HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Holly Seacliff Specific Plan - Final Environme J
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
December 2, 1991
Date
Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato��.
Prepared by: Michael Adams , Director of Community DevelOpm
Subject: ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1;
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2; ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-10 AND
CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-10: HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN
Consistent with Council Policy? Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception �� At G5
.3,:r
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE•
Transmitted for City Council consideration is the proposed
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan which will establish general provisions
and development standards for the Holly-Seacliff area . A minor
general plan amendment and an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No . 89-1 is being processed concurrently.
In addition to an analysis of the comprehensive Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan, Community Systems Associates, on behalf of the
Huntington Beach City School District, has filed an appeal to the
Planning Commission' s approval on October 29 , 1991 of the proposed
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan, General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 and an
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 .
RECOMMENDATION•
Motion to :
1 . "Deny the appeal and sustain the Planning Commission' s
action. "
2 . "Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-1 by adopting Resolution No. (, 3 3tf-
and"
3 . "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adopting
Resolution No. 1, 3-:�_11; and"
4 . "Approve Zone Change No . 91-10 and Code Amendment No . 91-10
with modifications proposed by staff based on findings by
adopting Ordinance No . 3 /.zg . "
P10 5/85
Planning Commission action on October 29 , 1991:
ON MOTION BY NEWMAN AND SECOND BY RICHARDSON, THE COMMISSION
ACCEPTED AS ADEQUATE THE ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 89-1 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, SHOMAKER, KIRKLAND, DETTLOFF,
BOURGUIGNON, LEIPZIG
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
ON MOTION BY BOURGUIGNON AND SECOND BY RICHARDSON, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2 BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE:
AYES: RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, SHOMAKER, KIRKLAND, DETTLOFF,
BOURGUIGNON, LEIPZIG
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
ON MOTION BY BOURGUIGNON AND SECOND BY NEWMAN, THE PLANNING
COMMISSION APPROVED ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-10 AND CODE AMENDMENT NO.
90-10 BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: RICHARDSON, NEWMAN, SHOMAKER, KIRKLAND, DETTLOFF,
BOURGUIGNON, LEIPZIG
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
MOTION PASSED
GENERAL INFORMATION:
On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1
for the Holly-Seacliff area. The Master Plan designates types of
land uses and densities while Final Environmental Impact Report No.
89-1 addresses environmental impacts resulting from future
development in the area. In order for development to occur, staff
is recommending that a Specific Plan be adopted for a portion of the
Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area in order to fully address the goals
and policies in the Master Plan and to implement the mitigation
measures in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. The City of
Huntington Beach has initiated Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code
Amendment No. 90-10 in order to establish the Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan for 569 acres in the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area .
RCA 12/2/91 -2- (1497d)
Pacific Coast Homes has submitted General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 in
order to shift seven (7) acres of commercial from the southeast
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to the southwest
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street. Also, the
applicant is requesting to shift residential densities near the
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Main Street which will result in
no additional units . The third request is to permit oil
production/oil consolidation in the two (2) industrial land use
areas .
The requested amendments to the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan require
the processing of a general plan amendment to the City' s Land Use
Element. In order to process the amendment, staff has prepared an
addendum to the original environmental impact report. Section 15164
of the California Environmental Quality Act states "The lead agency
shall prepare an addendum to an environmental impact report if only
minor technical changes or alterations are necessary to make the
environmental impact report under consideration adequate under the
California Environmental Quality Act and no new significant effects
on the environment are raised. "
ANALYSIS:
The proposed Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan was thoroughly reviewed by
the general public, City consultants, staff and the Planning
Commission. The following is a schedule of workshops, study
sessions and public hearings which were conducted in order to
encourage public participation and input:
March 11, 1991 - Community Workshop
May 14, 1991 - Community Workshop
July 2, 1991 - Planning Commission Study Session
September 4, 1991 - Planning Commission Study Session/
Public Hearing
September 17, 1991 - Planning commission Study Session/
Public Hearing
October 29, 1991 - Planning Commission Study Session/
Public Hearing
As a result of the numerous meetings with the general public,
individuals and the Planning Commission, staff recommends that the
City Council adopt the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan with
modifications .
