD t"i i Address To: The Huntington Reach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL S1TES/OPE11Vq- SPACE (�4 9 Print Name Print Name Ali Print Name IN bs-a lga'-bre Print Name Print Name �- - � - Phone Number \< Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number Email Address 17 le-Ir -0 15-66 Phone Number �7 CeOW Email Address Phone umber -7 Email Address -A�Qo 1. 2. tj F j TO: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Reach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow. Neighborhood Committee sr fz PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature Print Name Phone Number /7 Address � � / - J. 6 ' Print Name s W( N 8r'C) L v Print Name M riot Name 00Z 7Le�. Email Address Phone Number Email Address Phone Number . Email Address ?lq Sc�- 20�(, Phone Number Email Address K:�732-t(9 Phone Number Address Email Address 2. 3. Signature Address Signature ( Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee`v PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLO SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Print Name Phone Number Email Address R04 -�7 Print Name Print Name - Phone Number Email Address Phone Number A C f _ U (.-, Email Address Signature Print Name Phone Number m-3 --,---mot Ad ess Email Address Signature Print Name Phone Number CD N W Email Address �z� Jc3L tQ To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Reach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee INC PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE lc--r (7r � �6 -A XAL �1 y- Signature Print Name Phone Number 24 N, V r -I- �� q, 2-1 Addxess, Signature WA Wiz, 4 4z, Addr Address, M 5. Z_ Signature z 0 Address Print Name Email Address Phone Number Print Name Phone D Print Name 1'2 Name Email Address Phone Number V"'j �\ 9 i , Lc-svi-) Email Xddre-ss Phone Number Email Address 1. 2. Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee IYETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB Sr WA.RDLOW SCHOOL SLT)ES/OPEN SPACE Print Naxne Print Name �4?q& Phone Number v tilLl Address Phone Number ne on . n eJ /5T-5-53-577-7 Phone Number Email Address 6;/Signature, Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address CA Signature Print Name Phone Number —A 40-rMAI L Address Email Address M 2. 1, Signature Address Signature 6ignature ( Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRE' SERVE THE LAIC & WA LOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Print Name 0 Print Name Print Name Print Name A r 5. ;r- I I - LIB A-1 I M Si tune Address cJ Name yAa-.1, Phone Number �.4 Email Address3 I -SD 6 — /�? Phone Number Phone Number Email Ads(Phone Number Z le, 1A 15� -> Email Address -) )- ct- / - y 6)5--5' Phone Number IF -mail Address , CAL 2• '�)- To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & WardIow Neighborhood Committees PETITON'TO PRE E V THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Sighature Print Name at I l:�e r1991-� Signature Address �7 /Print Name A X1917, !! Phone Numb, Email Address An- 06 Phone Numb, kE ' Address ignature Print Name Phone Numb, ) Address Email Address Signature s, F Signature ' '6 Address 00 91, q �-4 lfG Print Name Phone Numb, Email Address Print Name Phone Numb Email Address r4- CD To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields/]Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committees 1L AM' 1TJA-;'r40TN-,* TO PIRESERATE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature Print Name Phone Numb Address � Email Address 2. 20S Signature Print Name Phone Numb 92--7C& A d Ss BrAtjailA. dress 2= nol -Signature Print Name Phone Numb, Address ELail Address 4.)> Signature Print Name Phone Numb 6V4 - C- 1 ZC-14 L!V- "Address Email Address M ZZ Z: 11Sign e Print Name Phone Numb, 62 E ' ail Address 2. To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. SrP From: The Save Our Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PE I TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & W.ARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature Print Name Phone Number Address 3. Signature w w Address Print Name 8M J Email Address Phone Number Email Address i 4 ,� 4 x— Phone Number Email Address Signature Print Name Phone Number Address Email Address j �-� ignature Print Name Phone Number N Address ` Email Address W O Sj O y� Signature To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach PIanning Dept. From: The Save Our ]Fields/Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committee PETITION TO PRESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Email Address 2. j n Signature � 7 Print Name Phone Number 3. Signature Address 5. • 1 I"J" - cl& 4c, Email. Address Phone Number 7� ?-- '- Email Address Signature - - Print Name Phone Number M Address Email Address Signature Print Name Phone Number z ^ 4 ? ! - _ Address Email Address To: The Huntington Beach City Council and Huntington Beach Planning Dept. From: The Save Our Fields (SOF) / Lamb & Wardlow Neighborhood Committees -PETITION TO PRIZESERVE THE LAMB & WARDLOW SCHOOL SITES/OPEN SPACE Signature V 44 'T Print Name ,['\ah e La Pac bid rol Print Name CnL04 62 KRttjT t I L-CU- Ie_ Iq 27e) v2 Phone Num Y'i'm " frkv- Email Address Phone Num Y,, , cc� r,% Address Signature— Print Name Phone Num Y, Address Email Address Signature Print Name — Phone Num L ZT-�fffy - /q/ e-, rn Cy- f"Y SignaturQ0 (D 00 r Address UJJU 2— 7/4 1�,q �S13 Print Name Phone Num A Email Address j C 2552 WHITE ROAD, SUITE B• IRVINE, CA 92614 _. . . . .. 9491IIyG1#-tN11€I FAX.: 9491690-0418 Q CIATE S CTVTL EacMEERS -L StAfi'+1EYORS -PLANMMS PRELIMINARY EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR YORKTOWN/LAMB Huntington Beach, CA 1498-844-1 YL RECEIVED SEP 18 2012 SUMMARY: Dept. of Planning Excavation 8,300 c.y. &Building Embankment 15,900 c.y. Over Excavation (Lots @ 4') 67,400 c.y. (Streets @ 2') Shrinkage (12%) 8,100 c.y. Subsidence (0.1) 1,900 c.y. Import 17,600 c.y. Less Lot Pulls 10,100 c.y. Less Utility Spoils 3,100 c.y. Net Import 4,400 c.y. NOTES: Site Area = 507,440 s.f. (11.65 AC) Lot Area = 401,700 s.f. Street Area = 105,740 s.f. Finish Lot Pulls = 125 c.y./lot Total Lots = 81 Utility Spoils include: storm drain, sewer and water G:lprojdata11498 HB School SlteslEarthwork Quantities.xlsx YL ATTACHMENT o Item 23. - 503 HB -1R56- RECeIVED SEP 18 2012 Dept.of Planning &Building ATTACHMENT HB -1957 Item 23. - 504 ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO FRESNO A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION RIVERSIDE (559) 225-6700 ATTORNEYS AT LAW (951) 683.1122 FAX (559) 225-3416 FAX (951) 683-1144 lRVINE 12800 CENTER COURT DRIVE SOUTH, SUITE 300 SACfRAhQEN70 CERRITOS, CALIFORNIA 90703-9364 (949) 453-4260 (562) 653-3200 - (714) 826-5480 (916) 9Z3-1206 FAX (949) 453-4262 FAX (916) 923-12.22 PLEASANTON SAN DIEGO (925) 227-920o FAX (562) 653-3333 (258)485-9526 FAX (925) 227-9202 WWW.AALRR.COM FAX (858) 485-9412 OUR FILE NUMBER: D05633.00012 October 8,2012 106ssa6a.a VIA IST CLASS MAIL Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney City of Huntington Beach P.O. Box 190 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: City Acquisition of Lamb and Wardlow Properties under the Naylor Act Dear Ms,McGrath: The purpose of this correspondence is to address the current ability of the City of Huntington Beach ("City") to acquire all or a portion of the Fountain Va cy School District's ("District") Lamb Property, located at 10251 Yorktown Street, and Wardlow Property, located at 9191 Pioneer Drive("Properties"). As you are aware, the District adapted and approved two separate resolutions approving the District's Surplus Property Advisory Committee's recommendations to sell the Properties, declaring each Property surplus, and authorizing the offer of the Properties for sale pursuant to California law. The District offered the Properties for sale to public agencies pursuant to the surplus property procedures set forth in Education Code sections 17464-17465 and 17485 et seq. and to public benefit non-profit organizations pursuant to Education Code section 17464. After extensive negotiations with the City, the District sold approximately 2.598 acres of the 15.005 acre Lamb Property (thereby leaving a remainder parcel of 12.407 acres to be sold), pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated September 23, 2005, and sold approximately 6.0 acres of the 14.354 acre Wardlow Property (thereby leaving a remainder parcel of 8,354 acres to be sold), pursuant to a Purchase and Sale Agreement dated September 23, 2005, to the City, for twenty five percent (25%) of said acreage's fair market value pursuant Education Code section 17485 et seq., also known as the Naylor Act. The District then went on to offer both the Properties to the public through public bids and later through an RFP process pursuant to applicable law. By offering the Properties to the City under the Naylor Act at that time, the District fiilfilled any requirement it had to offer or negotiate with the City for all or a portion of either of the Properties. Item 23. - 505 HB -1958 TAC H T ATKINSON, ANDELSON, LOYA, RUUD & ROMO Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney October 8,2012 Page 2 Accordingly,there will be no further opportunity for the City to acquire either of the Properties under the Naylor Act or other priority. Very t 7dy yours, ATKINSON,ANDELSON,LOYA,RUUD & ROMO Andreas C. Chialtas ACC_lat cc: Bob Hall,Assistant City Manager, City of Huntington Beach Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building, City of Huntington Beach Herb Fauland,Planning Manager, City of Huntington Beach Andrew Gonzales,Associate Planner, City of Huntington Beach Dr. Marc Ecker, Superintendent, Fountain Valley School District Stephen L. McMahon,Assistant Superintendent-Business Services,Fountain Valley School District Thomas J.Mitchell, President and COO, TRI Pointe Homes, LLC Tona Grable,Vice President-Project Managernenu TRI Pointe Hon es,LLC Gregory P.Powers, Attorney for TRI Pointe Homes, LLC, Jackson DeMareo Tidus Peckenpaugh ATTACHMENT HB -1959- Item 23. - 506 ATTACHMENT # 10 r November 5, 2012 RECEIVED Tom Grable NOV -J 7 2012 TriPointe Homes Dept. of Planning Vice President—Project Management & Building 19520Jamboree Road,Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 Subject:Solar Power Feasibility for Lamb and Wardlow Dear Mr.Grable, SunPower engineers have reviewed the architectural roof plans and site plan and have determined that solar power can be incorporated into all homes on these sites. SunPower manufactures the industry's most efficient and attractive solar panels and.each kilowatt only requires 65 square feet of roof area. SunPower inverters have two power trackers, which if necessary allow for installation on 2 different roofs plains (i.e. one solar array on a south roof and another portion on a west roof). This added flexibility insures each home can get the maximum solar performance. SunPower SignatureTm black panels will be inset into the tile roofs for excellent aesthetics (see photo below). SunPower is partnering with TriPointe Homes to build solar communities in Northern California and we look forward to implementing a similar commitment in Southern California. TriPointe Homes is leading US homebuilders by incorporating solar power into innovative and energy,efficient homes. SunPower was founded 25 years ago and manufactures the highest efficiency and highest performing solar panels on the planet. Having a home equipped with a solar gives you freedom from rising electric rates. SunPower is headquartered in California has 5,000 employees and global sales exceeding $2.5 billion. More homes in the United States are powered by SunPower than any other solar provider and we will install over 800 solar systems an new homes this quarter. Best Regards, s Addison Marks Regional Sales Manager—New Homes addison.marksa-sunpowercorp.com = =- SunPower Corporation 1414 Harbour Way South Richmond, CA 94804 www.sunpowercorp.com Item 23. 507 HB -1960- r .: RECEIVE? - Jackson DMar �Tidus NOV J 8 2012 Ppckenpaogh >7ept. 4f Planning A .L":A rt!: 0-Q.R. P-::O- R A.fi i"0 N Sc Building 1?Toverrrber.7,2412 �+air 949 5.1-76a , as► owers . iaw co 9P A. .., . m f2epl ac::. Irvine Office i;q Kol 6393:105644 CIA F-MML(i iames(&surfcity-hb-ozj6 AND OVERNIGHT MAIL Tare.names,Sr.Planner Department of.Planning Building City of.Huntington Beacb 2000 Maui Street P.O. Box 1.90 Huntington Beach,CA 4264.8-2702 Re , Soccer Field for Lamb School Site(TR1 Pointe Homes) .Dear Ms.James: We represent TRI Pointe Homes,. LW ("TRI Pointe"). . On October 23, 2612, the Huntington Beach ("City") Planning Commission approved,. 'by a. 5-1 vote,vote,. General flan. Amendment'No. 08-05., Zoning.IvMup Amendmenf No. 08-0., Tentative Tract 1vlap.No. 1723$, Conditional Use Permit No. 08-2:6. aid Draft 'Mitigated Nega. ve :Declaration-No. 08-13 (`Mi D") (collectively; the "Project Approvals'') for TRI Pi}inte's.proposed prqjects lacated at 10251 Yorktown Avenue (the fernier Lamb ,School. site) to aecointnodate 81 ;lots for new detached- single-family homes: (the."Project.").: At the meeting; -Planning Commissioner Mark. .Bixby';. ai'o..that he believed the MD .fox the Project was "defieierit=' because the Pr(sject would "displace' U-1-4: sower teams (:e elxildrev finder 14). Cominiss oz�er Bixby stated. that.l is: finding ..was based at least in part; on testimony_received; during:the public hearing from Mr. .' Alan Gandall_ The MND for.the Project indicates that TRl Pointe will :construct a multi-use practice field measuring 240 Feet(in length) by 150 feet(in°width)on the iieiglibotim City.parr.. Recent discussions bemleet TRT:Pointe and,City staff indicate that a field measuring 300 feet (length). by 210 feet:(width)is feasible as well. AY"SO National Rules'and regulations Specify,that:the rlirz ensiow and markings of the field of play are At the-discretion..of the region and,whenever possible,must cotifonn to the EFA Laws.of the Marne or AYSO short-sided game requirements. According to the FIFA 2012/20/3 Laws: of the Game; a field may 3 e between (approximately) 30039U feet (length) and 1. .0-3OD feet.(width); (See FiF.A:2012�2013 Lawn of the Game,pp, 7 & 1.3-) Tlie revised dimensions for the:PrQjeet's hold 0t w ttiin these:parameters: ►wine Office VWS1*0 office Z0 G Main:Stieet;Suite'1200 2815"Iow.ns9a€e Road;Suite 20:0 www.jdtPTaw.=n inrine,California 92614 Westlake Village,California 91361 i I2i251,1 t949.752.8585 fi949:752,0597 t805230.0023 f805;230..0087 HB -1961- Item 23. - 508 Jane James, Sr. Planner Department of Planning..&'Building: City of Huntington Be.aclx 20-00 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntfngtoim Beach, CA 92648-2702 November 7,2012 Page 2, Regardless;the potential for soccer team:displacement is not an appropriate basis to reject. an.errviroiimental .review document under the California Envixorunental Q01 ty Act ("CEQA"); Sbeial changes or impacts' are. only.proper for consideration under -QE-QA ,if the change will directly or.indirectly lead to an.adverse physical change to ihe-environrrient, or.to deteradne if a -physical change is a significant impart (14 CCR § 15131; Bakersfield Citizens for Local Contrail v. City of Bakersfield(2004): 1.24 Cal.App:4 1184; Friends of Davrs°v� Criy� nfDavis `(200:0) $0 Cal.AppA4 1004; j'Ielom y:: Cb_}y of Afadera (`2,010) .183. Cal.App.� 141 {emphasis. addedl.) There is iio: evidence in the: record- for. the. Project or otherwise that potential &s.laoement'.'of a soccer team could.result in.physical impacts or: changes to 6E environment.. Commissioner- Bixby referenced. the Project's initial study to support his position: that soccer team displacement is a.proper :consideration under CEQA.. The initial study asks the following three questions. (l) would the project.increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities siidi that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or. be accelerated; (2) does the proj'cet. include recreational. facilities or require :the tesn truction :or expansion of such facilities which might have wi adverse:physical effect on the:environment; and.(3)-would the project affect existing recreational opportunities,:. Under the CLQA guidelines and case law,these questions should be.analyzed w thin_.the context of.whether thee.Project affects a physical change to.the environment.. The MND explainrs Elie Project could result in,up to.208 new residents to-the City; some of which will use local and regional parks as well. as other recreational facilities. This. discussion concludes by .stating the increase: is park use :is not anticipated to result in substantial deterioration of racreatiorial facilities.in..the City. The discussion acknowledges that there will be a teznpoxary suspension of A.YSO soccer practices. and games at the site :due to construction of park. improvements, but concludes that this wil result in ld less than:significant impact under CFQA because the impact is temporary in nature: Further., the:temporary suspension is for the-pwpo.e of constructing new park ai enities amichmprovements,,including a half-court basketball court,tot lot,pidnio facilities with a shade structure; and.aTt improvod parking lot Thus,,the Project,woWd.-M.a existing recreational opportunities. It is also .important to point out.that Stephen L. McMahon, Assistant 'Superintendent of the Fountain''Valley. School District(the I`Distriot"), seiit.a letter to:the Planning Commission.on October, 22, 20;12; :stating that the District has three additional locatioM available for,teams currently using the Lamb School site. Air„ McMahon also rioted that the.Distriict has given the Item 23. - 509 HB -1962- Jane James,;$T,:Planner Department;of:Planning:8c Buillding City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street P:O. Box 190 !!` Huntington Beach, CA.92648-2702 1 -Novernber 7,2012 Page:3 necessary information.to AYSO to reserve these sites and. that the District. would snake them- available for AYSO's:use Based on the foregoing,.it is clear that.