Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPublic Hearing - Code Amendment 93-2 - ND 91-32 - Affordable U30CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lo" INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director FROM Connie Brockway, City Clerk (I'D SUBJECT LEGAL NOTICE FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM D-1 (2-7-94 AGENDA) AFFORDABLE HOUSING DATE February 8, 1994 Please provide the City Clerks office with a legal notice when your office decides on the date to hold the public hearing on this item Thank you for your cooperation CB/tr TO DATE ;��jj!E AM PM H FROM AREA CODE NO O OF EXT E nn E c A 7 M S E S M G Q E SIGNED ALL PHONED BACK CALL RNED SEE YOU AGAIN ALL WAS IN URGENT �F Ice, r`; Page 3 CounciYAgency Agenda 2/7/94 C-1 COUNCIL COMMITTEE/COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS 5- 0 (cuincht/l) -Do�n-bwn SPu,�c ?cam 1�v be.aduq%++se b -Nt- 3I7Iq y N.+JUIR 4dn 2/2i/91 S,Iva) Mted 7`0 /tf'c,/I i 61S who w,}h 4D Gp/wll fe� know whv^e vo/v1JtPP*4s doe Hprcl T7��ua x b/, C-2 CITY ADMINISTRATORS REPORT TA"O& ��J(1t' fEe ��' (J) A.otclr�sseDc rom�ri!t/�e'' ne�o/��mont �wndawn 1r,#fAca.,S � (l,/ SIAA4117 /eve'/1 4VIn4j � i'Ilion cfr Otd %2Z/9 D PUBLIC HEARINGS Anyone wishing to speak on an OPEN public hearing item is requested to complete the attached pink form and give it to the Sergeant at Arms who is located near the Speakers Podium PUBLIC HEARINGS SHALL BE CONSIDERED IN THE FOLLOWING ORDER 1 Closed public hearings with decision continued to this date 2 Public hearings continued open 3 New public hearings -77WI t ./v -r,*Iee 11-3 ou* o OMQ -Afo+1oA catini-e o D-1 (City Council) CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING - CODE AMENDMENT 93-2 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION 91-32 - AFFORDABLE HOUSING - INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO 3214 - DECISION CONTINUED FROM 11-15 93 (430 50) Staff report prepared by Community Development Public hearing closed on 10/4/93 APPLICATION NUMBER Code Amendment No 93 2/Negative Declaration No 91-32 APPLICANT City of Huntington Beach Dept of Community Development LOCATION City-wide REQUEST To amend the City s Zoning code to include provisions for affordable housing which require all projects of three (3) units or greater to address affordable housing The ordinance also provides incentives for providing affordable housing ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS, This request is covered by Negative Declaration No 91-32 which will also be considered by Council RECOMMENDED ACTION Continue Code Amendment No 93-2 and Negative Declaration No 91-32 and re advertise prior to setting a new public hearing /��`co nyrn�-n�/�D �o� ,�}QvP�o v£I� /► (3) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date February 7, 1994 Submitted to Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by Michael T Uberuaga, City Administrato f Prepared by Howard Zelefsky, Planning Directo z v� Subject CODE AMENDMENT NO 93 2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 91-32 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE ` A) ;l q/GI y p6cowwl eodp-b 4c;�'ovi Woo uOb — -io Rtv— Consistent with Council Policy [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception M I VO& Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments 4041 STATEMENT OF ISSUE On November 15, 1993, the City Council continued action on the draft Affordable Housing Ordinance for further study The staff is recommending that the City Council continue the Affordable Housing Ordinance in order to allow staff additional time to refine the data needed to respond to the City Council concerns The staff will re advertise this item for public hearing prior to setting a specific date RECOMMENDATION Motion to "Continue code Amendment No 93 2 and Negative Declaration No 91 32 and re- advertise prior to setting a new public hearing " MTU HZ kjl (k1046) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date November 15, 1993 Submitted to Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by Michael T Uberuaga, City Admmis o Prepared by Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Subject CODE AMENDMENT NO 93 2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 91 32 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE Consistent with Council Policy) P4 Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments STATEMENT OF ISSUE On October 4, 1993, the City Council opened the public hearing on Code Amendment No 93 2 and continued action until November 15, 1993, in order for staff to provide additional information to the Council The staff is currently researching several issues and will return with an updated report w RECOMMENDATION Motion to f "Continue Negative Declaration No 91 32 and Code Amendment No 93 2 to the February 7, 1994, City Council meeting " ANALYSIS Not applicable Vo FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable rn r - r i C� "r* O r z c � t MTU HZ kll �- � T (k1024) `y� ,15 �1 - eou"," Kirkland & Associates Aik a real estate brokerage Kirk Kirkland Broker/Owner November 10, 1993 Councilman Ralph Bauer City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Councilman Bauer On November 15 you will be asked to approve two items of affordable housing 313 11th St , a proposed redevelopment project that is lender owned and in desperate need of rehabilitation and 17372 Keelson Lane in the Oakview district as part of the H O M E pro- gram I urge your support and approval of these two proposals Both projects will ultimately be under the management and control of the Community Housing Corporation, a non-profit provider of low income rental housing with an absolutely outstanding track record as low income housing provider I have personally had a chance to visit most of their properties and they would be an asset to any community They successfully operate an eight unit apartment building across the street from Ensign High School in Newport Beach that blends perfectly with its more affluent neighbors They have been a major factor in the turn-around of the once infamous Buena Clinton neighborhood in Garden Grove Both properties have been "low income" housing--not by design but by usage 313 11th was a "skin head" center with, as you might guess, the attendant societal and law enforcement problems that type of tenant brings The units on Keelson Lane have been low income because that is the nature of the area and affordability is achieved through overcrowding with the resultant downgrading of the quality of life in the area The Community Housing Corporation has demonstrated that they can successfully manage these types of properties while providing clean and affordable housing It takes your help to make it happen Thus far $4 7 million has been invested in the Oakview district to make it a more desirable neighborhood Your support of the Keelson Lane project will further enhance the area and buttress the city's efforts to upgrade this neighborhood Sincerely yours, Kirk Kirkland, GRI 9 \1 351 Beach Blvd Suite A Huntington Beach California 92648 ❑ (714) 536 6600 ❑ Auto(714) 745-0633 ❑ Fax(714)842 3530 PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) ss County of Orange ) am a Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below If PUBLIC NOTICE- 1 ENVIRONMENTAL STA entitled matter I am aprincipal clerk of NOTICE OF TUS This request covered by Negative Declaration the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a CODE ME DME T No 9132 which will also NO 93 2 be considered by Council newspaper of general circulation printed proposed FILE A copy of the b � NEGATIVE proposed request is on file DECLARATION NO in the City Clerk s Office and published in the City of Huntington 9132(To amend 2000 Main Street Hun CityBeach, County of Orange, State of ode to includoninge 9264tington Beach California by Code to Include 92648 for inspection by affordable housin the public A copy of the California and that attached Notice is a NOTICE IS HEREBY staff report will be available GIVEN that the Huntington to interested parties at City true and complete copy as was printed g Hall or the Main cv Beach City Council will brary (7111 Talbert Avenue hold a public hearing in the after September 27 1993 and published in the Huntington Beach Council Chamber at the ALL INTERESTED PER Huntington Beach Civic SONS are invited to attend and Fountain Valle issues of said I Center 2000 Main Street said hearing and express y Huntington Beach Califor opinions or submit evi newspaper to wit the issue(s) of nia on the date and at the dence for or against the time indicated below to re application as outlined ceive and consider the above Written communica statements of all persons tions may also be sent to who wish to be heard rely the City Clerk If you chat tive to the application de( lenge the City Councils ac scribed below DATE/TIME Monday Oc lim Ilion in court you may bel ited to raising only those tober 4 1993 7 00 PM issues you or someone APPLICATION NUMBER else raised at the public September 23, 1993 Code Amendment No 93 hearing described in thisl 2/Negative Declaration No notice or in written cor 9132 respondence delivered to APPLICANT City of Hun the City at or prior to the tington Beach Department public hearing If there arei Of Community Develop any further questions) declare, under penalty of perjury, that ment please call Howard Zelef LOCATION City wide sky Planning Director at the foregoing is true and correct ZONE All Residential 536-5271 Zones REQUEST To amend the Connie Brockway City s Zoning Code to in City Clerk Huntington, clude provisions for afford Beach City Council Executed on able housing which require 2000 Main Street Hun September 23 199�— all projects of three (3)I tington Beach CA units or greater to address 92648(714)536 5227 at Costa Mesa California affordable housing The Or Published Huntington 1 dinance also provides in Beach Fountain Valley In centives for providing of fordable housing dependent September 23 — 1993 094 168 Signa ure REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date October 4 . 1993 Submitted to Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by Michael T Uberuaga, City Administrat �,/Zlt,-- Prepared by Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director k Subject CODE AMENDMENT NO 93-2/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 91-32 AFFORDABLE HOUSING ORDINANCE io/V/9,f_ .4 00 tt3.2 Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue Recommendation Analysis Fundinq Source Alternative Actions Attachments STATEMENT OF ISSUE Transmitted for City Council adoption is Code Amendment No 93-2 and Negative Declaration No 91-32 , City' s Affordable Housing Ordinance The Planning Commission approved the ordinance as recommended by the Housing Task Force Ordinance on August 24 , 1993 RECOMMENDATION Motion to Approve Negative Declaration No 91-32 and Code Amendment No 93-2 as recommended by the Planning Commission Planning Commission Recommendation A MOTION WAS MADE BY GORMAN, SECOND BY RICHARDSON, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 92-31, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES Cook, Bourguignon, Richardson, Dettloff, Gorman, Inglee NOES None ABSENT Biddle ABSTAIN None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY GORMAN, SECOND BY DETTLOFF, AMENDMENT NO 93-2, AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL Wi RECOMMENDATION FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE AYES Cook, Bourguignon, Richardson, Dettloff, NOES None ABSENT Biddle ABSTAIN None r h MOTION PASSED �� D — No 5/85 ANALYSIS On September 16, 1991, the City Council formed the Affordable Housing Task Force The Task Force was comprised of a cross section of the community which included City officials, the Board of Realtors, Chamber of Commerce and housing advocates The Task Force was given the charge of exploring the various aspects of affordable housing and to recommend an affordable housing strategy to implement the City' s adopted Housing Element The Affordable Housing Task Force reached four (4) major conclusions 1 There is a city-wide need to provide affordable housing 2 There is a direct relationship between the City s long term economic stability and the quality and affordability of its housing stock 3 All future development has an obligation to address affordable housing (residential, commercial and industrial) 4 The City and development community need to work cooperatively on achieving a greater number of affordable units The four (4) conclusions have been embodied in the Task Force s recommended Affordable Housing Ordinance The Ordinance has several key components which are highlighted below for the Council ' s convenience 1 All residential projects of three (3) or more units need to address affordable housing in one (1) of the following ways a A minimum of ten (10) percent of all the units included in the project shall be made available to very low, low and moderate-income households based on the Orange County Median Income as defined by the Department of Housing Urban Development b Developers of residential projects may elect to pay a fee of $1 00 per square foot in lieu of providing the units on-site to fulfill the requirement of the Section, unless they are part of a specific plan project c Developers of residential projects may elect to provide the affordable units at an off-site location unless they are part of a specific plan project RCA - 10/4/93 -2- (7363d) The Affordable Housing Task Force met to review the draft Ordinance prior to its public distribution Prior to the last Planning commission meeting on the matter, the Task Force met again to review the Ordinance The Task Force agreed that with modifications the Ordinance reflected their conclusions However, they did not reach consensus on four (4) minor issues 1 Should the money collected through the in-lieu fee program only be used for low and very low housing? 2 Should the payment of the in-lieu fee be paid prior to issuance of building permit or certificate of occupancy? 3 Should the modified development standards proposed as incentives for affordable housing be used for all developments? 4 Should the City establish a waiting list for affordable units? Of these four (4) issues, the staff recommends that the Commission accept the Ordinance as drafted The staff does, however, differ with the Committee on one issue We believe that the in-lieu fee should only be an option for pro3ects less than one (1) acre in size or when a single family development is proposed The most efficient means of providing affordable housing is to have the development community build it The City s expertise in financing affordable Housing pro]ects is limited FUNDING SOURCE Not applicable ALTERNATIVE ACTION The City Council may continue action on Code Amendment No 93-2 and Negative Declaration No 91-32 until November 1, 1993 ATTACHMENTS 1 Draft Affordable Housing Ordinance 2 Negative Declaration No 91-32 MTU HZ k] l RCA - 10/4/93 -3- (7363d) ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY ADDING NEW ARTICLE 966 THERETO ENTITLED "AFFORDABLE HOUSING" WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows SECTION 1 That the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is hereby amended by adding new Article 966 thereto, entitled "Affordable Housing," to read as follows Article 966 Affordable Housing Sections 9660 Purpose 9660 1 Applicability 9660 2 Fees in Lieu of Construction 9660 3 Off-site Construction of Affordable Units 9660 4 Incentives for Providing Affordable Housing 9660 5 Miscellaneous Provisions 9660 6 Sale of Affordable Units 9660 Purpose (a) The purpose and intent of this Chapter is to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City's Housing Element It is intended to encourage low- and moderate-income housing, and housing for older residents which is integrated, compatible with and complements adjacent uses, and is located in close proximity to public and commercial services (b) The affordable housing program is one tool the City utilizes to meet its commitment to provide housing affordable to all economic sectors and to meet its regional fair-share requirements for construction and rehabilitation of housing affordable to low- and moderate income households 9660 1 Applicability This chapter shall apply to all residential projects three (3) or more units in size A developer shall have the option of addressing the affordable housing requirements in one of the following ways 1 4\Ord\09/22/93 (a) A minimum of ten (10) percent of all the units included in the project shall be made available to very low, low(rental projects) and moderate-income households based on the Orange County Median Income as defined by the Department of Housing Urban Development (b) Developers of residential projects may elect to pay a fee in lieu of providing the units on- site to fulfill the requirement of the Section, unless the affordable housing requirement is called out as part of a specific plan project (c) Developers of residential projects may elect to provide the affordable units at an off-site location unless otherwise outlined as part of a specific plan project 9660 2 Fees in Lieu of Construction (a) Fees paid to fulfill the requirements of this article shall be placed in the City's Affordable Housing Trust Fund, the use of which is governed by Section 9660 5(f) (b) The amount of the fees shall be calculated using the fee schedule established annually by resolution of the City Council (c) One hundred (100) percent of the fees required by this Section shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit (d) Fees paid as a result of new residential projects shall be based upon the total number and size of the residential units which are to be constructed (e) Common interest developments created through the conversion of existing residential housing shall either make available ten (10)percent of all the units in the project to low- and moderate-income households, or pay an in-lieu fee as calculated in Section 9660 2(b) 9660 3 Off-Site Construction of Affordable Units Developers of residential projects of three (3) or more units may provide the required affordable housing off-site, at one or several sites Application materials for the off-site project shall be filed concurrently with application materials for the primary project The Commission shall review the off-site affordable units and affirmatively find that (a) The number of units provided off-site is equal to or greater than the number required on- site (b) Off-site projects may be new construction or rehabilitation of existing non-restricted units conditioned upon being restricted to long-term affordability "At Risk" units identified in the Housing Element or mobile homes may be used to satisfy this requirement 2 4\Ord\09/22/93 (c) All affordable off-site housing shall be constructed or rehabilitated prior to or concurrently with the primary project and final approval of the project shall be contingent on completion and final approval of the affordable units 9660 4 Incentives for Providing Affordable Housing The incentives contained in this section are designed to encourage new affordable housing projects that are not subject to Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9637 et seq, relating density bonus and other incentives In order to encourage the construction of housing affordable to low- and moderate-income households and in order to encourage new construction of affordable housing, various density bonuses shall be permitted They shall take into account the underlying zoning, the need for specialized types of housing and the particular operating needs of non profit housing providers It is the intent of these provisions to provide maximum design flexibility while still maintaining high quality design standards in exchange for affordable housing (a) No density bonus may be used in conjunction with a project paying a fee in lieu of providing affordable units No density bonus may be used with or added to another density bonus 1 The Planning Commission may grant, with appropriate findings, a density increase of at least twenty-five (25) percent above the maximum density allowed by the underlying zoning if the project complies with Section 9637 et seq of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, relating to density bonus and other incentives (b) The Planning Commission may grant a density bonus equal to fourteen (14) more units per acre than that allowed by the underlying zoning, in R2 and R3 zoning districts, provided the project complies with all of the following criteria 1 The project's exterior elevations are designed to be compatible with and complement the scale and character of the adjoining lands uses, 2 The project is restricted to the maximum height allowed by the underlying zoning, 3 Any traffic impact directly attributable to the density bonus is mitigated, and 4 All of the bonus units are permanently dedicated to low- and moderate-income persons and/or older residents as defined by the Government Code (c) The Planning Commission may grant a density bonus equal to fifty (50) percent of the maximum amount allowed density in R3 and R4 zoning districts if fifty (50) percent of all of the units in the project are permanently dedicated to low- and moderate-income persons or a bonus equal to 100 percent of all of the units in the R3 or R4 zoning districts if 100 percent of all of the units in the project are permanently dedicated to low- and moderate-income persons if the project complies with the following criteria 3 4\Ord\09/22/93 I The project's exterior elevations shall be designed to be compatible with and complement the scale and character of the adjoining land uses (d) Residential projects that offer 50% of the units to persons and households earning between 80% - 100% of the Orange County Median Income as defined by HUD for a period of 30 years may be eligible for a reduction in development standards as follows 1 Site coverage seventy-five (75) percent, 2 Common open space maximum seventy (70) percent reduction if replaced by private open space (roof decks may be used to satisfy a portion of this requirement) 3 Minimum unit size studio - 300 square feet one (1) bedroom - 450 square feet two (2) bedroom- 800 square feet 4 Density A floor area ratio of 1 0 may be substituted for units per acre 9660 5 Miscellaneous Provisions (a) The conditions of approval for any project which requires affordable units shall specify the following items 1 The density bonus being provided 2 The number of affordable units, 3 The number of units at each applicable sales price or rent level as related to Orange County Median Income and 4 A list of any other incentives offered by the City (b) An Atfordable Housing Agreement shall be executed between the applicant and the City prior to issuance of building permits outlining all aspects of the affordable housing provisions 1 Prior to issuance of building permits in a project requiring an in-lieu fee, the applicant shall execute and record an Agreement to pay an Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee 4 4\Ord\09/2')/93 (c) All affordable on-site units in a project shall be constructed concurrently with or prior to the construction of the market rate units unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission through a phasing plan (d) All affordable units shall be reasonably dispersed throughout the project unless otherwise designed through a master plan, shall contain on average the same number of bedrooms as the market rate units in the project, and shall be comparable with the market rate units in terms of exterior appearance, materials and finished quality (e) In the event a phased project is approved by the City, required affordable units shall be provided equally within each phasing (f) Affordable Housing Trust Funds shall be used primarily for projects which have a minimum of fifty (50)percent of the dwelling units affordable to low- and moderate- income households with at least twenty (20)percent of the units available to low-income households All units which obtain Affordable Housing Trust Funds shall maintain the affordability of the units for a minimum of 30 years The funds may, at the discretion of the City Council, be used for pre development costs, land or air rights acquisition, rehabilitation, land write downs, administrative costs gap financing, or to lower the interest rate of construction loans or permanent financing (g) In a project which includes market