The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC AG PKT 2012-06-25 #M (attachment 09) ATTACHMENT 9 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN, BY RBF CONSULTING (JUNE 15, 2012) ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS OF THE ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN it epartment of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment SCH NO. 2011061018 Lead Agency: o�SEA( B t Jr eousiy.Cps" CITY OF SEAL BEACH 211 8th Street Seal Beach,California 90740 Contact: Ms.Jill R. Ingram City Manager 562.431.2527 jingram @sealbeachca.gov Prepared by: 0 CONSULTING RBF CONSULTING 14725 Alton Parkway Irvine,California 92618-2027 Contacts: Mr. Glenn Lajoie,AICP Mr.Edward Torres,INCE, REA 949.472.3505 June 15,2012 JN 10-107353 • City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan TABLE OF CONTENTS Section 1.0: Introduction 1-1 1.1 Draft EIR Project Description 1-1 1.2 Alternative Site Plan 1-1 Section 2.0: Environmental Analysis 2-1 2.1 Conclusion 2-8 LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 Draft EIR Site Plan 1-3 Exhibit 2 Alternative Site Plan 1-4 Attachment A—Hydrologic and Hydraulic Narrative for the Revised TM V.2 Attachment B—Supplemental Traffic Analysis June 2012 i Table of Contents City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan 1.0 INTRODUCTION On May 27, 2011, Bay City Partners, LLC, submitted an application to develop the Department of Water and Power (DWP) Specific Plan area with a 48-lot residential development on 4.5 acres and 6.4 acres for public open space passive recreation purposes. The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was circulated for a 57-day public review and comment period from November 14, 2011 to January 9, 2012. Following the public review period, the City prepared a Final EIR,which included written responses to all comments received during the public review period regarding the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and Errata. The Final EIR was released to the public on April 2,2012. On May 2, 2012 and June 6, 2012, the Planning Commission held duly noticed public hearings to consider the proposed project. During the May 2, 2012 hearing, the applicant presented a revised tract map that contained the same number of lots within the same tract boundary, but with a different lot configuration and site access. The Planning Commission provided comments to the applicant regarding the originally submitted tract map and the revised map. The concerns primarily focused on lot widths, drainage patterns/water quality features, pad elevations, and street/alley widths. Consequently, the Applicant has once again revised the tract map to address the Planning Commissions' comments. The information contained in this report addresses whether the revised tract map would have any significant impacts upon the environment that are not addressed in the Draft EIR. • 1.1 DRAFT EIR PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed DWP Specific Plan Amendment analyzed in the Draft EIR (the Draft EIR Project) proposed amendments to the 1996 DWP Specific Plan (proposed Specific Plan Amendment) that would allow for the development of a 48-lot residential development (Tentative Tract Map No. 17425);refer to Exhibit 1, Draft EIR Site Plan. The residential uses were proposed to be located on approximately 4.5 acres in the northern portion of the project site. The Applicant proposed to construct the project in one phase, which would include the finished pads and all infrastructure necessary to serve the new residential development. Residential units were proposed to be developed individually by homeowners as custom homes, depending on market conditions and demand. The remaining approximately 6.4 acres of the project site would be used for open space/passive recreation uses. The Draft EIR Project included the construction of `A' Street (a public street), which would intersect with Marina Drive at the off-site commercial property located northwest of the project site, and B' Street (a public street) which would intersect with 1' Street. Two public alleys were also proposed by the Draft EIR Project. Alley`A' could be accessed from Marina Drive,while Alley B' could be accessed from l5L Street and `A' Street. The proposed lots along `A' Street and B' Street were front-facing,while the proposed lots along 1' Street were side-facing. The Draft EIR Project also proposed two detention basins on-site along Marina Drive. 1.2 ALTERNATIVE SITE PLAN The Alternative Site Plan is depicted in Exhibit 2.Alternative Site Plan. It is identical to the Draft EIR Project in the following respects: June 2012 1-1 Introduction City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan • Same acreage for development(4.5). • Same acreage for open space (6.4). • Same construction phasing. • • Same volume of cut and fill associated with site grading. • A triangular portion of 1" Street would be vacated and the intersection of Marina Drive/15` Street would be realigned as part of the proposed Project. The Alternative Site Plan materially differs to the Draft EIR Project in the following respects: • The Alternative Site Plan proposes the majority of the lots to be front-facing along Marina Drive and 1St Street (with the exception of Lot 22). • The number of residential lots has been reduced from 48 to 32. • Residential lots range in size from 5,787 s.f. on Lot 28 to 3,144 s.f. on Lot 21. • The Lot widths vary from 55 feet (Lot 32) to 30 feet. Frontages and rear lines vary due to street conditions but the lot widths stated hold for the buildable areas. • Lot depths vary from 100 feet to 142 feet with the vast majority being in the 105 feet range. • No residential lots cross the northwesterly projection of the northeasterly right-of-way of Central Way. • Eight lots (Lots 14 through 21) front 1St Street.Lot 22 is side loaded to 1St Street. • Six lots front the San Gabriel River (five residential and one open space lot used for detention and water quality). • Streets `A', `B' and `C' are designated public streets and all have a right-of-way width of 52 feet consisting of a 5-foot sidewalk, 3-foot parkway, 8-foot parking lane, and a 10-foot drive aisle for each street half.Alleys are public. • Lots `F',`G' and`H' are common lots. • A 10-foot wide trail easement is located along the northeast line of Lot H. • The riverfront lots (Lots 28 through 32) are at least 50 feet wide. • Alley`E'now extends through to Marina Drive. • Lots 8 through 27 have alley access. • Based upon a verification of concept grading study, building pads along the river front have been lowered approximately 1 foot. • Building pads for Lots 1 through 8 have increased by approximately 6 inches. However, because these lots are substantially longer than average, it is anticipated that the rear yard areas facing Marina Drive can be graded to buffer the height difference between the building pad and right-of-way. • 35 percent of the lots are greater than 37.5 feet.All the lots greater than 37.5 feet wide are 45 feet wide or greater. The remaining 65 percent are 30 foot wide lots. May 2012 1-2 Introduction —_'f ` z - -_ �_ It U.1 x „fir;:-`f•`'y-•__-,'' _. . Z°p/®p r'_�. =�ut;rf '' \'=-r � — 41 . 