RCA 12/2/91 -3- (1497d)
Issues :
The following is a discussion of major topics of concern relating to
the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan:
School District Concerns :
In reaction to the Planning Commission' s approval of the proposed
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan, the consultant to the Huntington Beach
City School District has filed an appeal . The reasons for the
appeal and staff ' s response are addressed in a separate section on
page 6 in this report. The Planning Commission, staff, the major
landowner and the District contributed to the suggested language
contained in the draft Specific Plan regarding future school sites .
The Specific Plan contains language which permits future school
sites and identifies the process to designate a school site. In
addition, the language requires that the school site issue be
resolved prior to the approval of any tentative tracts in the
Specific Plan area.
Gothard Street Deletion:
The Planning Commission deleted the raised medians in Gothard Street
between Ernest Street and Main Street. The medians were deleted in
response to existing industrial business owners expressing major
problems with the raised medians. Staff recommends that Gothard
Street plans depict raised medians and postpone the construction of
the medians until the industrial properties recycle into lighter
industrial uses which would not be constrained by raised medians and
restricted left-turns.
Building Height Definition:
The Planning Commission approved a new definition of building height
which is outlined in the plan.
Staff recommends the following language for a building height
definition for the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan:
Height._ A vertical dimension measured from a datum established at
top of curb or centerline of street (adjacent to the front
property line at the mid-point of the lot) to the highest
point of any roof feature, including mechancial equipment
screening.
RCA 12/2/91 -4- (1497d)
Affordable Housing:
The Planning Commission' s recommended affordable housing provisions
are contained in the proposed Specific Plan. The Planning
Commission expanded the affordable housing provisions to include the
requirement of an Affordable Housing Program for each residential
project located within the Specific Plan area. The Affordable
Housing Program will address housing for households of low to
moderate income levels and can be provided both on-site or off-site.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider amending the
language in several ways :
a. Percentage of Affordable Housing 20% or 15%: Staff believes
that it is appropriate to provide 20% of the units ultimately
constructed in Holly-Seacliff for low and moderate income
households . The City' s long term economic future is
interdependent on creating a diversity of housing stock in the
community affordable to families earning $50,000 - $65,000 a
year. Further, the rules of the specific plan have been drafted
to allow about 25%-30% more units than would be permitted under
the City' s existing zoning regulations . These units should be
used to balance the housing stock. Staff has consistently
recommended 20% affordable housing within Holly-Seacliff in
order to work toward meeting its long range housing goals .
b. On-site or Off-site Construction: Staff believes that the
opportunity exists to master plan the affordable housing
units so they can co-exist within the Holly-Seacliff area.
If the affordable housing to be constructed outside the
Holly-Seacliff area, it will raise concerns within existing
neighborhoods because of compatibility, density, and
appropriateness . The City has a unique opportunity to plan a
large vacant area as opposed to using high density infill
projects to meet its affordable housing goals.
c. In Lieu Fees : Staff believes that residential parcels of
less than one (1) acre in size should have the ability to pay
an in lieu fee into an affordable housing trust fund instead
of providing on-site units. However, this would be
contingent upon the staff developing a fee structure which is
approved by the City Council .
Development Standards:
The Planning Commission increased lot sizes in Planning Area I to a
minimum 7, 000 square feet in size; a minimum of 50% of the lots in
Planning Area II to 6,000 square feet; and added to Planning Area
II-1 a provision which requires future projects be designed as an
inward oriented planned community (similar to the Beachwalk
Community) .
RCA 12/2/41 -5- (1497d)
i
The classifications for the low density residential areas were
revised to identify Low Density Residential 1 (7,000 minimum square
foot lots) , Low Density Residential 2 (minimum 5,000 square foot
lots) ; and Low Density Residential 3 (minimum 3,300 square foot
lots) . Staff recommends that the Low Density Residential 3 contain
language which permits both attached and detached products.
Transportation Corridor Setback:
The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the proposed
Specific Plan contain language which requires a ten (10) foot
setback to habitable floor area adjacent to the five hundred (500)
foot southerly portion of the corridor area where a mass transit
station may be developed. Non-habitable floor area would be
permitted to build to a zero (0) setback to the transportation
corridor.