rate units Affordable Housing Trust Fund monies shall only be provided to assist in the acquisition and construction of those units affordable to low- and moderate income households Units which have received City financial subsidy or other incentive of equal financial value may not be used as credit to satisfy other affordable housing obligations (h) New affordable units shall be occupied in the following manner 1 If residential rental units are being demolished and the existing tenant(s) meets the eligibility requirements, he/she shall be given the right of first refusal to occupy the affordable unit(s) or 2 If there are no qualified tenants, or if the qualified tenant(s) chooses not to exercise the right of first refusal, or if no demolition of residential rental units occurs, then qualified households or buyers will be selected from the City's affordable housing waiting list 9660 6 Sale of Affordable Units Affordable units shall be sold at prices affordable to low- or moderate-income households at a price that will result in the total annual debt service (including taxes, utilities association dues) shall not exceed the standard established by HUD for the County of Orange Affordable units must first be offered to eligible buyers "Lower income" affordable units shall be rented at a price that is affordable to a household whose income is sixty- five (65) percent of median income 5 4\Ord\09/22/93 SECTION 2 That this ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1993 Mayor ATTEST APPROVED AS TO FORM City Clerk rty ttorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED INITIATED AND APPROVED Ir e2a.,2 aA4� City Administrator Direct d{of Community Development J 6 4\Ord\09/22/93 AT &4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON 13EACH INTER DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO File FROM Susan Pierce Associate Plr n r SUBJECT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM NO 91-32 DATE March 1, 1993 Applicant City of Huntington Beach Request Adoption of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Update and Revision Location City-Wide Background The Environmental Assessment Committee reviewed the environmental assessment form noted above on September 25, 1991 and determined that a negative declaration may be filed for the pro]ect In view of this , a draft negative declaration was prepared and was published in the Daily Pilot for a thirty (30) day public review period commencing October 1, 1991 and ending October 30 , 1991 All written comments regarding the draft negative declaration are contained in the EA 91-32 file The Draft Negative Declaration was never acted on, as the revised Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code continued to be reviewed and amended by staff As a result, a revised draft negative declaration was prepared and published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a thirty (30) day public comment period commencing Thursday, March 4 , 1993 and ending Monday, April 5 , 1993 Copies of the revised draft negative declaration were directly distributed to all parties which commented on the original document, as well as to the State Clearinghouse Recommendation The Environmental Assessment Committee recommends that the Planning Commission approve Negative Declaration No 91-32 finding that the proposed pro]ect will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment SP JO 1p ( 6069d) EA yi 3�- ATTACHMENT NO a LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission for their consideration The Draft Negative Declaration will be available for public review and comment for thirty (30) days commencing Thursday, March 4 , 1993 Draft Negative Declaration No 91-32 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with adoption of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Update and Revision A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development, City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California Any person wishing to comment on the request may do so in writing within thirty (30) days of this notice by providing written comments to the Department of Community Development, Planning Division, P 0 Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ( 6009d) l + i 3 l- Z ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO 91-32 1 Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach Address 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Phone Number (714) 536-5271 2 Date Checklist Submitted for Review September 25 1991 Revised and Recirculated February 19 1993 3 Concurrent Entitlement(s) N/A 4 Protect Location Citywide 5 Protect Description Adoption of the City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Update and Revision For description and background on the proposed update and revision see Attachment #1 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection ) Yes Maybe No 1 Earth Will the proposal result in a Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is involved adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in or create unstable earth conditions or result in changes to geologic substructures b Disruptions displacements compaction or overcovering of the so,17 _ X Discussion Because no site development is involved adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in any disruptions displacements compaction of overcovering of soil FA3�- 5 1 f Yes Maybe No c Change in topography or ground surface relief features' Discussion The proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code revisions do not consist of any development Therefore adoption of the document will not result in changes to topography or ground surface relief features d The destruction covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features' _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is involved in the proposed project no destruction covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features will occur e Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils either on or off the sites _ _ X Discussion No site development is involved in the proposed project which would alter soils through wind or water erosion f Changes -in deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake' — — X Discussion No changes will occur which would result ,n the deposition or erosion of beach sands or changes in siltation deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any inlet or lake 9 Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes landslides mudslides ground failure or similar hazards? _ _ _X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in the exposurt of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes landslides mudslides ground failure or similar hazards *Note (a-g) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some earth impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 2 Air Will the proposal result in a Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ _ X Discuss-ion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will allow for a change in density requirements in the existing residential zones which may impact air emissions Under the proposed zoning designation of RM RMH and RH residential areas will be developed at a slightly lower density Townlot and Oldtown areas redesignated as RMH-A may be developed at a slightly higher density based on lot area rather than lot frontage as allowed by current code However it should be noted that the TLSP and OTSP areas are predominantly developed (approximately 961) and currently contain approximately 5 200 residential units (based upon unit counts conducted in the spring of 1989) Projected development under the proposed RMH-A zoning assuming 1007' recycling of the developed areas and buildout of the existing 47' of vacant land would allow for development of a total of Environmental Checklist -2- �J(1827D) 6, Yes Maybe No approximately 6 500 residential units Development of this degree would be a worse case scenario and would necessitate a resubdivision of the entire area as well as demolition of all structures many which are single family dwelling recently constructed Due to the large degree of single family development existing in the area increases in density resulting from development of infill lots under the proposed zoning code is anticipated to be negligible Therefore any additional air emissions generated by the additional density permitted under the proposed zoning code are anticipated to be negligible Furthermore although subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some air quality impacts impacts will be project/site specific and will be — subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to adequate environmental protection b The creation of objectionable odors _ _ X_ Discussion No site development is proposed as part of the project therefore adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in the creation of objectionable odors However ,t is possible that future development under the provisions of the proposed ordinance code may result in the generation of odor impacts Such odor generation impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the entitlement process and subsequent environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts if any and mitigation measures if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection c Alteration of air movement moisture or temperature or any change in climate either locally or regionally — _ X Discussion Air movements will not be altered in addition no changes in moisture temperature and climate (either locally or regionally) will occur if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted as proposed 3 Water Will the proposal result in a Changes in currents or the course of direction of water movements in either marine or fresh waters' X Discussion Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements will not occur if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted as no physical development is proposed which will alter such features b Changes in absorption rates drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ _ X Discussion No change in absorption rates drainage patterns or runoff will occur if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted since no physical development has been included c Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters' X Discussion No changes to the course or flow of flood waters will occur as the result of the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code The proposed code has altered provisions for development within floodplain areas Floodplain development will be subject to higher standards and construction requirements identified by the Federal Flood Insurance Program established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and recommended by the California Department of Water Resources Environmental Checklist —3— (1827D) 7 Yes Mavbg No d Change in the amount of surface water in any water body _ X Discussion As no site development is involved no changes will occur in the anjount of surface water in a water body e Discharge into surface waters or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to temperature dissolved oxygen or turb,dity7 _ — X Discussion No direct impacts to surface waters or surface water quality are anticipated to result if proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted f Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters' _ _ X Discussion The direction or rate of flow of ground waters will not be affected if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted as no physical development is included 9 Change in the quantity of ground waters either through direct additions or withdrawals or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations' — _ X Discussion Although project adoption will not result in changes to the quant ty or quality of ground waters future facilities which are constructed under the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code could result in physical changes to the environment Future development projects will be subject to future env ronmental review to determine the nature and extent of any potential impact and appropriate mitigation measures h Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies' Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will allow for a change in density requirements in the existing residential areas which may increase water usage Under the proposed zoning designation of RM RMH and RH will be developed at a slightly lower density and TLSP-B and OTSP-2 areas redesignated as RMH-A may be developed at a slightly higher density based on lot area rather than lot frontage as allowed by current code However it should be noted that the TLSP and OTSP areas are predominantly developed (approximately 96%) and currently contain approximately 5 200 residential units (based upon unit counts conducted in the spring of 1989) Projected development under the proposed RMH-A zoning assuming 1007' recycling and buildout of the area would allow for development of approximately 6 500 residential units Development of this degree would be a worse case scenario and would necessitate a resubdivision of the entire area as well as demolition of all structures many which are single family dwelling recently constructed Due to the large degree of single family development existing in the area increases in density resulting from development of ,nfill lots under the proposed zoning code is anticipated to be negligible Therefore any additional air emissions generated by the additional density permitted under the proposed zoning code are anticipated to be negligible Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some water usage impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to adequate environmental protection Environmental Checklist -4- (1827D) J Yes Maybe No I Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ _ X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in the exposure of people or property to water—related hazards (e g flooding or tidal waves) See 3c *Note (a-0 Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance rode may result in some water impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 4 Plant Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species or number of any species of plants (including trees shrubs grass crops and aquatic plants)? _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is involved neither changes in the diversity of species nor deterioration of vegetation will occur with the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code b Reduction of the numbers of any mature unique rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is involved reduction of the numbers of any unique or rare or endangered species of plants will not occur if the project is approved c Introduction of new species of plants into an area or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species' _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is involved no new species of plant or barriers to replenishment of existing plant species will result with the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code d Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? X Discussion Because no site development is involved a reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop will not result from the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code *Note (a—d) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some plant impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 5 Animal Life Will the proposal result in a Change in the diversity of species or numbers of any species of animals (birds land animals including reptiles fish and shellfish benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X Discussion Since no site development is proposed neither changes in the diversity of species nor number of any species of animals will occur with the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code Environmental Checklist —5— Fy /� S (1827D) Yes Maybe No b Reduction of the numbers of any unique rare or endangered species of animals' _ _ X Discussion Since no site development is proposed reduction of the numbers of any unique or rare or endangered species of animals will not occur with the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code c Introduction of new species of animals into an area or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals° _ _ X Discussion Since no site development is proposed no new species of animals or barriers to migration of existing animal species will result with the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code d Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitats _ _ X Discussion Since no site development is proposed no deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat will result from the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code *Note (a-d) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some animal impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 6 Noise Will the proposal result in a Increases in existing noise levels — _X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will allow for a change in density requirements in the existing residential zones which may result in an increase in noise generation and impact noise levels Under the proposed zoning designation of RMH-A TLSP and OTSP areas may be developed at a slightly higher density based on lot area rather than lot frontage as currently permitted residential areas with the proposed zoning designation of RM RMH and RH will be developed at a slightly lower density However it should be noted that the TLSP and OTSP areas are predominantly developed (approximately 967) and currently contain approximately 5 200 residential units (based upon unit counts conducted in the spring of 1989) Projected development under the proposed RMH-A zoning assuming 1007' recycling and buildout of the area would allow for development of approximately 6 500 residential units Development of this degree would be a worse case scenario and would necessitate a resubdivision of the entire area as well as demolition of all structures many which are single family dwelling recently constructed Due to the large degree of single family development existing in the area increases in density resulting from development of infill lots under the proposed zoning code is anticipated to be negligible Therefore any additional air emissions generated by the additional density permitted under the proposed zoning code are anticipated to be negligible Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result ,n some noise impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to adequate environmental protection Environmental Checklist -6- (1827D) /G� Yes Maybe No b Exposure of people to severe noise levels' _ _ X Discussion See 6a 7 Light and Glare Will the proposal produce new light or glare' _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is involved adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in the exposure of people to new light or glare Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some light and glare impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to adequate envirormental protection 8 Land Use Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an areal _ _ X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code does not propose any substantial changes to land uses allowed in the city however the revised code will allow for a change in density requirements in the existing residential areas which may impact air emmissions Under the proposed zoning designations of RM RMH and RH will be developed at a slightly lower density and TLSP and OTSP areas redesignated as RMH—A will be developed at a slightly higher density based on lot area rather than lot frontage as permitted under the existing code However it should be noted that the TLSP and OTSP areas are predominantly developed (approximately 967) and currently contain approximately 5 200 residential units (based upon unit counts conducted in the spring of 1989) Projected development under the proposed RMH—A zoning assuming 1007' recycling and buildout of the area would allow for development of approximately 6 500 residential units Development of this degree would be a worse case scenario and would necessitate a resubdivision of the entire area as well as demolition of all structures many which are single family dwelling recently constructed Due to the large degree of single family development existing in the area increases in density resulting from development of inf,ll lots under the proposed zoning code is anticipated to be negligible Therefore any additional air emissions generated by the additional density permitted under the proposed zoning code are anticipated to be negligible 9 Natural Resources Will the proposal result in a Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources' - _ X b Substantial depletion of any non—renewable natural resource' _ _ X Discussion The proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code does not propose any alteration to development standards which will result in any noticeable change in the use of non—renewable or natural resources Furthermore since no site development is included adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in an increase in the use of natural resources such as energy water and raw materials Environmental Checklist —7— (1827D) Yes Maybe No 10 Risk of Upset Will the proposal involve a A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to oil pesticides chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions' — _ X Discussion Since no site development is included adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in any risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances in the event of an accident or upset condition b Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan' _ X Discu lion Because no development is included adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan *Note (a-b) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some risk of upset impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 11 Population Will the proposal alter the location distribution density or growth rate of the human population of an area' _ X Discussion The proposed ordinance code will allow for minor increases in density in areas currently designated as the Townlot and Oldtown Districts however since these areas are primarily built out location distribution density and growth rate of the human population are anticipated to be negligible 12 Housing Will the proposal affect existing housing or create a demand for additional housing' _ X Discussion The adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not have an impact upon the existing housing and will not result in creating a demand for additional housing 13 Transportation/Circulation Will the proposal result in a Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement' X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will allow for a change in density requirements ,n the existing residential areas which may result in an -increase in traffic Under the proposed zoning designation of RMH-A TLSP and OTSP areas may be developed at a slightly higher density based on lot area rather than lot frontage as allowed under the current zoning code RM RMH and RH will be deveoped at a slightly lower density However it should be noted that the TLSP and OTSP areas are predominantly developed (approximately 96%) and currently contain approximately 5 200 residential units (based upon unit counts conducted in the spring of 1989) Projected development under the proposed RMH-A zoning assuming 1007' recycling and buildout of the area would allow for development of approximately 6 500 residential units Development of this degree would be a worse case scenario and would necessitate a resubdivision of the entire area as well as demolition of all structures many which are single family dwelling recently constructed Due to the large degree of single family development existing in the area increases in density resulting from development of infill lots under the proposed zoning code is anticipated to be negligible Therefore any additional air emissions generated by the additional density permitted under the proposed zoning code are anticipated to negligible Environmental Checklist -8- (18270) / Z Yes Maybe No b Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new off—site parking, _ _ X