5 V5) .f�:' ,�, EVE(p ."-•°.'=:t,` i• 2 MI La 11F t ( ; 1a '--�`__:1 I '\+`" ,dam �N hilt .� J 1 a Z -1��-�� i .. ‘c j i•:1 E 1 CC LLJ .•i. - = t 71781ad0 33?!1S +8+ ■\ i 1' :!_ III 5+r:::1• fir. Z• --^-- , IR : !_i..S"...____......, ..,„_,., ,i ..., ,�:� K in j •T Ii 1 I I CENTRAL WAY ;:ii.. it II , 1 il 1 .,., I. _•i \ I 1 1 1�.. ? ,:1/ \ y,;s it ri --- `i{^��}i. j'; , i /-.1111/. r it 1' • .,Ill i / \ i it I 'J./T.2-- y �:1� I J i is L+ — i ,; 1 li:s.,{'f t '• w / Ili Q. ,fit; i / ,ta.`. 1'.',I I'\\,\,ii i(' 4,"- .t , f1!ii --.1 I'- - 1.'.1.;,,‘I ut 1,1 it yfu 11 , `-..---- 1 I f ' i I OCEAN AVENUE •,1;1, `�!'`i,•-- .,_ ■ =--..: ��.7,..?, ;\- •_\ � I t;I L-j it --t ---- r 1,-+,,,t 1,;t i', ---- -- •tit '4&' i ill o �.3%, N ji;liiilir\' '. -'N ------_____, •-.7.-.77\ t I:■ I,i ` a!!.1 ! N - ———— ° v -, °f( - ca z " .a.. n M LLI fIC/ =I CI X LLI LLI a3 a 4=3 z.. i ..: . '•.---.- . Z.: U #23 ?- .-..',..1, • W*WI a_ ... i.: :,.: r• .'• . C/3 W . . , . L ..'. LI: . • >. am 1.,-.- .. :::::.- .,--...... 6 co ___ • •,..,_ . • ., - • • 0-•olim. ., . ---: -::--;- , -:-:::: :-..z''--- _ i .:".. \,. .•,... .. • • . no memo :- . ' '''':---"Z-%;7".-,--:•:...--:"':-:-:7-:-.-?_"'-- . .,. . . ......... 1 -iji-,-;;,-.-..-_-_-.z........., --.:-...w.,.. • ...N. , •..: \ z le:C -----.. -•!.-,"-z:-...-,_. 'and)-3---,.."--:-.--....::::-...-•••••• -, —-:-__. : -■ .., rs 7- ------- ; LLI " i 37-r "-... .-- . ItC ' 1.-. . !;:i'::Ti•;I i: , fir'''''' " ....-- --''. ._-..-•:-._,_.—,.,... u_ . ''' " ' .., . so • .4 f I 1 =-.--)---...-•i, I LLI -:- • I. •,` -,F.S.,... •::':-.1.-:.,;.. I-- I I: • 1 1 I ■ 1 1 : 1 . ' CC V 1: • 1 I '' 1 I 1 i. -.1 7_ '', -....%;:\. ; .• ,— 4 •'''.'-.‘, I ',.1, jI ' 1 1 i i- - c. .., i 7 ,,,, ..1 i r.. ----• :- • . • 10 .. ..- r j 1, i [ I • • I , • 1 1 I r • I, 1 :••. , 1 ' 1 • 11 12 6, 1 . ' • 1-1"..: . - 1 ' ,"."-■ li . : j. i i • r ‘.',:; 1 ; t - 0....._ I z. i - ::1 i .. ; I =•-•' ..I__...,_:___c.,.•• i__.-.•_ _ I- ,.. I , •. . -x--,..--41-,-,-.-,---.r,--,.....-.- -. . - .- ..—,,,1-. ‘„. I, , , 1....,...: .. ' ••••5; (3110(1111.133113 . ...7 1 —1 r-r-;• . , --,•:% • • .• .".•-"•••••:::" ..-..r.r.'.' \1 •• I 5'• • . •-4.1 -- - 1.- I • :1 . .: -• al 1.:::•.;:f,,i I ' 1 '....1;:.....• .- • •-. - ..•::- % - " 1 ".4;•'4.- j—:---7 A--..-:.-.--:—.-._ ;. .k .!,1---:-.'-.:-.;-04--...—:---1-;•—:r-I--=.-r-..• ' ,.),..; .... 0 - 4 ;•' , I I '2 ..,1 it ..•.t : co • .' -.4.,. l'.:c.': ,..., 4 ',.. 7,'' • - < 1 -. I ':D: I li • I .1 I— :"-"'—'1---1 ' ':•*,-' ._„... \ _____ - . -- V,' i, r , ° I-.• i ..- . , ..,:I. .....-•-----t" i s....::t.i..j.:\c--=-1._ I ir, ..: I _ ... - • --- ‘•• I - k .s-•-1' . s . _Cl...- 7'.s : • ! --",, •,;-• - 5 : , .. .17, : ::-...2,$)i. 1 s. - -_ .........._.,__ .__ _____•_.________ –1-1 ' i: • ' ._ __-I - _16. a. ily______ "j_ .. _ 1 ,..‘1 .1. . :•.3-4- -:-..--- 4 " - '' : " T - ! .- 1-::: : •i : 1 I O-. 4 II', i H _ , ! 1-, : I! . . .,r, , , .,...:.., \ .....,... .......-- .\-!\ - .... • ! ! --- ,l -.,„x:I. , - I ... .. ..A.i.: .-1 ,r,--:-7.- 1 '• ,- :1 . .. •." 4 I II I 1 „ I:: i. . ..-., ,, :: ,".., - : .. a)-4— 1 11 . .. • ‘ • ).•\.c........--; \ , 1 ' A ..._.11,_._-..___.\• k , Et ..j . ,, 1 . I "--. --. 7.7— - 4 c ----.7."-"'"-I''-''''''''...- '\ . %.• i . . ' ..'''...'2:-- 0;''',. . .... >Ct.,. r!,1 .t! canana)//3ais.13 • . ,'• .• , 1 • '' I -.: • . i I: • i \ •-''' E'i ‘ CO.4— I I : I 1 L• \ - I . .• I • • " . • \ . . --i • 1 • : ': '' - , i, • I csi 1 ' v::: 1 • , .. ' . :--• i . ... — 2 \ ' _, = \ s. I , •, ' c -= cia . . c -.= ' 1 a \ ,\ c '2' ••••••••,....,,,,,,,, , u.1 4 I ' = 0, ■._ .3 0 12 a e I__ •z eg: sp cr3 -x. 13 LI City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS As discussed in Section 1.0, Introduction, this comparative analysis has been undertaken to analyze whether the Alternative Site Plan would have any significant environmental impacts that are not addressed in the Draft EIR. The comparative analysis discusses whether impacts are increased, decreased, or unchanged from the conclusions discussed in the Draft EIR. The comparative analysis also addresses whether any changes to mitigation measures are required. Aesthetics/Light and Glare. Implementation of the Alternative Site Plan would result in reduced aesthetic/light and glare impacts, as compared to the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view, vista, or designated State scenic highway. The analysis found that potential short-term construction-related aesthetic impacts, short-term construction-related light and glare impacts, and long-term (operational) light and glare impacts as a result of street lighting, security lights, and interior lights would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-3. However, the analysis determined that the impacts to the character of the area as a result of the proposed side yards along 1St Street, and the light and glare impacts to nearby residences from vehicle headlights exiting the project site at `B' Street and 1" Street would be significant and unavoidable. The proposed area of disturbance and grading from the Alternative Site Plan would be similar to that analyzed as part of the Draft EIR Project. Further, visible building massing and scale (i.e., building heights) would be similar to that considered as part of the Draft EIR. The Alternative Site Plan would increase building setbacks along 1St Street and Marina Drive, and align B' Street with Central Way. As was the case with the Draft EIR Project, the Alternative Site Plan would not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic view or vista. The Alternative Site Plan would result in the same potential short-term construction-related aesthetic impacts, short-term construction-related light and glare impacts, and long-term (operational) light and glare impacts from lighting as the Draft EIR Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures AES-1 through AES-3 would still be necessary and would reduce these impacts to less than significant levels,as already analyzed in the Draft EIR. In comparison to the Draft EIR Project,the Alternative Site Plan would result in reduced impacts to the character/quality of the area as well as light and glare impacts to surrounding residents (from vehide headlights). Reorientation of the parcels along 15` Street and the increased front building setbacks along 1st Street and Marina Drive would be visually consistent with the residential uses to the east. Impacts in this regard (for the Alternative Site Plan) would result in less than significant impacts to character/quality and no mitigation measures would be required. Thus, the Alternative Site Plan would avoid a significant and unavoidable impact of the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR Project would result in significant and unavoidable light and glare impacts to nearby residences from vehicle headlights exiting the project site at the intersection of B' Street and 1st Street. With implementation of the Alternative Site Plan, B' Street would be realigned with the existing Central Way. Thus, vehicles exiting the project site at the intersection of B' Street and 15` Street would no longer direct vehide headlights into surrounding residential structures and impacts in this regard would be significantly reduced (compared to the Draft EIR Project). The Alternative June 2012 2-1 Environmental Analysis City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan Site Plan would result in less than significant impacts as a result of introduced vehicle headlights and no mitigation measures would be required. Agriculture Resources. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that no impacts would result with regard to Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance,or any area zoned for agricultural use or forest land. As was the case with the Draft EIR Project,the Alternative Site Plan would not result in any impacts to farmland, agricultural uses, or forest land. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Air Quality. Impacts would be reduced from the Draft EIR Project, as the Alternative Site Plan proposes 32 lots rather than the 48 proposed by the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR determined that no significant long-term operational (regional or localized) air quality impacts would result. Short-term construction air quality impacts and air quality plan consistency impacts were found to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. The Alternative Site Plan would result in similar construction activities as the Draft EIR Project in regards to earthwork. However, building construction would be decreased due to the reduced number of lots. The Alternative Site Plan would result in the same amount of cut and fill and earthwork volumes. The Alternative Site Plan would also generate fewer vehicle trips as the Draft EIR Project and would therefore result in a decrease in operational air emissions. Thus, as is true with the Draft EIR Project, the Alternative Site Plan would not result in long-term operational (regional or localized) air quality impacts, and short-term construction and air quality plan consistency impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels with implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Biological Resources. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR determined that less than significant impacts would result with regard to special status plant and . wildlife species, sensitive natural communities, and jurisdictional waters and wetlands. The analysis also found that the Draft EIR Project would not conflict with local policies, ordinances, or plans. Impacts to migratory birds.were conduded to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1. With implementation of the Alternative Site Plan, construction activities would occur over the same development footprint as the Draft EIR Project. Therefore, as with the Draft EIR Project, the Alternative Site Plan would result in less than significant impacts to special status plant and wildlife species, sensitive natural communities,jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and migratory birds (with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1). The Alternative Site Plan would also not conflict with local policies, ordinances, or plans, similar to the Draft EIR Project. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Cultural Resources. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR determined that no significant impacts to a historic resource would result. The analysis also concluded that the Draft EIR Project would result in less than significant impacts to archeological resources, paleontological resources, and burial sites with implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4. June 2012 2-2 Environmental Analysis City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan The Alternative Site Plan would result in substantially similar construction activities as the Draft EIR Project. Thus, the Alternative Site Plan would not impact a historic resource. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-1 through CUL-4, impacts to archeological resources, paleontological resources, and burial sites would be reduced to less than significant levels. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Geology and Soils. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR found that no significant impacts pertaining to earthquake faults, landslides, seismic ground shaking, and soil erosion would result. Impacts resulting from seismically induced hazards (e.g., liquefaction, lateral spreading, landsliding, settlement, and ground lurching) unstable geologic units, expansive soils, and corrosive soils were concluded to be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3. The Alternative Site Plan would result in the same impacts regarding geology and soils, since the same amount of new development and units would be developed on the project site (compared to the Draft EIR Project). Thus, the Alternative Site Plan would result in less than significant impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 through GEO-3. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Impacts would be reduced from the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that generated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment or conflict with an applicable GHG reduction plan, policy, or regulation would not result. Thus,impacts were concluded to be less than significant. The Alternative Site Plan would result in similar construction activities as the Draft EIR Project in regards to earthwork. However, building construction would be decreased due to the reduced number of lots. Based on the reduction in the amount of vehicles trips,operational GHG emissions would be reduced. Thus, the Alternative Site Plan would not result in increased GHG emissions compared to the Draft EIR Project. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Hazards and Hazardous Materials. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR determined that a less than significant impact would result in regards to the handling, transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during project operations. The analysis also concluded that the project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites,is not within the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip, would not conflict with an emergency response plan, and would not be located in an area at risk for wildfires. The Draft EIR Project analysis determined that with implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6,impacts related to short-term construction activities and the accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to less than significant levels. The Alternative Site Plan would involve similar construction activities and operations as the Draft EIR Project,and would result in similar hazard and hazardous materials-related impacts as the Draft • FIR Project. Implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 through HAZ-6 would ensure impacts related to short-term construction activities would be reduced to less than significant levels. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. June 2012 2-3 Environmental Analysis City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan Hydrology and Water Quality. A review of the potential hydrology and water quality impacts associated with the Alternative Site Plan was conducted by Fuscoe Engineering, which conducted the hydrology and water quality analysis studies for the Draft EIR. The results of their findings are summarized below,and a copy of the analysis can be found in Attachment A,Hydrologic and Hydraulic Narrative for the Revised TM V.2. The site is divided into two major hydrologic areas,north and south with the division of hydrologic areas situated along the following lines: starting at 1' Street on the east side of the site,northwesterly across the north side of Lot 17, across the alley and northeasterly along the southeasterly line of Lot 7 to the right-of-way of Marina Drive,then northwesterly and parallel to `C' Street (96 feet from the northeasterly right-of-way of `C' Street) to the southeast right-of-way of `A' Street; southwesterly along the right-of-way by approximately 60 feet, then directly across `A' Street to the northwest right-of-way, then southwesterly to the northeast corner of Lot 32, then along the northeast line of Lot 32 to the proposed westerly tract boundary. The southerly hydrologic area covers approximately 88 percent of the site and is designed to drain to an Extended Detention Basin (TC-22 per the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook,January 2003 edition)as depicted in Lot H of the revised Tentative Tract Map. This facility is designed large enough to mitigate the 25 year storm event to pre-development levels. Preliminary calculations indicate that this basin needs to hold approximately 1,220 cubic feet for water quality purposes and an additional 600 cubic feet for storm flow, for a total of 1,820 cubic feet of required detention/water quality storage. The basin as shown is adequate for this purpose. The portion of Lots 1 through 7,northwest.of the parallel line described above and Lots 14 through 16 drain to Marina Drive and constitute approximately 12 percent of the drainage area of the site. This is significantly smaller that the existing pre-developed area and would reduce the load on the municipal storm drain. The area of Lots 1 through 7 is almost entirely within the building setback area and would be landscaped. Treatment for this area and Lots 14 through 16 would be treated using bio-filtration techniques in Lot G and the northerly corner of Lot 14 respectively. Due to the reduced tributary area, these areas would not require any detention. The Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Alternative Site Plan would be the same as those proposed for the Draft EIR Project. Storm drain alignments within the project have been realigned, with additional catch basins in `C' Street and the basins in`B' Street moved northwesterly,closer to the detention basin depicted in Lot H. A grate inlet is proposed in private Alley`D'. Pad grades tend to be slightly lower along the river front as compared to the Draft EIR Project. Pad elevations vary from 14.3 feet on Lot 28, located at the southwest corner of the project, along the river frontage, to 11.9 feet on Lot 14 at the northeast corner of the project at the corner of 1St Street and Marina Drive. The average pad elevation of the project is 13.1 feet, down from an average pad elevation of 14 feet in the Draft EIR Project. Primary project entrances remain located on the 1St Street side across from Central Avenue and on the north Marina Drive side, across and slightly westerly from the existing Riverbeach entry located on the north side of Marina Drive. The relocation of the entries does not effect the drainage of the project. As was the case with the Draft EIR Project,the Alternative Site Plan would not result in any impacts to hydrology and Water Quality and there is no change to either the off-site open area or the pre- June 2012 2-4 Environmental Analysis City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan development hydrology. Therefore, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Land Use and Planning. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR determined that the project would not divide an established community,and would not conflict with any applicable conservation plans. Additionally, the Draft EIR Project was concluded to be consistent with the California Coastal Act, Southern California Association of Government regional planning efforts, City of Seal Beach General Plan,and City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. The Alternative Site Plan has similar land use characteristics, compared to the Draft EIR Project. Thus, land use and planning impacts associated with the Alternative Site Plan would also be less than significant. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Mineral Resources. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR noted that the project site is not located within an area of known mineral resources, either of regional or local value. As was the case with the Draft EIR Project, the Alternative Site Plan would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resources recovery site. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Noise. Impacts would be reduced from the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that vibration impacts as well as long-term mobile and stationary noise impacts would be less than significant. The analysis also determined that the Draft EIR Project would result in less than significant short-term construction noise impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1. No impacts were identified with regard to public airports or private airstrips. The Alternative Site Plan would result in similar construction activities as the Draft EIR Project in regards to earthwork. However, building construction would be decreased due to the reduced number of lots. Based on the reduction in the amount of vehicles trips, operational traffic noise would be reduced. Thus, the Alternative Site Plan would not result in increased noise levels compared to the Draft EIR Project. Impacts from vibration,long-term mobile and stationary noise, and airports would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1, construction-related noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels, the same as the Draft EIR. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Population and Housing. Impacts would be reduced from the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would result in less than significant impacts with regards to displacement and population growth, as the project would construct 48 residential units and displace one single- family dwelling. However, the Alternative Site Plan would construct 32 residential units and displace one single- family dwelling. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. • Recreation. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would result in less than significant impacts to recreational facilities,as the project would June 2012 2-5 Environmental Analysis City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan not result in the deterioration of recreational facilities and the project involves passive open space use on the southern portion of the site. As was the case with the Draft EIR Project, the Alternative Site Plan would still include 6.4 acres of passive open space use on the southern portion of the site. The revised site plan also includes a trail adjacent to Lot H which provides access to the San Gabriel River Bike Trail. Impacts to recreational facilities would be less than significant. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. - Transportation/Circulation. A review of the potential traffic and circulation impacts associated with the Alternative Site Plan was conducted by Linscott, Law & Greenspan, Engineers whom conducted the traffic impact analysis study for the Draft EIR. The results of their findings are summarized below, and a copy of the analysis can be found in Attachment B, Supplemental Traffic Analysis. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would result in less than significant transportation/circulation impacts with implementation of Mitigation Measures TRA-1 through TRA-4. With a proposed development total of 32 residential units and 6.4 acres of open space/parkland, the Alternative Site Plan is forecast to generate fewer trips than what was evaluated in the Draft EIR (overall reduction of 165 daily trips, 11 AM peak hour trips and 16 PM peak hour trips). Therefore, traffic impacts associated with the Alternative Site Plan would be reduced from the Draft EIR Project. • A review of the Alternative Site Plan indicates that primary access to the project site would be provided via a public street located along Marina Drive (identified as `A' Street) and via a public street located directly opposite Central Way at 1St Street (identified as B' Street), while secondary access would be provided via a "full access" alley (Alley `D') on 1" Street and a "light-turn only" alley (Alley `E') on Marina Drive. The primary project site access locations on Marina Drive at `A' Street and 1St Street at 'B' Street/Central Way would be designed in accordance with City of Seal Beach standards. On-site circulation would be provided by`A' Street,B' Street, and `C' Street,with all three streets designed to City of Seal Beach standards with a paved width of 36 feet within a 52- foot right-of-way. Alleys D' and `E', which will have paved width of 18-feet and 21-feet, respectively,would also provide on-site circulation. With regards to on-street parking, the Alternative Site Plan provides up to 53 on-street parking spaces,while the Draft EIR project provided 33 spaces. Figure 11-la of Attachment B illustrates the on-street parking layout for the Alternative Site Plan. It should be noted that the typical driveway detail shown on the tract map indicates driveways on both sides of Alley D", not on the north side of'B' Street or south side of`C' Street. Therefore, B' Street parking is available on both the south side and north side of B' Street and the south side of`C' Street. Further,parking would be available on both the east side and west side of`A' Street as shown in Figure 11-la of Attachment B. A review of this figure indicates that up to nine vehicles could park curbside along the westerly curb face of 1St Street,while up to 20 vehicles and 16 vehicles have the ability to park curbside along `A' Street and B' Street, respectively. In addition, up to 8 vehicles have the ability to park on the south side of`C' Street. A line of sight analysis was also conducted for the project driveways (refer to Figures 10-la and 10- 2a of Attachment B). These figures illustrate the actual sight distances and corresponding limited use areas. As shown, a motorist's sight distance may be obstructed by future project landscapes June 2012 2-6 Environmental Analysis City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan and/or hardscapes along project frontage. A review of both Figure 10-la and Figure 10-2a indicates that sight distances at the project driveways and alleys are expected to be adequate if obstructions within the sight triangles are minimized. Therefore, any landscaping and/or hardscapes should be designed such that a driver's dear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten vehicular or pedestrian safety,as determined by the City Engineer(see limited use areas on Figures 10-la and 10- 2a). As such, the following changes are recommended to Draft EIR Mitigations Measures TRA-2 and TRA-3: TRA-2 Prior to issuance of any grading permits,a Landscape Plan shall be submitted to the City Engineer verifying that all landscaping and/or hardscapes shall be designed such that a driver's dear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten vehicular or pedestrian safety consistent with Figure 10-1a Site Distance Analysis Project Access Points at Marina Drive, and Figure 10-2a Site Distance Analysis Project Access Points at First Street, of the Supplemental Traffic Assessment Ocean Place Residential Project — Alternative Plan i - - t' ' ' (Traffic Impact Analysis), prepared by Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers (October 27, 2011 June 15. 2012). The Traffic Impact Analysis is indudcd in Appendix 11.5, Traffic Impact Analysis of this EIR and is incorporated by reference into this mitigation measure. TRA-3 Prior to the issuance of any building permits, a "STOP" sign and stop bar shall be installed at the project driveway(`A'Street) and alley (Alley`tom') on Marina Drive and at the project driveway (B' Street) and alley(Alley`BIB') on 1' Street. Appropriate striping, signage, and/or pavement legends shall also be installed in accordance with Seal Beach standards. These improvements shall be indicated on the grading plan and Final Tentative Tract Map and shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval. These clarifications and modifications would be applicable to the Alternative Site Plan and are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than those identified in the Draft EIR. With the implementation of these recommended changes to the Mitigation Measures, no new significant impacts would result due to the Alternative Site Plan. Public Services. Impacts would be the same as the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that less than significant impacts to public services, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, and other public facilities would result with implementation of Mitigation Measure PSU-1. The Alternative Site Plan would result in reduced demands on public services as the number of residential units would be decreased by 16 units. The acreage for the passive open space would be unchanged. Impacts to public services would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure PSU-1. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. Utilities and Service Systems. Impacts would be reduced from the Draft EIR Project. The Draft EIR concluded that the project would result in less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems, including water services, wastewater services, and solid waste with implementation of Mitigation Measure PSU-2. June 2012 2-7 Environmental Analysis City of Seal Beach Department of Water and Power Specific Plan Amendment Environmental Analysis of the Alternative Site Plan The Alternative Site Plan would result in a reduction on the demands on utilities and service systems as the Draft EIR Project, as the Alternative Site Plan would result in a decrease of 16 residentail units. The same as the Draft EIR Project,impacts to utilities and service systems for the Alternative Site Plan would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure PSU-2. No new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for the Alternative Site Plan. 2.1 Conclusion As detailed in the analysis presented above, the Alternative Site Plan would not result in greater impacts than were identified for the Draft EIR Project. As the roadway configuration has been slightly altered, the Draft EIR Mitigation Measures TRA-2 through TRA-4, have been modified to apply to the Alternative Site Plan. However, these modifications are not considered to result in any new or greater impacts than those identified in the Draft EIR. Thus, no new impacts have been identified and no new mitigation measures are required for implementation of the Alternative Site Plan,compared to the Draft EIR Project. June 2012 2-8 Environmental Analysis Attachment A- Hydrologic and Hydraulic Narrative for the Revised TM V.2 • !khan 0_2 co fccitiE E N G I N E E R I N G Memo To: Eddie Torres From: Mark Nero, Senior Engineer Date: June 13, 2012 Re: TTM 17425, Ocean Place— Hydrologic and Hydraulic Narrative for Revised TM V.2, dated June 13, 2012 This narrative is valid for the revised site plan V.2, dated June 13, 2012 and primarily deals with hydrologic issues. The site is divided into two major hydrologic areas, north and south with the division of hydrologic areas situated along the following lines: starting at 15{ Street on the east side of the site, northwesterly across the north side of Lot 17, across the alley and northeasterly along the southeasterly line of Lot 7 to the Right-of-Way of Marina Drive, then northwesterly and parallel to 'C' Street (96' from the northeasterly Right-of-Way of 'C' street, more or less) to the southeast Right-of-Way of 'A' street; southwesterly along the Right-of-Way about 60 feet, then directly across 'A' street to the northwest Right-of-Way, then southwesterly to the northeast corner of Lot 32, then along the northeast line of Lot 32 to the proposed westerly tract boundary. The southerly hydrologic area covers approximately 88 percent of the site and is designed to drain to an Extended Detention Basin (TC-22 per CASBMP Handbook, Jan 2003 edition). This facility is designed large enough to mitigate the 25 year storm event to pre- development levels. Preliminary calculations indicate that this basin needs to hold approximately 1220 cubic feet for water quality purposes and an additional 600 cubic feet for storm flow, for a total of 1820 cubic feet of required detention/water quality storage. The basin as shown is adequate for this purpose. The portion of Lots 1 through•7, northwest of the parallel line described above and Lots 14 through 16 drain to Marina Drive and constitute approximately 12 percent of the drainage area of the site. This is significantly smaller that the existing pre-developed area and will reduce the load on the municipal storm drain, which is already beyond capacity. The area of Lots 1 through 7 is almost entirely within the building setback area and will be landscaped. Treatment for this area and lots 14 through 16 will be treated using bio- filtration techniques in Lot G and the northerly corner of Lot 14 respectively. Due to the reduced tributary area, it is not anticipated that these areas will require any detention. 16795 Von Karman,Suite 100,Irvine,California 92606 • tel 949.474.1960 • fax 949.225.6090 • www.fuscoe.com • Storm drain alignments within the project have been realigned, with additional catch basins in 'C' Street and the basins in 'B' Street moved northwesterly, closer to the detention basin. A grate inlet is proposed in private alley 'D'. Pad grades tend to be slightly lower along the river front as compared to the original submitted tentative map. Pad elevations vary from 14.3 feet on Lot 28, located at the southwest corner of the project, along the river frontage, to 11 .9 feet on Lot 14 at the northeast corner of the project at the corner of 15' Street and Marina Drive. The average pad elevation of the project is 13.1 feet, down from an average pad elevation of 14 feet on the initial submittal. The hydrologic areas discussed are the results of conceptual grading studies done for this site plan to verify the plan concept/layout from a grading standpoint. There is no change to either the off-site open area or the pre-development hydrology. Primary project entrances remain located on the First Street side across from Central Avenue and on the north Marina Drive side, across and slightly westerly from the existing Riverbeach entry located on the north side of Marina Drive. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me. 16795 Von Karman,Suite 100, Irvine,California 92606 • tel 949.474.1960 • fax 949.225.6090 • www.fuscoe.com Attachment B — Supplemental Traffic Anal sis LINSEOTT ' Law & GREENSPAN June 15, 2012 Engineers&Planners Traffic Transportation Parking Mr. Eddie Torres RBF Consulting Linscott,Law& Planning/Environmental Services Greenspan,Engineers 14725 Alton Parkway 1580 Corporate Drive Irvine, CA 92618 Suite 122 Costa Mesa,CA 92626 714.641.1587 r LLG Reference No. 2.10.3158.1 714.641.0189 F www.ligengineers.com Subject: Revised Supplemental Traffic Assessment Ocean Place Residential Project—Alternative Plan Pasadena Seal Beach, California Costa Mesa San Diego Las Vegas Dear Mr. Torres: As requested, Linscott,Law, & Greenspan, Engineers (LLG) is pleased to submit this Revised Supplemental Traffic Assessment associated with an Alternative Plan for the proposed Ocean Place Residential Project that has been updated to address comments of the City's Planning Commission as provided at the public hearing held on June 6, 2012. The project site, which is located within the Department of Water and Power (DWP) Specific Plan, is generally located south of Marina Drive, east of the San Gabriel River Channel, west of 1st Street and north of the Rivers End Cafe/beach parking lot in the City of Seal Beach, California. This traffic assessment evaluates the potential traffic impacts associated with the revisions to the Project site plan, in particular the site access and internal circulation layout of the Alternative Plan as prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc. The Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Ocean Place Residential Project dated October 27, 2011 was utilized as a database/reference for this supplemental assessment. PROJECT DESCRIPTION—ALTERNATIVE PLAN Figure 2-la presents the Alternative Plan for the Project as prepared by Fuscoe Engineering, Inc in June 2012. A review of this plan indicates that the proposed Project now includes the development of a 32-unit single family residential development, which is 16 units less than the total number of units assessed in the October 2011 traffic study and the supplemental traffic assessment prepared in May 2012. Under the proposed lot layout of the Alternative Plan, lots 14 through 20,plus Lot 21 will encroach into the existing right-of-way of 15t Street, thus reducing its overall width south of Marina Drive. LINSeofT Mr. Eddie Torres June 15, 2012 haw & t Page 2 CiREEN SPA N`` _ eny�rree�G As a result and similar to the previously proposed plan, a triangular portion of 1st Street will be vacated and the intersection of Marina Drive/1St Street will be realigned as part of the proposed Project. With a proposed paved cross-section of 40 feet, 1st Street, south of Marina Drive will provide one 16-foot southbound departure lane, a 10-foot northbound left-turn lane and a 14-foot northbound shared through/right-turn lane(See Figure 2-la). Site Access and Internal Circulation—Alternative Plan A review of the Alternative Plan as illustrated in Figure 2-la indicates that primary access to the project site will be provided via a public street located along Marina Drive (identified as "A Street" in the proposed site plan) and via a public street located directly opposite Central Way at 1st Street (identified as `B Street" in the proposed site plan), while secondary access will be provided via a "full access" alley ("Alley D") on 1St Street and a"right-turn only"alley("Alley E") on Marina Drive.. The primary Project access locations on Marina Drive at "A Street" and 1st Street at "B Street" / Central Way will be designed in accordance with City of Seal Beach Municipal Code. On-site circulation will be provided by "A Street", `B Street", and "C Street", with all three streets designed to the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code with a paved width of 36 feet within a 52-foot right-of-way. "Alleys D" and "E", which will provide for two-way travel,will have paved widths of 18-feet and 21-feet, respectively, and would also provide on-site circulation. TRIP GENERATION ANALYSIS—ALTERNATIVE PLAN With a proposed development total of 32 residential units and 6.4 acres of open space/parkland, the Alternative Plan is forecast to generate the fewer trips than the 48-unit / 6.4 acres open space/parkland development plan evaluated in the October 2011 traffic study. The reduction of 16 residential units results in an overall reduction of 165 daily trips, 11 AM peak hour trips and 16 PM peak hour trips when compared to the Project assessed in the October 2011 traffic study, Therefore, we conclude that the traffic impacts of the Alternative Plan would be reduced when compared to the previously proposed Project and the results and findings of the traffic analysis included in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Ocean Place Residential Project dated October 27, 2011 are still valid. Mr. Eddie Torres LINSCOTT g June 15, 2012 LAW &,. Page 3 eREENSPAN _ engineers SIGHT DISTANCE EVALUATION—ALTERNATIVE PLAN Figures 10-la and 10-2a present updated schematics of the sight distance evaluations performed at the Alternative Plan driveways/alleys on Marina Drive and 1st Street, respectively. These figures illustrate the actual sight distances and corresponding limited use areas. As shown, a motorist's sight distance may be obstructed by future project landscapes and/or hardscapes along project frontage. A review of both Figure 10-la and Figure 10-2a indicates that sight distances at the Project driveways ("A" Street and `B" Street) and alleys (Alley "D" and Alley "E") are expected to be adequate if obstructions within the sight triangles are minimized. Therefore, any landscaping and/or hardscapes should be designed such that a driver's clear line of sight is not obstructed and does not threaten vehicular or pedestrian safety, as determined by the City Engineer (see limited use areas on Figures 10-la and 10-2a). As such,we conclude that project access will be adequate. CITY CODE PARKING ANALYSIS—ALTERNATIVE PLAN Off-Street Parking Per the City of Seal Beach Municipal Code— Chapter 11.4.20 Off-Street Parking and Loading, the Alternative Plan would require a total of 64 spaces based on the following parking ratio: ■ Single-Unit Dwelling—2 spaces per dwellingfor each unit of 1 to 5 bedrooms Each residential lot will be required to meet the City requirements at the time of construction and would provide, at a minimum, a 2 car garage per dwelling unit. On-Street Parking With regards to on-street parking, the Alternative Plan provides up to fifty-three (53) on-street parking spaces that will be available to satisfy guest parking requirements. Figure 11-la illustrates the on-street parking layout for the Alternative Plan. It should be noted that the typical driveway detail shown on the tract map indicates driveways on both sides of"Alley D", not on the north side of`B Street" or south side of"C Street". Therefore, parking is available on both the south side and north side of `B Street" and the south side of "C Street". Further, parking would be available on both the east side and west side of`A' Street. A review of this figure indicates that up to nine (9) vehicles could park curbside along the westerly curb face of 1st Street, while up to twenty (20)vehicles and sixteen (16) vehicles have the ability to park curbside along "A Street" and `B Street", respectively. In addition, up to eight (8) vehicles will have the ability to park along t F y r rT R;,. Mr.Eddie Torres INStPTl.