Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutEnvironmental Assessment EAX1999008 - Supporting DocumentsNOTIC : O COMPLIANCE WfICH CONDITIONS O TRACT[PARCEL MAP AND AITflIO ZAT:IOR FOR RELEASE FO CO INC . TO. CITY CLERK FROM:COM1YfUNIT DEVELOPMENT Howard Zelefsky TR A C T x Ol., PARCEL i i P#0. PARK AN RECk EATIOJ EELS PAID: Cl TER" for: 110 Howard Zelefsky Planning Dirtctor CASH RECEIPT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT We llr1 CITY OF nuNTINgTON I3EACI7 i .wmmm Address A41 Correspondence To, 0 0 BOX 1-11 HUNT;NGTJN BEACH CAt yFRNiA 92648 ( 714 s 536-5241OR GALL DATEH1 NTH GTON BEACH }-. rD-i, RE E!VED FR 9M 6"".:y ADCRESS (,972-y.P , p p0 C e- JISI-F ,i r .3E E;VED 8`,1'D 'A H V wZCK DESCRIPTION EUILDING PERMIT BUILDING PLAN REVIEW CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY DOWN TOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DTSPr ELECTR'CAL PERMIT'PLAN REVIE,V LIBRAF,Y DEVELOPMENT 1 MECHANICAL PERMIT) PLAN RE%'Ev; M`;ROFILM COP`?' CAF PLANS MICROFILM COPY OF RECORDS PAIRS & RECREATION PERMIT ISSUANCE; STAFF RESEAPCH PLANNING PLAN REVIEW PLUMBING PERMIT!PLAN REVIEW SWIMMING POOL PERMIT TRAFFIC IMPACT ZONING APPLICATIONS OTHER TOTAL L4 0.2.00 AMOUNT RECEIVED C uUcM.c'atq AMOUNT Z 19 -615 t", No.CD 311703 D CREDIT CARD á ENVIRONIVIENTALa ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Wednesday, June 23, 1999 2:30 P.M. Third Floor Center Conference Room 1, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 99-8 in conjunction with Variance No. 99-8 and Tcntative Parcel Map No. 99-133. Applicant: Philip Talbert & Scott Sackin 1815 Pine Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request : To subdivide an existing 100 foot wide lot into two 50 foot wide lots, with a variance to the minimum 60 foot lot width. Location : 1815 Pine Street (west side, north of Springfield Avenue). Project Planner : Peter Vanek, Assistant Planner tor- information an the above items, please contact the sheer" .. project planner in the t 7tv of Hfwrtington Beech Planning Department, at (714) 536-5271. REVISED ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE AGENDA Wednesday, April 23, 1999 2:30 P.M. Third Floor Center Conference Room I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 99-8 in conjunction with Variance No. 9°-8 an;; Tentative parcel-gip No. 99-I33. Applicant : Philip Talbert & Scott Sackin 1815 Pine Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Request : To subdivide an existing 100 foot wide lot into two 50 foot wide lots, with a variance to the minimum 60 foot lot width, Location : 1815 Pine Street (west side, north of Springfield Avenue), Project Plainer : Peter Vanek, Assistant Planner Ji,?r information on the above iterns, pleas' contact the specified project planner in the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, at (714) 536-52 71, TrViRON NT L CHECKI IST FORM CITY `OE `H JNTINGTON' BEACH 1. PROJECT TITLE: Conc u rrent Entitlements: 2. LEAD AGENCY: Contact: Phone: Pine Street Subdi iision T NO.99-'8 'Variance No, 99-8/Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-133 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Peter Vanek (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 1815 Pine Street (west side, north of Springfield Avenue) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Philip Talbert & Scott Sackin 1815 Pine Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact Person : Philip Talbert Phone: (714) 960-1355 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION : Residential Low Density 6, ZON ING: Residential Low Density 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTIO N: To subdivide an existing 100 foot ,%, ide lot into two 50 foot wide lots, with a variance to the minimum 60 foot lot width. 8. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMEN i ATION: None 9. OTHER AG' 'NCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None IENT ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below \\uuld 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 I Planning Transportation / Traffic Public Services Population / Housing Biological Resources Utilities I Service Systems Geology/Soils Mineral Resources Aesthetics Hydrology/ Water Quality Hazards and Hazardous Materials Cultural Resources Air Quality Noise Recreation Agriculture Resources 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 NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATFSE DECLARATION will be prepared. I rind that the. proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRON11 NTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, I find that the proposed 1 roject MAY have a potentially significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by.,,rogation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, Ar x NN"ONMENT.AL 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 -,-o applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature May 6,1999 Dr:te Peter Vanek Assistant Planner Printed Name Title EVALUATION c ;t E 1VWONNIENT L MP I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" wrswers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, ii 