The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAnnexation of 2.7 acres at Edwards/Ellis/Fire Station 6 - Re Council/Agency Meeting Held: eo-An V-6u kv Deferred/Continued to: Approved Li Condi ionally Approved LJ Den a- it'y erk's Signature 14_ V_ I KA, L x— Council Meeting Date: July 5, 2000 Wye , Department ID Number: PL00-38 V be41 NQ) CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator ," PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE ANNEXATION OF 2.7 ACRES/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit Subdivision) Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a request by PLC Land Company to annex a vacant 2.7 acre site from the County of Orange to the City of Huntington Beach. This item was continued from the June I 9th meeting. The City Council's recommendation on this item will be forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission for final action. Although initially supported by the Planning Commission, upon reconsideration the Planning Commission voted to not support the request (Recommended Action - A) because of the adjacency of the site to future park area and the County of Orange's land use designations. Staff is recommending the City Council support the annexation (Recommended Action - B) because the City has pre-approved the site in its General Plan for residential development, a fiscal analysis demonstrates that development for the site will not be fiscally negative for the City, and there is adequate infrastructure and services to accommodate the property and its future development. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Recommend Denial of the Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 Planning Commission Action on May 9, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) AND NOT SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION REQUEST CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SHOMAKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: CHAPMAN, BIDDLE, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED r��nnnnnGninnTinN, 4e# -tom Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-18 and Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the City of Huntington Beach and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Company, 23 Corporate Plaza, Ste. 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: West of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (2.7 acres in the County of Orange) PL00-38 -2- 6/21/00 2:39 PM i REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 PLC requests that a vacant 2.7 net acre site be annexed from the County of Orange to the City of Huntington Beach. The negative declaration analyzes potential impacts of the annexation. Concurrent with the annexation request are several other entitlements which are analyzed separately in companion reports and are also addressed in the negative declaration. These entitlements include a zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment and local coastal program amendment to pre-zone the site and a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow for the subdivision and construction of 10 single family homes. B. BACKGROUND In July 1998 PLC submitted a request for the annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the approving body for any annexation. In February 1999, the County of Orange Board of Supervisors adopted a Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) regarding the redistribution of property taxes (Attachment No. 5). The County's TSA is consistent with that proposed for City Council adoption (Attachment No. 3). Annexation Process The following steps summarize the key milestones for an annexation in which the property owner (instead of the City) is the applicant to LAFCO if the City Council is in support of the request. ■ After the City Council takes action on the proposed project, PLC Land Company will forward the actions to LAFCO, including a copy of the City's resolution for the TSA. ■ LAFCO staff will schedule the item for Commission consideration (typically within 90- 120 days). When there is little or no controversy surrounding a proposal, and the property owner has consented to the annexation, the item may be docketed by LAFCO staff as a consent item on the LAFCO agenda. ■ LAFCO will consider the application at a public hearing. The Commission will take action on the propsal for annexation — to approve, modify or deny — and may also adopt terms and conditions. If the annexation is approved (or approved with conditions), the Commission will designate a conducting authority, usually the annexing City. ■ If appointed as the conducting authority, the City must schedule a hearing, no less than 15 nor more than 60 days after receipt of notice by LAFCO, to receive oral and/or written protests. At the hearing, the City must approve the annexation unless protest is received from at least 50 percent of the landowners owning at least 50% of the assessed value of the area to be annexed. PL00-38 -3- 6/21100 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 ■ The conducting authority resolution is forwarded to LAFCO, and LAFCO forwards appropriate information to the State Board of Equalization and County of Orange Assessor's Office. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission initially considered the project on March 28, 2000 and voted to approve the Negative Declaration and support the Annexation. They also voted to recommend approval of the associated zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment and local coastal program amendment and denied Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14, consistent with staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission approved these actions on a 5-2 vote. The applicant was the only person to speak during the public hearing. On April 11, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their prior action on the negative declaration, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment. On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission reconsidered the item. Six persons spoke during the public hearing: the applicant, a representative of Amigos de Bolsa Chica in opposition to the request, and four members of Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff in support of the request. A motion was made to uphold the Planning Commission's original action but did not pass with a 2-2 vote (3 Commissioners were absent). Because a majority vote of the Planning Commission is needed to move the item forward to City Council, the two Planning Commissioners in support of the project agreed to change their vote. Thus, the Planning Commission voted to reverse their original decision with a 4-0 vote. D. APPEAL: The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit. The annexation and legislative acts are not required to be appealed as they automatically require action by the City Council. PL00-38 -4- 6/21100 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan lists five issues that the City must consider upon receipt of a request for annexation. These are presented below with accompanying analysis. 1. Is the proposed annexation adjacent to corporate boundaries? Yes. The subject property is located adjacent to a north and west city boundary line. It is directly north of the fire station and reservoir under construction and due west of Edwards Street. 2. Does (or will) the annexation contain land uses that are compatible with City land uses? Yes. The area has been pre-general planned by the City of Huntington Beach. In January 1990, the City Council approved the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that included the designation of the subject property as Estate Residential (maximum 4 units per acre). It specifically depicted the subject property as part of a ten acre planning area with a maximum 25 units. The intent of this pre-general planning action was to inform the property owner and surrounding landowners that the City has reviewed and pre-approved the Estate Residential designation for the site should it ever be annexed by the City. At the reconsideration hearing before the Planning Commission, questions were raised about the compatibility of residential development on the site given that to the west and north lie areas designated for the future Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park. In evaluating this issue, there are two points to consider: ■ When the City Council approved the GPA and EIR in 1990, the Regional Park was already planned. Thus, this previous approval determined that residential and park uses were compatible. There has been no change in the land uses for the area or other environmental conditions that would nullify the City Council's previous conclusion. ■ The City Council has approved two residential developments since 1990 that are located directly adjacent to the Regional Park site: Ocean Colony, west of Seapoint and south of Palm, and The Bluffs, west of Edwards and north of Garfield. These projects were designed in a manner that was sensitive to the future Regional Park and in cooperation with the County of Orange, similar to the process followed for the proposed project. PL00-38 -5- 6121100 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 3. Does (or will) the annexation contain land uses that have the ability to provide economic benefit to the City? Yes. The fiscal analysis prepared for the project demonstrates that revenues associated with the project exceed expenditures for City services (Attachment No. 6). The analysis is conservative, i.e. potentially understates the economic benefit of the project, because it assumes a per unit sales price of only $578,000 which is significantly below prices for the nearby Bluffs Project and therefore may understate property tax revenue to the City, and it does not attribute any sales tax revenue to the project that might be realized from the project residents shopping in Huntington Beach. The fiscal analysis has been reviewed by the City's Director of Finance and the Director of Administrative Services who concur with the analysis. 4. Would the annexation place an undue or excessive burden on the City's or other service provider's ability to provide services? No. Development of the site was previously analyzed for residential development in the 1990 GPA for Holly Seacliff and it was determined that adequate services are available to serve the property. This property is covered by the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement and therefore the infrastructure and park improvements required by the Agreement serve this property as well as other areas of Holly Seacliff. Moreover, the GPA allows for 25 units in the immediate vicinity and only 10 units are proposed, which results in less demand for services. In addition, the project's street and landscaping along Edwards Street will be privately maintained by the homeowners' association and not require maintenance services from the City. The fiscal analysis also demonstrates that the City's expenditures for services will be less than anticipated revenues for the project. 5. Would the annexation place an undue burden on school and other public services? No. PLC Land Company has entered into a mitigation agreement with the affected school districts that provides the school districts with impact fees in excess of what they would be able to receive under current State law. The project is not expected to result in undue burdens on other public services. Property Tax Redistribution The Resolution agreeing to a redistribution of property taxes has been reviewed and approved by the Administration Department, Adminstrative Services Department and the City Attorney. Staff believes that the agreement equitably redistributes property taxes to the City. The County's current 6.4 percent share of the basic property tax levy will be split according to the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and County dated October 28, 1980 (resulting in 2.8 percent of the levy to the County and 3.56 percent to the City); 100 percent of the Orange County Fire Authority share of the tax levy and 70.5 percent PL00-38 -6- 6121100 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 of the County Library District share of the tax levy will be provided to the City; and upon annexation, the owners of the property will be required to pay the City's annual property tax levy for retirement indebtedness. F. SUMMARY The above analysis demonstrates that annexation of the 2.7 acre site would not have a negative impact on the City of Huntington Beach. This property's location also makes it a logical extension of the City corporate boundary, no matter what use may be approved for the property via associated entitlements. Staff recommends that the City Council support the requested annexation and recommend approval of the request to LAFCO. In addition, the County of Orange has officially approved the tax sharing agreement for the annexation, and staff recommends the City Council adopt a similar resolution agreeing to the property tax split. Environmental Status: The 1990 EIR for the Holly Seacliff GPA analyzed potential impacts as a result of residential development on the subject site. It was determined that a Negative Declaration was the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review to analyze the annexation and associated entitlements in the context of the EIR. Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Attachment No. 7) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-18 for thirty (30) days commencing on April 22, 1999 and ending on May 21, 1999. Comments were received from Caltrans, County of Orange, and the Edison Company concerning the proposed development and a response has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Environmental Board Comments: • The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. No response has been received. Prior to any action on the Annexation or the associated entitlements addressed in the companion reports, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. Staff, in its initial study of the,project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. PL00-38 -7- 6/21100 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Planning Commission Recommendation) 2. Findings for Approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Staff Recommendation) 3. Resolution No.' �Ocolgreeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for Annexation No. -Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A) Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach 4. Property Vicinity Map 5. County of Orange Tax Sharing Agreement Resolution, dated February 23, 1999 6. Fiscal Impact Analysis for subject property, dated November 1998 7. Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Includes Environmental Checklist, Mitigation Measures and Comment Letters) MBB/HZ PL00-38 -8- 6/21100 2:39 PM ATTACHMENT 1 PLANNING COMISSION RECOMMENDATION FINDINGS FOR DENIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18: 1. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed residential use will impact views to and from Weider Regional Park. In addition, the proposed project may result in drainage impacts to surrounding properties. 2. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to modify the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the subject property and to establish the RL-1 zoning designation is not consistent with the existing Open Space designation in the County of Orange. i ATTACHMENT 2 STAFF RECOMMENDATION FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 99-18 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the City Council prior to action on the Negative Declaration. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. The environmental analysis demonstrates that any potential impacts of the project can be adequately addressed via standard conditions of approval and mitigation measures. Annexation and subsequent development of the site have been analyzed in the context of the existing and future uses within the area and will not result in significant impacts on the environment. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project, as mitigated, will have a significant effect on the environment. Annexation of the subject property has not been shown to have a negative impact on the City of Huntington Beach. Future residential development of the site was previously analyzed in Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 in conjunction with General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 which designated future land use for the site and was determined to be an environmentally compatible land use choice for the property. ATTACHMENT 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2603" 60 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AGREEING TO A REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR ANNEXATION NO. - HOLLY SEACLIFF (PARCEL 7A) ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach has requested by Resolution of Application that the Holly Seacliff property known as Parcel "7A," located on the west side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue be annexed to the City of Huntington Beach ("Annexation No. -Holly Seacliff(Parcel 7A)Annexation"); and A legal description and map depicting the area of Annexation No. - Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A4 Annexation is attached hereto as Exhibit"A" and incorporated herein by reference; and Section 99(B) of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires jurisdictions involved in any jurisdictional change to agree to a property tax redistribution prior to the change becoming complete; and The City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange have agreed to a Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement establishing a formula for said redistribution; and NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the property tax distribution for Annexation No. - Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A)Annexation shall be in accordance with the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange (Resolution No. 80-2093) to which the County of Orange shall receive approximately forty-four percent (44%) of the revenues and the City of Huntington Beach shall receive approximately fifty-six percent (56%) of the revenues; and 2. That seventy and one-half percent (70.5%) of the property tax revenues presently accrued to the Orange County Library District for Annexation No. - Holly Seacliff(Parcel 7A) Annexation shall be received by the City of Huntington Beach; and 3. That one hundred percent (100%) of the property tax revenues presently accrued to the Orange County Fire Authority for Annexation No. - Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A)Annexation shall be received by the City of Huntington Beach. 1 4/s:4-99Reso l u ti on:99-106 RLS 99-106 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk ity t o neeyy REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: 1 City Administrator Director of Pla g 2 4/sA-99Resolution:99-106 RLS 99-106 1 3^:ui N u mi wA i tw4 i l iii uwi ei W �w w~.x it ri d e t sxi "' 1ry 1�9 _ l di0 p I((( '411.;�'�oa iiG w ii l�, Ir 11 al lrcni�fi�� II �� I 4rrtl �s M �' 'w' c i r WAi1Vr MAP w rO= TRACT NO. 15690 rnr eo.n. nRm•¢ for so.n. rwrtra RaFi \ 6e6 / J j/-_�.��"� ,—__.__.`� \ \ � � � �� I Rwc•rmra O M wu4Aesr arem 0leerar>r.mwaa l wli x fi6.e errR a rzsr,N M evaro useal+a•s enaR a M r.r /��i I ecoma a eaa x ra u or nlmuea°Err° , t. rr was•¢:nn•G =�i_�� /� �-,-__o �_ � I � a rua or ioil:neteam taswlurrD®L➢n _ 3 LDIl Y'1Q�Itl aWR lncr. I lala•Ima tDYIR1�101l. ��.��—_-- / / / /^•.� 1. mlmm earfilQ eDLLIifM./96/i MI-0.i / / �_ I- PRIVATE STREET -LOT'A' `66 J��\__—' ` �� ; y„// /_ /\/ / \ �� 1 II L,__._—� �� k L➢SIIIl I,Ym DS[:Yw:Yll \�� / /� �\ � 1 r➢n a•o u rrorona um ux:rseoDDL \ fi9X9 .. YI06 q1Y fl RMICIGI Ltll ML9 J -\ I j � / /,/ `�'' - - 1 t_\ � "" --_ °' rlo6 tm a R9r•cta Eta IRIV•R arm u� 2-� ••' � / � - �/ I I / mane:oD°aL rtwer corwr uverr iFf`= EEET ° °iYmm�olotimRl r,wrom wmimram 1 a i - --.�� , - �.� 1 •aoa mYL y tJ � �K }!arVIR li•t lltR Ltl O Ct�nE1R IW�911[t!D �/ 16 �/// LOT.:A , I SECTION A A nro°m v�ir n+ao pm.—. u quo i 6y. fi69 �� --mea-'aie�rlo�— ( � !6 i r ��'/ l I eRWR a MVff0�a1D MO°e-Ntl I LL � eq R1et w°Do ,'.f jam i � 1 ' tau R0.1%V ie. 9to i¢s u�rp1 e�.SN -T- ' \ 1I.! ;0� !D. IW R!llall DrMl xr0..s • LaR'm.nroam elm'. °'r. ! wr rts aracla xru xn. /� Mwnor /i,�/o� 9.o ye'� a�v9vaa ne[oiatoi Ir �T u!vmornmr 12.61e si_ .J I 1i I J 1 V 1 1 Rs tR amt x J 111I I I � f / I .1 T 9i.5 I I II I i--J Glr I I iil � � E}- e VIGIYTY lYr 3.6 ALDEN k , TENTATIVE MAP Joe•w•-l.-1 TRACT NO. 15690 D•� a� a►" emu:." ="+«°�" PREPARED FOR m* PLC LAND COMPANY I o. ATTACHMENT 4 tool PROJECT ' SITE —:..o..v r r -.vulrs aarr:saa�oll, cc+rnal.r11Ax1 r 1 1 I i r i i i r Ir i I 1L (1 11 yy1; [rltuillram ufuu'u ut7f'f I rtrrn mm;nTt 1 a 1 MIII II II IIIIM 111111IIIIII ��rinnitn nnrtm p 11111111111 Illlhlll llt 1 RiTTTI'ITT�11 rniI11 ��Il �INttNNM�QtMryMtIfT1 11111111111 111111111111 z e VICINITY MAP Annexation of 2.7 Acres THE CITY OFHUNTINGTON BEACH ATTACHMENT 5 01/11/2000 12:37 6192399878 WA CONSULTING PAGE 05 FROM ORANGE LAaCO (YON) 1. 10' 00 23:3 /S 23:30/YO. 4S5d21956�, P 4 i 2 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 4 ORANGE COUNTY,CALIFORNIA 5 February 23, 1999 6 On motion of Supervisor Spitzer, duly seconded and carried, the following resolution 7 was adopted- 8 BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does hereby: 9 1. Determine that the property tax exchange for CA98-07 will be in accordance with 10 the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement between the County of Orange and 11 the City of Huntington Beach(Resolution No. 80-2093). The Master Agreement 12 between the County and the City of Huntington Beach aligns approximately 44 13 percent of the revenues to the County and 56 petit to the City. 14 2, Dftrrine that 70.5 percent of the properly tax revenues accrued to the Orange 1S County Library District for CA98-07 will be transferred to the City of Huntington 16 Beach. 17 3. Determine that 100 percent of the property tax revenues accrued to the Orange is County Firc Authority for CA98-07 wilI be transferred to the City of Huntington 19 Beach. 20 4. Direct the County Executive Officer,or designee,to notify the Executive Officer of 21 the Lveal Agency Formation Commission and the Auditor-Controller of the 22 Board's determination, 23 // 24 25 26 Resolution No.99-65 27 PLC Annexation to City of Huntington Beach is Subject to Master Property Tax Transfer 28 Agreement BPD:ep i oroyr County counsel -I- ce.Aty ororman 01111/2000 12:37 6192399678 MNA CONSULTING FAGS 06 FF� CP.A'vGE Lf�rCO (MO^�; 1, 1C' C�� 23:3!/ST. 23:3i,,- iG. 4e0,219560 P 5 ' The foregoing was paesed and adopted by the following vote of the Orange County Board of Supervisors. on February 23, 1559, to wit; AYES: Supervisors: TODD SPITZER, CYNTHIA P. czAD, THOMAS W. WILSON NOES: EXCUSED: CFIARLES V. SM2TH, J'AMES W. SILVA ABSTAINED: CHAIRMAN, Orange County Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA ! ss: COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, DARLENE J. BLOOM, Clerk of the Board of Supervisors,of Orange County, Card mifa, hereby oertify that a copy of this document has been delivered to the Chairman of the Board and that the above and foregoing Rewiubon was duly and regutarly adopted by the orange County Board of Supervisors. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereto set my hand and seat. Date J.BLOOM Claris of the Balm of Su0mviaom County of Onus.ewe of Caifbnr a RasokRton No:9i�'S Agenda DIU: p't=311009 Item No. 43 I WW that Me fde Ofiv a a MW am wrmg copy of tba Rpo Wn adopmd by Ups Beard of supavism 0"county.stab of calNorrlia. RARLZME J.BLOOM,Cfe:tc of me now of superviso:a By. Depub ATTACHMENT 6 1 HOLLY SEACLIFF ANNEXATION AREA FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS (PARCEL 7A) Prepared For: The City of Huntington Beach November, 1998 Prepared By: MNA Consulting Rosenow Spevacek Group Table of Contents FISCAL STUDY APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS.............................................................I A. STUDY PURPOSE.....................................................................................................I B. STUDY APPROACH.................................................................................................I C. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS...........................................................................................I FISCALSTUDY............................................................................................................................4 I. EXPENDITURES................................................................................................................4 1. General Government..................................................................................................4 a. Administration.............................................................................................4 b. Animal Control ............................................................................................4 C. County Property Tax Collection Charges....................................................4 2. Community Development..........................................................................................5 3. Public Safety ...............................................................................................................5 a. Police Department........................................................................................5 b. Fire Protection..............................................................................................5 4. Library Services .........................................................................................................5 5. Community Services...................................................................................................6 6. Public Works...............................................................................................................6 a. Sewer Maintenance Services .......................................................................6 b. Park and Landscape Maintenance Services.................................................6 7. Contingency ................................................................................................................6 8. Road Maintenance......................................................................................................7 a. Street Maintenance.......................................................................................7 II. REVENUES.........................................................................................................................7 1. Taxes............................................................................................................................7 a. Property Taxes.............................................................................................7 b. Property Transfer Taxes...............................................................................8 C. Homeowners Property Tax Relief...............................................................8 d. Utility User Tax...........................................................................................8 e. Sales Tax......................................................................................................8 f . Transient Occupancy Taxes.........................................................................8 2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees)...................................................................9 3. Franchise Fees.............................................................................................................9 4. Development Related Fees.........................................................................................9 a. Library Community Enrichment and Development Fees............................9 b. Land Use Planning, Regulation and Inspection Fees...................................9 C. Development Impact Fees..........................................................................10 5. Other Revenues.........................................................................................................10 a. Paramedic and Ambulance Transport Fees................................................10 b. Fines and Forfeitures..................................................................................10 C. Miscellaneous Revenues............................................................................10 6. Interest.......................................................................................................................10 7. Road Fund.................................................................................................................11 III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS.............................................................................................12 EXHIBIT 1 Forecasted Assessed Values—Property Tax Transfer EXHIBIT 2 Four Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary EXHIBIT 3 Map—Annexation Area FISCAL STUDY APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS FISCAL STUDY APPROACH AND ASSUMPTIONS A. STUDY PURPOSE The primary purpose of this study is to analyze the incremental impact of annexation and development of 2.7 acres of property known as Parcel 7A, owned by PLC Land Company, into the City of Huntington Beach. The property is a portion of Planning Area Al of the master- planned development known as Holly Seacliff. The majority of Holly Seacliff (768 acres) is already located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City. A General Plan Amendment for the overall development, and an associated Development Agreement 90-1, which included the proposed annexation area, were adopted by the Huntington Beach City Council in 1990. Development of the Holly Seacliff master-planned community has been proceeding since 1990, and approximately 1,000 of the planned 2,500 residential units have been constructed. Annexation of this 2.7 acres will provide for extension of City services and enable completion of the project under the jurisdiction of the City. B. STUDY APPROACH This report focuses on what additional City service costs and revenues would occur if the project were annexed into and developed in the City of Huntington Beach. This report analyzes the forecasted "marginal" (or "incremental") cost of City services that would be added as a result of annexation, and reviews what "marginal" (or "incremental") revenues could reasonably be expected to be available to fund those services. The study assumes development as currently proposed by PLC Land Company will occur. The study then centers on a compilation of the forecasted incremental revenues and expenditures of annexation over a four-year period. It should be understood that there may be differences between the forecasts and actual results because events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, and those differences may be material. It is also important to note that this fiscal study primarily focuses on recurring revenues and expenditures. The study also discusses selected development impact fees which may accrue to the City if the area is annexed and developed, however one-time land use processing, inspection fees or charges that would be collected from new development which are used to offset direct costs to the City are assumed to be fiscally neutral. C. STUDY ASSUMPTIONS The Holly Seacliff annexation area is in an unincorporated, uninhabited area bordered on the northwest by Bolsa Chica, on the northeast by planned and existing park and open spaces, the east by existing residential development within the City of Huntington Beach and on the south by a planned City fire station and water reservoir site. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 1 huntbch\hoI Iysea\fiarpt The proposed homes within the subject development will have an average size of 3,400 square feet and an average sales price of$578,000. The project is assumed to have a one-year buildout period. Population associated with this area is estimated using a ratio of 3.4 persons per dwelling unit for all units. In the first year of absorption, 34 persons are projected. The current secured assessed valuation of the area is $458,221. Estimated secured assessed valuation for this development is estimated to increase to an estimated secured and unsecured assessed valuation of approximately $6.3 million by project buildout. (See Exhibit 1) The major public agencies currently providing services in the annexation area are the County of Orange and the Orange County Fire Authority. The County of Orange is currently responsible for policymaking and administration, law enforcement, animal control, planning and land use regulation, building inspection, parks and recreation, library services, flood control, and the maintenance and improvement of roads. The Orange County Fire Authority currently is responsible for providing fire protection, rescue and emergency paramedics services to all properties within the annexation area. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 2 huntbch\hollysea\tiarpt EXHIBIT 1 Forecasted Assessed Values - Property Tax Transfer. Holly Seacliff Project Fiscal Impact Analysis (Full Year 1) (Full Year 2) (Full Year 3) (Full Year 4) Fiscal1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2% Growth Rate Secured Assessed Value 4457740 454,655 6,359,348 6,486,535 6,616,266 Increases from Development 5,895,600 0 0 0 Unsecured Value 12,481 12,730 12,985 11245 13,510 TOTAL ASSESSED VALUE 458,221 6,362,985 6,372,333 6,499,779 6,629,775 GENERAL PROPERTY TAX LEVY 63,630 63,723 64,998 66,298 CURRENT PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION 100% County of Orange @ 0.0629 4,002 4,008 4,088 4,170 0% City of Huntington Beach @ 0 0 0 0 0 100% Library District a 0.0169 1,075 1,077 1,098 1,120 100% Fire Authority @.1145 7,286 7,296 7,442 7,591 POTENTIAL PROPERTY TAX DISTRIBUTION 44% County of*Orange c, 0.0277 1,761 1,764 1,799 1,835 56% City of Huntington Beach @ 0.03.52 2,241 2,245 2,289 2,335 70.5% Library District(City)@ 0.0119 758 7.59 774 790 100% Fire Authority(City)@ 0.1145 7,286 7,296 7,442 7,591 100% I-IB City Employment Retirmt@.04930 3,137 3,142 3,204 3,268 Potential City Tax Rate= 0.2109 Property Tax Revenue Calculation: Proposed New SFR Units 10 0 0 0 Huntington Beach(56%of Current 1:ax Distrib.) 2,241 2,245 2,289 2,335 Library District-(Gen Levy x 0.0169 x 70.5%) 7.58 7.59 774 790 Fire Authority-(Gen Levy x 0.1145) 7,286 7,296 7,442 7,591 HB City Employment Retirmt(Override)@.04930 3,137 3,142 3,204 3,268 Property Tax Total: 13,422 13,442 13,711 13,985 PROPERTY TRANSFER TAXES Value Transferred @ 10% 5,895,600 601,351 0 625,646 Revenue to City @$0.55/$1,000 3,243 331 0 344 Source:Orange County Auditor Controller Reports,1998-99 Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 3 huntbWhol lyseaV iarpt FISCAL STUDY FISCAL STUDY ANALYSIS OF INCREMENTAL FISCAL IMPACTS As was noted in the Fiscal Study Approach and Assumptions summary, the purpose of this study is to determine the potential incremental costs that the City would incur if the area were to receive municipal services through annexation into and development in the City of Huntington Beach. These costs are then compared to new revenues that can be anticipated to become available to the City as the result of annexation and development. The following, therefore, discusses the forecast incremental expenditures to be made by the City of Huntington Beach if annexation were to occur prior to development, and projects the new revenues that could be expected to be received by the City as the result of annexation. I. EXPENDITURES The following provides an analysis of the potential cost impacts of annexation to specific City functions and programs, including costs for staffing, operating services and supplies, equipment and other miscellaneous expenditures. Expenditures have been categorized by departments within the City's organizational structure and are estimated as follows. 1. General Government: a. Administration The analysis assumed no new positions, equipment or major operating costs would be incurred as a result of the annexation. Minimal expenditures including legal costs, advertising, postage, and other selected services and supplies were estimated. Costs associated with bi-annual elections are included. Costs were estimated based on a case by case analysis or a per capita rate using City budget data. b. Animal Control Animal Control Field and Shelter Services are provided by the County through a contract with the City. The City compensates the County for these services, net of any licensing and animal control-related revenues collected by the County. The cost for Animal Control Services within this report is an estimate based upon a per-capita formula, net of related revenues. c. County Property Tax Collection Charges Beginning in 1992-93, the County Auditor-Controller's Office charged cities and local districts receiving property tax revenue for incidental administrative costs. These charges are estimated at 2% of all property tax revenues. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 4 huntbch\hoI I yseaVi arpt 2. Community Development: Upon the annexation of the subject area, the City Community Development Department will assume the processing of all land use related services. These services will be off-set by fees. 3. Public Safety: a. Police Department If annexed, the City's Police Department will provide all law enforcement related services to the Holly Seacliff area. The annexed area is completely enveloped by the City, all ingress and egress could impact traffic enforcement, collision calls, and criminal activity calls. The Police Department estimates that existing resources (patrol and traffic) can absorb any service impacts emanating from this development. In preparing cost estimates, the Police Department notes that the City currently staffs at an average ratio of. 1.2 officers per thousand. Translated literally a development with a buildout population of 34 would not require any additional officers. The Department also considers socio-economic and development density factors. By comparing "like developments", the Department has determined that fewer than average calls can be anticipated from this type of development. b. Fire Protection The Holly Seacliff Development Agreement required that the master plan developers fund construction of a new fire station. This station, to be located on Edwards Avenue just south and adjacent to the annexation site, will insure that adequate levels of fire and paramedic service are available to the entire project, including the proposed annexation area. Therefore, the Fire Department has indicated that existing fire stations in proximity to this area will be able to adequately provide fire protection and paramedic services with no increase in direct cost. If annexed, the obligation to provide ambulance services to the annexation area will be assumed by the City. The cost of personnel, operating services and supplies, and equipment will be partially offset by Paramedic and Ambulance Transport Fees. Total ambulance cost estimates are based on buildout population. 4. Library Services: The additional population generated by the proposed development within the annexation area will create minimal increases in the use of library facilities throughout the City. The Library Services Department has estimated minimal operating services and supplies, expenses required at existing City library facilities. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 5 huntbcMhoI I yseaTiarpt 5. Community Services: Within the annexation area, there is no anticipated financial impact relative to existing landscape maintenance services. All open space areas and landscaping are proposed to be maintained by a proposed homeowners association. It is unlikely that the residents of this area will create other than minimal impacts on existing sports facilities in other areas of the City. While the majority of homeowners will not be senior citizens, it is assumed that some seniors often live with their offspring. Based on similar residential areas, a number of seniors would require Senior Outreach services, including meal delivery, transportation, counseling, and other adult day care services. A minimal annual cost is forecasted. There will also be some impacts on existing youth recreation programs, including swim lessons, day care, summer camp, etc. These classes currently have waiting lists. The additional youth generated from the development project could increase the length of this waiting list. 6. Public Works: a. Sewer Maintenance Services The addition of residential units to the City from this annexation area will require the maintenance of the applicable local sewer system services, including sewer line cleaning. Maintenance costs forecasted were based on the number of units constructed and assuming 220 gallons per unit per day of sewer flow. b. Park and Landscape Maintenance Services As discussed earlier, all parkway and landscape slope maintenance will be the financial responsibility of a homeowners association. Thus, no landscape maintenance costs have been included as forecasted expenditures in Exhibit 2. 7. Contingency: A 10% contingency factor has been added to the General Fund expenditure estimate to meet unforeseen programs or emergency needs. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 6 huntbch\hoIIysea\ti arpt 8. Road Maintenance: a. Street Maintenance No street maintenance expenditures were projected. All project streets within the annexation area are private. II. REVENUES The following revenue section analyzes new, recurring revenues from various state and local sources that will be received by the City as the result of annexation. One-time only, development related fees are discussed as potential revenue sources but, except for contribution for library facilities, these one-time fees are not incorporated into the cost/benefit calculations. The primary source of General Fund revenues are noted below and shown on Exhibit 2: 1. Taxes: a. Property Taxes The County of Orange currently receives an approximate 6.29% "share" of the total property tax paid on properties located in the unincorporated areas. If the subject area were to be annexed into the City of Huntington Beach, this 6.29% share would be divided between the City and the County. For the purpose of this analysis, this report assumes that the property tax ratio contained in the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and the County, and set forth in a City Council resolution adopted on October 28, 1980, will apply. The division of property tax proscribed by the agreement, which is based on historical tax ratios prior to the passage of Proposition 13, is 56% City/44% County. If this assumption is used, upon annexation the City would receive 56% of the total current County General Fund property tax revenue (3.52%), and the County would retain the remaining 44% of their current General Fund property tax revenue share (2.77%). In addition to the split of the County 6% base property tax, the City would receive the tax override of 4.93% for the City's Employee Retirement System; an estimated 70.5% of the total current County Library District property tax revenues (1.19%); and 100% of the total current Orange County Fire Authority property tax revenues (11.45%). Cumulatively, the City would receive a combined approximate tax rate of 21.1%. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beale 7 huntbch\hoIIysea\tiarpt b. Property Transfer Taxes Property transfer taxes are generated at the time a new property is sold or an existing property is resold. A property transfer tax of $1.10 per $1,000 (0.110%) of transferred value is levied on the sale of real property and is divided between the County of Orange and the City. The amount of property transfer tax received will depend upon the sale of land and the level of resale activity within the annexation area. These revenues have been estimated using the assumption of a 10% turnover rate biannually at the rate of$.55 per $1,000 of assessed values. c. Homeowners Property Tax Relief Revenue estimates generated from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief were not specifically projected because this analysis bases the Property Tax Apportionment on assessed valuation gross of the Homeowners Exemption. Therefore, revenue from the Homeowner's Property Tax Relief is included in the Property Tax Apportionment. d. Utility User Tax A utility tax was estimated by projecting monthly utility uses (cable TV, gas, electrical, and phone) and the projected population growth and then applying the City's 5% tax rate to all service billings. Water services revenues were not included in this analysis. e. Sales Tax Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive a percentage of the sales tax charged on qualifying retail sales from businesses within the annexation area. However, no direct sales tax revenues are projected to be generated in the annexation area. Indirect sales tax will be contributed to the City by the increase in population, creating additional purchasing potential of new local residents, regardless of annexation. However, the Study did not include any estimates of these indirect revenues. f. Transient Occupancy Taxes There are currently no planned hotels, motels or any facilities that provide short-term or overnight lodging in the annexation area. Therefore, no estimation of Transient Occupancy Tax revenue has been included. Rosenow Spevacek Croup,Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis Novemher, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 8 huntbch\hoI Iysca\tiarpt 2. State Subventions (Motor Vehicle Fees): Upon annexation, the City will be eligible to receive Motor Vehicle In-Lieu taxes. These taxes are collected by the State's Department of Motor Vehicles and allocated to cities on a per capita basis based on a set rate determined annually. Off-road Vehicle taxes are also allocated to cities by the State on a per capita basis. Both subventions are based on the estimated population for the project area during each development phase. The per capita figures used in the revenue summary have been provided by the State Controller's office for the 1998-99 fiscal year. 3. Franchise Fees: Upon annexation, the City will receive the franchise fees currently paid to the County by the cable television operator, various Southern California utilities and the refuse collection operator. These fees have been estimated on a per capita basis using budget figures from the City. 4. Development Related Fees: The fees described below are not included unless as noted below in the cost/benefit calculations because these fees specially offset costs of development related processing services, capital facilities and infrastructure impacts. Only the "net" cost of the related services are indicated under "Expenditures". a. Library Community Enrichment and Development Fees The City has instituted and currently assesses two separate library-related development fees. A fee of$0.15 per square foot is assessed on all new development under the Community Enrichment Library Fee. An additional $0.25 per square foot is charged as a Library Development Fee. Anticipated revenues to be collected from the combined library fees are reflected in Exhibit 2. b. Land Use Planning, Regulation and Inspection Fees The City is authorized to charge fees for all land use planning, regulation and inspection services. The City would utilize the City's existing fee schedule. Fees offset most of the City's cost in providing these services and are collected for building and permit inspection services, plan checking, public works inspection, grading permit issuance and review and other engineering related services. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 9 huntbch\hoI I yscaTarpt c. Development Impact Fees Under the provisions of State law, the City may collect development fees for the purpose of construction or improving capital facilities. Fees received must demonstrate a nexus between the new development and the impact on affected capital facilities and infrastructure. These fees must also be segregated from the General Fund in order to avoid commingling. Certain fees must be spent or committed within five years from the time they are collected. The City currently imposes traffic mitigation, library, park and recreation, water and sewer impact fees. These fees are determined based on the number of dwelling units and/or trip ends. The City may also collect additional impact fees through individual developer agreements. Development impact fees are one-time only revenues and must not exceed the cost of required capital facilities. For purposes of this report, no impact fees have been forecasted. The annexation area is part of Development Agreement 90-1 and is therefore subject to developer obligations and fee payments as set forth per the terms of the Development Agreement. 5. Other Revenues: a. Paramedic and Ambulance Transport Fees Upon annexation, it is assumed that the City will impose a paramedic and ambulance transport fee. These were forecasted based on an average transport fee of$361 and a paramedic fee of$185. These fees were applied.to estimated patient transports and the number of transports accompanied by paramedic personnel. b. Fines and Forfeitures This represents both Motor Vehicle Code fines, Municipal Code fines, and other miscellaneous fines and forfeitures. Motor Vehicle and Municipal Code fines were estimated on a per capita basis using current budget data from the City. c. Miscellaneous Revenues Miscellaneous revenues include map sales, microfilm sales, code/certificate compliance, special investigation fees, nuisance abatement and other revenues. This revenue has been estimated on a per-capita basis using the City's fiscal year 1997-98 budget. 6. Interest• Interest earnings are based on the investment of excess cash. Rosenow Spevacek Group,Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 10 huntbWbol l yseaUSarpt 7. Road Fund: All Road Fund subventions are calculated and allocated to the cities on a per capita basis, with the exception of Section 2107.5. The State Subvention Section 2107.5 is allocated to the cities based upon total population size. It is estimated that annexation and development of the subject area would add approximately 34 population to the existing population of the City. According to State data, this added population will not place the City's population status into the next revenue threshold. As such, no revenue is reflected relative to Section 2107.5. Similar to other state subventions, road fund revenues initially would be based at the estimated population during each development phase. Other Road Fund revenues include the voter-approved Measure "M" sales tax distributed by the Orange County Transportation Authority. Revenues attributed to these gasoline taxes are restricted for use on road related maintenance expenditures. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach huntbch\hu I lyseaVlarpt III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: ANNEXATION PRIOR TO DEVELOPMENT The forecasted expenditures and revenues for this study have been calculated using conservative methodologies and modest escalation factors. Based upon this fiscal analysis of annexation of the subject area, forecasted City revenues for the first fiscal year exceed the estimated total expenditures. The projections indicate a cumulative surplus by the Year 4 of$114,335. The total forecasted revenues exceed the estimated expenditures for Fiscal Year 1 for a surplus of$41,146. In Fiscal Years 2 through 4, the total forecasted revenues will exceed the forecasted expenditures by a range of$24,024 to $25,030. The forecasted Road Fund revenues exceed estimated Road Fund expenditures in each fiscal year. It is important to note that the use of these fiords is restricted to road-related expenditures. In Fiscal Years 1 through 4, the total forecasted road fund revenues exceed related expenditures by $794, with a cumulative surplus of$3,177. Rosenow Spevacek Group, Inc. Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis November, 1998 City of Huntington Beach 12 huntbch\hoIIysea\f tarpt EXHIBIT 2 Four Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis Year 1 Year 2 Year 2:; Year 3 Year 3 Year 4 Year 4 (Buildout) (Full Year) Change (Full Year) Change (Full Year), Change GENERAL FUND REVENUES TAXES X? Property Tax 11422 13,441 0°fo' 13,711 2%' 137985 Property Transfer Tax 3,243 331 0 344 Utility User Tax 5,043 5,1943% 5,350 3%' 5.510 Sales Tax 0 00" 0 Transient Occupancy_Tax 0 0 - 0 " 0 — — -------- — Subtotal 21,707 18,96713°l0' 19,061 i.0°lo- 19,839 4% �a MOTOR VEHICLE FEES Motor Vehicle In-Lieu 1,384 1,3840%' 1,384 0%' 1,384 '` 0%° Off-Highway License �0% 1 0ON 1 0% Subtotal 1,385 1,385 0% 1,385 0% L385 0%a_ FRANCHISE FEES Gas, Electric,Trash,and Cable TV 326 335 30/c" 346 3% 356 3%° Subtotal 326 335 -3%, 346 3%. 356 3% OTHER REVENUES >f Paramedic and Ambulance Transport Fees 2,175 2,240 3% 2,307 3% 2.377 3% Fines& Forfeitures 427 427 0% 427 0% 427 0% Oil Extraction Tax 0 0 0 0 ` Capital Contribution Fee(Fire) 0 0 0 0 Capital Contribution Fee(Library) 13,600 0 0 0 Miscellaneous Revenues 122 122 0%` 122 0%; 122 0%: Subtotal -- — - 16,323 2,789 -83% " 2,856 20W 1925 " ' `2.42% Interest Earnines 2,011 1,157 L162 0%0' 1,207 4OW; TOTAL GENERAL FUND 39,741 23,476 =41%. 23,647 .4%. 24.505 4% ROAD FUNDS Section 2105 208 208 0%, 208 0%`: 208 0% Section 2106 141 141 0% 141 :0%l 141 0% Section 2107 293 293 -'0%:, 293 0% 293 0%= Section 2107.5 0 0 0 0 Measure"M" Local Turnback 152 15� 0% 152 ""�0% 152 '. 0%aF Interest Earnines 42 42 = 0%' 42 ." 0%` 42 0% TOTAL ROAD FUNDS 794 794 �0% 794 0 o 794 0%0'. TOTAL ALL REVENUES 42,588 25,468 40%0', 25,645 .1%', 26.548 �4°fo EXHIBIT 2 Four Year Revenue & Expenditure Summary Holly Seacliff Fiscal Impact Analysis Year 1 Year 2 Yearn Year 3 Y6ar-3 Year 4 Year 4 (Buildout) (Full Year) Change', (Full Year) Change `(Full Year) Change GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ; 1 GENERAL GOVERNMENT Administration 63 36 63 - 72% 36 42°/d' Animal Control(Net) 72 72 0%i 72 t 0% 72 0% County Taff Collection Charge 268 269 , 0%� _ 274' 2%' 280 2% Subtotal --- — 403 ---377 -6°/d 409 8%E 388 '`'` -50/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Community Development(Net) _ -- 0 — 0 — 0 0 Subtotal 0 0 0 0 PUBLIC SAFETY Law Enforcement Services 0 0 0 0 Fire Protection and Inspection 0 0 0 0 Ambulance Services 182 187 3%` 193 3%` _ 199 3% Subtotal----" -------- ---------- 182 - ----- 187 3%---- 193 3%— —199 3%` LIBRARY SERVICES E Library Services 425 438 3% - 451 3% -- 464 3 Subtotal 425 438 3% 451 .. - 3%; 464 3%' COMMUNITY SERVICES : Community Services-Senior Outreach 45 46 3%' 48 3%'. 49 3% Subtotal 45 46 3% 48 3%--- 49 3%/d PUBLIC WORKS ' Sewer Maintenance Services 256 264 3%' 272 3%', 280 3%' Subtotal 256 264 3%` - 272, 3% 280 3% CONTINGENCY 131 131 0%, 137 5%1 138 i TOTAL GENERAL FUND 1,442 1.444 0% 1.509 - 5%' 1,518 1 ROAD MAINTENANCE Street Maintenance 0 0 0 0 Street Sweeping 0 0 0 0 Bike Trail Maintenance 0 0 0 0 ' Traffic Signal Operation/Maintenance — — 0 — 0 _ _0 0 Contingency 0 0 0 - 0 E f { TOTAL ROAD FUND 0 0 0 0 TOTAL ALL EXPENDITURES 1,442 1A44 0% 1,509 5%` 1,518 1%i REVENUE SURPLUS/(SHORTFALL) 41,146 24,024 -42% 24,135 00l0 25,030 4%` CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 41,146 65,170 89,306 i 114,335 General Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) -- — -- -- 38,299 _22,032_ — 22,137 22,987 -- -- Cumulative General Fund 38.299 60,331 82,468 105,455 Road Fund Surplus/(Shortfall) 794 794 794 794 Cumulative Road Fund 794 1,588 2,383 3,177 d . ` E N r_EREEE�.■EE�..EEEEEr•■.�E�iaEt iii—■.EEEEEEEr D D t`[ B4 is °3E ]7��77�L77�EL77��{{��7/EEll��ff��7EEL77 77�E��]]''��S77EF W cc � PIANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS L7L�Lt1"L1t1J j,ll/17 L]L<CL'1 Pi■�■ice. O�7 ({.'"1 3 "'�" = AREA UN ITl.0 PUN IT RE1^' N y L'40 AC = I E IU x5 x8 i 2 Eze w IrA ' IQ o� (� 1 = '4 3 E le I ss en ,s ■ _ Ellis Avenue cs 23 ■ i5 :z: L;+fi."� .�s,',ewe;'.'riW°Ta;r•.'—.,.N.r.«rs;,.A ,,.,: ------- =.w.3x"^^.^-i_,"— - - --- - N.«v;a••-� _ "'wa•9¢-ems. ;fix` .¢■s y2y,-„¢'f.;i� 'L; .. r,r; 7 `.,,� "ei>; .%, Z, H ,.. .z3' .;'.Yu�,q�'` .".�. ,ci" i 14if1sail•�iil��i�f ■I��li1 = iF -.F',5:, :"Lt TOTAL PLANNING AREA ACREAGE/ 1] ■ - - '%_'_ __. .P— „xi�x..�v< ,:. ^�.,.,:�°`r,,,:✓,,�;•a'ar;, ;v _..^ __�_ _ _ :"rK- "atr` `x'"�•�'""_ --!'ra .,z.-f_m, s..... _ AuowAeLe urvlrs ]s o ■ E'i I PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS �i.■EEEEd------ I�iF I B2 F' Ib AREA UNIT LU.tUN10 AC GP MAX. f--- x m m m E 25 Du:nC i iya i 46 AC i F'si<F! •c B 3 E se. is, les j msaenc'' L 3r0 OUTAC �� o a-� < os m -------------- Irl �_------_- 1 I Eia.qI 6o AC l�""�+` CL C_ '■I OLOWA AL P6 E UING NnQAREA/ACREAGE/ 2. 11. ,' M O_ N *INCLUDES 4 ACRE PARK ;.2Dii:Ac l�Ir �;d -- 4 ACRE PAPK T ' 29 AC O= ■ _ ■ 1 a' I "■'e' a�` 240 DU - ■ 8.3 DUlAC I■I H ••• i �< � C PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS I It; 1 k G AREA UNIT LU.PUN GP.MAIL + /rt E'i: lwrf M ] M 2! 