Summary of Planning Issues :
The Planning Commission addressed the above major topics during the
October 29, 1991 Planning Commission meeting. The proposed Specific
Plan implements the goals and policies of the Holly-Seacliff
Masterplan and the mitigation measures contained in Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. Staff and the Planning
Commission both recommend approval of the proposed Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan with minor modifications as discussed.
The Appeal :
The following is a discussion of the appeal letter dated November 6,
1991 which was submitted by Community Systems Associates (CSA) . CSA
has submitted the 78 page appeal letter on behalf of the Huntington
Beach City School District. The appeal is based on the following
assertions :
1. The City has failed to comply with the administrative
procedures an requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the CEOA Guidelines .
Staff has complied with the administrative procedures and
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act
and the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed Specific Plan and
associated general plan amendment are covered by an
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1.
The initial study, checklist and determinations have been
included in the addendum which is included in this report .
The addendum was prepared for the City of Huntington Beach
by FORMA in order to fully address any potential impacts
and to expedite the preparation of the document. The
addendum was prepared and circulated for a 21 day comment
period. Staff notified each agency who commented on Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 in addition to
interested parties .
RCA 12/2/91 -6- (1497d)
Staff received comments to the Addendum and a response was
prepared for each comment. One comment from one adjacent
city agreed with the processing of an Addendum in the
context of the project. The Addendum and proposed
Specific Plan were advertised properly and were approved
by the Planning Commission on October 29, 1991.
2 . The applications are not in compliance with the Huntington
Beach General Plan adopted December. 1976 and amended
through July. 1990.
All applications are in compliance with the General Plan
as amended through July 1990. Staff hired a planning
consultant (STA) to review and advise staff on the
preparation of the environmental documents and the
proposed Specific Plan. It was noted that three (3) minor
land use revisions in the proposed Specific Plan required
a general plan amendment. Pacific Coast Homes submitted a
general plan amendment to:
• Shift seven (7) acres of commercial from the southeast
corner of Edwards Street/Garfield Avenue to the
southwest corner of Goldenwest Street and Garfield
Avenue;
• relocate residential densities near Main Street and
Garfield Avenue with no increase in units and
• to permit all consolidation projects in the two
industrial land use areas .
The Planning Commission approved General Plan Amendment
No. 91-2 and the Addendum prior to approving the proposed
Specific Plan. Staff maintains that the proposed
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with the City' s
General Plan.
3 . The applications are not in compliance with the
Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement by and between the
City of Huntington Beach and Pacific Coast Homes
("Developer" or "Applicant") and Garfield Partners
The applications are in compliance with Development
Agreement No. 90-1 based on the following discussion.
Development Agreement No. 90-1 requires Pacific Coast
Homes/Garfield Partners to perform the following:
Section 2 .2 .8 of Development Agreement No. 90-1,
approved by the City Council on November 5, 1990,
reads as follows:
i
RCA 12/2/91 -7- (1497d)
(a) Developer agrees to designate an area for a public
school site as provided in the California
Government Code, City Ordinances and other
applicable laws . The City incourages the
Developer and the school district to negotiate in
good faith to reach a mutual agreement.
Each required item in Development Agreement 90-1 has or
will be implemented in the following manner:
1. The school site has been designated north of Garfield
Avenue between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street.
The proposed Specific Plan contains language which
permits a school site anywhere in the Specific Plan
area. If the designated school site is deemed
unacceptable, then the City will initiate a general
plan amendment to designate a new school site.
2 . The District and major land owner in the Specific Plan
area have been negotiating for the past six (6) months
in order to finalize the discussion regarding the
school site at the October 29, 1991 Planning
Commission meeting. Language was drafted which seemed
acceptable to both parties . Staff recommended that
the revised language be incorporated into the Specific
Plan.
4 . The applications are not in compliance with General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report No.
89-1; and the applications are in compliance with General
Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1.
See discussion under item 2 .
5 . The Specific Plan does not comply with Section 65451 of
the Government Code.
The proposed Specific Plan is in compliance with Section
65451 of the Government Code. Section 65451 reads as
follows :
Content of Specific Plans :
(a) A specific plan shall include a text an diagram or
diagrams which specify all of the following in detail :
(1) The distribution, location, and extent
of the uses of land, including open space, within
the area covered by the plan.