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 art Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has t,:duced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation treasures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section :VIII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program BIft, o otherCEQA. process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to inf)rtuation sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sourced used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 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 IHuntington Beach's requirements. (Note; Standard Conditions of Approval - The City imposes standard cr iditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance, However, because they are considered part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provid°d as Attachment. No. 3. SAIVfPLE QUESTION; ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Potent Id ily Significant Potentialy Unless Less Than Sign cant Mitigat on SignlfiYant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the I. -oposal result in or expose purple to potential impacts involving- Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which shotit, that the area is located in a flat area, (Note: This response probably would rot require further explanation). 0 ISSUES (and Supporting Information So.trces): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation S;gr,ificant I=act Incorporated Impact No Impact LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulat,on of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plait, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 2,x,6) Z b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (Source. 3,5) c) Physically divide ,,a established community? (Sources: 1,2,5)11 11 0 n Discussion : The proposed subdivision of land would conflict with'scion 210.06 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, which requires lots in the R sidential Losti . %:lsity zoning classification have a minimum width of 60 feet, Aithoug the proposed subdivision does not conform with .he zoning c%vve, the impact is less than significant as the existing neighborhood consists mostly of 50 foot wide lots, As such, the proposed subdivison will be compatible with the surrounding parcels. The proposed subdivis&,tn will not impact the adjacent parcels, nor will it create any hardship for the surrounding property or property owners. There is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan that would be affected by the pronosed subdivision as none. exist i:i the area. The proposed subdivision will not physically divide an existing community. The property is integrated with existing development, IT. POPULATION AND HOUSIN j. 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 ether inftastructurc)`? (Sources: 3,5) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, occessitating the construction of replacement, 3using elsewhere? (Sources: 3,5) ) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 3,37 Discussion: The project will subdivide the existing, parcel into two single-frmily tots. Cu.rcntly, there is an existing single family residence on the parcel which would be completely within the 'boundaries of one of the proposed lots. The purpose for the proposed subdivision would be to ouild another single fatnil res?d aitce on th, remaining w--;ant parcel. Based upon the average population pe^ unit of 2.65 in the, City of Ilumington b each, the proposed subd»vis'ien and and subsequent construction ofnt1n` her housing unit would generate a ma imunr population increase of? persons tal, The population increase resulting from this future development is consisteatt with the --;-owth projections in the City or' Huntington Beach General Plan and regional projections and represents less than 0.1 percent of the city's current population. No significant adverse population impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed subdivision and possible development. No cntstin; homes or persons will be displaced by the proposed subdivision as the existing home will be retained on rte. ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): III.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 on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Faalt Zoning Map issi..ed by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault ? (Sources: 2,5,8) Strong seisrnc ground shaking? (Sources: 5,8) iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 5,8) iv) Landslides ? (Sources* 5,8) b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from exca ation, grading, or fill? (Sources., 2,3,5) 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 cff site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 2,3,5) d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-I-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources. 