Discussion The proposed zoning and ordinance code does not include any amendments to the existing parking ratios or parking design requirements Therefore no impacts to parking are anticipated c Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems' _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is proposed no impacts to the existing transportation facilities are anticipated to result from adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance d Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods' _ _ X Discussion Since no site development is included neither present patterns of circulation nor the movement of people and/or goods will be affected if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted e Alterations to waterborne rail or air traffic' _ _ X Discussion Since no site development is included no waterborne rail or air traffic will be affected by adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code f Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles bicyclists or pedestrians' _ _ X Discussion Since no site development is included no hazards to motor vehicles bicyclists or pedestrian will not occur if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted *Note (a—f) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some traffic/circulation impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 14 Public Services Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas a Fire protection' i _ X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will have no effect upon or result in the need for new or altered fire protection services b Police protection' _ X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will have no effect upon or result in the need for new or altered police protection services c Schools' X Discussion No new school facilities will be required if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted Environmental Checklist —9— (1827D) �3 Yes Maybe No d Parks or other recreational facilities' X Discussion No new parks and recreation facilities will be required if the proposed zoning and subdivis, ordinance code is adopted e Maintenance of public facilities including roads' _ _ X Discussion No impacts are anticipated upon the maintenance of public facilities or roads as a result of the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code f Other governmental services' _ _ X Discussion No impacts to other governmental facilities are anticipated as the result of the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code *Note (a-f) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some public service impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsecuent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 15 Energy Will the proposal result in a Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy' X Discussion No substantial increases in demand upon existing sources of energy or requirements for the development of new sources of energy are anticipated as a result of the adoption of the proposed zoning a subdivision ordinance code b Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy or require the development of sources of energy? _ _ X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in the use of abnormally high amounts of fuel or energy *Note (a-b) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some energy impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 16 Utilities Will the proposal result in a need for new systems or substantial alterations to the following utilities a Power or natural gasp _ X Discussion The adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not create the demand for additional power (i a electricity) or natural gas Environmertal Checklist -10- (1827D) Yes Maybe No b Communication systems? _ _ _ X Discussion No new demand for conwnunication systems will be created if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted c Water? X Discussion No new demands for domestic water will be created if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted d Sewer or septic tanks' _ _ X Discussion No new demands for sewer facilities or septic tanks will be created if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted e Storm water drainage' _ _ X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not necessitate new storm water drainage improvements f Solid waste and disposal's _ _ X Discussion No new demands for solid waste disposal facilities will be created if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted *Note (a-f) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some utility impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection 17 Human Health Will the proposal result in a Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ _ X Discussion The creation of potential health hazards physical or mental will not result from the adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code b Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ _ X Discussion Adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards Note (a-b) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some human health impacts However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection Environmental Checklist -11- (1827D) Yes Maybe No 18 Aesthetics Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? Discussion Future development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may be located on sites which result in potential impacts to the aesthetic environment However development of such facilities will be subject to the entitlement process and additional environmental review Subsequent environmental documentation will fully analyze the potential impacts and identify appropriate mitigation measures prior to adoption of the projects No significant averse aesthetic impacts are — anticipated 19 Recreation Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities' _ _ X Discussion The proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will not create any impact upon the quality or quantity o' existing recreational opportunities 20 Cultural Resources a Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site' _ _ X Discussion Because no site development is included no alteration or destruction of archaeological prehistoric or historic sites will occur as a result of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code adoption b Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building structure or object' Discussion Because no site development is included no effects physical or aesthetic are anticipated to occur as a result of adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code c Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X Discussion Because no physical development is included no unique ethnic cultural values are anticipated to be affected as the result of adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code d Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact areas _ _ X Discussion No known existing religious or sacred uses will be impacted as a result of adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code *Note (a—d) Subsequent development under the provisions of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code may result in some impacts to archeological or cultural resources However impacts will be project/site specific Subsequent development projects will be subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) As such projects which have a potential to result in significant adverse environmental impacts will be subject to environmental review to determine the nature and extent of potential impacts and any mitigation if necessary to ensure adequate environmental protection knvrronmental Checklist —12— (1827D) T fl it 3 Yes Maybe No 21 Mandatory Findings of Significance a Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment sub— stdntially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory' _ _ X Discussion As presented in the environmental analysis the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code does not consist of any development and will not have any impact on plant or animal species b Does the project have the potential to achieve short—term to the disadvantage of long—term environmental goals' (A short—term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief definitive period of time while long—term impacts will endure well into the future ) _ _ X Discussion As presented in the environmental analysis adoption of the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code will allow for minor alterations to density requirements in the existing TLSP—A & B and OTSP 1 & 2 zones However over the long—term the new zoning code will effectively reduce the number of units in the area No significant adverse impacts are anticipated c Does the project have impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively consid— erable' (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant ) _ _ X Discussion Cumulative impacts associated with the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code are not significant d Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or indirectly' _ _ X Discussion Provisions of revised code do not alter development standards ,n any way which will impact animal/plant species No significant adverse effects are anticipated to occur to human beings either directly or indirectly if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted Environmental Checklist —13— (1827D) /! 3 / DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment there will not be a significant effect ,n this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required 1 Date Signature For City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department s Fnvironmental Checklist —14— C f1 // �J (1827D) �n ATTACHMENT #1 Project Description Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Update and Revision Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach, California The City of Huntington Beach is proposing a comprehensive update and revision to its Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Since 1946, when the Zoning Ordinance Code was originally adopted, a myriad of amendments and section rewrites have occurred in a patchwork fashion to respond the changing City objectives, State laws and court cases As a result, contradictory provisions have developed making the Ordinance difficult to implement and enforce In order to resolve previous interpretation, application and enforcement problems , the City has commissioned a comprehensive update and revision of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Codes The proposed code revision simplifies the content of the Zoning Ordinance Code by identifying and eliminating inconsistencies and ambiguities, adding charts and diagrams, and reformatting the information by utilizing various print fonts and styles The proposed code revisions fall into one of ( 6) six categories These six categories include Reorganization of Regulations, Reorganization of Use Classifications, Renaming and/or Consolidation of Base Zoning Districts and Overlay Districts, Streamlining of Administrative Procedures, Updates to Subdivision Provisions to bring the code into conformance with State law Each of these changes have been summarized below Reorganization of Regulations The proposed Zoning Ordinance has been reorganized into six sections for incorporation into the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code A brief description of each section is contained below Title 20 General Provisions - establishes the overall organization and applicability of the regulations and includes Definitions and Use Classifications Title 21 Base District - specifies the land uses permitted or conditionally permitted in each residential, commercial , industrial, public, and open-space zoning district, and includes special requirements, if any, that are applicable to specific uses Base-district regulations also include development standards to control the height, bulk, location and appearance of structures on development sites and requirements for landscaping and parking r Title 22 Overlay District - modifies base-district provisions for specific purposes, such as oil production, flood protection, high-rise buildings, neighborhood conservation, planned block development or the coastal zone Title 23 Provisions Applying in All Districts - includes supplemental site-development standards, parking and loading requirements, signs, mobile home park conversions, condominium conversions and nonconforming uses and structures Title 24 Administration - contains detailed procedures for the administration of the zoning ordinance, including requirements for design review, conditional use permits and variances , development agreements, amendments to the ordinance and zoning map, appeals of zoning decisions, and enforcement Title 25 Subdivision - contains procedures for implementation of the Subdivision Map Act, including parcel maps and subdivision maps, vesting tentative maps, dedication and improvements , and administrative requirements Reorganization of Use Classifications The proposed Zoning Ordinance utilizes use classification titles to describe groups of similar uses rather than attempt to specifically list all uses that might be permitted as-of-right or with a conditional use permit, as is done in the existing code The classification titles provide for administrative determination for the most appropriate category for unlisted uses Renaming/Consolidation of Base Zoning and Overlay Districts The proposed zoning ordinance renames and/or consolidates the existing 22 base zoning districts into the 13 base districts identified in the attachment A Streamlining of Administrative Procedures The proposed zoning ordinance includes revised provisions for administrating the zoning regulations The revisions are intended to simplify and consolidate procedures for environmental review, conditional use permits, variances, design review, appeals, amendments and enforcement and consist of the following changes Conditional Exceptions Provisions for the conditional exception in the current ordinance have been replaced with provisions for Variances This term is more familiar to the public and development community -2- (1835D) 7�� Zoning Permit New regulations are proposed for zoning permits and preliminary plan review The zoning permit would serve as a "check" for compliance with the zoning regulations This is done in practice prior to issuance of building permits , but it may be useful to identify a separate procedure to avoid any loopholes, such as a new or expanded use that does not require a building permit The zoning permit could be called a ' zoning certificate to convey the fact that it is a ministerial permit, not a discretionary permit Public Notice Requirements Notice requirements for public hearings are simplified by reference to state law References to the appropriate Government Code sections are declatory of existing law Additional notice may be given at the direction of the hearing body Procedure for notices, hearings, decisions and appeals are combined into one chapter Coastal Development Permits Proposed regulations for Coastal Development Permit procedures primarily follow existing requirements Exemptions and categorical exclusions have been reorganized and streamlined Policies have been eliminated from Definitions section Subdivisions Changes have been made to the subdivision provisions to make conform to state law and to facilitate administration Statutory Time Limits The Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator has 50 days from the time of the acceptance of the tentative map to act on the tentative map If an EIR is prepared, the decision is to be made 45 days after certification of the EIR If there is a negative declaration adopted or a determination that the project is exempt from the requirements of Division 13 of the Public 13 of the Public Resources Code, the decision shall be made 50 days after said action Maps Procedures applicable to tentative tract maps and tentative parcel maps have been combined The Zoning Administrator may act on Tentative Parcel Maps and Tentative (tract) Maps with 9 or less parcels The Planning Commission will review and act on maps creating 10 or more parcels Final Map and Parcel Map procedures likewise have been combined The City Engineer is authorized to give final approval for Parcel Maps, City Council action will be required only for Final Maps -3- ( 1835D) Fi91/ Dedications and Reservations The requirements for dedication have been detailed Current parkland dedication and in-lieu fee formulas are included as well as provisions addressing local transit facilities, solar easements, supplemental improvements, and collection of development fees Improvement Standards Adopting standard engineering specifications and standard drawings separately rather than including all specifications within the subdivision ordinance is proposed The chapter identifies when, where and what improvements are required as a pre-requisite for final or parcel map approval Mergers . Correction and Amendments of Maps A distinct section on parcel mergers and unmergers has been included Procedures include lot line adjustments and the recordation of a covenant to Hold-as-One-Parcel ' Appeals Appeals would be processed under the general provisions established in Chapter 248 FN %i 3 -4- (1835D) 2l ATTACHMENT A Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District District Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development in Designations Names Standards Density Base Zoning Districts 1 RL Low Density Residential R1 Low Density Residential Delete open space requirement None reduce garage setback to 20 feet 2 RM Medium Density Residential R2 Med Density Residential Replace building separation w/court Reduction in all multi—family same standards see density to RMH & RH for additional changes bring zoning density based on net lot area into confo mance with General Plan 1 unit per 2 904 sq ft 3 RMH Med—High Density Residential R3 Med—High Density Res Upperstory setback, change in Reduction in review body Open space based on 25% density to of floor area and RM items bring zoning into conformance with General Plan l unit per 1 742 sq ft T yti Ca+ N i Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District District Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development in Designations Names Standards Density 6 —PBD Planned Block Development N/A Newly established to allow large sites N/A flexibility in development standarads 7 —H High Rise —MS Multi—Story Changes setback requirements includes N/A upperstory setback when adjacent to R district 8 —MHP Mobilehome —MH Mobilehome Overlay None N/A r� (18181 .r• 1 Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District District Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development in Designations Names Stardards Density Overlays 1 —0 01 Oil Production —0 01 Oil District None N/A 2 —CZ Coastal Zone —CZ Coastal Zone Condensed removes site specific N/A requirements 3 —FP1 —FP2 —FP3 Floodplain —FP1 —FP2 Floodplain Incorporates higher standards required N/A —FP3 and/or recommended by CA Water Resources Dept elevate or floodproof 1 ft above base flood elevation 4 —IS Interim Study LU Limited Use District Proposed as overlay rather than N/A base district application of base zone will comply with General Plan expires in 2 years 5 —NC Neighborhood Conservation N/A Newly established to allow property N/A owners to initiate programs to revitalize and conserve their neighborhoods Z Ln —7— (1818D i Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District District Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development ,n Designations Names Standards Density 13 SP Specific Plan PD Planned Development Deletes PD suffix None Specific Plans Establishes procedures for development of a specific plan project Ellis—Goldenwest SP None will remain as separate document None Holly—Seacliff SP None will remain as separate document None Downtown SP None will remain as separate document None Meadowlark Specific Plan None will remain as separate document None Seabridge Specific Plan None will remain as separate document None Seacliff Specific Plan None will remain as separate document None North Hunt Center SP Will be removed from ordinance None code and retained as separate document Pacifica Community Plan Will be removed fron ordinance None code and retained as separate document Magnolia Pacific Specific Plan None will remain as separate document None Z� �^ —6— Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Propc -d Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District District Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development in Designations Names Standards Density 12 PS Public—Semipublic CF—E Community Facility—Educ Designation applies to flood control N/A channels Edison right—of—way schools CF—C Community Facility—Civic churches etc PS required for 2 acres N/A or more otherwise base and overlay standards applicable to the site 1 _�_ (1818D) Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District District Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development in Designations Names Standards Densil-y 10 IL Limited Industrial M1—A Restricted Manufacturing Adds FAR allows group residential Limited to subject to Planning Commission approval housing for on— site workers 11 OS Open Space With 4 subdistricts as follows OS—WR Open Space—Water Rec WR Water Recreation None N/A OS—C Open Space—Conservation CC Coastal Conservation Suf None N/A OS—PR Open Space—Parks & Rec CF—R Community Facility—Rec Will require zone change if park N/A no longer needed and declared ROS Recreational Open Space surplus OS—S Open Space—Shoreline S1 Shoreline None N/A (1818 D) u Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District District Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development in Designations Names Standards Density 5 RMP Manufactured Home Park MH Mobile Home None None MFH Manufactured Home Suffix Deleted existing section N/A violates State law 6 CO Commercial Office OP Office Professional Adds floor area ratio upper story N/A setback and building design standards 7 CG General Commercial Cl Neighborhood Commercial Eliminated None C2 Community Business C2 & C4 Consolidated reduces and changes setback requirements deletes site angle requirements see CO C4 Highway Commercial 8 CV Visitor Commercial VSC Visitor Serving Comm To encourage pedestrian access None setback eliminated see CO and CG 9 IG General Industrial M1 Light Manufacturing Combined increased lot size Limited to adds FAR allows group residential housing for on— M2 Industrial subject to Planning Commission approval site workers �1 ,J asp y_ (18180) u. Proposed Proposed Existing Existing Proposed Major Proposed Base Zoning & Base Zoning & District Uistrict Changes in Changes Overlay District Overlay District Designations Names Development in Designations Names Standards Density RMH—A Medium—High Density OTSP-1 & 2 Oldtown Specific Plan Combine into 1 d1c+n ct Density allowed (Subdistrict) Residential—Small Lot Districts Land 2 no open space requirement for sfd on parcels 50 density based on net lot area rather feet or greater TLSP—A B Townlot Spec Plan than site frontage reduce Oldtown currently exceeds Sections A and B front yard to Townlot standard of General Plan and 12 feet should be medium high density will require GPA to correct density 1 unit per 1 900 sq ft 4 RH High Density Residential R4 High Density Residential Same as RM, RMH Reduction is density to bring zoning into conformance with General Plan 1 unit per 1 244 sq ft W � G (18180) RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FOR DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 91-32 I INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Draft Negative Declaration No 91-32 This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Draft Negative Declaration as of May 11, 1992 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines This document contains five sections In addition to this Introduction, these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, and Appendix A The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of April 5, 1993 The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Draft Negative Declaration Based on the information contained in the public record the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project II PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Draft Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Draft Negative Declaration The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Draft Negative Declaration 1 A cover letter and copies of the Draft Negative Declaration were filed with the State Clearinghouse on September 27, 1991 The State Clearinghouse assigned Clearinghouse Number 9109101 to the proposed project A copy of the cover letter and the State Clearinghouse distribution list is available for review and inspection at the City of Huntington Beach, Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648 RT c r 2 An official thirty (30) day public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration was established by the State Clearinghouse It began on September 27, 1991 and ended on October 28, 1991 Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through October 30, 1991 3 Notice of the Draft Negative Declaration was published _ in the Daily Pilot on October 1, 1991 Upon request, copies of the document were distributed to agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals 4 The Draft Negative Declaration was never acted upon, as the revised Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code continued to be reviewed and amended by staff As a result, a revised Draft Negative Declaration was prepared and published in the Huntington Beach Independent for a 30 day comment period commencing March 4 , 1993 and ending April 5, 1993 Copies of the revised Draft Negative Declaration were directly distributed to those who commented on the original document as well as the State Clearinghouse and local school districts 5 An official thirty day (30) day public review period for the revised Draft Negative Declaration was established by the State Clearinghouse It began on March 1, 1993 and ended on March 31, 1993 Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through April 5, 1993 III COMMENTS Copies of all written comments to the revised Draft Negative Declaration received as of April 5, 1993 are contained in Appendix A of this document Only those comments which raised an environmental issue have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity All other comments are hereby acknowledged IV RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The revised Draft Negative Declaration No 91-32 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of thirty (30) days The public review period for the revised Draft Negative Declaration established by the State Clearinghouse commenced on March 1, 1993 and expired on March 31, 1993 The City of Huntington Beach accepted comment letters through April 5, 1993 Negative Declaration No 91-32 -2- ( 1872D) Copies of all documents received as of April 5, 1993 are contained in Appendix A of this report Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Draft Negative Declaration, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Such comments are responded to with a "comment noted" reference This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration Negative Declaration No 91-32 -3- (1872D) GOPR Comment The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental document to selected state agencies for review The review period is closed and none of the state agencies have comments This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Please call Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review process When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly Response Comment acknowledged SCAG Comment We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria Therefore, the project does not warrant Clearinghouse comments at this time Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time A description of the project will be published in the March 15, 1993 Intergovernmental Review Report for public review and comment The project title and SCAG number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning this project Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator If you have any questions , please contact Maureen Farley at (213) 236-1886 Response Comment Acknowledged Department of Transportation Comment Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the update and revision of the City s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Because the revision and update of the Zoning and Subdivision Code does not state the specificity of a project, Caltrans is unable to Negative Declaration _L No 91-32 - ,Zr( U (1872D) determine the impacts of any development upon State facilities Therefore, District 12 reserves its rights to comment on individual projects affected by this regulation We look forward to the implementation of this element and improving regional partnership Once again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the proposed project If clarification is needed, please communicate with Nathaniel H Pickett, 714-724-2247 or Ms Aileen Kennedy at 724-2239 Response Comment Acknowledged County of Orange - EMA Comment Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced item The County of Orange has no comment at this time However, we would appreciate being informed on any further developments If you have any questions or need to contact us, please call KAri Rigoni at (714) 834-2109 Response Comment Acknowledged DFG-1. Comment . The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the referenced document and has the following questions regarding Attachment A" under the heading of 'Proposed Major Changes in Development Standards ' 1 "Base Zoning Districts, RL Delete open space requirement, " page 1 How will this change affect the open space requirement associated with any mitigation measures designed to off-set adverse project-related impacts? Response On-site open space (private outdoor living area) for a single family dwelling in the RL district will be satisfied by compliance with site coverage and setback provisions Development of all residential projects will continue to be subjected to parkland dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees Any mitigation measures necessary to off-set adverse development specific impacts will be generated through the project entitlement process in compliance with CEQA Negative Declaration tiTC No 91-32 -5- (1872D) DF -2 Comment 2 "RMH-S, no open space requirement for sfd, " page 2 Same question posed above Response Response DFG-2 applicable to RMH-A district also DFG-3 Comment Pursuant to the Fish and Game Code Section 1802 which states that the Department has jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish and wildlife resources, we are concerned that future projects will not receive adequate mitigation measures necessary to off-set adverse project-related impacts if open space requirements are no longer required Response Open space (private outdoor living area) will be provided in all single family developments by compliance with setbacks and site coverage Both private and common outdoor living areas will be required in all multiple family projects In addition, parkland dedication and/or in lieu fees are required The proposed Zoning Code revisions will not alter the City s environmental review process Subsequent development under the proposed Zoning Code will still be subject to the CEQA process which is the City' s present means for identifying impacts and imposing adequate mitigation measures to protect and conserve fish and wildlife resources DFG-4 Comment If our concerns are adequately addressed, we will have no opposition to these updates and revisions to the City of Huntington Beach s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Response Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project Negative Declaration No 91-32 -6- (1872D) DFG-5 Comment Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this document If you have any questions, please contact Ms Cheryl Heffley, Wildlife Biologist, at (310) 694-3578 Response Comment does pertain to any environmental issue No reply is warranted CSA-1 Comment On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District ( District") , Community Systems Associates, Inc ("CSA") has been requested to provide comments on Negative Declaration No 91-32 prepared for the Update and Revision of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code ( Amendment" ) for the City of Huntington Beach ("City") Response Comment noted Comment does not pertain to any environmental issue No reply is warranted CSA-2 Comment The District received the Negative Declaration on March 3, 1993 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA' ) , comments to the Negative Declaration may be provided within 30 days of receipt of the Negative Declaration (i e , by April 2, 1993) This letter provides the District ' s comments and is intended to comply with the CEQA requirements on behalf of the District Response Comment noted Comment does not pertain to any environmental issue No reply is warranted CSA-3 Comment The District believes that the Amendment may have a significant environmental impact on the District Additionally, the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Amendment are inadequate and do not provide Negative Declaration puL No 91-32 -7- (1872D) sufficient information to appropriately evaluate the impacts of the Amendment More detailed environmental documentation, such as an environmental impact report or revised negative declaration, should be prepared to thoroughly evaluate the potential significant impacts on the Amendment on the District The environmental documentation prepared for the Amendment should also include measures to mitigate all significant impacts on the Districts Response Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project CSA-4 Comment All new residential development within the District will have a direct impact on the District The capital facilities costs to the District to accommodate students generated from new housing units is much greater than the development fees received Additionally, enrollment at all District schools is near or exceeds capacity The District has demonstrated these facts to the City in numerous previous letters Please see the attached letter sent to Mr Michael T Uberuaga dated February 12, 1993 for further detail Response Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project CSA-5. Comment Question 14 (c) , Public Facilities Schools, claims that the Amendment will not have an effect on the District "No new school facilities will be required if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted ' [page 91 Apparently this conclusion is based on the fact that some of the proposed zoning changes will allow increased densities, while others will allow reduced densities , thereby resulting in no net change For example, in the discussion of land use impacts of the Amendment, the Negative Declaration states Under the proposed zoning designations of RM, RMH and RH will be developed at a slightly lower density and TLSP and OTSP areas , redesigned as RMH-A, will be developed at a slightly higher density based on a lot area rather than lot frontage as permitted under the existing code [page 71 Negative Declaration No 91-32 -8- ( 1872D) Response The higher density proposed for the RMH-A areas will allow for approximately 6, 500 residential units To achieve this density, the entire area must be void of any structures prior to development at the higher density Because the area is 96% built out, the City does not anticipate a significant increase in student generation Natural attrition of enrollment levels due to students graduating, families relocating out of the area, etc open up space for new students In addition, the school district has several closed schools in the City which may be refurbished and reopened if necessary Specific development projects will be subject to CEQA, and any adverse project-related impacts on school facilities will be identified and mitigation measures recommended CSA-6 Comment However, the District is approximately one half the size of the City While the changes proposed may balance Citywide, it is possible that the changes within the District will result in a net increase in density The environmental documentation prepared for the Amendment should include a map displaying changes in density so it can be determined where the effects of the Amendment will occur The table in Attachment A which lists the various zoning changes should quantify the effects of each change, not simply include qualitative notes such as "reduction in density" Response A map displaying changes in zoning districts has been prepared and will be included Comment noted and will be forwarded to decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project CSA-7 Comment . Additionally, no mention is given in the Negative Declaration to the potential impacts of allowing residential development in industrial areas The Amendment would allow employee housing to be developed in both General Industrial and Limited Industrial zones Besides the typical impacts on the District of residential development, housing in industrial areas may result in increased bussing and exposure of students to health hazards District schools are located in residential neighborhoods, so students living in industrial areas would have to walk long distances or be bussed Students living in industrial areas could be exposed to unsafe air emissions, high noise levels, heavy truck traffic, and other potential safety risks Negative Declaration CTC No 91-32 -9- (1872D) Response Development of employee residential in the industrial districts will be subject to discretionary review Any adverse project-related impacts will be generated through the entitlement process in compliance with CEQA CSA-8 Comment However, Question 17, Human Health, summarily dismisses the potential health hazards of the Amendment, claiming that further environmental review will be done on a project specific basis While project specific environmental review is certainly necessary, it is not the correct level at which to evaluate the concept of allowing residential development in industrial areas Rather, the issue should be evaluated at the program level The Amendment and its environmental documentation should contain guidelines and mitigation measures for preventing the potential health hazards of allowing residential development in industrial areas Response Comment noted and will be forwarded to the decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project CSA- Comment The Amendment also proposes to change the zoning of schools from Community Facility-Education to Public-Semipublic, but does not discuss whether this is simply a name change of if it will actually alter the zoning of District facilities If this change results in additional restrictions on the use of District land, the District ' s ability to provide educational services to the community could be impacted The provisions of this zone change should be discussed in greater detail Response. School district properties are designated Community Facilities Overlay (CF-E) to identify use for publicly owned educational purposes The underlying zoning is also in effect The proposed base district Public-Semi public (PS) will continue to allow publicly-owned educational facilities as well as other public- semi-public uses Negative Declaration T-C ' No 91-32 -10- ( 1872D) CSA-10 Comment The Huntington Beach City School District and Community Systems Associates, Inc appreciate having the opportunity to provide these comments concerning Negative Declaration No 91-32 to the City of Huntington Beach If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Mr Jerry S Buchanan at (714) 964-8888, or myself at (714) 838-9900 Response. Comment does not pertain to any environmental issue No reply is warranted Negative Declaration No 91-32 -11- (1872D) STALE OF CALIFORNIA m r rrl ,1y o x /+ PETE WILSON Governor GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH 1400 TENTH STREET SACRAMENTO CA 95814 ' Mar 31, 1993 JULIE OSUGI _ CTTY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 Sub3ect NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 91-32, HUNTINGTON BEACH SCH # 91091091 Dear JULIE OSUGI <-r ti The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named environmental S, document to selected state agencies for review The review period is GLosed and none of the state agencies have comments This letter -Acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Please call Tom Loftus at (916) 445-0613 if you have -tny questions regarding the environmental review process When contacting the Clearinghouse in this matter, please use the eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may respond promptly J Sincerely, Christine Kinne Acting Deputy Director, Permit Assistance R r c A,'r'c.Al D,, PTC /') r Notice of Completion S NOTE t-I.. CLatr Clearinghousc 1-00 Tcnih Street.Sacran cnto CA 95814 916,1445 0613 SCH• e�/0 210 VI tTltle Nay,1tt,.e Declaration No 91-32 „7 Ag ncy City of Huntington Beach Cc uctP rson Sawn Pierre S Add 2000 Main Street phone 714-536-5250 I untington Beach ZP Cc my Orange P olect Location v Orange CIIY/N ar it Comm ry Huntington Beach ci wide L Stretu c a t y w l a Z p Cod Toul Acresy A or s Pu I N N/A Section Twp Rang Bue ,hin2MI SureH-ya 1 ,anrl 19 Wterwys cantA Ana R ver Hiintingtnn Harhnur A rporu Rulw s PERR Schools city wide —— ——————————————————————————————————————— Occument Type C GA ❑NOP ,LyS PPl m t/S bsei I NEPA ❑NO] Other ❑Joint Doeum nt ❑Early Cc s ❑EI R(Pn SCH No) ❑EA ❑F n I Docum i ti g Dec [i Other ❑Dfafl EIS ❑Other ❑Dr EIR ❑FONSI ————————————————————————————————————————— Lo al Action Type G al Plan L)-d 1 ❑Spec r P an ❑R zo ❑Ann action C al Plan Am d' t ❑hia_t Pla. ❑Prezon ❑R de lopm i —C al Plan El m i ❑Plan d L i D I pm t ❑Us Pam I ❑C astal Perm t Tn i Pan ❑Step n LudD uo (S bd is on jXO.h r7nninq ------ —J�� ItitPTrclMP ) subdivision update — ————————— ————————————— De lopment Type N/A d al t ❑µa F I T MGD C 91r s F, 1 eu ❑T arispo t on T pe ❑M n g Af nc ! er ❑Power T p a arr ,i u 1 ❑Wut T tiara t T p 'a _ c 1 E)Hazardo sAw Tp "T 'Oher -- -- - p a ont.l —— ——————————————————————————————————————— P o{ect I sue D cue ed in Doeum nt A ,h i N 1 Flood PI 1'Flood g nl S h 1 R.n st s n K I Qual ty J Agri 1w 1 Land Fo st Und'F re H zard ❑Sept c SVft ms g]w 21 r SUPpty/GIO ndw i r AT Q I ry G 1 g CIS m S we C Pic ty $]Al tland/R pu an Arch log c UH st al I]M als �j So 1 Er on/CompacuonlGradmg u ldl fe 4 C as al Zo \o s J]Sol d K use O CroMilt Ind ng �,X D-L gc/Absorpt _LP P 1 10 14 g B lan a O T 'Hazwdo s ]Land se r' m /lob P bl c S n c /F c l i s �j T frc/Cu 1 uon ]C mul ti e Eff u F a. R o i or✓Pa.is 'I V geutwn .Q Other ————————————————————————————————————————— P esent Land Use/Zoning,`Ceneral Plan Use Pro ect is city wide and incorporates multiple land use designations and zones --———————————————- ——————————————————————— %)ect Desc Ipllon - ` i d revisions to the City of Huntington Beaci Zoning and Subdivi- on Ordinarce erode TOE LOFTUS (S 6 5 C6 3 HT SNT LILT SNT 3 (— Resources State/Consumer Svcs a F I F A F l A 7� �Ctactel Comm A -3 jl&d Fish L Game Parks6 Rec/OHP ty — _ s O Reg WQCB &_DWR _— 1 ions PLEASE NOTE SCH NUHBER ON AI.L COMMENTS PLEASE FORWARD LATE COMENTS DIRECTLY _ TO THE LEAD AGENCY ONLY Caltrans 112, — 0—Trans Planning _ P PP C c� ces _ Housing i Devel/ _ State Lands Comm e C r4 Z i , E C E 4 V IE D MICHAEL M RUANE 4 U NTY O F j 1! +� n u I� 13 DIRECTOR EMA 2 I G THOMAS B MAT S Rom,+ �c^ - — '^` DIRECTOR OF PLA G s 3 RANGE ' LOCATION ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT AGENCY 300 N FLOWER ST PLANNING THIRD FLOOR SANTA ANA CA MAR 1 9 1993 MAILING ADDRESS P 0 BOX 4048 SANTA ANA CA 92702 4048 TELEPHONE (714)834 464 Susan Pierce,Associate Planner FILE NCL 93-14 FAX# 83427/1 City of Huntington Beach DPC 834 4 7t Department of Community Development 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT ND 91-32 - Update/Revision of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Dear Ms Pierce Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the above referenced item The y County of Orange has no comment at this time However, we would appreciate -� being informed of any further developments -r z If you have any questions or need to contact us, please call Karl Rigoni at (714) 834-2109 . J 1� Very truly yours, Kari A Rigoni, P nne For Robert W White, Manager Environmental Planning Division CH crPL02-054 (3077)3031811450496 AM AM ftl&k JOtlTHERO%CRLIFORRIARI/OCIRTIOO OF G 818 West Seventh Street,12th Floor • Los Angeles, California 90017 3435 E (213)236-1800 • FAX(213)236 1P March 3, 1993 Ms Susan Pierce Associate Planner City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE SCAG Clearinghouse # I9300139 Project Title Negative Declaration No 91-32 Update and Revision of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code Dear Ms Pierce We have reviewed the above referenced document and determined that it is not regionally significant per Areawide Clearinghouse criteria Therefore, the project does not warrant clearinghouse comments at this time Should there be a change in the scope of the project, we would appreciate the opportunity to review and comment at that time A description of the project will be published in the March 15, 1993 Intergovernmental Review Report for public review and comment The project title and SCAG number should be used in all correspondence with SCAG concerning + this project Correspondence should be sent to the attention of the Clearinghouse Coordinator Z- If you have any questions, please contact Maureen Farley at (213) 236-1886 0 f� Sincerely, b"" A a�k ERIC H ROTH Manager, Intergovernmental Review J h I ni, 11 C t)of R alto Pre d nt Gaddi Vasquez Ora ge County First Vi a Pre ident Stella Alendoza City of Brawl y Se and Vice President John Flynn Ventura County Pa I P d t s R cha d Alator e City of Lo Angeles Michael Antono ich Lo A gele County Robert Bartlett City of Monro to George Bass Cit of Bell Ronald Bales City of I o al to t ( ri a Battey Jr C ty of Bu bank Frnam Bernardi City of Lo Angeles Hal Bernson C ty of Los Angele Walter Bowman City of Cypress Tom Bradley City of Los An} I AI in Br ud City of Lo A gele Susan Brooks City of Rancho Palos Verdes Art Brown City of Buena Park Jim Busby Jr City of Victorville John Cox Cit of Newport B D ne Dan 1 A gel County Flmer Digneo City of Loma Linda Richard Dixon City of Lake Forest Douglas Drummond C ty of Long Beach John Fe raro C ty of Lo A 1> J n%l Ike Flur City of Lo Ang le Te ry Frizzel C ty of R ers de Ruth Galanter City of Los An eles Sandra Gems City of Costa Mesa Candace Haggard C ty of San Cie e ( I ind H dem n C ty of In flew) d Robert Hargra e C ty of Lom to Mike Hernandez City of Los Angeles Nate Holden City of Lo Ant,ele Robert Jamison C ty of Aries J m Is, If)( ty I S Ih I 1 M nt Ri h d Kelly City of Palm D ert Bob Kuhn City of Glendora Abbe Land C tv of West Hollywood Darlene hlcBane C ty of Agoura Hill John Melt m ( ty f S me P I Barbar Messina City of Alhambra Jon VLkels Sa i Bemardino Co my Judy hlikels City of Sim Valley Da id Myers City of Palmdale Kathryn Nack City of P d B P rry C ty f B (wenn Norton Perry City of Ch H 11 Ronald Parks C ty of Teme ula Ir Pickler Cny of A ah in Jov Ihcus Cuy of Lo Ani,ele Beatrice Proo C Iy of 1 R r 1 rry Rhmeh rt C tv I M)n( la Mark Rill v 7 h)mas C ty of Lo Ang le Albert Robles City of South Gate Sam Sharp Impenal Count B ih Stone C ty of B Iltluwer I h in tiyk s C I I w I iut J(1T 7 h imas C ty if Tu t n 1 auri Tully Payne City of H ghland J rel W achs C Iy of Lo Angel Rita Walters City of L( Ang I IFelvn N elk Cuv of I y w d VI h I N� C Iy I I N g I Judy Wright C iv of(1 i ni Ze Yarosla sky City of I o Ani_ le Norton It ounglo a Ri rside Co ty 0 STATE OF CALIFORNI%—THE RESOURCES AGENCY PETE WILSON Go erno DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME f-�, 330 GOLDEN SHORE SUITE SO � LONG BEACH CA 90802 '�,�l k310) 590-5113 March 25, 1993 F .. � uj) Ms Susan Pierce Associate Planner -f City of Huntington Beach ask- - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Ms Pierce Negative Declaration No 91-32 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code The Department of Fish and Game (Department) has reviewed the referenced document and has the following questions regarding "Attachment All under the heading of "Proposed Ma3or Changes in Development Standards" Dt C 1 "Base Zoning Districts, RL Delete open space requirement, " page 1 How will this change affect the open space requirement associated with any