RCA 12/2/91 -8- (1497d)
(2) The proposed distribution, location,
an extent and intensity of major components of
public and private transportation, sewage, water,
drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other
essential facilities proposed to be located within
the area covered by the plan and needed to support
the land uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which
development will proceed, and standards for the
conservation, development, an utilization of
natural resources, where applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures
including regulations, programs, public works
projects, and financing measures necessary to
carry out paragraphs (1) , (2) and (3) .
(b) The specific plan shall include a
statement of the relationship of the specific plan to
the general plan.
The proposed Specific Plan contains all the required text and
diagrams which illustrates the distribution, location and extent of
land uses within the Specific Plan area. The Technical Appendix
provides a thorough analysis and distribution of proposed
infrastructure improvements . The Specific Plan provides mitigation
monitoring and addresses the financing of public facility projects .
The proposed Specific Plan describes the relationship of the
Specific Plan to the General Plan and to the format and text and
diagrams required by the Government Code. Staff, consultants to
staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed Specific Plan.
Environmental Status :
General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, Cade Amendment No. 90-10 and Zone
Change No. 90-10 are covered by an Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-1. Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1
was certified by the City Council on January 8, 1990.
FUNDING SOURCE•
Not applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION•
1. The City Council may modify General Plan Amendment No. 91-2,
Code Amendment No. 90-18 and Zone Change No. 90-10 as desired.
2 . Continue the applications to a special meeting or to the
January 6, 1992 City Council meeting.
i
RCA 12/2/91 -9- (1497d)
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. C �3-!) (GPA 91-2)
2 . Resolution No. -S 41 (EIR 89-1 Addendum)
3 . Ordinance No. 3ia 6
4 . Appeal letter dated November 8, 1991
5 . Letter from Cox, Castle & Nicholson dated November 20, 1991
6 . Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 29, 1991
7. Draft Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report 89-1
B . Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan
MTU:MA:RF: lp
I
RCA 12/2/91 -10- (1497d)
r
f
COM-WUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. November 8, 1991
Ms. Connie Brockway
City Clerk CLR=TIDIED
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Post Office Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648 - �n
SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decisions: ="
a) Acceptance as Adequate the Addendum to Final En-
vironmental Impact Report No. 89-1 by adoption of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450;
b) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by
adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No.
1451; and
c) Approval of Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amend-
ment No. 90-10
Dear Ms. Brockway:
On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District
("District") , our firm has been authorized to file an appeal to
the October 29, 1991 decisions of the Planning Commission relat-
ing to the following applications ("Applications") and actions:
a) Acceptance as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-1 by adoption of Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1450;
b) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adoption of
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1451; and
c) Approval of Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-
10.
The District is in receipt of the Notice of Action dated November
1, 1991 on each of these actions. We note that the Planning
Commission's actions were "approval, " and that the notices state:
"In your case, the last day f�r filing an appeal and paying
the filing fee is not applicable. " (emphasis added)
ATTACHMENT NU. A
"public/private project management, feasibility, and implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD •SUITE 100 9 ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92806 •TELEPHONE(714)978.8887
t
COYMYMTY SMEYS ASSMU Ei INC -�
Ms. Connie Brockway
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
November 8, 1991
Page 2
We note also that Section 9880 of the Municipal Code of the City
of Huntington Beach provides an appeal procedure on "any deci-
sion, determination or requirement of the Planning Commission. "
Section 9880 states:
"9880 Appeal by A�licant or Interested Parties.Interested Parties. Appeal may
be made to the City Council from any decision, determination
or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice
thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days
after such decision or determination or requirement is made.
Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and grounds
by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem
himself aggrieved. "
There appears to be a contradiction between the date of appeal as
set forth in the Notice of Action, and the provisions of Section
9880.
In order to preserve any and all of the District`, s remedies, and
so as to ensure that the District has taken all administrative
steps to protect its interests, the appeal to the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach is hereby filed in accordance with
Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code.
The District takes notice of Attachment "A, " which was approved
as an amendment to the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan in an attempt
to address the issues raised in the oral and written testimony of
the District and others, at the Planning Commission meeting of
October 29, 1991.