24) W5 isI [■' lye �,� _ _ �,� ■ �1 I A2 n■9 ]AC / 7 1 M I on IUs E j L 60 DU ,—r=--- 'S C a MN xo �o xn I 26 AC yS■ \s1 / IffI `; ! 8.6 DtuAC �� _ --�I� s M 33• xs vs ■ II 99 C{f5i \\ /j< t�■:' • = Ii I e MN a Ioo 1so • I 35 DL';A.0 v' t` F< ] I 32 I "■ \�� /< y -__—_____�___�_J a"r �/ = I' �y-� TOTAL PUNNING AREA/AGQEAGF/ 19I 1535 ��__-� ? "�s3 _ i■ :>'..v%_.v;,' ALLOWABLE UNITS l-E A { ■.,----------- --- �� I r-"'�,.'S *INCLUDES 4 ACRE PARK gy,Uri,:' • A4 T PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS B3 = .. s . A AREA UNn t U.PUN G P MAX E 20 AC 29 AC = r I C7 I.. 400 DU I425 C�1 = '�y� 1 Is ns na i' ' 14.,GLJiAC ] L 23 150 161 • ♦� 23 AC \- B1 I 546AC I 20Du/Ac a14,7 agar = y 3 w 4 .. A3 �:s E 1 3.1 DL';AC I�'■n! 32 AC I ,i.`F" ■ D L 1r. Im Ile 4 ACRE PIRK P■'" TS - ' / E ''�� 56 AC t' _ ,A4 - s M u :es 330 D9 `\ 16 AC ssD;I I I M u e MN u xeo 3zs d M� Il !■I . e0 4 99 OS 1,CU 1 2.3 Gti.'AC "N 6AC ■ R l I 13 AC '^�Ir' •�-„-�,•- - +� \�- - E� AL 4'N,'x rOt.L PUNNING AREA ACR[ACF/ Jrv ,;._ �■ ., -_^T^e^s....r, -^--n--r��-�-! _ _ � _—_ _f "�.,�ai. f.Ei� IW 1<50 >nw...s...,"x�"��,w � .: :�-,,;�r,+x",�,,,:,ra c'i+;'�-��`. '.,-C��x,',. =,.a�^.e;n's- ...^.�€,-K^--m. .;YY»�;:. „,�,� —;'L-w,.,r"... L � �■E■ii ,.".��"��.:k . > ..-T�.v.m..u"a.-<:: >s. , . ,. ,,,.e . . . .,� , e^ u. _- —� ��F_.'^'�'' ALLOWAELF UNm u "?>7! ""'=::'t��;.e.;_r�FEi Z ■w�w■�IR[�1� i�E�iaF��aat•IraiE�LLi■1■EF�Ei■f1�■ir�F�sE/iEE�Er�IraaELr�l[�iil�■■iEri�EAiaiEil■o�UP�Ei��Etr!•EIr "i _1$" �. ,,.'.,x,,,y�_�_.,,,,f.,■i��. ", f� ,} ="�-- " jF INCLUDES d ACRE PARK ■ xK el D1" D$ — ->:� " "V'•� Garfield Avenue ■ `\ D5 � D6 �- .F� �,:' _._._.�E1 C I �e x 1"�1 PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS 18 AC r I p•'� E5 I"'� / [LQ' ■ }t' 22S DU ' 7 AC M 13 AC 1 � I6 oU 9f �•`r AREA u'n N 16 Lu.155 cP.QAX 22 AC s M `O ■R�'' \ 26s Gu i 260 Du ;� 22 AC 9.7 Ownc x e V x0 i I 20 DU/AC F I 1 M 9 &5 135 Sg •. ��-_ -_� E 4 Mo m ns o0 aQ ■• �#y A PUNNING L..I ['' Sh lot. ARFA ACREAGE/ I �� ■ak� �il "� ALLOWABLE UNIr3 111 706 o` A L ('a 23 AU E2 13 AC \ D7 J. E3 GRAND TOTAL de .ale RE/J 6.5 50 DU?ACDU 3 oD eu k■rv:;� M "^r< '�1 M RE 14 AC 9 AC � ' N�"- ,y 8 AC •■ The number of guide t t d ve Indicaopmeteo on Me land Use Plan ` `A�Ft PARK �\ 60 DU .;I AS DU r7 "7 70 CU shall serve as a guide tot development ■ ' I 5.7 DWAc 9.a DU/AC \•fi\ ,;� 86 GU;AC ■ /r D , 3_� . \` r.; x� ■■—.■— Dwelll the So may be nnnGArea,s from oplanning Lmuor units •• numb the same Plann its Area,so bng as the Phan for e number of dwelling units allowed by General Plan for each CT e •�`"' /ri Clay Avenue Planning Unit Is not exceeded and so long as the total number c■, 1'°- of dwelling units allocated for that Planning Area 6 not ' c` '�� '■ exceeded. E4 /'' STATISTICAL SUMMARY of% 5MD � NI. ! �I;y1 FSO-FNnAI • lF"."r.7 fX..�� 3 AC a76 DU i%d Lo�oNlnsm D3 o1s»sj ■ Bbx Msory ofs ��i (�I(,, 11 ��■■■a .._..na ]N t '„�''j Irw� MD 00EVFlOn.,FEn y Ete 63 AC E((■ ■; • 370 DU EI[� ` © COMMtxus • 6.9 OU/AC •1 ♦♦�• <:. �aAikFl�lll� ESIE�YItisL ��+Ll -dri / v.,_.`..`. -Jr-,.•ems„y;? vfry svAee � Yorktown Avenue ♦ ia"�y'� �{ �� OS rx \Vi *Pol•nnal Ait.rnot•Location For Camm.rclol ♦ 22 ■ U Pot.nllal School 511• I d Loused wIIhN 11e County of Orange I nsdictlon. ♦♦/ Fn Proposed uses are consistent with Amendment 69.1 ■ / C ® of the Bolsa Chlu Cenlfied Land Use Plan. .. •• ♦ O . CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT I I ATTACHMENT 7 N , 4 � v�kaR �' �'`',%�•' Ag'e s r ° s, �` •{ 00 y fir.. s �d �, tix � 69 �', '.s RONMENTAL CHE�CKL�ISTFO `e , fix , C►FHTINGTumBEACH a k ° zPLANNINGDEPART ` ENVIR NMEN1 ALow ASSESSMENT` Q 98° e18 k AN x" X y'X sue, ni rt' d 1. PROJECT TITLE: HOLLY SEACLIFF ANNEXATION AND 10 LOT SUBDIVISION Concurrent Entitlements: Tentative Tract Map No. 15690/Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2/ Variance No. 99-4/Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Joseph Thompson, Planning Aide Phone: (714) 536-5561 3. PROJECT LOCATION: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 15 feet south of Ellis Avenue 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: PLC Land Company 23 Corporate Plaza Suite 250 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Contact Person: Bill Holman Phone: (949) 721-9177 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RL-4-sp(Estate Residential—max. 4 units per net acre) 6. ZONING: The applicant is requesting a designation of: RL (Low Density Residential) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Annexation of 2.71 acres of land presently located in the jurisdiction of the County of Orange into the City of Huntington Beach. The Zoning Map Amendment is required to establish City zoning on the property; a zoning designation of RL (Residential Low Density) is requested. The project includes a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 2.71 acres into ten(10) single family lots, however, no construction of homes is proposed at this time. Variance No. 99-4 is requested to allow reduced lot widths on four(4) of the ten(10) single family lots (34-feet to 40-feet wide in lieu of the required minimum 45-feet wide). Environmental Checklist 1 of 20 EA 98-18 8. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: EIR 89-1 (Holly Seacliff Environmental Impact Report) 9. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/ Service Systems ❑ Geology/ Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials Z Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a potentially significant effect(s)on the environment, but at least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be ❑ addressed. Environmental Checklist 2 of 20 EA 98-18 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further ❑ is equire 7atu Date 0stph Thompson Planning Aide Printed Name Title EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site,cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code of Regulations, but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval-The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project, some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However, because they are considered part of the project, they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers' information, a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. 3. Environmental Checklist 3 of 20 EA 98-18 SAMPLE QUESTION. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) El El 11 Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a fat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or0 El Z regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 5,6, 10, 14, 18) b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ❑ El El Z natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 10, 14, 19) c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1, 5, 18) Discussion: The project site is vacant and is surrounded by the proposed Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park to the north and west, a planned City fire station and partially above ground water reservoir to the south,and existing single family residences across Edwards Street to the east. The residential neighborhood to the east of the subject property is located within the Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan and is zoned Estate Residential,allowing for a maximum of three dwelling units per acre. The subject property is currently located within County of Orange jurisdiction and is located directly outside the Huntington Beach city boundary but within the City's sphere of influence and the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment area. In January of 1990,the subject property was designated for Estate Residential development via the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment. Annexation of the subject property will occur prior to any type of development. An application for annexation has been submitted to LAFCO. The proposed project allows for a maximum density of four dwelling units per net acre and is designed to be compatible with other single-family tracts in the area in terms of lot size and floor area. All lots will comply with the minimum 6,000 square foot requirement for RL lots as called for in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. However, in an effort to be consistent with other estate residential lots existing in the area,the City recommends minimum 7,000 square foot lots for this development with the exception of one(1)lot, and the applicant has designed the subdivision accordingly. The applicant is requesting a variance from minimum lot widths for Lot 4(38 feet wide),Lot 5 (37 feet wide),Lot 6(30 feet wide),and Lot 7(39 feet wide) in lieu of the 45 feet minimum lot width as required in the zoning code. Environmental Checklist 4 of 20 EA 98-1�8 '. .,tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The proposed Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park is adjacent to the site. A sloped landscaped area at the rear of each lot abutting the park will provide buffering and no direct access is proposed between the site and the park. The project not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan and will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an existing neighborhood. No significant adverse land-use impacts resulting from the development are anticipated. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly El El 0 El (e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 3, 5, 14, 18) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating ❑ El 0 the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 3, 5) c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the El 11 El 0 construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 3, 5) Discussion: The project will subdivide the existing 2.71 acres into ten single-family lots. Approximately 37 occupants are anticipated if a single-family residence is built on each of the lots. The population increase resulting from this future development is consistent with the growth projections in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and regional projections and represents less than 0.1 percent of the city's current population. The subject site is currently vacant and there will be no displacement of housing or people as part of this project. No significant adverse population impacts resulting from the development are anticipated. III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the z El most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 1, 5, 7, 11) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 5,7, 11) 1E El iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? El El Z El (Sources: 5,7, 11) iv) Landslides? (Sources: 5,7, 11) El El Environmental Checklist 5 of 20 EA 98-18 ,,tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil,or changes in . E El Fx� 0 topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading,or fill? (Sources: 3,5, 7, 11) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that El El El would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, 5,7, 11) d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the El El 0 Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1,5,7, 11) Discussion: The existing site slopes downward beginning at the middle of the site and gradually loses approximately 14 feet in elevation at the west property line and 11 feet in elevation at the north property line,both adjacent to the proposed Harriett M. Weider Regional Park. The southeastern portion of the site is generally flat and level with Edwards Street. The project proposes that 100 percent of the site be graded. The applicant has provided two grading alternatives. Alternative A(Attachment No.2a),the applicant's original submittal,requires 20,000 cubic yards of fill with no cutting of soil. The majority of fill will occur on the north and west sides of the site to provide level building sites. This alternative results in pads that are approximately three feet above top of curb. Fill depths range from.one foot at the southeastern corner of the site(Lot 10)to 17.9 feet at the western edge of the site(Lot 5). After grading,the site will have a two to one(2:1)slope along the north and west portions of the site. This slope will have a maximum width of 24 feet along the north property line and 39 feet along the west property line with a maximum height differential of 17 feet at the western edge. After review of Alternative A,the Huntington Beach Department of Public Works requested the applicant provide another grading alternative to accommodate a different drainage solution. Alternative B(Attachment No.2b)requires less fill, approximately 13,300 cubic yards of soil,with 800 cubic yards of cut. This design results in a slightly lower profile,with the proposed street and pads decreasing in height in a westerly direction. Adjacent to Edwards Street,pad heights are approximately two feet above top of curb but decrease by two feet at the west edge(Lots 5 and 6). Similarly,the street elevation slopes down to the west,decreasing by approximately 1.5 feet. The maximum fill depth decreases to 13 feet at the western edge of the site(Lot 5). The resulting project would also have a two to one(2:1)slope along the north and west portions of the site,though narrower than that of Alternative A,with a maximum height differential of 13.5 feet. The import of soil for either alternative will be via an approved truck-hauling route. Displacement,compaction, and over- covering of soil associated with the construction of the infrastructure improvements are considered negligible. Site preparation may result in short term wind and water erosion impacts;however,the impacts from proposed grading on the project site are not considered significant and will be further reduced by standard conditions of approval requirements. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of dust control measures and submittal of an erosion control plan(see Condition No. 12 on Attachment No.3). The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Hazards Zone or any other known geologic hazard areas. However, in the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area,the site may be subject to ground shaking. Structures built in California are required to comply with standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code to minimize the structural risks from ground shaking. Per the 1992 Technical Background Report General Plan Update,the project site is located in an area of moderate to high clay content which can be indicative of expansive soils. However,this is common in the City and impacts can be addressed through compliance with applicable soils,grading and structural foundation requirements,codes and ordinances,such that any potential geologic impacts will be reduced to a level of insignificance. (See Standard Condition No.i on Attachment No. 3 requiring compliance with all local and State codes). Environmental Checklist 6 of 20 EA 98-18 r otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the. project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X❑ requirements? (Sources: 3,4, 14) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ M substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 7, 14) c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or El O El area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 1,2,3, 14, 19) d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? (Sources: 1,2,3, 14, 19) e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the El El Z capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. (Sources: 5, 12, 14, 19) f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 14, ❑ a 19) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood In Rate El Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1,5, 12) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which El ❑ O would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1, 5, 12) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury ❑ ❑X or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1,5, 12) j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 5, 14) 11 El Environmental Checklist 7 of 20 EA 98-18 "tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Buildout of the property under the proposed conceptual plan will increase the amount of impervious surfaces (concrete, asphalt,etc.). New impervious surfaces as well as construction related activities that require grading would increase the amount of storm water runoff. The project is consistent with the approved area-.vide drainage concept as stated in the flood controt/hydrology/hydraulic study incorporated as part of the adopted Holly Seacliff Specific Plan EIR Technical Appendix. The existing site drains to the proposed Harriet M. Wieder Regional Park site. Under Alternative A,only the rear yards of lots I through 6 will continue to drain onto the proposed Park site with the remainder of the site graded so that water runoff will sheet flow onto Edwards Street. With Alternative B,runoff from the entire site would be directed through the City water reservior site adjacent to the south and empty to the proposed Park site via approved drainage structures for the reservoir project. The Department of Public Works requested this alternative because it reduces runoff to City streets,minimizes the amount of fill(as discussed in Section III)and by redirecting existing flow to the Park site through the City property,reduces the number of drainage impact areas to the proposed Park site. Both alternatives result in less than significant impact to drainage patterns on adjacent sites The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of grading plans and hydrology and hydraulic studies for review and approval by the Public Works Department to determine that the runoff generated by the proposed project will not adversely impact existing drainage systems and adjacent properties. (see Standard Condition No.7 on Attachment No. 3). Curb and gutter will be constructed to tie into the City's existing storm drain system in Edwards Street. The project site is located within Flood Insurance Rate Map(FIRM)Zone X,which is not subject to Federal Flood Development requirements. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring Public Works Department review and approval of grading plans,soils reports,and hydrology studies prior to any activity on the site(see Standard Condition Nos.2,4,and 6 on Attachment No.3). The project will require the installation of new on-site water lines. Because the proposed ten unit project complies with the Estate Residential land use designation in the General Plan,the estimated water demand of approximately 3740 gallons per day for the proposed project can be accommodated by the City's water service capacity and does not represent a significant demand. The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water. No significant adverse impacts to the existing water supply are anticipated. V. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or ❑ El . . El projected air quality violation? (Sources: 13, 14) . b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ concentrations? (Sources: 13, 14) c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of ❑ El people? (Sources: 3) IE d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 3, 5, 13) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment Environmental Checklist 8 of 20 EA 98-18 ( I'rotentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ El El 0 standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 3, 13) Discussion: Short-term: The construction of the ten unit residential project will result in short term increases in dust and construction equipment emissions. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel powered grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with earth moving activities. Due to the size and scope of the grading and construction (approximately eight months),the dust and construction emissions are not anticipated to be significant(based on AQMD thresholds)and can be further reduced with implementation of standard conditions of approval(see Condition No. 12 on Attachment No. 3). No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. Long-term: The annexation of the 2.71 acres will have no long term air quality impacts. However,if development occurs on each of the ten single-family lots,air quality will be impacted. Using data from the 1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook produced by the South Coast Air Quality Management District(AQMD),the estimated 120 vehicle trips generated from the possible development of ten single—family homes is not expected to produce emissions that will significantly impact air quality. Because the scale of the project is 95 percent below the threshold criteria established by the AQMD for potentially significant impacts, its contribution is minor in nature. No significant air quality impacts to the area are anticipated. VI.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g., 1:1 El El result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 1, 3,5, 14, 15, 19) b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,3, 5, 14, 15, 19) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an ❑ El ❑X increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 5) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., 11 El sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 1,2, 14) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1,2, 5, 14) El ❑X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 3,6) ❑ ❑ Z g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources: 1, 3, 14) Environmental Checklist 9 of20 EA 98-Ii _ r rotentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: If the ten single-family homes are built as a result of the annexation of the 2.71 acres,the development is projected to result in approximately 120 average vehicle trips per day at completion. Access to the project will be via Edwards Street(see Attachment No. 1). The single street within the proposed tract is designed to be public, complying with public street standards. Existing roadway segments in the area are currently operating at a level of service(LOS)of D or better(Edwards Street from Garfield Avenue to Talbert Avenue-LOS A;Ellis Avenue from Edwards Street to Golden West Street—LOS A). The soon. to be signalized intersection at Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue is also anticipated to have a LOS A during PM peak hours. Traffic generation associated with the project constitutes less than one percent of the existing traffic levels in the vicinity and is projected to have a negligible impact to levels of service in the area. Parking for the subdivision will be provided independently on each lot and the public street. With implementation of standard conditions of approval, including conformance of the proposed public street to City standards,review and approval of street improvement plans,and payment of traffic impact fees,no significant traffic impacts are anticipated. Construction traffic during the project's development may result in short-term interruptions to traffic circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle flow in the area. Based on the scope of the project construction,the traffic is not considered to be significant. However,any impact may be flirther reduced through implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring Department of Public Works approval of a construction vehicle control plan(See Standard Condition No. 5 on Attachment No. 3). VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any,species identified as a candidate, El 11 sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or El El 11 Z other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any nativeEl a resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) Environmental Checklist 10 of 20 EA 98-18 C r otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ❑ ❑ ❑ FRI ordinance? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or ❑ ❑ ❑ X❑ other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) Discussion: The proposed project site does not support any unique or endangered plant or animal species. The ten proposed lots will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring submittal and approval of a landscape plan by the Departments of Public Works and Planning. There are no mature trees existing on the site. The project will be required to comply with the City standard for landscaping including the provision for 40%of the front yard setback to be landscaped and a minimum of one tree in the front yard of each lot. No impact to plant life is anticipated. The subject site is outside of current city limits and within the eastern border of the Bolsa Chica Wetland Project. The planned Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park separates the subject site from the low lands and wetland areas by approximately 700 feet. The project will not result in any loss to endangered or sensitive animal or bird species. In addition,no impact to the wetland habitat or wildlife located on the lowlands or the planned Harriett M.Wieder Regional Park is anticipated. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 11 ❑ Ela that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 5,7, 11, 14) b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 5,7, 11, 14) Discussion: Construction of the ten-unit subdivision will not result in a loss of availablity of known or locally-important mineral resources. The subject property is located on tidal flat alluvium,which consists of mostly sand,gravel,and silt. The new residences are not anticipated to significantly deplete any non-renewable resource. No significant impacts to minerals resources are anticipated. IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ Elthrough the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1,2,3, 5, 16) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment ❑ ❑ ❑ through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 3, 10, 14) Environmental Checklist 11 of 20 EA 98-18: rotentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely El ❑ ❑ hazardous material, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 3,5, 16) d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1,5, 16) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X airport or pubic use airport,would the;project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working;in the project area? (Sources: 1, 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X in the project area? (Sources: 1,5) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X plan? (Sources: 5, 14) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources:5, 10, 14) Discussion: The proposed subdivision will not involve the use of any hazardous materials and will not result in any impediments to emergency response or evacuation plans. Buildout of the property under the proposed conceptual plan will increase the amount of impervious surfaces and,thereby,reduce the risk of fire hazard as it relates to brush,grass and trees. The project site is located adjacent to the planned Edwards Street Fire Station and,therefore,within the Fire Department's five minute response time. With implementation of standard conditions of approval,no significant impacts resulting from hazardous materials are anticipated. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation.of noise levels in excess ❑ ❑ ❑ of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources:3,4, 5, 14) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne ❑ ❑ ❑ vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 3,4, 51 14) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ (Sources:3,4,5, 14) Environmental Checklist 12 of 20 EA 98-18 r otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ project? (Sources:3,4,5, 14) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 5) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,5) Discussion: The project will generate short-term noise impacts during construction with the use of heavy construction equipment. All construction will be required to comply with Chapter 8.40 Noise of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and through the implementation and compliance of standard conditions of approval,no significant noise impacts during construction are anticipated. Lon-term noise impacts may occur as a result of the increase in vehicular trips and associated vehicular noise generated by the new tract. The project will be required to comply with State requirements pertaining to noise attenuation such that interior noise levels do not exceed 45dB in any habitable room. This may be achieved by use of double-paned windows,air conditioning systems,or other methods or a combination thereof. No significant long-term noise impacts resulting from the new tract are anticipated. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources:Huntington Beach Fire Department, ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ 19) b) .Police Protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Police ❑ ❑ Department, 19). c) Schools? (Sources: 5,6, 14, 19) ❑ ❑ a ❑ d) Parks? (Sources: 5,6, 14, 19) ❑ ❑ Z ❑ e) Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources: 5, ❑ ❑ Z ❑ 14, 17, 18, 19) Environmental Checklist 13 of 20 EA 98-18 r utentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed annexation has initially been reviewed by various City Departments, including Public Works,Fire, Police and Planning,for compliance with all applicable City codes. With implementation of standard conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications,no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated. The level of development is consistent with that allowed by the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment and would not create unexpected impacts to public services. The site is located in the Huntington Beach Union High School District. According to student generation rates for local school districts and assuming ten new residences will be built on the annexed site,the project will generate approximately four students. In itself,the project will not require construction of school facilities but on a cumulative basis,will contribute to overcrowding and the need for additional facilities. If the annexed 2.71 acres is developed, the developer will be required to pay State-mandated school impact fees to defray capital costs for these facilities. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: s a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable El ❑ z El Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or 11 ❑ wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 5, 14, 18, 19) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water El drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 5, 14, 18, 19). d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project El z from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 5, 14, 19) f). Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to El El accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 3, 14, 19) g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 14) El F1 Discussion: If single family residences are built on the annexed 2.71 acres,the project site will require incremental extensions of public services and utilities which will be provided by the respective governmental agencies and utility companies. All utility connections to each of the new residential lots will be in accordance with all applicable Uniform Codes,City ordinances,Public Works standards,and Water Division criteria. Solid waste will be collected by Rainbow Disposal Company,which has a contract for disposal services with the City. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval,no adverse impacts to the City's utilities or services are anticipated. Environmental Checklist 14 of 20 EA 98-18 r otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 1,2, 5, 19) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including,but not ❑ ❑ ❑ limited to,trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1,2, 8) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1,2, 10, 19) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ 1,2, 14) Discussion: The proposed two story homes are consistent with the proposed RL zoning and will be compatible with the surrounding residential development. The tract is designed to provide an average 25 foot wide perimeter landscape slope area along the western edge of the site and a 15 foot wide landscape buffer along the northern edge of the site;both adjacent to the planned Harriett M. Weider Regional Park. In addition, a 15-foot wide landscape easement is proposed along Edwards Street to soften the street scene. The private lots will be setback behind this easement,which will minimize visual impacts from Edwards Street. Individual lots will also be landscaped pursuant to City standards. Areas adjacent to the project site that are developed with residential uses have development standards similar to those that would apply to the subject property. The site is not located along any scenic highway. The project is located on the west side of Edwards Street at approximately the same grade elevation as the existing homes to the east and south,but on a bluff above additional properties that are to the west and northwest. While there are residential properties located in the lower lying areas to the northwest,these homes are over a half-mile away and only have distant views of this site,being separated by the Bolsa Chica lowlands. The two-story homes to the east currently have a distant view of the ocean. The construction of this project would affect that view for some of those property owners on the east side of Edwards Street. This scenic vista impact was previously analyzed in the Holly Seacliff EIR 89-1 and identified as an unavoidable impact associated with construction on vacant lots. The project will introduce new light sources on the project site including street lighting and residential lighting. Although the project will result in an increase in light in the area,the incremental increase in ambient lighting in the area is considered negligible and is consistent with the residential nature of the area. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval,which require that lighting be directed to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties. No adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 historical resource as defined in 515064.5? (Sources: 1, 8, 9 14, 19) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources: 7,9, 14, 19) Environmental Checklist 15 of 20 EA 98-18 1 t'r otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ a ❑ resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 9, 19) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? (Sources: 7,9, 14, 19) Discussion: The project site is not located within any of the City's historic districts. However,a portion of the site is located within an archaeological site identified as ORA-82. Based on the location of ORA-82 and research conducted by Jeanne Munoz(1975),which is referenced in the Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Bolsa Chica Project-Local Coastal Program,"the site [ORA-82] consists of shells,anthrosols, lithic,and other abundant artifacts." However,ORA-82 has been repeatedly plowed and roads and oil extractions have continually impacted the site. As part of the mitigation measures described in the Holly Seacliff EIR 89-1,monitoring of all grading activities is required by a certified archeologist. No adverse impacts to cultural or archeaological resources are anticipated. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, ❑ ❑ Z ❑ community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 3, 5, 19) b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: 5, 14) c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources: 3,5) Discussion: The project will not result in the loss of existing recreational facilities. The project will be subject to payment of park and recreation fees to contribute toward the project's share of park facilities in the city,which will offset the project's cumulative recreational impacts. With implementation of the standard conditions of approval,no impacts to recreational opportunities are anticipated. XVI.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of ❑ ❑ ❑ Z Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 5,6, 19) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Environmental Checklist 16 of 20 EA 98-18 ..,tentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 6) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of El El El X❑ Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 5,6, 19) Discussion: The project is not located in an area designated as farmland and does not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of ❑ ❑ ❑ the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 1,2,3, 5,6, 10, 14, 19) Discussion: The project is not located in the areas of any wildlife or biological resource areas and will therefore not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable ❑ ❑ ❑ X❑ when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 5,6, 17, 18, 19) Discussion: The project site is analyzed in the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR: General Plan Policies. The potential impacts resulting from the proposed ten unit tract are not considered to be cumulatively considerable or significant as discussed under items I-XV above. c).. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or ❑ ❑ indirectly? (Sources:4,5,6, 10, 12, 1.3, 14,,16, 19) Discussion: See discussion of items No. I-XV above. Environmental Checklist 17 of 20 EA 98-13 XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS_ Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment No. I 2 Reduced Tract Map:Alternative A See Attachment No.2a Alternative B See Attachment No.2b 3 Project Narrative See Attachment No. 5 City of Huntington Beach 4 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City Clerk's Office,2"d Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., 5 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 6 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance 7 Geotechnical Report,GeoSyntec Consultants(1998) " 8 City of Huntington Beach Historic District Map " 9 Archaeological Site Vicinity Map,Bolsa Chica Area " 10 Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, " Bolsa Chica Project Local Coastal Program I 1 Geotechnical Inputs Report—City of Huntington Beach " 12 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(January 3, 1997) " 13 CEQA Air Quality Handbook,South Coast Sair Quality " Management District(1993) 14 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Handbook " 15 Trip Generation,4'Edition,Institute of Traffic Engineers " 16 Technical Background Report " General Plan Update(July, 1992) 17 Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(April, 1992) " 18 Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment,General Plan Policies " (January, 1990) 19 Holly-Seacliff Environmental Impact Report " Environmental Checklist 18 of 20 EA 98-18 Attachment No. 3 Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State, and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards. 2. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer in accordance with NPDES requirements. 3. Prior to submittal of building permits, The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts 4. A Grading.Plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. 5. The applicant shall submit a construction vehicle control plan to Public Works for review and approval. 6. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on-site sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations,retaining walls, streets, and utilities. 7. A site drainage and storm water retention study shall be submitted and approved by the Department of Public Works. 8. A composite utility plan, depicting water system improvements and all other underground utilities (existing and proposed) to each proposed structure shall be submitted for review and approval. The plan shall include service connections for water and sewer to each building, public and private fire hydrants, valves, and other appurtenances in accordance with the applicable Uniform Plumbing Code, City Ordinances, Public Works Standards and Water Division Design Criteria. 9. A lighting plan shall be submitted for review and approval. The lighting plan shall consider measures to prevent light spillage onto adjacent properties. 10. A Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) shall be submitted per the guidelines provided by the Public Works, Traffic Division. 12. During construction,the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site; b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel(.05%)by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days(first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 13. All applicable Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid prior to final inspection. Attachment No. 3—Page I Attachment No. 4 Summary of Mitigation Measures Description of Impact Mitigation Measure Disturbance of Cultural Because of the proximity of this project to a known archaeological site, Resources Including monitoring of the grading activity during remedial site grading work shall be Human Remains conducted by an archaeologist. Attachment No. 4—Page 1 SOLTHERN CALIFORNI-x l �r �l(J/ , 3 1 EDI SON ��9 An EDISON INTER ATIONAL"'ComFan� ..` City of Huntington Beach July 7, 1999 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention: Department of Planning Subject: Tract Map No. 15690 Our review of the subject subdivision map reveals that the proposed development may interfere with easement rights, and/or facilities held by Southern California Edison within the subdivision boundaries. Until such time as arrangements have been made with the developer to eliminate this interference,the development of the subdivision may unreasonably interfere with the complete and free exercise of Edison's rights. Five copies of the grading, drainage and street improvement plans are required to be submitted by the developer to determine the extent of interference. Included with the above referenced plans,the developer must state the proposed method to eliminate any interference. Plans should be forwarded to my attention at the following address: Southern California Edison Company 14803 Chestnut Street Westminster, CA 92683 Attention: Lisa Salinas If you have any questions or need additional information in connection with the subject subdivision,please contact meat (714) 934-0838. Lisa Salinas Title and Real Estate Services Corporate Real Estate Department cc: 14803 Chestnut St. Westtninster.CA 92683 800-817-3677 r Fax 714-934-0837 1 6 1999 STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS AND TRANSPORTATION AGENCY GRAY DAVIS,Govemor DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT 12 3347 MICHELSON DRIVE,SUITE 100 ..� IRVINE,CA 92612-0661 June 28, 1999 Joseph Thompson, Planning Aide City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Thompson: Subject: Tentative Tract No. 15690 Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on Tentative Tract No. 15690. The proposed project is to subdivide 2.71 acres of County land that is pending annexation into the City of Huntington Beach into ten (10) single family lots. The proposed project is located on the west side of Edwards Street, approximately 15 feet south of Ellis Avenue. Caltrans District 12 is a reviewing agency and has no comment . Please continue to keep us informed of projects that may potentially impact our State Transportation Facilities. If you have any questions or comments, please call Lynne Gear at (949) 724-2241. Sincerely, Robert F. Jo eph, Chie Advance Planning Branch cc: Tom Loftus, OPR Ron Helgeson, HDQTRS Planning THONI US B. MATHEWS O DIRECTOR' County of Grange U 300 N. FLOWER ST. o� Planning & Development Services DeparthMjYt 2 0 1999 T� FLOOR 1 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA LIFOR� .'y �i. ;. �. "•.� MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 4048 SANTA ANA, CA 92702.4048.... TELEPHONE: (714) 834-4643 FAX# 834-2771 MAY 1 71999 NCL 99-34 Mr. Joseph Thompson City of Huntington Beach Department of Planning 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA SUBJECT: EA for the Holly Seacliff Annexation Dear Mr. Thompson: The above referenced item is an Environmental Assessment for the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed project consists of the annexation of 2.71 acres of land presently located in the jurisdiction of the County of Orange into the City of Huntington Beach. The Zoning Map Amendment is required to establish City zoning on the property;a zoning designation of RL (Residential Low Density) is requested. The project includes a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the 2.71 acres into ten(10)single family lots,however,no construction of homes is proposed at this time. Variance No. 99-4 is requested to allow reduced lot widths on four(4) of the ten(10) single family lots (34-feet to 40-feet wide in lieu of the required minimum 45-feet wide). The project is located on the west side of Edwards Street, approximately 15 feet south of Ellis Avenue. The County of Orange has reviewed the EA and offers the following comments: WATER QUALITY 1. The Initial Study on Page 8 suggests that issues related to potential pollutant content of stormwater runoff arising from the project are not significant because only project "landscape slopes"drain directly into the adjoining park and/or wetland reserve,while the rest of site drainage goes into "the City's existing storm drain system". No analysis is provided to indicate that the City's system at this point does not itself outlet into sensitive waters,not that landscape slopes cannot generate significant pollution. 2. Potential surface water quality impacts of the project could specifically arise from pesticides and fertilizers applied to landscaping,improperly collected wastes from pets owned by the future residents, as well as the project's contribution of pollutants from runoff in general to any sensitive waters the City's storm drain system may discharge to. 1 3. Mitigations for potential project water quality impacts could reasonably include all of: A. Preparation of a construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan under State National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)requirements; B. Incorporation of Federal EPA/NOAA guidance measures for coastal nonpoint source pollution; and C. Incorporation of other measures from the State Urban Runoff Technical Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations, as well as D. The standard requirement for development of a long-term post-construction water quality management plan, describing commitments to installation and maintenance of structural facilities and conduct of non-structural Best Management Practices(BMPs) consistent with the Drainage Area Management Plan(DAMP)New Development Appendix. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION 4. The proposed annexation is sited contiguous to future Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park (HMWRP). Therefore,the following conditions of approval should be applied: Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the applicant should submit an urban edge treatment plan for approval by the City of Huntington Beach,in consultation with the i Manager, Public Facilities and Resources Department/Harbors, Beaches and Parks. The urban edge treatment plan should screen development from the regional park and protect the regional park from intrusive urban views. The landscape plans should include only non-invasive plant species to preserve native habitat within the regional park. 5. Drainage Considerations: A. No runoff from the development should drain onto HMWRP land. " B. All runoff should be directed through a City water reservoir site and approved outlet system into HMWRP. C. Rear yards should drain to front of property and street. .. 6. Land Use Considerations: A. There should be restricted use (i.e. CCR's) of rear slopes requiring drought/fire tolerant non-invasive landscaping,not allowing improvements(i.e. structures, storage, or other uses)which would visually or physically impact the public open space. B. Consideration should be given to an improvement setback from the rear of the construction pad to control construction of structures(i.e. building additions and free standing structures)that would further visually impact the public open space. . C. There should be architectural CCR's to assure that any structural additions or freestanding structures match the architectural character of the original structure.. . Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the EA. If you have any questions,please contact me or feel free to call Charlotte Harryman directly. Charlotte may be reached at(714) 834-2522. 7eorgge;Bton, try yours, ' Manager Environmental and Project Planning Services Division i CH RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Annexation of 2.7 Acres/Negative Declaration No. 99-18 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS: STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached 'EXPLANATIO'N FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:kjl 1 1—� Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferreq�onti��ued 110 > )C—W Approved LJ LJ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied bk-'- cl&"s ignature Ccuncil Meeting Date: June 19, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-33 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator om,? PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE ANNEXATION OF 2.7 ACRES/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit Subdivision) No , ,2000_60 Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a request by PLC Land Company to annex a vacant 2.7 acre site from the County of Orange to the City of Huntington Beach. The City Council's recommendation on this item will be forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission for final action. Although initially supported by the Planning Commission, upon reconsideration the Planning Commission voted to not support the request (Recommended Action - A) because of the adjacency of the site to future park area and the County of Orange's land use designations. Staff is recommending the City Council support the annexation (Recommended Action - B) because the City has pre-approved the site in its General Plan for residential development, a fiscal analysis demonstrates that development for the site will not be fiscally negative for the City, and there is adequate infrastructure and services to accommodate the property and its future development. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Recommend Denial of the Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-33 Planning Commission Action on ,May 9, 2000. THE MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) AND NOT SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION REQUEST CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SHOMAKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: CHAPMAN, BIDDLE, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)", and 2. "Recommend Approval of the Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) 3. "Approve Resolution No. 2"- 60 Agreeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for Annexation No. -Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A) Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-18 and Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the City of Huntington Beach and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Company, 23 Corporate Plaza, Ste. 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: West of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (2.7 acres in the County of Orange) PL00-33 -2- 6/6/00 4:37 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION i MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-33 PLC requests that a vacant 2.7 net acre site be annexed from the County of Orange to the City of Huntington Beach. The negative declaration analyzes potential impacts of the annexation. Concurrent with the annexation request are several other entitlements which are analyzed separately in companion reports and are also addressed in the negative declaration. These entitlements include a zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment and local coastal program amendment to pre-zone the site and a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow for the subdivision and construction of 10 single family homes. B. BACKGROUND In July 1998 PLC submitted a request for the annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the approving body for any annexation. In February 1999, the County of Orange Board of Supervisors adopted a Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) regarding the redistribution of property taxes (Attachment No. 5). The County's TSA is consistent with that proposed for City Council adoption (Attachment No. 3). Annexation Process The following steps summarize the key milestones for an annexation in which the property owner (instead of the City) is the applicant to LAFCO if the City Council is in support of the request. ■ After the City Council takes action on the proposed project, PLC Land Company will forward the actions to LAFCO, including a copy of the City's resolution for the TSA. ■ LAFCO staff will schedule the item for Commission consideration (typically within 90- 120 days). When there is little or no controversy surrounding a proposal, and the property owner has consented to the annexation, the item may be docketed by LAFCO staff as a consent item on the LAFCO agenda. ■ LAFCO will consider the application at a public hearing. The Commission will take action on the propsal for annexation — to approve, modify or deny — and may also adopt terms and conditions. If the annexation is approved (or approved with conditions), the Commission will designate a conducting authority, usually the annexing City. ■ If appointed as the conducting authority, the City must schedule a hearing, no less than 15 nor more than 60 days after receipt of notice by LAFCO, to receive oral and/or written protests. At the hearing, the City must approve the annexation unless protest is received from at least 50 percent of the landowners owning at least 50% of the assessed value of the area to be annexed. PL00-33 -3- 6/7/00 2:36 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-33 ■ The conducting authority resolution is forwarded to LAFCO, and LAFCO forwards appropriate information to the State Board of Equalization and County of Orange Assessor's Office. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission initially considered the project on March 28, 2000 and voted to approve the Negative Declaration and support the Annexation. They also voted to recommend approval of the associated zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment and local coastal program amendment and denied Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14, consistent with staff's recommendation. The Planning Commission approved these actions on a 5-2 vote. The applicant was the only person to speak during the public hearing. On April 11, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their prior action on the negative declaration, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment. On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission reconsidered the item. Six persons spoke during the public hearing: the applicant, a representative of Amigos de Bolsa Chica in opposition to the request, and four members of Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff in support of the request. A motion was made to uphold the Planning Commission's original action but did not pass with a 2-2 vote (3 Commissioners were absent). Because a majority vote of the Planning Commission is needed to move the item forward to City Council, the two Planning Commissioners in support of the project agreed to change their vote. Thus, the Planning Commission voted to reverse their original decision with a 4-0 vote. D. APPEAL: The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit. The annexation and legislative acts are not required to be appealed as they automatically require action by the City Council. PL00-33 -4- 6/6/00 4:37 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-33 E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan lists five issues that the City must consider upon receipt of a request for annexation. These are presented below with accompanying analysis. 1. Is the proposed annexation adjacent to corporate boundaries? Yes. The subject property is located adjacent to a north and west city boundary line. It is directly north of the fire station and reservoir under construction and due west of Edwards Street. 