mitigation measures designed to off-set adverse pro3ect-related impacts'-) 2 "RMH-S, no open space requirement for sfd, " page 2 11)FL-, z Same question posed above Pursuant to the Fish and Game Code Section 1802 which states that the Department has Jurisdiction over the conservation, protection, and management of fish and wildlife resources, we are [' F6 concerned that future pro3ects will not receive adequate mitigation measures necessary to off-set adverse pro3ect-related impacts if open space requirements are no longer required If our concerns are adequately addressed, we will have no ' opposition to these updates and revisions to the City of Huntington Beach's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code k Tc A Ms Susan Pierce March 25 , 1993 Page Two Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on this IC) document If you have any questions, please contact Ms Cheryl Heffley, Wildlife Biologist, at (310) 694-3578 Sincerely, Fred Worthley Regional Manager Region 5 cc C Heffley, DFG/WLM K Lal, DFG/ES ES Files till L --;D Community Systems Assoc►ates Inc April 2 1993 HAND DELIVERED Ms Susan Pierce AICP G ' 11-0 Associate Planner CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH + r 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 SUBJECT Negative Declaration No 91-32 Update and Revision of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code for the City of Huntington Beach Dear Ms Pierce On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District ("District"), Community Systems Associates, Inc ("CSA") has been requested to provide comments on Negative C5/1 Declaration No 91-32 prepared for the Update and Revision of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code ("Amendment") for the City of Huntington Beach ("City") The District received the Negative Declaration on March 3 1993 Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), comments to the Negative Declaration may be provided within 30 days of receipt of the Negative c,,A Declaration (i e , by April 2 1993) This letter provides the District's comments and is intended to comply with the CEQA requirements on behalf of the District The District believes that the Amendment may have a significant environmental impact on the District Additionally, the Negative Declaration and Initial Study prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts of the Amendment are inadequate and do not provide sufficient information to appropriately evaluate the impacts of the Amendment More detailed environmental documentation, such as an environmental impact report or revised negative declaration should be prepared to thoroughly evaluate the potential significant impacts of the Amendment on the District The environmental documentation prepared for the Amendment should also include measures to mitigate all significant impacts on the District 1u L ( n 1 r)V11 _2uu TUSTIN CALI ORNIA 92b80 (714)835 +900 FAQ ( 1d)338 J099 Ir x _ I Cc"m Ms Susan Pierce CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH April 2 1993 Page 2 All new residential development within the District will have a direct impact on the District The capital facilities costs to the District to accommodate students generated from new housing units is much greater than the development fees received Additionally Syq �- enrollment at all District schools is near or exceeds capacity The District has demonstrated these facts to the City in numerous previous letters Please see the ` attached letter sent to Mr Michael T Uberuaga dated February 12, 1993 for further detail Question 14(c), Public Facilities Schools claims that the Amendment will not have an ' i effect on the District "No new school facilities will be required if the proposed zoning and subdivision ordinance code is adopted " [page 9] Apparently this conclusion is based on the fact that some of the proposed zoning changes will allow increased densities, while others will allow reduced densities thereby resulting in no net change For example in the discussion of land use impacts of the Amendment the Negative Declaration states i Under the proposed zoning designations of RM, RMH and RH will be developed at a slightly lower density and TLSP and OTSP areas, redesigned as RMH-A, will be developed at a slightly higher density based on a lot area rather than lot C-` frontage as permitted under the existing code [page 7] However the District is approximately one half the size of the City While the changes proposed may balance Citywide, it is possible that the changes within the District will result in a net increase in density The environmental documentation prepared for the I Amendment should include a map displaying changes in density so it can be determined �'"` where the effects of the Amendment will occur The table in Attachment A which lists the E various zoning changes should quantify the effects of each change, not simply include qualitative notes such as "reduction in density" Additionally, no mention is given in the Negative Declaration to the potential impacts of allowing residential development in industrial areas The Amendment would allow employee housing to be developed in both General Industrial and Limited Industrial i zones Besides the typical impacts on the District of residential development housing in industrial areas may result in increased bussing and exposure of students to health hazards District schools are located in residential neighborhoods so students living in industrial areas would have to walk long distances or be bussed Students living in industrial areas could be exposed to unsafe air emissions high noise levels heavy truck i traffic and other potential safety risks t However Question 17 Human Health summarily dismisses the potential health hazards of the Amendment claiming that further environmental review will be done on a project specific basis While project specific environmental review is certainly necessary it is not i i n r sr sA res 1 Ms Susan Pierce CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH April 2 1993 Page 3 the correct level at which to evaluate the concept of allowing residential development in industrial areas Rather the issue should be evaluated at the program level The Amendment and its environmental documentation should contain guidelines and mitigation measures for preventing the potential health hazards of allowing residential development in industrial areas The Amendment also proposes to change the zoning of schools from Community Facility- Education to Public-Semipublic, but does not discuss whether this is simply a name change of if it will actually alter the zoning of District facilities If this change results in C /4 additional restrictions on the use of District land the District's ability to provide educational services to the community could be impacted The provisions of this zone change should be discussed in greater detail The Huntington Beach City School District and Community Systems Associates, Inc appreciate having the opportunity to provide these comments concerning Negative Declaration No 91-32 to the City of Huntington Beach If you have any questions or require additional information please contact Mr Jerry S Buchanan at (714) 964-8888, or myself at (714) 838-9900 Sincerely, I I + COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC �7 C I John C Hutt Associate Vice President attachment l 1120plercel ich I cc Mr Jerry S Buchanan Assistant Superintendent Business Services Huntington Beach City School District i I I _ J h jc /� U A-- 0 ILtI RECEIV77D FLB 1 3 1993 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Cratmer Lane P O Box 71 Huntington Beach California 92648 (714)964 8888 February 12 , 1993 80ARD OF TRUSTEES Mr Michael T Uberuaga Shirley Carey President City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Br an Garland 2000 Main Street Clerk Huntington Beach, California 92648 Robert Mann Ed D Member Subject Mitigation of Development Impacts on the Cather ne McGough Huntington Beach City School District Member Bran E Rechsteiner Dear Mr Uberuaga Member This letter is intended to update you and the rest of ADMINISTRATION the City of Huntington Beach ("City") staff, as well as the City Council and Planning Commission, of the Duane Dshno Ed D current condition of the Huntington Beach City School Superintendent District ("District") and recent legislation concerning school impact mitigation Alan Rasmussen Ed D Ass stant Super ntendent Personnel/Educational The District remains near capacity and unable to Services adequately accommodate new students generated by Jerry Buchanan development without mitigation in excess of statutory Assistant Superintendent development fees On the bright side, the District is Bus ness Services near completion of its Capital Facilities Strategic Master Plan and Asset Management Program ("Master Plan") The Master Plan will help the District logically and efficiently plan and construct school facilities required to accommodate increasing enrollments Attached is a more detailed discussion of the District ' s facilities and the impacts of development Additionally, copies of the Master Plan will be transmitted to the City after it is adopted by the District ' s Board As you know, for the past several months the District has been challenging City approval of development projects and land use actions in an attempt to ensure adequate mitigation of the impacts of these items on the District Over the course of these months, the City and District have gained a better understanding of each other Together, we have evolved standard condition of approval language which ensures adequate mitigation of school impacts, while allowing development to proceed Similar language was made a condition of approval on the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and NESI project /6( A it Mr Michael T Uberuaga February 12 , 1993 Page 2 and has been proposed by City Staff for the Coultrup pro]ect Unfortunately, Senate Bill No 1287 ("SB 128711) has limited the methods the City and District can employ to mitigate school impacts The District believes that the basic concept of school mitigation that the City and District have been pursuing is still sound, but the condition of approval language may need to be modified somewhat The District has drafted the following modified mitigation language which it feels is legal and in the same spirit as previous City-approved condition of approval language Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer shall mitigate the impacts of the pro3ect on school facilities, using any combination of measures listed in Government Code Section 65996 or other legal means, to a level acceptable to the appropriate school district(s) for K-12 This condition may be waived by the appropriate school district(s) The District therefore requests that the City impose the proposed mitigation language as a condition of approval for all development pro3ects and land use actions Attached is a detailed discussion of the ramifications of SB 1287 Thank you for your consideration and assistance If you have any questions or desire additional information, please don't hesitate to contact me Sincerely, Jerry S Buchanan Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Huntington Beach City School District attachments cc Mayor and Members of the City Council Chairperson and Members of the Planning Commission Ms Gail Hutton, City Attorney Mr Mike Adams, Director of Community Development Mr Howard Zelefski, Planning Director Mr Hal Simmons, Planning Department Mr Jack Bowland, Chairman of GPAC City of Huntington Beach Mr Michael T Uberuaga February 12 , 1993 Page 3 cc Gary A Burgner, Ed D , Assistant Superintendent Huntington Beach Union High School District Stanley Oswalt, Ed D , Assistant Superintendent Ocean View School District Mark Ecker, Ph D , Assistant Superintendent Fountain Valley School District Ms Barbara Winars, Assistant Superintendent Westminister School District President and Members of the Board of Education Duane Dishno, Ed D , Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr Marshall B Krupp, President Community Systems Associates, Inc Mr Woody Tescher, Consultant Envicom Corporation ATTACHMENT A" TECHNICAL DOCUMENTATION State of the District The Huntington Beach City School District ( District") covers portions of the City of Huntington Beach and portions of the unincorporated areas of Orange County The District serves grades K-8 through the operation of eight (8) schools consisting of six (6) K 5 elementary school and two (2) 6-8 middle schools Additionally Lhe District maintains four (4) closed sites one of which is used as the District office Of these twelve (12) schools seven (7) are twenty years old or older and two (2) are over thirty years old The District has experienced a variety of enrollment changes over the last thirteen (13) years From 1979 to 1987 student enrollments declined at a rate of 4 2% per year However a new trend has begun starting in the 1988 school year of a gradual but modest increase in student enrollment The Districts Developer Fee Report identifies an enrollment of 5 303 students in 1987/88 This figure has increased to 5 675 students as of October of 1991 representing an average annual increase of 1 71% between 1987 - 1991 For the 1992/93 school year enrollments have increased to 5 751 students or an increase of approximately 1 34% from the previous year The District prepared an Enrollment Projections Study in February of 1992 This study predicted growth of about 2 00% per year throughout the 1990s based primarily on infill development Additionally a number of large residential developments (i e Holly- Seacliff Bolsa Chic@ Magnolia Pacific etc ) have been proposed or adopted which may cause significant additional student enrollment increases within the District The District s operating school facilities are currently facing severe capacity shortcomings necessitating the addition of portable classrooms the construction of new permanent school facilities and/or the reconstruction and expansion of existing school facilities As of October 14 1992 the Districts capacity utilization and surplus/deficit capacity can be seen as follows A - 1 ,�TTc A y 1992/93 School Year Capacity Utilization Surplus/ School Capacity Enrollment Utilization (Deficit) Eader 780 683 87 56% 97 Hawes 390 414 106 15% (24) _ Kettler 720 705 97 92% 15 Moffett 690 682 98 84% 8 Perry 540 579 107 22% (39) Smith 720 714 9917% 6 K 5 Total 3 840 3 777 98 36% 63 Dwyer 780 853 109 36% (73) Sowers 1 110 1 121 100 99% (11) 6 8 Total 1 890 1 974 104 44% (84) K 8 Total 5 730 5 751 100 37% (21) In practice students are rarely divisible into uniform class sizes and individual class enrollments tend to fluctuate over the course of the school year As such it is difficult to achieve 100% capacity utilization It is a generally accepted practice to consider school facilities to be impacted if utilization exceeds 85% Capacity utilization in excess of 100% indicates actual overcrowding of school facilities resulting in the loading of classrooms above State standards or the use of non-classrooms (i a libraries) for classroom purposes As shown above the District's facilities are currently overcrowded All subsequent enrollment increases will require expansion of District facilities The District is developing a Capital Facilities Strategic Master Plan and Asset Management Program ( Master Plan ) The preliminary draft of the Master Plan projects increases in enrollment for the next ten years with a total K 8 enrollment of 8 204 by school year 2002 03 The Master Plan projects a total K-8 enrollment of 8 636 at mid- intensity buildout To accommodate the projected enrollment growth the District will need to develop two to three additional elementary schools (Holly-Seacliff and one to two yet to be located) on the west side of the District Middle school enrollment increases are anticipated to be accommodated by reopening the Peterson School and by increasing the capacity of the Dwyer School with new permanent construction Impact of Development The Districts Development Fee Report last updated February 18 1992 determined that on average there are 0 1869 K-8 students per occupied housing unit within the District The District has found however that this number is not a good estimator of student yield from new development because it is based on the total housing stock within the District A - 2 which includes a number of senior and non-child households In 1991 Mr Clyde Glasser of the District conducted a survey of new development within the District and determined a K-8 student generation factor ("SGF") of 0 2695 This includes a K-6 component of 0 2084 and a 7-8 component of 0 611 This survey included the Town Square Pier Colony Huntington Place Seacliff Estates Ocean Point The Villas, The Huntington Classics The Heritage at Huntington Shores and Central Park developments These developments depict a representative range of housing types sizes and costs Since originally conducting the survey Mr Glasser has monitored its results and analyzed in greater detail the factors that determine student yield The results of his analyses show there are a large number of variables which influence SGFs many of which cannot be estimated before a development is planned or even built Because of this variability the District believes it is best to use an average SGF rather than factors based on different housing types sizes etc The District feels its survey determined SGF of 0 2695 is the best estimator of student generation for new development To accommodate additional students generated by development the District will need to add portable classrooms refurbish and redesign existing facilities construct additional permanent classrooms at open schools reopen one or more schools and/or develop one or more new schools The District also requires offsite support facilities such as a maintenance and operations yard The full cost of accommodating an additional student assuming land new classroom construction (70% permanent and 30% relocatable) and offsite support facilities is $21 767 for K-6 and $33 808 for 7-8 These amounts are in 1992/93 dollars Multiplying the SGF for each grade level by the District facilities cost per student for that grade level results in the total impact on the District per housing unit This equates to approximately $6 602 Based on the average size of housing units developed within the District (1 600 square feet) the impact on the District per square foot of residential development is estimated to be $4 13 However the District has certain facility and land assets which can be employed to partially offset the full impact of development perhaps the most useful of which are the Districts closed schools In order to house the projected increased student enrollments the Master Plan contains a school facilities development program This program calls for the rehabilitation of and expansion of existing schools reopening of two of the Districts closed sites and the acquisition and development of three new schools (two schools in addition to the Holly Seacliff school) Unfortunately the Districts other closed schools cannot be used to house new students because much of the new residential development will occur on the west side of the District while all the closed schools are on the east side Sending students to schools far away from their homes would violate the Districts commitment to neighborhood schools and require prohibitively expensive bussing A - 3 The total cost of this development program in 1992 dollars is estimated to be $56 350 000 The resulting cost to the District per additional housing unit would be approximately $4 612 (based upon 12 219 housing units projected to be developed within the District by mid-intensity buildout) Based on an average housing unit size of 1 600 square feet the cost to the District per square foot of residential development is estimated to be $2 88 Comparison of Impact Estimates Full Impact Master Plan Impact Impact per Housing Unit $6 601 91 $4 611 67 Impact per Square Foot 1 $4 13 $2 88 To offset the impacts described above the District is allowed under State law to levy fees on development up to certain maximum levels Current California Law concerning school development fees was established by Assembly Bill No 1600 ( AB 1600") and Assembly Bill No 181 ( AB 181 ) and recently amended by Senate Bill No 1287 ( SB 1287 ) AB 1600 and AB 181 allow a total of $1 65 per square foot of residential development and $0 27 per square foot on commercial/industrial development to be collected by school districts These fees must be shared by non-unified school districts with overlapping territory such as a high school district and its feeder elementary school districts Based on a fee sharing agreement with the Huntington Beach Union High School District the District's share of these fees is 61% or $1 0065 per square foot for residential development This amount is clearly much less than the $4 13 full impact or $2 88 Master Plan impact derived above Senate Bill No 1287 ( SB 1287 ) which became operative January 1 1993 authorizes school districts to levy development fees higher than allowed pursuant to AB 1600 and AB 181 Pursuant to SB 1287 an additional $1 00 per square foot may be assessed by school districts on residential development The law is unclear as to whether non-unified school districts must share this additional fee or if each district may assess a full $1 00 per square foot Within the next few months it is likely that either a court will render an interpretation of SB 1287 or the State Legislature will clarify its intent The District is currently assessing a full additional dollar for a total fee of $2 0065 per square foot If through subsequent court ruling or legislation the District is only able to assess a share of the additional $1 00 it will be able to collect a total fee of $1 6165 per square foot Both fees are still less than the $4 13 full impact or $2 88 Master Plan impact derived above A - 4 Comparison of Impact and Fee Estimates Per Housing Unit Per Square Foot Full Impact $6 601 91 $4 13 Master Plan Impact $4 611 67 $2 88 AB 1600 & AB 181 Fees $1 61040 $1 0065 Shared SB 1287 Fees $2 586 40 $1 6165 Full SB 1287 Fees $3 210 40 $2 0065 However the increased fee level afforded by SB 1287 will become inoperative if the California electorate rejects Assembly Constitutional Amendment No 6 ('ACA 6') which will appear on the next Statewide election currently scheduled in June of 1994 Many development projects and land use actions approved now or in the near future will not result in the pulling of building permits (when school development fees are paid) until after June 1994 Hence it is uncertain which of these fee structures will be in place when the school development fees are actually paid Never the less because all fee levels are lower than the impacts on the District it is clear that some additional source of mitigation will be required to offset the impacts on the District The District feels therefore that language requiring the complete mitigation of impacts on the District should be made a condition of approval on all development projects and land use actions Ramifications of SB 1287 on School Impact Mitigation SB 1287 was passed by the State Legislature and signed by the Governor as part of the 1992 budget deal It became effective January 1 1993 The intent of this bill was to move a greater share of responsibility for school facilities funding to local school districts In fact SB 1287 calls for the phase out of the Leroy F Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Program ( State Program ) by 1996 SB 1287 is tied to ACA 6 If passed by the voters in the next statewide election (currently scheduled for June 1994) ACA 6 will allow school districts to pass general obligation bonds by a simple majority vote rather than the current two thirds However if the California electorate rejects ACA 6 SB 1287 will become inoperative and the State Program will remain intact As mentioned above SB 1287 allows school districts to levy an additional development fee of $1 00 per square foot on residential development As a tradeoff for the increased fee levels SB 1287 attempted to reduce the number of mitigation measures that can be used to offset school impacts A - 5 The measures available to mitigate impacts on schools of development projects are limited by Government Code Section 65996 Prior to SB 1287 legislative actions (such as general plan amendments specific