The District, however, maintains that the Planning Commission ac-
tions and the Applications failed to address the issues raised by
the District, as follows:
1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative proce-
dures and requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines;
2) The applications are not in compliance with the Huntington
Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended
through July, 1990;
COrYu 22VTTEMS2AS50"TESMINC "
war
Ms. Connie Brockway
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
November 8, 1991
Page 3
3) The applications are not in compliance with the Holly-
Seacliff Development Agreement by and between the City of
Huntington Beach and Pacific Coast Homes ("Developer" or
"Applicant") and Garfield Partners;
4) The applications are not in compliance with General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1;
and
5) The Specific Plan does not comply with Section 65451 of the
Government Code.
The detailed discussion to support the District's contentions are
set forth in the written testimony of the Huntington Beach City
School District to the Planning Commission, as set forth in At-
tachment "B. "
It is the District's conclusion that the applications as
proposed, the findings of the Staff Report, the contents of the
Specific Plan as amended, and the contents of the Addendum, do
not comply with EIR No. 89-1, the Holly-Seacliff Development
Agreement, General Plan Amendment No. 89-1, the CEQA Guidelines,
or applicable provisions of the Government Code.
It is also the District' s opinion that the determination of
satisfying the mitigation measures identified in Final EIR 89-1,
is inappropriately placed in the sole responsibility of the City.
There are no assurances that this determination will be made to
the satisfaction of the District. In addition, there is no
criteria relative to the developers responsibility to
"demonstrate" that the mitigation measures have been or will be
implemented. There further is no penalty or action that will be
taken should the developer not demonstrate as required. In es-
sence, if the Developer does not demonstrate that the mitigation
measures have been or will be implemented, what action will be
taken by the City? Additionally, if the District does not
believe that the mitigation measures have been attained, what ac-
tion will be taken by the City to address the District' s
concerns?
It is the District's conclusion that the amended language to the
Specific Plan as set forth in Attachment "A" is subject to inter-
pretation, as are the mitigation measures set forth in EIR 89-1,
which state:
4
C."S M.S MTE&INCMmw
. .�
Ms. Connie Brockway
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
November 8, 1991
Page 4
"The significant effect has been substantially lessened to
the extent feasible by virtue of the following mitigation
measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into
the project.
1. The GPA designates a site for a new elementary school
to serve students generated by residential development
within the project area.
2 . The school district and major landowners should enter
into an agreement for acquisition or lease of the site
as part of implementation of this GPA.
3 . Developers should pay school impact fees to finance
construction of necessary school facilities.
4. The Huntington Beach Union High School District should
coordinate its expansion plans with phasing of develop-
ment with the project area and surrounding areas. "
The following questions are critical to the ambiguity that exist
within these mitigation measures:
1) What happens if the school district and the major land owner
do not enter into an agreement for the acquisition or lease
of the site? Is this a mandatory mitigation measure on the
developer?
2) Does the payment of school impact fees mean the statutory
mandated fee as limited by Section 65995 of the Government
Code; or an amount of fees in excess of statutory fees at an
appropriate level in order to permit the District to
"construct necessary" school facilities?
3) How is necessary school facilities defined, and who has the
responsibility for that determination?
4) What action will the City take if the fees are not paid?
Clearly, these ambiguities leave open the adequacy of the mitiga-
tion measures, and their appropriateness to be applied to the Ap-
plications.
Cp4M-1 SME-S•SOMWEI..G
Ms. Connie Brockway
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
November 8, 1991
Page 5
It is the District's conclusion that the prior actions by the
City -Council and Planning Commission, and the recent approvals of
the Planning Commission, will result in further financial, opera-
tion and administrative impacts on the District. These impacts
on the District are further set forth in Attachment "B. "
In addition, all previous oral and written testimony and documen-
tation before the Planning Commission and/or submitted to the
City Staff is incorporated herein by reference and supports the
District's contentions.
Pursuant to Section 9884, we hereby request that this appeal be
heard by the City Council within 30 days of receipt of this let-
ter and the enclosed fee of $2DO.00, by the City Clerk.
If you desire additional information or seek additional substan-
tiation of the District's appeal, please feel free to contact our
office.