(1)the Project can aceammodate a field that-will allow far soccer. use by any age. group iA. a manner that is. consistent with the AYSO National Rules and Regulations and,the F`3FA 2012/2013.Lawn of the Game (2) the District has at leant three additiortal:sites for-AYSO use, (3) "displacement" of soccer. tdanis is not a. proper tarsi's under. CE.QA to.reject the Project MND, and (4) the 1ND adequately analyzes the Pxoject's impacts on this subject and prapezly concludes.that no significant impacts to the chvironment will occur. We hope you find this information- usefuL We request that. a copy of this letter be :included in the administrative record:for:the Project. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions.or need.more information, Sincerely, . Gregory P,Powers, Ertl:_. ce' To Crralale=TRI::I?ointe-Honies* Michael L.Tidus;Esq,* *:-,4a.email only I i HB -1963- Item 23. - 510 James, Jane From: Tom Grable[Tom.Grable@TriPointeHomes.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2012 5:24 PM To: James, Jane Cc: Dominguez, David; Mike Adams Subject: Lamb-AYSO Soccer Field Dimensions Attachments: 20121107161900746.pdf.pdf; 20121107161923117.pdf_pdf Jane, Here is the information on the AYSO soccer field dimensions. Attached as PDFs are excerpts from the links below. As you will see there are many options available for sizing the field of play. While we were initially provided field dimensions by City staff of 150' x 240',our proposal to expand the field to go up to 210'x 300' is more than adequately sized to accommodate boys soccer U14 and above according to the Laws of the Game. See the AYSO National Rules and Regulations (the attached excerpt comes from page 4, paragraph G): http://www.ayso.org/Libraries/Resources/rules rees.pdf Then see the FIFA Laws of the Game (the attached excerpts come from pages 3,5, 7, 12 and 13): http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/affederation/generic/81/42/36/lawsofthegame 2012 e.pdf Let me know if you have any questions on these documents. INS tew. - Tom Grable Vice President— Project Management 19520Jamboree Road, Suite 200 Irvine,CA 92612 Ph: (949)478-8674 Fax: (949) 478-8601 Cell: (949) 378-3251 Email: Tom.Grable@TRIPointeHomes.com_ J�P"Us cm lffi Item 23. - 511 HB -1964- 4 0 E AYSO National Rules & RegulationS 6 Xa®Na ona['Pules &:Rogutafions(0512,011) 1 HB -1965- Item 23. - 512 AYSO Raftonal Rules 4 Fegulaticrts TEAMS Age Division size C!�,cam'seranco Veil ht U._5'.U-6 :U 8 3 23.0-25.0 inches 10-12 oz U-10.&U-12. 4 25 0-26.5 inches 1271.4 oz. U-14, U46&U4*6 51 26,5=28,0 inches 14-16 oz. 1 the drme�sioris;arad Iriatic�n ¢ €file �e€ij ofpfa�r and goats siallbeafhe d;screttarf -0f#ha iegior�atrl,3rolever pvssrble conrc€rrr to theIF�1 LatiVs 4f the Ga o A'SE3 shc�t dried s�arxrs.regtrrreteti#s 2. A;coaches'area exWndi.ng teen yards on each side of fhe haiNvay liitie shall:be.marked by two lines off the field of.play and,perpendicular to the touch line: Where possible, the obaches' area shall include two,ad&t.Jonal tines; with one fine:parallel to and of least Dike yard .from the toucf„Ilne4 and a second parallel line no more than three yards from the toilc�line.. & The field shall be marked,where possible',with a spectatorcootrol:line parallel to the toru h line at.a distance of at least three yards from the tourb line. Coaches and officials should help the assistant referees keep spectators behind the spectator control fine. 4. Spectators shall not be :allowed :behind the goaf Bikes, with. the exception of phatographers Who have received authorization f am the referee, and.who must remain*et and sufficiently back from the goal limes, H. SHQRT.wslD ED GAMES 1 Jt is strongly reOr imended that:U-5 through.UA 2 divisions play sh�itt-sided games; conducted in acc¢rdance with th current FIFA Laivs-pf fhe Game as modified by the AYS0 Nationa/ Rules & Regulations and the age: appropriate .AYSO Coaching. Manual. Reglons'May choose to allow.goaikeepers in.the U-&divlsiorL Coaches beginning at the U-10 division are ailmved.to teach tdarrm mernbe'is.how to properly_head the ball. 2. Short-sided gammes are`p witted for all divisions. -11R: TEAMS .A_Team names shall bear riff-resemblance to a;rel'rgrorr;race,.elbnicityor haticinali y'. 8. Teams shall :participate only In games approved by their respective Regional. Cnmrrdssiongrs and/or presidiina AYSO governing authority. G. Team:size; 1.- Far full-sided (11-a-side) soccer (not recommended for ;U-12 .and younger),the number.of team meimbers at any ogle ti.rne shall be' AYSO Nartio"All !hales &- Regula#ions: (05120..11) Item 23. - 513 HB -1966- --,tw ........... 7!ta --lzri mi t-i 7i 717it— q4m ttl:� .1 17�f"=N� �lr :wz if- i� ig .......... 14!—t gT� .. .. ..... t:1� ........ 2 0 2 01,2.71-%7 C ------------- ti .................. kip ul3JEct tclegfer ?rz or{I?:e rr�ener.assOriatip con'cei,�ed. cdrorderL. :: }�rinr; esfh�se tray .are`rarnFnedY.ue rno �f�ed x a� ratior rnaL >?es for pla. rs of under 1r,rare , age;for women footballers; forveteran rootballers(over 35 vears of. age) and.for players;voritl disal�il it.es. Any Ot all c Lhe Aoilovt—r1g od]ricauor€s are partrrrs�iUle of,l,e f eT 70.7 play s ae, �Voght and matey ial of the hail 8 vidth bet?r�eer,t1 goalpasts A td height o the doss r'it`o n the qrQuncl duration:of the pedocis of flay substitutions Further modifi-cations are only allowed t�ii0 the consent.of the :lnternatiorW- otE it Association hoard, l?ef€,je;rces to*he male gender in he.Laws of the.G. in respect of referees; assistant referees,placers and o;ficiads are for sim,piificatibn and apply.to Both 'Mee, and ltds✓'men. On bebalf`of.the lnternabbi4al Footb-all Assodatibn Board, HFA:pubiishw the° laws of the.Game i.n tigrish, French, Gei-vian and 5parish- If VI—ere is-any divergence in the Evord r,.g the cnglish text is a0horitaiiY2,. A:sirlgl:e line irvtM- l ft:-hand rear hi indicates ,new Law changes.. Item 23. - 515 H B -1968 15 The 13ap 17 3 Tile Nufnl�!U of Players 21 4 -The Players' Equipment 24 5-The Referee.: 28 6-.The:Assistant Referees 29 7 The Duration of the Match 30 8-The:Start and Restart o Play 33 5--Thi Ball lit and:Out of Play 34 10--The Method of Scot ing 35 11 -'Offsde: 36 12- Fouls and i%4'1Kar1.dact. 40 13- fen.Kic�ls .4.4 14--The Pe alty Kick 4$ 1:5--The Throw.-in 54 1.. -The Goa I KiJCk 52 17—The Corner Kick s4 .Procodures'to Dete'miile 1heWinnet of a Match or Home-and-A-way r_ The Technical Area 57 The Earth Official a; .d the Reserve Assistant Referee 5§ In erl?l7,:� Qt on:of the Lauds of the G. ame a:nd G,uid Ines ,'or Referees 13 Rures of tht-lnternatiohal.Football Associa:tiot Board: xs -1969- Item 23. - 516 = f r cx ckr:fine r i st be g eaf r � ar if ]en fih bf tn� goal t rye Ler3gt h lr e r nur n 90 M 1110fl maximum 120, nn (130 yds) Yv r i ig al4M., rvt itlJm m 445: M. ., yds rnaximr_m 90. M 0 00 ydsl All lines must l e�of the same Wid_h; which must be noi_tnore Vlan 12 cm (5 ins). International matches Length:. mininium 100:m (110 yds) mvirnurn 11:Q m (120 bras) Width; Minimum 64 rn (70 yds) rnax MW,n 75 m �80;yds)- The gaa[:area Two lines ark drawn at dght;:atigles to-the.goal line, 5.5. rn �6.yds)fiTorn th.L-: insi&l, of etch goaEpOR. Th8e Iirre> exte-ad into the field of play for a distance: of 5.5 m(6 yds)and are Moir eci:#Jy:a line drawn parallel with t1ie goal.line. 1-be area bout ded by obese lines and the goal Tine is the goal area. Item 23. - 517 xB -190- --tom CORz�.E6 r�AGFGST 'Cf3At.i:[F�E;'. (toinpalscit GOAE AREA T 1 3 P�IACSY MARK' � e , FLAGB051' ri (optlonai}; I -' 0713E tIPGLE I m d y '.=, A Cf1E RE►ADD -37 7 } 1 , d J. OPTIONAL 1 OPHO€dALMARK COVER A-FC Comer f lacipo,.st = Rag to k e_not.iess than t S Ml5:#t f i {With a nail,ppJ tad top. I�nat�t<enot` ore 'than 1.2 c ti510 - �Jy121L'. Corner art -C6rnF-.r'f}aSAost`is compuisoiy HB -19T- Item 23. - 518 Midtha IViaxFmnr�'90 t» h�M4rourr,.{S.m c i a 935411 I 17. I i f' i J - a9,is.m 4.15m 105�n 7.32M 5.5111 �� er��txn�a��rernenfi� ``' 6 aloi: M--x,a;,rrnj00 a,:. .. r J J ji r r t , a: k 1 �..`i 12 vds 1 t R'yds — { D.y+�s t ds g ydg 6 yrli Item 23. - 519 xB -192- - i s ORK e 8 fG _ y`5 4 f Table of Content I. Support from Adjacent Neighbors/Huntington Beach Residents II. Support from Local Business Owners III. Reply Cards in Support Garnered from Multiple Mailings to Surrounding Neighborhoods IV. E-mails in Support Generated through Project Web Site V. Letters of Support from Building Industry Association Membership Item 23. - 521 HB -194- The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field, picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court,that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated,providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's inaster plan of drainage,which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name Address Phone -71LI" —3�3 - -7i�� E-mail �I'�� CLC YlG`�►�lctcl wy HB -195- Item 23. - 522 The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; ® The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field,picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated, providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the eity's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name > e L Address Phone E-mail �,ro Xyl LIT Item 23. - 523 ALB -19�- The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington.Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and duality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field, picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated, providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's master plan of drainage,which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name .. Address I 1 .e. U lkt�i -y d� Phone � ! q ` � � 3 1 3 ;71 E-mail L1 .4 (3 J 1Yd } L40 V ez /2.0 W I V fs! HB -197 Item 23. - 524 The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field, picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park.and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated, providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thant.you. Sincerely, Name RM I CS ' Address 1 1 l Phone j E-mail Item 23. - 525 HB -199 The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field,,picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated,providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name ��i1�� � Address WA U 1A<A V1 ' 1 Phone I q �0 2, (4isq I E-mail MAO OTea &ek L) Q- HB -199- Item 23. - 526 The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field, picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated, providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name eec, Address � �� Phone E-mail Item 23. - 527 HB -199- The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen_ I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; ® The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field, picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court,that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated, providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; ® A storm drain will be constricted within the city's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and ® New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name Address Phone E-mail HB -19$- Item 23. - 528 The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes mill complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field, picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated, providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name �� Address t/ •C • �- Phone - 7 _ E-mail y Item 23. - 529 HB -198- The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field, picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; ® TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated,providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Narneii I � - Address 1 q'J 1 Z MaU M GL Z A k e ` (o Phone 7 E-mail X^- 46 tle V t Ze4q ANQ 4- HB -193- Item 23. - 530 The Honorable Don Hansen City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: T support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and enhance the neighborhood; • The new neighborhood has been sensitively designed to maximize the privacy of adjacent homes and maintain coastal breezes; • The planned improvements to the city's 2.6-acre park will give us usable open space, including a new improved soccer field,picnic tables, a tot lot and a half-court basketball court, that we don't currently have; • TRI Pointe Homes has worked diligently to provide ample public parking within the park and along the new neighborhood's private streets to share the parking burden with current residents; • A green building program will be incorporated, providing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods; • A storm drain will be constructed within the city's master plan of drainage, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood; and • New homes mean the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings. Please approve the project and help our neighborhood to move forward. Thank you. Sincerely, Name Address �CVA0 7., �,CvkAa EtA Phone E-mail Item 23. - 531 HB -194- November 6, 2012 The Honorable Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: TRI Pointe Homes Lamb and Wardlow Developments Dear Mayor Hansen: I am writing in support of TRI Pointe Homes' proposals for new homes in Huntington Beach. As a long-time business owner and resident, I am confident that a revitalization of these properties will not only enhance the neighborhoods aesthetically, but will also increase retail sales of surrounding businesses, creating economic vitality and new job opportunities for the area. The facelift on Main Street, where I have owned businesses for over 40 years, has done wonders for the local economy with tourism, a newer client base and a general upgrade of the area. The newer design attracts not only tourists, but old and new residents alike. It's a more attractive place to visit and live. Likewise, upgrading and improving other areas of Huntington Beach will give the incentive to surrounding neighborhoods to enhance and improve their own properties, making Huntington Beach a much more attractive place to live and visit. Please approve both projects as is. They are good for the city and our local economy. Thank you. Sincerely, Adel Zeidan HB -198- Item 23. - 532 The Honorable Don Hansen Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: As a local business owner, I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • New homes mean new customers and a boost to our local economy. • The construction of the development will create local job opportunities for both the construction crews and nearby businesses. • A strong local economy is key to improving the quality of life of our community. • The new development will increase property values in the area, which will promote improvements and upgrades to the existing neighborhoods. • The proposal to create a 2.6-acre city park complete with a new soccer field and other amenities will give local residents usable open space and recreational opportunities not currently available. • A storm drain system will be constructed for the city, upgrading local infrastructure, which directly benefits the entire neighborhood as well as local businesses. • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and improve our community. • An enhanced green building program will be incorporated for these homes,utilizing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods for greater energy efficiency and sustainability. • New homes mean: the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings, the removal of a blight on our community, an increase in property values and less crime in the area. We ask that you consider heavily the financial benefits the TRI Pointe Lamb project will provide to area residents, businesses and the city, We respectfully request your approval of this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Name/Business 7. 