plans and zone changes) where not considered development projects so a wider array of mitigation options was available for such actions SB 1287 attempted to place legislative actions under the requirements Government Code Section 65996 Government Code Section 65996 lists the following seven mitigation measures (1) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code This chapter sets forth the provisions of the State Program created by the Leroy F Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Law of 1976 The State Program is funded through statewide general obligation bonds such as those approved by Propositions 152 and 155 Because the demand for state money far exceeds the supply of statewide bond funds only a small percentage of school projects are funded through the State Program None the less the District is applying for funding through the State Program to the fullest extent possible The District has provisions in all its existing mitigation agreements with developers that would lower developer contributions to the extent state funding is obtained Additionally the State Program will be phased out by 1996 if the California voters approve ACA 6 (2) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code This chapterwas enacted by the Emergency School Classroom Law of 1979 wnich includes provisions for the lease of state portable facilities to address emergency overcrowding conditions It does not provide funding for permanent facilities and is useful only in emergency situations (3) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code This chapter sets forth the provisions of the California School Finance Authority This is a statewide financing vehicle that school districts can employ to gain the benefits of statewide rather than local financing It does not provide additional revenue but is only a financing tool (4) Article 2 5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 Part 23 of the Education Code This article provides school districts with the authority to enter into a lease or other agreement for school facilities with non profit corporations This allows for the establishment of a non-profit corporation whose function is to sell bonds and build A - 6 school facilities and in turn lease the facilities to the school district However it does not solve the fundamental question of how the school facilities will be paid for (5) Section 53080 of the Government Code This section sets forth the statutory development fees discussed above (6) Chapter 2 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code This chapter was established by the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 which allows for the creation of community facilities districts to fund public facilities including schools The bonds issued to construct public facilities are repaid by annual fees levied against parcels within a community facilities district (7) Chapter 4 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code This chapter was established by the School Facilities Act which allows a city or county to levy development fees (known as ' SB 201 fees") on behalf of a school district to fund interim classroom facilities Any fees levied pursuant to this chapter reduce the ability of school districts to levy fees pursuant to Government Code Section 53080 In practice these fees have been superseded by those set forth in Government Code Section 53080 Additionally in Murrieta Valley Unified School District v County of Riverside the court ruled that cities or counties can impose non-financial mitigation measures in addition to the seven financial measures listed in Government Code Section 65996 Such non- financial mitigation measures could include density reductions project phasing or senior- only housing Nothing in SB 1287 prohibited the use of such non-financial mitigation measures Because SB 1287 was only recently adopted its legal interpretation remains uncertain It appears that a city or county may not have the power to require financial mitigation measures other than those specified in Government Code Section 65996 Most attorneys agree however that a city or county can still deny a legislative action or require non- financial mitigation measures Additionally Government Code Section 65996 allows the use of Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts with charges in excess of State mandated development fees Some attorneys believe that a city or county may have the ability to require mitigation in excess of fees if the existing General Plan requires adequate school facilities However while SB 1287 may have limited the number of mitigation measures available in no way did it preclude the requirement that development projects or land use actions must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) The Legislative A - 7 Counsel of California has issued an opinion that SIB 1287 "does not prohibit a city county or city and county from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting or implementing a general plan zoning ordinance or other legislative land use policy ' The impacts on the District of each project must be evaluated, and all impl3cts must be mitigated to a IevPl of insignificance Hence the net effect of SIB 1287 is to limit the types of measures that may be used to mitigate school impacts but not the total mitigation of impacts In order to comply with the provisions of SIB 1287 while maintaining the spirit of school facilities impact mitigation program that the City and District have evolved the District is providing draft language for a condition of approval to be added to all development projects and land use actions The City has applied the following or similar language as a condition of approval to many development entitlements Prior to the issuance of any building permit the developer shall enter into a school facilities impact mitigation and reimbursement agreement with the appropriate school district(s) for K-12 This condition maybe waived by the appropriate school district The District has modified this language as follows Prior to the issuance of any building permit the developer shall mitigate the impacts of the project on school facilities using any combination of measures listed in Government Code Section 65996 or other legal means to a level acceptable to the appropriate school district(s) for K-12 This condition may be waived by the appropriate school district(s) The District feels that this modified condition of approval language is legally acceptable and roughly equivalent to though somewhat more restrictive than the previous condition of approval language Its application will ensure adequate mitigation of school impacts while allowing development to proceed The District therefore requests that the City impose this language as a condition of approval for all development projects and land use actions A - 8 2-1 ATTACHMENT ' B' SENATE BILL NO 1287 I B - 1 STATUTES OF 1 1991--1992 REGULAR SESSION Ch 1354 `I f i s outside the State of California SCHOOLS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS—FACILITIES—FUNDING i of time unrelated to the adop be signed before a represents CHAPTER 1354 it of a birth parent in the state tended period of time S B No 1287 to sign a consent for the adopts AN ACT to add and repeal Article 5(commencing with Section 17760)of Chapter 22 of Part to of ct to revocation by reason of the Education Code to amend Sections 65995 and 65996 of and to add and repeal Sections 65995 65995 3 and 65996 of the Government Code and to repeal Section 34 of Chapter 1209 to read of the Statutes of 1989 relating to school facilities. ed by the birth parent or paren [Approved by Governor September 30 1992] nt or parents signer g the cons s Miled with Secret ary of State September 30 1992 ns ) ency a written statement revo LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST to the birth parent or paten form prescribed by the departmd SB 1287 School facilities ent or delegated county adop (1) Under existing law the State Allocation Board is authorized to apportion fun( rnia nor is physically present for school facilities projects for designated construction purposes on behalf of applii a agency licensed or authorized school districts under the Leroy F Greene State School Building Lease-Purchase Lai esides or is present for a p 1976 revoke consent may not be si This bill would repeal that program rve P P grem pursuant to certain legislative findings a .e Department of Social Se January 1 1996 nt on the 121st day after si The bill would state that the changes specified above shall become operative only LL T of the right to revoke consent ACA 6 is approved by a majority of the voters voting on that measure the consent was signed which (2) Existing law authorizes local agencies to impose limited fees or other charges 4 against certain development projects to fund the construction or reconstruction of school e to read facilities has become permanent as pro This bill would authorize the levy of an additional fee for school facilities purposes on ospective adoptive parents may certain residential construction of up to $1 per square foot of assessable space becomes permanent as provid Existing law prohibits the legislative body of a local agency from levying development fees or other requirements for the construction or reconstruction of schools other than -tli parent or parents so reques ars nest return of the child puant to designated statutory authority been placed have concerns that This bill would specify that this prohibition applies to both administrative and legisla d are unfit or present a danger-ti' trre action of the legislative body of a local agency option is to report their concerns Under existing law development fees or other requirements to fund school construction -sate child welfare agency Or reconstruction may be imposed against residential construction other than new con ly return the child stracbon only where the resulting increase in assessable space as defined resulting from s the construction exceeds 500 square feet Existing law also excludes designated school 1994 `-amity expenses from the construction or reconstruction purposes for which the r independent adoption filed on "eloper fees or other consideration may be expended authorizes the expenditure of up ,ice shall be governed by the lad b 3%of the fees collected in any fiscal year for administrative costs incurred in collecting t6 fees or other consideration defines the assessable space of residential development Shall adopt emergency regal& sad the chargeable covered and enclosed space of commercial or industrial develop- >kat,that are subject to a development fee or other requirement and specifies that the Oar amount of the maximum developer fee or other requirement shall be increased for government (ode if the Co kdkbon every 2 years sins costs mandated by the fisting law also contains the legislative finding that the provisions of existing law )0) for those costs shall 2 i�eribed in the preceding paragraph are declaratory of existing law )0) of Division 4 of 'I5t1e 2 � Y i for reimbursement does not ?his bill would repeal that legislative finding be made from the State (� Existing law prescnbes the exclusive methods that may be required by local Government C onthe sa> des to mitigate environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities bey considering under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ) the approv Constitution eletlona by asterisks Additions or changes y es Indicated b underline deletions by asterisks 5769 � r t a �J4 s Ch 1354 STATUTES OF ly: 199 al or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, which y defined to mean a project undertaken for the purpose of development including a projeq shag involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction Existing law alb perr ��.�er►r prohibits a public agency under CEQA or the Subdivision Map Act from denying stru approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities (2 This bill would prohibit a public agency in the exercise of its authority to adopt general per plans zoning laws, and other land use legislation from either denying approval of a encl, project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities or imposing conditions, other than with the requirement to pay the limited school facilities fees, on the approval of a project for area the purpose of providing school facilities anen The bill also would delete the definition of development project ds described above and co`ei would specify that the restrictions described above upon the mitigation of environmentsl shall effects under CEQA apply to both administrative and legislative action taken by a public Perm agency under CEQA (3) The bill would specify that these changes shall have prospective application only 19N a the (4) This bill would specify that the changes described in (2) and (3) are repealed on the 3aard date that ACA 6 fails to receive the approval of a majority of the voters voting on thst meenr measure ire The people of the State of Californta do enact as follows .nder (c) ( SECTION 1 It is the intent of the Legislature to enact a new program fo the atere -- financing of school facilities in accordance with the following principles :Iou°t5 (a) Primary financial responsibility for school facilities should rest with school districts Ayme (b) School districts should be authorized to raise a sufficient amount of revenue locill bnaiai to finance a majority of their school facility needs (c) The role of the state should be limited to (') 1 "` inei (1) Usingstate funds to supplement the local revenues of those school districts ha x othe PP � x othe low assessed valuation i,.plical (2) Using state funds to finance needed school facilities for those school districts the: id) Fc have met or exceeded their debt capacity Li deveh (3) Using state funds to provide interim school facilities for those school districts the a heret are unable to supply the expected level of local revenues "clusiv, SEC 2 krticle a (commencing with Section 17760) is added to Chapter 22 of Part J ode or of the Education Code to read "local l At limit =arimur Article 5 Repeal of Chapter '",denti 17760 This chapter shall remain in effect only until January 1 1996 and as of thg 't'th a date is repealed unless a later enacted statute which is enacted before January 1 199t el TFe deletes or extends that date �=.it:es SEC 3 Section 6o995 of the Government Code is amended to read -'C3'acj 6a99a (a) Except for a fee charge dedication or other requirement authorized una` A_ lop—, Section 53080 or pursuant to Chapter 4 7 (commencing with Section 6a970) ro r0' lures charge dedication or other requirement shall be levied by the legislative bodv of a loa i \otr agency against a development project as derined in Section 53080 tor the construction a zZur a is reconstruction of school facilities ` "truc (b) In no event shall the amount of any fees charges dedications or other req'2' I This ments authorized under Section o3080 or pursuant to Chapter 4 7 (commencing 4. it Section 65970) or both exceed the following '1j a ' (1) One dollar and fifty cents ($1 50) per square foot of assessable space in the csx� �as or „ any residential development Assessable space for this purpose means all of* FC � square footage within the penmeter of a residential structure not including any w r -mill walkway garage overhang patio enclosed patio detached accessory structure or yr� a I area The amount of the square footage within the perimeter of a residential stlo ° �3f .ate '� cep 5770 Additions or changes indfated by underline deletions by astensks z 3 STATUTES OF # 1991-1992 REGULAR SESSION Ch 1354 Y of a development protect,which shall be calculated by the building department of the city or county issuing the budding of development, including a p permit, in accordance with the standard practice of that city or county in calculating reconstruction Existing law also Structural perimeters Ddivision Map Act, from den (2) In the case of any commercial or industrial development twenty five cents ($0 25) school facilities r per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space Chargeable covered and se of its authority toadopt g enclosed space' for this purpose, means the covered and enclosed space determined to be rom either denying approval t within the perimeter of a commercial or industrial structure not including any storage or imposing conditions other areas incidental to the principal use of the development, garage parking structure s on the approval of a protect fair imenclosed walkway or utility or disposal area The determination of the chargeable covered and enclosed space within the perimeter of a commercial or industrial structure nt protect, as described above, shall be made by the building department of the city or county issuing the building on the mitigation of envi ronm porniit, in accordance with the budding standards of that city or county legislative action taken by a public ,� (3) The amount of the limits set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be increased in J 1990 and every two years thereafter according to the adjustment for inflation set forth iave prospective application in the statewide cost index for class B construction as determined by the State Allocation d in (2) and (3) are repealed on tb* Board at its January meeting which increase shall be effective as of the date of that jonty of the voters voting on thath meeting The State Allocation Board shall not raise the amount of the distract matching 5 share calculated under Section 17705 5 of the Education Code as a result of the increase adA under this paragraph until at least 90 days after the date of that increase �011ow3 (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law during the term of any contract to enact a new program for tlit entered into between a subdivider or builder and a school district, city county, or city and lowing principles county whether general law or chartered on or before January 1 1987 that requires the s should rest with school disU)c payment of a fee charge or dedication for the construction of school facilities as a 01, condition to the approval of residential development neither Section 53080 nor this tficient amount of revenue,loc� chapter applies to that residential development. (2) Any development protect for which a final map was approved and construction had commenced on or before September 1 1986 is subject to only the fee charge dedication es of those school districts ha or other e requirement the project in any local ordinance in existence on that date and spp1 fes for those school distnctar � (d) For purposes of Section 53080 and this chapter residential commercial or industri til development does not include any facility used exclusively for religious purposes that fes for those school districts` h thereby exempt from property taxation under the laws of this state any facility used .r exclusively as a private full time day school as described in Section 48222 of the Education es Code or any facility that is owned and occupied by one or more agencies of federal state is added to Chapter 22 of PUtor local government. In addition commercial or industrial development includes but is Wit limited to any hotel inn motel tourist home or other lodging for which the mmmum term of occupancy for guests does not exceed 30 days but does not include any ' -: residential hotel, as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 50519 of the oter Health and Safety Code January 1 and as a� (e) The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of the financing of school enacted before ore January 1� tA he hies with development fees is a matter of statewide concern For this reason the t4 1APlature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and other mended to read r S ti"elopment requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all local er requirement authorized tiD& Mutires on the subject i�, with Section 65970)o io a 1 0) Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the use of Chapter 2 5 the legislative body or �mencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title a to finance the construction or on o3080 for the construtb! 'instruction of school facilities dedications or other > This section shall become inoperative on January 1, 1993 and shall remain inonera Chapter 4 7 (commeDciiivv Until the date that AssemblyConstitutional Amendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular n fails to receive the approval of a majority of the voters voting on the measure t assessable space in be� z that ate this section shall become operative this purpose means 4 Section 65995 is added to the Government Code to read icturt not including sn Z �w65995 (a) Fxcept for a fee charge dedication or other requirement authorized under d accessory structure' on 53080 or pursuant to Chapter 4 7 (commencing with Section 65970) no fEe nneter of a r(Yidenta�sii� � v e dedication or other requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a local � ons by asterisks Additions or changes Indicated by underline deletions by asterisks 5771 v 7)71 rt J 1Y Ch 1354 STATUTES of 14} a ••. 