2. Does (or will) the annexation contain land uses that are compatible with City land uses? Yes. The area has been pre-general planned by the City of Huntington Beach. In January 1990, the City Council approved the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that included the designation of the subject property as Estate Residential (maximum 4 units per acre). It specifically depicted the subject property as part of a ten acre planning area with a maximum 25 units. The intent of this pre-general planning action was to inform the property owner and surrounding landowners that the City has reviewed and pre-approved the Estate Residential designation for the site should it ever be annexed by the City. At the reconsideration hearing before the Planning Commission, questions were raised about the compatibility of residential development on the site given that to the west and north lie areas designated for the future Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park. In evaluating this issue, there are two points to consider: ■ When the City Council approved the GPA and EIR in 1990, the Regional Park was already planned. Thus, this previous approval determined that residential and park uses were compatible. There has been no change in the land uses for the area or other environmental conditions that would nullify the City Council's previous conclusion. ■ The City Council has approved two residential developments since 1990 that are located directly adjacent to the Regional Park site: Ocean Colony, west of Seapoint and south of Palm, and The Bluffs, west of Edwards and north of Garfield. These projects were designed in a manner that was sensitive to the future Regional Park and in cooperation with the County of Orange, similar to the process followed for the proposed project. PL00-33 -5- 6/6/00 4:37 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-33 3. Does (or will) the annexation contain land uses that have the ability to provide economic benefit to the City? Yes. The fiscal analysis prepared for the project demonstrates that revenues associated with the project exceed expenditures for City services (Attachment No. 6). The analysis is conservative, i.e. potentially understates the economic benefit of the project, because it assumes a per unit sales price of only $578,000 which is significantly below prices for the nearby Bluffs Project and therefore may understate property tax revenue to the City, and it does not attribute any sales tax revenue to the project that might be realized from the project residents shopping in Huntington Beach. The fiscal analysis has been reviewed by the City's Director of Finance and the Director of Administrative Services who concur with the analysis. 4. Would the annexation place an undue or excessive burden on the City's or other service provider's ability to provide services? No. Development of the site was previously analyzed for residential development in the 1990 GPA for Holly Seacliff and it was determined that adequate services are available to serve the property. This property is covered by the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement and therefore the infrastructure and park improvements required by the Agreement serve this property as well as other areas of Holly Seacliff. Moreover, the GPA allows for 25 units in the immediate vicinity and only 10 units are proposed, which results in less demand for services. In addition, the project's street and landscaping along Edwards Street will be privately maintained by the homeowners' association and not require maintenance services from the City. The fiscal analysis also demonstrates that the City's expenditures for services will be less than anticipated revenues for the project. 5. Would the annexation place an undue burden on school and other public services? No. PLC Land Company has entered into a mitigation agreement with the affected school districts that provides the school districts with impact fees in excess of what they would be able to receive under current State law. The project is not expected to result in undue burdens on other public services. Property Tax Redistribution The Resolution agreeing to a redistribution of property taxes has been reviewed and approved by the Administration Department, Adminstrative Services Department and the City Attorney. Staff believes that the agreement equitably redistributes property taxes to the City. The County's current 6.4 percent share of the basic property tax levy will be split according to the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and County dated October 28, 1980 (resulting in 2.8 percent of the levy to the County and 3.56 percent to the City); 100 percent of the Orange County Fire Authority share of the tax levy and 70.5 percent PL00-33 -6- 616100 4:37 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-33 of the County Library District share of the tax levy will be provided to the City; and upon annexation, the owners of the property will be required to pay the City's annual property tax levy for retirement indebtedness. F. SUMMARY The above analysis demonstrates that annexation of the 2.7 acre site would not have a negative impact on the City of Huntington Beach. This property's location also makes it a logical extension of the City corporate boundary, no matter what use may be approved for the property via associated entitlements. Staff recommends that the City Council support the requested annexation and recommend approval of the request to LAFCO. In addition, the County of Orange has officially approved the tax.sharing agreement for the annexation, and staff recommends the City Council adopt a similar resolution agreeing to the property tax split. Environmental Status: The 1990 EIR for the Holly Seacliff GPA analyzed potential impacts as a result of residential development on the subject site. It was determined that a Negative Declaration was the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review to analyze the annexation and associated entitlements in the context of the EIR. Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Attachment No. 7) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-18 for thirty (30) days commencing on April 22, 1999 and ending on May 21, 1999. Comments were received from Caltrans, County of Orange, and the Edison Company concerning the proposed development and a response has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Environmental Board Comments: • The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. No response has been received. Prior to any action on the Annexation or the associated entitlements addressed in the companion reports, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. PL00-33 -7- 6/6/00 4:37 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-33 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Planning Commission Recommendation) 2. Findings for Approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Staff Recommendation) 3. Resolution No. 2°°°-6°Agreeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for Annexation No. -Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A) Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach 4. Property Vicinity Map 5. County of Orange Tax Sharing Agreement Resolution, dated February 23, 1999 6. Fiscal Impact Analysis for subject property, dated November 1998 7. Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Includes Environmental Checklist, Mitigation Measures and Comment Letters) MBB/HZ PL00-33 -8- 6/6/00 4:37 PM RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Annexation of 2.7 Acres/Negative Declaration No. 99-18 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS °STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS fl REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff 4el 7 ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM:: / (BelowSpaceFor City Clerk's Use Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:kjl R RG it1vPGj PROM �4- MAb1=APARTOFTHE E RD AT THE Ob C eL M51=TINQF �` OPPICE OF THE CITY CLERK dONP31le BAOCKWAY,CITY CLERK PLC Land Company. Annexation and 10 unit Subdivision Annexation zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 Negative Declaration No. 99-18 Project Description -*.-Annexation of 2.7 acres 4- Location west of Edwards, south of Ellis (north of Fire Station) ❖ Establish Estate Residential zoning on property (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan) -*.-Amend Local Coastal Program and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to include property ❖Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of 10 unit single family residential subdivision z C - 3 i Background ❖Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment and EIR approved in 1990 designating property as Estate Residential (4 units/acre) ❖Current County of Orange designations: ❖General Plan - Open Space ❖Zoning - General Agriculture ❖Property covered under Development Agreement (DA); once property is annexed, DA becomes effective 3 Annexation -.*-Issues to consider under General Plan: ❖Proposed annexation adjacent to City boundary ❖Annexation contains land uses compatible with City land uses. ❖Land uses provide economic benefit to City ❖City and other service providers' ability to provide sufficient services ❖School District impact fees provided in excess of that identified under State Law 4 2 Annexation(z) ❖ February 1999, Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) -:•City Resolution agreeing to redistribution of property taxes for Annexation is consistent with TSA -:• Resolution has been reviewed and approved by: Administration Department a Administrative Services Department City Attorney 5 Annexation(3) ❖ Redistribution of property taxes will be split according to the October 28, 1980 Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and County .�--- 6 3 Zoning -:- Proposed Holly Seacliff Specific Plan zoning is consistent with Huntington Beach General Plan designation of Estate Residential •:• Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment and EIR approved in 1990 designating property as Estate Residential (4 units/acre) -:- Modifies boundary (exhibits, text) of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program to include subject property Zoning(2) -:-Compatible with surrounding residential zoning designations and land uses in Ellis Goldenwest quartersection (east), Bluffs project (south) -:-Consistent with Wieder Regional Park plan ws Subdivision ❖ 10 unit single family residential subdivision ❖ Lot size: 7,217 to 16,752 sq. ft. (9,893 avg.) -:• 15 ft. wide landscape easement along Edwards St. compatible with Fire Station and "Bluffs" perimeter landscape easement ❖Access to private cul-de-sac from Edwards St. Import of approx. 12,500 cu. yds. of soil to design drainage and sewer flow to fire station/reservoir site (south) 9 Subdivision(2) ❖Grading to result in approx. 13 ft. of fill toward west end of tract •:-Will also provide for more usable rear yards -*.-Slope landscape condition along tract boundary to Wieder park site -*.- No review of residential units o 5 Appeal -.*- PLC Land Co. appeal: :• Proposed subdivision is consistent with HB General Plan designation ❖ Compatible with other residential development in area ❖ Soil import will occur on small area of tract which will allow for usable rear yards ❖ Sloped landscape transition between rear yards and park site to minimize view impacts -:• Will allow for drainage and sewer flow to fire station/reservoir site Staff Analysis ❖Annexation is consistent with General Plan -.*- Holly Seacliff Specific Plan zoning designation is consistent with pre-general plan land use designation of Estate Residential ❖Proposed estate residential land use is most compatible with surrounding land uses 12 6 Staff Analysis 4-Subdivision not consistent with General Plan: •:• Proposed grading/import not compatible with topography of surrounding area ❖ View impacts to and from the proposed Wieder Regional Park site :• Proposed tract could be redesigned by terracing lots or reducing number of lots to minimize grading impacts ❖ Other methods to address drainage could be explored 13 Planning Commission ❖ Public Hearing on March 28, 2000 •:• Recommended approval of Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, and LCPA (5-2) •:• Denied TTM and CUP (5-2) ❖Reconsidered action on zoning request •:-Second Public Hearing on May 9, 2000 ❖ Recommended denial of Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, and LCPA (4-0 after 2-2 split vote) 14 7 Planning Commission Recommendation -:-Denial of the Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, LCPA, TTM, and CUP •: Proposed zoning not consistent with existing OS designation in Orange County ❖ Grading and soil import not compatible with existing topography -: Grade will impact aesthetic appearance to and from the project site •:• May impact drainage to surrounding properties 15 Staff Recommendation 4-Approval of Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, and LCPA to establish Estate Residential zoning within City limits -:-Denial of TTM and CUP for subdivision •:• Grading not compatible with existing topography and adjacent Wieder park site •:• Soils import will result in visual impacts to and from site ❖ Not consistent with General Plan which encourages preserving natural topography 16 8 t Heffernan & Boortz A Partnership Composed of Law Corporations 26 Corporate Plaza - Suite 100 Newport Beach, California 92660 Telephone (949) 640-4300 Facsimile (949) 721-1140 June 9, 2000 William D. Holman PLC Land Company Suite 250 23 Corporate Plaza Drive Newport Beach, CA 92660 Re: PLC Land Company Request for Approval of Annexation, Zoning and Subdivision of 2.7 Acres (Tract 15690) Dear Bill: r In anticipation of the public hearing on the above matters scheduled for June 19, 2000, 1 am providing the following responses to the questions you have asked: 1 . Q. Is the subject property part of, and subject to the terms of , Development Agreement 90-1 ? A. Yes. The subject property is included in the legal description of the "Property" as defined in the Development Agreement. Please refer to Parcel 18 in Exhibits A and B of the Agreement. The subject property . is further identified on the following exhibits of the Development Agreement: Exhibit C Linear Park Dedications Exhibit D Neighborhood Parks Exhibit H Sewer Facilities Exhibit I Land Use Element. The subject property is part of Planning Area Al , which is designated for Estate Residential Development.. The subject property is further addressed 'in Section 2.2.1 (a)(7) and 2.2.1(g) of the Development Agreement. 2. Q. Does the Developer have specific obligations under the Development Agreement with regard to the subject property? A. Yes. Under Section 2.2.1 (a)(7), the Developer was obligated to offer the subject property to the City for park dedication. The City had an FAWP51\DLB\060901.LTR 06/09/00 i William D. Holman Page 2 June 9, 2000 option to require dedication of the subject property or an alternate parcel for five years from the Effective Date of the Development Agreement (i.e., December 5, 1990). The City exercised its option to require dedication of the alternate parcel. Consistent with that action, the City in 1994 quitclaimed any right, claim or interest to require the dedication of the subject property per the Agreement. 3. Q. What development rights does the Development Agreement provide for the subject property? A. Section 2.1 of the Development Agreement states that the Developer shall have the vested legal right to proceed with the development of the Project. The Project is defined to mean the construction by the Developer upon the Property (which includes the subject property as discussed in Question 1 above) of improvements and the development of certain designated uses. In the case of the subject property, this includes residential development consistent with the City-adopted land use designation of Estate Residential (<4 dwelling units per gross acre). 4. Q. What rights does the City have to regulate development of the subject property? A. Section 2.1 of the Development Agreement grants the City the right to regulate development of the Project consistent with the vested rights of the Developer and the terms and conditions of the Development Agreement. Regulation of development of the Project, however, is confined to the "Existing Land Use Regulations" under Section 2.3.1 of the Development Agreement. The Existing Land Use Regulations are defined in the Development Agreement to include all ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules and regulation of the City which were in force on the Effective Date of the Development Agreement (i.e., December 5, 1990) along with the City's General Plan and various applicable Environmental Impact Reports, which anticipate (or specifically designate) development of the subject property for residential uses. The requested approval of zoning for the subject property would constitute a Subsequent Land Use Regulation which, under Sections 2.3.4 and 2.4 of the Development Agreement, must be acceptable to both the Developer and the City before being imposed by the City. In FAWP51\oLB\060901.LTR Heffernan & Boortz - 06/09/oo A Partnership Composed of Law Corporations William D. Holman Page 3 June 9, 2000 so doing, the City must act reasonably and in a manner which does not conflict with the Developer's vested rights under the Development Agreement. 5. Q. What additional rights of development does the Developer have with respect to the subject property? A. The covenant of "good faith and fair dealing" is implied at law in every contract and is specifically contained at Section 4.9 of the Development Agreement. In entering into the Development Agreement, the Developer agreed that the subject property would be encumbered by the option in favor of the City to require dedication for park purposes. The City elected tb require the dedication of the alternative, larger parcel. The Developer has performed its obligations under the Development Agreement to.dedicate the adjacent 6.7 acres of land for open space, install the traffic signal at Ellis and Edwards and to provide street and underground utility and drainage improvements which have been designed to accommodate future residential development of the subject property. All of these actions were undertaken in good faith and in a timely manner by the Developer with the expectation that the subject property would be developed for residential uses consistent with the Development Agreement. To deny development of the subject property under these circumstances would violate the principals of "good faith and fair dealing". I would be happy to elaborate on these matters should you, the City Attorney, or.the City Council have any questions. Very}truly yours, +1 DONALD L. BOORTZ(� cc: Honorable David Garofalo, Mayor City Council Members Ray Silver, City Administrator Gail Hutton, City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Mary Beth Broeven, Senior Planner Connie Brockway, City Clerk F:\wP51\oLB\060901.LTR Heffernan & Boortz - os(os(oo A Partnership Composed of Law Corporations i PROOF OF PUBLICATION NOTICE OF ment, 2000 Wain Street, PUBLIC HEARING and is available for pub- BEFORE THE :CITY lic inspection and com- COUNCIL OF THE ment by contacting the STATE OF CALIFORNIA) CITY OF Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) HUNTINGTON 536=5271. BEACH . ON FILE:A copy of the SS. NOTICE IS HEREBY proposed request" is on County of Orange ) GIVEN that 00, at day,7:00 file in 00he City Clerk's Of- June 19, 2000, at 7:00 floe, 2000 Main Street, PM in the"City Council Huntington Beach, Cali- Chambers, 2000 Main"fomia 92648, for inspec- Street, Huntington tion by the public.A copy Beach,-the City Council of the staff report will be I am a Citizen of the United States and a will hold a public hearing available to interested resident of the County aforesaid• I am on the following planning parties at City Hall the and zoning items: Main City-Library (7111 / 1. ANNEXATION/ Talbert _ Avenue)-_after over the age of eighteen years and not a ZONING MAP AMEND June L INTERESTED* / MENT NO. 99-27 ALL INTERESTED ZONING TEXT AMEND- PERSONS are invited to party to or interested in the below MENT NO. 00-11OCAL attend said hearing and COASTAL PROGRAM express opinions or entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of AMENDMENT NO. submit evidence for of the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a LARA ION NOIVE DEC- against the application LARATION N0. 99-18, as outlined above. If you AND THE APPEAL OF challenge the City;Coun- newspa er of general circulation/ printed THE PLANNING COM- cil's action in court, you MISSION'S DENIAL OF may be limited to raising and published In the City of Huntington TENTATIVE TRACT only those issues you or MAP NO. 15690/CON= someone else .raised at Beach County of Orange State of ITION USE PER- the public hearing de - Beach, / MIT NO. 99-14 (PLC scribed in this notice, or ANNEXATION AND 10 in written cor- California, and that attached Notice Is a UNIT SUBDIVISION): respondence delivered Applicant/Appellant: to the City at, or prior true and complete copy as was printed PLC Land Company, c/o to, the public hearing. If Bill Holman Request: To there are any further and published to the Huntington Beach annex and establish a questions please call the low density residential Planning Department at and Fountain Valle Issues of said (Holly Seacliff Specific 536-5271 and refer to y Plan RL-1) zoning desig- the above items. Direct newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: nation s i approximately coy 'you written comClerk. - 2.7 acres in order to con- i lions to the City Clerk. struct a 10 unit single Connie Brockway, family residential City Clerk subdivision on a parcel `City of with greater than a three Huntington Beach, (3) foot grade differential 2000 Main Street, 4 between the high and " 2nd Floor, low points. The request Huntington Beach, June 8 , 2000 includes amending the California 92648 boundaries and text of (714) 536-5227 the City's Local Coastal Published. Huntington Program and Holly Beach-Fountain Valley Seacliff Special Plan to Independent June 8, include the proposed de 2000 velopment. Location: 062_60a declare, under penalty of perjury, that West side of Edwards. Street, approximately the foregoing is true and correct. 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (north of Fire Station) Project Plan- ners: Mary Beth B roe ren/Way'ne Carvalho Executed on June H / 2000 . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN -that an initial at Costa Mesa, California. environmental assess- meet for the above item was processed and completed in ac- cordance with the Cali- fornia Environmental Quality Act. It was de- that Item #1, 'with, mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is Signature warranted. Prior to acting on the request, the City Council must re- view and act on the negative declaration. The environmental as- sessment is on file at the City' of -Huntington 'Beach Planning Depart- NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF 3/28/00 Date of Planning Commission Action TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: 4/4/0 0 City Attorney (1 copy) FILED BY PLC Land Company 949/721-9777 Appeal to the City Council Regarding the Denial by the REGARDING: Planning Commission for T?n�a-t'V@ `r—a-at Map No 1 5690 r and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 Tentative Date for Public Hearing: To be determined Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Connie Brockway City Clerk x5227 ptir�S�op' 6-2— NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 19, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: 1. ANNEXATION/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18, AND THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 (PLC ANNEXATION AND 10 UNIT SUBDIVISION):: Applicant/Appellant: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman Request: To annex and establish a low density residential (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1) zoning designation on approximately 2.7 acres in order to construct a 10 unit single family residential subdivision on a parcel with greater than a three (3) foot grade differential between the high and low points. The request includes amending the boundaries and text of the City's Local Coastal Program and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to include the proposed development. Location: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (north of Fire Station) Project Planners: Mary Beth Broeren/Wayne Carvalho NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. It was determined that Item 41, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the request, the City Council must review and act.on the negative declaration. The environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Planning Department, 2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Planning Department, or by telephoning (714) 536-5271. 1 t � (g:legals:00cc06l9) CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: AlV 0 10T.4- ©o- l ILOPA -V—/ zA4,1t qqq=-� !Jm 9q—(e �'�-Rl�� 'rT� I s qo CAP 9Q- q DEPARTMENT: MEETING DATE: �V 1 CONTACT: I/JA AFr,- CA'P-VAc-#0 PHONE: ��cl S N/A YES NO Is the notice attached? ' ( ) (Vy ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) (✓j ( ) Are the date, day and time of the public hearing correct? If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit, does the notice include appeal language? Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (v j Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? .S77}-FcF \fM1 FltW krpo- ( ) (v� ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit, is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? ( ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? ( vJ ( ) ( ) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) j Please complete the following: 1. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published I 3. Number of days between publications 21 v NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING (Continued) ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after June 15, 2000. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 (g:lega1s:00cc0619) PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS -January 13, 1999 Planning Dir. 21 Dr.Duane Dishno 29 Country View Estates HOA 37 City of Fountain Valley HB City Elementary School Dist Came Thomas 10200 Slater Ave. PO Box 71 6642 Trotter Drive Fountain Valley,CA 92708 Huntington Beach,CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Planning Director 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country View Estates HOA 37 City of Westminster HB City Elementary School Dist Gerald Chapman 8200 Westminster Blvd. 20451 Craimer Lane 6742 Shire Circle Westminster,CA 92683 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Planning Director 23 James Jones 30 HB Hamptons HOA 37 City of Seal Beach Ocean View Elementary Keystone Pacific Prop.Mangmt Inc. 211 Eight St School district 16845 Von Karman Avenue,Suite 200 Seal Beach,CA 90740 17200 Pinehurst Lane Irvine,CA 92606 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Califomia Coastal Commission 24 Barbara Winars 31 Sally Graham 38 Theresa Henry Westminster School District Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 5161 Gel ircle 200 Oceangate,loth Floor Westminster CA 92683 H on Beach,CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 California Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 Cheryle Browning South Coast Area Office HB Union High School Disrict Meadowlark Area 200 Oceangate,loth Floor 10251 Yoiktown Avenue 16771 Roos ane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 H on Beach,CA 92649 - Robert Joseph 25 CSA 33 CA Coastal Communities,Inc. 35 Caltrans District 12 730 El Camino Way#200 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3347 Michelson Drive,Suite 100 Tustin,CA 92680 Irvine,CA 92614 Irvine,CA 92612-0661 I r - Director 26 Goldenwest College 34 Bolsa Chica Land Trust - 4C Local Solid Waste En Attn�Owens Nancy Donovan O.C.Health gency 1574 4831 Los Patos P.O. 355 H Huntington Beach,CA 92649 anta Ana,CA 92702 New Growth Coordinator 27 OC County Harbors,Beach 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust' 4( Huntington Beach Post Office and Parks Dept Paul Horgan,President 6771 Warner Ave. P. O.Box 4048 207-21,1 Street Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Marc Ecker 28 Huntington Beach Mall 36 SEHBNA 4, Fountain Valley Attn:Pat Rogers- d�� 22032 Capistrano Lane. Elementary School District 7777 E ' r Ave.#300 Huntington ,CA 9 46-8309 17210 Oak Street . tington Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708 �l0 A N/Q E C lijVF-.S L!NflA DIt-DAY h:langel:phlbl C-DWAV-05 CW,RAC. PAZK psi. H g ES`«TFS 65SZ Pow GR Nbil �uAQc�et�ovs� �uNr�„6-roro,8rAcH CA )Z64S 1�uVYcN6�cN g ,}I,.CA qlb`� PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS -January 13, 1999 President 1 Huntington Harb A 10 FANS 16 H.B.Chamber of Commerce P. O.Bo John Miles 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 S t Beach,CA 90742 19425 Castlewood Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Judy Legan 2 William D.Holman 11 Sue Johnson 16 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC 19671 Quiet Bay Lane 25552 La Paz Road 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92653 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 President 3 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 q Edna Littlebury 17 Amigos De Bolsa Chica New Urban West Gldn St.Mob.Hm.Owners Leag. 16531 Bolsa Chica Street,Suite 312 520 Broadway Ste.100 11021 Magnolia Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Garden Grove,CA 92642 Sunset Beach Community 4 Pres.,H.B.Hist.Society 13 Pacific Coast Archaeological 18 Pat Thies,Presiden C/O Newland House Museum Society,Inc. PO Box 21 ! 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O.Box 1 S each,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Mesa,CA 92627 Attn:Jane Gothold President 5 Community Services Dept. 14 County of Orange/EMA 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow Chairperson Michael M.Ruane,Dir. PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P.O.Box 4048. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Julie Vandermost 6 Council on Aging 15 County of Orange/EMA 19 BIA-OC 1706 Oran Thomas Mathews 9 Executive Circle#100 Hun' on Beach,CA 92648 P. O.Box 4048 Irvine Ca 92714-6734 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Richard Spicer 7 Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Department 19 SCAG Seacliff HOA Orange County EMA 818 West 7th,12th Floor 19391 Shady Harbor Circle P. O.Box 4048 Los Angeles,CA 90017 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4-48 E.T.I. Corral 100 8 John Roe 16 County of Orange/EMA 19 Mary Bell Seacliff HOA Tim Miller 20292 Eastwood Cir. 19382 Surfdale Lane P.O.Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 John Scandura 9 Lou Mannone 16 Planning Dir. 20 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HOA City of Costa Mesa 17492 Valeworth Circle 19821 Ocean Bluff Circle P. O.Box 1200 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Costa Mesa,CA 92628-1200 UA)-0,4 /'04-�) t5°I -' °lI - H0 ANI¢Q5 LU Aetgo! CMC* clln+on Gef-)CA h:langelphlbl 50 6t L-Iez v-e WIVE . "70l Ocer n Avt � Z03 k NQNJa64601- J-11VIA ON&CA 1 CA ologO Z. 9a&4.9 110 017 29" 11001731 2 11001733 3 City Of Huntington B County Of Orange Plc PO Box 1 PO Box 4048 23 Corporate Plaza Dr 9250 mgton Beach,CA 92648 . Santa Ana,CA 92702 Newport Beach,CA 92660 t � �A 11001737 11001747 11001905 (o Signal Companies Inc City Of Huntington Be Signal Companies Inc 4343 Von Karman Ave PO Box 1 4343 Von Karman Ave Newport Beach,CA 92660 mgton Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach, CA 92660 110 151 16 7 159 391 05 159 391 11 �{ City Of Huntington Be Central Park 98 Eric Rescigno 2000 Main St 505 Park Av 6551 Silverspur Ln Hu on Beach,CA 92648 Nei each,CA 92662 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159 391 12 159 391 13 (( 159 391 14 2 Dennis&Kathleen Dambra Kevin&Paulette Conlisk Richard&Michele Amaral 6541 Silverspur Ln I! 6531 Silverspur Ln 6525 Silverspur Ln Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159 391 151 7—ZN35,3q 177 15939122 22 159 391 34 t`7 Edwards-Central Park Homeowners Ass Edwards-Central Park owners Ass Stephen Israel&Colleen Coate Israel 505 Park Ave 505 Park Av 6561 Horseshoe Ln Newport Beach,CA 92662 Ne each,CA 92662 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159 391 35 (O ; . 159 391 36 159 391 37 l8 Edwards-Central Par eowners Ass Ronald Irving Brindle Central Park One Two N�e 5 Park A Emily Ann Brindle 505 Park Ave each,CA 92662 6521 Silverspur Ln New each,CA 92662 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 159 391 38 159 391 39 Za 159 391 40 Z� Ronald&Stephanie Boss Edwards-Central Par owners Ass Clinton Gerlach& y rust Gerlac 6515 Silverspur Ln 505 Park 20401 Pr Huntington Beach,CA 92648 rt Beach,CA 92662 Cha rth,CA 91311 159 391 41 ZZ 159 391 48 Z2> 159 39149,5L 05 — Jack&Barbara Falfas Central Park#12 Central Park#8 6542 Horseshoe Ln 505 Park Ave 505 Park Ave ;, Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach,CA 92662 Newport Beach,CA 92662 159 391 50 51 159 391 51 15939152 27 Central Park One Two Central Park On o Central Park 505 Park Ave 505 Park 505 P ve Newport Beach,CA 92662 Ne rt Beach,CA 92662 Newport Beach,CA 92662 159 391 53 Ti8 l lO-ol"1''i� �,4n�py 2EDMAN 30 Richard Davis&Jessica Dorman-Davis !7 i,¢yy�((1utgKl'C( (ttiDr�l CO. 1413 1=s-r grES 6562 Silverspur Ln �� aJe 6(s81 Ggett�gGE C�iG .. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 }�VNTIN&T0eJj3aACw CA c126 4$ G U A R A N T E E $ � A M E RIC' ti� � O FirstAmerican Title Insurance Company H443652 Form No.1282(Rev.12/15/95) SCHEDULE OF EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE OF THIS GUARANTEE 1. Except to the extent that specific assurances are provided in Schedule A of this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects,liens,encumbrances,adverse claims or other matters against the title,whether or not shown by the public records. (b) (1) Taxes or assessments of any taxing authority that levies taxes or assessments on real property; or, (2) Proceedings by a public agency which may result in taxes or assessments,or notices of such proceedings,whether or not the matters excluded under(1)or(2)are shown by the records of the taxing authority or by the public records. (c) (1) Unpatented mining claims; (2) reservations or exceptions in patents or in Acts authorizing the issuance thereof; (3) water rights, claims or title to water, whether or not the matters excluded under(1), (2)or(3)are shown by the public records. 2. Notwithstanding any specific assurances which are provided in Schedule A of this Guarantee, the Company assumes no liability for loss or damage by reason of the following: (a) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters affecting the title to any property beyond the lines of the land expressly described in the description set forth in Schedule(A), (C)or in Part 2 of this Guarantee,or title to streets,roads,avenues,lanes,ways or waterways to which such land abuts,or the right to main- tain therein vaults,tunnels, ramps or any structure or improvements;or any rights or easements therein,unless such property,rights or easements are expressly and specifically set forth in said description. (b) Defects, liens, encumbrances, adverse claims or other matters, whether or not shown by the public records; (1) which are created, suffered, assumed or agreed to by one or more of the Assureds; (2)which result in no loss to the Assured; or(3)which do not result in the invalidity or potential invalidity of any judicial or non- judicial proceeding which is within the scope and purpose of the assurances provided. (c) The identity of any party shown or referred to in Schedule A. (d) The validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown or referred to in this Guarantee. GUARANTEE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS 1. Definition of Terms. 4. Company's Option to Defend or Prosecute may be necessary or desirable to establish the title to The following terms when used in the Guarantee Actions; Duty of Assured Claimant to the estate or interest as stated herein,or to establish the mean: Cooperate. lien rights of the Assured. If the Company is prejudiced (a)the "Assured":the party or parties named as Even though the Company has no duty to defend by the failure of the Assured to furnish the required the Assured in this Guarantee, or on a supplemental or prosecute as set forth in Paragraph 3 above: cooperation,the Company's obligations to the Assured writing executed by the Company. (a) The Company shall have the right, at its sole under the Guarantee shall terminate. (b) "land": the land described or referred to in option and cost,to institute and prosecute any action or 5. Proof of Loss or Damage. Schedule(A)(C)or in Part 2,and improvements affixed proceeding, interpose a defense,as limited in(b),or to In addition to and after the notices required under thereto which by law constitute real property.The term do any other act which in its opinion may be necessary Section 2 of these Conditions and Stipulations have "land"does not include any property beyond the lines of or desirable to establish the title to the estate or interest been provided to the Company,a proof of loss or dam- the area described or referred to in Schedule (A)(C) or as stated herein, or to establish the lien rights of the age signed and sworn to by the Assured shall be Tur- in Part 2,nor any right,title,interest,estate or easement Assured, or to prevent or reduce loss or damage to the Wished to the Company within ninety(90)days after the in abutting streets, roads, avenues, alleys, lanes, ways Assured.The Company may take any appropriate action Assured shall.ascertain the facts giving rise to the loss A or waterways. under the terms of this Guarantee,whether or not it shall A damage.The proof of loss facts damage shall describe red h (c) "mortgage": mortgage, deed of trust, trust be liable hereunder, and shall not thereby concede lia- the matters cove this Guarantee which constitute deed,or other security instrument. bility or waive any provision of this Guarantee. If the the basis of loss re damage and shall state, the extent Company shall exercise its rights under this paragraph, (d) "public records": records established under it shall do so diligently. possible,the basis of calculating the amount of the loss state statutes at Date of Guarantee for the purpose of or damage. If the Company is prejudiced by the failure imparting constructive notice of matters relating to real (b)If the Company elects to exercise its options as of the Assured to provide the required proof of loss or property to purchasers for value and without knowledge. stated in Paragraph 4(a) the Company shall have the damage, the Company's obligation to such Assured (e)"date":the effective date. right to select counsel of its choice(subject to the right under the Guarantee shall terminate. In addition, the of such Assured to object for reasonable cause)to rep- Assured may reasonably required uired to submit to exam- 2. Notice of Claim to be Given by Assured resent the Assured and shall not be liable for and,will not ination under oath by any authorized representative of Claimant. pay the fees of any other counsel,nor will the Company the Company and shall produce for examination, pay any fees,costs or expenses incurred by an Assured inspection and copying, at such reasonable times and An Assured shall notify the Company promptly in in the defense of those causes of action which allege places as may be designated by any authorized repre- writing in case knowledge shall come to an Assured matters not covered by this Guarantee. sentative of the Company, all records, books, ledgers, hereunder of any claim of title or interest which is (c)Whenever the Company shall have brought an checks, correspondence and memoranda, whether adverse to the title to the estate or interest, as stated action or interposed a defense as permitted by the pro- bearing a date before or after Date of Guarantee,which herein, and which might cause loss or damage for visions of this Guarantee,the Company may pursue any reasonably pertain to the loss or damage. Further, if which the Company may be liable by virtue of this litigation to final determination by a court of competent requested by any authorized representative of the Guarantee. If prompt notice shall not be given to the jurisdiction and expressly reserves the right, in its sole Company, the Assured shall grant its permission, in Company,then all liability of the Company shall termi- discretion,to appeal from an adverse judgment or order writing, for any authorized representative of the Com- nate with regard to the matter or matters for which (d) In all cases where this Guarantee permits the pany to examine, inspect and copy'all records, books, prompt notice is required;provided,however,that failure Company to prosecute or provide for the defense of an ledgers, checks, correspondence and memoranda in to notify the Company shall in no case prejudice the Y Y rights of any Assured under this Guarantee unless the action or proceeding, an Assured shall secure to the the custody or control of a third party,which reasonably Company shall be prejudiced by the failure and then Company the right to so prosecute or provide for the pertain to the loss or damage. All information desig- only to the extent of the prejudice. defense of any action or proceeding, and all appeals Hated as confidential by the Assured provided to the therein, and permit the Company to use, at its option, Company pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed 3. No Duty to Defend or Prosecute. the name of such Assured for this purpose. Whenever to others unless, in the reasonable judgment of the requested by the Company, an Assured, at the Company, it is necessary in the administration of the The Company shall have no duty to defend or prosecute Company's expense,shall give the Company all reason- claim. Failure of the Assured to submit for examination any action or proceeding to which the Assured is a able aid in any action or proceeding,securing evidence, under oath, produce other reasonably requested party, notwithstanding the nature of any allegation in obtaining witnesses, prosecuting or defending the information or grant permission to secure reasonably such action or proceeding. action or lawful act which in the opinion of the Company necessary information from third parties tas require (5 continued). to the Assured shall not exceed the least of: If a payment on account of a claim does not fully in the above paragraph, unless prohibited by law or (a)the amount of liability stated in Schedule A or cover the loss of the Assured the Compary shall I- governmental regulation, shall terminate any liability of in Part 2; subrogated to all rights and remedies of the Assured the Company under this Guarantee to the Assured for (b) the amount of the unpaid principal indebted- after the Assured shall have recovered its principal, that claim. ness secured by the mortgage of an Assured mortgagee, interest,and costs of collection. as limited or provided under Section 6 of these 12. Arbitration. 6. Options to Pay or Otherwise Settle Claims: Conditions and Stipulations or as reduced under Section Termination of Liability. 9 of these Conditions and StipulationsRat the time the Unless prohibited by applicable law, either the In case of a claim under this Guarantee, the loss or damage assured against by this Guarantee Company or the Assured may demand arbitration pur- Company shall have the following additional options: occurs,together with interest theron;or suant to the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules of the (a) To Pay or Tender Payment of the Amount of (c)the difference between the value of the estate American Arbitration Association. Arbitrable matters Liability or to Purchase the Indebtedness. or interest covered hereby as stated herein and the value may include, but are not limited to, any controversy or of the estate or interest subject to any defect, lien or claim between the Company and the Assured arising out The Company shall have the option to pay or settle encumbrance assured against by this Guarantee, of or relating to this Guarantee, any service of the or compromise for or in the name of the Assured any Company in connection with its issuance or the breach claim which could result in loss to the Assured within g. Limitation of Liability. of a Guarantee provision or other obligation.All arbitra- the coverage of this Guarantee,or to pay the full amount ble matters when the Amount of Liability is$1,000,000 of this Guarantee or, if this Guarantee is issued for the (a) If the Company establishes the title, or or less shall be arbitrated at the option of either the benefit of a holder of a mortgage or a lienholder, the removes the alleged defect, lien or encumbrance, or Company or the Assured. All arbitrable matters when Company shall have the option to purchase the indebt- cures any other matter assured against by this the amount of liability is in excess of$1,000,000 shall edness secured by said mortgage or said lien for the Guarantee in a reasonably diligent manner by any be arbitrated only when agreed to by both the Company amount owing thereon,together with any costs,reason- method, including litigation and the completion of any and the Assured. The Rules in effect at Date of able attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the appeals therefrom, it shall have fully performed its Guarantee shall be binding upon the parties.The award Assured claimant which were authorized by the obligations with respect to that matter and shall not be may include attorneys'fees only if the laws of the state Company up to the time of purchase. liable for any loss or damage caused thereby. in which the land is located permits a court to award Such purchase, payment or tender of payment of (b)In the event of any litigation by the Company or attorneys'fees to a prevailing party.Judgment upon the the full amount of the Guarantee shall terminate all lia- with the Company's consent, the Company shall have award rendered by the Arbitrator(s) may be entered in bility of the Company hereunder. In the event after no liability for loss or damage until there has been a final any court having jurisdiction thereof. notice of claim has been given to the Company by the determination by a court of competent jurisdiction,and The law of the situs of the land shall apply to an Assured the Company offers to purchase said indebted- disposition of all appeals therefrom,adverse to the title, arbitration under the Title Insurance Arbitration Rules. ness,the owner of such indebtedness shall transfer and as stated herein. A copy of the Rules may be obtained from the assign said indebtedness, together with any collateral (c) The Company shall not be liable for loss or Company upon request. security,to the Company upon payment of the purchase damage to any Assured for liability voluntarily assumed price. by the Assured in settling any claim or suit without the 13. Liability Limited to This Guarantee; Upon the exercise by the Company of the option prior written consent of the Company. Guarantee Entire Contract. provided for in Paragraph (a)the Company's obligation to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss 9• Reduction of Liability or Termination of (a)This Guarantee together with all endorsements, Liability. if any, attached hereto by the Company is the entire or damage,other than to make the payment required in Guarantee and contract between the Assured and the that paragraph,shall terminate,including any obligation All payments under this Guarantee, except pay- to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation ments made for costs, attorneys' fees and expenses Company. In interpreting any provision of this for which the Company has exercised its options under pursuant to Paragraph 4 shall reduce the amount of Guarantee, this Guarantee shall be construed as a whole. liability pro tanto. Paragraph 4,and the Guarantee shall be surrendered to the Company for cancellation. (b) Any claim of loss or damage, whether or not based h negligence, t any action asserting such (b)To Pay or Otherwise Settle With Parties Other 10. Payment of Loss. claim,shall be restricted to this Guarantee. Than the Assured or With the Assured Claimant. (a) No payment shall be made without producing (c) No amendment of or endorsement to this To pay or otherwise settle with other parties for or this Guarantee for endorsement of the payment unless Guarantee can be made except by a writing endorsed in the name of an Assured claimant any claim assured the Guarantee has been lost or destroyed,in which case hereon or attached hereto signed by either the against under this Guarantee,together with any costs, proof of loss or destruction shall he furnished to the President, a Vice President,the Secretary, an Assistant attorneys' fees and expenses incurred by the Assured satisfaction of the Company. Secretary,or validating officer or authorized signatory of claimant which were authorized by the Company up to (b)When liability and the extent of loss or damage the Company. the time of payment and which the Company is obligat- has been definitely fixed in accordance with these ed to pay. Conditions and Stipulations,the loss or damage shall be 14. Notices,Where Sent. Upon the exercise by the Company of the option payable within thirty(30)days thereafter. provided for in Paragraph (b)the Company's obligation All notices required to be given the Company and to the Assured under this Guarantee for the claimed loss 11. Subrogation Upon Payment or Settlement. any statement in writing required to be furnished the or damage,other than to make the payment required in Company shall include the number of this Guarantee that paragraph,shall terminate,including any obligation Whenever the Company shall have settled and and shall be addressed to the Company at 114 East Fifth paid a claim under this Guarantee, all right of subroga- Street, Santa Ana,California 92701. to continue the defense or prosecution of any litigation tion shall vest in the Company unaffected by any act of for which the Company has exercised its options under the Assured claimant. Paragraph 4. The Company shall be subrogated to and be 7. Determination and Extent of Liability. entitled to all rights and remedies which the Assured would have had against any person or property in This Guarantee is a contract of Indemnity against respect to the claim had this Guarantee not been issued. actual monetary loss or damage sustained or incurred If requested by the Company,the Assured shall transfer by the Assured claimant who has suffered loss or dam- to the Company all rights and remedies against any per- age by reason of reliance upon the assurances set forth son or property necessary in order to perfect this right in this Guarantee and only to the extent herein of subrogation.The Assured shall permit the Company described,and subject to the Exclusions From Coverage to sue,compromise or settle in the name of the Assured of This Guarantee. and to use the name of the Assured in any transaction The liability of the Company under this Guarantee or litigation involving these rights or remedies. Ponn 1349 CLTA Guarantee Pace Page (Revised 12/15/95) 1 y First American Title Insurance Company SUBJECT TO THE EXCLUSIONS FROM COVERAGE, THE LIMITS OF LIABILITY AND THE CONDITIONS AND STIPULATIONS OF THIS GUARANTEE, First American Title Insurance Company a corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES the Assured named in Schedule A against actual monetary loss or damage not exceeding the liability amount stated in Schedule A, which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. First American Title Insurance Company By PARKER S. KENNEDY, PRESIDENT By: James F. Gominsky, Assistant Vice President ISSUING OFFICE: 2 First American Way,(P.O.Box 267-92702) Santa Ana,California 92707 (714)800-3000 SCHEDULE A R PROPERTY OWNER'S NOTICE GUARANTEE LIABILITY: $N/A FEE: $N/C Name of Assured: PLC LAND CO. Date of Guarantee: JANUARY 31, 2000 1. That, according to the last equalized "Assessment Roll"in the Office of the Orange County Tax Assessor- a. The persons listed as "Assessed Owner" are shown on the assessment roll as owning real property within 300 feet of the property identified on the assessment roll as Assessor's Parcel Number 110-017-23. b. The Assessor's Parcel Number and any addresses shown on the assessment roll are attached hereto. —� SEE SPECIAL PAGE 110-019 FOR FEE TITLE ASSESSMENT BELOW SURFACE Fo's9, 110- O T 5 S. R 11 W /S9 �9poT 27 28 o s 9 � 26 0 2 ys N 30 3t } �� DETAIL a- QDl 21 925AC �It/ 162 AC 375,r !� p/ 1" = 100" 1" = 1000" �0`h q . 33 sr J� \ mar!` Q 24 '2zsesAc+ p 4. 41 x tih o`er i59 2 23 r 22 /B/AC' 43.229 AC. SBf 1 J-1 048 nQ, 51 `/ y 0.485 AC. Q �3-']`� �A�� \ AC. e F 19 163-27 163-26 !L \\ 50 0 37 �5 Vzsj/see OR 17 ` 7.58 �� 18 Pi 7 AC 22 99x \\ 19AC8^ C 5 Q O� a.m sp '— 18 \ RE 1 C �� fs 16 ��r 459AC \ 41 l,i13 p1E 016 \ . 3 23 4.718 AC. \ Ov 15 44 05C5AC \ 24 3.979 AC. 166.Z8 AC. Q 1 52 �. 7.6 6790AC I \\ O 12.8O AC. A n 25 32 !0.92 AC. 675.19 AC. p. ,.u� V \ fL.0) 0 6 AC37 j 31 8.99 Q O T91BAC �9�\ 12 \ 0 9X29 5 AC. 9.93 \ Q* 4 O 9 15.00 AC. 5•AC. AC. \ �, -J -1377AC 54 1� 4597AC a,.<r 9 /4AC c; B(00 �. $P 39.61 AC VN10 \ 76/AC 2 1>4.�0' p g.90 1 1 0.470 Uj N 6 ,.�, AC. AC. 12 -"Ac 13 \ s / 0 / T33 07AC �` a ^ 5 2 •r Ac(�t Jl O µ _� \ O AC. S 41 M.4C 2 MAC / \ '�. 7 BE 871-30-162-7 9.78 Al. 3 58 AC e326 AC ` &. •SEE DETAIL ":4" 4 L17YJK7'Y L/A,E 3 A/7 N/L SEP 1999 MARCH 1968 R S 3-2B- NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK d ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 110 PAGE 01 SHOWN IN CIRCLES CoUPr-" OF ORANGE -" 1_. 1 ` Y //0 0/.0/ 110 —01� T. 5 8 6 S., R_ // W. 10 SUB SURFA 36 985AC. 35 2295AC , 34 / 33 � y � 32 4 L6/A 39OAC: 54./TAC. V . 7 - oG• � 9.PSAG i �P 94.85AC �A. 2! &VA: V ��3 h 6S \9�0�9 20 19 5954 0 �! 3.75 AC. 24 O 0' P 47.05AG 40-/7AC. SEP 19c 17 66/AC. 7 85.26 AC. 12 3.58 AC. 13 E 3 ES MARCH /968 ' NOTE-ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 9 ASSESSOR'S MAP R. S. 3-28 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 110 PAGE 019 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE, - ---- W.1/2, SW. 1/4, NE.114, SEC. 34, T 5 S, R.11 W. I I 0 - 15 /00, Q 16Ll m� CHERRY STREET M OUART£RRORS£ LAN£ 6�0• ur I , +a. I ar• "2. 23 �o• I i»• a:• I h p n h h ! 2 2 22 2' �20 3 3' oz 3 21/ 46 JS 19 j t 4 20, 4557 5 19 ^ 4 `I2> �coz 7 (5 Lour 5; ,o S AG. o 6: A 7) ! J 17� 6 s _ rn " 7 8 I6; 4 15 8 9 15 j 14' �I51 J (51 o ! 27 14' i3) Q� i p 101 a P6 13 ro 9 •(12; ♦e \ tLOT 0 • 3Ja o ro N h N C3� U L5J a 6 Y v P.S AG. P.5 AC. 2.20 AC. IW.., ' 1 ro T JJo' _ EDWARDS 5 EET S7REf.T� g 01 NOTE - ASSESSORS BLOCK B ` ASSESSOR'S MAP TR. NO. 32 M. M. 9 -31 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK I I O PAGE 15 O SHOWN /N CIRCLES ' COUNTY OF ORANGE N 112, NW 114, SE 114. SEC.34. T 5 S. R 11 W 159-39 PAGE 1 OF 2 i tto-16 C£N. SEC. 34—$—!I no-15 �W H " ELLIS 52 Z-^ n AVENUE T _ 25• u• (sa 25- xs;' 1 ti4 ry 8 5 or o 2 N.>J J�A 1 V1t 5 7 9 11 M.N• Ul.!' S )9' 4 )a• 3 2 ,a• 1 �°O 3 4 _ 6 �! 2 6 8 70 12 TRACT TRACT 12 - LOT C! xs n• .0� O 11 4 10 x O n O _ O i 7 t0 1 I (O 1 7 7 761 7 78 19 2q 2 z z 1 W w 2 22 7•I x3. —1 ,y. S0' 20 I I ti s 8 e0 = 1 18 76 14 ~O� LANE 49 13 SIL VERSPUR• = 22 A I 1 Zq- x. ' It b' \e0' 25• _ xs• 150' i5 ]5• 130' 25• . !25_ 25• 1 51.09' ))' .659' LOT n0.lz' a0.. - x B I LOT A SS 1.89 AC. TRACT Z$ _ a o 0 2t CARRIAGE* I _ cb " = 100' r t4 t5 g 53 s�_ 54 'S 55 c 56 �7 - - CIRCLE tCT p°• xs ;zs' lr1 (OD ^8 �� `35 NO.h 13269 28 123 24 6 0 32 I Sa• e 9 ». o ,a' n ,,. 12 7,- n I 27 29 31 36 1-7 5 4 3 2 1 SEE PAGE 1 I LOT 29 g x5• i5• 3 31 0 7 +za.55'0.0' .4 Z a z z_� 32 _ 31 = 3 J 3 I 41 I 49 4 4 4 . So 37 �} ,J 34 25• , IxS 38 —f 33 30 s I 39 4 4 I I zl> 36 35 = 8 ye. a se m• n. - ° n„• .aaJ• a�nr e 431 42 I 7 I s g Lo_rq HORSESHOE'= LANE - cn (1 G[J � 25' 15• I +5'I 25• 25' 51 n 4 0 21 < LOr B -r5e- 7,7 »' Q _ F 42 R_ 43 45 _R 46 4 e A D.54 3 22 c - Q 45 I 49 I 52 o at a LOT EOA NO. 13270 NO- 13210 44 4s 51 s3 �.... i� 4 I 2S.1 !0 ,a.m' xw V Jo.m• 11 9r /J l4 � �n' >+' s°' 49 5C 51 52 53 5a 55' 56 5 58 59 6 110-20 35 FAIRWEW ADD. Al. M. 7-48 ?Ri YA rE ;TREE/: TRACT NO. 13210 M.M. 613 - 40,41,42 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK a ASSESSOR'S MAP Jt l5 MARCH 1951 TRACT NO. 13270 M. M. 649 - 24,25,26 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 159 PAGE 39 TRACT NO. f3269 M. M. 649 - 27,28,29 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE i PN\GS OGV t CtE4 ES 6'�DepPR,�MEN GENl PR\NAl o00?v` 6 2' j°eE F��D ays Oatie FtM d era\pesc�`pt\O Gen N° Oate Needed 'jc Co\ol•. No p es aPe�g\2e• aGK��es l 13 No\e p��\\ F o\d��z��Q p�\��Fc°�<&6 1StaP\e l 1 l es N° o c? eSNo sk l �e l es Guy l *N oe R` d keP \kmef\ d mu Co\\a �\Jo .�es ade a�` k rea Padded. l l� e a\ready °r{`\e.ou�d a mega\P\a`e t{ocR`y°U< depa �� \s<he�e a P\ati �k Eoc and sr °a Pecosf\ �� a Pecmane a made d �5\his -k\,a - s\\\be 9�\\e Be{ore erOe{ote\t� aPp�°v �G PPp�°vedby i SPs�uGk\o�s 0P Use o0�9 Iota 'Circe F{�``s�ed•/ Je�� Sta�ed / rl k 'C�me C oatov atop; l -o GomPCeted Koaak©gyp , PCess Opet Oat, Press s\ons�/ of�mP� NO• U W °S"32 `4--- �6C, -o y.Uv o t44 _,.._��-i•`_'":':'''w~'_�':» ��:�attt�t�!��ttt�tt��tt�t:t�t��ttt�iltttt!