Sincerely,
C iTY SY EM ASSOCIATES, INC.
sh- a1 ru
sident
MBK:dl
4 :41
cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
a �
Ada 1.0fal
1C:0 u x�ASSOCUM INC -R=—
\M/
ATTACHMENT "A"
(DRAFT - SUBJECT TO CITY PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONFIRMATION)
2 . Page II-10 should be revised to read as follows:
"h. Schools
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Huntington
Beach City School District (Grades K-8) and the Hun-
tington Beach Union High School District (Grades 9-12) .
All development within the Specific Plan Area is sub-
ject to the payment of school impact fees at the time
of issuance of building permits, in accordance with
Government Code Section 53080. School facility impact
mitigation measures per Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 shall be applied to development within
the Specific Plan Area (see Section VI) .
Schools shall be permitted in any Planning Area within
the Specific Plan in order to accommodate the elemen-
tary students generated by the development of the
Specific Plan and surrounding areas. A potential
school site within the Specific Plan boundaries may be
established by means of a general plan amendment.
Any new school facility shall be developed in accord-
ance with the construction and planning standards and
requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the
Huntington Beach City School District, the State of
California Architects Office and the State of Califor-
nia Department of Education.
In order to comply with mitigation measures identified
in Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1, proposed fu-
ture development within the Specific Plan may be
required to dedicate and convey land to the school dis-
trict, pay additional school impact fees and/or provide
other revenues to facilitate the financing of construc-
tion and land of the new school facility. In addition,
mitigation may be achieved by providing new or existing
permanent or temporary classroom facilities.
Compliance with the above shall be addressed concurrent
with the filing of the first tentative tract map. The
developer shall demonstrate to , the City's satisfaction
that the mitigation measures identified in Final En-
vironmental Impact Report No. 89-1 have been or will be
implemented prior to the tentative tract map.
dl4/ltr41.ext
T Y
L -
CQrruMT SK�f S KSOCYtES'MC. f=�
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 29, 1991
TESTIMONY OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1
General Plan Amendment No. 91-2
Zone Change No. go-10/Code Amendment No. 90-10
Prepared and Introduced by:
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
20451 Craimer Lane
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714) 963-9565
Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
1717 South State College Boulevard, Suite 100
Anaheim, California 92806
(714) 978-8887
T T
r 1
ESP'
���'�nI=.NIIl�r1�
October 29, 1991
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES.INC.
Chairman and Members of the
Planning Commission
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 and
General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 ; and
Zone Change No. 90-10/Code Amendment No. 90-10
Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District
("District") , we hereby provide the following written testimony to
be entered into the public hearing record on the above stated
applications.
The District does hereby oppose and object to the approval of any
action of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach
to 1) accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450 ; b)
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451; and c) approval of Zone Change No.
91-10 and Code Amendment No. 91-10 on the following grounds:
1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative
procedures and requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines;
2) The applications are not in compliance with the Huntington
Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended through
July, 1990;
3) The applications are not in compliance with the Holly-Seacliff
Development Agreement by and between the City of Huntington.
Beach and Pacific Coast Homes ("Developer" or "Applicant") and
Garfield Partners;
4) The applications are not in compliance with General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 ;
and
"public/private project management, feasibility, and implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD •SUITE 100 •ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92806 •TELEPHONE(714)978.8887
t
,^,ruyw,Tr SM.s SSC -Es,C
"Mr,
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
October 29 , 1991
Page 2
5) The Specific Plan does not comply with Section 65451 of the
Government Code.
The attached summarizes the District' s objections to the approval
of the stated applications, and sets forth their opposition.
It is the District' s conclusion that the applications as proposed,
the findings of the Staff Report, the contents of the Specific
Plan, and the contents of the Addendum do not comply with EIR No.
89-1, the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1, the CEQA Guidelines, or applicable provisions
of the Government Code.
It is the District's finding that the Planning Commission has the
responsibility to ensure that General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and
the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement are complied with as land
use entitlements are sought by prospective developer applicants.