1t91-1992 13 agency against a development project, as defined m Section 53080 whether by adman ` tive or legislative action for the construction or reconstruction of school faeZibm (f) Nothu (rouimencin (b) In no event shall the amount of any fees charges dedications or other regS rKonstruct ments authorized under Section 53080 or pursuant to Chapter 47 (commencing WA Section 65970) o: both exceed the following- e)ndmien 1 Sin (1) One dollar and fifty cents ($1 50)per square foot of assessable space in the case a( d the vote any residential development. Assessable space ' for this purpose means all of tw SEC 5 square footage within the perimeter of a residential structure not including any carpA 6o995 3 - walkway garage overhang patio enclosed patio detached accessory structure or simlill -- area The amount of the square footage within the perimeter of a residential structunI Mnt of or on at shall be calculated by the building department of the city or county issuing the buildias me of permit, in accordance with the standard practice of that city or county in calcula* <overning 1 structural perimeters Rbparag w JV Wnstructior v (2) In the case of any commercial or industrial development twenty five cents ($oA (b) This s + per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space Chargeable covered and Amendment �.. enclosed space for this purpose means the covered and enclosed space determined to be of the rote within the perimeter of a commercial or industnal structure not including any storage areas incidental to the principal use of the development, garage, parking structum SEC 6 unenclosed walkway or utility or disposal area The determination of the chargeable 6z)996 covered and enclosed space within the perimeter of a commercial or industrial structmt mvtronmen shall be made by the building department of the city or county issuing the but7dmg approval or permit in accordance with the building standards of that city or county defined in (3) The amount of the limits set forth in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall be increased a Nblic Reso 1990 and every two years thereafter according to the adjustment for inflation set forth L) Chapt v in the statewide cost index for class B construction as determined by the State Allocatioe 2 Chapt, Board at its January meeting which increase shall be effective as of the date of that L Chapt� meeting The State Allocation Board shall not raise the amount of the distract matchnig share calculated under Section 17705 5 of the Education Code as a result of the mcreset �41 Artic1E under this paragraph until at least 90 days after the date of that increase Education C (c) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law during the term of any contrad 2 Sectia entered into between a subdivider or builder and a school district city county or city and 2 Chapti county whether general law or chartered on or before January 1 1987 that requires the Government payment of a fee charge or dedication for the construction of school facilities as it (7) Chapu condition to the approval of residential development neither Section 53080 nor this Government chapter applies to that residential development. (b) No pu (2) Any development project for which a final map was approved and construction bad 1 -e blic F commenced on or before September 1 1986 is subject to only the fee charge dedicab= ieny approv or other requirement prescribed in any local ordinance in existence on that date and t (cl This sF applicable to the project :e until th (d) For purposes of Section 53080 and this chapter residential commercial or industrt j xsaion fail al development does not include any facility used exclusively for religious purposes that t Lm as o I a is thereby exempt from property taxation under the laws of this state any facility axd "EC 7 exclusively as a private full time day school as described in Section 48222 of the Educabot 6,996 (a Code or any facility that is owned and occupied by one or more agencies of federal stsil- or local government In addition commercial or industrial development includes bat0`al or ie �nmor not limited to any hotel inn motel tourist home or other lodging for which the maximum term of occupancy for f th p y guests does not exceed 30 days but does not include si0 � ) residential hotel as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section o0519 of 00 of th Health and Safety Code (1) ChaotE (e) The Legislature finds and declares that the subject of the financing of Scb00i (2) Chaotc- facilities with development fees is a matter of statewide concern For this reason tW Q) Cnaptr Legislature hereby occupies the subject matter of mandatory development fees and otho 1 (4) article development requirements for school facilities finance to the exclusion of all cation C Y measures on the subject 5) S-ctior ` 5772 Additions or changes Indicated by underilne deletions by asterisks T-(- L r 4 STATUTES OF-1 1l91- 1992 REGULAR SESSION Ch 1354 action 53080 whether by ad Nothing to this section shall be interpreted to limit or prohibit the use of Chapter 2 5 reconstruction of school fa n (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 to finance the construction or irges dedications or other ownstruction of school facilities to Chapter 4 7 (commencing (g) This section shall remain in effect only until the date that Assembly Constitutional r Amendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session fails to receive the approval of a majority it of assessable space in the d the voters voting on the measure and as of that date this section is repealed or this purpose means all o SEC 5 Section 65995 3 is added to the Government Code to read tructure not including any "65995 3 (a) In addition to the fee charge dedication or other requirement specified in iched accessory structure or a F subdivision (b) of Section 65995 an additional fee charge dedication or other require- perimeter of a residential stru ment of one dollar ($1) per square foot of assessable space may be levied by the city or county issuing the but governing board of a school district against that residential construction described in that city or county in calcula subparagraphs (B) and (C) of ara p graph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 53080 for the wastructton or reconstruction of school facilities elopment twenty five cents ( (b) This section shall remain in effect only until the date that Assembly Constitutional d space Chargeable cove Amendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session fails to receive the approval of a majority ind enclosed space determined of the voters voting on the measure and as of that date this section is repealed .ructue not including any sto omens garage parking s SEC 6 Section 65996 of the Government Code is amended to read oment tru e determination of the charg 65996 La) The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating commercial or industrial stru ovironmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the ity or county issuing the bnu7 q)proval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as that city or county 4 &fted in Section 53080 pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the ns (1) and (2) shall be incr Public Resources Code e adjustment for inflation setf Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code determined by the State All Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code )e effective as of the date,, Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code he amount of the district )n Code as a result of the in Article 2 5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the date of that increase Mucation Code during the term of any con @ Section 53080 of the Government Code )ol district city county or city Government Code (commencing with Section 53311) of DivisiF,)n 2 of title 5 of the January 1 1987 that req struction of school facilittes fl Chapter 4 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the t neither Sect-ion 53080 nor Government Code �b No public agency shall pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of ' as approved and constructions 2* Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code to only the fee charge d imy approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities ce in existence on that date tihis section shall become inoperative on January 1 1993, and shall remain inooera we u� until the date that Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular esidenbal commercial or in 'awn fails to receive the approval of a majority of the voters voting on the measure, s�ively for religious piirposets !22 as of that date this section shall become operative ws of this state any facilits/t SEC 7 Section 65996 is added to the Government Code to read i in Section 48222 of the Edn "6 (a) The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating or more agencies of federal, Onlronmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the trial development includes 2Sroval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project by or other lodging for w trative or legislative action pursuant to Division 13 commencing with Section i 30 days but does not uiclu UW)of the Public Resources Code .,ision (b) of Section 50519f (1) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code bji,-t of Of (2) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 1778o) of Part 10 of the Education Code id( concern For this greasod 0) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code 1awry devclopnif nt fees and (4) Article 2 ) (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the r t tht exclusion of all ?A61Catlon Code �) Section oJO80 of the Government Code ions by asterisks Additions or changes Indicated by underiine deletions by asterisks 5773 t s k TC y7 ti r ag Ch 1354 STATUTES OF I lk191-1992 REGL (6) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of bill would si Government Code at contain design (7) Chapter 4 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 ofThe bill would pr Government Code 015ting resources (b) No public agency shall pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000)at ?nbhc Instruction the Public Resources Code or Title 7 (commencing with Section 65000) deny approval of t This bill would project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities or impose conditions on t4 astncts when suff approval of a project for the purpose of providing school facilities thal, exceed t6 (2) The California amounts authorized pursuant to this chapter :istricts for certain (c) This section shall have prospective application only and shall not affect any actft dares for making tl taken by a local agency prior to the effective date of this section I lhnd to pay the co (d) This section shall remain in effect only until the date that Assembly Constitubocd ;rocedures for ciair A,mendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session fails to receive the approval of a maj This bill would pr of the voters voting on the measure and as of that date this section is repeal Clams Find for co SEC 8 Section 34 of Chapter 1209 of the Statutes of 1989 is repealed ..at local agenc es -eimbursement for SEC 9 (a) The Legislature finds and declares that paragraph (2) of subdivision(4 of Section 53080 of the Go✓ernment Code and paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Seebot The people of the 6o995 of the Government Code as amended by Chapter 1209 of the Statutes of 1989 ut SECTION 1 Sec declaratory of existing law (b) This section shall become operative on the date that Assembly Constituboed �1'-20 0 (a) The -lmendment 6 of the 199192 Regular Session fails to receive the approval of a majority of (1) The family is the voter voting on the measure are for prepare ar SEC 10 Sections 1 and 2 of this act shall become operative only upon the apprwil 12) Social resea-cl- of Assembly Constitutional Amendment 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session by a major# muse of increased A of voters voting on the measure mininal activity (3) The lack of kn usu-ne parental res iao contribute subst COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES—COMMUNITY COLLEGES— (4) Because the st PARENTING SKILLS AND EDUCATION COURSES usociated with the c ind vital interest in CHAPTER 1355 ib) The Legislature L-d effective means t S B No 1307 t -1 use the public e( l gportunity to arquir AN aCT to add Section a1220 5 to the Education Code relating to parenting education i c iwledge should ine [kpproved by Governor September 30 1992] il) Child de,elopmE [Filed with Secretary of State September 30 1992] i �l E,fective Darenr 3i PrF Pit on of c LEGISLATIVE COUNSELS DIGEST 1) \utrton SB 1307 Watson Parenting education housenold , (1) Existing law directs the State Department of Education to grant awards Pe onal and a z,Decified to support the implementation in school districts of education programs regI4 M Method, to pron ing family relationships and parenting This bill would require commencing with the 1993-94 fiscal year that the adopt ) Eftecti�e dec sio course of study for grade 7 or 8 in each school district include a one-semester course g 31 gamily and indi% parenting skills and education as specified thereby imposing a state mandated low rl Commencing kit program The bill would require that all pupils beginning grade 7 on or after July L 5 shall include the 1993 be offered that course in grade 7 or 8 or both The bill would require the Sta* " cation All puoil, Department of Education to supply each school district that includes grade 7 or S wr�a ' 3e or ita equnaier, sample curriculum for a course addressing parental skills as specified �� the State Deoarr In addition commencing with the 1993-94 fiscal year the bill would authorize com-Mov i Mde i or b a ami ty colleges to offer parenting skills and education classes to interested incuvid5sl� =r"-ies.er course o 5774 Additions or changes Indicated by underline deletions by asterisks Additions R Tc 14 z h ATTACHMENT "C" LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL OPINION C - 1 0= F fX WvUxtei Ows/bpVJd • IkM _ ta mar 1 wry Is'- �.rJos�p�t 4WM Vf - _ L = ri�ls� oats �e..w•JIlIr• _ h r Io t a* r /rarer jw*AJMMwS ON M:GAEMAYY ` • a te WMVMftfAO ta~KUMM o,nr4Jr.e.rr ►i�wpt e�.s.os� R rl Ia"M gft= DMUS"Guns JmookKiM mrr Cape►Rw AWA Q Q s �= 1 UMM Jl4$Mws Sacramento, California jW4�I rk �� T�WInaw-"" December 4, 1992 G�"� +*aa°e1"ee 09MM saeelew Honor-able Willie L. Brown, Jr. 219 State Capitol School Facilities Fees - 430455 Dear Xr Brown. QUESTION Does Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 prohibit a city, county, or city and county from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting or implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance, or other legislative land use policy? OPINION NO 1 Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 does not prohibit a city, county, or city and county from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting- or implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance, or other legislative land use Policy ANALYSTS NO 1 Before assessing the effect of Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992' , we consider the existing law regarding the relationship between the development of real property and school facilities construction 1 This measure is the chaptered version of Senate Bill No 1287 of the 1991-92 Regular Session Honorable Willie L. Brovn, Jr. - p. 3 - #30455 Section 65995 also contains two provisions expressing the Legislatures intent to forbid any local legislation, except as explicitly authorized under the state laws discussed above, _ that would condition the approval of development according to the - impact upon school facilities. First, subdivision (a) of section=- 65995 prohibits the legislative body of any local agency, including the governing board of a school district (see California Rida. Zndustry kagni V. Governing J ,,, 206 Cal. App. 3d 212, 224) , from levying any tee or other requirement against a development project to fund the eohstruetion or reconstruction of school facilities except as authorized under Section 53080 or chapter 4.7 (subd. (a) ; See. 65995) . Second, subdivision (a) of Section 65995 expressly declares the intent of the Legislature to preempt local legislation that would require fees or other consideration to be paid as a condition of the approval of development. In this regard, although Section 65995 does not specifically exclude a local measure that authorizes the denial of a development project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities, we think that the restriction placed by the Legislature upon local legislation that would require that the impact of a development project on school facilities be mitigated would be construed to apply equally to a local standard that a development project be denied in the absence of that mitigation. A statute is to be construed so as to be given a reasonable result consistent with the legislative purpose, in light of the context of the legislation and its apparent objective (Cossack v Qjty = Los Angeles, 11 Cal 3d 7261 732-733 , see Clean = Constituency v California state &-r Resources , 11 Cal 3d 801, 813) in addition to the school-related conditions upon development that may be established by local legislative action pursuant to Section 53080 or Chapter 4 7 , a city or county generally possesses the authority to impose conditions upon the approval of a development project relative to the project's potential burden upon public services or other environmental impact concerns , this authority may be exercised under existing state law pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as set forth in Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code (hereafter "CEQA" , see Secs 21002 and 21002 Z, P R C ��, H- 1s HQ_ egyners sn v City Council, 83 Cal App 3d 515, 521) and the Subdivision Map Act (Div 2 (commencing with Sec 66410) , Title 7) However, Section 65996, which also is contained in Chapter 4 9, identifies Section 53080 and other specific statutory provisions as the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects under CEQA with regard to conditioning the approval of a development project on the adequacy of school facilities, and prohibits any public agency from denying Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p• 2 - #30455 I. Existing LaW Prior to January 1, 1987, development projects were potentially subject to school facilities fees or other requirements imposed by cities and counties either pursuant to Chapter 4 .7 (commencing with Station 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 or the Governmant Code (hereafter "Chapter 4.7") or pursuant to their police power generally (see Cad Entjrnri�ses. inc, v Grossmont Union High gchool Dist , 39 Cal, 3d 878) Ahern school overcrowding is demonstrated to exist, Chapter 4.7 generally prohibits a city or county from approving a residential = development unless it first requires, except as specifiad, that land be dedicated, fees be paid, or both, for classrooms and related facilities, except as specified (sacs 65972 and 65974) . Approval of a residantial development includes, for this purpose, the approval of an ordinance rezoning property to a residential use, the granting of a discretionary permit for residential use, or the approval of a tentative subdivision map for residential purposes (see Sec 65972) As of January 1, 1987, however, the law governing school facilities fees and other requirements was amended by Chapter 887 of the Statutes of 1986. Under that chapter, the Legislature added Section 53080, granting to school districts the express authority to levy developer fees and other requirements as "a reasonable method of financing the expansion and construction of school facilities resulting from new economic development within the district" (subd (e) , Sec 7, Ch 887 , Stats 1986) That authority is expressly made subject, however, to the restrictions set forth in Chapter 4 9 (commencing with Section 65995) of Division 1 of Title 7 (hereafter "Chapter 4 9" , para. (1) , subd (a) , Sec 53080) Included among those restrictions is Section 65995 , which limits the total amount of the developer fees and other requirements to fund the construction or reconstruction of school facilities that may be levied by school districts under Section 53080, by a city or county under Chapter 4 7 , or both, to $1 50 per square foot of assessable space, in the case of residential development, and $0 25 per square foot of chargeable covered and enclosed space, in the case of commercial or industrial development (subd (b) , Sec 65995) Those dollar limits are increased periodically according to a designated adjustment for inflation (para (3) , subd (b) , Sec 65995) 2 All section references are to the Government Code, unless otrerwise indicated k'7 c Iq j Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - P. 4 - #30455 approval of a development project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities pursuant to CEQA or the Subdivision Map Act. The first decision of record in Which section 65996 vas judicially construed is Mira Develogmant soT V. City = N= cgs, 205 Cal. App. 3d 1201 (hereafter "JUra") , a casa in which a city council denied a razoninq application that was prerequisite to the Approval of a proposed residential development project. In that case, the city council's decision was alleged by the developer to have been based upon the inadequacy of school facilities and, therefor&, to have violated the prohibition sat forth in Section 65996 (fin, supra, p. 1217) The court in Mira began its analysis by distinguishing an application for a "development project, " to Which section 65996 expressly applies, from a request for a zoning amendment. The court held that a governmental response to an application for the approval of a development project is an adjudicative act, meaning an act that requires the application of an existing rule to a specific net of existing facts (==, supra, pp 1217-1218 ; see Landi v County = Monterav, 139 Cal App. 3d 934, 936) In contrast, the court characterized a governmental response to a proposed zoning amendment as a legislative act, which involves the formulation of a generally applicable rule or policy (Mira, supra, p 1218 , �1, v County o& Monterey, supra, p 93 6)3 Pursuant to that distinction, the Mira court characterized Section 65996 as a restriction upon only the adjudicative authority of that agency. The court refused to "broaden" the meaning of Section 65996 to include any restriction upon a public agency 's authority over proposed zoning amendments or over other matters involving the agency' s exercise of its legislative powers (Mira, supra, p 1218) In declining to overturn the city council ' s action on the basis of Section 65996 , the Mira court did not discuss the applicability to the city council ' s action of subdivision (e) of Section 65995, or of any other aspect of the preemption doctrine Thus , the Mira decision failed to address expressly whether subdivision (e) of Section 65995, rather than Section 65996 , would be construed to preempt the city council , in the exercise of its legislative powers, from denying a rezoning application on the basis of school facilities impact 3 As a legislative act, a zoning decision is afforded more deference than a public agency' s adjudicative decisions (Mira supra , p 1218 &gM-P.J pevelooment Co v City of Costa Mesa , 28 Cal 3d 511 , 522) Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p 5 - #30455 Subsequent judicial decisions have elaborated, however, upon the scope of Sections 65995 and 65996 in that regard. }j1_111am ,&, Hart tini0II High 5shQ9l n1st, v. Regional planning Ccm. , _ 226 Cal. App �d 1612 (hereafter "H=") , involved the refusal of - a county to consider the school facilities impact of a proposed zoning change. The court declared that subdivision (a) of Section 65995 preempts only "requirements for school finance that a local - agency will impose on a development oroiect" (emphasis in original) . The court explained that, because the local legislative decision in Mira did not involve requirements to be imposed on a development project, but, rather, the legislative enactment of "land-use po icias" (emphasis in original) , that _ decision was not preempted by Section 65995 or any other provision of Chapter 4 .9 (sea Murrieta valley Unified Sal gist, v. County 4l Riverside, 228 Cal App. 3d 1212, 1230; hereafter "Murrieta") . Based upon that distinction, the court concluded that the county was not restricted by state law from considering school facilities impact with respect to its decision to grant or deny the proposed zoning change (Id , pp. 1626-1627) A similar analysis was employed in Murrieta, supra. In that case, the county approved an amendment to its general plan to permit additional development to occur as a matter of land use- policy, without considering, pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, the school facilities impact of that general plan amendment (Id.-, pp 1218-1219) The court described a general plan as a "basic land use charter governing the direction of future land use in the local jurisdiction, " and held that the amendment of a general plan is a legislative act that does not involve the approval of a "development project" for purposes of section 65996 (Id , pp 1230-1231) Further, the preemption in subdivision (e) of Section 65995 was held by the court to relate only to the financing of school facilities with development tees, "a far cry from stating that a public agency cannot include in a general plan amendment land use and development objectives and standards to mitigate the amendment ' s potential negative effects on adequacy of school facilities" (Id , p 1234 , fn 16) The court concluded, consequently, that neither subdivision (e) of Section 65995 nor section 65996 preempts a county, when considering a general plan amendment that may adversely affect the existing condition of inadequate school facilities in a school district, from "considering and providing feasible land use and development mitigating measures" as required by CEQA The court suggested that these measures could include, for example, the reduction of residential densities or the controlled phasing of residential development within the attendance areas of the school district having inadequate school facilities (Murrieta, supra , p 1234) Honorable Willi& L. Brown, Jr. - p. 6 - 00455 The restrictions established in Chapter 4.9 have been construed by the courts, accordingly, to apply to the local imposition of conditions on the approval of individual development projects, but not to the local adoption or amendment of general land use policies. To summarise, Section 65995 precludes local agencies, including cities and counties, from adopting any legislative requirement, except to the axtent authorised by Section 53080 and Chapter 4 71 that imposes fees as a condition to approval of a development project in order to reduce the project's negative impact on school facilities (see tea, supra, p. 1234, fn. 16) . Section 65996, in our view, r4Quires that, in the exercise of local adjudicative authority to require under CEQA that the school facilities impact of a development project be mitigated, only the statutory remedies identified in that section may be utilized, with the result that a local governmantal agency may not employ CEQA to require individual development projects to otherwise mitigate school facilities as a condition of receiving approval However, pursuant to the authority discussed above, we conclude that Chapter 4 .9 does not prohibit a city, county, or city and county from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting or implementing legislative land use policy in the form, for example, of a general plan or zoning ordinance We next must determine the extent to which the changes in Chapter 4 9 made by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 will alter the existing law described above II 7ffect of Chapter 1354 of the Statutes _of 1992 Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 amends Sections 65995 and 65996 , and adds and repeals those sections, with the effect that additional language is added to those sections, effective January 1, 1993 , but it Assembly Constitutional Amendnent No 6 of the 1991-92 Regular Session fails to receive the approval of a majority of the voters voting on that measure, Sections 65995 and 65996 will revert to the versions of those sections in effect under existing law as described above This analysis will address the changes made by Chapter 1354 of the 1,2 i( �� Honorable Millie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 7 - #30455 Statutes of 1992 t? Sections 65995 and 65996 that will take effect on January 1, 1993 . We initially consider the provisions of Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1292 that revise Section 65995. Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 revises subdivision ja) of Section 65995 to read as follows: 1165995. (a) Except for a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement authorized under Section 53080, or pursuant to Chapter 4.7 (commencing with section 65970) , no fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a local agency against a development project, as defined in Section 53080, whether = administrative = legislative Actign, for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities * *" (New wording indicated in underline ) Thus, while the current provisions of Section 65995 prohibit cities, counties, or other local agencies from levying any fee or other requirement, except to the extent authorized by Section 53080 and Chapter 4 7 , as a condition to approval of a development project in order to fund the construction or reconstruction of school facilities, Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 Will revise that section to specify that this prohibition applies to the levying of tees or other requirements "whether by administrative or legislative action " Generally speaking, a legislative act is described as a governmental act that prescribes a new policy or plan, an administrative act, by comparison, is an act undertaken to carry out the legislative policies and purposes established by the legislative body (Fishman v Cjy gJ Palo ltc, 86 Cal App. 3d 506 , 509) An act is administrative, rather than legislative, if it involves, for example, the determination of specific rights under existing law With regard to a specific tact situation (Mountain pefe g Laaque v BAG D Supgrvisors, 65 Cal App 3d 723 , 728-729) 4 Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 also adds Section 65995 3 , which will be discussed in Analysis No 2 Ar� 14 Honorable Willi* L. Brown, Jr. j- p. 8 - #30455 Based upon that distinction, the approval of a development project, including the issuance of any permit, the granting of zoning variances and conditional use permits, and the approval of tentative subdivision maps is considered an _ administrative act (Errt, supra, p. 1625 t Saindl v. County 21 Monterey, supra, p. 936) . By contrast, the approval of a zoning amendment or the amendment of a general plan is riot limited in scope to a specific attempt to develop, and is characterized, therefore, as a legislative act (Hart, supra, p 1625; see M rrieta, supra, pp 1230-1231) . Thus, Section 65995, as revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 19920 will expressly prohibit a city, county, city and county, or other local agency from either establishinq legislative standards, or applying any legislatively established standard, so as to require, as a condition of the approval of any development project, that a fee be paid or other requirement be met for the purpose of funding school facilities construction or reconstruction, other than as levied pursuant to section 53080 or chapter 4 . 7 . As discussed above, existing law already limits the exercise of legislative authority to impose a school facilities too or other requirement against a development project. Section 65995, in its current form, prohibits the legislative body of any local agency from establishing any requirement that a development project comply with a school facilities fee or other requirement, other than pursuant to Section 53080 or chapter 4 7 , and preempts the subject matter of the financing of school facilities from that source as a matter of statewide concern (subds (a) and (e) , Sec 65995) Further, Section 65996 currently identities Section 53080 and other specific statutory provisions as the exclusive methods of nitigating environmental effects under CEQA with regard to conditioning the approval of a development project on the adequacy of school facilities, and prohibits any public agency from denying approval or a development project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities pursuant to CEQA or the Subdivision Map Act Consequently , while existing law limits the authority of a local agency to require that a development project provide financial mitigation of its school facilities impact in the course of the agency ' s administrative implementation of Section 53080 and cEQA, the revision to Section 65995 made by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 further prohibits a local agency from requiring that mitigation in its administrative implementation of any other legislative authority /'i C ' Nonorabls Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 9 - #30455 _ We turn next to the provisions of Chapter 1334 of thus;; Statutes of 1992 that amend $action 65996. Section 659960-aS*, revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992, reads as follow 065996. lal The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of i.itigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project -- d_f r_d L by administrative 2r 1Qislative Actign pursuant to - Division 13 (commencing with section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: "fa} 1.11 Chaptar 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. R{i�} Ial Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. 11 fe} J.,U Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. "+* - 1-41 article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code n+e-} UL Section 53080 of the Government Code n{-f} I_U Chapter 2 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. Chapter 4 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code " (b) No public agency shall , pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Title 7 (co me cing with Section 63000) , deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities_, or impose conditions an the approval of n project = =t purpose 21 trovidina school facilities that exceed tht amounts authorized pursuant _,t�o this chanter. Honorable Willie L. Brown, Zr. - p. 10 - #30455 "I.QL Ala section shall have urosDectiye acnl ication only, And pal I14At= A= action taken by 3L local agency prior S4 = offictive dAtA 42 this section. "jgl This section shall remain is stf s= gnlY until = wag that A►sQeUly' Co stitutional Amendment Qi =j 1991-92 R=lar Sgi2t1 fails 12 receive pproval j2.1 a majority of the voters yot ing 2n th! measure. And A4 21 that I&&Q this section I& revealed." (Changes in wording indicated in strikeout and underline ) We begin with the first substantive revision mad* to Section 65996 by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 , to tha affect that the limitations sot forth in that section expressly apply to local mitigation "by administrative or legislative action" of school facilities impact pursuant to CEQA. Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code, a provision of CEQA, expressly authorizes all public agencies to adopt local legislative measures for the evaluation of projects and the preparation of environmental impact reports and negative declarations pursuant to CEQA Consequently, this first revision to Section 65996 will specify that the restrictions set forth in that section apply not only to local administrative action taken under CEQA to require that a development project mitigate its Impact on school facilities, but also to mitigation requirements under CEQA that may be imposed under local legislative measures, as may be adopted pursuant to Section 21082 of the Public Resources Code The second substantive revision to Section 65996 made by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 addresses the provision of that section that currently prohibits a public agency from denying approval of a pro3ect on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities pursuant to CEQA or the Subdivision Map Act This revision deletes the specific reference to the Subdivision Map Act , as set forth in Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of Title 7, instead applying that prohibition to the exercise of local authority under Title 7 (commencing with Section 65000) in its entirety (hereafter the "Planning and Zoning Law") The Subdivision Map Act provides for the regulation and control of the design and improvement of subdivisions and grants power for that purpose to the iegislative bodies of local agencies, including the authority to adopt ordinances to regulate the design and improvement of subdivisions (Secs 66411 , 66418 , 66419 , and 66421) Honorable Willis L Brown, ZTr• - p. 11 - #30455 The Planning and Zoning Law, which include the subdivision Map Act, also includes, for example, Chapter 3 (commencing with section 65100) of Division 1 of Title 7, which contains various provisions governing the adoption or amendment of a general plan. Every city or county, whether chartered or general law, is required under that chapter to adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan, containing specific mandatory elements for the physical development of the city or county (Seca. 65300, 65302, and 65700) . Also within the Planning and zoning Law is Chapter 4 (commencing with Section 65800) of Division 1 of Title 7, which sets forth certain limitations upon local authority over zoninq. The power of a city or county to zone is not granted by the Legislature, but derives from the broad "police powers" conferred on them by Section 7 of Article XT of the California Constitution (Xaftnhnar, v city council , 31 Cal. App. 3d 48, 62 , disapproved on other grounds, Associated Eame Builders etc. , Inc. v. cry 21 Livermore, 18 Cal 3d 582, 596, fn. 14) and, in the case of charter cities , and cities and counties with authority over municipal affairs, from the charter (Secs 5 and 6, Art XI, Cal Const s !�,itX 21 jai An_ sles V. Department = Health, 63 Cal. App. 3d 473 , 479) Thus, this revision to Section 65996 prohibits a public agency from denying approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities, not only when acting pursuant to the subdivision Map Act, but also when acting pursuant to other provisions of the Planning and Zoning Law, including, but not limited to, the adoption or amendment of a general plan or zoning law Although the adoption or amendment of a general plan or zoning law, as a legislative action, ordinarily involves the establishment of categorical land use policy rather than the approval of a development project (see Murrieta, supra, pp 1230- 1231 , Hart , supra, pp 1626-1627) , the apparent effect of this revision will be to specifically prohibit the inclusion within a general plan or coning law of any provision that would authorize the denial of individual development projects on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities In addition to revising Section 65996 to prohibit a public agency, pursuant to CEQA or the Planning and Zoning Law, from denying approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities , Chapter 1354 of the Statutes or 1992 adds an express prohibition upon the imposition of conditions on the approval of a project for the purpose of providing school facilities that exceed the amounts authorized pursuant to /2 i c 4 y, Honorable Willis L. Brown, Jr. - p. 12 - #30455 Chapter 4.9 . Thus, Section 65996 will specifically preclude a public agency from exercising its authority under CEQA or the Planning and Zoning Law, as discussed above, to require, that school facilities fees or other requirements, in excess of the amounts authorized under Chapter 4 9, be paid on behalf of any development project as a condition of approval. To summarize, while existing law limits the authority of a local agency to require that a development project provide financial mitigation of its school facilities impact in the course of the agency's administrative implementation of Section 53080 and CEQA, the revision to Section 65995 made by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 further prohibits a local agency from requiring that mitigation in its administrative implementation of any other legislative authority. The revisions made to Section 65996 made by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 specify that the restrictions set forth in that section apply not only to local administrative action taken under CEQA to require that a development project mitigate its impact on school facilities, but also to mitigation requirements under CEQA that may be imposed under local legislative measures, as may be adopted pursuant to Section 21082 of the Public Resources code to addition, those revisions specifically prohibit the inclusion within a general plan or zoning law of any provision that would authorize the denial of individual development projects on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities, and preclude a public agency from exercising its administrative or legislative authority under CEQA or the Planning and Zoning Law, as discussed above, to require that school facilities fees or other requirements, in excess of the amounts authorized under Chapter 4 91 be paid on behalf of any development project as a condition of approval The revisions made to Sections 65995 and 65996 by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 do not purport to address, however, the authority of a local agency to consider the adequacy of school facilities in any context other than the approval of individual development proDects Consequently, based upon the analysis set forth above, it is our conclusion that Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 does not prohibit a city, county, or city and county from considering the adequacy of school facilities in the course of adopting or implementing a general plan, zoning ordinance or other legislative land use policy i 12 Tc A yi Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr - p. 13 - #30455 111 lternative Construction of Chanter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 You have asked that we consider an alternative interpretation of the revisions made to Sections 65995 and 65996 by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992. This alternative argument posits that tha legislative intent underlying those revisions was to revise the meaninq of the term "development project, " as used in Sections 65995 and 65996, to include the legislative action of a local agency in adoptioq or amending a general plan or zoning law to establish land use policy. _ According to this argument, the affect of this construction would be that a local agency Mould be prohibited by those sections, as - revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992, from takinq into account the impact on school facilities in deciding on the adoption or amendment of a general plan or zoning law As quoted above, Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 revises Section 65995 to state that, except as authorized under Section 53080 or Chapter 4 7 , "no fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement shall be levied by the legislative body of a local agency against a development project, as defined in Section 53060, whether by administrative = legislative action. for the construction or reconstruction of school facilities" (emphasis added to denote language inserted by Ch 1354 , Stats 1992) To begin with, Section 65995, as revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 , retains from existing law the phrase "a development project, as defined in section 53080 11 This is inconsistent with the contention that Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 should be interpreted as a revision of the definition of the term "development project " More importantly, the only apparent reasonable construction of the clause "whether by administrative or legislative action" within the context of the provision of Section 65995 quoted above, in our opinion, is that the clause nodifies the "levying" by a legislative body of a fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement It is our view, as expressed in the discussion above, that "whether by administrative or legislative action" is clearly an adverbial clause in this context that addresses the methods pursuant to which that levying of fees or other requirements may occur The alternative argument requires an interpretation that the phrase "whether by administrative or legislative action" was inserted in Section 65995 after "a development project, as defined in Section 53080" to further define "development project" to mean any administrative or legislative action In our opinion, it is an unreasonable construction to suggest that the noun "development /.>r� P �` Honorable Willie L Brown, Jr. - p. 14 - #30455 Iwas modified by the clause "whether by administrative or legislative action" to express the meaning that "development project" is defined to include, for purposes of Section 65995, any administrative or legislative action Had the Legislature actually intended that result, we think it probable that the definition of "development project" in Section 53080 would have been amended or, alternatively, that a statement would have barn -added to Chapter 4 .9 to the effect that "development project" includes any "administrative or legislative action " Furthermore, this alternative interpretation would result in the simultaneous combination within Section 65995 of tiro inconsistent definitions of the term "development project." As noted above, Section 65995, as revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 , contains the express reference "a development project, as defined in Section 53080. " Section 53080 defines "development project" to mean "any project undertaken for the purpose of development, and includes a project involving the issuance of a permit for construction or reconstruction, but not a permit to operate" (para. (2) , subd (a) , Sec. 53080) Although "project" is not defined by Section 53080, that term is defined elsewhere in the Planning and zoning Law to mean "any activity involving the issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use by one or more public agencies" (Sec 65931) A phrase or expression may be interpreted in accordance with its use in other related statutes (Frediani v Qom, 215 Cal App 2d 127 , 133) Therefore, for purposes of Section 65995 , "development project" means an activity undertaken for the purpose of development that involves a public agency ' s issuance to a person of a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use As so defined, the term "development project" has been held by the courts to exclude legislative action by a public agency involving the adoption or amendment of general plans and zoning laws (see mira , supra , p 1218 , Landi v County = o to ey, supra, p 936) A construction to the effect that Section 65995 purports to define "development project" as specified in Section 53080 and, simultaneously, to mean any "administrative or legislative action" of the legislative body of a local agency would thus be internally inconsistent and , consequently, unreasonable Section 65996 is revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 to state that designated provisions "shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development _�, . _ _ by administrative or project, ir��c-z.rrrcc� iTr �-Tv av 53909 1Qgis�ative action pursuant to [CEQA) " (changes in wording /Q-c �} �f Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr. - p. 15 - #30455 indicated in strikeout and underline) . The analysis set forth above with regard to the inclusion in Section 65995 of the clause "whether by administrative or legislative action" also applies in this parallel context, to the effect that the clause "by administrative or legislative action" in section 65996 may be construed reasonably, in our view, to refer only to the methods of _ mitigation utilized by local agencies when considering the approva} of a development project (see Murrista, supra, p 1233, fn 15) . Finally, the legal impact of defininq "development project" in sections 65995 and 65996 to include any "administrative or legislative action" would not appear to have the alliged result of prohibiting a city or county from taking into account the impact on school facilities in deciding on the adoption or amendment of a general plan or zoning law. in section 65995, defining "development project" to include any administrative or legislative act would have the literal effect of prohibiting the legislative body of a local agency from levying, other than pursuant to Section 53080 or Chapter 4 7 , a school facilities fee, charge, dedication, or other requirement against, for example, the legislative act of adopting or amending a general plan or zoning law Similarly, in Section 65996, defining "development project" to include any administrative or legislative act would have the literal effect of restricting the mitigation requirements that may be imposed by a local agency under CEQA against its adoption or amendment of a general plan or zoning law 5 The deletion by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 of the phrase " , as defined in Section 53080, " from Section 65996 could be argued to reflect the legislative intent to revise the meaning cf the term "development project, " as used in that section The Legislature cannot be presumed to have indulged in idle acts (Stafford v Realty Bond Service Corg . , 39 Cal 2d 797 , 805 , Peonle v Fo , 170 Cal App 3d 10391 1056) However, Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 does not purport to add language to Section 65996 that reasonably may be construed to replace the definition of "development pro3ect" set forth in Section 53080 Consequently, pursuant to the rule of statutory construction that a phrase or expression may be interpreted in accordance with its use in other related statutes (Frediani v =, 215 Cal App 2d 127 , 133) , we conclude that "development project" would have the same meaning in Section 65996 as it does in Section 65995 , which defines the term by express reference to Section 53o80 and by use of the definition of the tern "project' in a related section, namely Section 65931 I Honorable Willie L. Brown, Jr - p 16 - #30455 It is well settled that, in construing a statute, a court may use a vide variety of extrinsic aids, such as the history of the statuta, committee reports, staff bill reports, legislative debates, unpasced amendatory legislation, and avast letters of legislative intent (see In ZI Marriace !21 Bouquet, 16 Cal. 3d 583 , 590-591; People V. Superior Court (Arthur j2,_I, 199 Sal App 3d 494 , 499-500) . In this case, for example, the Senate Third Reading analysis of July 30, 1992, states that " [b]y setting the fee cap as an exclusive method for mitigating school impacts when considering ' legislative' actions, [S B. 12871 reverses the effect of the Mira decision. " It is equally true, however, that legislative intent may be given effect only if it can reasonably be interred from the language of the act (see Coulter. v Pool, 187 Cal, 181, 185-186 ; g,.X 1�arte Goodrich, 160 Cal 410, 416-417 ; see also Andersen v. Z .M. Z=eeon Corp . , 7 Cal 2d 60, 66-68) In this case, for the reasons set forth above, it is our opinion that the legislative intent suggested by the senate Third Reading analysis, and by the alternative argument addressed in this discussion, cannot reasonably be inferred from the language in Sections 65995 and 65996 as revised by Chapter 1354 of the Statutes of 1992 W6 conclude, accordingly, that this alternative construction of those sections Would not be adopted by the courts A I