1,5) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 11 0 59 Discussion: The project site is not loc,4ted within tl:e Alquist-Priolo zone or any other known geologic hazard areas, The site may be subjeut to seismic ground s faking, however, through the building permit process, any structures proposed on the site will be subject to the 1997 Uni:orm Building Code. This process will reduce the level of risk to less than significant. Per the 1992 Technical Background Report General Plan Uplate, the •"oject site is located in an area of low to moderate clay content which can he indicative ;.fiexpansive soils. However, this is common in the City and impac:s can be a0ressedthrough compliance witli applicable soils, grading and structural foundation requirements, such that any potential geoatogic impacts will be reduc d to a level of ins- .ificance. The applicant is required to submit ? =-ails report prior to building permit issuance. Compliance with the in :res of the soils report and all applicable build, g codes will ensure that no substantial risks to life or property will result. The proposed subdivision is not located in an area ktwwn to be subject to landslides. The subject site and tics surrounding neighborhood i1 flat terrain. The subdivision would not change the grade of the subiei°t site and would therefore not result in erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes an topography or unstable soil. The proposed subdivision is not lucated 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, liuuefacti'sn or collapse. IV.HY'OROLOGY AND NVAT .d OUA-MA". Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge crequirements? (Sources* 3,5) ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 3, 5) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a streams or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? (Sources; 1,2,3) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or arnount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? (Sources: 1,2,3) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runo (Sources: 3,5) f) g) j) Otherwise substantially degi 2! quality? (Sources: 3,5) 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 map? (Sources: 1, 5) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1,5) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding , including flood -ig as a result of the failure of a levee or dam" (Sources: 1-,5) Inundation by seiche, tsuhami, or mudflow? (Sources- 1,5) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 0 l iscussion: The project consists of the subdivision of property. As such, the hydrology and water quality of the subject property will not be affected. 1 * project is not located within close prnxi.-nity to the ocean or to any large slopes, and therefore is not at risk fur mudslides or tsunamis. There will be ansign.ificant change .o groundwater supplies and no change to the existing e iinage pattern from the proposed project. The proposed subdivision is bootees within the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone X (outside the 500-year flood hazard area). Therefore, thy: project will not place hoc.:';,Ag within a I 00-year flood hazard arce_ as mapped on a federal flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other -flood hazard delineation snap. ISSUES (and Supporting Information S.Durces): V. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 9) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 11 M b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources, 9) c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 3)0 d`1 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 3,5,9) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambierm air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 3,9) 0 0 Z Discussion : The proposed subdivision will not affect any air quality standard, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, nor conflict with or obstruct the impl :nentation of any applicable air quality plans because the project will not generate any emissions, Using data from the 1993 CJ~QA Air Quality Handbook produced by the South Coast Air Quality N anagemtnt District (AQNID), the estimated 4 daily vehicle trips generated from the possible development of one additional single family home is not expected to produce emissions that will significantly impact air quality. Because the scale of the project is 95 percent below the threshold criteria rstaolislted by the AQSD for potentially significant impacts, its contribution is rn`nor in nature. No significant air quality impacts to the area are anticipated. V1. TRANSPORTATIONITRAFFIC. Would the prgje.:t: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic it>ad and capacity of the street system (e.g., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections'? (Sources: 1,3,5,11) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,3,5, 11) 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: 3) ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersectlo:.s) or incompatible r,ses? (Sources: 1,3) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,3) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (E ounces: 3,6) g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 1,3,12) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 11 Discussion: The proposed subdivision will not impact traffic in any substantial way, increase hazards due to design features, result in inadequate parking capacity, result in inadequate emergency service, or conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation because the additional vehicle trips generated by the future additional residential dwelling would be insignificant, VII . BIOLOGICAL RESCI L.