�t��lttt��ttt��sttt Council/Agency Meeting Held: — �' 11►1 ��ho er Deferred/Continued to: Approved LJ Conditionall Approved ❑ Denied ity rk's Signature Council Meeting Date: July 5, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-40 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION f SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator ow- ��, PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning � t e SUBJECT: DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit Single Family Residential Subdivision) Statement fissue,Funding Source, Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by PLC Land Company, applicant, of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14. This item was continued from the June 19, 2000 Council meeting. The request is to subdivide approximately 2.7 acres for development of 10 detached single family residences, including the grading and fill of approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to create usable rear yards on two lots at the end of the cul-de- sac. The Planning Commission denied the request, and is recommending denial to the City Council along with staff (Recommended Action) because the design of the proposed subdivision is not compatible with the topography of the surrounding area due to the extent of proposed grading and impact to views to and from the adjacent Wieder Regional Park site. The Commission believes that the project could be improved by designing terraced building pads or using other methods to maintain the natural topography of the area. The applicant appealed the action contesting that the proposed grading and fill would not impact drainage or views to and from the proposed Wieder Regional Park site located to the west and north. The applicant further indicates that the proposed grade would eliminate the necessity for lift stations, pump stations, or sumps and would allow for larger usable rear yards without impacting the adjacent future park site. The applicant's request is to approve the subject entitlements (Alternative Action - 1). An alternative tract layout with eight (8) lots is also provided for City Council consideration (Alternative Action — 2). Funding Source: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-40 Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on March 28, 2000: A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PL00-40 -2- 06/23/00 3:27 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-40 A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Mandic, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Speaker NOES: Shomaker, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PL00-40 -3- 06/23/00 3:27 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-40 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 7)" (Applicant's Request) 2. Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 for eight (8) lots with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NOS. 7 and 10)" 3. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Co. c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 is a request to subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres into ten residential lots and three lettered lots for the purpose of allowing future construction of ten single family residences pursuant to Section 251.02 of the ZSO. The proposed density is 3.7 units per net acre. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 represents a request to allow development on property with greater than a three foot grade differential between the high and low points pursuant to Section 230.70 of the ZSO. The purpose is to evaluate the proposed building and grading plan, which should terrace proposed buildings with the grade. There is a 16 foot difference between the highest point along Edwards Street to the lowest point along the west property line. The proposed subdivision consists of lots ranging from 7,217 to 16,752 square feet in size, with an average size of 9,893 square feet. Access to the tract will be provided from Edwards Street through a private non-gated cul-de-sac (see Attachment No. 2). A 15-foot wide landscape parkway is designed along Edwards Street. The street and parkway will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. The request also involves grading the entire site and importing approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to design the site for proper drainage. The majority of the fill (up to 13 ft.) will PL00-40 -4- 06/23/00 3:27 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-40 occur on the west side of the tract adjacent to the proposed Wieder Regional Park (Attachment No. 2). The request does not include the review of residential units. If the tentative tract map and conditional use permit are approved by the City Council, the developer will be required to submit site plans, floor plans, and building elevations for review and approval by the City's Design Review Board. The request for annexation and establishing a residential zoning designation is required to be approved prior to any action on the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. Without the annexation and zoning designation, the City would have no permitting authority for development outside of the City limits. If approved, the property and proposed residential project will be subject to all applicable provisions in the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement. The project has been analyzed in reference to the Development Agreement. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the zoning applications and subdivision request. The applicant was the only person who testified during the public hearing. The Commission discussed the proposed zoning and annexation request, as well as the single family subdivision. The discussion focused around impacts to views and drainage resulting from the proposed fill. Following their discussion, the Commission voted to support the request for annexation, the local coastal program amendment, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and negative declaration, and denied the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. The denial was based on the extensive amount of grading and fill proposed on the site and its impact to views to and from the adjacent Wieder Regional Park site. The Commission felt that the project could be improved by designing terraced building pads or using other methods to maintain the natural topography of the area. The zoning text amendment, zoning map amendment, local coastal program amendment, and negative declaration were subsequently reconsidered and later denied after another public hearing. The Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit were not part of the reconsideration. C. APPEAL: The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action on March 281h citing that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and compatible with other residential developments in the area. The appeal (Attachment No. 5) cites that the proposed 13 feet of fill would only occur on portions of Lots 5 & 6 which abut the Wieder Regional Park site in order to provide usable rear yard areas for those units. These lots would be designed with PL00-40 -5- 06/23/00 3:27 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-40 20-30 foot wide slopes to provide a transition between the residential and open space uses. This design would allow the project to drain and sewer into existing facilities designed under the fire station and water reservoir site to the south. The applicant further notes that the alternative proposal for eight lots, which includes reducing the amount of fill would require design and construction of lift stations, pump stations and/or sumps necessary to provide drainage and sewer infrastructure. According to the applicant, the cost of constructing and maintaining these types of facilities would not be feasible for a 10 unit project. The applicant also contends that the proposed grading would be compatible with the grades on the adjacent fire station and water reservoir site. The applicant states that the fire station and water reservoir site was substantially altered from the natural topography in order to accommodate the public facilities. According to the applicant, the proposed grading would be compatible with the new grades to the south, and that the proposed landscaped slope condition would address view, privacy, and drainage impacts to and from the site. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposed subdivision and conditional use permit, the primary issues staff analyzed are the extent of the proposed grading, compatibility with the surrounding terrain and topography, compatibility with surrounding development, and whether the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The intent is to insure that any proposed grading or change to topography is compatible with the grades and topography between adjacent properties. The review will ensure a logical and natural transition between properties through consistent and compatible grades. Staff does not support the proposed tract map due to the extent of soil import and final grades in relation to the adjacent Wieder Regional Park site. The proposed fill of up to 13 feet on the west end of the tract will not be compatible with the adjacent grades of Wieder Regional Park and does not terrace the lots with the existing grades. The proposed fill will not provide the logical and natural transition between properties through the use of terracing, minimal grading or fill. The applicant indicates that based on the natural terrain, the property drains to the northwest. By importing 12,500 cubic yards of fill, the tract will not have to be designed with terraced building pads or lift stations. Staff feels that the proposed grading and fill is inconsistent with the goals and policies in the General Plan, which attempt to maintain existing grades to the greatest extent feasible. The current condition of the site should be maintained without compromising the integrity of the existing topography because it will provide the proper and natural transition to the adjacent Regional Park site. Maintaining the natural transition between properties will be in keeping with the goals of the General Plan. PL00-40 -6- 06/23/00 3:27 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-40 The applicant further indicates that the fill is necessary to provide for drainage and flow to existing storm drain and sewer connections to the south without having to construct lift stations, pump stations or sumps. Staff does not believe this is an adequate reason to design level lots and not comply with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages terracing and other design techniques to build development compatible with the existing terrain. In order to comply with the General Plan, the 10 lots could be terraced to minimize grades to the greatest extent possible and provide a natural transition to the adjacent park site The design would require lift stations or the total number of lots could be reduced. The project could be developed in conformance with the General Plan by subdividing into eight lots instead of 10, while maintaining the existing slope condition at the west end of the property. An example of such a site plan layout is provided on Attachment No. 9. Other options for redesign include the elimination or modification of Lots 5 and 6 that would allow a view corridor at the end of the cul-de-sac, or designing split level pads on Lots 5 and 6. These design alternatives would minimize impacts to grading, maintain the natural topography and provide a transition to the adjacent park site. Staff disagrees with the applicant's grounds for appeal based on the project being inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as noted above. Issues pertaining to residential land use compatibility and access to the tract are supported by staff and are discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No. 4). E. SUMMARY Staff does not support the proposed subdivision map and conditional use permit for the following reasons: The subdivision should be designed with minimal grading and should maintain the existing topography to the greatest extent possible consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The import of additional fill to the west end of the tract is not compatible with the existing grades of the Weider Regional Park located to the west and north of the site. The fill will not provide a natural and logical transition between adjacent properties. Environmental Status: Negative Declaration No. 99-18 was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to any action on Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. PL00-40 -7- 06/23/00 3:27 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-40 Attachments: DescriptionCity Clerk's Page Number No. 1. Findings for Denial (PC and Staff Recommendation) 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Site Plans dated May 28, 1999 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 28, 2000 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 28, 2000 5. Appeal Letter dated April 4, 2000 6. Narrative 7. Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval (Applicant's Request) 8. Letters in Opposition and/or Support 9. Alternative Site Plan 10. Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval (8 lots) RCA Author: Wayne Carvalho/Herb Fauland PL00-40 -8- 06/23/00 3:27 PM ATTACHMENT 1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL r TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 for the grading and subdivision of 2.7 net acres for 10 single family residences is not consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed lot configuration requires grading, including approximately 12,500 cubic yards of import soil, which is not compatible with the existing topography of the surrounding area. The proposed tract will be up to 13 feet higher than the grade of the Weider Regional Park to the west. 2. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development without substantially altering the natural topography of the site. The site will require to be raised approximately 13 feet on the west end of the tract in order to accommodate development of two additional units at the end of the cul-de-sac. The modification to the existing variation in grade is not in keeping with the goals and policies of General Plan which encourages development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. MtiDINGS FOR DENIAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 for the development of a 10 unit single family residential subdivision on a site with greater than a three foot differential between the high and low points may be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The import of approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to the site will substantially impact the aesthetic appearance of the area to and from the site, which may adversely impact the value of properties in the area. The property can be developed with less impact to the existing topography. 2. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which encourages preserving the natural topography. The proposed soil import and grading of the site will not be compatible with the adjacent topography of the Weider Regional Park \ (OOCI328-9) ATTACHMENT 2 ARa MD70 NUff tlrr w MAW MAP w en n. ors w n. n■er n..e • -' - .' 1 I I ,., � _ ,.- :: —- �\. , ;,,/. I � � I � � n• TRACT NO. 15690 ' ./. - ,, -�-...� / / J / 11 I' lil I�I i,l ' I''I. •Raar■•salxnR paaRalurau evf. ..•s I / •_ i 1 I i rrms a a•sr[coon.creaRrs I � �, ;- � - f / / / ' � ( I a,.. t •lfnfarl rlR6lp>r RDOR-r �' l / i J i i11 I a R>rerws<DWaocafaus>rmalaf / � I i I I. I, � /ors•r•rJRf nac flrar. / �" 1 I ST�Fr wf T Y■L•suuR 1Y■YY[lan ` % I PLbLIG Wag.-LOT"A' �� ♦ naaso casxc a-rsra■us sw•Dan J� i,�' 1 �4,Y1 1 � I wfT•T s. nos law wr,wJr . � � / ��/.�.. �,-. 1 I ( li �+ .. _.. s•eW • IR■narolw w:r+mesL i III _ r i allS AVtML w r aaekun u Wesru rr■noel � � � � C I I rlm un a a■Isra rrr eawr crm a eolm� � I I " I �� //': � �• - 'l;' r' A� � :� EDWARDS STREfi us:fRM.wrurwcarRR \ 1�! JII I'I j i .� � `. ' i r / / r �—i u -•[s^� ram_ 41 T-- (I i :.,t.._ alawc mar Rwnr wrrawrnu ••�- aaRc:fas■■■wa•r aaa.carom � i I �,`,(. 1 � 1'J�/ )/ �� _�` � s• 1 �' e,i 1 1- -�! as � ly 11 !I �, : .�. `'�al'I`rrI`O Ma.Ri�r"r�Rrwao ro ocao 1 � � ��.r, � f I I I r a _ �' s n i �J ' IL9 1 �+ `I I P�f M `�� uw>uR •Rao RW ` �.u"^"r.o"�a n�raw RRa Rn r came nu a i I � I� I I J! � , 0 _ _ III I >>co■aua nsu WR sso n u.v.a RYA WR a>o �,p/I (ii • �: �, i' ,rr r 111 �ji I! /jj fl�III11� "r as w eras jil 1 III 6 i 1 . J i , ; '; n I jl ,! i 1 aw swan nw m-a■ /J:f I l� ) , � ( 1 (s c � 1 Q(n� I •L }�Ii;I I I Q �7w a coma Qs' 8 I l� y l ;I I I umes • -i `d ('IIuI r (i7��`1 L"�4:u j ' 1.1 ,I I I.I �ISE(iTION B-B ru nr lwsn a�oo s.r. ..,n n � • [off f I4,1 rp�ei ua eur raulg .Doer. Y- ____ L--' ' J _ �_J I li nor 41R ervl R.woLI.__ 1. __j 1.F � 1 Q- I;I �i I , rsnr Rr R rrs o O.O s sRm • I, /f ,,,, :"T I .�l._4—__n.s - ( ��/'--^� `'1 '.,'( I•• Irl nR°n rs ser Rs rrno Wrra �� 'L; j I :•1 :,: "•� �I It ' 'R�I�__.l .,�_� t{11L.1 1 I I i �iel.°`alr w ,. {1 �� i.' I . I.,... \ - / ... � :..'Ji l .1�I .. �� I � ..toss aaw-., .. Rs ura us■ ' I;I I i' sauces`riRRwm Rom 1 1 `I •. ,..J u, nws■�•: .a I 1 �� s rar Rf maso sm 1 'I csr. r`anlii asrt iRAGi I. fb.�� •DURt rr arlrRe a° a a Ass. fv i.ws a um _ e`Oaa 6(M.—rnla r.uas coos aW 'I - 1 1.._� .1 1 11•,� � � �0 ss"uaii r.rm°r°mau a . I �.�1.., IJ '11 I �v`es' S � wuafwevw■rm f ;II I t tl • � � I �.f' I ICI g I � MIfJRf ILL Rler arm J •_;��. ' �. ' I L._ I•I 'ii +I �+ � � —Ys—woos nRonw 411" EN At TENTATIVE MAP SSOCIATES "" ssa's '"""' TRACT N0. 15690 versa•.•. ALTERNATE "R" b2aQ ennum roR nc wm COMPOT a rlrl •w RUNrRfcm maim cuiro Ru 1 fca Yo rufDxt fro SITE PLAN Id fp n. rfGRr[ Id fn rr. rwrtY - + 21 1 lic loll RACT NO. 15690 YK A r1olpW d K fOMfY afpn d fft111N a4lpRlp.f f WI faltt p YY.■K f11fN0 W wL}tl NUd W IR lllr 1 • N[Gpf Nfepl D dr f dSSWpIIIGtI SWf. r Ycams d Nrt tauq uvlsw rut. W. tasA . ' f tSYffd)x11Rn IfV:p100.A ... I n u I. IRI[fdlffi SIT K. } RJNf•d 101k q IrrYRo ldf nu)I[IrtNo tdf Ids v raaf MN sRNr, M16 SixQ.eE a, COT A' wls..wv.awt,.wY+•rwk x tNYK uolpo wLVr • 1 s. � " rr f. parosrf luo uY:NSedlpl r. YNprk ELLIS AVMm:alld lu)Klw rAa/IRNI ' ' �• Y)d:GI!d r1r111141G1YYN ItaAN lROr b p)Rpl W 1 r rw 1 I RE51 EST uk_W_W cardr \ � '� I � i � '' i• p �=� r-- —P f'�—� i•�-n '� ,r•• �mrMac/mrr maws�rGSY • � r r � i I N i '' I S I I s npluupn io GYOimrliciiarr�f�sY IeRapn tlo If1pr0 Y. + - INpetrlf •Noa rpl I I I, LOT A' RIM 4 _J.—y. ; t)cntRArt nAu ura rp r)cmdAR nw Nrrt m f 1 i I Yt1GYl rrRl t Rat41 p piv t Rfrdl NId,a vcco IrRrrl Npw.a tKfo I / '�. , r 11 „• II--�1 NC"" MV n14n MV Ip4n r' ` ms fw .�c acNi¢in tw�iA��.�s auas f 1 t I [1 Rvrr a acn irrt.u asY !A rill I •'' �• �/ Z i� �Ij lr ,� I � OYK fmto � 11 li! / 1 .,i 'r�.1.< 1 r 1 •I I �I I li,-- , 1 Ii1Ivey-�RP— � ' � n ' �nnal nlR wrls fro u. )[yI/ .;'.•,' ' I , L— , 41__R Ijl I Ili'I j� ��I ; ttaalpl rt� f eKr Ro fza flRn NR rraer p0 Ll. .uo- • - I``• 'I' � � _ �, �.•, + mar='� neooR a ffr v �•1 i.. Iri —No rrrsRofrA¢saua uuu.cw .,, .. V. KRNtfIAraNr tit' n rAD-. i, b l I ra. r ai m i°Aur II' I e,e t2 v. I I I' ' - lnuni�cmialspr 1 r j✓ .' r � ' :' `, i I s I wuRf�iswsm�tlul .•.Of (II I I I � l� 11 I ( t9.f � � � I \,-/ �I I r01f i e t �hh � � 'Ott 1— wNRf tpSIK YIt• I I ��H.I � � .. nl /; � � ` ]`I 'a r •' 4'I •.. ��'l+I I� � v , °op0 K.°ur,Ani rrwdowadu a w"r'"Ri i 1 I III 1 I, I AMEN S, mk, SITE PLAN ssOCUTES WR "— TRACT NO. 15690 fir..•A o ALTERNATE "H" °1Qf PWAM roil PLC LWD CDYrnnr 1 d DDYrwaron Dutro,cxuroptu 1 ATTACHMENT 3 FINDINGS FOR APPRO V AL - DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN. NO. 88-1(R): DIMFT Development Agreement No. 88-1(R) is consistent with the General Plan and the Leadawlark Specific Plan. The Development Agreement has been updated to reference and ens e compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan and with the requirements of the axed Use - Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp) land use district. The Amended and Restated D opment Agreement is consistent with Land Use Element goals, objectives and poli ' s of the City's General Plan as follows: LUGoal 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by sportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. L U Pol icv2.1.2: Require that the type, amount, and 1 tion of development be correlated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and s ices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Elements). L U Goal 4.: Achieve and maintain high ity architecture, landscape and public open spaces in the City. L U Obiective 4.1: Promote the de opment of residential, commercial, industrial and public buildings and sites that convey igh quality visual image and character. L U Goal 9.: Achieve the elopment of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,phys' , and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. LU Ob'ective 9. Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and project that incorpora a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborho and identity. The Speci Plan includes product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high q I development and compatibility with existing development. In addition, the Specific Plan ' udes language for adequate infrastructure inclusive of drainage, sewer and water faci ' es as well as traffic control devices (i.e. traffic signals) and park dedication. Affordable h ing provisions would also become a part of the development agreement by reference to the Meadowlark Specific Plan. F ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00- 1/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC 10 UNIT SUBDIVISION): APPLICANT: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman LOCATION: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (north of Fire Station) PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho PC Minutes—3/28/00 7 (OOpcm328) Annexation All - Annex approximately 2.7 net acres of vacant property into the City of Hunt}ngto d • Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 Establish Residential Low Density (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1) zoning on the property. • Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 - Amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property. • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 - To reflect the changes made to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and zoning map pursuant to Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No 99-2. • Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 - Subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres for development of 10 single-family residences. • Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 Develop lot with greater than a three (3) foot grade differential between the high and low points. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval of the annexation, and approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 based upon the following: - The proposed zoning designation, and amendments to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and uses. • Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 based upon the following: - Grading will not be compatible with the grades of the adjacent Weider Regional Park. - Proposed subdivision as submitted by the applicant will be inconsistent with grading goals and regulations set forth in the General Plan. Staff s Suggested Modifications: Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 - Grading and proposed fill along the west end of tract be reduced to be in keeping with the existing contour of the area including the Weider Regional Park. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive#290,Newport Beach, representing applicant, requested approval of the subdivision application and related environmental and zoning documents. The applicant believes that the design of the ten(10)-lot subdivision is fiscally superior to the staff recommended alternative for eight(8) lots and will result in a better long-term relationship between the tract and the adjacent proposed park site. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes—3/28/00 8 A MOTION WAS MADE DY KERINS, SECONDED BY MANL..., TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION - - --- -..- MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Mandic, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER,TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES,LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker,Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman,Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER,TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES,LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Mandic, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes—3/28/00 9 A MOTION WAS MADE .,Y LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY S.,LOMAKER, TO i APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITN01 CLS 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker,Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS,TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL,AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins,Mandic, Chapman,Biddle, Speaker NOES: Shomaker, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 99-18 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1,Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to modify the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the subject property and to establish the RL-1 zoning designation is consistent with the designation for Estate Residential cited in the 1990 Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment. PC Minutes—3/28/00 10 2. The proposed change to the Local Coastal Program is in accordance with the policies, P pg P , . 1 standards, and provisions of the Coastal Element that encourages a mix of housing _ �`�_ opportunities that vary in price and type. The proposed land use will provide for future upscale residential opportunities. 3. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project will not interfere with public access opportunities provided along the Weider Regional Park, and will not impact public views. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 to establish a zoning designation of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(RL-1) on a 2.7 acre parcel, and to incorporate the subject property into the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed zoning will be compatible with the adjacent estate residential zoning designations of the Holly Seacliff and Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plans. 2. In the case of a general land use provision,the zoning map and text amendment are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed zoning will allow estate residential uses consistent with the existing land uses in the area. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The new zoning will allow for new single family residential development. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The proposed zoning will not result in isolated or spot zoning, and will be consistent with the existing Estate Residential General Plan designation. The Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 allows up to four units per gross acre which is consistent with the Estate Residential General Plan designation. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 for the grading and subdivision of 2.7 net acres for 10 single family residences is not consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed lot configuration requires grading, including approximately 12,500 cubic yards of import soil, which is not compatible with the existing topography of the surrounding area. The proposed tract will be up to 13 feet higher than the grade of the Weider Regional Park to the west. 2. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development without substantially altering the natural topography of the site. The site will require to be raised approximately 13 feet on the west end of the tract in order to accommodate development of two additional units at the end of the cul-de-sac. The modification to the existing variation in grade is not in keeping with the goals and policies of General Plan which encourages development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. PC Minutes—3/28/00 11 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NG. 49-14: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 for the development of a 10 unit single family ide htial ' P g Y res subdivision on a site with greater than a three foot differential between the high and low b`' points may be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The import of approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to the site will substantially impact the aesthetic appearance of the area to and from the site, which may adversely impact the value of properties in the area. The property can be developed with less impact to the existing topography. 2. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which encourages preserving the natural topography. The proposed soil import and grading of the site will not be compatible with the adjacent topography of the Weider Regional Park. 4 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-28/SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 00-1 (SOUTH BEACH IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I): PPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Department LO TION: Oceanside of Pacific Coast Highway,between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street(South Beach) PROJEC PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho • Coastal Developmen ermit No. 99-28 - reconstruction of th each parking lot - reconstruction of bicyc and pedestrian path - reconstruction of landsca ' g and plaza improvements - improvements to pedestrian d disabled access - construction of a 2,500 square t concession building (Waterfront design) - construction of two, 1,000 square of restroom buildings - compact parking stalls along Pacific oast Highway Special Permit No. 00-1 - Eight foot wide landscape planter along P in lieu of minimum 10 feet. - Clustering of palm trees in lieu of providing o tree every ten stalls throughout parking lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 99-28 with speci ermits based upon the following: - Local Coastal Program promotes enhancement of recreational portunities and improved beach facilities. - Compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan District 11. - Architectural compatibility with the newly designed restroom buildin - Added public art components in plazas - Reduced street side planter width results in more efficient use of parking to - Clustering of landscaping reduces costs, and allows special events use of par lot PC Minutes—3/28/00 12 ATT A CHMEN T 4 City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT NUNTINGTON IRACN � - TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planningr� BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner Oa> DATE: March 28, 2000 SUBJECT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit Single Family Residential Subdivision) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250,Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: West of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Annexation - Annex approximately 2.7 net acres of vacant property into the City of Huntington Beach. • Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 - Establish Residential Low Density (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1) zoning on the property. Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 - Amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property. • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 - To reflect the changes made to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and zoning map pursuant to Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No 99-2. • Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 - Subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres for development of 10 single family residences. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 - Develop lot with greater than a three (3) foot grade differential between the high and low points. • Staffs Recommendation: Recommend approval of the annexation, and approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 based upon the following: - The proposed zoning designation, and amendments to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and uses. Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 based upon the following: - Grading will not be compatible with the grades of the adjacent Weider Regional Park. - Proposed subdivision as submitted by the applicant will be inconsistent with grading goals and regulations set forth in the General Plan. • Staff s Suggested Modifications: Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 - Grading and proposed fill along the west end of tract be-reduced to be in keeping with the existing contour of the area including the Weider Regional Park. RECO1V NMNDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. l)•" B. "Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1,Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to the City Council for adoption" C. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings and suggested conditions of approval/denial (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18,Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1,Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings and suggested conditions of approval." (Applicant's Request) B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-18,Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1,Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 and direct staff accordingly." Staff Report—3/28/00 2 (OOSR23) (r 1 V PROJECT PROPOSAL: To permit the Annexation of 2.7 net acres into the City of Huntington Beach. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 is a request to modify the City's zoning map (DM 38) by designating the subject property within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and new zoning designation of RL-1 (Low Density Residential)pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The minimum lot size in RL-1 district is 7,000 square feet with a maximum density of four(4)units per acre. Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property into the specific plan pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. Local Coastal Prop-ram Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the City's Local Coastal Program to address the proposed zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 is a request to subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres into ten residential lots and three lettered lots for the purpose of allowing future construction of ten single family residences pursuant to Section 251.02 of the ZSO. The proposed density is 3.7 units per net acre. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 represents a request to allow development on property with greater than a three foot grade differential between the high and low points pursuant to Section 230.70 of the ZSO. There is a 16 foot difference between the highest point along Edwards Street to the lowest point along the west property line; and The proposed subdivision consists of lots ranging from 7,217 to 16,752 square feet in size,with an average size of 9,893 square feet. Access to the tract will be provided from Edwards Street through a private non-gated cul-de-sac(see Attachment No. 3). A 15-foot wide landscape parkway is designed along Edwards Street. The street and parkway will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. The request also involves grading the entire site and importing approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to design the site for proper drainage. The majority of the fill will occur on the west side of the tract adjacent to the proposed Weider Regional Park. The request does not include the review of residential units. If the subject requests are approved by the City Council, site plans, floor plans, and building elevations will be subject to review and approval by the City's Design Review Board. The proposed zoning (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan)requires an additional off-street parking space on Lots 5 and 6 due to reduced lot frontages. Since there are no site plans, floor plans or building elevations being reviewed at this time, staff has incorporated the parking requirement into the suggested condition of approval. Staff Report—3/28/00 3 (OOSR23) r- The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary (Attachment No. 6) because: annexation will benefit the City. • zoning will be compatible with adjacent zoning designations and land uses. • subdivision will allow for future housing opportunities. The City's affordable housing requirement will be satisfied by utilizing existing credits provided in the Cape Ann project located at Main Street and Garfield Avenue. Fifteen percent of the total number of units or two (2)units are required to be restricted to moderate-income families. The applicant is permitted to provide the units off-site, as long as they are located within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. Additional school fees will be paid in accordance with a master agreement with the Huntington Unified High School District and Huntington Beach City School District applicable to PLC Company properties. Upon approval of the annexation,the property and proposed residential project will be subject to applicable provisions in the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement. The project has been analyzed in reference to the Development Agreement. ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use,Zoning And General Plan Designations: LOCATION GENERAL PLAN N ZONING LAND USE Subject Property: Estate Residential(Holly Residential Low Density Vacant Seacliff General Plan (Prezoned) Amendment- 1990) North of Subject Recreation/Conservation Recreation/Conservation Vacant(site of Weider Property: (Orange Co.) Regional Park) East of Subject Residential Estate Ellis Goldenwest Single family Property(across Specific Plan residences Edwards St.): South of Subject Residential Low Density Holly Seacliff Specific Fire Station/Water Property: Plan(RL-1) Reservoir West of Subject Recreation/Conservation Recreation/Conservation Vacant(site of Weider Property: (Orange Co.) Regional Park) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment) designation on the subject property is Estate Residential (4 units/gross acre). Staff Report—3/28/00 4 (OOSR23) The proposed zoning map amendment, and zoning text amendment are consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Obiective LU 3.1: Ensure that any proposed annexation is consistent with the overall objectives and does not adversely impact fiscal or environmental resources, and public services and infrastructure of the City of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 3.1.2: Require that the existing and future land uses located within the proposed annexation area are compatible with the adjacent City land uses. Obiective LU 9.3: Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and project that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity. The proposed development will offer upscale residential housing for new home buyers. With the conditions imposed, final design of the residential units will be reviewed by the City to ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. The tentative tract map and conditional use permit are not consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Policy LU 9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The proposed grading and import of approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil will not result in compatible grades between the project site and the adjacent Weider Regional Park. Zoning Compliance: The proposed zoning on the subject property is Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(SP-9)with an RL-1 (Low Density Residential) designation. The following zoning conformance matrix compares the proposed project with the development standards of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 district: SECTIOl ISSII � � COEDPI2UISION RAP0SE1� III.D.l.c. Lot Area Min. 7,000 sq. ft. 7,217-16,752 sq. ft. Lot Width Min. 60 ft. 60 ft. Cul-de-sac width Min. 45 ft., 30 ft. with 1 45 ft. cul-de-sac additional parking space 30 ft. (Lots 5 &6) w/condition for add'1 parking space d. I Density 1 unit/lot 1 unit/lot Staff Report—3/28/00 5 (OOSR23) i- SKCTION ``ISSUE CODE PROVISION;; ° PROPOSED e. Building Height Max. 35 ft. from top of No elevations (DRB review subfloor to roof peak; required) 2 stories f. Lot Coverage Max 50%; 55% adjacent for No site plans (DRB review lots adjacent to park required) Setbacks g. Front(cul-de-sac) Min. 15 ft. No site plans (DRB review required) h.1 Side Min. 5 ft. No site plans (DRB review required) h.2 Street Side Min. 10 ft. No site plans (DRB review (Edwards St.) required) i. Rear Min. 20 ft. No site plans (DRB review required) g. Garage Front entry Min 20 ft. No site plans/floor plans (DRB Side entry Min 10 ft. review required) k. Open Space Provided by min. setback areas No site plans (DRB review required) 230.70.0 Grading Max. 3 feet between high and 16 feet between high and low low points of existing grade points of existing grade* 231.04.B Off-Street Parking - Number of spaces 2 enclosed+2 open/up to 4 BR No site plans/floor plans (DRB unit review required) 3 enclosed+3 open/5+BR unit III.D.l.c.2 1 additional off-street Condition of approval for space/unit for lot with<45' additional off-street parking space frontage on Lots 5 & 6 III.D.I.n. Landscaping 1-36"box tree per lot; Landscape plan to require 1-36" 1-36"box tree/45' street box tree per lot and 1-36"box frontage tree/45' street frontage 230.88 Fences & Walls Max. 6 ft. high along perimeter 6 ft. high along east PL (8 ft. high from sidewalk on Edwards St.) 8 ft. high adjacent to Fire Station and rear of Lot 1 6 ft. high open fencing along west and north property line. 254.08 Parkland Dedication 0.1715 acres 0.1715 acres of land credit toward Weider Regional Park *Conditional Use Permit Staff Report—3/28/00 6 (o0SR23) t ^ t Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently,Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Attachment No. 7)was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act(CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-18 for thirty (30) days commencing on April 22, 1999 and ending on May 21, 1999. Comments were received from Caltrans, County of Orange, and the Edison Company concerning the proposed development and a response has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Environmental Board Comments: • The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. No response has been received. Prior to any action on Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1,Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99- 14, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. As discussed above, the applicant will pay additional school fees in accordance with a master agreement with the Huntington Unified High School District and Huntington Beach City School District applicable to PLC Company properties. Coastal Status: The proposed project site is not within the Coastal Zone. However,the amendment to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan will require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program by reconfiguring the boundary of the specific plan. Thus, final approval of the zoning text amendment and zoning map amendment,which are considered minor amendments, are subject to California Coastal Commission approval. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Staff Report—3/28/00 7 (OOSR23) Subdivision Committee: On June 30, 1999,the Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and forwarded the following comments: • The subdivision should be designed with private streets with a homeowner's association maintaining streets and landscaping. • Density should not exceed 3 units per acre. • Recommend denial based on Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment(AE-1 Estate Residential); incompatibility with Ellis Goldenwest neighborhood to the east. Park and recreation requirements will be satisfied by apportioning 0.1715 acres of existing park credits toward Wieder Regional Park. The remaining number of credits held by PLC Land Co. will be approximately 12.74 acres. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services, and Building and Safety have recommended conditions which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police and Economic Development Departments have no concerns. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on March 16, 2000, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of March 22,2000,no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Negative Declaration: Oct. 1, 1999 April 1, 2000 Zoning Map Amendment/Zoning Text Not applicable Amendment/Local Coastal Program Amendment: Tentative Tract Map: February 3, 2000 May 17, 2000 (Within 50 days from Negative Declaration approval) Conditional Use Permit: February 3, 2000 June 28, 2000(Within Three months from Negative Declaration approval) Staff Report—3/28/00 8 rnncR�z� ANALYSIS: Annexation A request to annex the site into the City was submitted to LAFCO by PLC in July, 1998. The County of Orange adopted a Tax Sharing Agreement(TSA) in February, 1999. The City Council will consider the TSA and annexation request upon review of the Zoning Text Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. Prior to final action by the City Council, the Planning Commission may forward a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed annexation. A copy of the fiscal impact analysis prepared for the site is provided for Planning Commission review-(Attachment No. 8). Following final City action, LAFCO will consider PLC's request to annex the subject property into the City of Huntington Beach. Staff supports the proposed annexation and the establishment of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan zoning of the property because the new zoning and land use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning designations. The County of Orange has officially approved the tax sharing agreement for the annexation of the residential property. However, should LAFCO disapprove the annexation request,the City applications become null and void. Zoning Map Amendment/Zoning Text Amendment Staff supports the establishment of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 zoning on the property, along with the amendment to the boundary of the specific plan because the estate residential use would be most compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff also supports the minor modifications to the acreage figures cited in the text and tables of the specific plan. The proposed RL-1 zoning will be compatible with the adjacent estate residential zoning designations on the Bluffs and Ellis Goldenwest quartersection. The proposed zoning will allow estate residential uses to be constructed at a maximum density of four units per gross acre. Furthermore,the acreage figures within the specific plan will be revised by adding approximately 3 acres. Compatibility The new residential uses will provide upscale housing opportunities for new home buyers. With exception of the recently constructed Fire Station and water reservoir facilities to the south,the surrounding area is primarily developed with estate residential uses. In addition,the site has been "prezoned" for low density residential land use. Impacts from the adjacent Fire Station should be minimal as strict conditions were imposed upon approval of the new facility, including the installation of a traffic signal in front of the station and opticom devices at the intersections of Ellis Ave./Edwards St. and Garfield Ave./Edwards St. to reduce the need for sirens in the immediate area. No impact from the Weider Regional Park is anticipated. Staff Report—3/28/00 9 / l Grading The intent of the code is to review how the grading plan terraces buildings with the grade and creates development which is compatible with adjacent developments. Staff does not support the proposed tract map due to the extent of soil import and proposed grading of the tract. The proposed fill of up to 13 feet on the west end of the tract will not be compatible with the adjacent grades of Weider Regional Park and does not terrace the lots with the existing grades. The applicant indicates that based on the natural terrain, the property drains to the northwest. By importing the 12,500 cubic yards of fill,the tract will not have to be designed with terraced building pads or lift stations. Staff feels that the proposed grading and fill is inconsistent with the goals and policies in the General Plan which attempt to maintain existing grades to the greatest extent feasible. The current condition of the site should be maintained without compromising the integrity of existing topographical features. The applicant indicates that the fill is necessary to provide for drainage and flow to existing storm drain and sewer connections to the south without having to construct lift stations or sumps. This is not an adequate reason to make the lot level. The General Plan encourages terracing and other design techniques to build development compatible with the terrain. In order to comply with the General Plan,the 10 lots could be terraced with lift stations or reduce the number of proposed lots. The project could be developed in conformance with the General Plan by subdividing into eight lots instead of 10. Other options for redesign include the elimination or modification of Lots 5 and 6 which would allow a view corridor at the end of the cul-de-sac, or designing split level pads on Lots 5 and 6. An example of such a site plan layout is provided on Attachment No. 9. For the reasons noted above, staff recommends denial of the tract map and conditional use permit. As an alternative,the project could be redesigned to minimize impacts to grading. Circulation The staff supports the proposal to construct the private street to public street standards, and maintenance of the street and landscape lots by the homeowners association. The future review of the residential units will ensure compatibility of the residential units with the surrounding area, and that ample off-street and on-street parking is provided. The City's Public Works Department Traffic Division has reviewed access to the tract and supports the location of the cul-de-sac,provided no security access gates are installed. Staff does not anticipate any impacts resulting from the privatization of the street and landscape lots. SUMMARY: Staff supports the proposed amendments to the Local Coastal Program,Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Zoning Map to allow for single family residential development for the following reasons: The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding zoning designations and existing land uses of Estate Residential in the Holly Seacliff and Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plans. The zoning will be consistent with the General Plan Designation of Estate Residential. Staff Report—3/28/00 10 Staff does not support the proposed subdivision map for the following reasons: The subdivision should be designed with minimal grading and should maintain the existing topography to the greatest extent possible. • The import of additional fill to the west end of the tract is not compatible with the existing grades of the Weider Regional Park located west and north of the site. ATTACHMENTS: 1. u - , - 2. Alternatives Findin�c anti C'nn�iitinn¢ of Ant*g \ , 3. DraftOrdinan - 4. - - 5. , 6. -Na=ative 7. N , 8. sis da , 9. Alternative Ci e-p m SH:WC:kjl Staff Report-3/28/00 11 (OOSR23) - y ATTACHMENT 5 Ic M� _ [.r ?cu OF �. . TOOO APR —11 P 4` 01 April 4, 2000 Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Appeal of Planning Commission Denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 Dear Connie: PLC Land Company appeals the actions taken by the Planning Commission on March 28, 2000 to deny the above-referenced applications. Would you please schedule a City Council public hearing for this appeal concurrent with the public hearings for the related entitlements for this project: Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Negative Declaration No. 99-18. The related entitlements were approved by the Planning Commission and will be forwarded to the City Council for final action, along with a request to annex the 2.7-acre property to the City of Huntington Beach. PLC respectfully requests the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission denial and approve TTM No. 15690 and CUP No. 99-14 and related environmental and zoning documents. We disagree with the findings for denial, and believe the ten-lot subdivision is both fiscally and environmentally superior to the staff recommended alternative for eight lots, and would result in better compatibility with the adjacent proposed County regional park site. The proposed subdivision would create ten single family lots at a density of 3.0 units per gross acre, consistent with the property's adopted General Plan land use designation (Estate Residential <4 du/ac) and proposed zoning (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1).- The lots range in size from 7,217 to 16,752 square feet, and average 9,893 square feet, consistent with other existing residential developments in this area. The largest lots are located adjacent to the County regional park site and incorporate landscaped buffer slopes to transition from residential to open space uses. In recommending denial of the proposed subdivision, staff felt that the amount of grading was "excessive." TTM Finding for Denial No. 2 states that "The site will require to be raised approximately 13 feet on the west end of the tract in order to accommodate development of two additional units." There is only one small area at the rear of Lots 5 and 6 where the fill reaches a depth of 13 feet. These two lots (13,984 and 16,752 square feet in area, respectively) are the largest lots in the tract and include 20-30 foot wide slopes abutting the park site in addition to flat usable rear yard areas. The amount of fill at the rear of these lots could be reduced by widening 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 2501 949.721.9777 Telephone PLC Land Company Newport Beach, California 92660 949.729.1214 Facsimile PIC and flattening the slope abutting the park site, but the usable rear yard areas would be negatively impacted. The proposed pad elevations for the subdivision range from 70.0' to 72.0' and are all within two feet of the pre-existing site grades at the front of the lots. It is important to note that the "natural" topography of this site and the adjacent City-owned property has been altered as a result of oil production operations, and more recently to accommodate grading and construction of the City fire station and water reservoir. Approximately 20,000 cubic yards of soil excavated from the adjacent property are presently stockpiled on the subject property. The natural topography of the fire station, reservoir and SCE substation site has been significantly altered to accommodate these public facilities. The proposed subdivision is designed so that the majority of the lot areas drain to the street and a catch basin and storm drain located at the west end of the cul de sac. This drainage is tied into + the approved City fire station and reservoir site drainage system. Where Lots 2-6 abut the park site, variable width and height rear yard slopes are proposed to: • Create horizontal and vertical separation between the residential rear yards and the future park development. • Provide a landscaped, natural looking "edge" to the development as viewed from the park site and a transition between formal rear yard landscaping and future park plantings. • Provide privacy for homeowners abutting the park site (an open view fence is proposed at the toe of the slope along the rear property lines for Lots 2-6). • Minimize the amount of runoff from the private slopes onto the park property. Staff s recommended alternative for eight lots does not address how the westerly portion of the site would or could be graded, how the relationship between the residential lots and the park site would be treated (wall vs. slope) or how drainage from the lots would be accommodated. We have the following concerns with the staff alternative if no or only limited grading is permitted: • Buyers can be expected to want to maximize the use of their lot. In the Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan area, some owners of sloping or minimally graded lots have either legally or illegally added retaining walls or have re-graded areas to increase their usability or for ease of maintenance. • Without a perimeter wall or slope to screen or separate the rear yards from the park site, homeowners would have less rear yard privacy. • The applicant's design attempts to minimize drainage onto the County parkland. Staffs alternative does not address or account for drainage into the park. As indicated in the May 19, 1999 letter from Walden & Associates (copy attached) lowering the building pads at the westerly end of the tract below elevation 70.0' would necessitate adding a 2 Pic I sewer lift station for these lots to sewer to the existing sewer service to the site. Not only is this a significant up-front cost for the developer ($75,000-$100,000), but also a long-term cost for residents. Reconfiguring the tract per staff s recommendation would also require redesign of the approved storm drain connection to the reservoir site. The Southern California Edison Company retains a power line easement that runs east-west along the northerly property line of the reservoir site. Any utilities that cross this easement are required to cross as close to perpendicular as possible (i.e., it would be difficult to redirect and costly to redesign the approved storm drain within the SCE easement). The site is isolated, not part of an existing neighborhood nor adjacent to any existing homes, so we do not feel the proposed grading plan will negatively impact any existing homes or residents. We disagree with CUP Finding for Denial No. 1 that states that the project "may be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood." Finally, we feel the City at large would benefit more from the development of ten homes on the property than from eight homes. The fiscal impact analysis prepared for the annexation of the property projected that the development of ten homes (valued conservatively at an average sales price of$578,000) would generate ongoing revenues to the City of approximately $25,000 per year. Decreasing the value of the project by 20 percent (two lots out of ten) would diminish this surplus. We believe that in the current market, sales prices for the ten homes could be as much as fifty percent higher. We do not believe it is realistic that potential lot premiums on two larger lots would approach the value of the two lots and homes eliminated per staffs recommendation. PLC has constructed all necessary infrastructure to accommodate annexation and development of this property in conformance with the General Plan designation of Estate Residential. We therefore request approval of the tentative tract map (Alternate B-R, dated May 24, 1999) and related environmental and zoning applications, with the following clarifications of the recommended conditions of approval as contained in Attachment 2.1 to the staff report: Condition Comment Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 l.a. We are amenable to having Lot A be a private street maintained by the HOA. 2.b. It is our intent and understanding with staff that the 15 percent affordable housing requirement for this project is to be met by designating two units already constructed within the Cape Ann development, which would reduce the surplus of affordable units from 36 to 34. 