1& ���0 Address [ i � r-) WA4 S` Phone 014) 301 E-mail 7 Item 23. - 533 HB -198- The Honorable Don Hansen Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: As a local business owner, I support TRl Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • New homes mean new customers and a boost to our local economy. • The construction of the development will create local job opportunities for both the construction crews and nearby businesses. • A strong local economy is key to improving the quality of life of our community. • The new development will increase property values in the area, which will promote improvements and upgrades to the existing neighborhoods. • The proposal to create a 2.6-acre city park complete with a new soccer field and other amenities will give local residents usable open space and recreational opportunities not currently available. • A storm drain system will be constructed for the city, upgrading local infrastructure,which directly benefits the entire neighborhood as well as local businesses. • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and improve our community. • An enhanced green building program will be incorporated for these homes, utilizing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods for greater energy efficiency and sustainability. • New homes mean: the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings,the removal of a blight on our community, an increase in property values and less crime in the area. We ask that you consider heavily the financial benefits the TRl Pointe Lamb project will provide to area residents,businesses and the city. We respectfully request your approval of this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Name/Business Address 'kb M Phone E-mail c5-r HB -199 Item 23. - 534 The Honorable Don Hansen Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mayor Hansen: As a local business owner, I support TRI Pointe Homes' proposal for homes on the former Lamb school property for the following reasons: • New homes mean new customers and a boost to our local economy. • The construction of the development will create local job opportunities for both the construction crews and nearby businesses. • A strong local economy is key to improving the quality of life of our community. • The new development will increase property values in the area, which will promote improvements and upgrades to the existing neighborhoods. • The proposal to create a 2.6-acre city park complete with a new soccer field and other amenities will give local residents usable open space and recreational opportunities not currently available. • A storm drain system will be constructed for the city, upgrading local infrastructure,which directly benefits the entire neighborhood as well as local businesses. • The design and quality of the planned homes will complement and improve our community. • An enhanced green building program will be incorporated for these homes, utilizing environmentally sensitive construction and building methods for greater energy efficiency and sustainability. • New homes mean: the elimination of badly vandalized, abandoned school buildings, the removal of a blight on our community, an increase in property values and less crime in the area. We ask that you consider heavily the financial benefits the TRI Pointe Lamb project will provide to area residents,businesses and the city. We respectfully request your approval of this project. Thank you. Sincerely, Name/Business � � �Q Address Phone -7J 66 E-mailY� Item 23. - 535 HB -198 I 'I Pointe PointePointe HOMES,LLC E OMES.LLC HOMBS,LLC Think. Renew. Inspire. Think. Renew.Inspire. Think. Renew. Inspire. Support Economic Activity I Support Economic Activity I Support Economic Activity in Huntington Beach! in Huntington Beach! in Huntington Beach! i Please tell us why you support TRI Pointe Homes' Please tell us why you support TRI Pointe Homes' Please tell us why you support TRI Pointe Homes' collaborative vision for the former Lamb School collaborative vision for the former Lamb School collaborative vision for the former Lamb School property. property: pro arty: ❑ New customers within walking distance Now customers within walking distance New customers within walking distance of my business of my business of my business O $39 million in local economic activity Z$39 million in local economic activity ❑ 9 million In local economic activity ❑ 183 new local jobs ❑ 183 new local jobs ! 183 new local jobs i I Are you interested in speaking In support of the plan Are you interested in speaking in support of the plan Are you Interested in speaking in support of the plan at an upcoming public hearing? at an upcoming public hearing? at a upcoming public hearing? ❑ Yes No ❑ Possibly ❑ Yes No ❑ Possibly Yes ❑ No ❑ Possibly >" tz !I `D Name: ki, I6 �IyC49 Name:p ` it C �rcc I cc Name: 4?,-n nI&A(b _ Address p.�....1�'�-t�f�� K-C �`_S% Address: i ® +`oa , ft�,_S Address: C' ZIP: 2-&(1(o C�Y: ZIP: 74,6 L Phone: 7� �. Phone: � j fftt �Q t "�� I -- Phone: � -- --- E-mail: E-mail:,w1 c6e( _Con .➢ M.c.r�ct`e.co'^► Email: Comments: Comments: Comments: — -- — -- -.— (p N � r • �...; "Y.. S #+;. 7,x�" F' e! 0 :E ! -%4.. - •'+., '�-, I I -N. r3: S5 .; qLR ,,_; A r � tl�j ,� ''t .+ i a�j�!],I �{7 0� '�r��t� ! .t .r' ' 'e v.;`'4',�+`j.±�c Ip• '�7{, ,a"'_� ¢ '�R+f fi�� t ' 44, �`r �S�,i•�'�+�.. ,rA 1. ,€..a I } �r� "� ,-.�i..c ..4. yy,, ,� 1, .:r. ;,K w,,. .� ,:�"...�i, v.a,j��nJ .y :.t '.�' t :�aZ ➢+g aSc.l➢ .1�. ! aQ"'0' tiK w'! '➢ �€G '!3 9t; LTl:!i`�• :f+' M 4 ➢' tom = _ C' ?A P7...➢ :! !S I➢•s,1 _ 3`,➢.d S $'3,�i R ,! !> r ➢ ➢,➢1H 4 r 1�,a-d i •3,j._ .hs d ,.�➢!`"{clN�' ,$�la.t�p, �.t:y 3 ,j�! „_ ...H. a ' :7s� 4 �'`'�:;1�. ��� �'s, $ ''+X$ Y,�^' �F� �C s!�t� .i l� �F y!�'�!"5�{ ��?'Ju." �� 'Z �}'f' 5.. �'a� � k� . v..n. �. f( -..�..+'�i� ��-.S'1 { 6:+'1 r... _f::.i_-JM 1 e-�.... i.._..,• .+ .,,. ,: .... CD N ' Pointe ' Pointe Pointe W H0MES,LLC HOME9,LLC H0MES.LLC 1 ' Think. Renew. Inspire. Think. Renew.Inspire. Think. Renew. Inspire. t.n w J Support Economic Activity I Support Economic Activity I Support Economic Activity in Huntington Beach! in Huntington Beach! in Huntington Beach! Please tell us why you support TRI Pointe Homes' , Please tell us why you support TRI Pointe Homes Please tell us why you support TRI Pointe Homes' collaborative vision for the former Lamb School collaborat* a vision for the former Lamb School collaborative vision for the former Lamb School property: prope property: New customers within walking distance New customers within walking distance (�New customers within walking distance of my business of my business of my business ❑ $39 million In local economic activity ❑ $ million in local economic activity ❑ $39 million in local economic activity ❑ 183 new local jobs 183 new local jobs ❑ 183 new local jobs Are you interested in speaking in support of the plan Are you interested in speaking in support of the plan Are you Interested in speaking in support of the plan at an upcoming public hearing? at an upcoming public hearing? at an upcoming public hearing? ❑ Yes Na ❑ Possibly ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Possibly ❑ Yes No ❑ Possibly Name: Name: 1 Name: LOIU Address:..��t � _ S� . Address: L2.1 — Address: kI City:_H4A6n,L�r� IP: b City_ '. i�i-� l�a �=� ZIP: Phone: q j Phone: Phone: E-mail: p, ,, E-mail: E-mail: CCU- Comments: Comments: Comments. t_ �"ro _,..- � 9m w: �% .. : f .: r .'�i't�- ���rr,' �.•£k`k� ,L � .ram. !}. !�s.�� ak, t�. �t7 :- .5;)rY. .-���`�..!,.f - .'Y -.C:�.: ..- ..r: ,.. K:.W.S_ '4 ,,..�} 13: ^_�-} ,..�. ,.'�°-t� 'q -�ro,,,. ,�, f W`�F�p �R^d.� •'`5 -5t�{x:./ .. -..v.,... ...�.,....:-..,,.n�, .,,r s.. ._ .r. -.:...„r:. ...!.•,. r: ,:.. .,L .:,,.��aR4��+i._...�.��3�, �4>"- -;r :.-i r � .("fi'. a�'.`Y :,Cd'x >,�.d°.�.; ,�iwi£� �'..� 6..((6,.. :.x^ �tb}¢�^ .xe€'•�Ir.°" fi� ;.t. ,h,"'-dr:�,- { �t R } I 1 a�� # r � � f�a3 ,s b..7d�g,� of a;d ra.a� r 5n-:s ii ai�.,3 ai:li b.a i _:., _ .. _ -.._. :.,,r.:... -.-.._ -.. ....iN,_"'J...wY.y.:. :; _..:'.:: .. V. -' 4.. ::y{�:t`-•.':. 1'. �'�;:tiA ,- --;Y. '^K fti;i'' i�- i { Pete Pointe � Pete JA 0 M E S,LLC H E S.LLC ! H 0 M E S,LLC Think.Renew.Inspire. Think. Renew. Inspire. Think.Renew. Inspire. i x t t t l Share Your Thoughts Share Your Thoughts Share Your Thoughts How do you feel about TRI Pointe Homes'collaborative He ddo you fee bl oa utTR POInt"om's'collaborative Hove do you feel about Toil Pointe Homes'collaborative vision for the former Lamb School property? I (vision for the former Lamb School prop vision for the former Lamb School.property? I support this collaborative vision support this collaborative vision �' ;w I support this collabt5 rahve Vlslnn I'd like to speak in favor of the proposal i 1'ci like to speak in favor of osal I'd like to speak in favor of the proposal at public hearings gib: i at public hearings at public hearings ' I need more information € 0 I need more information 0 1 need more information �] I am not supportive of this collaborative vision #am not supportive of this collaborative vision I am not supportive of this collaborative vision 1 Are you Interested in purehasing.a new home within Are you interested In purchasing a new home within Are you interested In purchasing a new home within the propgsed neighborhood? the proposed neighborhood9 the proposed neighborhood? u Yes No 0 Possibly Yes [ No IJ Possibly ❑ Yes No Possibly ld Nam °: ( Name: Name: t ' Address: ` C.rAtt �..._.._._.... Address _�_ _� _ w�( st S..Va4c 2.- Addreso-loti�-.. tarty_ . Wk_` ` LIP I z,� Cry AP.0 :`f City .i�-p:). ZR �LLk��I.. - _ _ - ......-_. _ 1 1 _... __..__.__ ' Phone.Phone' 1 ----- Phone: E mail t� t _ .... i E rrtail E-mail t --------- -...-- -- --- ---. Comments: €: Comments �PV f j ,7 I ✓p / ;,} r Comme€t .- _. _........--- _ _. ._..... - - .. ---- .........._ a l V -at7u'L' _ a..r.L...,r.c.':•_'":::4??:1 r.: _., :....,,.�o•,__ ._.r-.y es; ..w-:;=r.,x.- ,.<._A , ir.�:x.l.e>.. ,:.a.T�•Tx- = s��y"'°�:��i,�.,f.;. :S=:�5.. -..3.a..,..�...• .=. ,:.^-�F.ream -�!�ou;:ss::W-:�...��.:.,i,-':r.x...._ t"," ac..x.....<._v.......�.._.r; , ^x....__,� , fJ .t,., •,�aa.�_...e s3.. •ir:.•mow^ £: .'-.' ' =,�• ".:, .. .. _-L,: ?s�..?s..v a._.....r r ^......_ .....- cPr F; .. r ,..-.:...,.t.?.•.,..._w.s.;x;� .arr,:r i s•::.:s' v .3- _^c:::r•,-. .sew•�r.:s::::c:: ....3 a s?�:f a.:nr.va r a mu..,..a.:_r�•.::.s:a.}:•.,;...r._...... .a ns: ...n s r:a-a...._ .cam...... ....lf:.: _ .r�.;c:a:�•zN aa�M•-',ia" ....a.,?..: ;..___..........: ... r .. .�i':,:..., _»at w� a..t..a'sa-`a47.7:ta!,s t- :7t i>.sY(r.�:� -....v^•,'_.'-':?'•z�s;: ;Lr•'a n 3Fsrei'°aV, - C�'rY:i c:T-R+•Y s�_t,�-e-:"F�47r.:scc,.e.i...?'- ,v!aia 1�'-'�( -,.._...rxits����t L , ?ym "L<..aa.Y^x.�� e F � ,R",. a:'r�� .,??.ir;;9,-e d�i.Y..., •,,..*+"`'�"' 9..`� ! ru3?,-•e:r.+icttx✓•*�'�'.::� -11 tY 1. "'L - ..:G':' .:a.u{ _a .,u c'Ts d, _.a.t."Ak. �, t._ rya k e:raa .e r,.. h:,rr�Y'.a ^ffi':- � �^4 3iT_ .x.# �t :??- t•7 -=-�s .f �3,,u ,,,[,ns'd:at» �� �:�:i't, �gz�..;;{5.�6 '�.4.,•. �. �'� ��7a,„'=s?xt u �� � ti.s �rz .a •i•'5= �,...a....a." ` w' -ems ? cf f- c•:'a7 ot ,-sc;•YMt 3s°r.'t!r?` € ads aeat. ,3S<f. �asf ^<��t.•�t'-`=r €; ,s?�":'.%: �r ',?m: f,•ft. t 7.., '.' '.i� S t� :d•; ni- - 3- 'i3 fE..,t-F •.. pp55 l ..:€= �! .✓i5 e; '. ta.�.z• t•: .La_,n• ?e.„r'?t....s;ryr :' ..a:.?. -r :7i', 3.. ..:. b. ...<}.z; . .� ;iist.a" ;;t!'la•tEs: :'I-Jii'<.,., r� r. .s:x'-.u:,:ua•actr:.u- v •s,:..'...cr.....,_; t.sia3.,...,..._::d?--;eyz1 ;�%..-e1:.rt _ ,r.�_ .c �a::;'i�3� -< .sa. .r..;r:.�:;r'c..- ._.. aa..c�r a..e�i�.._ ✓;er. "r'•"u.c? aia� ,:.�a: ....:?f'tN.:. �- xo� .-� h._ r a•.». .a:L^u:a:e?Fa?� re th..._�a.•x.� .�r�•-.ems ..:�. :s-�• t W � 00 CD . N •`� M.Pointe M.Pointe MEs,L.[:C H.QM6S.Ur Pointe H 0 M E S,.LLt W T'hin.k. Regrew. Inspire. Think. Renew.Inspire. `O Thiznk.Renew.Izxspire. Share Your Thoughts Share Your Thoughts Share Your Thoughts How do you feel about THI Pointe Homes'collaborative How do you feel about TM Pointe Homes'collaborative How do you feel about TRI Pointe Homes,collaborative I vision for the former Lamb School property? vision for the former Lamb School property? i vision for the former Lamb School property? I support this collaborative vision I support this coNaborative vision { �.i support this collaborative vision Lj I'd like to speak in favor of the proposal I'd like to speak In favor of the proposal I'd like to speak in favor of the proposal at public hearings at public hearings r�� at public.hearings U I need more information O l need more Information El 1 need more Information I am not supportive of this collaborative vision [ 1 am not supportive of this collaborative vision I am not supportive of this collaborative vision Are you in terested to purchasing a new home within Are you interested in purchasing a new home within Are you interested in purchasing a new home within the proposed neighborhood? the proposed neighborhood? the proposed neighborhood? [� yes NO ❑ Possibly Yes No Possibly U; 1 Yes ❑ No Possibly rl�r "lance: t �Name: I ,pinf , t��►L_... i ' .._. a ry A f� t� Address..._ t {..._.1- � Address: fN ell (tr- d1>i� N t r Address. Gty_ ` i ... . zip: .... City:lkv xm` -ro °._-aaa-rIP: g.1.0 city. r�-zR - Phone: f --- d ._�_ '' r.✓ Phane: ���— &?�'_7�fly Plane i._ _ 2 E n,nil: CAl F mail: v Comments: Comments ��Tl -�......ivYL��,��... - ... _ ......... _....._._ __._, -- -......_..__... Comments: S � l y. f L ,y4Psexr.._-•,:t -"+'x'„ V,k .y a '°9•�4v,. w nr 4. Ieii::`:^:e•iF5 Ett?i!a -U^f a5e..z• "�s...l•-`�q',raysa>;. "'�{ i_.-.a ar-s; .'..•^r,'^r,-+< _.ya4 iC t, i.l�::{ei%:r�••.v� �a: 3i^'I'"Gc j R-•4` -... ....rx.._'ui.,il,' _.*r1: �'?✓.alP:.,_,...;I +iFIaS�... r•.c:..,.,.r...:ts.• t .4 -- Il afStiSs"^�'''C•.4''_..•. ..r..,'�1a, r�^..,,'��.F,r-f s'+;= a.d'°n. Fall^�re ...a-t..s,y ,:. {. .� ;..d ....le.�r .. ...e .;:c stl� vC'°'" mil,.J. .r:'"= ..o ✓:. s..: ;*-i? - ,'t..:.y.+` j:.^s•a rtia x:i f�n9:�39 �. 4i -..�'5., �:r•t E.;�:xr:.cl:4, a•'.- .........v, _,.Lt ! ...0 •s..�''-„.. '. i�,r a � i"1'?e3 i3'd•��.g S , ."a - : , r r ,..P(..a..�-p:,.-:J ...a°s3a"'a •3=i;-:,�s_, 4�„1^va s�< .: -.a��S,� i � r si.,�"x sa •.,F Ni�..s�.y.; t''.�:.s,.,tit�+,att I?I•�r.�c, c a�%..'xi4a.:.'fi��7.^�.. 4 ':. ^a�r.�G'�t°.,:f � l.« i1:'4'cµs.. €;•;1f,a,a..Pa r3 ','-P°..c'-',.a.et!?�a'6C r d ^rs..,r..�,S•a ii;i{�:�� f{ � a... ,;+.Pt j : �':F__:.;�i �i4iSz._ts.i ' 17sx''•rh�"qs+r n r s-.2�iss-^s:S'v=""�: n 'n.. t �ii; Yv.� ,s{�.r',w�l4..r� ,-. a.a _ N .a. ir..e�`?;.acre.t!:?� y � .3 4'r r�-t..-ss y 4 ':°•,.-a?::teP:ix.•w ;tip:, _ a:�:�,r.;••n a x�' )R 'r ..•i z.x.-Y '� ,t } C :i�--:--3..::,:}_.e-s �5:. ,.... :::-- -kxRas•%4+'' c f�.� -t''L af,a<51-sa��P, "°'7i r ."�f's:.....r 1,�.��!f's�.. � .. �,'�;-.r`Y,� ram."as. `rtl°s r •1-,�_, + 7 �,� .�,a.0•9"+" rrc, :,a;r.- _ s: _a. .. ....-.•a._..:� � a .'r�' d a_� .,.,rt:.-,.,�,xr, �t a :+4 s a ar'?' R- --}. >aA:7ai.«aR3• __.,..i�a'r3rh:r:d=:�'�'t�.�.r,':.A�_�t>�j7e:,:r`�,e�nesza_� �� .-,::-iSm::�-::�t+_'L_+�`i`.�lMn;i�il,t!�''^ ..„ .,,..�. Na?........�au:....._er• ,}�p?:eS�s- ;-o-�:i. a{$!•', fz .c_ ���s�,a,�-{e•�.,a_l &,o,a..,.a�-• ,?k:�T{ ..€�P7?:.i ..`3EzE'a.�::^ °..,...;'n�.�t33,IS�?a,,;,�, a'aeT••`iJ"'EEvI._z 4". Poffite 11OMEs,LLC " Think RenevA. Inspire. Share Your Thoughts How do you-feel about TRI Pointe Homes'collaborative vision for the former Lamb School property? I support this collaborative vision �. I'd like to speak in favor of the proposal at public hearings I need more information { I am not supportive of this collaborative vision t Are you interested in purchasing anew home within the proposed neighborhood? (� Yes No Possibly td Narn Csln7 f{s . iyNftlr? w Cityrrerrr�- F,F�c�P__�� Phone -mail r Comment i,,��1 � d �vE:ns, {ark pL g 1 � y g�e 3§ S i? i-::, _ss - x`= _...,.e:f.:.>Traefir^�tisa?z- The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/0C is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs . Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating an environmentally sensitive new neighborhood. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval . Sincerely, Victor Cao 9907 Cedar Ct Cypress, CA 90630 Item 23. - 541 HB -1994- The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive_ eccnomic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval . Sincerely, Kris Weber 3 Hughes Irvine, CA 92618 Hs -1995- Item 23. - 542 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as Members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods . In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Kevin Tunstill 22495 Rolling Hills Ln Yorba Linda, CA 92887 Item 23. - 543 xB -1996- The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally--sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Tom Farrier 43280 Business Park Dr Ste 107 Temecula, CA 92590 HB -1997 Item 23. - 544 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million, TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Landon N Boucher 12246 Holly St Riverside, CA 92509 Item 23. - 545 HB -1998 The Honorable Mayor Darn Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/0C member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval . Sincerely, Stephen McFarlane 92 Sansovino Ladera Ranch, CA 92694 HB -1999- Item 23. - 546 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I. am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of -our goals as members of BIA/CC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree'and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Trevor Dodson 16795 Von Karman Ave Irvine, CA 92606 Item 23. - 547 xB -2000- The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. 1 am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community._ One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs_ Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally--sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Sherry Davis PO Box 249 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92693 HB -2001- Item 23. - 548 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/oC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval . Sincerely, Dan Olney 8754 Via Norte Dr Riverside, CA 92503 Item 23. - 549 HB -2002- The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally--sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values_ Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval . Sincerely, Laer Pearce 22892 Mill Creek Dr Laguna Hills, CA 92653 HB -2003- Item 23. - 550 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/0C member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs . Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Hersel Zahab 2 Azalea Irvine, CA 92620 Item 23. - 551 HB -2004- The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Reach, CA 92 64 8 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs . Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Bryan Starr 2 Park Plz Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92614 HB -2005- Item 23. - 552 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs . Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. S ijacerely, Letizia Vinciguerra 11191 Calabash Ave Fontana, CA 92337 Item 23. - 553 HB -2006- The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval . Sincerely, Cary Treff 25750 Pacific Hills Dr Mission Viejo, CA 92692 HB -2007 Item 23. - 554 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TR1 Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs . Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. in fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval . Sincerely, JAMIE BOLDUC 2510 W Macarthur Blvd Unit L Santa Ana, CA 92704 Item 23. - 555 HB -2008 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and improve the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs. Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods. In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Heather Smith 16845 Von Karman Ave Ste 200 Irvine, CA 92606 HB -2009- Item 23. - 556 The Honorable Mayor Don Hansen 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mayor Hansen: As a member of the Building Industry Association of Orange County, I am a strong supporter of creating and maintaining sustainable communities throughout our region. I am writing to you in support of two proposals for responsible development in Huntington Beach. BIA/OC member TRI Pointe Homes has worked tirelessly to design neighborhoods at the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties that will complement and inprove the surrounding existing community. One of our goals as members of BIA/OC is to help create jobs in Orange County. These two projects combined will create approximately 300 local jobs . Additionally, the new homes will bring a new customer base for surrounding businesses and move-up opportunities for current residents. The positive economic impact of these two projects is estimated at $63 million. TRI Pointe Homes has also gone above and beyond in creating new environmentally-sensitive neighborhoods . In fact, the proposed homes will be among the greenest in Orange County. Lastly, revitalizing these properties can only increase neighboring property values. Replacing the blight and crime associated with these vacant schools with new families that share the same concerns of living in a safe neighborhood will give this area a much-needed revitalization. I believe these two projects will only provide positive changes to Huntington Beach. I hope that you agree and vote YES when they are brought before you for approval. Sincerely, Ben Boyce 22892 Mill Creek Dr Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Item 23. - 557 HB -2010- ATTACHMENT # 11 t _ r October22 2O1'3 Members of the H-witingtob Beach Plwi�niiig Commission Ht.altin tUn Beach Civic Center_ 2000 Main.Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Re: Use of Lanib School rwr:ite this letter to clearly state the Formtai-u.Valley School Di:smict's position regardin- the use of its Lamb School for rec:-reational.purposes- I'resently kYS0 Revian.117 uses the Lamb School throunhout t3)e vear to provide iwo:fields for practice and'games- Lanib School is one of five(a) school sites used by AYSO N-117 in the FOLQ—tttlia Vallei y School District. - - Each year potential facility usexs filc a R.eque-st To Tise Fac:ilities/Fiel&aid based on available space and rcquested use:,permissiogis,fainted to the user. Ilse detemiiiiation of availability and permission for use is an administrative decision and does rtcit ex-lend beyond the current year. Use of the school district farihties requires compliance,.vr li insurance requirerneiits and district rulc s axd regulations. LT-se by outside groups is ahw-ays secondary to school district purposes. i In anticipation of the peading sale ot.Lamty School to TAPointe Hones,thl school district has deternihied that it has three,other locations that the teiiis atLaImb School can use plus the Ciq- of Fountain Valley also has s6hie fields that are available. 'mere ibay also be space available at Hwitinaton Beach schonls,��fiich we have pet pursued. We Have given the space available information to,AYSO aaad offered to reserve whatever available fields they choose w-hen the fields at Lamb School areno lon.6er available for use. We believe that there will.not be,a reduction iii field availabilit�,to our current field users by the sale of the La:mb'School site and.are cornmilted to assure that the fields available to them are no less that in previous years.. Sir=re-ly j Step-- Mc-%,Ialion .Assa_stant 'Superintendent-Business - j HB -2aMATE COMMUNICATION 913-3 PC N1 Item 23. -,Lsg James, Jane From: James, Jane Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8:35 AM To: Mark Bixby Cc: Fauland, Herb; Hess, Scott; De Coite, Kim; Vgliotta, Mike; DeBow, Debbie; Tom Grable; Mike Adams Subject: RE: why no Lamb 2.6ac parcel in county land databsae? Attachments: AP Map.pdf Commissioner Bixby, The County of Orange Assessor Parcel Maps accurately show the approximately 2.6 acre Lamb Park parcel—see attached. Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach - Planning & Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Office-714.536.5596 Fax-714.374.1540 iiames@surfcity-hb.org From: Mark Bixby [maifto:mark@bixby.org] Sent: Monday, October 22, 2012 8:52 AM To:James, Jane; Fauland, Herb; Hess, Scott Subject: why no Lamb 2.6ac parcel in county land databsae? Importance: High Hi staff, Below is a screenshot from the awful public interface into the county land database. I would have expected a new Lamb 2.6ac parcel to have been created in the wake of the city's Naylor purchase, but no such new parcel exists on the county parcel map below. Did somebody drop the ball? Or is the county database in error? Or will this be dealt with as part of the recordings associated with the TriPointe project? Thanks... -Mark B. Item 23. - 559 HB 2012- POR S0114, M014. SEC. 5, TVS, RYOW ffiR 27 �u,m L✓iIl a Q lead, ' O RI Igo As odd c�•y, � � � d � •g �� r°-aco 4l a w 0g. OFla 4 (+ IS YAP - 7.AM Ar Q idl 164 2 me fix, . 14 a � ia¢ a ray I ne' r-e40 A YPRkTL7N�V 7 j AV4'A " a � 8 h' TC PARWs CM'5 ERS d ASISL$COX 1 l`r MAP ,X rio 1W JY7. IVD 4305 M M. t$4-1.0 M 19 INC. PAR4£1 IifiCIRC5 Bd(1k 155 ORANGE 26 Sf,'OPVh' !N CIRCLzS C0�1NTY CF ORANGE F--I CD N W jEfi r�=`� :U R �flgls *fitEl�zit l r t _ ;i l r;�ae:,,,ocgeomatics camfl�- 'T i_a.d_r`r�e;�ujt,a. ,, �« . .... ...... :- : - - _ . '- --_- . Favorites - f a .- d '� j FreeNatma� V—` 'r �,Ii --,",/ if -1 grange I ounty`Public Records Retneval5ystem - --- - :_ _ �. r i � ur� = — - � . : 3 - F # 3 C. r ...4— i l g. E @ E + F - I �, . i ` 1 t F .', — - - h+IerLu' I)DGTYlYtCY1t S08IGh .CTO 1 j i ' S �7 By 5hxpe �py Tyne { Y t E Shape Type Spatial Made ; - { 1 `"t eanle �; nst� 1 circle C�verlp ;, Polygon - F Ir- .. r Plsce SYcape_ r1E;�t to�h8p8 a Select DaGtEoentTypes - l z �"F ` Sea1uh t _ ( f v�r [ - } _ F � —----- a1. I1.1. n r - i I � N € r { ... -. ... _.4 ':. fF "-: -:. .. -Y f ... _ ,_- .. - _ i f E f ... .. .., ,,. p 3 . f4 p s 1z Y 4 y G 1Y 1 �LC� i w & 12 . �.z =v �} .�� -z.Y.. vf'x'.:sT vim' .. �y .. ... " ' Bone - q.--- . - L 7 Item 23. - 561 HB -2014- James, Jane Irom: James, Jane Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 8.43 AM To: Mark Bixby Cc: Hess, Scott; Fauland, Herb; De Coite, Kim; Vgliotta, Mike; DeBow, Debbie; Reardon, Bill; Tom Grable; Mike Adams Subject: RE: Lamb 2.56 persons/du population generator Commissioner Bixby, Thank you for your comments. Jane James, Senior Planner City of Huntington Beach _ Planning & Building Department 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Office - 714.536.5596 Fax - 714.374.1540 jl ames(Rsurfcity-hb.org -----original Message----- From: Mark Bixby [mailto:mark@bixby.org] Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2012 4:17 PM To: James, Jane; Fauland, Herb; Hess, Scott Subject: Lamb 2.56 persons/du population generator Importance: High Hi staff, -his is to give you a heads-up that I will be prompting a discussion about population generator methodology at the Lamb hearing. Numerous MND letters comment that the choice of 2.56 persons/du (city-wide average across all housing units regardless of size) does not accurately represent population generation by above-average 4BR units. So I did some research. Neither the decennial census nor the ACS tabulate occupants by number_.of bedroom) (boo) . So in order to get at that data, I had to turn to ACS Public Use Microdata Samples' (PUMS), which long story short are a random sampling of ACS survey responses that contain all of the individual question answers for the associated housing unit, including number of occupants and number of bedrooms. So by adding up the number of occupants of all PUMS housing units with 4 bedrooms and dividing by the number of those units, I am able to arrive at a more accurate population generation factor for 4BR units. ACS 2006-2010 5-year PUMS data says there is an average of 2.90 persons per 4BR unit.` ACS 2008-2010 3-year PUMS data says there is__an a.v._.erage..of. 2.91 persons for 4BR ur�i :�FfB a s big enough to be in its own Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) which corresponds to our city boundaries. So these statistics do not include any neighboring cities. So while 2.56 persons/du yields 208 people for Lamb, 2_.91 persons/du yields 28 additional .. _ .....� people for a total of 236�_while ttii� dx ference is unTiFcelyTto alter any of tlTe-�'MND--- conclusions, .1 -dogs . hew_ th-at _the ci-y`s one-s 11 ize-fits-all population generation -metVodology - _-- is demonstrably inaccurate for this corner case of a homogenous, above-average project. marobixby.org Remainder of .sig suppressed to conserve expensive California electrons. . . xB -2015- Item 23. - 562 • e r / • I I Fri CJ /J �s � Ci R'.l 69 h�1GI T7 h-:1 C•5] ! I�. . .®" ,; �14P ��i►� i g li a �i ii Pi '�Ciii r S4 Uk: I' RISK �r ' III �1 ti 11j tls I ps I� ■ ill�� �� +� Q_ �� i■ (`{'liQi®�1 1g� ink3 �' r � r� �r� I�j �[� �iI�L' lEI ���t 1�5�1�I����' �®■f Irf� '�`@a�, E }I�' i®Ili�� �i��a } 4i Ils: �:b'�� i,�' I1���7���! t;i� lid@•, !! l ..•_�;; i__ir ,I_..:.?.J 'f�' xUj�_____ hr� .^.. II,� P�1�1 �fli ���r� ¢� . � I � �€ fi 1■ of '© l 'll @� IFr�lst ,y�"� .0._ Toy U m, d t , pai'.li_ FY Elml RI I� _al'�, i O, 1 ajky�� � a1� �4a t`�,a vi ` til E�{� �I�M1)�EaiS�■1 1■®��j' �klXrrr � r ` Imo® 9F1!�SZ�g®!l 1■ � ) @ TIT", r- Y i�kraa rs�� s•� „�•� VM i■� �P;'y5'h ��''�i II�,__!=���„„J��W�t��q�¢¢+!��-1'FI� II�IidIE1Mr� 'Fi>€...}3 .A ^,r3tl,!°II i�l�f�.i1T . r ,i�l�l�����I��ill��� �■ .�.�, r IE F 131 �' �' °' ■ fir'i 1 i I // h f • , f j Halawp Drive LEGEND is .. PERMUS AREAS TOTAL AREA=it.65 A0: PERVIOUS AREA=6.64 AC. Yl .. WERWOUSAREA=5M AC, ,i ................_ EL _ SCALE: 1"-120' Ts Lamb School Site PRE-PROJECT 10251 Yorktown Avenue CD PERVIOUS/IMPERVIOUS Huntington Beach, CA N W i -p 1i j . f 4 fj Water Quality Management P (WQMP) Project Name: Lamb School Site Residential Development Tentative 'Tract Map 17238 Prepared for: Tri Pointe Homes, LLC 19520 Jamboree Road, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92612 (949)478-8674 Prepared by: 'Walden &Associates 2552 White Road, Suite B Irvine,CA 92614 949-66Q-0110 Engineer David Bacon Registration No. 40496 Item 23. - 565 HB -2018 ' Water Quai'ity Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site R 4 Permit/Application No. - - Grading Permit No. Tract/Parcel Map No. T.T.M 17238 , Building Permit No. i 155-125-1.9,155- CUP,SUP,and/or APN(Specify Lot Numbers if Portions of Tract) 263-14,155-263-15 Tlias Water Quality Management Plan.(WQMP)has been prepared for Tri Pointe Haines,LLC by Walden&Associates. The WQMP is intended to comply with the requirements of the local NPDES Storxawater Program requiring the preparation of the plan. The undersigned,while it owns the subject property,is responsible for the implementation of the provisions of this plan and will ensure that this plan is amended as appropriate to reflect up-to--date conditions on the site consistent with the current Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan.(DAMP)and the intent of the non-point source NPDES Permit for Waste Disdiarge Requirements for the County of Orange,Orange County Flood Control District and the incorporated Cities of'Orange County within the Santa Ana Region. 'Once the undersigned transfers its interest in the property,its successors-in-interest shall bear the aforementioned responsibility to implement and amend the WQMP. An appropriate number of approved and signed copies of this document shall be available an the subject site in perpetuity. i C?wuer. Thomas Grable Title Vice President i i Company Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Address 19520 jamboree Road,Suite 200,Irvine CA 92612 Snail TcmGrable@TRIPoinfeHomesrom Telephone# (949)478-8674 5ignatare I}ate I Tri Pointe Homes, LLC Owner's Certification HB -2019- Item 23. - 566 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site re ULSi Rage No. Section IYRDiiscretion�a y Permit(s) and Water Quality Conditions....................................3� Section 17 Project Description esc ption.........................................................................................T Section LEI Site Description............................................................./............................. 10 Section IV Best Management Practices (BMPs) .........a............................................l.KkYK 12 Section V Inspection f Maintenance Responsibility for BMPs................................p....Y...24 Section VI Site Plan and Drainage Plan................................................................. ..Y.....Z6 SectionVLI Educational Materials.................................................................................27 Attachments AttachmentA... ......... .....................................................................Educational Materials AttachmentB.......-.............................................................x......................... D &M Plan i Tri Pointe Homes, LLC Table of Contents Item 23. - 567 HB -2020- Wainer Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site Section I Discretionary Pe.r llt(s) and Ater Quality Conditions 1T� S�'f'-'42 f + Tt •.Fa�.T._G�^���lFai'L�Sk'FsT'�F�.�R_���� ���� -�P� kT'YID tJ�h':S'E � } T tv4a _ lJ a•aPf P �A?•'M:IEY' i� � `^^544-" ', if12" k� - +Z�' .�r� ''�- __ �r'"�.f -� Rya�vF _ _�s.ci ,s�•+�e -'� _ _ s _ Pea znit/Application Igo. F Traci/Parcel Map No_ ITT T723$ Additional Information/ Project is currently being processed for entitlements as Tentative Coxzuments: I Tract Map 17238. 4 "ems ekri8 sxti•� c 'ate -P"`° Ti'a crw a 'we•.� a ,.a.? .e::m .. ��= .,,���..ar a _fr- ",-•� �-±F'a.,r.,.... �.ems:=„ ''�`".=�§&`�in�"-+i:s=,� .-�_'�; 3-�sc'2. Tr�m�',�'s :.-3`..-T-+�.c'R 'L =a_. Water Quality Conditions Pending Conditions of ApprovaL t . (list verbatim) RM L, 4'�'E - - ' �� Ts'�P �5 a"� - � �^•-- '��-es+ YTT.-eTtF 3&'4�i:RGC+--+�ei .':' � :,� �_� � �. ,,.�- � ��� � ,.•�.s �-- Fes, � -�t �� �- �,� �� f _ r,�,�-g� _Provide applicable = conditions from watershed- based plans including No��$or TMDLS W-H-IkHs and TMDI-S. Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section l May 11,2012 Page 3 xs -202 i- Item 23. - 568 i Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site Section II Project Description ILI Project Description - f.. � R yc- f.F3� '-- �.'3-' � Y ^��Y'M h-S£• � �t-1i 4^.. +l^� � j „ -'•9� r-"�§�' �', .� t ,r' �..�,,F �' a' �.�,.. -..-- �. f� c�-a==�.a.�v--.�:=�'_^,+�-.r.,��mx -:,c�:_. ,y tt -rxa��-�', Development Category-, 6 Detached single family residential.development. Project Area(ac):`11.&.5 ..._. Number of DweUiug Units:81 ...................... ,SIC Code:................................. N/A................... .............................................. ........ ...............................................................:......................................—.......... The site currently consists of an abandoned school and related facilities. The site is bounded by a single family residential development to the north(Tract 4305&4708),east(Tract 4708) and west(Tract 4305&4708); Yorktown Avenue to the south. The project consists of constructing 81 single-family homes with associated sewer,storm drain,water,curb, Narrative Project gutter,sidewalk and street irnproveinents,on an 11.65-acre site. Description: Landscaping wffi be implemented on the front,side and back yards. The majority of the site will be conveyed into a proposed private storm drain system,where the water quality"first flush" flow of 1.414 c.f s. (obtained.from the 85 percentile storm event of 02" of rainfall per hour over the subarea)KrM be pumped to the surface,and discharged into a vegetated swale prior to discharging through a grated. let&the extended storm drain line in Yorktown Avenue. ............................................... ..................... .........----.._..... ................ .-.�erviou .. . ............ ...... Pervious ......... Qa .................. --_----•-- ----------- Project Area Percentage Percentage (ages) (acres or so ft) Pre.Project Conditions........ .6.54..................... w57.--•,................ ............................... ........... .........43 ..... Conditions....,_. ..�'�8.......................-�7..................... .7.37.....,......,,......... ...��.3.,,,.....,......,..... .........................<.............. .. The 11.65-acre site currently surface drains in two directions.. . _._......... Approximately 6 acres of the site surface drains in a northwesterly direction through an existing pedestrian walkway with a v-a tier to Drainage IVlauna Lane within Tract 4305. The.flow then surface drains in a Patterns/Connections northerly direction to an existing storm drain system near the intersection of Kamuela Drive and Olana Lane and eventually discharges to the Fountain.Valley Channel. The remaining approximately 5 acres surface drains in a southerly direction.towards Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section In October 8, aDI Z Page 4 Item 23. - 569 xB -2022- I Water-Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site Yorktown Avenue and then westerly along Yorktown Avenue to Brookhurst Street;then northerly along Brookhurst Street to the same existing storm drain system that the northwesterly p ortioz flogs to. I1:2 Potential 5tormwater Pollutants 'u.y - a-Evx _w. w r "� tp>;a ryY' - AS 4a1- -'^-Y lFi� gym■ �■■y■����,,r�lgtw�g9 eft '.$" 4M C Fv X'd+' dgiay 2 aSG 47 4"✓:W $T'dS4T� V6Y Y4K�iY Vh a �-e 1"4 l"`iYE7�im..i. hlR+�.i 'rs- ,'a�r:3a.+yf�2 'u MOOR- Underline .��. tmr� Underline One: E=Expected to Pollutant be of concen7 Additional Information and Comments N=Not Expected to be of concern Suspended-Solid/SedimentE N + The major source of sediments is bare or poorly vegetated ground. 