`RCES , Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources. 3,5) 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 3,5) c) Have a substantial %dverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Cecdon 404 ofthe Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,; etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Source-, s: 3,5) 1-1 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife specie, or 'R h established native resident or migratory wilwife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 3,5) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 3,S) ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 3,S) -otentinlly Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 0 0 Q Discussion: The project will not have an adverse effect on any biological resources. The project consists of the subdivision of an existing lot, and does not contain any biological resources. There is no habitat conservation plan which affects the subject property. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability ofa known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (sources-, 3,5,8) 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, 3,5,8) Q 0 Discussion: The proposed subdivision will not affect any known mineral resource or lie loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource. The project consists of the subdivision of an existing pa'cel and no mineral resources exist in the area. I%. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the envy ironment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1,2,3) b) Create a ,significant hazard to the public ur the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1,2,3) 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: 1,2,3) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a restult, would it create a significant haza, d to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,2,3) For a project located within an airport land %,se 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: 1,2,3) 0 M. ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): 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: 1,2,3) . otentially Significant Potentially Unless Lass Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1;'x,3) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildiands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildiands? (Sources: 1,2,3) 11 0 19 r Discussion : The project will not create any hazards or' hazardous materials or impact any airport land use plan. The project consists of the subdivision of residential property, and is not located near any airport. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 3,5) b) Exposure ofp;r-.ons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources, 3,5) c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ievels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources., 3,5) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existin, without the project? (Sources: 3,5) 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 gar public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project arcs to excessive noise levels? (Sources: -3,5) f) For a project within the vicinity rf a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or ,vc,rking in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,5) 1-1 11 n Discussion: The project will not create any additional noise or be impacted by any surrounding raise generators. The subdivision will a it create any noise and is not in close proximity to any airport. ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): ,t'otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substar.cial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of ne' v or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new c: 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: 3,5) b) Police Protection? (Sources: 3,5) c) Schools? (Sources: 3,5,12) d) Parks? (Sources: 3,5,12) e) Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: 3,5,12) Q X 01 E 0 0 0 0 D I 0 0 n rJ Discussion : The proposed subdivision will not increase the demand for police services, fire services, school services, park facilities and services, nor other public facilities or governmental services, as the prgiect consists of the subdivision of an existing residential parcel into two parcels. X11. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS , Would the project: a) Lxceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quility Control Board? (Sources: 5,12) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the con:nrction of which could cans, significant environmental effects? (Sources: 5,12) Require or result in the construction ofnely storm. water drainage -facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental eff;cts? (Sources: 5,12) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 5,12) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 5,12) Q 0 X ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): f) g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 5,12) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 5,12) rotentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Q 11 0 Discussion : The proposed subdivision will have no significant impact on wastewater treatment requirements, the need for new water or wastewater facilities, the need for new or expanded stormwater facilities, and water supplies available to serve the project. The proposed subdivision will be able to be served by the local wastewater treatment provider and by the local landfill operator, and will comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. XIIT. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 2,3) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 2,3) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroun lings?, (Sources: 2,3) Q El d1 Create a new source of rubstantiat light or glare which would adversely affect day (,r ri gi-ttime views in the area? (Sources: 2,3) Q 9t Discussion: The proposed subdivision will not affect the aesthetics of the surrounding neighborhood. The proposed project exists within an existing residential neighborhood which has no scenic vistas, no scenic resources, and will not affect the ' isu,-It character or quality of the site and surroundings. The subdivision of a existing residential parcel into two residential parcels will not produce any negative aesthetic hapacts. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a histgrical resource as defined in 815054.5? (Sources. 3.7) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource parsu ant to 615064.5? (Sources: 3,12) c) Dire ctty or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 3,5) 0 0 M d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside o formal cemeteries? (Sources: 3,S) ISSUES (and Supporting Infc:mation Sources): Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed subdivision 'al not affect any historical resource, archaeological resource, unique paleontological resource of unique site t,,,turv, nor disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of forma] cemeteries as none exist on the project site. XV. RECREATION, Would the project: a) Would the project increase the we 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:3,5) Q X b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which wight have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 5,12) 0 Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources: 3,5) p 11 Q Discussion : The proposed subdivision will not increase the use of existing neighborhood, community, and regional parks or other recreational facilities as the project consists of the subdivision of residential property, creating two parcels from an exi,tin g parcel, XVI.ACA11ICULT1IRE RESOURCES. Ir determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer tr' 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: 5,6) 9 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 6) c) Involve other changes in thu. existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 5,6) 0 Discussion: The proposed subdivision will not affect any agricultural resource since the property and the surrounding vicinity is not currently used for agricultural purposes nor is the property zoned for agricultural use. 10 ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat ofa 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: 1,2,3,5,6,12) potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project will not impact any fish, wildlife, or plant habitats. The subdivision is in an exiv;:nF;developed residential neighborhood. All native plants or animals were removed and analyzed at the time of initial d. k.`(.pment, h) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerabl: ; ("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 curret,; projects, and the effects of probable futurc projects,) (Sources: 5,6) 0 Discussion: The proposed subdivision wilt not have impacts that are cumulatively considerable s the project consists of the subdivision of a single residential property into two residential properties, c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources. 3,5) 0 11 Discussion: The proposed subdivision will not have environmental effects which wll` cause substantial adverse effects on human beings as the project will create two parcels where one exists currently. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program FIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier FIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference #Document Title AAvailable for Review at: 1 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment No. I See Attachment No. 2aReduced Parcel Map See Attachment No. 2b 3 Project Narrative See Attachment No. 5 City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office, 2r'O Floor 4 City ofHuntind on Beach Municipal Code 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter. 3rd Floor5City of Huntington Beach General Plan 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 1City uf Huntington Beach Historic District Map 1 Geotechnical Inputs Report - City of Huntington Beach CEQA Ai. Quality Handbook South Coast Air Quality9, Manager tent District (1193) 10 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Handbook 11 Trip Generation, 4" Edition, Institute of Traffic l rtgineers Technical Background Report12General Plan Update (July, 1992) I kcr PROJECT SITE SPHPIF C P N T RI T 0)(D1 a OD.l.l TICA RI RI RI Rl RI Rt RI R R) R2 -- -- ADAMS It VVACECdiO -CD-O -CD-© -cD-o TORONTO I-CD-0 J '-- ----- I D, 1-0 -0 -0 VICINITY ENVIRONME NTAL ANALYSIS NO999-8 THE CITY OF . IIVT, ?`GTOlV' f )7ACI! tawnAY0La 1 r ATTACHMENT P O*" HUN T NGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST TO:Bruce Crosby, Public Works Khanh Nguyen, Building Tim Greaves, Fire Jan Thofas, Crime Prevention FROM VICTOR VAN, ZAND'r Ext: 5571 DATE: 412199 ENTITLEMENT NUMBER(S): Variance No. 99-8 and Tentative Parcel Map No. 99-133 REQU EST(S ): To subdivide an existing 100' wide lot into two (2)50' wide lots. The current z oning requires a 60' minimum width. LOCATION : 1815 Pine ZONE: RL GENERAL PLAN: RL. EXISTING USE: Single family residence Please ;submit your con ke r n. , recwanmended chan g es, and/or condi ons in. writing on or before:4116199 RI APR FIRE DE AR T YOUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (Use attachment's or back side of:,i,eet if necessary) BY; Attachments < 1. Maps 2. Narrative Extension : HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTME DEVELOPMENT REVIEW REQUEST TO: Bruce Crosby, Public Works Khanh Nguyen, Building Tim Greaves; Fire Jan Thomas, Crime Prevention FROM: VICTOR VAN ZANDT Ext: 5571 DATE : 412199 ENTITLE MENT NUMBER (S): Variance No. 99-8 and Tentative Parcel Map No . 99-133 REQUEST(S): To subdivide an existing 100' wide lot into two (2) 50' wide lots. The current zoning requires a 60' minimum width. LOCATION: 1815 Pine ZONE: RL GENERA L PLAN: RL EXISTING USE: SJngle,amity residence Please.submit your concerns, recommended changes, ard/ r condef am,in, writing on or before: 4/16199 YOUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (Use attachments or bagk side of sheet if necessary) Extension : Attachments: 1. Maps CI?? OF H 3M ,TINGTO' O INT=ERDEPARTMENTAL OMI\4.UNI CATION TO Victor Van.Zandt PROW: Bruce F. Crosby,_ I Civil Engineer;As), start SUBJECT; TPA 99-133 DATE: April 151999 The following are conditions of approval for the subject tentative parcel map: 1) A reproducible niylar copy and. a print. of the recorded parcel map, along with digital graphic files of the recorded map tier the City of ,Huntington, Beach "CAD Sta'idards .Manual for Consultants" , shall be submitted to the, Department of Public VJe'r'l s -it the time of recordation. 2) This trap shall record prior to issuance of busr`ding permits. ,,G HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DEPARTMENT DEVELOPM E NT REVIEW REQUEST TO, Bruce Crosby, Public Works6c. Khan h-N' ri,79uildiig T r '-Greave.s, Fire Jan Thomas, Crime Preve ntion FROM, VICTOR VAN ZANDT Ext: 6571 DATE: 412199 ENTITLEMENT NUM3ER(S): Variance No. 99 and Tentative Parcel "dap No. 99-133 REQUEST(S): To subdivide an existing 100' wide lot into two (2) 50' wide lots. The curr.nt zoning requires a 60' minimum width. LCCA IKON: 1815 Pine ZONE: RL GENERAL PLAN: RL EXIST NC USE: Single family residenc e Please submit your concerns, recommended changes, andlor conditions, in i writing on or before : 4/161199 YOUR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: (Use attachments or beck side of sheet if necessary) BY, Attachments: 1. Maps --Extension C Narrative QEVREVR 000 171717 p'L A4f-o-J GC lj. F 4 i. ¢ne t 4 l 7 /,-Y- I S uk 4CC .I LCD `r`y G r p L F'SS I I r?Tr rfTT11 T r--' PROJECT c SITE 1 11 5f' ©M P AN 7 (Dl 1 I T U) TICA RI Rl RI Rl SPRINGFIELD RI RI F -I 2Liuj II 0 V CE a -CD-C)I o RI R2 -CD-0 J fi RI_ R1 2 -o ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS NO. 99-8 n VICINITY MAP LCD-- E*0 JL _0!10 ly ROCHESTER 2F I THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEA,CI 60, FINE TR CT PARK e L 9 7 ALLEY 108 do, so' e T 18 21 19 17 N ALLEY 22 2 18 15 13 16 14 " 50R' ,e S 1_e MARY MAIV TRACT APO. 12 M.M. 9-13 PARCEL MAP P.M 74-37 SEE SPECIAL PAGE 023-069 FPR SUBSURFACE FEE TITLE ASSESSMENT 07 50' 6 r 11 w 12 n 7 10 8 100• e 0 3 1 4 2 6 Q e 24 23) 21 14 22 16 80' 100' 19 . ,8® O 26 N 41 40 4 19 13 14 15 1fi 0' 30' 3 1 4 2 `04 2050 05 0 23 21 L '50-5 50'r r 12 so, 24 21Z 20 17 0 ,0 ® ® 9 7 1702 108 1a 19 20 21 • @ ' :J E.„yL r ir;,tl "{%y q`,,} +5L eE C,EPrfQOU JER.J, i.4 r,-a e0.•TO u, 5033 '' r e a e 7, 50':.^ -•;' ':5Su A.111 i(fla 1 dclG !4uP'rl,ti UQ1ij1Ghf, 7 8 15 18 14 20 19 13 t0 3 1 L I I 50' I' 50- 15 13 ALLEY 18 16 14 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d PARCEL NUMBERS SHOWN IN CIRCLES 5 Y ALLEY 6 1119" 3 0- 12 10 10 1109\J 4 7 STREET STREET 13 STREET NO. 12 ASSESSOR'S MAP BOOK 023 PAGE 06 COUNTY OF ORANGE 0I- a Cl 5a e0' no. 023-66 LF