• June 15, 2012 Page 4 tEENSPNN �en,girneer the south side of "C Street". The limits of on-street parking and design of such spaces to be provided by the Project will be designed in accordance with City of Seal Beach standards. Please note that the parking layout illustrated on Figure 11-la assumed that Lots 8 through 27 have alley access, thus resulting in the ability to park on both side of"B Street"and the south side of"C Street". PROJECT SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS—ALTERNATIVE PLAN The following improvements are recommended to ensure adequate access and egress to the project site is provided as part of the development of the Alternative Plan: ® Install a "STOP" sign and stop bar at the project driveway ("A" Street) and alley (Alley E) on Marina Drive. Install appropriate striping, signage and/or pavement legends per City of Seal Beach standards/requirements. Install a "STOP" sign and stop bar at the project driveway ("B" Street) and alley (Alley D) along 1st Street. Install appropriate striping, signage and/or pavement legends per City of Seal Beach standards/requirements. In conjunction with the proposed vacation of 15t Street, south of Marina Drive, restripe et Street within the proposed 40-foot paved cross section to provide one 16-foot southbound departure lane, a 10-foot northbound left-turn lane and a 14- foot northbound shared through/right-turn lane. To accommodate the proposed Project improvements on 1St Street, south of Marina Drive, modify the existing median and roadway cross section to minimize the offset through the intersection and realign the southbound approach with the proposed northbound approach on 1St Street. Within a recommended paved cross section of 40-feet,provide one 16- foot northbound departure lane, a 10-foot southbound left-turn lane and a 14-foot southbound through lane; a separate southbound right-turn lane will be maintained. Figure 12-la conceptually illustrates the recommended layout for the intersection of 1St Street at Marina Drive upon completion of the Alternative Plan of the proposed Project. Mr. Eddie Torres Li NSCOTT June 15, 2012 LAW & Page 5 GREENSRAN en_gineers", We appreciate the opportunity to prepare this revised supplemental traffic assessment for you and the City of Seal Beach. Should you have any questions or need additional assistance,please do not hesitate to call me at(714) 641-1587. Very truly yours, Linscott,Law & Greenspan,Engineers Siohq co 0 rn IX No. 2006 O Richard E. Barretto, P.E. , Exp.6/30/13 ' � Principal qTF TRAFFIC �� Attachments cc: file Dan Kloos,P.E., Senior Transportation Engineer tU.'_Ili:I . ='P...._. . . ?�'.. I'I ..�_'F' ..I I. :i _� , .. ..-.. .-i.:. -?iii;._ . •�•: -__- , .1 . i. rni 7/7 j-{rr-Itl- i,/ 1, //1 �! It�� It - ___ 11,,,‘ \ -L AffgP 'I� � \ \ tQt ,c OCEAN dpF.MJ1; . ___ ii s IrI Al., 9 g l g4g v1 R `1) '1;. if z 'I b 1 �� \ Ii1 m mc9i o k A I Z` • I ` _- ___... tt , .[i 1 _-_y o a ` ��i' 1 I i 0 Pr , ° tai � , n u ' , ° —'r I� .g•,TREE[jeueLl_g__ _._ \1\' , \\\` \` ,, . ,, \, - \i' )k \ 8 I \ \,,\ 0 gg 11 I __ _ 4 a, .1 ,;a 42 s it 2 ��\ °v l i , Ir - y -- o�'< �M t f,i IM p I I _ r sfceE rueuc fit, ay � !- \f {I 1• •J9,� 1d '' 11 i 1{ 1a1■ 1 1 --- _ - - _,_,*___ - i ,m, ,„..._ ---____ 7 7 'i ''\ , -----z Ask --...------ ---___, / , I -Mire" - .., _ '- . / _ 3 L:-JP ,' litS --'.-- __: _ X 0 040 �`, N 0710 z Lxg ` �+.�'�a.._ i� 7 ,9V1-1 zz P!1I d\\4 1 1,'° I m m AP. ii is 0 0•G :a gl iiiR I i x 4r D �z� a 040 I — 2 00-1 oaz € m , g a I t -I-r o Zmz I 1 N "' n:\3100\2103156—ocean place residential des plan,seal beach\dwg\3156f2-1.dwg LDP 09:46:24 06-19-2012 agullor '! l`\ \ ill,,--t----,.-:---%--- 1.7 ��\, ` 'till //u6- ce/J LL 1\ \ \ 1' \•om r \ \ \ ' I � a\ SL 'g gm ji N „ \ ( 4� J \ ii,_ 4 i,- �, qL OCI ill I j - \ 'i 1 \ \ 1 Pi -N ` a- \ 4 4101010elliit .",.., 1 , `q \ r �f I 0 \ - 1 El i \ 1 1 j i /- %�a�ys e I b„ I i 1 �jr" of RI - I ,l/ , J.. . I I ,rlrilt-_-'- -� G i 1 1 I 11 3;1-i -++_______ 1 ' �� Iliiil R >.. r s 1 Id c r I +1 ✓/�� \ /, II II /',/ \ /, 1 c i 9 i Il 1 L h , 1 /'' i�i�r has \lk, 1 9 I 1. .< Pi I I l I -. ' \. a 01 Fu lr1nI 11 i 1 I 1 • OI n $ • �m-I I 1 I Pli 11 ; i N a � \ T tie Pi c g zm / I I ;ill— nz� o > oya na-0 za x I I g u t.<o> 111 Fl 1 1 1 I 1 I . n:\3100\2103158—ocean place residential dev plan.seal beach\dwg\7159110-1.dwg LDP 10:07:57 06-19-2012 oguilar z I I(l ---\ I Y II I \r-- \ 1 - \\- `, -_ I \ \" \ I v, a o.'o r- /I 0 ;I g i T t i •i j 111 1 N , B' STREET(PUBLIC S s ._ ,i 1?6 ' ill -"...\\l I( N u A to P V \�` \ e\\ 8 \!I I `e \ N I ,,� a S 1 II ``, \ • m t i ID 1 11 t°L ( -- -\' \ \`8- !%, t i \ — (- ......._.:b...____ j I \ NE i 1 . e .1,I: '1 \ m 1 1 I I i _ _ \ ,1 ll OT 1 Ii _—{ 1I' � ;r�• ' �- , - �� • i� I - — - i 'C' STREET(PUBLICL_ __ 1' 1 i 1, 1,1•1! I I ; I 1 1 I 1 i N r 1 1 11 1 : . _ _ _ _ _ _4___ Ate— ____` I' /. I —07- ti1A A DRl E PUB(/c 71'''�`• ti 7 01 Doi .t,Li P m -Inv r - 1 1 Li m n m-10 E \ w sq� o Q_2 m ma-1, a I \; S :1 'l a,tti � AyD N � 'I � V =ai � --4—r D \ 1 gal m z all [ .,, wy [$ �li 8 B u n:\3100\2103156—ocean place residential dev.plan.seal beach\dwg\3158710-2.dwg LOP 10:09:14 06-19-2012 agallar V------ \" ‘nA L 1 _,- I APPROX 10 SPACES I�f ~� 1, ��/' O��.4 ,`I`` 7J��— _ 'B' STREET(PUBLI - `\\ I\ I` Z i q I I ill T APPROX 10 SPACES we Tea __.__ .-. ___...... •_.__--- - , I ‘ s, fig N I il��, V 1 e\ A ill� �� i S a o- •� '{gg� 1 li' i \1E fi1 , `a No IN 3 A ALLEY 'D' +: L/22 I kt A4 V iS 1 j. k . yq� 126 ' 2 --- i kiI i '', I a_gyCm _ I ' ! ,. 1 - - 'W 1\ \ -O 1 I , .__- ..7— 1:: ;\- - I73 ■ i -I J �1 1 °. ea Me x\ ,„.-V _( -___.,, • k}I ' I 1 I + 1 kfl f+ 11 I` I /` 1 i 1 I w i I w'i I. kj t U I 1 1 / I le I I JJ"L } v a, an A w ^, — I K 1 - _.11ilir Ili iiir,,,,_,..7.--.--,,, AumprIliftilw...-.* ::1-441 ----` ``' ILI-if / / ig —��- _ ERNE U CI " '' '` zN.9 \, , -----_ \ \41 R � Y< I 1 G \ , a 1 ,I ill, i u 1 O Z g M " A o n o ( m � m o \ y -1 G1 m a P3 o h g. x � z ' Z I / mo r a i I / a 0 o ' " -1 I / $ / / n:\3100\2103158—ocean place residential dev.pion,seal beach\dwg\3158/11-1.dwg LDP 09:51:38 06-19-2012 eviler 1I ' ill II 1 I_..._- II ; i Ho �J �E 'B' STREET(PUBLIC, 1 a iti ill iW N —� 1 , 1 \ g n a 21 a 0 I I N u N N V \�' 1 fig y I d U P 1 i 41 E' =11 , 1 q. 1 - — jALLE D':IP i - It t`7 z I ■ *--- - -- -- 4N It 1 5 ! g ^rt 1n 1 ' y '1 Z ( I \ Fig ' z ^1 : ! S1 1 N I 1 1 qsp rmn :L II+C i 1 0 vz tm §I__AI m I -a m r • irrl I--- ------, ___\ > l ` V 1 14g II 1' l i �I .C' STREET LUBLICJ— �� \ o. j:, Iti '1 \ 1 I I 1 / N N I 1 V P/ {n A ,ti 11910--Nd3"os, __,...::::,,t__.,_...., Ibic... ,,,,,, ...... ...,..-v5r----- --- -"".—t _lir litle..,........_.* , ----:-.,-, ......, , -r`01'0.1k- - aL — NCO/qv `v i ,..-. a Illitilleft,-4 < 1* .c'�, �. ' PUBLIC ~. .. - - _NI PHA ...____- ------__awya ii Boo, ii Q >"7 1 41111" .01 1 61 1 f81,1'4:, ig 1\ 1 0 czi PSI u) a 0 1 II € x g �� I €o u -I m _ a a I rn r Fl G) I1I \\\ I n -am'oo n o_ � I I -1z r I I o `ni n:\3100\2103158-ocean place residential dev.plan.seal bench\dwg\3158f12-1a.dwg LDP 09:44:35 06-19-2012 °guitar