3 a PIC 2.c. We request that the condition be modified to delete the reference to common driveway access easements (none proposed) and "all walls." The HOA should only be responsible for the exterior of the walls along the east side of Lots 1 and 10 and the along the north side of Lot 10. We would also be agreeable to making the HOA responsible for maintenance of the wrought iron fence along the rear lot lines of Lots 2-6, adjacent to the park. 3.i. Please replace "consistent"with"in substantial conformance" (see 6.c. below). 4.a. Please delete the reference to sea walls. 6.c. It is not clear why an additional five-foot structural setback from a utility easement is required. We would request that if, upon submittal of final } improvement plans for the private sewer and storm drain, a wider easement is required by the City Engineer, the final map could be adjusted accordingly. Td. The storm drain easement is proposed across Lot 7. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 3.c. The intent of the requested covenant is unclear. Maintenance of the view fence will be addressed in the CC&R's. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Very truly yours, OAiamlv� William D. Holman Planning & Government Relations Enclosure cc: Mayor David Garofalo and City Council Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Chris Gibbs Daren Groth 4 18012 CO N,StiITE 210•IRVINE,CA 92614 ALDEN & 94,/660-0110 FAX: 660-0418 S S 0 CIATE S CIVIL ENGI\'EERS-PL.kNNERS-LAND SURVEYORS May 19, 1999 Mr. Bill Holman PLC 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 2150 Newport Beach; CA 92660 RE: Tentative Tract iWap 15690 .41ternate "B" Dear Bill, In response to the Notice of Filing Status letter, dated 4/7/99, from the City regarding this project. The "natural topographic characteristic" of this site shows a 16 foot vertical differential between the high point and low point within the parcel. There is no way "natural topography" can be maintained. The site design is consistent with joining the street grade at Edwards Street and a 1% slope toward the cul-de-sac. The 1% slope gives approximately 1.0' differences between pads, thus no retaining walls, and a minimum depth of cover for the sewer line in the cul-de-sac being extended from the south. The sewer line from the Fire Station is at a minimum grade and is fixed within the Fire Station site. These plans are approved and construction is underway. Contour grading has been accommodated. The back lot top of slope lines of Lots 1 thru 6 vary in response to the varying topographic features with consideration for minimum building pad areas. If the City or County would give us permission to slope on their property, with varying slope rates, then we could contour grade even more. The fill required is not "excessive", whatever that word means, nor can the natural topography be maintained within this project's boundary. The proposed design is the best balance given the constraints noted above. If you; or the City, have any questions, or wish to discuss this in any more detail, please don't hesitate to call me. S rely, 1 I L. Walden DLW/bb F:\WORDDOCS\DLW\iv[A P1.;690.LTR a t z �' REVISED NARRATIVE Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 February 10, 2000 PLC Land Company is requesting City annexation and approval of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Low Density Residential (RL-1) zoning and Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 to permit the development of 10 single family homes on 2.71 acres located on the west side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue. The subject property is a portion of the "County Portion of the Property," as such term is defined in Development Agreement No. 90-1, under which the provisions of the Development Agreement become applicable to the subject property upon annexation. The tentative tract map proposes to subdivide the vacant property into 10 single family lots, ranging in size from 7,217 to 16,752 square feet in size, with an average size of 9,893 square feet. The lots are accessed by a single private, non-gated cul-de-sac. A 15-foot wide landscape parkway is provided along Edwards Street. The tract is proposed to be served by an existing City water line in Edwards Street and a private sewer line designed to connect to the existing City sewer line located in the adjoining City-owned reservoir site to the south. The site was originally designed to drain easterly to Edwards Street. Upon preliminary review of the proposed grading plan, City staff recommended lowering the pad elevations in the westerly portion of the site to reduce the amount of fill. Per the direction of the Public Works Department, drainage from the site will be collected in a catch basin at the west end of the cul-de-sac and tied into the existing City storm drain system within the reservoir site. The proposed residential pads have been designed at the lowest possible elevation to accommodate a gravity sewer to the existing sewer line in the adjacent site. An illustrative site plan has been prepared to show typical house plotting and parking (onstreet and offstreet) for the proposed subdivision. A conceptual landscape, wall and fence plan is also being submitted. Surrounding land uses include the proposed Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park to the north and west of the site, a City fire station and water reservoir to the south, both currently under construction, and existing single family homes to the east across Edwards Street. A request for annexation of the property to the City of Huntington Beach was filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission on July 1, 1998 and is currently in process, pending final City approval of an environmental assessment and zoning for the property. r - Tentative Tract Map 15690 Development Standards Matrix February 10, 2000 TOPIC HSSP RL-1 REQUIREMENT PROVIDED Density 7 units/acre 3.7 units/acre Permitted Uses Single Family Residential Single Family Residential Minimum Parcel Size/ Frontage Lot Area 7,000 square feet 7,217 to 16,752 square feet Lot Width 60 feet 60 feet— 6 lots Cul-de-sac frontage 45 feet 45 feet—2 lots 30 feet— *requires one additional 30 & 31 feet—2 lots *requires one off-street parking space additional off-street parking space Maximum Building Height 35 feet/2 stories 35 feet/2 stories* *Actual TBD with future CUP application Maximum Site Coverage 50 percent 50 percent* *Actual TBD with future CUP application Front Yard Setback Dwelling Garage - Front Entry 15 feet 15 feet* Side Entry Garage 20 feet 20 feet* Balconies, Bay Windows, 10 feet 10 feet* Eaves & Fireplaces 12 feet, or 12 feet, or 8 feet on side entry garage 8 feet on side entry garage* *Actual TBD with future.CUP application Interior Side Yard Setback Dwellings, Patio Covers, 5 feet 5 feet* Garages, Carports & Accessory Buildings Eaves & Fireplaces 30 inches 30 inches* Bay Windows, Balconies, 3 feet 3 feet* Open Stairways & *Actual TBD with Architectural Features future CUP application ' 1 I i - I _ Exterior Side Yard Setback Dwellings, Garages, Carports 10 feet 10 feet* &Accessory Buildings Eaves 7 feet 7 feet* Bay Windows, Balconies, 7.5 feet 7.5 feet* Open Stairways, Fireplaces 3 feet* &Architectural Features Unenclosed Patio Covers 5 feet 5 feet* *Actual TBD with future CUP application Rear Yard Setback Dwellings 20 feet 20 feet* Garages&Accessory Bldgs. 5 feet 5 feet* Bay Windows, Balconies, 15 feet 15 feet* Open Stairways & Architectural Features Unenclosed Patio Features 5 feet 5 feet* *Actual TBE with future CUP application Building Separation 10 feet 10 feet* (on same lot) *Actual TBE with future CUP application Open Space Provided by setback areas Provided by setback areas Parking Per HB ZSO Chapter 231 Per HB ZSO Chapter 231 Parkway Landscaping One 36-inch box tree per lot One 36-inch box tree per lot, plus Edwards parkway landscaping ATTACHMENT 7 ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. I -- APPLICANT"APPLICANT"S REQUEST SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690: 1. The tentative map received and dated May 28, 1999 shall be the approved layout with the following modification: a. Lot "A" (street) shall be a private street maintained by the Homeowners Association. 2. Prior to submittal of the final map to the Public Works Department for processing and approval by the City Council, the following shall be required: a. The annexation shall be approved by LAFCO. b. The Affordable Housing Agreement Plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval. The agreement shall provide for affordable housing on-site or off-site. Said agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The contents of the agreement shall include the following: 1) Minimum 15 percent of the units shall be affordable to families of moderate income level (less than 120% of Orange County median) for a period of thirty years. 2) A detailed description of the type, size, location and phasing of the affordable units. 3) If affordable units (new or rehabilitate) are off-site, they must be under the full control of the applicant. 4) The affordable units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the primary project. Final approval (occupancy) of the first residential unit in the tract shall be contingent upon the completion and public availability, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion, of the affordable units. c. At least 90 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Planning Department and approved by the City Attorney. The CC&Rs shall reflect the maintenance by the Homeowners' Association of Lot A (private cul-de-sac), common landscape areas, exterior of the walls along the east side of Lots 1 and 10, and north side of Lot 1, all open fencing along the rear lot lines of Lots 2-6 adjacent to the park. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. d. The grade on the sloped landscaped areas adjacent to the park shall not be modified. A covenant restricting the grading and redesign of the sloped condition shall be recorded on the properties. A copy of the covenant shall be reviewed by the City Attorney prior to recordation. A copy of the recorded documents shall be submitted to the Planning Department for inclusion in the Tract file. 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. All vehicular access rights to Edwards Street shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at street intersection. (PW) b. Hydrology and hydraulic studies for both on and off site facilities shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval and shall address the provisions of Chapter 222 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, including Section 222.1OC. (PW) c. The only water available close by is the Zone 2 Reservoir Hill Assessment District. This development will need to annex into the Reservoir Hill Assessment District for service. All necessary studies and processing fees shall be paid by the developer. (PW) d. The developer shall construct a separate irrigation system (i.e. service meter and backflow protection device)to serve reclaimed water to the perimeter and/or median landscaping along Edwards Street, as well as for all common area landscaping of the proposed development, unless otherwise approved by the Water Division. (PW) e. The developer shall design signing, striping and street lighting in accordance with Public Works Standards. (PW) f. A reproducible mylar copy and a print of the recorded final map, along with digital graphic files of the recorded map per the City of Huntington Beach "CAD Standards Manual for Consultants", shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. (PW) g. The following shall be shown as a dedication to the City of Huntington Beach on the Final Map: 1) The water system and appurtenances as said on the improvement plans. 2) An easement over the private street (Lot"A") for Police and Fire Department access purposes. 3) Access rights in, over, across, upon and through the private street for the purpose of maintaining, servicing, cleaning, repairing, and replacing the water system. 4) A 2.00 foot public utility easement on both sides of the private street. (PW) h. The proposed storm drain and sewer systems located within the private streets shall be private and maintained by the Homeowner's Association. (PW) i. The Final Map shall be consistent with the approved tentative map. (PW). j. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall comply with Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9- 337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18 for the following items: 1) Tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor. 2) Provide a digital-graphics file of said map. (PW) k. All improvement securities (Faithful Performance, Labor& Material and Monument Bonds) and Subdivision Agreement shall be posted with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) 1. A Certificate of Insurance shall be filed with the Public Works Department and approved as to form by the City Attorney. (PW) m. All Public Works fees shall be paid. (PW) n. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 shall be approved by the City Council. 4. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of a grading permit: a. A grading plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval. This plan shall also include design of the slopes, and drainage control devices along the westerly boundary, and an erosion and silt control plan for all water runoff during construction and site preparation work. Final grades and elevations on the grading plan shall not vary by more than one (1) foot from the grades and elevations on the approved Tentative Map unless approved by the City Engineer. (PW) b. A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (PW) c. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval by the Park, Tree, and Landscape Division. The Developer shall submit irrigation demands to ensure proper irrigation service sizing. (PW) d. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a "Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer. (PW) e. The name and phone number of a field supervisor hired by the developer who is on-site shall be submitted to the Departments of Planning and Public Works. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site indicating who to contact for information regarding this development and any construction/grading activity. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/she will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site (every 200 feet) indicating who to contact for information regarding grading and construction activities, and to call "1-800- CUTSMOG" if there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. f. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of Condition No. 4.e as well as a schedule of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. g. The applicant shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control and provide a plan to the Planning and Public Works Departments indicating such compliance. h. Blockwall/fencing plans shall be submitted to an approved by the Department of Planning. Double walls shall be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Applicant shall coordinate with adjacent property owners and make reasonable attempts to construct one common property wall. If coordination between property owners can not be accomplished, the applicant shall construct a six (6) foot high wall located entirely within the subject property and with a maximum two (2) inch separation from property line. Any removal of walls on private residential property and construction of new common walls shall include approval by property owners of adjacent properties. The plans shall include section drawings, a site plan and elevations. The plans shall identify materials, seep holes and drainage. The applicant shall provide proof to the City that all adjacent property owners have been contacted. 5. During grading operations, the following shall be complied with: a. Due to the proximity of the site to a known archeological site, grading activities during remedial site grading work shall be monitored by an archeologist. (Mitigation Measure) b. Water trucks shall be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day in the areas where vehicles travel and the soils are processed to keep the soils damp enough to prevent dust raised by the operations. c. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m., or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. d. Wet down areas to be or that are being remediated in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. e. Construction equipment shall be maintained in peak operating condition to reduce emissions. f. Use low sulfur(0.5%) fuel by weight for construction equipment. g. Truck idling shall be prohibited for periods longer than 10 minutes. h. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. i. Attempt to phase and schedule activities to avoid high ozone days first stage smog alerts. j. Discontinue operation during second stage smog alerts. k. All haul trucks shall be covered to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. 1. Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. in. Comply with AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. 6. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits: a. No combustible construction shall occur until the approved water system has been installed. (PW) b. Construct off-site drainage improvements as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff, due to development, or deficient, downstream drainage systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvement shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. (PW) c. The units on Lots 6, 7 and 8 shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet off the edge of the sewer and storm drain easement line unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (PW) d. Structures greater than 5,000 square feet(including garage) and/or not meeting fire access per 1994 Uniform Fire Code, must have automatic fire sprinkler systems installed throughout. Shop drawings shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department prior to system installation. (FD) e. If sprinklers are required, a fire alarm system shall be installed and provide the following: 1. Water flow, valve tamper, and trouble detection 2. Audible alarms 3. Smoke detectors (FD) f. A fire hydrant shall be installed prior to combustible construction. Prior to installation, shop drawings shall be submitted to the Public Works Department and approved by the Fire Department. (FD) g. Address numbers shall be installed to comply with City Specification 428. (FD) h. Street names shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to use (City Specification No. 409) (FD) i. The project shall comply with all provisions of the HBFC and City specification 422, Well Abandonment. (FD) j. The project shall comply with all provisions of the HBMC Section 17.04.085 and City Specification 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. (FD) 7. The following conditions shall be completed prior to approval of Final Building Permits (occupancy of the buildings): a. All existing overhead utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with the City's Underground Utility Ordinance. In addition, all electrical transformers shall be installed underground. (PW) b. All streets shall be fully improved per the conditions of approval. (PW) c. Signing, striping, and street lighting shall be constructed in accordance with City Standards. (PW) d. A modified grate/slide opening catch basin and storm drain shall be constructed within Lot "A" on the west side of Lot 7, and between Lots 6 and 7. This storm drain shall join the reservoir drainage and outlet onto the lower slope of the mesa. (PW) e. Each proposed dwelling unit shall have a separate domestic meter (touch read type) and service, sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC). (PW) f. All public utilities and appurtenances shall be located within the public right of way or within a public easement dedicated to the City. (PW) g. The Traffic Impact Fee shall be paid. (PW) 8. The property owner is responsible for all required clean up of off-site dirt, pavement damage and/or restriping of the public rights-of-way as determined by the Public Works Department. 9. The Departments of Planning, Public Works and Fire are responsible for compliance with all conditions of approval herein as noted after each condition. The Planning Director and Public Works Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to tract map are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director and Public Works Director have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission's may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid prior to map recordation. (PW) 2. Park and recreation in-lieu fees shall be paid, or accrued credits assigned, prior to Council approval of the final map. 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval. An extension of time may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 60 days prior to the expiration date. 4. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14: 1. The site plan received and dated May 28, 1999 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: a. An additional off-site parking space shall be provided on Lots 5 and 6 based on the reduced lot frontage. b. Final site plans, floor plans, building elevations, and fencing plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board. c. The perimeter tract fencing along the west and north property lines shall be of open wrought iron design as noted on the site plan sections drawings, with the exception that the rear (north) of Lot 1 be designed of solid masonry material. d. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (Code Requirement) e. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. f. If outdoor lighting is included, energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. g. The entrance to the private street shall have textured and colored pavement a minimum 15 feet in width to delineate private from public street. 2. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the index. b. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD) c. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) d. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. 3. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Planning for all common areas (lettered lots B and C). The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees (trunk greater than 10" in diameter) that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. No code required landscape materials, as included on the approved Landscape Plan, shall be removed without prior approval from the Planning Department. (PW) (Code Requirement) b. The landscape and related irrigation shall be maintained entirely by the Homeowner's Association, conditioned as part of this entitlement and in a manner acceptable to the Public Works Landscape Division Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. Landscaping materials shall be consistent with the landscaping approved for the westside of Edwards Street from Overlook Street south to Garfield Avenue. (PW) c. A covenant prohibiting the removal of the open view fencing along the perimeter of the west and north property lines shall be recorded with the County Recorder's Office. The covenant shall be submitted to the Planning Department, and shall be reviewed as to form by the City Attorney's Office. A copy of the recorded covenant shall be filed with the Planning Department. 4. Prior to final building permit inspection and approval of the first residential unit, the following shall be completed: a. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Planning Department. b. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 5. The Planning Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Planning Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Planning Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. 6. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 shall not become effective until Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 have been approved by the City Council and California Coastal Commission and are in effect. INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS—TENTATIVE TRACT MAP/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 shall not become effective until the Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 have been approved by the City Council and are in effect. 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 shall become null and void unless exercised within two years of the date of final zoning text amendment and zoning map amendment approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14, pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 5. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 6. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. 7. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Oranjae and submitted to the Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. 8. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. 9. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid at the time of final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 10. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) ATTACHMEN 11 T 8 FROM : DALE DID►N FAX NO. : 714 946-4292 ( May. 04 2000 11:22AM P1 Dr. Gerald Chapman, Chairmar. Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street .Huntington Beach,CA 92648 near Chairman Chapman, As a Huntington Beach resident for 34 years, I wish to be on record in support of the annexation and approval of Dolly Seaclitf Specific Plan RIA zoning proposal of PLC'. Land Company to pernit development as anticipated in the 1990 Holly Seaelii'rEM This pmiect is consistent with the Creneral Plan of the City and the!lolly Scacliff Development Agreement, and the proposal would matte the best use of this property, in my opinion. 1 sincerely request the Planning Commission to let stand their previous action approving the zoning and annexation request, and allow the project to proceed as proposed. Respectfully submitted, Dale L Dunn 17302 Almelo Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92649 May 3, 2000 - Ms. Connie Brockway City Clerk 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Ms. Brockway: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690 And CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 As a member of the FANS Advisory Board, I am writing to you to ask that you reconsider the decision of the Planning Commission on March 28, 2000 concerning the 10-lot subdivision for the 2.7 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Edwards Street, between Ellis Avenue and the new fire station. I am in support of the annexation of the site to the City and approval of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL1 zoning for the site to permit development as specified in the 1990 Holly Seacliff EIR, General Plan and Development Agreement, which allows for a 10 lot development on the site. The existing grading plan submitted by PLC is designed to ensure proper drainage of the subdivision. All drainage would drain to the street where a catch basin and storm drain would divert water to the approved City fire station and reservoir site drainage system. This new residential area would help to buffer the view of the fire station, reservoir, and SCE substation from the other developments in the area. The planting of trees and addition of landscaping features will help to beautify the area and neighborhood. PLC has throughout this planned development of the Peninsula, St. Augustine, Bluffs, Peninsula Park complied with constructing all necessary infrastructure such as roads, school, neighborhood park, fire station, reservoir per City requirements. In keeping with the good faith of the developer and the history of other developments will require further cooperation with PLC in the development of Tract 15690 on this 2.7 acre parcel of land. I urge you to approve the PLC 10 lot subdivision project (Tract 15690), thus assuring increased tax revenue for the City. � J Sincerely, is PHILLIP OW Fans Advisory Member Peninsula Homeowner c: Mayor David Garofalo and City Council Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director FROM TERI MILES C, FAX NO. : 714 9608902 May. 06 2000 05:51PM PS May 6,2000 Gerald Chapman,Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 Dear Mr. Chapman: 1 am writing to you in support of the City annexation of a 2.7 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Edwards Street,between Ellis Avenue and the new fire station. After annexation,the City should allow PLC to construct 10 homes on this site. The General Plan and the Holly Seacliff EIR designates this property for residential development,not open space. There are not any significant environmental impacts with this plan and the city would receive additional tax benefits. The City has adequate water to serve the project as fewer homes have been built in the Holly Seacliff area. Please support this project and allow PLC to build 10 homes on this site. The City will again be a winner with new housing,new tax revenues,and the continuation of the great partnership that has been established between the City and PLC. Sincerely, '�ee,71' 3. .Miles 19415 Castlewood Circle Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 MAY-06-2000 02 :45 PM PRINTMASTERS 88 714 842 8724 P. 01 PRINTMASTERS0 HsIpimcl You CREATE A Pllofcssi"AI BUSINESS IMAGE May 6, 2000 Gerald Chapman Planning Commission Chairman City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Sir, I am in support of PLC project to annex to the City and develop a 2.7-acre parcel of land located on the west side of Edwards Street, between Ellis Avenue and the new fire station. The PLC project proposes fill of up to 13 feet on portions of lots 5 &6 to create level building pads for homes with useable rear yards and to provide a 20—30 foot wide slope buffer to regional park property. These two lots are the largest lots in the tract. The amount of fill at the rear of these lots could be reduced by widening and flattening the slope abating the park site, but useable rear yard areas would be negatively impacted. Where lots 2—6 abut the park site, variable width and height rear yard slopes are proposed to provide a landscaped, natural looking "edge"to the development, as viewed from the park site and a transition between formal rear yard landscaping and future park planting. At this time the property is vacant with the natural topography looking pretty bad. The grading proposed by PLC would certainly enhance and beautify the area. The annexation of the subdivision, with the proposed ten lots,will bring revenues to the City of$25,000 per year. To reduce the number of lots by two would negatively impact the revenue by 20%. Plans are designed with sewers and storm drain connections through the adjacent fire station/reservoir site, which were designed based on the 18281 Gothard Street,Suite 105,Huntington Beach,CA 92648•(714)375-0011 *FAX(714)842-8724 MAY-06-2000 02 :46 PM PR/INTMASTERS 88 714 842 8724 P. 02 projects design and approved by the City and are already under construction. I feel that PLC has designed a project that benefits the City, through increased annual revenues, allows future residents privacy, and that definitely enhances the area with beauty, consistent with the projects in that surrounding area. Please reconsider your vote and approve the zoning, annexation and development of the site as proposed by PLC. Thank you for your consideration, Susan Barr 05/08/00 13:57 ISUNORTHAMERICAN INS.AGENCY NO.156 D01 ---_� � • -- f mil/� �-.Y .J .iY - -•-- •--., . _ ri. .may"',.- �•� (r--� l/ � ��' -- --- ._ . . lV-2 - :, sari - �.isit�/- 1��I-ate;=!iy �? �dra►�f� /�. . y-:�/��-�:7 'f �J /J May 8, 2000 To Gerald Chapman Chairman Huntington Beach Planning Commission Dear Sir As a member of the Executive Board of the Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff and a 30 year Seacliff resident, Z support the annexing of the site to the city so that the 10 lot subdivision may be developed. Thank you for your attention to this matter. §VUL/-, Yours truly, Corrie Broussard Treasurer, FANS I O 'd 9 OOM HVSH088 318800 Wd 95 :£0 OOOZ-90-AVW May-08-00 15:17 From-COUNTY OF LA HUMAN RESOURCES 2136370822 T-437 P.01/02 F-661 Post-It'"brand fax trap `al memo 7671 N of pages P. L To �2,e vrom A, l!: 011J Co. CO. N.,e "0. 6 —Z May 8, 2000 F IY Fa:. Mr. Gerald Chapman, Chairman Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Chapman: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690 And CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 As a member of the FANS Advisory Board, I am writing to you to ask that you reconsider the decision of the Planning Commission on March 28, 2000 concerning the 10-lot subdivision for the 2.7 acre parcel of land located on the west side of Edwards Street, between Ellis Avenue and the new fire station. I am in support of the annexation of the site to the City and approval of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL1 zoning for the site to permit development as specified in the 1990 Holly Seacliff EIR, General Plan and Development Agreement, which allows for a 10 lot development on the site. The existing grading plan submitted by PLC is designed to ensure proper drainage of the subdivision. All drainage would drain to the street where a catch basin and storm drain would divert water to the approved City fire station and reservoir site drainage system. This new residential area would help to buffer the view of the fire station, reservoir, and SCE substation from the other developments in the area. The planting of trees and addition of landscaping features will help to beautify the area and neighborhood. PLC has throughout this planned development of the Peninsula, St. Augustine, Bluffs, Peninsula Park complied with constructing all necessary infrastructure such as roads, school, neighborhood park, fire station, reservoir per City requirements. In keeping with the good faith of the developer and the history of other developments will require further cooperation with PLC in the development of Tract 15690 on this 2.7 acre parcel of land, I urge you to approve the PLC 10 lot subdivision project(Tract 15690),thus assuring increased tax revenue for the City. May-08-00 15:18 From-COUNTY OF LA HUMAN RESOURCES 2136370822 / T-437 P.02/02 F-661 l Sincerely, PHILLIP OW Fans Advisory Member Peninsula Homeowner c: Mayor David Garofalo and City Council Ray Silver, City Administrator Melanie Fallon, Assistant City Administrator Connie Brockway, City Clerk Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director 05/09/2000 08:49 7149695756 PACIFIC CREST CO PAGE 01 i Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff, Inc. Xtv�P /Cn�,cn�r/.tiv�in cSr.P,00�/o!/fia X..n/u�y/en cSoa��f Daaeib�vmen/ Esecutltve Committee Connie warbrie t May 9,2000 President Y HuntlnKtor.Beach HI gh School J.D. Mike Vice President Callrornla Deparlrttet t of JtatKe.Ret Mr. Gerald Chapman, Chairman SeCM corral I Secretary Huntington Beach Planning Commission t Co"'"'unity l''"t'O1 ' City of Huntington Beach Corse Broussar fl J 2000 Main Street Treasurer Comm,.nky l.takon Huntington Beach,Ca 92648 _ Suzann Bcnkc ,a '"w'""`" [ Dear Chairman Chapman: ti>~e„t Plannit>s I P Tom DeGuelle f California Patio Door I As President and spokesperson for Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff, Bul Holman you Inc.,I would urgeand the members of the Huntington Beach vu Land /0 company Y g i Planning Commission to approve PLC Land Company's request Aitylaga Board; regarding annexation and approval of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Bob Barr RL1 zoning proposal for a 10 lot subdivision on Edwards Street Prl"tMaattr► Susan Barr PLC's wish to create more upscale homes will serve to enhance and Pr1nlMaeuet. Dare Dunn the Huntington Seacliff Development Tank you for your Dalc L Mum Aar.rcla a approvals to these requests. Nouh,t Fln:ish ,lien 4ti'kin I Sincerely, L.trkln krnt F--Umc I%kiI AumoctWwreflCe tit Imurnnee Phil Ow t.A County Pmronn cnial Connie Warbrick Healih&Sakty President Bruce Powers Auto"Aat. FRIENDS AND NEIGHBORS OF SEACLIFF,INC. Particia Sder 9vcctxl�le,Inc. E3oh Traver PAC 3"kiria a Soft re.Inc. Carole Ann wall Chamber f4c—ktter tbltehrn , Executive Ife& Connle Young, I i f P.O. Box 1461 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714/969-8846 FAX 71.4/969-5756 MAY-09-00 TUE 09-55 SUZANNESCATERING 714 9686053 P.01 May 7,2000 Huntington Beach Planning Commissioners City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing you with regards to PLC's plan to build 10 homes on a 2.7 acre site on Edwards,between Ellis Avenue and the new fire station. I understand that you approved their zoning and annexation request,but you denied their 10 lot tract map. The reasons for denial apparently had to do with"excessive"grading issues,sensitivity to the surrounding natural environment,and the staffs recommendation for 8 tract sites,not 10. First off,I don't understand how adding 13 feet to the west end on the tract which Impacts only 2 housing units can be viewed as"excessive." These proposed elevations are within 2 feet of the existing site grades.Also reducing the site to 8 trads would financially impact the city in a negative way. Lastly,I want to point out what a great partner PLC has been for our city. Their infrastructure improvements,the beautiful communities they have created,the additions of a new school and fire station,and their unending generosity to a variety of community groups has made them the most significant asset to Huntington Beach. The above- mentioned project is a quality one,as all their other projects have consistently been. Please reverse your denial. Thank Youl Cordially, Suzanne (714)966-213 MAY 09 '00 02:37AM ASSOC. WSTRN SVCS (714)373-1964 P.1 I May 8, 2p00 i To The HB Planning Commissioners: I want you to reconsider your denial of PLC's tract map on their 3 acre parcel of land on Edwards Street which is near the new fire station. I believe their plan is a sound one for our community. They are proposing only 10 homes on thfa site; I do not see how these 10 homes would negatively impact the surrounding environment. It would only improve that area on Edwards Hill. Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 5fncerel�, � i C:harlot a Kimball 22071 Hula Circle i Huntiniton Beach, CA 92646 i (714)963-0996 1 SENT BY:MISSION 0&M IRVINE ; 3- 9- 0 ;10:19AM ; EDISON MISSION O&M- 17143741648;# 1/ 1 May 8, 2000 TO: Gerald Chapman, Chairman, Huntington Beach Planning Commission FROM: LeeAnn Corral — SeaGate Community Member SUBJECT: May 9, 2000 Planning Commission Public Hearing on PLC 10-lot Subdivision While I am unable to attend the hearing, I have reviewed the above proposal with three other families in the immediate area. (Triple Crown and The Peninsula area) We have all moved into this area in new developments within the last two years. We all have young children, some with more on the way. We are all proud to be Huntington .Beach residents and very impressed with how our area is developing and we greatly appreciate the Planning Commissions efforts on our behalf. After a quick review;of the proposed project all eight of us agreed that this seemed like an appropriate addition to our area and saw no obvious downsides to this project. Although we are not experts in planning a community we do pride ourselves in being highly educated individuals, whose opinions should be heard (a stockbroker, firefighter, engineer, two teachers, insurance co. president, graphic artist and mortgage broker) I hope our input helps you reach a decision. Thanks for your time, LeeAnn Corral (714) 841-2891 7056 Ashley Drive, 92648 ATTACHMENT 9 _ ,• .. .. h _ j Y� {I M M V / • 4 r I i i 1v �, SITS ?LAN i T 1� 0TTACA ALTERNATIVE ACTION NO. 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690: 1. The tentative map received and dated May 28, 1999 shall be the approved layout with the following modifications: (ADDED) b. A maximum of eight(8) lots shall be permitted. Grading along the west end of the tract below the 69 foot contour line shall be kept to a minimum in order to maintain the existing topography to the greatest extent possible. The topography below the 69 foot contour line may be maintained or terraced so not to create significant grading or view impacts. The revised layout shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. 6. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of Building Permits: (REVISED) c. All units shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet off the edge of the sewer and storm drain easement line unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer. (PW) 7. The following conditions shall be completed prior to approval of Final Building Permits (occupancy of the buildings): (REVISED) d. A modified grate/slide opening catch basin and storm drain shall be constructed within Lot "A" on the south side of the cul-de-sac at a location approved by the Public Works Department. This storm drain shall join the reservoir drainage and outlet onto the lower slope of the mesa. (PW) SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14: 1. The site plan received and dated May 28, 1999 shall be the conceptually approved layout with the following modifications: (REVISED) a. An additional off-site parking space shall be provided on lots with reduced lot frontage. (ADDED) h. A maximum of eight(8) lots shall be permitted. Building pads shall not be permitted below the 69 foot contour line along the Tract's westerly property line. The revised layout shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Director. � i L RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:WC:kjl 3C CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: June 19, 2000 Department ID Number: %00� 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator�jP� - PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit Single Family Residential Subdivision) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by PLC Land Company, applicant, of the Planning Commission's denial of Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14. The request is to subdivide approximately 2.7 acres for development of 10 detached single family residences, including the grading and fill of approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to create usable rear yards on two lots at the end of the cul-de- sac. The Planning Commission denied the request, and is recommending denial to the City Council along with staff (Recommended Action) because the design of the proposed subdivision is not compatible with the topography of the surrounding area due to the extent of proposed grading and impact to views to and from the adjacent Wieder Regional Park site. The Commission believes that the project could be improved by designing terraced building pads or using other methods to maintain the natural topography of the area. The applicant appealed the action contesting that the proposed grading and fill would not impact drainage or views to and from the proposed Wieder Regional Park site located to the west and north. The applicant further indicates that the proposed grade would eliminate the necessity for lift stations, pump stations, or sumps and would allow for larger usable rear yards without impacting the adjacent future park site. The applicant's request is to approve the subject entitlements (Alternative Action - 1). PI00-32 -2- 6/8/00 4:38 PM A REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on March 28, 2000: A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PI00-32 -3- 6/8/00 4:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Mandic, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Speaker NOES: Shomaker, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 7)" (Applicant's Request) 2. "Continue Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 and direct staff accordingly." PI00-32 -4- 6/8/00 4:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Co. c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 is a request to subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres into ten residential lots and three lettered lots for the purpose of allowing future construction of ten single family residences pursuant to Section 251.02 of the ZSO. The proposed density is 3.7 units per net acre. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 represents a request to allow development on property with greater than a three foot grade differential between the high and low points pursuant to Section 230.70 of the ZSO. The purpose is to evaluate the proposed building and grading plan, which should terrace proposed buildings with the grade. There is a 16 foot difference between the highest point along Edwards Street to the lowest point along the west property line. The proposed subdivision consists of lots ranging from 7,217 to 16,752 square feet in size, with an average size of 9,893 square feet. Access to the tract will be provided from Edwards Street through a private non-gated cul-de-sac (see Attachment No. 2). A 15-foot wide landscape parkway is designed along Edwards Street. The street and parkway will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. The request also involves grading the entire site and importing approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to design the site for proper drainage. The majority of the fill (up to 13 ft.) will occur on the west side of the tract adjacent to the proposed Wieder Regional Park (Attachment No. 2). The request does not include the review of residential units. If the tentative tract map and conditional use permit are approved by the City Council, the developer will be required to submit site plans, floor plans, and building elevations for review and approval by the City's Design Review Board. The request for annexation and establishing a residential zoning designation is required to be approved prior to any action on the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. Without the annexation and zoning designation, the City would have no permitting authority for development outside of the City limits. If approved, the property and proposed residential project will be subject to all applicable provisions in the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement. The project has been analyzed in reference to the Development Agreement. PI00-32 -5- 6/8/00 4:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the zoning applications and subdivision request. The applicant was the only person who testified during the public hearing. The Commission discussed the proposed zoning and annexation request, as well as the single family subdivision. The discussion focused around impacts to views and drainage resulting from the proposed fill. Following their discussion, the Commission voted to support the request for annexation, the local coastal program amendment, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and negative declaration, and denied the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. The denial was based on the extensive amount of grading and fill proposed on the site and its impact to views to and from the adjacent Wieder Regional Park site. The Commission felt that the project could be improved by designing terraced building pads or using other methods to maintain the natural topography of the area. The zoning text amendment, zoning map amendment, local coastal program amendment, and negative declaration were subsequently reconsidered and later denied after another public hearing. The Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit were not part of the reconsideration. C. APPEAL: The applicant appealed the Planning Commission's action on March 28' citing that the project is consistent with the City's General Plan, and compatible with other residential developments in the area. The appeal (Attachment No. 5) cites that the proposed 13 feet of fill would only occur on portions of Lots 5 & 6 which abut the Wieder Regional Park site in order to provide usable rear yard areas for those units. These lots would be designed with 20-30 foot wide slopes to provide a transition between the residential and open space uses. This design would allow the project to drain and sewer into existing facilities designed under the fire station and water reservoir site to the south. The applicant further notes that the alternative proposal for eight lots, which includes reducing the amount of fill would require design and construction of lift stations, pump stations and/or sumps necessary to provide drainage and sewer infrastructure. According to the applicant, the cost of constructing and maintaining these types of facilities would not be feasible for a 10 unit project. The applicant also contends that the proposed grading would be compatible with the grades on the adjacent fire station and water reservoir site. The applicant states that the fire station and water reservoir site was substantially altered from the natural topography in order to accommodate the public facilities. According to the applicant, the proposed grading would PI00-32 -6- 6/8/00 4:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 be compatible with the new grades to the south, and that the proposed landscaped slope condition would address view, privacy, and drainage impacts to and from the site. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: In reviewing the proposed subdivision and conditional use permit, the primary issues staff analyzed are the extent of the proposed grading, compatibility with the surrounding terrain and topography, compatibility with surrounding development, and whether the proposal is consistent with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The intent is to insure that any proposed grading or change to topography is compatible with the grades and topography between adjacent properties. The review will ensure a logical and natural transition between properties through consistent and compatible grades. Staff does not support the proposed tract map due to the extent of soil import and final grades in relation to the adjacent Wieder Regional Park site. The proposed fill of up to 13 feet on the west end of the tract will not be compatible with the adjacent grades of Wieder Regional Park and does not terrace the lots with the existing grades. The proposed fill will not provide the logical and natural transition between properties through the use of terracing, minimal grading or fill. The applicant indicates that based on the natural terrain, the property drains to the northwest. By importing 12,500 cubic yards of fill, the tract will not have to be designed with terraced building pads or lift stations. Staff feels that the proposed grading and fill is inconsistent with the goals and policies in the General Plan, which attempt to maintain existing grades to the greatest extent feasible. The current condition of the site should be maintained without compromising the integrity of the existing topography because it will provide the proper and natural transition to the adjacent Regional Park site. Maintaining the natural transition between properties will be in keeping with the goals of the General Plan. The applicant further indicates that the fill is necessary to provide for drainage and flow to existing storm drain and sewer connections to the south without having to construct lift stations, pump stations or sumps. Staff does not believe this is an adequate reason to design level lots and not comply with the General Plan. The General Plan encourages terracing and other design techniques to build development compatible with the existing terrain. In order to comply with the General Plan, the 10 lots could be terraced to minimize grades to the greatest extent possible and provide a natural transition to the adjacent park site The design would require lift stations or the total number of lots could be reduced. The project could be developed in conformance with the General Plan by subdividing into eight lots instead of 10, while maintaining the existing slope condition at the west end of the property. PI00-32 -7- 6/8/00 4:49 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 An example of such a site plan layout is provided on Attachment No. 9. Other options for redesign include the elimination or modification of Lots 5 and 6 that would allow a view corridor at the end of the cul-de-sac, or designing split level pads on Lots 5 and 6. These design alternatives would minimize impacts to grading, maintain the natural topography and provide a transition to the adjacent park site. Staff disagrees with the applicant's grounds for appeal based on the project being inconsistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan as noted above. Issues pertaining to residential land use compatibility and access to the tract are supported by staff and are discussed in the Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment No. 4). E. SUMMARY Staff does not support the proposed subdivision map and conditional use permit for the following reasons: The subdivision should be designed with minimal grading and should maintain the existing topography to the greatest extent possible consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The import of additional fill to the west end of the tract is not compatible with the existing grades of the Weider Regional Park located to the west and north of the site. The fill will not provide a natural and logical transition between adjacent properties. Environmental Status: Negative Declaration No. 99-18 was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to any action on Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. Attachments: PI00-32 -8- 6/8/00 4:48 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-32 City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Denial (PC and Staff Recommendation) 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Site Plans dated May 28, 1999 3. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 28, 2000 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 28, 2000 5. Appeal Letter dated April 4, 2000 6. Narrative 7. Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval (Applicant's Request) 8. Letters in Opposition and/or Support 9. Alternative Site Plan RCA Author: Wayne Carvalho/Herb Fauland PI00-32 -9- 6/8/00 4:48 PM RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (Below - Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:HF:WC:kjl Mar-al.04 10:35 Fran-SCS 7ida3aoa3t 1-e2Q p aP102 -299 SMTWUN C4llFl�ItN1A EDISON ,Lf fDJ$V^ i�itk.NA'TI rJNAL"'tO�A}any BOO City of Huntington Beach March 31, 2000 2000 Main street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attention. Planning Department Subject- Tract Map No, 15690 Please be advised that the division of the property shown on Tract Map No, 15690 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of arty easements held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company's rights, title and interest in anb to said easernent(s),nor should This utter be construed as a wtuver of any of the provisions contained in said easement(s) or a waiver of costs for relocation of any affected facilities. In the event that the development requires relocation of facilities, on the subject property, which facilities exist by right of easetnem or otherwise, the:owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and pro-,7de Edison with suitable replacement tights. Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation. If additional information is required in connection with the above mentioned subject, please contact the at 714-•934-0839. Lisa. Salinas Title and Real Estate Services Corporate Real Estate Department cc, PLC Land Development 14S03 Chc,tnut Sc westmimwr,CA 92b63 800-b 17-5677 Cax 714.954.0837 Zaf] 06z'ON LS9TW,2VT2,T6 F ANddWOO GNU-1 0-1d 82:60 000EISMo 07i05i2000 09:38 PLC LAND COMPANY � 917143741557 NO.290 901 vowpolf"11,411 vu oaaao olu+omeo u�mo6uooMeq J 114"ofoluti llivu ooa opoWilold anemmio oz AUP41011 Auh am (a8ad slap vu1Pnpu!) :saSu j jo aaquinN L�,� j f �� :jagamu xv j PUT-64 (06) :aaquinNI XuA `g :Auvduio j LTZPUL (06) uaquirtN aulogdala� :o.Tr rivillwSNIVal xvi is ' I - s Old AmilgQS 16531 Bolsa Chica St., Ste. 312, Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3546•(714)840-1575 de - - o sa Chica June 29, 2000 c Huntington Beach City Council 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: 1. PLC Land Company Annexation of 2.7 Acres/Negative Declaration 99-18 2. Zoning Map Amendment 99-2/LCP Amendment 000-1 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690/CPU 99-14 Dear Mayor Garofalo and City Council Members: Amigos de Bolsa Chica urges you to uphold the actions of the Huntington Beach Planning Commission in regard to the proposed 10 unit development by PLC Land Company located near Edwards St. and Ellis Ave. The requested annexation, zoning amendment, and conditional use permit should be denied by the council. For over 20 years, the City of Huntington Beach has been committed to the development and maintenance of the future (Harriet Weider) Linear Park and has noted its importance as a vital link between Huntington Beach Central Park and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands, one of the last remaining significant wetlands areas in Southern California. The Linear Park will be important in providing access for the public to the wetlands and will provide a needed wildlife corridor between Central Park and the wetlands. The proposed project will encroach upon the park corridor in a manner which is inconsistent with the public's use and enjoyment of the linear park and with its use as a wildlife corridor. Sitting as closely as it would to the entrance to the park, the project will certainly discourage the public's ingress and egress. Further, residents in the project would most certainly voice objection to close intrusion on their privacy and security by park users and maintenance workers. At what point would the council be asked to "lock the gate?" Runoff and erosion caused by the project would also threaten the viability of the wetland wildlife habitat below the bluff-top project site. Amigos de Bolsa Chica urges you to uphold the sound decision of the Planning Commission in denying this project. COT--) `` �R Huntington Beach City Council June 29, 2000 Page 2 Due to our conflicting board meeting, we will be unable to have a speaker at the Wednesday, July 5, 2000 continued public hearing on this matter. Please accept this correspondence as our hearing testimony. inda.Sapiro Moon President, Amigos de Bolsa Chica LSM:Iw AmIgQs de = O sa = Chic 16531 Bolsa Chica St., Ste. 312 Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach, CA 92649-3546 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 E PLC Land Company Annexation and 10 unit Subdivision =- Annexation Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Continued from June 19, 2000 meeting) i Project Description ❖Annexation of 2.7 acres ❖Location west of Edwards, south of Ellis (north of Fire Station) -.*- Establish Estate Residential zoning on property (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan) ❖Amend Local Coastal Program and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to include property ❖Appeal of Planning Commission's denial of 10 unit single family residential subdivision 2 Background -:-Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment and EIR approved in 1990 designating property as Estate Residential (4 units/acre) -:-Current County of Orange designations: -:-General Plan - Open Space -:-Zoning - General Agriculture -:-Property covered under Development Agreement (DA); once property is annexed, DA becomes effective 3 Annexation -:-Issues to consider under General Plan: -:-Proposed annexation adjacent to City boundary -:-Annexation contains land uses compatible with City land uses. -:-Land uses provide economic benefit to City -City and other service providers' ability to provide sufficient services -:-School District impact fees provided in excess of that identified under State Law 4 2 Annexation(z) ❖ February 1999, Orange County Board of Supervisors adopted Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) -*.-City Resolution agreeing to redistribution of property taxes for Annexation is consistent with TSA -*.- Resolution has been reviewed and approved by: :• Administration Department ❖ Administrative Services Department :• City Attorney 5 Annexation(3) ❖ Redistribution of property taxes will be split according to the October 28, 1980 Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and County r 6 3 Zoning ❖ Proposed Holly Seacliff Specific Plan zoning is consistent with Huntington Beach General Plan designation of Estate Residential ❖ Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment and EIR approved in 1990 designating property as Estate Residential (4 units/acre) -.*- Modifies boundary (exhibits, text) of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program to include subject property Zoning(2) ❖Compatible with surrounding residential zoning designations and land uses in Ellis Goldenwest quartersection (east), Bluffs project (south) ❖Consistent with Wieder Regional Park plan _f r �1. ` � 8 4 Subdivision ❖ 10 unit single family residential subdivision ❖ Lot size: 7,217 to 16,752 sq. ft. (9,893 avg.) ❖ 15 ft. wide landscape easement along Edwards St. compatible with Fire Station and ""Bluffs" perimeter landscape easement 4-Access to private cul-de-sac from Edwards St. ❖Import of approx. 12,500 cu. yds. of soil to design drainage and sewer flow to fire station/reservoir site (south) 9 Subdivision(2) ❖Grading to result in approx. 13 ft. of fill toward west end of tract -*.-Will also provide for more usable rear yards ❖Slope landscape condition along tract boundary to Wieder park site ❖ No review of residential units 10 5 Appeal -*.- PLC Land Co. appeal: •:• Proposed subdivision is consistent with HB General Plan designation •:• Compatible with other residential development in area •:• Soil import will occur on small area of tract which will allow for usable rear yards ❖ Sloped landscape transition between rear yards and park site to minimize view impacts ❖ Will allow for drainage and sewer flow to fire station/reservoir site „ Staff Analysis ❖Annexation is consistent with General Plan ❖ Holly Seacliff Specific Plan zoning designation is consistent with pre-general plan land use designation of Estate Residential ❖ Proposed estate residential land use is most compatible with surrounding land uses 12 6 Staff Analysis -.*-Subdivision not consistent with General Plan: ❖ Proposed grading/import not compatible with topography of surrounding area ❖ View impacts to and from the proposed Wieder Regional Park site ❖ Proposed tract could be redesigned by terracing lots or reducing number of lots to minimize grading impacts ❖ Other methods to address drainage could be explored 13 Planning Commission -*.- Public Hearing on March 28, 2000 ❖ Recommended approval of Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, and LCPA (5-2) ❖ Denied TTM and CUP (5-2) •:- Reconsidered action on zoning request ❖Second Public Hearing on May 9, 2000 ❖ Recommended denial of Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, and LCPA (4-0 after 2-2 split vote) 14 Planning Commission Recommendation ❖ Denial of the Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, LCPA, TTM, and CUP •:• Proposed zoning not consistent with existing OS designation in Orange County •:• Grading and soil import not compatible with existing topography •:• Grade will impact aesthetic appearance to and from the project site •:• May impact drainage to surrounding properties 15 Staff Recommendation ❖Approval of Neg. Dec., Annexation, ZMA, ZTA, and LCPA to establish Estate Residential zoning within City limits ❖ Denial of TTM and CUP for subdivision ...Grading not compatible with existing topography and adjacent Wieder park site ❖Soils import will result in visual impacts to and from site ❖ Not consistent with General Plan which encourages preserving natural topography 16 s End of presentation 17 9 > � -F Council/Agency Meeting Held: his— 01 oe.re i� I cx-Ytn Deferred/Continued to: A proved ❑ Conditionally pproved ❑ Denie lei k'Cle Signature Council Meeting Date: July 5, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-39 CITY OF HUNTI GTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION C C=Z �. SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning�/ SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2, ZONING,TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, (PLC Land Co. Zoning Designation) Statement of Issue, Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, a request by PLC Land Company to establish zoning on a 2.7 acre parcel located in the County of Orange on the west side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue. This item was continued from the June 19, 2000 Council meeting. The County of Orange has, designated this property as Open Space pursuant to their General Plan Land Use Element and the zoning designation is General Agriculture. In 1990, the City approved a pre- General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Estate on the property as part of the Holly Seacliff General Plan and Master Plan. The applicant is requesting to zone the property as Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Low Density Residential (RL-1) with a maximum density of four (4) units per gross acre. The Planning Commission originally approved the request on March 28, 2000. Subsequently on May 9, 2000, they reconsidered their recommendations to clarify their actions on the individual entitlements. Due to a 2-2 vote at that meeting, the Planning Commission made a subsequent motion to recommend denial of the applications to avoid a continuance and further postponement of their action. The forwarded recommendation is for denial to the City Council (Recommended Action - A) because the proposed residential zoning may impact future views to and from the Wieder Regional Park site and because the proposed residential zoning is not compatible with the Open Space General Plan Land Use designation and General Agriculture zoning designation in the County of Orange. Staff is recommending approval (Recommended Action - B) based on consistency with the previously adopted Residential Estate General Plan Land Use designation, and compatibility with adjacent zoning and land uses in the area. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-39 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 7)." Planning Commission Action on March 28, 2000: A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PL00-39 -2- 06/22/00 3:11 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-39 A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Mandic, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on May 9, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99- 2, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 8) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, SHOMAKER NOES: LIVENGOOD, MANDIC ABSENT: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99- 2, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 8) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SHOMAKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED The Commission requested the minutes indicate that Commissioners Kerins and Shomaker voted to recommend denial of the applications to avoid a continuance and further postponement of their action. PL00-39 -3- 06/22/00 3:11 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-39 B. STAFF REeeMMENBAT-leN: ftotirm-tff- , and L Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 is a request to modify the City's zoning map (DM 38) by designating the subject property within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and new zoning designation of RL-1 (Low Density Residential) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The minimum lot size in RL-1 district is 7,000 square feet with a maximum density of four (4) units per gross acre. Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property into the specific plan pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the City's Local Coastal Program to address the proposed zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO. PL00-39 -4- 06/22/00 3:11 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-39 The following table identifies the subject property and surrounding Land Use, Zoning and General Plan Designations. The bolded copy indicates the County of Orange designations. LOCATION GENERALPLAN4 ZQNING,% LAND,USE Subject Property: Pre-general plan - None Vacant Estate Residential (Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment - 1990) Open Space A-1 (General (Orange Co.) Agriculture) (Orange Co.) North of Subject Recreation/ Recreation/ Vacant (site of Property Conservation Conservation Wieder Regional (in Orange Co.): (Orange Co.) (Orange Co.) Park) East of Subject Residential Estate Ellis Goldenwest Single family Property (across Specific Plan residences Edwards St.): South of Subject Residential Low Holly Seacliff Specific Fire Station/Water Property: Density Plan (RL-1) Reservoir West of Subject Open Space A-1 (General Vacant (site of Property (Orange Co.) Agriculture) (Orange Wieder Regional (in Orange Co.): Co.) Park) Attached are area maps that depict the proposed zoning and the surrounding General Plan and zoning designations (Attachment Nos. 5 and 6). The General Plan map (Attachment No. 5) identifies both the City and County's designation of the subject property. Attachment No. 6 identifies the County's existing zoning and the City's proposed zoning designation. The applicant indicates that the proposed Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (RL-1) zoning designation will be compatible with the adjacent zoning designations and land uses, and will allow for future housing opportunities. This property is covered by the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 . The terms of the development agreement become effective at such time the property is annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. The agreement offered the City the option for five years to accept dedication for park purposes either the subject 2.7 acre parcel (Parcel 7a) located outside of the City's jurisdiction or a 4.5 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue (Parcel 7b) within the City. In April of 1994, the City accepted dedication of the 4.5 acre Parcel 7b. Attachment No. 10 provides a chronology of the County's and City's actions regarding the subject property. PL00-39 -5- 06/22/00 3:11 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-39 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the negative declaration, annexation, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment to the City Council. The Commission denied the tentative tract map and conditional use permit, a request to subdivide the subject property for development of 10 single-family residences. Aside from the applicant, there were no other persons who testified at the public hearing. Since the zoning entitlements were recommended for approval, which is automatically forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant appealed only the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. On April 11, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their prior action on the negative declaration, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment. The purpose for the reconsideration was to clarify their actions on the individual entitlements. The applicant provided a chronology of City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange actions pertaining to the subject property (Attachment No. 10), which was forwarded to the Planning Commission at their April 25, 2000 study session. On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing to consider the negative declaration, annexation, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment applications. Six people, including the applicant, testified during the hearing. One person representing the Amigos de Bolsa Chica spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation and residential zoning on the property, stating that the proposed project would encroach onto the regional park and wetlands, and would result in objectionable views from the park. Four people representing Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff (FANS), spoke in support of the request. Following a 2-2 split vote to recommend approval of the applications, the Planning Commission denied the applications on a 4-0 vote to avoid an automatic continuance of the project. The Commission requested the minutes reflect that Commissioners Kerins and Shomaker voted to recommend denial of the applications to avoid an automatic continuance of the project. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The subject property currently lies outside the City's boundary, but is within the City's sphere of influence. In 1990, the City Council approved the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that included a land use designation on the property of Estate Residential (max. 4 units per gross acre). It specifically depicted the subject property as part of a ten acre planning area with a maximum of 25 residential units (see Attachment No. 3). The intent of the pre-general planning action was PL00-39 -6- 06/22/00 3:11 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-39 to inform the property owner and surrounding landowners that the City has reviewed and pre-approved the Estate Residential designation for the site should it ever be annexed into the City. The County of Orange currently has a general plan designation of Open Space and a zoning designation of General Agriculture (A-1) on the subject property. According to our zoning maps and records, there is no City pre-zoning designation. Over the years, the City has pre- zoned surrounding areas but not this site. The proposed Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, RL-1 zoning designation will allow a density up to four units per gross acre with an average density of 1.6 units per gross acre (Attachment No. 3) consistent with the pre-general plan designation. Staff supports the proposed zoning because it is consistent with the pre-general plan land use designation. The Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 allows up to four units per gross acre that is consistent with the Estate Residential General Plan designation. Furthermore, the zoning designation will be compatible with the adjacent designations to the south (The Bluffs), and east across Edwards Street (Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan). The adjacent property located in the County of Orange (Wieder Regional Park) will remain designated as open space. Staff further supports the establishment of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 zoning on the property, along with the amendment to the boundary of the specific plan because the estate residential use would be most compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff also supports the minor modifications to the acreage figures cited in the text and tables of the specific plan. The acreage figures within the specific plan will be revised by adding approximately 3 acres. The zoning will allow estate residential uses to be constructed at a maximum density of four units per gross acre. Environmental Status: Negative Declaration No. 99-18 was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to any action on Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. PL00-39 -7- 06/22/00 3:11 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-39 Attachments: City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Approval (Staff Recommendation) 2. Ordinance No. 3�7-L (ZMA 99-2) 3. Ordinance No. 31-73 and Legislative Draft (ZTA 00-1) 4. Vicinity Map 5. Exhibit of Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations 6. Exhibit of Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations 7. Alternative Findings for Denial (PC Recommendation) 8. Planning Commission Minutes Dated May 9, 2000 9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 9, 2000 10. Chronology of County and City actions dated April 17, 2000 RCA Author-, ei Car4w/Herb Fauland 3 �' PL00-39 -8- 06/22/00 3:11 PM �w - f FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 99-18 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to modify the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the subject property and to establish the RL-1 zoning designation is consistent with the designation for Estate Residential cited in the 1990 Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment. 2. The proposed change to the Local Coastal Program is in accordance with the policies, standards, and provisions of the Coastal Element that encourages a mix of housing opportunities that vary in price and type. The proposed land use will provide for future upscale residential opportunities. 3. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project will not interfere with public access opportunities provided along the Weider.Regional Park, and will not impact public views. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: I. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 to establish a zoning designation of Holly Seacliiff Specific Plan(RL-1) on a 2.7 acre parcel, and to incorporate the subject property into the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed zoning will be compatible with the adjacent estate residential zoning designations of the Holly Seacliff and Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plans. (oocL-328-7) 2. In the case of a gener( � ind use provision, the zoning map andf t amendment are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed zoning will allow estate residential uses consistent with the existing land uses in the area. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The new zoning will allow for new single family residential development. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The proposed zoning will not result in isolated or spot zoning, and will be consistent with the existing Estate Residential General Plan designation. The Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 allows up to four units per gross acre which is consistent with the Estate Residential General Plan designation. (OOCL328-8) ",� �..; �` r ,� & yes � � '� `� �% �,,, � � � � � � ,; �w � . r � .. ,. ORDINANCE NO. AN\�)RDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE\HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY ESTABLISHING A HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN (SP-9) ZONING DESIGNA kON ON REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ED ARDS STREET, SOUTH OF ELLIS AVENUE (ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach 0 Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Map Amendment No. 9-2, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and after`duuee consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to said City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper, and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of�Huntington Beach does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That certain real property, generally located on the west side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue, and more particularly described in the le a, description attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by this reference as though fully set fo, h herein, is hereby zoned Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. (District Map No. 38) SECTION 2. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to amend Sectional District Map 38Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance so as to reflect the changes contained in this ordinance. The Director of Planningis further directed to file the amended \ map. A copy of such map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the Cit Clerk. t g*2000ordinancc:ZMA99-2 SECTION 33 This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED b the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach a y y yat regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000. Mayor ATTEST: �°� APPROVED AS TO FORM: w City Clerk ity Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 61-1 City A ministrator Dk e for of Pla g 2 g:4:2000ordinance:ZMA99-2 y q � a a H w -F AI �11-t 777 K'£r 12/23/1�35 1a:53 rLL. L.?UNL _ �.. t, LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR a TENTATT'SrE TRACT MAP 1%90 PLC AN TO CITY OF RJM-INGTON BEACH BUNG A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE ;11 WEST, `SAN' BERNARDINO BASE -AND MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED TERRITOFY OF THE COUNTY . OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED� IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MOPS IN THE\OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: `. BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY UNE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED LN BOOK 42, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND WESTERLY 40.00 FEET FROM THE EAST LIN€OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE NORTH 89°32'59" WEST_415.00 FEET,ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1;THENCE NORTH 00°16-06" EAST 130.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 16°31'52" EAST 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 43*5831" FAST 190.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89043'54" EAST 265.00 FEET .TO SAID` \lAF0.REMBN. TIONRD LINE BEING} PARALLEL WITH AND WESTERLY 40.00 FEET FROM THE FAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 00°16'06" WEST 312.00 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTAINING AN AREA OF 2.71 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. i Ise CJ��'c . i kSDEN & LEGALDESCRIPTION FOR SO�IATES TENTATM TRACT MAP 15690 OF ZLC ANNEXATION TO CITY OF HUNT WOTON BEACH CWTLENGINUM—PLANNERS—LAND 5URVIYOM W.O.No. 009-396•3 Date 7/1/98 Mll COWAN.SUM no a r%VTN&GA 92a2a Eugr.D.C. Chk. D,W, Sheet I of I 734if C-M19 FAX:MO.0619 ` N I ' c- J i NW V4, SEC. 34 \ RL15 AYNX 5W 1/4, SM. 34 N89'f3�f• W •,��' N Ib'3I O TENTATIVE TRACT No. 15G90 • N Od76�6 � 2.71 AG. N LY LK, sW 114. SM 34 N 8932'59i W 415.00' MlY LK, PARCEL 1 P1'49. 42/Z5 j Of ESS " VWSSOCIATES DEN & S%7W t0.AV.A"ANT A LEG4L GtSf�E'lPTtON FQ� nwATIVF Twr Na IM04 /1/98 iaola CrnrAx. SUT�E 210, , CA, 9zsi4 W.0. Na 96-o87�-33 Date_,..,_......_._ (a49)-eso-�ciio pax: 60—a4is En r. b, Chk..L�..�- Sham � 2 ORDINANCE NO. 5173 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDIN&HE HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN TO INCORPORATE REAL PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF EDWARDS STREET APPROXIMATELY 150 FEET SOUTH OF ELLIS AVENUE (ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1) WHEREAS, pursuant to XCalifornia State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and ffhntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider whether or not to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by amending the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate approximately 2.7 acres of real s anproperty; and After due consideration of the findingd reommendation of the Planning c Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds\that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of untington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is hereby amended to incorporate approximately 2.7 acres of real property, generally located on the west side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue, and more particularly described in the legal description attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2. The Director of Planning is hereby directed to amend the Holey Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the changes shown in the legislative draft materials (text a>d exhibits) attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 1 G A 2000ord i n an ces:zta00-I Rls 00-582 SECTION\3. That this ordinance shall become effective thirty(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 , 2000. Mayor ATTEST: �', APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk M ity Attorney ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: _ _ City Ad inistrator Director of Plan4eg 2 GA:2000ordi nances:zta00-1 Rls 00-582 F it 4� Ifso // r vY} •welt 7y+;�•: 2�t5�jaAZx�t. 12/23/1c39 10:53 FLC LAIIL CONFANY 491�14S;a1�4u _ LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1%90 . PLC ANNEXATION TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BUNG A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE`l WEST, SAN' BERNARDINO BASE -A-NrO MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATh. TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY, OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,MORE PARTICLIARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: `. BEGINNING AT A POINT IN',THE NORTHERLY LINE OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL NLAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY ,SAID POINT BEING ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND WESTERLY 40.00 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE S OUT H WEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34, THENCE NORTH 89032'59" WEST 415.00 FEET,ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1;THENCE NORTH 00°16'06"EAST 130.00 FEET;THENCE NORTH 16031'52" EAST 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45*58*31" EAST 190.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89°43'54" EAST 265.00 FEET 'TO SAID AFOREMENTIONED LINE BEWO PARALLEL WITH AND WESTERLY 40 00 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION.14; THENCE SOUTH M*16'06" WEST 312.00 FEET ALONG SAIp PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGINNIN(i. CONTAINING AN AREA OF 2.71 ACRES,MORE R LESS. q�bf ESSI ' Y i VWDENLEGAL DESCRIPTION°FORSOCIATES TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 15690.OF PLC ANNEXATION TO CITY OF HUNTINdTON BEACH CIVIL ENG1r;88R3...}LANYEA9—LAND suRVaYOR: W.O.No.0979-396-3 Date 7/1/98 Mll COWAN.SUITE s10•MVINB.CA 9261. Eugt.D.C. Chk. D.w. s6et I of 1 114MC-M 19 FAX.&M-0418 12.23.11999 10:53 PLC LAND COVF-RNY SW 1/4, SM U. {, m 89'4354- W %n N 1BODO . TENTATIVE TRACT HO. 15G90 N 0076 b6� \, 2.71 AG, r § 5W 1/4. SM. 34 N 893254' W 4 5.�' MlY W. PARCEL 1 PJU- 42125 Of ESS Eq. 4-3MI ALIEN & TO.Aco"AhT A VESMPTtot� FOR S rat, SOCIATES TIVATnvf 7WT No. IWO 19012 CrnrAK SM 210, IAVM, CA 92614 W0, No- M79-3 e-3 _• . Qatee�T23E2(e49) eeo-auo pnx: ee0-0418 S-Engr _ fe. _. k .- he ._ EXHIBIT C. Project Area Description t. r� Location, 5�8 The Specific.Plan covers 565acres located in the central portion of the City of Huntington Beach as depicted in Exhibit 1 (Vicinity Map). A legal description of properties included in the Specific Plan project area may be found in Section V. , Present land uses surrounding the site include Huntington Central Park, Ocean View Mobile Estates�and industrial uses to the north;residential and office uses to the east; the Huntington Beach Civic Center,Huntington Beach High School, Seacliff Country Club and residential uses to the south; and the Bolsa Chica lowlands to the west. The Holly-Seacliff Specific Nan excludes properties contained in the previously adopted Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Exhibit 2 illustrates the existing zoning within the Specific Plan area. '1 Regional access to the project site is'provided from the San Diego Freeway(I- 405) directly from the Goldenwest interchange. Pacific Coast Highway(State Highway 1) provides access from coastal�areas to the north and south. Local access is provided via Edwards, Goldenwest, Gothard and Main Streets and Ellis, Garfield and Yorktown Avenues. D. Planning Background There are a number of previous approvals related to land use regulations affecting the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Area. These previous,approvals include: F t 1. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, approved bykthe Huntington Beach City Council through its adoption of Ordinance Noy:2998 on June 26, 1989. (Not a part of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan)\ 2. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2 prepared for the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan(adopted on May 1, 1989,by Resolution No. 6022). 3. Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 approved by the City Council through its adoption of Resolution No. 6098 on January 8x� 990. 4. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 prepared for the Holly\. Seacliff General Plan Amendment(adopted on January 8, 1990,by Resolution No. 6097). 5. Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 (adopted on November ' 5, 1990,by Ordinance No. 3080). I-2 (hssp98) 'N W C � H N F k, SLATER AVENUE 0 CL VJgn N 3 TALBERT AVENUE CENTRAL z eta Tq� a PARK 0 W F9r c, `rri - ,a ?. ELLIS AVENUE tj GARFIELD AVENUE YORfQOWN AVENUE H.B. �� HIGH CIVIC 1, �s SCHOOL CENTER , AV UE S'EACLIFF ADAMS AVENUE COUNTRY CLUB .ems cc > H O m �1 N O. cc - _ Z V m �' O aG m y�G EXHIBI CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VICINITY MI 4 a. DAI-CDi' MI Q. ww CID GI-CDo7z ✓" rf►wrt,.�. '"� i.+�:.[y i MI-0-CD1•01 IR2 1 I �. RA-0 .,Av.azlf: ^, ,rY,:.M: I RA-0-CD ,. ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN _;,,C fr•° ;op .� RA-0 M b[I RA-01-C " — MI-0 tn, [ro � OP / �• j — 1 MI-CI P 1 P Ulf- op CGCZ'� ,. Z — [ ooreae�..If ` RA•01-C' R4-0 ,I CI-0 az =1'i�R21 MI-A ..rhr02 ! n: jl 2-01 fi o RA-0 — ' M I 10 OS-t; 1 °� M2.01•C MI /;^�f•. ,�.'•, �` w .. , rv... R,q fir ' . JBr¢nwt•a �r _ i a 112 ••^4, C2-0 • .•-r-'a r�yn v T•..,IXr o .J;•.... .aq RI �' "' rvna f .., !' PtI :P'•�I o••••1 `� ROS-0 , RI ! h Y R2•0•PD ¢ y ;ln'JI� R2.0 n • u I�1 ,eC, •:• Rq.q% RI ql r+.j'.jrr.r .w-;.:r .r .''•,1 t•. ql Su r` iiKwi'1-�Y r'.0 'Dbo•iD'.r�. ROS-0 +:/� RI 1 (I Sn »rl� zero 1 '�.p •q'[Ot,J pEln..l'1 T .!P. lop- °'f C2-0-CD OP-OCD I 'R2.0'ro-cp� $ 114-01 4-0 ''tia�'i7ri rF7100d71 •.,� aqa, a....�. R / CF-E-CD ICF�C J _ . Pp7•ro-oai , Y � CO•U '.P%;,r• .,w cF-E-co' EXHIBIT 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING ZONING lrtJOl�l� U ��G�1�L�O�� U.1W�U� e�JU'�ly��• Ir:l�1r.1UV •d�tlIIlI1�1 � I, jcMt • L G E N .Q ! ; � Rln tow EENEIn REEnENRAL J M RLr low aNJm MAIaNnu I .rwr oLOW lMWrTTHWDl�WL1AL � 0 MEaurl a1JNn IltwtNllAL IP 2 w«'a I,t \ �.,.I orwJlNONoeNEm w RL-1 � � �MWotNMI nwwc RW O wluotrnarwANr 1� [LiMOOLOENWE6T ¢'r Rl.t_ rr[cIFICPLAN AREA - f pM w�0►lN NACI ` 94 1 1 1►LANNINO AREA 14 OS ►LANNINO YNf1 RL-1 kk RMH _ Ar _ d R�1H Q NEIONAORN000 PARKS Og 11 rim tliAi'.t>WMR J ') M 11,,rr .. �i� {�uA�rJ � • rM�N}�r•r.�w��1M} 1 . � AM d III.y4 NIA —�^ RL-3 C \ -. •.. f RLJ m I�iD ,f OOAEtALfMNE t . �alArwlr—+ EXHIBIT 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL DEVELQPMENT PLAN - '- 00L9.ti"-0l AA C�,DG`�[� PCB � 8PDEC0F0C� [P AN Q�maniiiI I �� TABLE 1 HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE TABLE PLANNING PLANNING LAND USE CATEGORY GROSS TOTAL 'MAXIMUM. AVERAGE DEV. AREA UNIT = ACRES UNITS GROSS GROSS STANDS. DENSITY DENSITY {PAGE) 1 1-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 fi-9 15 4 >r'(,b 111-10 1-2 R-'ESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 26 90 4 3.5 III-10 1-3 RESkDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 16 55 4. 3.4 111-10 1-4 OPENNSPACE 16 111-32 SUBTOTAL 64 160 II 11-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 62' 310 7 4.1 111-16 11-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 40 415 15 11.0 III-20 11-3 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 34' 390 15 13.0 III-20 II-4 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 9 170 25 16.6 III-23 II-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 111-23 II-6 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 111-23 II-7 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-"-.HIGH DENSITY 6 100 25 16.6 111-23 11-8 INDUSTRIAL a� 32 111-31 SUBTOTAL + 191 1,535 III 111-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 19 285 15 15.0 III-20 111-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2 105 397 7 3.8 III-13 111-3/4 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 21 86 5 5 111-16 111-5/7 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 26" 119 5 5 III-16 111-6 COMMERCIAL 11 111-31 III-8 OPEN SPACE 16 III-32 SUBTOTAL 1e 198 887 IV IV-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY i16 155 15 9.7 III-20 IV-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY '8 120 15 15.0 111-20 a IV-3 INDUSTRIAL 9\ III-31 IV-4 MIXED DEVELOPMENT 53 165 25 14.4 III-25 IV-5 INDUSTRIAL 22 111-31 IV-6 COMMERCIAL 4 III-31 SUBTOTAL 112 44e0 TOTAL 565 3,022 • Includes 4-acre Neighborhood Park. " Includes 5-acre Neighborhood Park. (hssl v / ' �. -- R 15 ■ --- -J • 1-2 ■ _m 9060 3 � W 1-4 q OS ,0 16 AC 1-a RL-1 r: 16 AC 55 DU C'o`felq venue t, COASTALZONE/ i I BOUNDARY- r NO See Exhibft 10 for Landscape Legend EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING AREA I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN LEGEND . SUM-MM W Am~fuld so Qw...od/MM fl••M M 0«Iwl /Iy A.w�w YOp/M0 M4lOII MIOI.IIM ♦lw•fM1«� O.rAM/w.w Poo of - w.M.1 O.Yrr.M frMl IMMM M OrIMN MMOWAV ....�. RL•t M �M•twn.vktm . UM Anww l'N'�w M O.MwN M.MMM . RLd RM � MywwsWd momeowcommommy RL-1 spICNICVLANBT j( � + "?,wkmwwt'M w*"pe9 4 tt"-oww RM w..w w.a aft AVOW/«I N DWA-1. R H o...+w»w 9 Mom q41 1 n +.ww sad#OOVrk"•wwow RUN w.w w m"be r.wc r.w. RMH &.w.Iwwo*.wa-"bo OS RM C 'y O RM RL•3 y RL- \,`•�...../ are....► . ow�.y,oM. mo c�sru�t nou�a/wr—.• EXHIBIT 8 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CIRCULATION PLAN PLAN ��!«,� �. � ►� �. t «MIAl1AAl{ � L E G E N D - 2R2� f' �'3�{:SS + � � � V •N�• CU1t 1 Ml pAR l;.ff .�f i f' ; /• •wu••• CLASS/110(1 IM gft ••i,` K i f 4.,: ' ` ` ' .rye• ` "`9'✓:%•::'`'.`S'' � •� t .�Y '1 � � w•w IOYIIINAM IIAQ �. o iu?'•'.,: '.�: 71 NCNAMOM N/A` •.i.A�.is Nel ., - /rMA.BAN r};s, f <?^ ulwlc calw l a RM NAMWNAt10N/ T/AK c/1NM101 ELLIS•OOLDENWEST ?AN m At wINI11Mo M t.i..b••.`• ,S% /PEaM PLAN ?JAI I9C11A11014 111M1M1 '< j°3a :'• AREA RM . MH os MIS RL-1 it RMH Q$: . 1 « Fm RLa 1i a i MD �F �v. « o:. ME H ;.: • EXHIBIT 9 OPEN SPACE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH a PAR S, ANQ TRAILS PLAN II , IL l! -'S �' n L�I1FF [,A\RE[� ° 6P IJG��2�� p�° �h(QIIIII I I t r `• j EGEND i., N RL•3 / RM I I - oaoE BY •-N141 ecnncn r: ARIA f, 'f f � { 4 RMN MH RMH AN RM � c / j RL-3 RM os Rw RM MD me,.µ� % EXHIBIT 10 Drainage and Sewer Systems CITY OF HUN INGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN "JCL LV-SEIACLOF &REA OPECUFOC [PLANQilamii � � � ►�,... ,,� ►_ F G END G A E3 Pou"WAns 111 u.•wl•awuw�w�w �t ' I �� • IItCillMlfl t/Altt1 — a '= =a'SE'rirS' rr• ._ i .�+rr- � =n .-r_S '-.... -'�' -^•, wMhww"NOu" e : j k RM ELUS-GOLOEHWEIT RL•1 SPECtFlCPLAN / \ AREA t RMH , ,t 09 MH j RMH •` �•y RL•l I RMH j os ,t RL•3 I O RMfwAq i ft"mom j MR 1 � COASTAL IONS EXHIBIT 11 Water Systems CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN A i I P! L E G E N D V rcouw nA�ttlor CWAMMOAWAYS •� '•.;' 'fir ....�+.c...�M�.e.•«r M MytAo ft.%ol CA..w..Mwwel~ ¢ w�onMtatterlola 1y f{F MMA•�M«nNCMu« F2 ELUS-GOLOEMWEST A W &PECM PLAN l ea AREA ; trintrteutatr�ttt I RM O II .MeM AMH t '`�,P- \ S� ®MU01NOMg0OtMMtt os Rl•i Rla iti OS ( # N H j ws tto► 194 y O«wNd A1v.M C 1 pM I M V4 Ilt6 �l 11'Sy- -G'— t RL.l O R os� IV RLa--' Ft F S+ V k' COASTAL tawt 4 •- ` /Fjjf IPIa Pi. VA11W V EXHIBIT 12 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY THEME PLAN l L EGEND - 4 + ©COASTAL TOME BOUNDARY IL000 tlAMl MIIIIDAII'I Ilk At�nwr; ALOUISTWOOLO ZONE •� • / ' ACCESSRAN _...—.. .(`l. � N11fOROM/T1I[tt . /8 twAtEANEA \ 1�7J1llA •� f;; 71 �••Ml, /iA9 Ar COASTAL MN �YaZTii'7l'vii3i'••�-.�� ITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH OVERLAY EXHIBIT 16AREAS ]0IL LEI-SEQCL0FF /AA REa 31PECRIFOC PoLAH r7P TA NNING ZONING ( DM 3 SZ • SECTIONAL DISTRICT -MAP34-5—I1 NOTE: �rur it.a orusoa.+c r r2sr ♦OCrrFO sucusr u, nw �„� s,■.e.ew.a ,.r .a.r�Mr CITY Y O� n rrc■ota ro ,zrGo 7o rat ct>,ru 1 �1" CTi CCVNCIt ORDINANCE N4 7F3 a a &—r y.•� ■+ rsoarx aauyryu�txarr•c7 i-3-�] !t! s70 !•7�-12 L-3 2370 oa+o wtt,y-rrm,R� •-S-" !d IIa2 1-m-aa i iI zlat . m t:+rocr vrrX ca�m+er_ar KtTNTINGTOI�T . 'BEACH- = 12-3.9 44-44 M4 13_lZ t �` o ar.�,r, °d,�, 2-a-ca fa-4s HCr !•7-t2 t2.2 1753 [� to,r.�vrr■u�ear■¢7 i_24.70 70-� U7a. 44d2 si=t w.+ a• pytocr . 10-n-70 70-10140:. U-5-93 90-48n", GZ7 Co.■.f�►rnr er. V�+.ua.ar=cr )RANGE COUNTY, CA-LIFORNIA 7-"-71 '''' 19a7 2 u&15-crro■ to-li-71 Tt-2s Isol R1i46a6}3W2900 .L1wOK 0.e.v07 1-17-72 7F17 IT a1 HT-di ZtTQ5�8 a� aypT�i Qmc-r 2-211 7111722 4-iia 87,12= 6r] !_ n•O•Ta 7a•20 1076 F2o-n"1 2]M � a—ro n anx�r o, 4•7-T4 74.22 1977 4-20-22 sc-10 aq! 1� wxzw -r■r■cs 7-Il-70 74-Z 2C10 an Caron ai a■Irncr r a-rs r4-zz 2On O.21-r7 Tr-e 222a © r"`�'�a+•t—z �32* a= Mali `.i2� �/I �,CG:!s%L%LlL/•CC '//. .+witem axm a•as // RI-CZ a ca cE RS-CO-CZ ff .-Rl-Cz ..a,. . " a a a R1 RhC FU- a,a RI-CO-CZ Z � RI RI RI h Q FU CZ t, Rl-CZ OtiC1 all i a R1- 9 ---------------L-- ----:------------------------ C2 _ CF R ' Imra co C �cl Ri-CZ '�• (PREZONEO) .• RI ROS-O-CO CF-R 3 CF-R r•n a. Ras-C-ca cz-o 't ELLIS-G DEN WEST SPECIFIC PLAN •■r•..1•. r:uv iN 1 - / W� t / —CZ z HOLLY-.SEACLIFF SPECI IC PLAN 40 H-S Y�S P-CZ �4aF, a,.r sQ ......•�a�.:,...,...aa.m; 0 _ AVE. a.:v 0-I & Estate Residential : ; — — — — ...... — . (City of H.B.) W Open Space E Open Space (County of Orange) — Subject property Ellis b AC �.aou . _----------- _ I sa owrc I Estate Residential EXISTING B Estate Residential v �� GENERAL PLAN �" ,�• DESIGNATION �- w O S \\ E % 23 AC ,\ 61 I Mau - p A3 E a1 QLOC [47 i $ c .ACMPA OS I AC M QJ _ �AC 0u 9 ,, 13 AC 1.a..c L D1 D8 M DS 06 MH 1s AC �S. �tadrw. T AC 22 AC iia w - 3 W Open Space 1 � Open Space Subject property Ellis Estate Residential U"U" I "A` Estate Residential PROPOSED N _ GENERAL PLAN Estate Residential 3 DESIGNATION _ u w �• A4 \ 1 83 OS ��_ E -. • 23 AC \ B1 I mou q / A3 E .'.uv r.Aiac i D9 1e AC _ aou OS ww 1,OWAC a S.0—C j ♦ /jj/ 13 AC I\ M� E7C- DS1a ACMaou 3 - Isa WAC 22 AC 1 AC i ." .• .,. .N u. . A-1 (Residential Agriculture) (County of Orange) # Open Space Ellis Avenue . Subject property ; EXISTING 1-2 Cn ZONING _._R , an I ^O AREA os W �°►� F3 s Garfield Avenue Open Space Subject property Ellis Avenue RL-1 i (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan) (City of Huntington Beach) �+ - f—• W �. .PROPOSED '. I i 01 ZONING I-.p ,__ A"A W z� os I c f3 Al-t Garfield Avenue _�R �� RM y� man gt no*- -17N, T' nIN, FINDINGS FOR DENIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18/ LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed residential use will impact views to and from Weider Regional Park. In addition, the proposed project may result in drainage impacts to surrounding properties. 2. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to modify the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the subject property and to establish the RL-1 zoning designation is not consistent with the existing Open Space designation in the County of Orange. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 to establish a zoning designation of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(RL-1) on a 2.7 acre parcel, and to incorporate the subject property into the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is not compatible with the County of Orange General Agriculture zoning designation and the adjacent Weider Regional Park land use. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map and text amendment are not compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed zoning would allow estate residential uses inconsistent with the adjacent open space and public facility land uses. (00c1509-3) i , MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, MAY 9, 2000 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION- 5:15 PM CODE ENFORCEMENT/HOUSING SURVEY—Mike Strange CROSSINGS AT HB (MALL) —Jane James DESIGN GUIDELINES—Amy Wolfe AGENDA REVIEW—Herb Fauland PUBLIC COMMENTS—None REGULAR MEETING- 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P A A P A ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL Anyone wrs{ing to:speak must frtl,out and submit a form to speak No action can betaken by`he Ptannrng Cammrssion on thrs:date, unless thertem is;'agend zed. Any one wishing to speak an items not an toneght's agenda or on no... HIrc lrearrng;. ..... .. items may do,:,so during ORAL C4MMUNICATIQNS Speakers;on rteMs scheduledfocPUBLICHEAR1NGwrll be:trrurted' to speak during4he,ip:'6* heartng'. O311NUTESPER PERSON,NODONATING OFTLti E TO DTFIERS) A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 RECONSIDERATION OF ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING . TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC 10 UNIT SUBDIVISION): APPLICANT: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman LOCATION: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (north of Fire Station) PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho • Negative Declaration No. 99-18 - Analyze the environmental issues relative to the proposed project. • Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 - Establish Residential Low Density (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1) zoning on the property. • Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 Amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property within the legal boundaries of the plan. • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 - To reflect the changes made to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Zoning Map pursuant to Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No 99-2. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Staffs Recommendation: Recommend approval to the City Council of Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 based upon the following: - Proposed zoning designation, and amendments to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and uses. - Conforms to the General Plan designation of Estate Residential on the subject property. Commissioner Mandic and Commissioner Livengood stated that they had visited the project site and spoken with the applicant. Commissioner Shomaker and Commissioner Kerins stated that they had visited the project site. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, representing applicant, stated that additional information has been provided the Commission since the last meeting. He stated that Attachment 9.1 of the Staff s report had a chronology of the project's history. He stated he was available to answer questions. Linda Moon, 5861 Liege Drive, Amigos de Bolsa Chica, spoke in opposition to the proposed request stated the proposed project would encroach on the regional park and the wetlands and would provide objectionable views from the park. Connie Warbrick, FANS President, spoke in support of the proposed request stating it would be an improvement to the area. Corrie Broussard, FANS, spoke in support of the request. Carole Ann Wall, FANS, spoke in support of the project stating it would be a beautiful project. Suzanne Buekema, FANS, spoke in support of the request stating it would make an excellent buffer and make the area more attractive. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes—5/9/00 2 (OOPCM509) Commissioner's Livengoo(^ d Mandic stated they would be voting(— .inst the proposed project because they wish to see the area as a park and do not have enough evidence that the area has been approved to be residential. A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECOND BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF THE 2.7 ACRE PARCEL INTO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, APPROVE LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins NOES: Mandic, Livengood ABSENT: Chapman, Biddle, Speaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS, DENY THE ANNEXATION OF THE 2.7 ACRE PARCEL INTO THE.CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, DENY LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Mandic, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Chapman, Biddle, Speaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Commissioner Shomaker and Commissioner Kerins stated that they voted no only to expedite the project to City Council. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed residential use will impact views to and from Weider Regional Park. In addition, the proposed project may result in drainage impacts to surrounding properties. 2. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to modify the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the subject property and to establish the RL-1 zoning designation is not consistent with the existing Open Space designation in the County of Orange. PC Minutes—5/9/00 3 (00PCM509) FINDINGS FOR DENL� ZONING MAP AMENDMENT N(— 9-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 to establish a zoning designation of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (RL-1) on a 2.7 acre parcel, and to incorporate the subject property into the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is not compatible with the County of Orange General Agriculture zoning designation and the adjacent Weider Regional Park land use. 2. In the case of a general land use provision, the zoning map and text amendment are not compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed zoning would allow estate residential uses inconsistent with the adjacent open space and public facility land uses. B-2 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-63NARIANCE NO. 99-I1/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-13 (HASSAN THIRD STORY): APPLICANT: Emad Ali Hassan LOCATION: 4461 Los Patos Drive(north of Los Patos, south of Warner) PROJECT PLANNER: Jane James Conditional Use Permit No. 99-63 request: To allow the third story of an existing single family residence to remain as built in 1985 Building height (including third floor) is between 30-35 feet as measured from the top of building slab to the peak of the roof • Variance No. 99-11 request: - Habitable area above the second story plate line which is not contained within the confines of the roof volume as required by code - Decks and architectural features (bowed windows) as vertical projections above the roof volume with a zero foot setback from the building exterior in lieu of the five foot setback as required by code • Coastal Development Permit No. 99-13 request: A project within the coastal zone PC Minutes—5/9/00 4 (OOPCM509) -TAltTA 'I'm Arft City of Huntington Beach Planning Department :STAFF REPORT y TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner Uq:ei DATE: May 9, 2000 SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit Single Family Residential Subdivision) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250,Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: West of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (2.7 acres in the County of Orange) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Negative Declaration No. 99-18 - Analyze the environmental issues relative to the proposed project. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 - Establish Residential Low Density(Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1) zoning on the property. • Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 - Amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property within the legal boundaries of the plan. • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 To reflect the changes made to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Zoning Map pursuant to Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No 99-2. Staff s Recommendation: Recommend approval to the City Council of Negative Declaration No.99- 18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 based upon the following: - Proposed zoning designation, and amendments to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and uses. - Conforms to the General Plan designation of Estate Residential on the subject property. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Recommend approval to the City Council of Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Recommend approval to the City Council of Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 with findings (Attachment No. 1 ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Recommend denial to the City Council of Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, with findings for denial." B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and direct staff accordingly." BACKGROUND: On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the subject entitlements to the City Council, and denied Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14, a request to subdivide approximately 2.7 acres for development of 10 single family residences. Since the subject entitlements were recommended for approval and that they are automatically forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant appealed only the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. On April 11, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their prior action on the negative declaration, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment. The purpose for the reconsideration is to clarify their actions on these individual entitlements. The appeal of the tentative tract,map and conditional use permit will not be forwarded to the City Council until the Planning Commission reviews and makes a recommendation on the negative declaration, zoning text amendment, zoning map amendment, and local coastal program amendment. At their April 25, 2000 study session, the Planning Commission requested information relative to traffic on Edwards Street. The applicant has provided a chronology of City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange actions pertaining to the subject property (Attachment No. 9). Staff Report—5/9/00 2 (OOSR32) ISSUES: The reasons for the reconsideration are to clarify issues pertaining to the annexation, and zoning and general plan designations. This report augments the information in the previous staff report (Attachment No. 3). Also, since the tentative tract map and conditional use permit applications were denied by the Planning Commission, on appeal to the City Council, and were not reconsidered by the Planning Commission, there is no additional discussion on the proposed subdivision included in this report. Because the project is currently within the County of Orange,the entitlements do not become effective until the City Council approves the annexation, and the annexation is ultimately approved by the Local Area Formation Commission(LAFCO). Although the Planning Commission has no formal role in the reviewing the annexation, they may chose to forward a recommendation to the City Council. Diagrams have been prepared of both the existing and proposed general plan and zoning designations of the subject property and surrounding area(Attachment Nos. 6 & 7). Although the subject property is not within the City's boundaries, it has been pre-general planned. In 1990, the City Council approved the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment(GPA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)that included the designation of the subject property as Estate Residential (maximum 4 units per acre). It specifically depicted the subject property as part of a ten acre planning area with a maximum 25 units at an average density of 2.5 units per acre. The intent of this pre-general planning action was to inform the property owner and surrounding landowners that the City has reviewed and pre-approved the Estate Residential designation for the site should it ever be annexed by the City. The County of Orange General Plan depicts this property as Open Space. The subject property is zoned A-1 (General Agriculture) in the County of Orange (Attachment No. 7). According to our zoning maps and records, there is no City pre-zoning designation. Over the years the City has pre-zoned surrounding areas but not this site. The proposed Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, RL-1 zoning designation will allow a density up to four units per acre with an average density of 1.6 units per acre (Attachment No. 3). This is consistent with the pre-general plan designation. In reference to traffic on Edwards Street, the draft negative declaration identified that if the proposed ten unit development were constructed,the project would generate approximately 120 average vehicle trips per day which could be accommodated by the existing street systems. The Edwards Street segment from Garfield to Talbert, and the Ellis Avenue segment from Edwards to Goldenwest are currently operating at level of service (LOS) A or better and the intersection of Ellis and Edwards is also at LOS A. Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1, approved in conjunction with the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan also analyzed traffic impacts resulting from development of this property with single family residences at a density of four(4) units per gross acre. The proposed designation and number of units would result in fewer units, and therefore would have less of an impact to traffic in the area. Staff Report—5/9/00 3 (OOSR32) SUMMARY: Staff supports the proposed amendments to the Local Coastal Program, Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Zoning Map to allow for single family residential development for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding zoning designations and existing land uses of Estate Residential in the Holly Seacliff and Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plans. • The zoning will be consistent with the General Plan Designation of Estate Residential. ATTACHMENTS: OL1-1,-Z4A 9:9-2, LCA4 )� 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 28, 2000 3. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 28, 2000 4. 5. 6. Existing and Proposed 7. > M44 > C om =A,@A@r's} 10. Letter in support dated May 4, 2000 from Dale L. Dunn SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—5/9/00 4 (OOSR32) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -DEVELOPMENT AGREEMEN. NO. 88-1(R): r Development Agreement No. 88-1(R) is consistent with the General Plan and the eadowlar-1G_ Specific Plan. The Development Agreement has been updated to reference and ens e compliance with the Meadowlark Specific Plan and with the requirements of the axed Use - Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp) land use district. The Amended and Restated D opment Agreement is consistent with Land Use Element goals, objectives and poli ' s of the City's General Plan as follows: L U Goal 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by sportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. LUPolicy2.1.2: Require that the type, amount, and 1 'tion of development be correlated with the provision of adequate infrastructure and s ices (as defined in the Circulation and Public Utilities and Service Elements). L U Goal 4.: Achieve and maintain high ity architecture, landscape and public open spaces in the City. L U Objective 4.1: Promote the de opment of residential, commercial, industrial and public buildings and sites that convey igh quality visual image and character. L U Goal 9.: Achieve the elopment of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, phys' , and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. LU Ob'ective 9. Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and project that incorpora a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborho and identity. The Sp Plan includes product development provisions and design requirements to ensure high qu ty development and compatibility with existing development. In addition,the Specific P/ing udes language for adequate infrastructure inclusive of drainage, sewer and water fas well as traffic control devices (i.e. traffic signals) and park dedication. Affordable hprovisions would also become a part of the development agreement by reference to the Meadowlark Specific Plan. B-3 ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00 1/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC 10 UNIT SUBDIVISION): APPLICANT: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman LOCATION: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (north of Fire Station) PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho PC Minutes—3/28/00 7 — -- —— - ---(uupcm328)" • Annexation - Annex approximately 2.7 net acres of vacant property into the City of Huntngtot-un ; > • Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 Establish Residential Low Density (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1) zoning on the property. • Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 - Amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 - To reflect the changes made to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and zoning map pursuant to Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No 99-2. • Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 - Subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres for development of 10 single-family residences. • Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 Develop lot with greater than a three (3) foot grade differential between the high and low points. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: • Recommend approval of the annexation, and approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 based upon the following: - The proposed zoning designation, and amendments to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and uses. Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 based upon the following: - Grading will not be compatible with the grades of the adjacent Weider Regional Park. - Proposed subdivision as submitted by the applicant will be inconsistent with grading goals and regulations set forth in the General Plan. • Staff s Suggested Modifications: Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 - Grading and proposed fill along the west end of tract be reduced to be in keeping with the existing contour of the area including the Weider Regional Park. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive #290,Newport Beach, representing applicant, requested approval of the subdivision application and related environmental and zoning documents. The applicant believes that the design of the ten (10)-lot subdivision is fiscally superior to the staff recommended alternative for eight(8) lots and will result in a better long-term relationship between the tract and the adjacent proposed park site. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. PC Minutes—3/28/00 8 A MOTION WAS MADE D V KERINS, SECONDED BY MANL..2, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION- - -- MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES,LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins,Mandic, Chapman,Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker,Kerins,Chapman,Livengood,Speaker NOES: Mandic,Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes—3/28/00 9 A MOTION WAS MADE L V LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY LOMAKER,TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-NO? 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL,AS -----___._" - RECOMMENDED BY STAFF,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman,Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY BIDDLE, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL,AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman,Biddle, Speaker NOES: Shomaker, Livengood ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18: 1. The Negative Declaration No. 99-18 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of thirty (30) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14. 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 will have a significant effect on the environment. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to modify the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the subject property and to establish the RL-1 zoning designation is consistent with the designation for Estate Residential cited in the 1990 Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment. PC Minutes—3/28/00 10 2. The proposed change to the Local Coastal Program is in accordance with the policies, l =n standards, and provisions of the Coastal Element that encourages a mix of housing opportunities that vary in price and type. The proposed land use will provide for future upscale residential opportunities. 3. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. The proposed project will not interfere with public access opportunities provided along the Weider Regional Park, and will not impact public views. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 to establish a zoning designation of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(RL-1) on a 2.7 acre parcel, and to incorporate the subject property into the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The proposed zoning will be compatible with the adjacent estate residential zoning designations of the Holly Seacliff and Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plans. 2. In the case of a general land use provision,the zoning map and text amendment are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed zoning will allow estate residential uses consistent with the existing land uses in the area. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The new zoning will allow for new single family residential development. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The proposed zoning will not result in isolated or spot zoning, and will be consistent with the existing Estate Residential General Plan designation. The Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 allows up to four units per gross acre which is consistent with the Estate Residential General Plan designation. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690: 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 for the grading and subdivision of 2.7 net acres for 10 single family residences is not consistent with goals and policies of the General Plan. The proposed lot configuration requires grading, including approximately 12,500 cubic yards of import soil, which is not compatible with the existing topography of the surrounding area. The proposed tract will be up to 13 feet higher than the grade of the Weider Regional Park to the west. 2. The site is not physically suitable for the type and density of development without substantially altering the natural topography of the site. The site will require to be raised approximately 13 feet on the west end of the tract in order to accommodate development of two additional units at the end of the cul-de-sac. The modification to the existing variation in grade is not in keeping with the goals and policies of General Plan which encourages development within existing neighborhoods to be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. PC Minutes—3/28/00 11 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NG 19-14: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 for the development of a 10 unit single family residential subdivision on a site with greater than a three foot differential between the high and low points may be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The import of approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to the site will substantially impact the aesthetic appearance of the area to and from the site, which may adversely impact the value of properties in the area. The property can be developed with less impact to the existing topography. 2. The proposed subdivision is not consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan which encourages preserving the natural topography. The proposed soil import and grading of the site will not be compatible with the adjacent topography of the Weider Regional Park. 4 COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 99-28/SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 00-1 (SOUTH BEACH IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I): PPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Community Services Department LO TION: Oceanside of Pacific Coast Highway, between Beach Boulevard and Huntington Street(South Beach) PROJEC PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho • Coastal Developmen ermit No. 99-28 - reconstruction of the each parking lot - reconstruction of bicyc and pedestrian path - reconstruction of landsca ' g and plaza improvements - improvements to pedestrian d disabled access construction of a 2,500 square t concession building (Waterfront design) - construction of two, 1,000 square of restroom buildings - compact parking stalls along Pacific oast Highway • Special Permit No. 00-1 - Eight foot wide landscape planter along P in lieu of minimum 10 feet. - Clustering of palm trees in lieu of providing o tree every ten stalls throughout parking lot. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 99-28 with specia ermits based upon the following: - Local Coastal Program promotes enhancement of recreational portunities and improved beach facilities. - Compliance with the Downtown Specific Plan District 11. - Architectural compatibility with the newly designed restroom buildin - Added public art components in plazas - Reduced street side planter width results in more efficient use of parking to - Clustering of landscaping reduces costs, and allows special events use of park lot PC Minutes—3/28/00 12 City'of Huntington Beach Planning Department LJJ, STAFF REPORT HUMINGTON�ACN TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner DATE: March 28, 2000 SUBJECT: LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit Single Family Residential Subdivision) APPLICANT/ PROPERTY OWNER: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250,Newport Beach, CA 92660 LOCATION: West of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Annexation - Annex approximately 2.7 net acres of vacant property into the City of Huntington Beach. • Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 - Establish Residential Low Density(Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1) zoning on the property. Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 - Amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property. • Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 - To reflect the changes made to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and zoning map pursuant to Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 and Zoning Map Amendment No 99-2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 - Subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres for development of 10 single family residences. • Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 Develop lot with greater than a three (3) foot grade differential between the high and low points. • Staffs Recommendation: Recommend approval of the annexation, and approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 based upon the following: - The proposed zoning designation, and amendments to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Local Coastal Program are compatible with surrounding zoning designations and uses. Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 based upon the following: - Grading will not be compatible with the grades of the adjacent Weider Regional Park. - Proposed subdivision as submitted by the applicant will be inconsistent with grading goals and regulations set forth in the General Plan. • Staff s Suggested Modifications: Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 - Grading and proposed fill along the west end of tract be reduced to be in keeping with the existing contour of the area including the Weider Regional Park. RECONINIENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. l)•" B. "Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to the City Council for adoption" C. "Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings and suggested conditions of approval/denial (Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 99-18,Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1,Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with findings and suggested conditions of approval." (Applicant's Request) B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-18, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1,Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 and direct.staff accordingly." Staff Report—3/28/00 2 (OOSR23) PROJECT PROPOSAL: To permit the Annexation of 2.7 net acres into the City of Huntington Beach. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 is a request to modify the City's zoning map (DM 38) by designating the subject property within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and new zoning designation of RL-1 (Low Density Residential) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The minimum lot size in RL-1 district is 7,000 square feet with a maximum density of four(4) units per acre. Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property into the specific plan pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the City's Local Coastal Program to address the proposed zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO. Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 is a request to subdivide approximately 2.7 net acres into ten residential lots and three lettered lots for the purpose of allowing future construction of ten single family residences pursuant to Section 251.02 of the ZSO. The proposed density is 3.7 units per net acre. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 represents a request to allow development on property with greater than a three foot grade differential between the high and low points pursuant to Section 230.70 of the ZSO. There is a 16 foot difference between the highest point along Edwards Street to the lowest point along the west property line; and The proposed subdivision consists of lots ranging from 7,217 to 16,752 square feet in size, with an average size of 9,893 square feet. Access to the tract will be provided from Edwards Street through a private non-gated cul-de-sac (see Attachment No. 3). A 15-foot wide landscape parkway is designed along Edwards Street. The street and parkway will be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. The request also involves grading the entire site and importing approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil to design the site for proper drainage. The majority of the fill will occur on the west side of the tract adjacent to the proposed Weider Regional Park. The request does not include the review of residential units. If the subject requests are approved by the City Council, site plans, floor plans, and building elevations will be subject to review and approval by the City's Design Review Board. The proposed zoning (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan)requires an additional off-street parking space on Lots 5 and 6 due to reduced lot frontages. Since there are no site plans, floor plans or building elevations being reviewed at this time, staff has incorporated the parking requirement into the suggested condition of approval. Staff Report—3/28/00 3 (OOSR23) 1.:. (y The applicant has indicated that the request is necessary (Attachment No. 6) because: annexation will benefit the City. • zoning will be compatible with adjacent zoning designations and land uses. subdivision will allow for future housing opportunities. The City's affordable housing requirement will be satisfied by utilizing existing credits provided in the Cape Ann project located at Main Street and Garfield Avenue. Fifteen percent of the total number of units or two (2) units are required to be restricted to moderate-income families. The applicant is permitted to provide the units off-site, as long as they are located within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. Additional school fees will be paid in accordance with a master agreement with the Huntington Unified High School District and Huntington Beach City School District applicable to PLC Company properties. Upon approval of the annexation, the property and proposed residential project will be subject to applicable provisions in the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement. The project has been analyzed in reference to the Development Agreement. ISSUES: Subject Property And Surrounding Land Use, Zoning And General Plan Designations: �L LOCATION z GENERAL:PLAN :.ZONING �LANDUSE Subject Property: Estate Residential (Holly Residential Low Density Vacant Seacliff General Plan (Prezoned) Amendment - 1990) North of Subject Recreation/Conservation Recreation/Conservation Vacant (site of Weider Property: (Orange Co.) Regional Park) East of Subject Residential Estate Ellis Goldenwest Single family Property (across Specific Plan residences Edwards St.): South of Subject Residential Low Density Holly Seacliff Specific Fire Station/Water Property: Plan(RL-1) Reservoir West of Subject Recreation/Conservation Recreation/Conservation Vacant (site of Weider Property: (Orange Co.) Regional Park) General Plan Conformance: The General Plan Land Use Map (Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment) designation on the subject property is Estate Residential (4 units/gross acre). Staff Report—3/28/00 4 (OOSR23) The proposed zoning map amendment, and zoning text amendment are consistent with this designation and the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Land Use Element Objective LU 3.1: Ensure that any proposed annexation is consistent with the overall objectives and does not adversely impact fiscal or environmental resources, and public services and infrastructure of the City of Huntington Beach. Pol icy L U 3.1.2: Require that the existing and future land uses located within the proposed annexation area are compatible with the adjacent City land uses. Objective L U 9.3: Provide for the development of new residential subdivisions and project that incorporate a diversity of uses and are configured to establish a distinct sense of neighborhood and identity. The proposed development will offer upscale residential housing for new home buyers. With the conditions imposed, final design of the residential units will be reviewed by the City to ensure compatibility with adjacent neighborhoods. The tentative tract map and conditional use permit are not consistent with the following goals and objectives of the General Plan: A. Land Use Element Policy LU 9.2.1: require that all new residential development within existing neighborhoods be compatible with existing structures, including the use of building heights, grade elevations, orientation, and bulk that are compatible with the surrounding development. The proposed grading and import of approximately 12,500 cubic yards of soil will not result in compatible grades between the project site and the adjacent Weider Regional Park. Zoning Compliance: The proposed zoning on the subject property is Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (SP-9)with an RL-1 (Low Density Residential) designation. The following zoning conformance matrix compares the proposed project with the development standards of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 district: tiSECTI41� RISSi7EG„ODEPROVISIONFROPOSEI} ... , ... .. .uµ_. III.D.l.c. Lot Area Min. 7,000 sq. ft. 7,217-16,752 sq. ft. Lot Width Min. 60 ft. 60 ft. Cul-de-sac width Min. 45 ft., 30 ft. with 1 45 ft. cul-de-sac additional parking space 30 ft. (Lots 5 &6) w/ condition for add'1 parking space d. Density 1 unit/lot 1 unit/lot Staff Report—3/28/00 5 (OOSR23) / 1M SECTION :':`ISSUE CODE PROVISION PROPOSED �.w e. Building Height Max. 35 ft. from top of No elevations (DRB review subfloor to roof peak; required) 2 stories f. Lot Coverage Max 50%; 55% adjacent for No site plans (DRB review lots adjacent to park required) Setbacks g. Front(cul-de-sac) Min. 15 ft. No site plans (DRB review required) h.1 Side Min. 5 ft. No site plans (DRB review required) h.2 Street Side Min. 10 ft. No site plans (DRB review (Edwards St.) required) i. Rear Min. 20 ft. No site plans (DRB review required) g. Garage Front entry Min 20 ft. No site plans/floor plans (DRB Side entry Min 10 ft. review required) k. Open Space Provided by min. setback areas No site plans (DRB review required) 230.70.0 Grading Max. 3 feet between high and 16 feet between high and low low points of existing grade points of existing grade* 231.04.B Off-Street Parking - Number of spaces 2 enclosed+2 open/up to 4 BR No site plans/floor plans (DRB unit review required) 3 enclosed+3 open/5+BR unit III.D.l.c.2 1 additional off-street Condition of approval for space/unit for lot with<45' additional off-street parking space frontage on Lots 5 & 6 III.D.l.n. Landscaping 1-36"box tree per lot; Landscape plan to require 1-36" 1-36"box tree/45' street box tree per lot and 1-36"box frontage tree/45' street frontage 230.88 Fences & Walls Max. 6,ft. high along perimeter 6 ft. high along east PL (8 ft. high from sidewalk on Edwards St.) 8 ft. high adjacent to Fire Station and rear of Lot 1 6 ft. high open fencing along west and north property line. 254.08 Parkland Dedication 0.1715 acres 0.1715 acres of land credit toward Weider Regional Park * Conditional Use Permit Staff Report—3/28/00 6 (OOSR23) Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently,Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Attachment No. 7)was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-18 for thirty (30) days commencing on April 22, 1999 and ending on May 21, 1999. Comments were received from Caltrans, County of Orange, and the Edison Company concerning the proposed development and a response has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Environmental Board Comments: • The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. No response has been received. Prior to any action on Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Tentative Tract Map No. 15690, and Conditional Use Permit No. 99- 14, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. As discussed above, the applicant will pay additional school fees in accordance with a master agreement with the Huntington Unified High School District and Huntington Beach City School District applicable to PLC Company properties. Coastal Status: The proposed project site is not within the Coastal Zone. However, the amendment to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan will require an amendment to the City's Local Coastal Program by reconfiguring the boundary of the specific plan. Thus, final approval of the zoning text amendment and zoning map amendment, which are considered minor amendments, are subject to California Coastal Commission approval. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Staff Report—3/28/00 7 (OOSR23) Subdivision Committee: On June 30, 1999, the Subdivision Committee reviewed the proposed subdivision and forwarded the following comments: The subdivision should be designed with private streets with a homeowner's association maintaining streets and landscaping. • Density should not exceed 3 units per acre. Recommend denial based on Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment(AE-1 Estate Residential); incompatibility with Ellis Goldenwest neighborhood to the east. Park and recreation requirements will be satisfied by apportioning 9.1715 acres of existing park credits toward Wieder Regional Park. The remaining number of credits held by PLC Land Co. will be approximately 12.74 acres. Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services, and Building and Safety have recommended conditions which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police and Economic Development Departments have no concerns. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on March 16, 2000, and notices were sent to property owners of record within a 300 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), applicant, and interested parties. As of March 22, 2000, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Negative Declaration: Oct. 1, 1999 April 1, 2000 Zoning Map Amendment/Zoning Text Not applicable Amendment/Local Coastal Program Amendment: Tentative Tract Map: February 3, 2000 May 17, 2000 (Within 50 days from Negative Declaration approval) Conditional Use Permit: February 3, 2000 June 28, 2000 (Within Three months from Negative Declaration approval) Staff Report—3/28/00 8 (OOSR23) ANALYSIS: Annexation A request to annex the site into the City was submitted to LAFCO by PLC in July, 1998. The County of Orange adopted a Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) in February, 1999. The City Council will consider the TSA and annexation request upon review of the Zoning Text Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment. Prior to final action by the City Council, the Planning Commission may forward a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed annexation. A copy of the fiscal impact analysis prepared for the site is provided for Planning Commission review (Attachment No. 8). Following final City action, LAFCO will consider PLC's request to annex the subject property into the City of Huntington Beach. Staff supports the proposed annexation and the establishment of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan zoning of the property because the new zoning and land use will be compatible with surrounding land uses and zoning designations. The County of Orange has officially approved the tax sharing agreement for the annexation of the residential property. However, should LAFCO disapprove the annexation request, the City applications become null and void. Zoning Map Amendment/Zoning Text Amendment Staff supports the establishment of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 zoning on the property, along with the amendment to the boundary of the specific plan because the estate residential use would be most compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff also supports the minor modifications to the acreage figures cited in the text and tables of the specific plan. The proposed RL-1 zoning will be compatible with the adjacent estate residential zoning designations on the Bluffs and Ellis Goldenwest quartersection. The proposed zoning will allow estate residential uses to be constructed at a maximum density of four units per gross acre. Furthermore, the acreage figures within the specific plan will be revised by adding approximately 3 acres. Compatibility The new residential uses will provide upscale housing opportunities for new home buyers. With exception of the recently constructed Fire Station and water reservoir facilities to the south, the surrounding area is primarily developed with estate residential uses. In addition, the site has been "prezoned" for low density residential land use. Impacts from the adjacent Fire Station should be minimal as strict conditions were imposed upon approval of the new facility, including the installation of a traffic signal in front of the station and opticom devices at the intersections of Ellis Ave./Edwards St. and Garfield Ave./Edwards St. to reduce the need for sirens in the immediate area. No impact from the Weider Regional Park is anticipated. Staff Report—3/28/00 9 (OOSR23) Grading The intent of the code is to review how the grading plan terraces buildings with the grade and creates development which is compatible with adjacent developments. Staff does not support the proposed tract map due to the extent of soil import and proposed grading of the tract. The proposed fill of up to 13 feet on the west end of the tract will not be compatible with the adjacent grades of Weider Regional Park and does not terrace the lots with the existing grades. The applicant indicates that based on the natural terrain, the property drains to the northwest. By importing the 12,500 cubic yards of fill, the tract will not have to be designed with terraced building pads or lift stations. Staff feels that the proposed grading and fill is inconsistent with the goals and policies in the General Plan which attempt to maintain existing grades to the greatest extent feasible. The current condition of the site should be maintained without compromising the integrity of existing topographical features. The applicant indicates that the fill is necessary to provide for drainage and flow to existing storm drain and sewer connections to the south without having to construct lift stations or sumps. This is not an adequate reason to make the lot level. The General Plan encourages terracing and other design techniques to build development compatible with the terrain. In order to comply with the General Plan, the 10 lots could be terraced with lift stations or reduce the number of proposed lots. The project could be developed in conformance with the General Plan by subdividing into eight lots instead of 10. Other options for redesign include the elimination or modification of Lots 5 and 6 which would allow a view corridor at the end of the cul-de-sac, or designing split level pads on Lots 5 and 6. An example of such a site plan layout is provided on Attachment No. 9. For the reasons noted above, staff recommends denial of the tract map and conditional use permit. As an alternative, the project could be redesigned to minimize impacts to grading. Circulation The staff supports the proposal to construct the private street to public street standards, and maintenance of the street and landscape lots by the homeowners association. The future review of the residential units will ensure compatibility of the residential units with the surrounding area, and that ample off-street and on-street parking is provided. The City's Public Works Department Traffic Division has reviewed access to the tract and supports the location of the cul-de-sac,provided no security access gates are installed. Staff does not anticipate any impacts resulting from the privatization of the street and landscape lots. SUMMARY: Staff supports the proposed amendments to the Local Coastal Program, Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and Zoning Map to allow for single family residential development for the following reasons: • The proposed zoning is compatible with surrounding zoning designations and existing land uses of Estate Residential in the Holly Seacliff and Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plans. The zoning will be consistent with the General Plan Designation of Estate Residential. Staff Report—3/28/00 10 (OOSR23) i Staff does not support the proposed subdivision map for the following reasons: • The subdivision should be designed with minimal grading and should maintain the existing topography to the greatest extent possible. . The import of additional fill to the west end of the tract is not compatible with the existing grades of the Weider Regional Park located west and north of the site. ATTACHMENTS: 1. u a 2. �Alternatiy finding , 3. Draft Ordinanc - - 4. - - 5. 6. Narrative 7. 8. , 9. AlternativP site-l z SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—3/28/00 11 (OOSR23) FROM DALE D NN FAX N0. 714 946-4292 r May. 04 2000 11:22AM P1 1 Dr. Gerald Chapman, Chairman. Huntington Beach Plumicig Commission 2000 Main Strest Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear Chairman Chapman, As a Huntington Beach resident for 34 years, I wish to be on record in support of the annexation and approval of Holly Scacliff Specific Plan RI:I zoning proposal of PLC'. Land Company to permit development as anticipated in the 1990 Holly Seacl iff CTR This prgject is consistent with the General Plan of the City and the hotly Scacliff I3evekopment Agreement, and the proposal would make the best use of this property, in my opinion. I sincerely request the Planning Commission to let stand their previous action approving the zonning ;and annexmtion request, and allow the project to proceed as proposed. Respectfully submitted, Dale Z, Dunn 17302 Almelo Tune Iuntington Beach, CA 92649 ATTACHMENT 1 .0 N� Ic DATE: April 17, 2000 TO: Wayne Carvalho FROM: Bill Holman SUBJECT: Parcel 7A, TTM 15690 Chronology Per your request, here is a brief chronology of City of HB and County of Orange actions regarding the above parcel. December 4, 1989 County of Orange Linear Park Conceptual Boundary and Preliminary Development Plan presented to City Council for adoption by Resolution No. 6095. No formal action taken by City. Subject property not included in proposed park boundary. January 8, 1990 City Council approval of Resolution Nos. 6097 and 6098, certifying Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 and General Plan Amendment No. 90-1. GPA designated subject property as Estate Residential (<4 du/ac) as part of Planning Unit Al. November 5, 1990 City Council adoption of Ordinance No. 3080, approving Development Agreement No. 90-1. The subject property is a portion of the ten-acre "County Portion of the Property" as defined on page 9 of the Agreement. The terms of the Development Agreement become effective at such time the property is annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. Section 2.2.1(a)7 of the Agreement gave the City an option for five years to accept dedication for park purposes either the 2.7-acre subject property (Parcel 7a) or 4.5 acres of property at the northeast corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue (Parcel 7b).. October 19, 1992 City Council approval of Resolution No. 6434, approving in concept a 106-acre boundary for the County regional park. The subject property was not included in the approved park boundary. April 4, 1994 City Council directed City staff to accept dedication of 4.5-acre Parcel 7b per Section 2.2.1(a)7 of the Development Agreement. December 5, 1994 City Council consented to a proposed sale of the subject property to the County of Orange and approved City quitclaim of its option to acquire subject property under the terms of the Development Agreement. The 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 949.721.9777 Telephone PLC Land Company Newport Beach, California 92660 949.729.1214 Facsimile County subsequently declared bankruptcy and terminated efforts to purchase the subject property. December 4, 1995 City Council accepted dedication .of Parcel 7b, completing Developer obligations for dedication of land for the proposed County regional park. May 9, 1996 Subject property purchased from Huntington Beach Company by PLC. The balance of the entitlement chronology for this property, beginning with PLC's application to LAFCO for annexation, is attached. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690 CHRONOLOGY July 1, 1998 PLC submitted application to LAFCO requesting annexation of 2.71 acres to City of Huntington Beach. October 14, 1998 PLC submitted applications to City for Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Environmental Assessment($5,640). November 13, 1998 Notice of Filing Status prepared. General plan amendment, zoning map amendment and variance required. (GPA requirement removed November 20, 1998). November 1998 Fiscal Impact Analysis for PLC annexation completed for City by MNA Consulting/Rosenow Spevacek Group. Project generates surplus for City. December 2, 1998 LAFCO distributed PLC annexation request to agencies for comment. February 23, 1999 County resolution approving City-County tax sharing agreement approved by County Board of Supervisors. March 8, 1999 PLC submitted applications for Zoning Map Amendment and Variance for reduced frontage on four lots ($6,380). Tentative tract map and site plan revised per Public Works direction to reverse proposed drainage pattern, reduce proposed fill on all lots, and add storm drain to drain site to south through reservoir site. April 7, 1999 Notice of Filing Status prepared. Staff feels the proposed amount of fill is excessive and suggests terracing lots, sloping back yards or contour grading of buffer areas. Variance request not supported. CUP required for site with greater than three feet of grade differential. April 14, 1999 Environmental Assessment Committee review of environmental assessment. Environmental Assessment (EA) routed for 30-day public comment. May 21, 1999 End of 30-day public comment period on EA. May 26, 1999 PLC submitted revised TTM, site plan and CUP application ($2,850). Variances eliminated on two of four lots. See attached PLC letter dated May 25, 1999 and Walden & Associates letter dated May 19, 1999 responding to staff recommendation for terraced or sloped lots. June 30, 1999 Subdivision Committee meeting. Denial of TTM 15690 recommended. July 1, 1999 Staff letter to PLC on follow up issues. July 7, 1999 PLC letter to staff responding to issues of private streets and general plan consistency. October 1, 1999 Notice of Filing Status prepared. Application deemed complete for processing. Staff not supporting RL zoning. November 9, 1999 Planning Commission study session. February 10, 2000 PLC submitted application for Zoning Text Amendment and Local Coastal Program Amendment ($8,040), requesting approval of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 zoning, minimum 7,000 square foot lots. Variance request eliminated. March 28, 2000 Planning Commission recommends approval of ZMA 99-2, ZTA 00-1, LCPA 00-1,ND 99-18 and denies TTM 15690 and CUP 99-14. April 4,2000 PLC files appeal of Planning Commission denial of TTM 15690 and CUP 99-14. April 11, 2000 Planning Commission votes 5-2 to reconsider approval of ZMA, ZTA, LCPA and ND. RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: ZMA 99-2, ZTA 00-1, LCPA 00-1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (Below Space For City Clerk's Use • RCA Author: HZ:SH:WC:kjl - 3 b Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred ontinued ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied er Ignature Council Meeting Date: June 19, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-29 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 7C REQUEST FOR ACTION f- " SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS - = PJ :'---'... SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator OW PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning r SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM ORD. No- AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, (PLC Land Co. Zoning Designation) 3��2 Statemen:,f Issue, Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, a request by PLC Land Company to establish zoning on a 2.7 acre parcel located in the County of Orange on the west side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue. The County of Orange has designated this property as Open Space pursuant to their General Plan Land Use Element and the zoning designation is General Agriculture. In 1990, the City approved a pre-General Plan Land Use designation of Residential Estate on the property as part of the Holly Seacliff General Plan and Master Plan. The applicant is requesting to zone the property as Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Low Density Residential (RL-1) with a maximum density of four (4) units per gross acre. The Planning Commission originally approved the request on March 28, 2000. Subsequently on May 9, 2000; they reconsidered their recommendations to clarify their actions on the individual entitlements. Due to a 2-2 vote at that meeting, the Planning Commission made a subsequent motion to recommend denial of the applications to avoid a continuance and further postponement of their action. The forwarded recommendation is for denial to the City Council (Recommended Action - A) because the proposed residential zoning may impact future views to and from the Wieder Regional Park site and because the proposed residential zoning is not compatible with the Open Space General Plan Land Use designation and General Agriculture zoning designation in the County of Orange. Staff is recommending approval (Recommended Action - B) based on consistency with the previously adopted Residential Estate General Plan Land Use designation, and compatibility with adjacent zoning and land uses in the area. a VI REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-29 Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Deny Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 with findings for denial (ATTACHMENT NO. 7)." Planninq Commission Action on March 28, 2000: A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND DENY TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND MODIFIED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION AND APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15690, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-14 WITH FINDINGS AND MODIFIED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PL00-29 -2- 06/08/00 3:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-29 A MOTION WAS MADE BY CHAPMAN, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS AND MITIGATION MEASURES, LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1 WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Chapman, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Mandic, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on May 9, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99- 2, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 8) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, SHOMAKER NOES: LIVENGOOD, MANDIC ABSENT: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION FAILED THE MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR ANNEXATION, NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18, ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99- 2, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, AND LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1, WITH FINDINGS FOR DENIAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 8) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SHOMAKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: BIDDLE, CHAPMAN, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED The Commission requested the minutes indicate that Commissioners Kerins and Shomaker voted to recommend denial of the applications to avoid a continuance and further postponement of their action. PL00-29 -3- 06/08/00 3:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-29 B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance Nos.V 1,y -9� and 3�13 (ATTACHMENT NOS. 2 & 3)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Company, c/o Bill Holman, 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: West side of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 is a request to modify the City's zoning map (DM 38) by designating the subject property within the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and new zoning designation of RL-1 (Low Density Residential) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The minimum lot size in RL-1 district is 7,000 square feet with a maximum density of four (4) units per gross acre. Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan by incorporating the subject property into the specific plan pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 is a request to amend the City's Local Coastal Program to address the proposed zoning map amendment and zoning text amendment pursuant to Section 247.16 of the ZSO. PL00-29 -4- 06/08/00 3:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-29 The following table identifies the subject property and surrounding Land Use, Zoning and General Plan Designations. The bolded copy indicates the County of Orange designations. ; LOCATIO ! GENERAL PLAN�� ` ZONING LAND USE L N y Subject Property: Pre-general plan - None Vacant Estate Residential (Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment - 1990) Open Space A-1 (General (Orange Co.) Agriculture) (Orange Co.) North of Subject Recreation/ Recreation/ Vacant (site of Property Conservation Conservation Wieder Regional (in Orange Co.): (Orange Co.) (Orange Co.) Park) East of Subject Residential Estate Ellis Goldenwest Single family Property (across Specific Plan residences Edwards St.): South of Subject Residential Low Holly Seacliff Specific Fire Station/Water Property: Density Plan (RL-1) Reservoir West of Subject Open Space A-1 (General Vacant (site of Property (Orange Co.) Agriculture) (Orange Wieder Regional (in Orange Co.): Co.) Park) Attached are area maps that depict the proposed zoning and the surrounding General Plan and zoning designations (Attachment Nos. 5 and 6). The General Plan map (Attachment No. 5) identifies both the City and County's designation of the subject property. Attachment No. 6 identifies the County's existing zoning and the City's proposed zoning designation. The applicant indicates that the proposed Holly Seacliff Specific Plan (RL-1) zoning designation will be compatible with the adjacent zoning designations and land uses, and will allow for future housing opportunities. This property is covered by the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1. The terms of the development agreement become effective at such time the property is annexed into the City of Huntington Beach. The agreement offered the City the option for five years to accept dedication for park purposes either the subject 2.7 acre parcel (Parcel 7a) located outside of the City's jurisdiction or a 4.5 acre parcel at the northeast corner of Edwards Street and Ellis Avenue (Parcel 7b) within the City. In April of 1994, the City accepted dedication of the 4.5 acre Parcel 7b. Attachment No. 10 provides a chronology of the County's and City's actions regarding the subject property. PL00-29 -5- 06/08/00 3:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-29 B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the negative declaration, annexation, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment to the City Council. The Commission denied the tentative tract map and conditional use permit, a request to subdivide the subject property for development of 10 single-family residences. Aside from the applicant, there were no other persons who testified at the public hearing. Since the zoning entitlements were recommended for approval, which is automatically forwarded to the City Council for action, the applicant appealed only the tentative tract map and conditional use permit. On April 11, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their prior action on the negative declaration, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment. The purpose for the reconsideration was to clarify their actions on the individual entitlements. The applicant provided a chronology of City of Huntington Beach and County of Orange actions pertaining to the subject property (Attachment No. 10), which was forwarded to the Planning Commission at their April 25, 2000 study session. On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission held a second public hearing to consider the negative declaration, annexation, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment applications. Six people, including the applicant, testified during the hearing. One person representing the Amigos de Bolsa Chica spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation and residential zoning on the property, stating that the proposed project would encroach onto the regional park and wetlands, and would result in objectionable views from the park. Four people representing Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff (FANS), spoke in support of the request. Following a 2-2 split vote to recommend approval of the applications, the Planning Commission denied the applications on a 4-0 vote to avoid an automatic continuance of the project. The Commission requested the minutes reflect that Commissioners Kerins and Shomaker voted to recommend denial of the applications to avoid an automatic continuance of the project. C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The subject property currently lies outside the City's boundary, but is within the City's sphere of influence. In 1990, the City Council approved the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan General Plan Amendment and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that included a land use designation on the property of Estate Residential (max. 4 units per gross acre). It specifically depicted the subject property as part of a ten acre planning area with a maximum of 25 residential units (see Attachment No. 3). .The intent of the pre-general planning action was PL00-29 -6- 06/08/00 3:38 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-29 to inform the property owner and surrounding landowners that the City has reviewed and pre-approved the Estate Residential designation for the site should it ever be annexed into the City. The County of Orange currently has a general plan designation of Open Space and a zoning designation of General Agriculture (A-1) on the subject property. According to our zoning maps and records, there is no City pre-zoning designation. Over the years, the City has pre- zoned surrounding areas but not this site. The proposed Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, RL-1 zoning designation will allow a density up to four units per gross acre with an average density of 1.6 units per gross acre (Attachment No. 3) consistent with the pre-general plan designation. Staff supports the proposed zoning because it is consistent with the pre-general plan land use designation. The Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 allows up to four units per gross acre that is consistent with the Estate Residential General Plan designation. Furthermore, the zoning designation will be compatible with the adjacent designations to the south (The Bluffs), and east across Edwards Street (Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan). The adjacent property located in the County of Orange (Wieder Regional Park) will remain designated as open space. Staff further supports the establishment of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan RL-1 zoning on the property, along with the amendment to the boundary of the specific plan because the estate residential use would be most compatible with the surrounding land uses. Staff also supports the minor modifications to the acreage figures cited in the text and tables of the specific plan. The acreage figures within the specific plan will be revised by adding approximately 3 acres. The zoning will allow estate residential uses to be constructed at a maximum density of four units per gross acre. Environmental Status: Negative Declaration No. 99-18 was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). Prior to any action on Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. PL00-29 -7- 06/08/00 3:38 PM I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-29 Attachments: NumberCity Clerk's Page 1. Findings for Approval (Staff Recommendation) 2. Ordinance No. 3y77- (ZMA 99-2) 3. Ordinance No. 3413 and Legislative Draft (ZTA 00-1) 4. Vicinity Map 5. Exhibit of Existing and Proposed General Plan Designations 6. Exhibit of Existing and Proposed Zoning Designations 7. Alternative Findings for Denial (PC Recommendation) 8. Planning Commission Minutes Dated May 9, 2000 9. Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 9, 2000 10. 1 Chronology of County and City actions dated April 17, 2000 RCP.4 or�Wayne Garvaiho/Herb�Fauland „ _. _ .. ';. " PL00-29 -8- 06/08/00 3:38 PM D . 2Zb RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: ZMA 99-2, ZTA 00-1, LCPA 00-1 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS R j REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (BelowOnly) RCA Author: HZ:SH:WC:kjl Council/Agency Meeting Held: —2),-00 Deferred/Continued to: pproved ❑ Con di onally Approved ❑ DeniedDe---(Ay Cler S nature Council Meeting Date: November 20, 2000 Department ID Number: PL00-69 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administratorcalz-p PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning, , SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES WITH THE COUNTY OF ORANGE FOR PARCEL 7A . NO, 2W0- )1:L Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an agreement for the redistribution of property taxes with the County of Orange for a vacant, unincorporated 2.7 acre site on the west side of Edwards, south of Ellis owned by PLC Land Company known as Parcel 7A. On July 5, 2000 the City Council recommended denial of the annexation of this property to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO). PLC has re-initiated their application with LAFCO. The City has been notified by LAFCO that it must reach agreement on the sharing of property tax revenues with the County of Orange or enter into a meditiation/arbitration process. Staff recommends the City Council approve the proposed tax sharing agreement with the County of Orange because it is consistent with the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and the County and the tax sharing agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors for the subject property. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to: "Adopt Resolution No. ti — Ila Agreeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for Property commonly known as Holly Seacliff Parcel 7A (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-69 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Deny the Agreement for redistribution of property taxes for Parcel 7A and agree to enter into a mediation/arbitration process with the County of Orange." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: The City of Huntington Beach Location: West of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (2.7 acres in the County of Orange) The proposed tax sharing agreement would split the County's current 6.4 percent share of the basic property tax levy according to the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and County dated October 28, 1980 (resulting in 2.8 percent of the levy to the County and 3.56 percent to the City). In addition, 100 percent of the Orange County Fire Authority share of the tax levy and 70.5 percent of the County Library District share of the tax levy will be provided to the City. The proposed agreement would be effective if the subject property were annexed to the City of Huntington Beach. B. BACKGROUND In July 1998 PLC submitted a request for annexation of the subject property to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the approving body for any annexation. In February 1999, the County of Orange Board of Supervisors adopted a Tax Sharing Agreement regarding the redistribution of property taxes (Attachment No. 3). On July 5, 2000 the City Council recommended denial of the annexation to LAFCO. Subsequently, PLC requested re-initiation of their annexation application with LAFCO. On September 22, the City received notification of this request from LAFCO (Attachment No. 4). Shortly thereafter the City received a report from the County Auditor regarding revenues affected by the request (Attachment No. 5). Pursuant to Section 99(b)(4) of the Revenue and Taxation Code the City and County are required to reach an agreement within 60 days of receiving the Auditor's report regarding sharing of property tax revenues. PL00-69 -2- 11/8/00 3:46 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-69 C. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Resolution agreeing to a redistribution of property taxes has been reviewed and approved by the Administration Department, Adminstrative Services Department and the City Attorney. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Resolution because the agreement equitably redistributes property taxes to the City, is consistent with the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and County and is consistent with the Tax Sharing Agreement approved by the Board of Supervisors for the property in 1999. In addition, the concerns expressed by the City Council in their previous action to recommend denial of the annexation to LAFCO centered on land use and not the tax sharing agreement. Upon approval of the tax sharing agreement, LAFCO will continue their proceedings with respect to the annexation. The annexation process is described on page 3 of the staff report provided in Attachment No. 6. As detailed in LAFCO's letter (Attachment No. 4) should the City not adopt a tax sharing agreement within the state-mandated 60 day timeframe, the City and County must enter into a mediation/arbitration process. Environmental Status: Approval of the tax sharing agreement is exempt from the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to section 15061 (b) (3). Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page • . a bov - 1. Resolution No. t>a Agreeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for Annexation No. Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A) Annexation to the City of Huntington Bach �'r� 2. Property Vicinity Map 3. County of Orange Tax Sharing Agreement Resolution, dated February 23, 1999 4. Letter from LAFCO received September 22, 2000 5. Report from County Auditor dated September 21, 2000 6. RCA dated July 5, 2000 7. Letter from Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory dated November 7, 2000 MBB/HZ PL00-69 -3- 11/8/00 3:46 PM RESOLUTION NO. 2000-112 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AGREEING TO A REDISTRIBUTION OF PROPERTY TAXES FOR PROPERTY COMMONLY KNOW AS HOLLY SEACLIFF PARCEL 7A WHEREAS, the City of Huntington Beach desires to agree to the property tax redistribution for the Holly Seacliff property known as Parcel "7A" (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject Property"), located on the west side of Edwards Street, south of Ellis Avenue; and A legal description and map depicting the area of the Subject Property is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference; and The City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange have agreed to a Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement establishing a formula for said redistribution, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. That the property tax distribution for the Subject Property shall be in accordance with the Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and the County of Orange (Resolution No. 80-2093) to which the County of Orange shall receive approximately forty-four percent (44%) of the revenues and the City of Huntington Beach shall receive approximately fifty-six percent (56%) of the revenues; and 2. That seventy and one-half percent (70.5%) of the property tax revenues presently accrued to the Orange County Library District for the Subject Property shall be received by the City of Huntington Beach; and 3. That one hundred percent (100%) of the property tax revenues presently accrued to the Orange County Fire Authority for the Subject Property shall be received by the City of Huntington Beach. 1 4/s:4-2000 Resolution:Property Tax Holly Seacliff RLS 99-106 11-8-00 Res. No. 2000-112 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of November , 2000. Mayor ATTEST: APPRO D AS TO FORM: City Clerk 2- —(:>j City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City AdmKistrator Di"re&or of Pl ing 2 4 s:4-2000 Resolution:Property Tax Holly Seacliff RLS 99-106 11-5-00 Res. NO. 2000-112 EXHIBIT ^A r Res. No. 2000 1112 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR TENTATI'YE TRACT MAP 15690. . PLC ANNEXATION TO CITY OF HUN INGTON REACH BERG A PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 34, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE •'11 WEST, SANT, BERNARDINO BASE 'AVD MERIDIAN, IN THE UNINCORPORATED •TERRITORY OF THE COUNTY, OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON THE- MAP RECORDDED' IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY,MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE NORTHERLY LOM OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL NAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ItECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING ON A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND WESTERLY 40.00 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE NORTH 89*52159" WEST 415,00 FEET,ALONd THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1;THENCE NORTH 00016'06"EAST 130.04 FEET;THENCE NORTH 16"31'52" EAST 50.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45058131" EAST 190,00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89"43'54" EAST 265.00 FEET •TO SAID AFORBMENTIONRD LINE BEING PARALLEL WITH AND WESTERLY 40.00 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION•34; THENCE SOUTH OO-16-06".WEST 312.00 FEET ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO THE POINT OF BEGDRnNCr,' CONTAINING AN AREA OF 2.71 ACRES,MORE OR LESS. �FESSI F Y C LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR VEN & W OCIATES T�TATM TRACT MAP 15690 OF PLC ANNEXATION TO CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ctvu.ENGI>~sszs-7uxa�As—IaYD suAVYYOAs W.O.No.0979-396-3 Due 7/l/98 trots caw,tx.sum uo•mnxa cA 1161: Eug.D.C. Chk. Q.W. Shen 1 of I 714tftC-0119 FAX.,WO-0611 Exhibit A y Res. No. 2000-112 - I t 0.tJR 41\ J- J • NW 114, SO. U MIS AMC. TENTATIVE TRAGT No. 15G90 N 001G OG' 2.71 AG. N PLY LUC, H M25T W 415DO. SW 114. SEC. 34 MIX LYE. PAZEL 2 1 e A 4{ESS ALI?EN & TO.ALGO'AhT A morn TwrTr��.. %q 1ZO12 CCTAX, fiUa '210, MVWE, at 92614 W.O. No tAN-W-3 (m)-e6Q-ollo TAX: daft-UIB r,____€L—Chk..._ She�t2_L3f 2 Exhibit A Res. No. 2000-112 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th day of November, 2000 by the following vote: AYES: Julien, Sullivan, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California AT'TACHMENT - 2 ns s PROJECT SITE ..n o� J ramuaarvsf • t •cuwa t OtK.?K'OH_ WMAL►AMO N r r �� I i i i � • 1 �lfuiu(milliti uuuu7 rrrrrrmTa IM7 Mlll 11 llllllhllll 11 111 111 ��}rinnnnrt rtnrtm plWlpuli nuhultr � 1 rtmiTTrrIT t71 Tir1 ,1 Il ot"""hIti; IQ llllglt II II II III111 U. IW�.TTT^•. . z VICINITY MAP Annexation of 2.7 Acres THE CITY 0FHUIVTINGT0N BEACH : a> r v. 91/11/2090 12:37 6192399878 MNA CONSULTING PAGE 65 FROM 01WE UFO NO TJ 1, 10' 00 23.3i;'S 13:330;'W. 4860219560 P 4 l z 3 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF 4 ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 5 Februaty 23, 1999 6 On motion of Supervisor Spitzer, duly seconded and carried,the following resolution 7 was adopted- 8 BE IT RESOLVED that this Board does hereby. 9 1, Determine that the property tax exchange for tvA98-07 will be in accordance with 10 the Master Property Tax Trmsfer Agreement between the County of Or=ge and 11 the City of Huntington Beach(Resolution No. 80-2093). The Master Agreement 12 between the County and the City of Huntington Beach assigns approximately 44 13 percent of the revenues to the County and 56 percent to the City. 14 2, Determine that 70.5 percent of the property tax revenues accrued to the Orangc 15 County Library District for CA98-07 will be transferred to the City of Huntington 16 Beach. 17 3, Detennige that 100 percent of the property tax revenues accrued to the Orange 18 County Firc Authority for CA98-07 will be transferred to the City of Huntington 19 Beach. 20 4. Direct the County Executive Officer,or designee,to notify the Executive Officer of 21 the Leal Agency Formadon Commission and the Auditor-Controller of the 22 Bcwd's determination, 23 !! 74 !! 25 /t 26 Resolution No,99-65 PLC Annexation to City of Huntington Beach is 27 Subject to Master Property Tax Transfer 28 Agreement BPD:ep or"e couatr cQunlw -t- Cowty of oram a,. 01r11/2009 12:37 6192339678 MNA CONSULTING FACE 86 FROM 10 ANGE LAK0 (h4G"ll 1, 1C' 0Ci 23:3!17 23:30,10, 4E,,60219560 P 5 The foregoing was pawed and 41d0ptQd by the following cote of the Orange county Board of Supervisors on February 23, 1999, to wit: AYES: Supervisotsa TODD SPITZER, CYNTHIA P. Copb, THoWLS W. WILSM NOES: EXCUSEM. CPA'tLES V. SMITH, J'AM$S W. SILVA RBS'TAINED c CRAIRMAN, orange County Board of Supervisors STATE OF CALIFORNIA } ss: COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I, DARL.ENE J. BLOOM, Clerk of the Board of Supemisors of Orange County, Calftmira, hereby oettity that a copy of this document has been delivered to the Chairman of the Board and that the above and foregoing Resoiuton was duly and regularly adopted by the orange County Board of Supervisors. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, 1 have hereto set my hand and goal. Date R 'J.t wom Cikwk of the i�Inrd of superviwffl County of Orange.State of Cafifomis ResoWtlptt No:99-85 Agenda Data: 02/23/1999 Item No. 13 I MW that ft"Oft is a M*and cnm et copy Of itw Raaoulbon adopted by ft Scar'l of Supevisom Orange County,stet.of Cawomia. W1U ENE J.BLOOM,Cleric of the Board of 3upervLwla By: D"Uty I"T c NIX ; " /0'3--2 00V LAFCO ,� Local Agency For on Orange County SEP 2 2 MU September 20, 2000 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH " ADMINISTRATPON OFF!CE CHAIR CHARLES V.SMITH Ray Silver, City Manager Bill, Mahoney, Assistant CEO SUPERVISOR FIRST DISTRICT City of Huntington Beach CEO, Strategic Affairs 2000 Main Street County of Orange VICE-CHAIR P. O. Box 190 10 Civic Center Plaza, 3rd Floor SUSAN WILSON REPRESENTATIVE OF Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Santa Ana, CA 92701 GENERAL PUBLIC RANDAL J.BRESSETTE SUBJECT: PLC Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach(CA 98-07) COUNCILMAN CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS CYNTHIA P.COAD Dear Mr. Silver and Mr. Mahoney: SUPERVISOR FOURTH DISTRICT This letter is to inform you that the applicant of the "PLC Annexation to the City PETER HERZOG of Huntington Beach" (CA 98-07) has requested re-initiation of their application. COUNCILMAN We have issued notice to the CountyAssessor and County Auditor of the re-filing CITY OF LAKE FORESTg of the application as required under §99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code for DOUG J.REINI-LART purposes of the property tax exchange negotiation process. You will be receiving DIRECTOR EL TORO WATER DISTRICT a report from the County Auditor within the next few weeks with an estimate of the property tax revenues subject to negotiation between the City and the County. JOHN B.WITHERS Section 99(b)(4) requires that the negotiating agencies reach an agreement within DIRECTOR IRVINE RANCH WATER 60 days of receiving the Auditor's report. I would like to call to your attention DISTRICT that a new law effective January 1, 1998 provides that if an agreement cannot be ALTERNATE reached within the 60-day period, Section 99(e) requires the City and County to TOM HARMAN enter into a mediation/arbitration process as follows. COUNCILMAN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 1. The City and County must mutually select and fund a third-party ALTERNATE consultant to prepare a comprehensive fiscal analysis of the transfer of RHONDA McCUNE revenues and costs for services. The analysis must be completed in 30 REPRESENTATIVE OF da GENERAL PUB s.LIC y ALTERNATE 2. If no agreement is reached within the 30-day period, the City and County ARLENESCHAFER DIRECTOR must mutually select and fund a mediator to perform mediation for a 30- COSTAMESA dayperiod. . SANITARY DISTRICT . ALTERNATE 3. If no agreement is reached within the 30-day period, the City and County JAMES W. SUP RVISORLVA mutually select and fund an arbitrator to conduct an advisory arbitration SECOND DISTRICT with the parties for a 30-day period. At the conclusion of the arbitration DANA M.SMITH period, the City and County would present their last and best offers for an EXECUTIVE OFFICER exchange to the arbitrator, who would then select and recommend the offer to the City and County. If either parry rejects the offer, it must do so at a public hearing and make written findings of fact as to why the offer was not accepted. 12 Civic Center Plaza,Room 235,Santa Ana,CA 92701 (714)834-2556 FAX(714)834-2643 http://oclafco.ca.gov September 20, 2000 PLC Annexation (CA 98-07) Page 2 If you have any questions or concerns, please contact either Ken Lee (kleegoclafco.ca.gov) or myself(dsmithgoclafco.ca.gov) at (714) 834-2556. Sincerely, Dana M. Smith Executive Officer ATTACHMENT ORANG LAFCO :'MON) i 0. 30' 00 2-1 .15,1ST, 21 1410. 4860219347 P 2 Q 111 Avm Z. 8 ►sa&% CPA _...� � AUDITOR -CONTROLLER 2�� xau Of Finance&Rewrds SEP 12 Civic Center Platt P.O. Box 367 Same Ana, Caliruc•esis D27p2_OSCs7 LOCAL AciEr�Y Ei')4ih1ATi0N( 158!ON (714) 834-2450 FAX! 1714►834-2369 AUDITOR-CCMROLLER September 21, 2000 TO* Distribution SUBJSCT; Revenue Exchanges Resulting from Proposed Jurisdictional Changes - PLC Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach (CA 90-D7) We have .been notified by the Ldcal Agency Formation Cortsmlaslon that your agency is Involved in a proposed jurisdictional change. Section 99(c) of the Revenue and Taxation Code provides that prior to the effective date of any jurisdltional change, the affected agencies of such change shall negotiate the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged. Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires our office to advise the governing body of each local agency involved In a Jurisdictional change of the amount of property tax revenue and the allocation factor for each affected agency subject to a negotiated exchange, To enable the annealing agencies to commence revenue negotiations with the affected agencies for judadictional changes, we are providing the data required by Sec Wm N on the enciosed "Financial Impact Analysis Report.' Negotiated revenue exchanges should be on an individual Jurisdictional change basis, with specific agreements for each tax rate area. The amount subject to negotiation may be any amount of revenue not to exceed the amount indicated on lire 6 of the enclosed form, any percentage up to the allocation factcr im1wed on line 8, or a combination of a revenue amount plus a percentage, For cities which Move adopted the 'Master Property Tax Transfer Agreement" with the County, annoxations of areas previously unincorporated will not regvirs negotiations. The property tax revenue exchange will be determined in conformance with the uniform method in the agreement. An_ l,g A"M'E Repoo ability For Jurtadiictional changes which will result in a special district providing one or more services to an area where such services have not been previously provided by any local agency, it Is the responsibility of the annexing agency to contact the affcted agencies to initiate property tax revenue negotiations. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) (4) requires this negotiating period to be concluded within 30 days from receipt of this notification from our office. The affected agencies which must be cantacted are listed under line 6 of the Financial Impact Analysis Report. The contact person for the County and Special Districts governed by the Soard of Supervisors Is Ron Tippets at 634-5394. ?0a T6a'3ry ObSTbLibTLTS F A�Jt1cW07 QtJC1 �1� 50:TT 00Z/TZ/0T I ORANGE LAFCO i1{M i 0. ?0' 00 21 : 15/ST. 21 ;?00, 48b0214347 P 3 law CiBtribution Subject: Revenue Exchanges Resulting from Proposed Jurisdictional Chen9e9(CA 9"7) Page Two Abecte Aeency's RResc4nmibik If your agency is liffited on line 6, then the proposed Jurisdictional change is within one of your tax rate areas. If the annexing agency wishes to negotiate a property tax revenue exchange, they must contact you. Afteted agencies do not need to do anything until they are contacted. Co QIetlodof foot_iMona Upon completion of these property tax revenue negotiations, esoh affected agency mast adopt a rasolution which specifies the following Information: A) Description of the Jurisdictional change g) Names of the affected agencies C) Amount andlor percentage of property tax revenue, by tax rate area, agreed to be exchanged For city annexations covered by the master property tax agreement, the County and city must adopt resolutions agreeing to accept the exchange of property taxes as provided in the agreement. Codified copies of these resolutions need to be sent to the Loral Agency Formation Commleslon and to our office, This will allow the County to process the Jurisdictional change and to adjust future property tax revenue dtsb*OJons, Should you have any questions or deslre additional information an these matters, please call me at 834-4431. Neal G. Gruber Supervisor, Tax Section AlGG:Ib Enclosure Distribution: Dana Smith, LAFCO Kamn Rodgers, Assessor's Office Mike Ruane,Assistant CEO Ron Tippets, PO$D City Manager, City of Huntington Beach F!Wdx UtilMovenuQ'rrWct Anal W-TLC Annexation to H8(CA 98-07),d" Loa T80'ON at9T17LZ17TLT6 F t;jUCMOO QNdl Old 90:TT 000z/T2i0T 7r 0 a ti r, REVENUE IMPACTANALYSIS R.T.99 and 99.01 -� For Agendes Affected Hy.huisdcfrmA Saundary Change o P mpose4 A wox**m-.PLC ANNOCATtON TO NtlNT.BEACH(CA9&07) Ft"dulan:LAFCO 3uocessorAmisdic6arr CITY OF HUNTNGTON BEACH 1) Tax Rate Area 64-[A08 2) Assessed Value atOiMIM00 493,078 3) Revenue AttrlWtat;le to Anrrexa+sun 4.630.78 (Una 2'0A1) 4) LESS:Schaal Share 5) Properly Tax Subject to Neoudation n � 6) Revenue 8 Factars Sebject to Negotlaltow Z o O.C.GEN am OMMS483226 291.07 ' 3 O.C.PtJPUC UaRARY 0.01699382583 78.89 O.C.FIRE AUTHORITY 0.114558M811 530.46 Total Revenue FadomSd4mctto Negottation 0.1943S93067A W022 N �� 's a: i F�iewaedell .� . w ConvkYUM Data z CIO -b 0 DATA t EXCEL 4 OTHER S REV-IMP-XIS Page 1 �' �� ,�l " ,� ,terry�v "�; : ' - '�� '� Char d � . ._ ,,.,'. a�.�, , +' '�z u '• Q t -upCouncil/Agency Meeting Held: art e>�t of — • �'y'�� Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Condi Tonally Ap roved ❑ Deni d - ity erk's Signature Council Meeting Date: July 5, 2000 � Department ID Number: PL00-38 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION o 2 C->_. SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator Ooy > C:� C7 j1 PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning r, D SUBJECT: APPROVE ANNEXATION OF 2.7 ACRES/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 (PLC Land Co. 10 unit'Subdivision) Statement ofissue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is a request by PLC Land Company to annex a vacant 2.7 acre site from the County of Orange to the City of Huntington Beach. This item was continued from the June 19' meeting. The City Council's recommendation on this item will be forwarded to the Local Agency Formation Commission for final action. Although initially supported by the Planning Commission, upon reconsideration the Planning :Commission voted to not support the request (Recommended Action - A) because of the adjacency of the site to future park area and the County of Orange's land use designations. Staff is recommending the City Council support the annexation (Recommended Action - B) because the City has pre-approved the site in its General Plan for residential development, a fiscal analysis demonstrates that development for the site will not be fiscally negative for the City, and there is adequate infrastructure and services to accommodate the property and its future development. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Recommend Denial of the Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO)." REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 Planning Commission Action on May 9, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY SHOMAKER, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO DENY NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18 WITH FINDINGS (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) AND NOT SUPPORT THE ANNEXATION REQUEST CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: KERINS, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SHOMAKER NOES: NONE ABSENT: CHAPMAN, BIDDLE, SPEAKER ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED 4el:ie 4@ i 3. u n Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): "Continue Negative Declaration No. 99-18 and Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the City of Huntington Beach and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: PLC Land Company, 23 Corporate Plaza, Ste. 250, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Location: West of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue (2.7 acres in the County of Orange) PL00-38 -2- 6121/00 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 PLC requests that a vacant 2.7 net acre site be annexed from the County of Orange to the City of Huntington Beach. The negative declaration analyzes potential impacts of the annexation. Concurrent with the annexation request are several other entitlements which are analyzed separately in companion reports and are also addressed in the negative declaration. These entitlements include a zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment and local coastal program amendment to pre-zone the site and a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow for the subdivision and construction of 10 single family homes. B. BACKGROUND In July 1998 PLC submitted a request for the annexation to the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), the approving body for any annexation. In February 1999, the. County of Orange Board of Supervisors adopted a Tax Sharing Agreement (TSA) regarding the redistribution of property taxes (Attachment No. 5). The County's TSA is consistent with that proposed for City Council adoption (Attachment No. 3). Annexation Process The following steps summarize the key milestones for an annexation in which the property owner (instead of the City) is the applicant to LAFCO if the City Council is in support of the request. ■ After the City Council takes action on the proposed project, PLC Land Company will forward the actions to LAFCO, including a copy of the City's resolution for the TSA. ■ LAFCO staff will schedule the item for Commission consideration (typically within 90- 120 days). When there is little or no controversy surrounding a proposal, and the property owner has consented to the annexation, the item may be docketed by LAFCO staff as a consent item on the LAFCO agenda. ■ LAFCO will consider the application at a public hearing. The Commission will take action on the propsal for annexation —to approve, modify or deny— and may also adopt terms and conditions. If the annexation is approved (or approved with conditions), the Commission will designate a conducting authority, usually the annexing City. ■ If appointed as the conducting authority, the City must schedule a hearing, no less than 15 nor more than 60 days after receipt of notice by LAFCO, to receive oral and/or written protests. At the hearing, the City must approve the annexation unless protest is received from at least 50 percent of the landowners owning at least 50% of the assessed value of the area to be annexed. PL00-38 -3- 6121100 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 ■ The conducting authority resolution is forwarded to LAFCO, and LAFCO forwards appropriate information to the State Board of Equalization and County of Orange Assessor's Office. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission initially considered the project on March 28, 2000 and voted to approve the Negative Declaration and support the Annexation. They also voted to recommend approval of the associated zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment and local coastal program amendment and denied Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14, consistent with staffs recommendation. The Planning Commission approved these actions on a 5-2 vote. The applicant was the only person to speak during the public hearing. On April 11, 2000, the Planning Commission voted to reconsider their prior action on the negative declaration, zoning map amendment, zoning text amendment, and local coastal program amendment. On May 9, 2000, the Planning Commission reconsidered the item. Six persons spoke during the public hearing: the applicant, a representative of Amigos de Bolsa Chica in opposition to the request, and four members of Friends and Neighbors of Seacliff in support of the request. A motion was made to uphold the Planning Commission's original action but did not pass with a 2-2 vote (3 Commissioners were absent). Because a majority vote of the Planning Commission is needed to move the item forward to City Council, the two Planning Commissioners in support of the project agreed to change their vote. Thus, the Planning Commission voted to reverse their original decision with a 4-0 vote. D. APPEAL: The applicant has appealed the Planning Commission's denial of the Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit. The annexation and legislative acts are not required to be appealed as they automatically require action by the City Council. PL00-38 -4- 6/21/00 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The City of Huntington Beach General Plan lists five issues that the City must consider upon receipt of a request for annexation. These are presented below with accompanying analysis. 1. Is the proposed annexation adjacent to corporate boundaries? Yes. The subject property is located adjacent to a north and west city boundary line. It is directly north of the fire station and reservoir under construction and due west of Edwards Street. 2. Does (or will) the annexation contain land uses that are compatible with City land uses? Yes. The area has been pre-general planned by the City of Huntington Beach. In January 1990, the City Council approved the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Environmental Impact Report (EIR) that included the designation of the subject property as Estate Residential (maximum 4 units per acre). It specifically depicted the subject property as part of a ten acre planning area with a maximum 25 units. The intent of this pre-general planning action was to inform the property owner and surrounding landowners that the City has reviewed and pre-approved the Estate Residential designation for the site should it ever be annexed by the City. At the reconsideration hearing before the Planning Commission, questions were raised about the compatibility of residential development on the site given that to the west and north lie areas designated for the future Harriett M. Wieder Regional Park. In evaluating this issue, there are two points to consider: ■ When the City Council approved the GPA and EIR in 1990, the Regional Park was already planned. Thus, this previous approval determined that residential and park uses were compatible. There has been no change in the land uses for the area or other environmental conditions that would nullify the City Council's previous conclusion. ■ The City Council has approved two residential developments since 1990 that are located directly adjacent to the Regional Park site: Ocean Colony, west of Seapoint and south of Palm, and The Bluffs, west of Edwards and north of Garfield. These projects were designed in a manner that was sensitive to the future Regional Park and in cooperation with the County of Orange, similar to the process followed for the proposed project. PL00-38 -5- 6/21/00 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 3. Does (or will) the annexation contain land uses that have the ability to provide economic benefit to the City? Yes. The fiscal analysis prepared for the project demonstrates that revenues associated with the project exceed expenditures for City services (Attachment No. 6). The analysis is conservative, i.e. potentially understates the economic benefit of the project, because it assumes a per unit sales price of only $578,000 which is significantly below prices for the nearby Bluffs Project and therefore may understate property tax revenue to the City, and it does not attribute any sales tax revenue to the project that might be realized from the project residents shopping in Huntington Beach. The fiscal analysis has been reviewed by the City's Director of Finance and the Director of Administrative Services who concur with the analysis. 4. Would the annexation place an undue or excessive burden on the City's or other service provider's ability to provide services? No. Development of the site was previously analyzed for residential development in the 1990 GPA for Holly Seacliff and it was determined that adequate services are available to serve the property. This property is covered by the Holly Seacliff Development Agreement and therefore the infrastructure and park improvements required by the Agreement serve this property as well as other areas of Holly Seacliff. Moreover, the GPA allows for 25 units in the immediate vicinity and only 10 units are proposed, which results in less demand for services. In addition, the project's street and landscaping along Edwards Street will be privately maintained by the homeowners' association and not require maintenance services from the City. The fiscal analysis also demonstrates that the City's expenditures for services will be less than anticipated revenues for the project. 5. Would the annexation place an undue burden on school and other public services? No. PLC Land Company has entered into a mitigation agreement with the affected school districts that provides the school districts with impact fees in excess of what they would be able to receive under current State law. The project is not expected to result in undue burdens on other public services. Property Tax Redistribution The Resolution agreeing to a redistribution of property taxes has been reviewed and approved by the Administration Department, Adminstrative Services Department and the City Attorney. Staff believes that the agreement equitably redistributes property taxes to the City. The County's current 6.4 percent share of the basic property tax levy will be split according to the Master Property Tax Agreement between the City and County dated October 28, 1980 (resulting in 2.8 percent of the levy to the County and 3.56 percent to the City); 100 percent of the Orange County Fire Authority share of the tax levy and 70.5 percent PL00-38 -6- 6121100 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 of the County Library District share of the tax levy will be provided to the City; and upon annexation, the owners of the property will be required to pay the City's annual property tax levy for retirement indebtedness. F. SUMMARY The above analysis demonstrates that annexation of the 2.7 acre site would not have a negative impact on the City of Huntington Beach. This property's location also makes it a logical extension of the City corporate boundary, no matter what use may be approved for the property via associated entitlements. Staff recommends that the City Council support the requested annexation and recommend approval of the request to LAFCO. In addition, the County of Orange has officially approved the tax sharing agreement for the annexation, and staff recommends the City Council adopt a similar resolution agreeing to the property tax split. Environmental Status: The 1990 EIR for the Holly Seacliff GPA analyzed potential impacts as a result of residential development on the subject site. It was determined that a Negative Declaration was the appropriate level of subsequent environmental review to analyze the annexation and associated entitlements in the context of the EIR. Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Attachment No. 7) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 99-18 for thirty (30) days commencing on April 22, 1999 and ending on May 21, 1999. Comments were received from Caltrans, County of Orange, and the Edison Company concerning the proposed development and a response has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Environmental Board Comments: • The Environmental Board was notified of the Negative Declaration. No response has been received. Prior to any action on the Annexation or the associated entitlements addressed in the companion reports, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 99-18. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. PL00-38 -7- 6/21/00 2:39 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: July 5, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL00-38 Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Denial of Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Planning Commission Recommendation) 2. Findings for Approval of Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Staff Recommendation) 3. Resolution No.2ocxi1greeing to a Redistribution of Property Taxes for Annexation No. -Holly Seacliff (Parcel 7A) Annexation to the City of Huntington Beach 4. Property Vicinity Map 5. County of Orange Tax Sharing Agreement Resolution, dated February 23, 1999 6. Fiscal Impact Analysis for subject property, dated November 1998 7. Negative Declaration No. 99-18 (Includes Environmental Checklist, Mitigation Measures and Comment Letters) MBB/HZ PL00-38 -8- 6/21/00 2:39 PM ATTACHMENT 7 nvv Wr eWOU 16 :09 FIR ALLEN MATKINS 949 553 8354 TO 9925870171437416 P.02 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP arrorneyJ at fago 1900 Main Street 5th Floor Irvine California 9291&7321 Allen Matkins telephone.949 5531.313 }aCSIRlile.949 553 8354 www.ailenrnatktns.com writer.R.Micheal Joyce t.9498519434 ale metm►et.C6897.003100857536.01 e.mloyceVeltertmeWlns.eom November 7,2000 City Attorney of the City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attn: Scott Field,Esq. City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Attn: Planning Director Re: 2.7 Acre Parcel located west of Edwards Street, approximately 150 feet south of Ellis Avenue Dear Madam/Sir: This firm represents PLC with respect to the above-referenced matter and that certain Development Agreement by and between the City of Huntington Beach("City")and Pacific Coast Homes and Garfield Partners(the"Development Agreement"). PLC is the successor-in- interest to Pacific Coast Homes. The Auditor-Controller of the County of Orange has forwarded to you a Notice for Negotiation of Revenue Exchange pursuant to the LAFCO proceedings initiated by PLC with respect to the above-referenced property. I have attached a copy of this Notice. Our prior correspondence to you dated September 11,2000,outlines the reasons for which we believe the City is obligated under the Development Agreement to act in good faith with respect to the proposed annexation of the above-referenced property to the jurisdiction of the City. This letter is intended to restate the demand of PLC that,pursuant to Section 4.9 of the Development Agreement,the City comply with the request of the Auditor-Controller. My client has agreed,and this letter confums,that the Cityrs compliance with the request of the Auditor-Controller shall not be used or attempted to be used by PLC as an admission of any kind on the part of the City with respect to the claims asserted by PLC in the September 11 Orange County Los Angeles San Diego Sin Francisco West Los Angeles ,.vv nr cnee lb:E79 FR ALLEN MATKIN$ 949 553 8354 TO 4925870171437416 P.03 Allen Matkins Leck Gamble & Mallory LLP allonlep of laiv City Attorney of the City of Huntington Beach Planning Director-City of Huntington Beach November 7,2000 Page 2 correspondence. It is hoped that the City's acting on the request of the Auditor-Controller will not delay the LAFCO proceedings while PLC and the City attempt to resolve the matters set forth in PLC's September I 1 correspondence. We are advised that in order not to cause a delay, City Council action is required prior to November 22nd Please give me a call should you have any questions concerning the foregoing. Very truly yours, R. Michael Joyc RMJ:cjh cc: Mr. William D.Holman NUV 07 E000 16:09 FR ALLEN MATKINS 949 553 8354 TO UU2587017143741610/31i2020 17:03 PLC- LrtD P,04 FROM ORANGE LkFCO NON) 10. 30' 00 211 :15- _,. 21:14/NO. 4860219347 P 2 MVM E.SONDSTR0F. CPA AUDITOR-CON'TROLti~R ZaQ� u Kali Of Finance&Record* SEP 2 2 12 Civic Center Fla= P.O.Sox 567 SAnra Ama, Cslirurnia 92702-0307 LOCAL AGENCY F0901109 CMiSON (714)834-2450 PAX: (714)834-2569 AUDITOR-CONTROLLER September 21.2000 1 TO: Distribution SUBJECT: Revenue Exchanges Resulting from Proposed Jurisdictional Changes- PLC Annexation to the Ciry of Huntington Beach(CA 98.07) We have been notified by the Local Agency Formation Commission that your agency is involved in a proposed jurisdictional change. Section 99(c) of the Revenue and Taxation Code provide9 that prior to the effective date of any jurisdictional change, the affected agencies of such change shall negotiate the amount of property tax revenues to be exchanged. Section 99 of the Revenue and Taxation Code requires our office to advise the governing body of each local agency involved in a Jutisdictional change of the amount of property talc revenue and the ' allocation factor for each affected agency subject to a negotiated exchange. To enable the annexing agencies to commence revenue negotiations with the affected agencies for jurisdictional changes, we are providing the data required by Section 99 on the enclosed 'Financial Impact Analysis Report." Negotiated revenue exchanges should be on an ind►vidual jurisdictional change basis, with specific agreements for each tax rate erect. The amount subject to negotiation may be any amount of revenue not to exceed the amount ` indicated on line 6 of the enclosed form, any percentage up to the allocation fador indicated on II line 6. or a Combination of a revenue amount plus a percentage. For cities which have adopted the 'Master Property Tax Transfer Agreemenr with the County, annexations of areas previously unincorporated will not require negotiations. The property tax revenue exchange will be determined in conformance with the uniform method in the agreement. ' Annexlnc Agen�cy!s_Ftesportsibility (, i For jurisdictional changes which wit(result in a special district providing one or more services to i an area where such services have not been previously provided by any local agency, it is the responsibility of the annexing agency to contact the affected agencies to iniitiate property tax j revenue negotiations. Revenue and Taxation Code Section 99(b) (4) requires this negotiating period to be concluded within 30 days from receipt of this notification from our office. The affected agencies which must be contacted are listed under line 6 of the Financial Impact I Analysis Report. The contact person for the County and Special Diatriets governed by the Hoard of Supervisors is Ron Tippets at 834-5394. _ .. PAGE.22 I.vv U r cuwu 1b :09 FIR ALLEN MATK I NS 949 553 8354 TO 4425870 1 7 1 4374 1 6 P,05 I0,,31 20Z0 i?:e3 PLC LArID �:Gf�F'�rrr a�.�.M�,� tROY ORANGE LAFCO (VON) 10 30' 00 21 :i5, 21 :1e/1;0. 4860219347 ? 3 ,r ..r Distribution Subject Revenue Exchanges Resulting from Proposed Jurisdictional Changes(CA 98-07) Page Two Affected Aaancv's ResP,onsihi'liiy . If your agency is listed on One 6, then the proposed jurisdictlonal change is within one of your tax rate areas. It the annexing agency wishes to negotiate a property tax revenue exchange, they must contact you. Affected agencies do not need to do anything until they are contacted_ Completion ofhggotiat_ i_'cns Upon completion of these property tax revenue negotiations, each affected agency must adopt a resolution which specifies the following information: A) Description of the jurisdictional change 8) Names of the affected agencies C) Amount and/or percentage of property tax revenue, by tax rate area, agreed to be exchanged For city annexations covered by the master property tax agreement, the County and city must adopt resolutions agreeing to accept the exchange of property taxes as provided in the agreement, Certified copies of these resolutions need to be sent to the Local Agency Formation Commission and to our oNce. This will allow the County to process the jurisdictional change and to adjust future property tax revenue distributions, Should you have any questions or desire additional information on these matters, please call me at 534.4437. I Neal G. Gruber Supervisor,Tax Section NGG'Ib } Enclosure Distribution: Dana Smith,IAFCO Karen Rodgers,Assessor$Of m Mint Ruame,Assistant CEO Ron Tippets, PCSD City Manager, City of Huntington Beach P:tTax Unitl avenue 1"ect AntlysislPLC AnnexaUop to 413(CJk t&01).doc -sob iota Pn6E.03 Yl O Cv C B �J REVeNUE IMPACTANALYSIS R.T.99 and 99.01 m For Agencies Aft etad By JuritdlWanal Boundary Change o Proposed Annexation:PLC ANNEXATION TO HUNT.BEACH(CA98-U7) w � ResoNlion:LAFCO . Suocassor Judsdiction:CfTY OF HUNTINGTON BEAD (D m r D D 1) Tax Ra(e Area 64.DOO r d r- m 2) Assused Value \ a10110112000 463.078 R 3 D 3) Revenue Attributable to Annexation 4,630.78 (Etna 2'0.01) z wN 4) LESS:SOW Share .e ,a', C7 n 5) Pmpedy Tax Sub(ect to Negollafiaa LD 6) Revenue&Faclem Subject to Negatlaffan: o ED O.C.GEN FUND 0.062MA83226 291.07 " N O.C.PUBLIC LIBRARY 0.01690362563 78.69 w O.C.FIRE AUTHORITY 0.11455084WI 530.45 CD Ln i Z, ' Total Revenue Factors Subject to NeQotlalion O.J943S9305701 90022 � 0 N Prepared By A u, * - m m cr * Comptetlen Date o i� YJ D r' w �J v ID .� a �G1 Ql mm m o CA DATA 1 EXCEL 1 OTt•IER 1 REV-IMP.XIS Page 1 m m * -- - — . --- _. CIS"V' OF HUNTING TON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH Connie Brockway, City Clerk Office of the City Clerk Liz Ehring, Deputy City Clerk II To: A �� Date: Meeting Date: // Z/o a Agenda Item:_ 71 Proposed Qjy Council Agenda Items: The City Clerk's Office/City Administrator's Office must return your agenda item due to the following requirements that have not been met. When your Agenda Item is ready to resubmit, please return to: Elaine Kuhnke, Management Assistant, Administration 1. Signature(s)Needed A On RCA B On Agreement C Other 2. Attachments A Missing _ B Not identified XZ C Other ) "/ 3. Exhibits A Missing B Not identified C Other 4. Insurance Certificate(Proof Of Insurance) A Not attached B Not approved by City Attorney's Office C Signed form notifying City Clerk that departmentAvill be responsible for obtaining insurance certificate on this Rem.(See form attached) 5. Wording On Request For Council Action (RCA)Unclear A Recommended Action on RCA not complete B Clarification needed on RCA C Other C. City Attorney Approval Required 7. Agreement Needs To Be Changed A Page No. 8. Other G:agenda/m isdreaform RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Agreement for Redistribution of Property Taxes with the County of Orange for Parcel 7A COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 20, 2000 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff II ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ten ) City Clerk ( ) 'EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk-s Use i i I RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:kjl CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK July 20, 2000 PLC Land Company C/o Bill Holman 23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250 Newport Beach CA 92660 Dear Mr. Holman: The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at its adjourned regular meeting held Monday, July 5, 2000 took action on the following Public Hearing Appeal: Annexation of 2.7 Acres w/o Edwards Street, s/o Ellis.Avenue, n/o Fire Station 6 and Negative Declaration (Environmental Status) No. 99-18—Resolution No. 2000-60, Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, (PLC Land Co. Zoning Designation) — Introductions of Ordinance No. 3472 and Ordinance No. 3473, Planning Commission's Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Denial of Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 (PLC Land Co. 10 Unit Single Family Residential Subdivision). The City Council upheld the Planning Commission decision of denial. The Action Agenda and Findings for Denial are enclosed. The July 5, 2000 minutes of the denial of the appeal will be mailed to you following Council approval of the minutes. This is a final decision. You are hereby notified that pursuant to provisions of Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the State of California you have ninety days from July 20, 2000 to apply to the court for judicial review. (Telephone:714-536-5227) If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact our office at 714/536-5227. Sincerely, detv�-Connie Brockway, CIVIC City Clerk Enclosure: Findings for Denial Government Code 1094.6 Action Agenda Pages 6 &7 Cc: City Administrator City Attorney Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Herb Fauland, Senior Planner Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner G lollowup/appeal/90dayltr w FINDINGS FOR DENIAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18/ LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1/ ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 004 FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-18/LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed residential use will impact views to and from Weider Regional Park. In addition,the proposed project may result in drainage impacts to surrounding properties. 2. The Local Coastal Program amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program to modify the boundary of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan to incorporate the subject property and to establish the RL-1 zoning designation is not consistent with the existing Open Space designation in the County of Orange. FINDINGS FOR DENIAL-ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 99-2/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 00-1: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2 and Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1 to establish a zoning designation of Holly Seacliff Specific Plan(RL-1) on a 2.7 acre parcel, and to incorporate the subject property into the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan is not compatible with the County of Orange General Agriculture zoning designation and the adjacent Weider Regional Park land use. 2. In the case of a general land use provision,the zoning map and text amendment are not compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for,the zoning district for which it is proposed. The proposed zoning would allow estate residential uses inconsistent with the adjacent open space and public facility land uses. (006509-3) CODE OF:CIVIL PROCEDURE § 1094.6 1094.6. Judicial review; decisions of local agencies; petition; filing; time; record; decision and party defined; ordinance or resolution (a) Judicial review of any decision of a local agency,other than school district,as the term Iocal.agency is defined in Section 54951 of the Government:Code,or of any commission,board,officer or agent thereof, may be had pursuant to Section 1094.5 of this code only if the petition for writ of mandate pursuant to such section is filed within the time limits specified in this section, (b) Any such petition shall be filed not later than the 90th day following the date onwhich the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration of the decision, or for a written decision or written findings supporting the decision,in any applicable provision of any statute,charter,'or rule, for the purposes of this section, the decision is final on the date it is announced. If the decision is not announced at the close of the hearing,the date,time,and place of the announcement of the decision shall be announced at the hearing. If there is a provision for reconsideration,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the expiration of the period during which-such reconsideration can be sought; provided, that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to any such provision the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. If there is a provision for a written decision or written findings,the decision is final for purposes of this section upon the date it is matted by first-class mail, postage prepaid, including a copy of the affidavit or'certificate of mailing,to the party seeking the writ. Subdivision(a) of Section 1013 does not apply to extend the time,following deposit in.- the mail of the decision or findings,within which a petition shall be filed (c) The complete record of the proceedings"shall be prepared by'the local agency'or' its commission,. board,officer, or agent which made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within 190 days after he has filed a written request therefor. The local agency may recover from the petitioner its'actual costs for transcribing or otherwise preparing'the record Such record shall include the transcript.of the. proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by a hearing officer, the final decision,all admitted exhibits,0 rejected exhibits in the possession of the local agency or its commission,= board,officer,or agent,all written evidence,and any other papers in the case. (d) If the petitioner files a request for the record as specified in subdivision(c)within 10 days after the date the decision becomes final as provided in subdivision(b),the time within which a petition pursuant to Section 1094.5 may be filed shall be extended to not later than the 30th day following the date on which the recordis either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or his attorney of record, if he has one: (e) As used in this section, decision means a decision subject to review pursuant to Section 1094.5, suspending,demoting,or dismissing an officer or employee,revoking, denying an application for a permit,license,or other entitlement,imposing a civil or administrative penalty, fine,.charRe, or cost, or denying an application for any retirement benefit or allowance. (f) In making a final decision as defined in subdivision(e), the local agency shall provide notice to the party that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by this section. As used in this subdivision,"party"means-an officer or employee who has been suspended,demoted or dismissed; a person whose permit,license,or other entitlement has been revoked or suspended,or whose application for a permit,license,or other entitlement has been denied; or a person whose application for a retirement benefit or allowance has been denied (g) This section shall prevail over any conflicting provision in any otherwise applicable law relating to the subject matter, unless the conflicting provision is a state or federal law which provides a.shorter statute of limitations,in which case the shorter statute of limitations shall apply. (Amended by Stets. 1983,e.818, § 3; Stats.1991, c.1090 (A.B.1484), § 6; Stats.1993, c.926(A.B2205); § 5; Stats.1995,c.898(S.B.814),§ 1.) (6) July 5, 2000 - Council/ ncy Agenda - Page 6 *** Communication dated June 3, 2000, from F (Friends &Neighbors of Seacliff) received in support of appeal (D-3c) (^ *** Communication dated June 6 0, from Heffernan & Boo orneys at Law, written to PLC Land Company r ublic Hearing. All interested person a invited to attend said hearing a ress opinions or submit e ' ce for or against the ap ' ion as outlined above. If you ch ge the City Council's action i urt,you may be limited to ' ing only those issues you or so a else raised at the public hea ' described in this notice or i en correspondence delivered t e city at or prior to the public h g. If there are any further estions please call the Plannin partment at 714/536-5271 and r to the above item. Direct your written communications to t tty Clerk 1, Staff report 2. City cil discussion 3. en public hearing Following public input,close publ' , earing The following are the Recommended Actions on Public Hearing D-3a through D-3c D-3a. (City Council) Part 1 of 3 of Public Hearing —PLC Land Company Annexation of 2.7 Acri (w/o Edwards Street, s/o Ellis Avenue, n/o Fire Station 6) and Negative Declaration (Environmental Status) No. 99-18—Adoption of Resolution No. 2000-60 (610.30) (A) Planning Commission Recommendation: Motion to: 1. Deny Negative Declaration No. 99-18 with findings as set forth in (ATTACHMENT NO. 1); and 2. Recommend Denial of the Annexation of 2.7 Acres to the Local Agency Formation Commission_(LAFCO) [Approved 4-2-1 (Julien, Dettloff NO, Garofalo abstain)] (131 Staff ReGommendation; Motion to.-- • Approve Negative Dera-larptinn hir, set Wth in (ATTA(`t-MEN T N 0 7)• arld 2. ReGOFAFnend Approval of the Annexation of 2.7 AGFe-'; We the LoGal Agenray FoFmation Commission (LAFGO) a 3. Adopt Resolution No. 2000 60 !A Reseiufien Gf the City GeunG#of the Gky-a _ u (7) July 5, 2000 - Council/Agency Agenda - Page 7 D-3b. (City Council) Part 2 of 3 of Public Hearing —Zoning Map Amendment No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1, (PLC Land Co. Zoning Designation) - Introductions of Ordinance No. 3472 and Ordinance No. 3473 (610.30) ** Following the June 19, 2000 Council Meeting staff has prepared a corrected Attachment No. 7 (Findings for Denial) (A) Planning Commission Recommendation: Motion to: Deny Zoning Map No. 99-2, Zoning Text Amendment No. 00-1, and Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 00-1 with findings for denial as set forth in ATTACHMENT NO. 7. [Approved 6-0-1 (Garofalo abstain)] (B) Staff Rec;om mend ation: Motion to: Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 99 2, Zoning Te)d An iendment !ja. 00 1, and LeGal Coastal Prc)grarn Amendment No. 00 1 with findings fGF appmval as set forth in (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and approve intFodUGtiGFI, afteF City G!eFk Feads by title 0 Ordi anc;e N. 347 _ %4n Ord nanGe of the Giy of Huntington Beach Al mend-/ing the Huntington BeaGh Zoning and Subdivision OrdinanGe by Establishing a Holly SeaGW SpeGXG Plan (SP 9) Zoning Designation on Real Propeity LeGated on the West Side oF Edwards Street, South of EXs Avenue (Zoning Map !r as set forth i ATTACHMENT NQ and Approve intmduGtion afteF City Clerk reads by title, Or-dinarlc;e No. 347-3 �4 150 Feet South of 1is-Avenue (Zoning Text Amendment o 00 4 "as set forth in ro-T-i Avenue (Zoning rnv,rurrrv.ra rrv�-vv--rj--ui-�i -rvf'QT'�T7 ATTACHMENT NO. 3, D-3c. (City Council) Part 3 of 3 of Public Hearing—Appeal Filed by PLC Land Company of Planning Commission's Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Denial of Use Permit No.99-14 (PLC Land Co. 10 Unit Single Family Residential Subdivision) (610.30) ** Following the June 19, 2000 Council Meeting Staff prepared a corrected Attachment - No. 7—Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval; and added Attachment No. 10 Alternative Findings and Conditions of Approval (8 lots). Planninq Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: Deny Tentative Tract Map No. 15690 and Conditional Use Permit No. 99-14 with Findings for Denial as set forth in ATTACHMENT NO. 1. [Approved 6-0-1 (Garofalo abstain)]