1 Nutrients ( g N i Primary sources of nutrients in urban runoff are } — fertilizers and eroded soils. EEE; I 'Sources of metals in the stormwater may Heavy Metals N include vehicle paints and motor oil. Pathogens(Bacteria/Virus) E N { Sources of pathogens indude wild bird and pet Waste,garbage. i a i Excessive or improper application of a pesticide Pesticides E i N i may result in runoff containing toxic levels of i its active ingredient s f 1 Oil&grease are usually associated with fluid Oil and Grease E N leaking vehicles in the driveway.. i f i Toxic Organic Compounds i E ; N i Trash and Debris E + N Trash and biodegradable organic matter are general waste products in residential areas. f Tr Pointe Homes, LLC Section LtI May 11,2012 Page 5 HB -2023- Item 23. - 50 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site 11.3 Hydrologic Conditions of Concern ®No-Show map Yes- I Drains into Fountain Valley Channel,which is a concrete lied channel I - i i I I _ i TO Pointe Homes,LLC Section III j May 11,2012 gage 6 ;Item 23. - 5T HB -2024- i ���r4'i+J� •i�?'r I'f�i•�":�nu'ilj�r�+��!'::.�' 4 3ry7s -;•J`���S:;+F'•�.�4 '��'�.�!„-��rr�• tM,� SusceptibilityJ.:s,• =i,- s. i;' j i!'+ r :.r e: .} !�• n n;?I:st3 rnblif[t FM t+i' �i +I �:t 'G l.,li_;'/.y;'t•{�"'J: r 9 'f :..D;Ift 'x' y* •'' '°i'k-- WA Potanllalftsm or EmeBm,liabllei,A i h 'x" i 5•:k ¢ : ? a' ` Physical e(,uolure 9uncapt&iId(Y �'.':: •' i i. :.`1�: ;;f.,.* I,i.:•. ' F.a }'; ChannatTye '�•, .� �i`; :�.17'..•r�trkj l w:tl• _- P r' 'l:'.1;{:S•�r �.:. }�. '' � ' „' ��.,::itY•^ •..�,y,..•J, j 1:•F afeg Earth(L1rlsTeble) !• ¢ fh:S.::•L' ° ;1 a / :ti�{. _ y,�-:,i "`•.1:�:.6i'�-:' •9i8'. •'r )r•�r_. .J '. •••,• Earth(Bfabplzarl) •. ! g,. i %•i„, ° itii h rx" ::I•ei", .-•' 1 r -.'�.•ar6'ie a o r ek t .;tt ,qq�•7 , .ht` t•'f•`,',.r, ru"T 'leq��r' i .y.• Y t; �,Y, 'm � ��;`,'.• t '� ,:. Slablllzed '.5;'!t.t.�,Vil1 dd :i 'nk e-ik a :s,rS 4Y•. __ .� ti•."1, 'k' v� .1:Sil J .. _':f`::. FK T7de1. ;o Ed r737. y� .` t•��,lj'• � �'$-};.��f;".,'�i� ; 'r.�e �et. •.�� 9,` fit,•,, e� [nnuance _ a .y{,;k `(5f4�k. .)te%�'s' I ':. -�- _ 4�"•±� iNt Mean HIBh ler Una(4.7b) z'+ '•�'�itivt'' �"'w�?;�;.��•` t"1 .r'::{�: ,::+:. {''•'"'` •;' t�!k•. - � Watotl3ody. �'"F`:''�d.F'ti' `; .14�1('� Basin •.^• 8 •gmvmly t I� ;. ...�� ��. �,•Fk�,'Ijr;�;- ,�' .•.� ©Dom - ., •,T�,1'lr•:'.• "J; ���'`�' F i'y5;:U•+,x - til, r .rr:S'J:•t.�^ ft Lake {rJ� Sf'�tl J-0:r 'q'f' 'i= AMU :t •(� k,•4 it •:i:r1i.•• C RROArvair Forest Aroos StS'"+'dirE o?l. ip� ;:4_ky:. r-p Clnvdand NeSlone[Foresf lrq�'_r�trn�I fl"^�'41kr 7:�• ,P.r1 •JK. ��•.r� nWeMde citaft . Mar Lands nay',�•3."fr�,1' AhpmVMll0.e '��"'" t'i.:ik'�''r' rr•:r rvi iL fdE C�], r ','':. ;1',:.• hFlltBnitelmm,nrtHarinr .. .r,.l Ir�,y ..7::'t::. •i�".•Y4' J, tq4 erollpd _ ° � 'r 2r•,.:'F`f"r'•'S�f..r.,�:,�..- :^ :.rF :•Y i:• 4v •� 1'i' .f. ``�a'���'Fi hh'C _ _• tir' .�r.'r^r^1.7•`,'jl:<':"s._i.�. 'y - - 1•S r• ,e t-::I':Ali.p1. F.r.,. ::k•:.r ����ti}'+r••:, "� "i•i, .I ,r r yi'+7,.- 7 l J. 1.-P'. !�'•�:: "•� !..,.,, .tr 'i 4 , � �„b,'�r SJ•ri y} rr;.�� sr..+f r ? r".': �:•�"y,7, � 'i d- I' ;,,t�'J �w:�i�v�.�.'^`''?' '�kr.J.'r+;i�::c'.S'i,�•.�rt:;• •a- -r},,,.; �s• _ .;,t .l t' .�'�J,r`.F�"i< r ..:;^ li.'?•'i•�: ,�•.s�,,. ,i. :'i.,'�•r: £j:.� l+ 4y�•q,�. „rr, '�t}ti ��-39,;�i,,;'rr-'C � n,,•,r�7rt,'..?�: y<• f 11 ,, 1 'i' , \ l•" rtrtl�j_ 'I'1�ri'..yi^ ip>i 'Kj'.A°,�,t.:r�y:•.hl ti .':.rrt^tlj;� 4�''i,. _ f, it N _ y}`; �' '`• .4,, •; ?FY'i:6 •JQo' a;rlr9y ..rl.nf'•'''i*„y ,h tk:..' `I 1 '.,I-•J r! ••-tr r,;S;,,"''•w" r f.!..l„•:.',tr,'C 1,1:��:ea+i:.r,r - t' t �, r W � ',4 e�i ` '¢;'i Fr•`.;:�`a y,r:`u':7wt 1ti1 ar'rir'•,p.ni.y i r• 7.•• : i,�`::'r:: + [' '�r�r'r .jY+, �^. i, �'�; r:' I y;.,,'J:1t�'• C K_�... Qcp�� YY � • N '� ``r'1 :,� r „r ,�bri;::=: w. '�'' .'3.%%.:.f'k, t:r " r�• I. .� ., , � - •.r.. t 9' �r.4r+=:r.TL i..ln` t ��+,. , 1,�-�•'�(�jr a,,•�'r•�.� .Fri, r{ ..��1 �r r li . . Ut r- } t :ISI, .. .� e.: ,,. .SS d.. ,� rf-I.L:,`..I�•, Ir - T!�� A'-.4 f 1 � '�' '�4 �J' 1 R .:rJ`r` r.,.�!`,r�,•ti,• : , �,".,i. i F. J'!. e r� I8 •E..,.p.�;,+ji 1 t.r7. a •,k ti, @' ':L'"v f ? I.! t:'- 'f,,,.�-.:�F:";''t 5�.>'�:�'r�1��;�,?:�r.- >{{„ :xir,`-r� 1 �' x t .Ik i.. '�, =f+;• ..� `.•.��. ''.,�lij`::,a •,l� :,t e:l J.r <' ''•.....1`b al,•�-.�si. •:�r�1>#5• '1::�'4"•. _ I :P ''t t• f. :Sdv .;.J•!.r: ��JJ ,t p .:1:'r`i: .l' tf .. 'tT, ....,!ra±51'ri . .y I r ,•. ,:14�xv„ ',p,'tr ••.lrr.;. r�tr�+,:x.:.. .L.• .C'...n•,• .•i-s.1 r.+' k;'.t • .i :t� '+ , a5 .4.+f d1.�jJ7 .{. .i, ��,w..F,;[y• 'r•74d' 'l�l_"!'d:;.•v,;• .�(r.•, "• '�c:.:vy�"'', r�7�Jj 7�. �} 'YI''�v ( �r+i,1•.-Att, •wf1r.L� '1dt:r 'G. 1�:. .+i.4 (�ff.� '1�:1•�'•'� '.,1, `;.i,`'i.: t - tt p'i r,Im s rS^l: ..i�.1,7'e•,r) d4r•�..,F'�- t� dr'.•.Y � �I .J f."1r I+ '•t � -, iik*°� - ,., �r ��. . :{, :�.,..4'#1 '•� �C'�p F�1�.',•'t:•,:..,..{,�lr f`: '�w��.vt• �r�t���;r.e. r, _ •r'•iy,. • �'� r�""y',.. *!,a�;� .r7•' �'rP'x���• J. ,.,t`:.r:if, .';f;'.�.. r.p•y. i@ I}�,� ri,i{�"�•,L:..y,rr r:ifi��hy'' t �t '�`j.rt'•'h`i'k•i�._ 'r. ,i � "'--c< 8p g �j � _I, •yh:1. ..§,J. ..i'Tr'�.I,I,Lti• J:3"•,I �Fs 9;✓•.J :•', n;a j{e •:a 'r ti•'rl"'�' E 9 :�:i<tri �A `r-'. � 'r•s:.;',¢ -..:,. :^. �.i�, r .,,ct.: rr�'r);7,1,. � ..6�' e ,,;-hr:v' :s.r =�•,� ,K' ,,.+'x-�' .�� ,St1� �='.t;:,�'<��. ,-r.4::'�' '.b ..s' >:•'�. r 'r'i'rll' �, 'r�?� d, .r i t. :��,, ,.I ,• y �+�� .,,� ,.�,;: '�'• :� , 't rk;,7/h!.r ti[yyr,•�,IJ �,S,,s•'•�:r'r,':�",;�.�f<;a..a"5;��� �.'Fr+'• ,Cr,�.�J,yt�i `` .•�,r. I I r .. {l. 4p11 t• t qy �'e. .d;.J nr zt .a'.r,.. .a., f,,: ..�+ ;;r `') ?f Y ,l r..,r .7`.r;f:`u: •{:.h r,'��` � �i�'Fri d'•f •l:;IT ' .l�aJ �e`11, � ',1 , ,,<��^F�,� �. )+n!,fI ,�•4. irrk� •_K ,l� }' � .`�'. I� { 1 < t rl'rr, ft '., 5.. }J.' 'r' '1' .,t�,.fi�hr•>4+._• g �p } 1. r .[ .rr ri'; 'ttt''':1•dF� r'ht'p:`1 y"�:.;11�,.,. gtin.py�l"ri'*n..7�,r+t;�a-:'.""+`•:.;u'I.)ti:7;1..'�is,� :i•+i'`• xistT �'�• 7'_� +s-•I�}�'•Af4�"(�F�T sf:•:�� 9 ! � o '�� 7,•, tr -•:.'•_rP is' •y1'k ,i: '!. .t�.r. y�.Y�i- r "�7:n I�,ia .:t?e .<}, :t � .n. ,l a. 1 .� II Y '&',r E�yj'r� •.>,et<;`'•:.,1(;'�Jh'IJ'a c!t :i .t,?Y, .st.rr�ryr ,i; :r�rl.``f,'rirf7,•, isn rgg {.�'r� '('`J' s.4' :r'i.,. .j',y':w• : '.4: ny t;N 1 F t:l {r •'•} '•' .,r .�' �•.' :#£ri '11�./; q• i at •,,.�. ,jJs. t e rYr.' . 'J Ir 7J, :r_: p ;, a','.isTl..:•Y.'.:q{W:::.Cl••r a,r. i �a,�.�+;i:;.a;,'`:l:j r_ .�y`'; 1jj Vt kJ Q• r., � .q.:f' :A: :.1"S •i�ir„ .,,E*�i• L..•: ltl.'I ��$i:•:,..;,,.;�,1'.'ra t jl 4 ��• �`r�d! $y� ��• r.• •'r:;[,"' t�fx 1 t,t• t-3f,7C: /� r_'�F�"' •.•lr'':i"i 'r�.., h Ft.: �1C J; t'•p .�S J.+�•r ri[ rSr :d'• I f '.r. .r yd.,-7 i5' 'rf- .1, .,,;r;7 :Frr'r,`hkSSr;1' .'1" .'{? rts A.�,1,1,.[.���•'6,, ';'.. •i<:'. ,'rrK:dd 'Ss• � !'nl•� f I r` �.5 ��t !'t�, � .{-�i:,: ,:i' .�.rSt,,.r:r.,rr•••yy},;. ti^ SSIe" tt: ,';,( t(�� ''S'9„' .'?'• r... `��. ,+ - '�' Flerd F �' I 'r76 M r^• .t. .I, ^F• �i'�-;7+'�''I.{:.'+,� �.. a'�t'~_ 7 r,,p>>�� d7 rr'f?.l•.;'1+�A� r•+�'{p f� .Ir;'^' •., ..t- •} �� r��,1yf � t � tl .:!':rhS i'r :FS ,L,r ;3 fF+ ,,'rr i:.�..:.:J,. .W''>`'�•;sr�°J• •:,L•r•tniky7`�¢,'s� 3d`l: •t;��:i :k. .'t.Lr i,F �` } uaJ�"f• s. F�. ,� � •'i=Ei� i!•Hr..:...itr7.';t.��.r,..,I.FtYl4r;t4w•ik,: n.rh�.:'�i' ;y,. �,r�?�,r�r��:,tr".'-'.t+2 :� �1.., ,'�'., i:V'.j�iJf:•:�� J:m 'r:>;7?'M�r ..r��' .4 � i,k '�s's-- �• •F•„t-r:',:�y y'a ''f' 1.�h Y:.'.'.+'�'�'•°C; �.:�ki r5•. suijgt.Omn a i.'r � � 7. ,r v r' �':,}`,r• n -��:�.,i rC•,t{:tom' Cr ,k. � lti •f. t, A s' F Y. ;t �'4'},• ,k•p a IS',`i`Pi�1�' °,�•,.;•�� ! a,...,r., s.1{i,�4 n,n„rr;�. �}-:.•y.::u_ -fii,p,,`t!•i.:;1••%,;y' onunM ';•�ti:r::'�;r1^J'JI`�•,-;I. 5 '„fir:• r,rt44l-- s,e'. ' , a1• ��,5,. p ,�:to a ry.%< �.; :,t: F ' s�:`:r.r�.r,.•;" • :T.w�-P ' i,r,l' p t:•rt;mt �:;;,;4 .4:a r;,., •r c <, iF - t9 'h{. ){ " �! 'f � rk .! c' ':Y, .lr.r ,y(i°�>:<"'•'/;•,•iwt��9.s� �r�.. ie a' (• "d� (.r,, .J'r; f.i••' r .�:i'r�r:'::•'.r;��-.�•'r" +i. r•,:r`(•7nr " :vt, (r .I .'k,?` •..tt !f { ' ^.ti, :?-- °'r ::3i "?`. •� m!• �,. ":j t t` t. . ' 'S'., r:i;,•... •�{?:li....-•,yr �`f' Y:@.'rt �r•4 r.t ,g,7..A15, ..?�`'•'. xgrr,:r.,ir7.r•va iJ , 'i'F•:. rvit• _ ,,. ,!k. r.:rr:2••, prf(,Mn.,,rFy.j.. 'i� !. 11ikro'try` J ',+'"•'`'' ;r lw."�:•,y!?E';.r _ r•' •;Y. •.,',rA•r•'f•'•'.•I' %7•'�•.,I'r 51„f• ,A=X.� 7 i!'�:r' .1 .•F tL�It,ti t .,iy''... '.i j' .��1 ,.•��� •;Jre': '` ::it: .i• �Y' ,:{_•,r' .S's.n•.:. r, :7$. .�'r• ,Y 7. �. s 'tql ,,t �.rot Pla•.ir C_ ��•` .nsg:.. •ie+:,. •; ,�§>.:z..�lr'' wl��a�ja iw L 'r , pG3GdQfk1QIL�[iSI�G1P aJ 3M®J�G�'SP T�C7 { MG4Q �G G 17QI1C�G�J a saoa t��od r,afiy ;r r ?i:kVd� 'Sk Jth.. 't'�•ppr,L'., i;�•"fir! 'r '�' `'° ,r'_w, 1�41 3G f'ar sJ'y Y.•�2}„ •t7Fy' ',, Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Lamb Site IIA Post Development Drainage Characteristics Each lot will drain to surface swales and a series of area drains and underground PVC pipe,which wdf then outlet through curb cores to the gutter or directly to.the curb inlet catch basins. The gutters will drain into nearby curb inlet.catch basins. The storin drain continues southward aztd into a pump which will discharge the low flows through a vegetated swale.Eventually the water duality discharges will drain into a grated inlet and connect to the extended storm drain system in Yorktown Avenues then northerly along Brookhurst Street. The Stormwater overflow discharge will bypass the subsurface pump system-and connect into the proposed extended storm drain system along Yorktown Avenue. 11.5 Property Ownership/Management The Homeowners Associations (HOA)will be responsible for maintenance of the vegetated swale, etch basin stendliag and sump pump.- The HOA shall also provide information to the homeowners on an annual basis via their regular newsletter pertaining to reminders and tips regarding prevention of storrawater pollution. The builder/developer shall provide educational material to each homebuyer regarding the prevention of storznwater pollution as part of the escrow process. Tri Pointe Homes, LLC Section III May 11, Z012 Page 7 Item 23. - 53 H -2026- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) " Lamb Site Section III - "Site Description III.1 Setting PIartn�g Area/ I Residential Area Community Name � 10251 Yorktown Avenue Location/Address Hitntin.gton Peach,CA.. . Land Use 1 Residential i Zoning i Public-Semipublic .Acreage i.11.65, 1 Predominant Soil Type Clayey-Silt " I 'III.2 Site Characteristics Precipitation Zone, ; Q_72" Topography Developed school site with minimum slope for drainage. Drainage ; The site will drain towards Yorktown Avenue in the southerly Patterns/Connections direction via surface drainage and a storm drain system. 3 LlSol.Type,Geology,and Infiltration Properties a Class B Soil Type Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section E[I May 11,2017 Page S HB -2027 Item 23. - 54 Water Quality,Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site rac�ecs{cor} �nu � r. Hy&-ogeologic (Groundwater) ( Groundwater assumed to be 5`-11y below surface. Conditions .I Geotechnical Conditions N/A (relevant to infiltration) Off Site Drainage ' The site is located wifbin the Santa Ana River Watershed. Utility and Infrastructure IN/A Inf rmation I 111.3 Watershed Description Receiving Waters I Santa Ana River-Fountain Valley Channel i '303(d) Listed Impairments None i j Applicable TMDLs j N/A Pollutants of Concern for I Bacteria/Virus,Metals,Nutrients,Pesticides,Sediments,Trash& the Project t Debris,Oxygen demanding Substances,Oil and Grease Environmentally Sensitive and Special Biological N/A E SignificantAreas 1 1 E �� 7RPlWI.RW114l11 Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section.IU May 11, 2.012 -Page 9 Item 23. - 55 H -2028 Water Quality Management Plan{WQMP) Lamb Site Section IV Best a'nage ent Practices ( Ps) IV. 1 Project Performance Criteria (NOC Permit Area only)Is there an approved WRilH P or equivalent for the project area that includes more stringent LID feasibility YFS El NO Z criteria or if there are opportard ies identified for implementing LID on regional or sub-regional-basis? If yes,describe WIIHN11' feasibility criteria or zeoorEal/sub-regional LID opportunities_ 1 Tri Pointe Homes,i LC Section N May U,2012 Page 0 HB -2029- Item 23. - 56 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site a If HCQC exists, - list applicable i hydromodifacaiion control Not Applicable performance criteria (Section = i 7.II-2-4 9.2 in MWQN 4F) List applicable LTD Based on the information above the site is designed for the LTD criteria and performance storm water quality design flow- According to the LID BMPs hierarchy,on- criteria (Section ( site biotreatment will satisfy the performance criteria set fourth within the 7.11-2-4-3 from I Santa Ana Region(NOC). The site will biofiltrate and release the on-site MWQNIP) Stornzwater runoff up to the storm water quality design.flow. List applicable treatment control j BW performance ; The site will biofiltrate and release the on site Stormwater runoff up to the criteria (Section storm water quality design flow. 7.II-3."from MWQ�) i i i j Ai=Impervious Area=5.36 ac. At=Total Area=11.65 ac. Calculate L1D i (Ai/At)*100=(7-37/11.65) *100=63% design storm 1 Therefore C=0.62(DANIl'F..xhibit 7.11,Table A-1) capture volume for Project I=0.72" (DAMP Exhibit 7.11,Figure A 1) Vb=C*I*At i Vb=0.62" 0.72"* 11.65 ac. (1ft/1tin)*(43,560 ft-2/acre)=18,878 fta i Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section IV October S,2012 Page 11 Item 23. - 57' HB -2030- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site IV.2a SITE DESIGN AND RAINAGE PLAN SQDF for Biofiltration Swales: Design Criteria for Swales(CASQA TC-30): - Use Manning's Equation(n-0.25) - Flow Depth<4" Hydraulic Residence Time>9 min - Mi-imum Length.=100' - 1%min slope - 2.5%max slope - 3:1 max side slope - Bottom Width>_2' - Velocity<1 ft/sec VEGETATED SWALE Area 11.40 acres-}See Site flan in Section VI Use 63%impervious C=0.62, per Table A-1 of the Model WQMF i=0.2 in/hr 4 SQDF is defined as the maximum flow rate of runoff produce from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. QSQDF=CxixA 1.414cfs Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Sec±ion N Dcb3ber 8,2012 Page 12 xB -203 1- Item 23. - 59 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site IV.3 LIP BMP SELECTION AND PROJECT CONFORMANCE ANALYSIS IV.3.1 Hytlrol©gic.source Controls Marne Included? Localized on iot mfBtration ❑ Impervious area dispersion(e g.roof top ❑ disconnection) Street trees.(ranopy interception) Residential ram barrels(not actively managed) Green roofs/Brown roofs ❑ Blue roofs ❑ Impervious area reduction(e_g-Permeable i�- pavers,site design) Cdiea: Vegetated Swale Other. ❑ Other: ❑. L01fier ❑ 1 F Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section IV May 11,2D12 Page 13 Item 23. - 59 HB -2032- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site . IGV.3.2 -Infiltration BMPs identify infitration BWs:to be used in project If design volume cannot be met state why BNTS cannot be met Name Included? Biozeintion rrritliout�nderdraSns ❑ Rain g-a d ❑ Porous landsrap-g ❑ lr!£ txation planters ❑ . Retention swaies ❑ lrt{Sltration t-�•enChCS ❑ lnfiltzation basins ❑ Open bottomless-area drain ❑ Subsurface znfiltration gaDm ies ❑ French drams ❑ Permeable asphalt [] Permeable concrete ❑ Permeable concrete pavers ❑ Other: ❑ t Outer: ❑ 'J Due to the poor drainage cozididons and historic infiltration rates,the use of infiltration BMP's would not be suitable to meet the sites entire design volume. ?ri Pointe Homes,LLC Section N May 11,2017 Page 14 HB -2033- Item 23. - 58 Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site IV.3k3 Evapotranspiration, Rainwater Harvesting BMPs Name included? All HSCs,See Spdbn IV.3.2 ❑ Surface-based sffitrationBha-'s ❑ Biotreaii-ent BhOs ❑ Above-ground cisterns and basins ❑ Underground detention ❑ Other: Othet: ❑ I i i Evapotranspiratiori and rainwater harvest are riot.suitable in and climates such as Southem i Califon ia. a Tri Pointe Homes,t1C Sedion N May 11, 2012 Page 15 i _ j Item 23. - 5$ HB -2034- Water Quality Managdment Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site I(.3.4 Siotree'tCfl ent BMPs Name Included? Bioretention with.underdrains ❑ Stormwa�er planter boxes wifii underdrains ❑ Rain gardens with underdrains ❑ Constructed wetlands El Vegetated swales Vegetated filter strips ❑ Proprietary vegetated biot mabnent systems ❑ Wet extended detention basin ❑ l3rp extended detention basins ❑ Other ❑ Ot3�er. Area= 11.40 acres 4 See Site Plan in Section VI Use 63%impervious C=0.62, per Table A-1 of the Model WQW i=0.2 in/hr--> SQDF is defined as the mmxim-um flow rate of runoff produce from a rainfall intensity of 0.2 inches per hour. QSQDF=CxixA. =1.414cfs T ri Pointe Horner,LLC Section N October 8,2012 Page 16 xs -2035- Item 23. - 52 ' Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site IVa3.5 Hydromodification Control BMPS BMP game SMP Description f I - IV.3.6 Reg ional{Sub-Regional LID BMPs S4F � �, ,� -e xe-i+��-�i...�� ��'"�5 g t��-�,•� s��a��-�a-� mac€'-a.=tr''.r- x���c��`�`' `�,i,ti�.3 v��i ss€x I 1 i i i E Tri Pointe Harries,LLC StQri N May 11,2012 Page 17 Item 23. - 58 HB -2036- i Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site IV.3o7 Treatment Control BMIPs 5 sa 2 •-Fn. �*f--ems seieL. X''� "t7 � �� #�® tl-��Y+-R �i4i�gR �,pl .' #-°.-. G � ` 5AF't - Dir BMP Dame BAP Description Veo tatted Swale --JVegetated Swale for majority of site i f f ' Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section IV May 11,2012 Page 16 HB -2037 ' Item 23. - 54 Wafer Qtmlity.Management Platt CWQMP) Lamb Site IV.3.8 Non-structural Source Control BMPs IS - - --- Checkone If not applicable,state brief Identifier Name Included Not reason Applicable N1 Education for Properly Owners, Q 'Tenants and Occupants ......N2 ..... .. .. Restdc......y ............... ......... . . .. . . . .. ..... ................................... . tioni ....N3 ..... ..Common Area Lands...... ......... ..... .... ....... .,.... ..... . ......... .. .Management ......N...... .....BMP Mazniaz ance.............................................. ..................... ......................._..........,...._... • N5 TitleEl ..... .22 CCR Compliance(How .. .... ............... . .® .. `No Hazardous Mateerials....... development will comply) .....1\6. Local . . .. ........ ... . . ..-.. Industrial Permit Complixace .. I�Ta Indusfrial Pesmzt ...N .... . ........ . ...... - - .. . ................. 7 Spill Contingency Plan Or No Hazardous M&tandals ................. Ns ..... U derground Storage Tank..... .. . ,��.... ...................... o Underground Tanks ...... Compliance ......N9....... -- - Hazardous Materials L}iscl-osrue ............. Q.. . .. No-Hazardous Materials Compliance . N10 •.. . . ............................................. ... . Uniform Tire Code Implementation .® No Hazardous Materials .....Nll..... Common Area Litter Control ._. .�...... .. .....c...._. ........................................ ............... ... ....N No employees._... Employee Try`Rg......................... •-- . . .... ....- - .... ..... ............ ..- eping of Loading Docks . .- Q Na Loading Docks N13 ij,�Z .. •.......- XT'14 Common Area Catch Basin Inspection El N15 Street Sweeping Private Streets and El Perking lots f .. .N16...... Retail Gasoline C3utlets......................... ... .0. ... .......®...... No Retail Gasol e Orttle.ts....... I Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Sewn N May 11,2012 Page 19 Item 23. - 58 HB -2038 ` Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site IV.3.9 Structural Source Control BMPS Check One Identifier Name If not applicable,state brief Included Not. reason -Applicable Provide storm drain system stencilzng ® ❑ and sipage Design and construct outdoor material S2 storage areas to reduce pollution ❑ No outdoor storage introduction Design and constmd trash and.waste S3 storage areas to reduce pollution ❑ ® No trash enclosures introduction' Use efficient irrigation sysiems& S4 landscape design.,water conseTvation, ❑ smart controllers,and source control S5 Protect slopes and channels and Q ® No runoff over slopes provide energy dissipation Incorporate requirements applicable to individual priority project categories ❑ ® Not applicable {from SDRWQCB NPDES Permit} " S6 Dock areas ❑ No dock areas S7 Maintenance bays ❑ No mainte=ve Bays S8 Vehicle wash areas ❑ No vehicle wash areas S9 Outdoor processing areas ❑ No outdoor processing areas i 510 Equipment wash areas ❑ Noe quipmentwashareas SIT Fueling areas ❑ No fueling areas S12 Hillside landscaping No halside Iandscapmg S13 Wash water control for food ❑ ® 'No food preparation areas preparation areas S14 Community car wash racks ❑ No community car wash racks I Rrml 4W TH Pointe Homes,LLC Section IV May 11,201Z. Page 24 HB -2039- Item 23. - 58 Water Quality Management Plan{WQMP) Lamb Site IV.4 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PLAN (IF APPLICABLE) IV.4s1 Water Quality Credits 72_. sue_- .���.t�.t.�"� '•7 {. -Le�-e,4gct 1^£is Rom'-_ -.�q - Project Types that Qualify for Water Quality Credits (Select all that apply): -- - - Redevelopment I ElBrownfield redeveloprw t�meaning 1 ❑Bigler density development projects which projects that reduce the redevelopment,expansion,or reuse of real � include two distinct categories(credits can only overZa impervious property which may be complicated by the be taken for one category):those with more than footprint of the project presence or potentaaT presence of hazardous i seven units per acre of development(lower credit site i substances,pollutants or contaminants,and allowance);vertical density developments,for which have-the.potential to cortribuie to example,those with a Floor to Area Ratio(FAR) i adverse ground or surface-WQ*if not f of 2.or those having more than 18 units per acre i redeveloped , (greater credit allowance). ❑Mixed use development,such as a I ❑Transit-oriel ted developments,such as a mixed 1 Q Redevelopment combination of residential,conwsecrial, use residential or commercial area designed to I projects in an established industrial,office,institutional,or other land x aX;mize access.to public transportatian;similar to I historic district historic uses which incorporate design principles above criterion,but where the development center is preservation area,or that can demonstrate environmental benefits within one half mile of a mass transit center(e g.bus, similar significant city that would not be realized through single j rail,light rail or commuter train station).Such area including care City use projects(e.g.reduced vehicle trip traffic projects would not be able to take creddt for both + Center.,,.,(to be with the potential to reduce sources of water s categories,but may have greater credit assigned I defined through or air pollution). mapping). l El Live-work developments,a [JI-a fill projects,the QDevelopmenis with i E Developments } variety of developments designed conversion of empty lots derlicafi.on of undeveloped elopmer�ts ( inhistoric t to support residential and and other underused DevI portions to parks, districts or, i vocational needs together- spaces into more' I ! in a city center ! i preservation areas and area. E historic j similar to criteria to mixed use ; beneficially used spaces, other pervious uses. preservation development would not be able• such as residential or areas. to take credit for both categories• i commercial areas. i f Calculatim of. Water Quality f Credits I (if app iTble) i i i Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section N May 11,2012 gage 21 Item 23. - 59 HB -2040- Water Quality.Management Plan CWQMP) Lamb Site IVAZ Alternative Compliance Plan Information Not Applicable 1 i Tri Pointe Homes,11C Section N May 11,2012. Page 22 HB -2041- Item 23. - 58 Water Qualify Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site section W � � �s �f®n/Maintenanc . 'Responsibility for Baps TKO 351 .�,<P 9. 33.vMu•`�CN. � �.'w ✓8!I!J,`. - 'v_.-3'-.. .i �� _g E pzY �'f- 55�, 3 '�ty'�Fyq s'c �Vt ,� u -ss.atit�cs+ a bx.`• e�■� 1 P[�•(.9 ?4 fi �Pq P aye �'�,�.�'k 5•b,- .r. ,�.- '.�.r c+�'�cuw�5 _ sa q�W4R- Cif-,r [.t �c3 � w A Education for Provide education Property Owners Tri Pointe Homes,LLC information to new Continuous owners Manage landscaping in accordance with County of Orange Common Area FlOA duringpost Water Conservation . Landscape constriction Ordinance Na.3802 Monthly during Management and.with Management regular maintenance Guidelines for Use of Fertilizers and Pesticides I - BMP Maintenance. HOA BMP table BMP table Common Area Litter Control co H during post- Litter Maintenance Continuous construction. TO Pointe Homes,11C Secion V May 11,2012 Page 23 Item 23. - 58 RB -2042- Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) Lamb Site Catch Basins will be inspected after major Catch Basin HOA Inspection rain events and Inspection. p immediately prior to the start of the rainy season on October 1st Street Sweeping will Street Sweeping HOA Sweeping be swept weekly. Storm Drain System HOA Repaint as necessary. Annually Stenciling Verify that runoff minimi zing.landscape design continues to function by checlang that water sensors are functioning properly,irrigation heads are adjusted properly to eliminate overspray to hardscape areas,to verify that irrigation Once aweeek in Efficient Irrigation HOA timing and cycle conjunction vd1h and Landscape Design lengths are adjusted. waintenance in accordance with activities: water demands,given time of year,weather day/night time temperatures. Verify that plants continue to be grouped according to similar water requirements in order to reduce excess irrigation runoff Tri Pointe Homes, LLC Section V May 11,2012 Page 24 HB -2043- Item 23. - 590 Wafer Quality Management Plan(WQMP) L-emb Site Vegetated Swale HOA See Section VII See Section VII i• E i i �s oit�r tr a��zmme Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Section V May 11,2012 Page 2S Item 23. - 591 Hs -2044- Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site Section VI Site Plan and Drainage Plan VI.1 SITE PLAN AND DRAINAGE PLAIN Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Secbon V11 May 11,2012 Page 26 HB -2045- Item 23. - 592 - � •--�- r Xt ,,.3. �" - ud �"' - $��:� k Y+'i' S''—"r'r- - '�F"�-.--1F .� * `it�''`,�Y""�,�,.c �,^t � r��►.y-c r o ��"L'1'0b'1arl�'�`- .a � .... bF S k ci r S�� - ��6 rPlta�fg t -'�- -. .x,. �`F' - _4 I - t� c-- y� i".4..�_ L a 1 ''i�ay✓�.r+ -,+F Y�� acf+ "� �'4 t "" � ffirci � 513�e.Araz �,�' � �� 'a'-+•'x t'` s-��„'M1�� F -'>w^� Jr' a, t 'f. �e s ad � f a�j 1 7 v °..L��r��a,�t kr�'� � 's�tsAe�l��-� �� �-�...h. i ha"•s� us' ,tcii�iw'�!��..t- � ys` -._ _ �•�.Cc ' 1 c"z{ �i}+_"4``„�'�ti T ���WT�r�AL' --� `�-� � � 'ems �_..=d r�',� 4• 4, .4 d.Yry`t{icy .car.��m ��j f: k •`3�lbcrdAM i s��,-r> 7 � _��� i t��� .�� ' ��-.._.��-3'ty= �Eul&$lvd`��.--��� F�7,� ci '➢,7sficc' .i �s n G� � r� rp'3 `x_ �-+u ��F ��� -'F 3-+ �.l -7.—.i f.�r.sa.-f -f�> S� . ��ifLc��-v .+. f`z r��Xt i- F^fig `4� ,� _� .-.F�,9...y� °��. _b.w a w,-{is♦F '�}F�=�' �ta� ji�mf"Y .,sx S•t ,eri oaf ➢ r�r"^' � "tca,tf.w.4'i �kesl7 Y �"v � ,�-r�-.� +�'_..'E' e+; �-;��1� €$$��`�tr �£��`" �1��'��E r""���a-•*`-sr���1_o�t 4`'�_4 ^`i'�T-:-J`>,��,�i- kY.,�.��, �p" r 'Y,-+4 1 z n 'U Flfr �'',a+nc`•� Ff-,-�•f+ r'1�h^� .y� �Y N K'2�7-.i��z�Y "2' F 3 "34e +tip" -i a.- '-. -'��_ ��9'�.pc.' ar'�-_,•f �� E:�� e d +.uSe '•y! �,',...�-.�`ip+u s F•h.+�+1.« es ,� cf>S ��.— + ,e, E7 � �' r r^•'l`s l$' �_ -s -� � � +�-y�d�5�s —� .C±, -i �,r�� '�ak�".=f7.`.` .�c$^'p`'Gh -.�� flkl'W n FtiI.UtM�*��� -sr..a' d -�,�t -C•' zf t-+F,.e, oyal f:., '3{ ,+dra,. -, � s t i y f,.,j*tr - 4 £ i �`"- _n, 1.2r •..rs.3�h _..cc^t-F"' .7 `. 'ia +a.--•-5� `'��.s,ct==y� k�``�"r= c"°R7�f,,,��'a-� �. � -• £"'�•--'�'R .��-�, �`�! �ftil:�:iLTX1Y"?uSLt`r`f2S...:yy� fF` -"" +;�5 MME ���� * .�1 � �=--,� �-irn>• .ram � - a k lrL--am``Pve � „7i93'eE. Aomzs�1++9�. t Lam-.-�'fF�i��Rv� �,.s i r-s.x. T";CJlrkkieat .r- �- .��-ic-:X ;a ,..�" L � �a :�Y•+�.i-&f �h+.`C�j. 4�—i -���'��� .. �Z..� r -'s>�Tr�-r,+,++ri���..�y �'R=� ?+J -_r LC��.-.. i �1 =- d `^� � 7 ._cs"-'��g,"'➢"�^fy �Ps.-"`t -F��''. - '�'Y3 x+�M�'• + .,,'i,�� �?+ �� 3ds rti L y�,.� .�11df'�t3�r`AIIS.t`�@- u {�tiQLVl7 r rr �Pyt=-�,e- < 'sr--�<F-s'� % !G h'Z.S ��•y.- na? .' 4d.. ,.3,�f4 ..t f +• r .z.,q LLB'� ��. �-3 i•S_ .�'� }t� E -rT�+S �3G" �� ��-_..✓cam"+ c_� •y. -.S 7 1�{' r L a r' �`""` ''. aE-1' 5 ..+'-fin- n'.� t" F•r F-x. -='4T S -'-k. OM f; �, 5l r C-� r��til5xx wy a 4" F-"'' ;x �itl.�� a i7'+�-•.-'-IS �..�..tr�f��r , 1 ---z�. 45 '.t-3}x"ti .. '� �y �,' �4k��1-`d.Fi's-,ye'r�,.�''.i��rz..a�'nt•Yq�--� 3 c",,,,�s�2:rtp7fi°-- ���,'F��� r'�r,�,_gas .C`"-�t.,X �` � ,,3'� {�c -.4+,C:� "C -�� - .k-Wit. `.__-.—. ,�•r3f,i r�*r .� ''ate'*c " a,Al�l�f�-a�-+t-h �+::F V :J' .�s.+��ivf.P .l+ W�-n€ 4 S_ix�'�I9 P➢ 1�!'K�a' il.�0 r `fix" - s� Eii€ss ti 4 r �\.t' '9�'.`s'�^r 3�gj 'Aa IMF#+ f - ;^,5� �� +ti. c�- L"';�• rr $t - "�+�V�,-i' `�' '�,,Y� m�� ;ti_ - �' •x' _ ,T'' '-w � �. .T .-$ F yl�•'r. fSy�¢.\ �'4vdN', gP[£y'S'1'yl�r R .." tNi 1 1 VICINITY MAP - NO SCALE VI. Q FIGURE 1 I i :Item 23. - 593 _ HB -2046- �. LEGEND Drainage PeNam s 1 t f 4 'i I I I l r '"I F{ . . —.._ Efrmienf frrigeGon and ' 4 I ,' �lry, LandrApe Design _ r ��it `� �;1°!i r_t1i55b ,� •.� ' J3J �J1� 3� i I$.1 t ]j{__ 70 I li' {' ;.� r}.•, f,I. _r :' — I IS J._`, .11 !: -1 "3 7 .,�7 catch 9AehI SfBRC ft f eiafitralkn Swale �t r„ t�r'...t 11 — aeeauwr Drainage AreaSoundwry 74,0 FIT V. prop Stetm Drain P� �,r If,l It ( �,.� ,. n.eaae +•• r r r .�rY, n I �� 1 , '•ae r � '_.�•� I`�r��l' j I` 2,14 pro CNyPuk.. iDfa71 �nt .i• ,U` —sI_; f ; IA Acre: ky ; it``eA. t,S vt f it Nal=put j -- -1'' !,..f• il'I,y- _ IT � I �L.I�., -. �„ ., ��y i :. ��_•w �A 1•- � =>a r ill._ 3 t :��� ��:.I 'f lf1 �. k .,ry I? ��' nl�� ' •y e r ,.i• "i!J,�h�' 'le�' r ;`YS�`I i�'—y t ' ..I I ! '-1, t ... r •/7y? r-:�.�'l?i:'a _jL ` 1 i .—._�..��, �k' � �� ' ,- „5�•�' .1- `i� r �E ' �� i I I '�f'`r'' i' <= 1 i 1 TT ;�j� -- ------'?.,• l ?� to 1, I 2, II qq y!ti "rl� :_4b - --- - -- -- --- „ SCALE: 1°=i2g' Lamb School Site SITE PLAN 10251 Yorktown Avenue VI. -FIGURE 2 Huntington Beach, CA N W i U Water Quality Management Plan(WQMP) Lamb Site Section VII Educational Materials lE .'_�''4 F.Y� va 3-•�Y :" IZ" _3!1'e - tR J.FI:!r 'ifs Fl.L '4 b'(-'L '', M' - -M40 �{daSie F i-a...,r +hv.T—ems th� E. =- Residentiial Material Check if, Busyness Material Check If (http:llwnrww.ocwatersheds.com) Applicable (http://wvsrw.ocwatersheds.com) Applicable The Ocean Begins at Your Pront Door ❑ Tips for the Ant motive Industry .❑ Tips for Car WashFund-misers Tips for Using Concrete and_Mortar El Tips for the Home Mecl=iir ❑ Tips for the food Service Industry ❑ Homeowners Guide for Sustainable Proper Mai3.nt=.�ance Practices for Your Water Use El Proper ❑ Household Tips ❑ Check If Disposal of Other Material Proper�Po ❑ Attached Hazardous Waste Recycle at Your Local Used Oil ❑ County Urban Storm Water Pollution Collection Center(North County) Prevention Program Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Management Guidelines for Use of Collection Center(Central County) ❑ Fertilizers and PQsiiei des Recycle at Your Local Used Oil Collection Center(South County) ❑ '� When it Rains it Drains' i Tips for Maintaining a Septic Tank ❑ EPA- Preventing Pollution through System P.fdcient Water Use Responsible Pest Control ❑ Solution.to Pollution-Twenty Ways i Sewer Spill ❑ County Ordinance No.3802 Tips for the Home Improvement Projects ❑ County Ordinance No.0-97-39W,Water Management and Urban Runoff Tips far Horse Care ❑ Notice of Transfer of Responsibility " Form Tips for Landscaping and Gardening ❑ ❑ Tips for Pet Care ❑ ❑ Tips for Pool Maintenance ❑ Tips for Residenfial Pool,Landscape and ❑ ❑ Hardscape Drams Tips for Projects Using Paint El ❑ I Tri Pointe Homes,LLC Sedion VIT May 11,2012 Page 27 Item 23. - 595 HB —2048 10/23/2012 Lamb Residential Subdivision Sl Single Family Units MND No. 08-13/GPA No. 08-05/ZMA No. 08-05/TTM No. 17238/CUP No. 08-26 Applicant: Michael Adams, Adams and Associates; Thomas Grable, Tri-Pointe Homes Property Owner: Fountain Valley School District Planning Commission Meeting - October 23, 2012 M. PROJECT DESCRIPTION ► Mitigated Negative Declaration. analyzes the potential impacts associated with the proposed project ► General Plan Amendment: to amend the existing Land Use designation from Public-Residential Low Density (P-RL) to Residential Low Density (RL) ► Zoning Map Amendment: to amend the existing zoning designation of Public-Semipublic (PS)to Residential Low Density (RL) ► Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit: to subdivide approx. 11.65 acres into 81 single family residential lots with eight lettered lots, reduced lot widths and lot sizes and reduced street sections; and to permit an 81 unit Planned Unit Development with mutual public benefits xB -2049- Item 23. - 596 10/23/2012 SITE LOCATION BACKGROUND In 2005 the City of Huntington Beach purchased approx. 2.6 acres of the approximately 15 acre closed Lamb School site from FVSD pursuant to the Naylor Act The approx. 2.6 acres includes a field area and a portion of the southwesterly school parking lot Subdivision Committee - unanimously approved the tentative map on July 11, 2012 2 Item 23. - 597 xB -2050- 10/23/2012 STUDY SESSION - September 1 1 , 2012 ► Open Space - Staff determined that no net loss of a designated open space will occur ► Truck Trips/Grading -A total of 315 truck trips will occur: approximately 14 trips day over 23 days; approximately 4,400 net cubic yards will be imported ► Detention Basin/Drainage - Staff has determined that the detention basin will be maintained by the City and not a requirement of the.HOA ► Park Improvements -- The park improvements have been reviewed by Community Services Commission and no further review by the City is required ► Measure C -The City Attorney opined that the park improvements are not subject to Measure C ANALYSIS ► CEQA: MND No. 08-13 concludes less than significant impacts will occur with mitigation measures proposed for: biological resources, geology/soils, hydrology/water quality, hazards/hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance Received 17 comment letters;RTC in staff report Parking-no variances,meets all standards Open Space-both In-Ilea and park improvements;City-wide basis exceeds standards Traffic-model took into account other existing uses;no significant impacts ► General Plan Amendment: Proposed change from P-RL to RL would be consistent with surrounding designations ► Zoning Map Amendment: Proposed changes from PS to RL will be compatible with surrounding designations as well as the General Plan land use designation xs -205 1- Item 23. - 598 10/23/2012 ANALYSIS: Tentative Map/Conditional Use Permit ► PUD/Site Layout Complies with development standards for single family residential development ► Land Use Compatibility • Consistent with other single family residential uses surrounding the pro)ect site with respect to density, building height, and architecture • Increased rear yard setbacks a Deliberate window placement to protect privacy o Density of 6.5 units/net acre (5.9 units/gross acre) is consistent with the proposed zoning designation, which allows a maximum 7 units/net acre Compatible with surrounding character and density of SFR development ANALYSIS: Tentative Map/Conditional Use Permit In-Fill Analysis o Complies with ordinance regarding compatibility and privacy issues and provides an increased rear yard setback adjacent to existing homes ► Mutual Public Benefits • Mutual public benefits supports the PUD request for reduced lot size, lot width and the reduced internal street sections o Benefits include: Physical improvements to 2.6 acre Lamb park in addition to payment of park land in-lieu fees • Allowance for public parking on private streets within development • Construction of new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain • Green building strategies 4 Item 23. - 599 xB -2052- 10/23/2012 SUMMARY ► The proposed project will be compatible with the existing zoning and General Plan designations of single family residential surrounding the project site; ► Proposed subdivision, project layout and design will be compatible with surrounding single family residential uses with respect to density; ► The project meets minimum development standards but exceeds rear yard setbacks for homes proposed adjacent to existing homes; ► The proposed architectural design will be compatible with the character of the area. .A. STAFF R.ECO M M EN ®ATI N ► Approve MND No. 08-13 with findings ► Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 and Zoning Map - Amendment No.08-05 (with findings) and forward to the City Council ► Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26 with findings and suggested conditions of approval xs -2053- Item 23. - 600 ATTACHMENT # 12 ®raft Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision City of Huntington Beach, ®range County, California Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 949.724.6359 Contact: 714.374.1547 .Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 220 Commerce, Suite 200 Irvine, CA 92602 714.508.4100 Contact: Thomas F. Holm, Project Director INS N ROSS Michael Brandma i_associates November 01, 2012 Item 23. - 601 HB -2054- City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction .......................................................................................................1 Section 2: Project Description............................................................................................2 2.1 - General Plan Amendment No. 2008-005...........................................................2 2.2 - Zoning Map Amendment No. 2008-005.............................................................2 2.3 -Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 .........................................................................2 2.4 - Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-026................................................................2 2.5 - Program Management.......................................................................................3 2.5.1 - Roles and Responsibilities of the Project Manager..............................3 2.5.2 - General Procedures............................................................................4 MMRPFiles........................................................................................4 Records and Implementation (R&I) Forms..........................................4 Environmental Compliance Verification ..............................................4 Disposition of Monitoring Forms .........................................................4 Section 3: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.......................................................5 List of Tables Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program.................................................................6 Michael Brandman Associates ii CAProgram Fi1&Necvia.Com\Documen1 Converter\temp\3327964.doc xs -205- Item 23. - 602 City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Introduction .cv, a�..� o>\�.x< .Lw>.� ca...,..mxu..,,,,�....�i '"> ,�'., _ `• <. \ . .. The following is a Mitigation Monitoring Report Program(MMRP)for the project which has been prepared pursuant to Section 15097 of the CEQA Guidelines and Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code. This MMRP lists all applicable mitigation measures from the Mitigated Negative Declaration(MND) for the project. The appropriate timing of implementation and responsible party are identified to ensure proper enforcement of the mitigation measures from the MND to reduce project impacts to less than significant levels. Michael Brandman Associates 1 C:AProgram Files\Ncevia.Com\Document ConverterAtemp\3327964.doc Item 23. - 603 HB -2056- City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Project Description .. �r EC � + INN ..,, u.. nrg .u .... e The project proposes to subdivide the 11.65-acre former Lamb School site to accommodate 81 lots for new detached single-family homes. All existing school buildings and onsite improvements are proposed to be demolished in conjunction with the project. The project is adjacent to an existing unimproved 2.6-acre park. The project proposes improvements to the City's park that will include a multi-use practice field measuring 150 feet across by 240 feet long, field lighting, one 4-foot square picnic table, shade structure,bike rack, two 60-square foot tot lot areas,two benches, at least 31 onsite parking spaces, irrigation and landscaping, and sidewalks in and around the areas of the parking lot and tot play areas. This project requests a General Plan Amendment to change the existing General Plan designation of Public (Residential Low Density) (P(RL))to Residential Low Density(RL7). This project also . proposes a Zoning Map Amendment to change the existing zoning of Public-Semipublic(PS)to RL (Residential Low Density). The project also proposes to be developed as a Planned Unit Development (PUD). Specific project entitlements are as follows: 2.1 - General Plan Amendment No. 2008-005 A General Plan Amendment is required to amend the General Plan land use designation from Public with an underlying designation of Residential Low Density(P(RL))to Residential Low Density(RL- 7), which allows for a maximum density of seven units per acre. 2.2 -Zoning Map Amendment No. 2008-005 A Zoning Map Amendment is required to amend the zoning designation from Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density(RL). 2.3 -Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 A Tentative Tract Map is required to subdivide 11.65 acres of land to accommodate 81 numbered lots for new detached single-family homes and eight lettered lots A-H for streets and landscaping. 2.4 - Conditional Use Permit No. 2008-026 A Conditional Use Permit is required in order to permit the development of an 81-unit single-family subdivision and associated infrastructure including site improvements, fencing, grading and construction of offsite sewer,water and storm drain improvements. The proposed project is proposed Michael Brandman Associates 2 C\Program Files\Neevia.Com\Document Convertcr\tcmp\33279G4.doc HB -2057 Item 23. - 604 City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Project Description as a Planned Unit Development(PUD). The PUD is necessary because 79 of the lots are below the minimum 6,000 square feet standard for RL developments. 2.5 - Program Management This MMRP identifies the implementation timing and responsible party for each mitigation measure identified in the MND for the Project. This MMRP is applicable to all phases of the Project and will be used by the City of Huntington Beach as follows: • The City of Huntington Beach, Planning and Building Department is the lead agency responsible for proper implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MND for the Project. • The City of Huntington Beach has determined that the Project will have a less than significant impact on the environment with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Draft MND and Final MND for the Project. • The City of Huntington Beach will use this MMRP to ensure proper enforcement of each mitigation measure identified in the Draft MND and Final MND,which are needed to reduce the potential Project impacts to less than significant levels. • The City of Huntington Beach will assign a Project Manager(PM)to supervise the implementation of the proposed Project. The PM will have the following authority and responsibilities pertaining to the MMRP: 2.5.1 - Roles and Responsibilities of the Project Manager Enforce all mitigation measures identified in the MMRP. • Identify a responsible designee if necessary to enforce the MMRP in place of the PM. • Retain appropriate specialists, as needed,to monitor specified mitigation activities and provide appropriate written approvals to the PM. • Approve by signature and date,the completion of each action item identified on the MMRP. • Approve by signature and date of completion, any impact issue requiring no further monitoring. • Approve refinements to any of the mitigation measures as needed based on unanticipated circumstances arising during any phase of the Project. • Stop work of construction contractors if MMRP implementation is not achieved after issuance of written notification. Michael Brandman Associates 3 C:Trogram Files\Ncevia.Com\Document ConveneetempW27964.doc Item 23. - 605 HB -2058 City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Project Description • Hold issuance of a permit or completion notice/certificate until all mitigation measures are implemented. 2.5.2 -General Procedures MMRP Files Files are established to document and retain records pertaining to implementation of the mitigation measures in the MMRP. The organization of the MMRP files is established by the PM according to mitigation measures and project phases. Records and Implementation (R&I) Forms Records and Implementation(R&I)Forms will be used to record document monitoring activity in a manner consistent with the needed approvals for the Project. R&I Forms are incorporated in the MMRP files and will be prepared for each potential significant impact and its corresponding mitigation measure for each applicable phase of the Project. After compliance is verified for each mitigation measure,the PM shall initial and date the measure on the MMRP, and no further action is required for the specific phase. Environmental Compliance Verification The PM will execute an Environmental Compliance Verification at the completion of construction contracts that are part of the overall development of the Project to verify environmental compliance and conclude the construction monitoring process for the contract. Disposition of Monitoring Forms All actions and completed R&I Forms are kept in the MMRP file at the City during all project phases. Reports are available from the City upon request at the following address: City of Huntington Beach(Lead Agency) 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Michael Brandman Associates 4 CAProgram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp�3327964.doc HB -2059- Item 23. - 606 City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program ECT f i 3 IGA N M®N1TC3RIMG REPORTI C R_ The following table will be used by the PM to enforce mitigation measures during each phase of the Project pursuant to Section 15097 of the State CEQA Statues and Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21081.6. This MMRP will be enforced pursuant to Section 2.5 Program Management, and is designed to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures of the MND for the project. Michael Brandman Associates 5 C.^,Program Files`,Necvia.Conr,Document Converterump\3327964.doc Item 23. - 607 xB -2060- City of Hunt,...,,on Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Table 1: Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program 01" o n �0 ", 0 -A V,(ration erso nti I mew w 't J ....Section ......Mrtr ............. In 3.1 Geology Mitigation Measure GEO-1 The grading plan prepared for the proposed project shall contain the recommendations included in the reports listed below. These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project and include measures associated with site preparation,fill placement and compaction, seismic design features,excavation and shoring requirements,foundation design,concrete slabs and pavement,surface drainage,trench backfill,and geotechnical observation. 1.The August 21,2007 Geotechnical Investigation and Liquefaction Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Lamb School Site,prepared by Southern California Geotechnical 2.The February 28,2012 Geotechnical Review and Commentary of Existing o Documents for the Lamb School Site Project prepared by Petra. These reports suggest relatively uniform subsurface conditions exist across the Inclusion of the project site. However,where existing school structures and improvements have recommendations from precluded direct access to subsurface areas,additional borings and soil samples are reports listed in Prior to Public Works recommended to provide deeper soil information. Although no new impacts or Mitigation Measure grading Department unusual subsurface conditions are anticipated,Mitigation Measure GEO-2 is GEO-1 in the grading permit Director or recommended prior to construction to complete site investigations. plan for the project. issuance designee CD Michael Brandman Associates 6 CAProgram Fi1cs\Neevia.Com\Document Convcrtcr\tenip\3327964.doc 0 CD City of Huntington Beach N Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision W Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program N ,. O ,, y i{min of SRes ohslble Coim ie ion: . Section M�ti atiori M r . � g easu a Method offer;fication lteriitie�n Perso Initials � _ .. a,,,. _�;s x ..., ,r r:. _ .. ! %•.. _.._ due Submittal of information regarding the additional Mitigation Measure GEO-2 subsurface borings and project compliance with Prior to issuance of building permits for the project,in order to complete the soils any additional Planning and information in areas of the site where existing structures and improvements have recommendations Prior to Building prevented easy access to deeper soil,additional subsurface borings shall be resulting from the building Department conduced. The project shall comply with any additional recommendations resulting additional subsurface permit Director or from this additional subsurface investigation. investigation. issuance designee ........... ..................................................................................................................................... 3.2 Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure HYD-1 Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval(10,25, and 100-year storms shall be No analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development,or deficient,downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analysis shows that the City's current drainage system can not meet the volume needs of the project runoff,the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to Submittal of Hydraulic exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an Analysis to the City of Prior to Public Works option,the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite Huntington Beach issuance of Director of attenuation or detention,or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate Public Works a grading authorized the impacts of the new development,at no cost to the City. Department. pen-nit designee Michael Brarl-nan Associates 7 CAProgram Files 'om\Document Converter\temp\3327964.doc City of Huntit,yron Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program _....�...................... _._ 3.3 Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbance,the applicant shall provide the City of Huntington Beach proof that a certified biologist has been retained to determine if nesting birds are present within the project footprint or within a 250-foot buffer around the site. If The applicant shall nesting birds are present,construction activity shall be avoided in the area until provide proof to the nesting activity is complete(generally February 1 to August 31),as determined by City of Huntington the biologist. If ground or vegetation disturbance would occur between February and Beach that a certified August, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted seven days prior to biologist has been any ground or vegetation disturbance.Any active nests identified shall have a buffer retained to determine if area established within a 100-foot radius(200 foot for birds of prey)of the active nesting birds are present Planning and nest. Disturbance shall not occur within the buffer area until the biologist determines within the Project Building that the young have fledged. Construction activity may occur within the buffer area footprint or within a Prior to Department at the discretion of the biological monitor. 250-foot buffer around ground Director or the site. disturbance designee ... ............... ..................... ....._..-...... _.............. .......... .........._.............. ._. __.... 3.4 Hazards ........... ......._ ....... o Submittal of the soils �.� Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 survey to the City of Prior to issuance of a grading permit,the project applicant shall have a soils survey Huntington Beach and Public Works conducted for the proposed project site to determine if any agricultural chemicals implementation of Prior to and Fire (herbicides,insecticides,pesticides and metals)remain at the project site from past mitigation issuance of Departments agricultural use. The applicant shall implement the mitigation recommendations in recommendations in the a grading Directors or the soils report. soils report permit designees r-r CD N W •� Michael Brandman Associates 8 C:\Pi-ogramFiles\Neevia.Com\DocumentConverter\temp\3327964.doe - M� 0 City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision WMitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program --� 3.5 Noise �-' During project Mitigation Measure NOI-1 construction the City of All construction equipment shall use available noise suppression noise devices and Huntington Beach properly maintained mufflers. All internal combustion engines used in the project Project Manager(or Planning and area shall be equipped with the type of muffler recommended by the vehicle designee)shall visit the Building manufacturer. In addition,all equipment shall be maintained in good mechanical project site to verify During Department condition to minimize noise created by faulty or poorly maintained engine, project compliance with project Director or 3 drivetrain, and other components. this mitigation measure. construction designee During project construction the City of Huntington Beach Project Manager(or Planning and Mitigation Measure NOI-2 designee) shall visit the Building During construction, stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that project site to verify During Department x emitted noise is directed away from sensitive noise receptors and noise as far as project compliance with project Director or W possible from the boundary of the residential use. this mitigation measure. construction designee N 3.6 Cultural Resources The City of Huntington Beach Project Manager Prior to (or designee) shall demolition Mitigation Measure CR-I confirm delivery of the of the Planning and Prior to demolition,the whole of the existing Lamb School shall be fully recorded data to the South existing Building onto DPR 523 forms and the forms delivered to the South Coastal Central Coastal Central school Department Information Center at CSU-Fullerton. Delivery of the data to the Center mitigates for Information Center at buildings on Director or potential direct and unavoidable impacts to the existing structure complex. CSU-Fullerton site designee Michael Brar^'man Associates g CAProgram Files "om\Document Converter\temp\3327964.doc City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measure CR-2 The project applicant shall ensure that during ground-disturbing activities an archaeological mitigation monitoring program shall be implemented within the project boundaries.Full-time monitoring shall continue until the project archaeologist determines that the overall sensitivity of the project area has been reduced from high to low, as a result of mitigation monitoring. Should the monitor determine that there are no cultural resources within the impacted areas, or should the sensitivity be reduced to low during monitoring,all monitoring shall cease. Specifically,prior to issuance of the first rough grading permit, and for any subsequent permit involving excavation to increased depth,the landowner or subsequent project applicant shall provide evidence to the City of Huntington Beach that a qualified archaeologist has been retained by the landowner or subsequent project applicant, and that the consultant(s)will be present during all grading and other significant ground disturbing activities. If, during the implementation of the monitoring program,any historic or prehistoric cultural resources are inadvertently discovered by the archaeological Inspector,the Cd find(s)must be blocked off from further construction-related disturbance by at least r 50 feet, and no further project-related earthmoving shall occur in the area of the discovery until the City approves the measures to protect or appropriately mitigate for the find. The Project Archaeologist must determine whether the find is a historic Prior to the issuance of resource as defined under§15064.5(a)(3)of the CEQA Guidelines. If the find(s)is the first rough grading not found to be a historic resource, enough data must be gathered so that the find can permit the applicant Prior to be recorded onto DPR523 forms sets and then project-related excavations can shall provide evidence issuance of continue in the vicinity of the find. If the find(s)is determined to be a historic to the City of the first resource,the resource must undergo Phase 3 data recovery following professional Huntington Beach that a rough guidelines. Any prehistoric artifacts recovered as a result of the mitigation effort qualified archeologist grading shall be donated to a qualified scientific institution approved by the City where they has been retained and permit/ Planning and would be afforded long-term preservation to allow future scientific study. will be present during During Building all grading and other ground Department Once the Project Archaeologist determines that the potential for impacts to buried significant ground disturbing Director or cultural resources has been reduced to"low",active archaeological monitoring may disturbing activities. activities designee cease. fD N W .� Michael Brandman Associates 10 OTrogram Files\Neevia.Com\Document Converter\temp\3327964.doc N� N C City of Huntington Beach N Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision W Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Measure PR-1 WThe project applicant shall ensure that during excavation a qualified paleontologic monitor is present to observe excavation in areas identified as likely to contain paleontologic resources. Based upon this review,areas of concern include undisturbed older Quaternary deposits. Paleontologic monitors should be equipped to salvage fossils as they are unearthed, to avoid construction delays,and to remove samples of sediments likely to contain the remains of small fossil invertebrates and vertebrates.Monitors must be empowered to temporarily halt or divert equipment to allow removal of abundant or large specimens. Monitoring may be reduced or The City of Huntington eliminated if the potentially fossiliferous units described herein are determined upon Beach Project Manager exposure and examination by qualified paleontologic personnel to have low potential (or designee) shall Planning and to contain fossil resources,or if the parameters of the proposed project will not verify that a qualified Building impact potentially fossiliferous units. This decision is at the discretion of the paleontoligic monitor is Department qualified paleontologic monitor. If the monitoring program results present during During Director or in positive findings,then refer to PR-2 to PR-4. excavation. excavation designee _.... ....__.___.._.....__._...__..........__W......_...---_._...... ___..._._.__.__...............---_................_......_..__...._....................._...__......................______........_.._.._.-................_....___.._......................._........_........._.__..__........................._....._..__......_.._..__......_........_._._..._....__ ...___................_..._....._.....__._..__.............__...._......_.__ The City of Huntington Beach Project Manager N (or designee)shall coordinate with the Mitigation Measure PR-2 paleontolic monitor to Planning and Preparation of recovered specimens to a point of identification and permanent verify that if specimens Building preservation,including washing of sediments to recover small invertebrates and are recovered,that they Department vertebrates. Preparation and stabilization of all recovered fossils are essential in are prepared and During Director or order to fully mitigate adverse impacts to the resources. stabilized excavation designee ........ ........................................ ......................... ......... ... ................. ................................--. .... ................ ......... ........ .. ......... ..... .... ........ ........ ............................_.................................................. The City of Huntington Beach Project Manager Mitigation Measure PR-3 (or designee)shall Identification and curation of specimens into an established,accredited resources coordinate with the museum repository with permanent retrievable paleontologic storage. These paleontolic monitor to procedures are also essential steps in effective paleontologic mitigation and CEQA verify that specimens Planning and compliance. The paleontologist must have a written repository agreement in hand are fully curated into an Building prior to the initiation of mitigation activities.Mitigation of adverse impacts to established museum Department significant paleontologic resources is not complete until such curation into an repository and have During Director or established museum repository has been frilly completed and documented. been documented. excavation designee Michael Brar'-nan Associates 11 CAProgram Piles 'om\Document C6nverter\1emp\3327964.doc City of Huntn,yton Beach Tri Pointe Homes Lamb Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Submission of report and inventory to the appropriate Lead Agency along with Mitigation Measure PR-4 confirmation of the Preparation of a report of findings with an appended itemized inventory resources of curation of Planning and specimens.The report and inventory,when submitted to the appropriate Lead recovered specimens Building Agency along with confirmation of the curation of recovered specimens into an into an established, Department established,accredited museum repository,will signify completion of the program to accredited museum During Director or mitigate impacts to paleontologic resources. repository excavation designee 1S1 tv O I—I e-r CD N W .� Michael Brandman Associates 12 CAProgram Files\Necvia.Com\Documcnt Converter\temp\3327964.doc City of Huntington Beach Tri Pointe Homes Wardlow Residential Subdivision Mitigation Monitoring Reporting Program Michael Brandman Associates 13 C,Program FilesWeevia.Com\Document Conveneelemp'3327964.doc Item 23. - 615 HB -2068 ATTACHMENT #13 Lamb Residential Subdivision 81 Single Family Units Appeal of MND No. 08- 13 /GPA No. 08-05 /ZMA No. 08- 05 /TTM No. 17238 /CUP No. 08-26 Applicant: Michael Adams , Adams and Associates ; Thomas Grable, Tri-Pointe Homes Property Owner: Fountain Valley School District O City Council Meeting - November 19, 2012 --l", eq VL KI CD 01 PROJECT J General Plan Amendment: to amend the existing Land Use designation from Public-Residential Low Density (P-RL) to Residential Low Density (RL) ► Zoning Map Amendment: to amend the existing zoning designation of Public-Semipublic (PS) to Residential Low Density (RL) x ® Appeal of Tentative Tract Map/Conditional Use Permit: to subdivide approx. 11 .65 acres into 81 single family residential lots with eight lettered lots , re used lot widths and lot sizes and reduced street sections ; and to permit an 81 unit Planned Unit Development with mutual public benefits ® Appeal of Mitigated Negative Declaration : analyzes the potential impacts associated with the proposed project 4 TE LOCATION CD N BACKGROUND W 01 ® In 2005 the City of Huntington Beach purchased approx. 2 .6 acres of the approximately 15 acre closed Lamb School site from FVSD pursuant to the Naylor Act ® The approx. 2 .6 acres includes a field area and a portion of the southwesterly school parking lot x ® Subdivision Committee - unanimously approved the tentative r� map on ,July 11 , 2012 0 ® Planning Commission - approved the proposed project on 5- 1 - 1 vote on October 23 , 2012 p PC approval appealed by Mayor Pro Tern Dwyer to hear all entitlements concurrently ANALYSIS ® CE A: MND No. 08- 13 concludes less than significant impacts will occur with mitigation measures for: biological resources, geology/ soils, hydrology/water quality, hazards / hazardous materials, cultural resources, and mandatory findings of significance 0 Received 17 comment letters; RTC in staff report • Parking - no variances, meets all standards • Open Space - both in-lieu and park improvements; City-wide basis exceeds standards • Traffic - model took into account other existing uses; no significant impacts x r� � General Plan Amendment: Change from P-RL to RL consistent with surrounding designations ® Zoning Map Amendment: Change from PS to RL compatible with surrounding designations as well as the General Plan land use designation N O ANALYSIS Continued N � PUD / Site Layout o Complies with development standards for single family residential development � Land Use Compatibility • Consistent with other single family residential uses x surrounding the pro °ect site with respect to density, building height, an architecture N o Increased rear yard setbacks • Deliberate window placement to protect privacy • Density of 6 . 5 units / net acre (5 . 9 units /gross acre) is consistent with the proposed zoning designation , which allows a maximum 7 units / net acre • Compatible with surrounding character and density of SFR development a i v, Continued ANALYSIS � In -Fill Analysis Complies with ordinance regarding compatibility and privacy issues and provides an increased rear yard setback adjacent to existing homes ® Mutual Public Benefits 0 Mutual public benefits supports the PUD request for reduced N lot size, lot width and the reduced internal street sections 6�U Benefits include: • Physical improvements to 2 .6 acre Lamb park in addition to payment of park land in-lieu fees • Allowance for public parking on private streets within development • Construction of new 33-inch reinforced concrete storm drain CD 5 Green building strategies N W CD N W N , SUMMARY W ® The proposed project will be compatible with the existing zoning and General Plan designations of single family residential surrounding the project site; � Proposed subdivision, project layout and design will be compatible with surrounding single family residential uses with respect to density; ® The project meets minimum development standards but exceeds rear yard setbacks for homes proposed adjacent to existing homes ; ® The proposed architectural design will be compatible with the character of the area. PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION ® Approve MN ® No. 08- 1 3 with findings ® Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-05 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05 with findings � Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 17238 and Conditional Use N Permit No. 08-26 with findings and suggested conditions of O y.] approval N W COMMUNICATION RECEIVED REGARDING THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 08-13, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-05, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-05, COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 08-008 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 17238, and, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 08-26 LAMB SCHOOL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION Item 23. - 625 xB -209 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline[noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 07,2012 7:44 PM ro: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 12788 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Question Request area: City Council -Agenda&Public Hearing Comments Citizen name: Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Field Committee Description: The Lamb School Neighborhood Save our Field Committee would like to respectfully request that we be allowed to have 10 minutes to present our case to the City Council at the upcoming hearing concerning the Lamb School proposed development on Nov. 19th. We have attended three public hearings on this topic to date and in all of them the developer applicant was given over 12 minutes in some cases, as well as being allowed to rebut arguments. They were given a lot of latitude in presenting their information. We are requesting the same amount of time that the developer will be given if possible. Thank you for considering this request. Expected Close Date: 11/08/2012 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not _monitored and will be ignored. I HB -209- Item 23. - 626 H.UN-TINGTON BEACH Chamberot Commerce November 12, 2012 Mayor Don Hansen &Council Members City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: TRI Pointe Homes Proposals for Wardlow and Lamb School Properties Dear Mayor Hansen &Council Members, The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors has unanimously endorsed fellow chamber member TRI Pointe Homes' proposals for new homes on the former Lamb and Wardlow school properties. Development of these two properties into neighborhoods of single-family homes will create nearly 300 new jobs and an estimate of more than $63 million in local economic activity. After reviewing the project plans, the Chamber Board agrees that homes at the two former school sites will benefit Huntington Beach;they will increase local revenue, spur economic vitality for the area, improving the remaining open space,creating more parking to provide access to the open space improvements and increase neighboring property values by replacing blighted vacant school buildings with new family-friendly homes that are among the greenest in Orange County. Here at the Chamber,we strive to help improve the business climate in our city. We believe TRI Pointe's plans will bring a positive change to neighboring businesses as well as improving the character of these neighborhoods. I encourage you to join the Chamber in supporting TRI Pointe Homes' Lamb proposals and approve both projects when they are brought before you. Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Jerry L. Wheeler,Sr. IOM Mee ing Date: L9 - oZOk)-, P resident/CEO Alondill Item 2134 Main Street,Suite 100 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 1 P:(714)536-8888 1 F:(714)960-7654 1 www.hbchamber.com Esparza, Patty From: Flynn, Joan Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 8:41 AM To: Esparza, Patty Subject: Fw: AGENDA ITEM 23 LAMB SCHOOL Joan L. Flynn, CIVIC Huntington Beach City Clerk From: Villasenor, Jennifer Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 08:28 AM To: Flynn, Joan; James, Jane Subject: FW: AGENDA ITEM 23 LAMB SCHOOL From: MJ Baretich [mailto:mjbaretich@hotmail.com] Sent: Saturday, November 17, 2012 10:19 PM To: Boardman, Connie; Bohr, Keith; Hansen, Don; matthewharper@verizon.net; joeesha@yahoo.com; jdevindwyer@verizon.net; Carchio, Joe; Villasenor, Jennifer Subject: AGENDA ITEM 23 LAMB SCHOOL November 15, 2012 SUPPLEMENTAL Honorable Mayor and City Council COMMUNICATION City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Meeting Date: Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Agenda Item No, 3 c/o Joan Flynn, City Clerk RE: Agenda Item 23 - Request to Not Approve the proposed Lamb School Residential Subdivision Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 08-13; General Plan Amendment No. 08-05; City Council Resolution No. 2012-82, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-05;" Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05; City Council Ordinance No. 3967, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by Changing the Zoning Designation From PS (Public-Semipublic) to RL (Residential Low Density) on Real Property Located on the North Side of Yorktown Avenue, East of Brookhurst Street (Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-05);" Tentative Tract Map No. 17238; and Conditional Use Permit No. 08-26. Dear City Council Members, i I am opposed to the Lamb School Subdivision and request that you Not Approve this Residential Subdivision and Zoning Change. Thank you, Mary Jo Baretich Huntington Beach Resident 2