It is unreasonable and irrational to allow the applications to be
processed in their present state without the assurance from the
Developer that previous conditions of approval and mitigation
measures are being complied with, and that additional mitigation
measures are being applied to address known environmental impacts.
it is the District's conclusion that the Developer is proceeding
under rhetoric and dialogue which has not been formalized in an
agreement between the District and the Developer. The District
finds that the Developer is continuing to defer their commitment
to fulfill the requirements of General Plan Amendment No. 89-1, EIR
No. 89-1 and the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, and
continues to pursue application procedures which fail to comply
with State law.
The Developer has indicated to the District on several previous
occasions that they intend to fully address the needs of the
District with regard to the impact generated by the implementation
of General Plan Amendment No. 89-1. However, every time the
District requests that the Developer formalize their commitment to
this obligation, the Developer has delayed or deferred appropriate
formalization. Similarly, when the District has requested that the
text of the Specific Plan be modified to ensure full and complete
mitigation of impact, the City has rejected such a proposal .
In light of the fact that the District has committed personnel and
financial resources towards gaining an agreement, we question the
Developer' s motives and intentions in terms of fulfilling their
obligations under the previous Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement
relative to the District impacts.
•.. Syr« STEMS aSSOC..TES
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH -%Mw
October 29, 1991
Page 3
The District would suggest that the Developer not be given the
Specific Plan entitlements which would allow them to proceed with
subsequent tentative tracts, until the Developer addresses the
school issues and required mitigation measures in good faith.
Finally, it is readily apparent that there are contradictions,
conflicts, and questionable interpretations relative to the
contents of the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, the
conditions of approval of General Plan Amendment 89-1, and the
mitigation measures set forth in EIR No. 89-1. We would suggest
that until these conflicts are resolved, the Planning Commission
has no other option, but to either deny the applications or
continue the consideration of the applications until the conflicts
are reconciled.
The District recommends the Planning Commission' s:
1) Denial of the Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 89-
1 on the grounds that the Addendum is an inappropriate
environmental document according to the CEQA Guidelines, that
the City has failed to comply with the procedures and
requirements of CEQA, that the resultant project will cause
a significant environmental impact on the District, and that
such impacts should be evaluated in an appropriate and
adequate Subsequent Environmental Impact Report due to new
information of substantial importance which was not known at
the time of preparation of EIR No. 89-1, as required and set
forth in CEQA. and the City' s Rules for the Implementation of
CEQA; and
2) Denial of General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 , Zone Change No. 90-
10, and Code Amendment No. 90-10 based upon the inadequacy of
environmental documentation; non-compliance with EIR No. 89-
1, the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement, General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1; the authority granted to the City under
Mira, Hart, and Murrieta; and non-compliance of the Zone
Change and Code Amendment with the City' s General Plan.
We ask that this letter and attachments be placed into the public
record of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach
relative to their consideration of the Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 and Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1450 ; General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 and Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451; Zone Change No. 90-10; and Code
Amendment No. 91-10 .
T
1 ^
CYWwiv SVSiFUS♦SSOC uTES.K ��
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
October 29 , 1991
Page 4
This letter is intended to maintain and protect the District' s
administrative and legal remedies, and is set forth to challenge
the adequacy of the environmental documentation, and compliance of
the applications with regards to General Plan Amendment No. 89-1,
the Holly-Seacliff Development agreement, EIR No. 89-1, the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) , applicable provisions
of State law, and the City's General Plan. All prior
correspondences transmitted to the City of Huntington Beach,
including but not limited to, those transmitted to the City
Planning Department Staff and the Planning Commission of the City
of Huntington Beach; and any oral or written testimony provided as
study sessions and/or public hearings relating to the above stated
matters, are incorporated herein by reference.
Thank you for your consideration and assistance.
Sincerely,
4
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
�9�
a. 1 pp
President
mbk:mmg/dl
wpl/27
cc: Dr. Duane Dishno
Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
Dr. Gary Burgner
Assistant Superintendent/Business Services
Huntington Beach City School District
LF4!1'111
'7�;-'esyr,l
G�nwwn 3�'S1E u1 aSSOCurFS.0 c—�a
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CEQA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN. . . . . . . . . . 3-1
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NON-COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4-1
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-1 AND EIR NO. 89-1
NON-COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5-1
SPECIFIC PLAN NON-COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-1
IMPACT ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7-1
IMPACT MITIGATION NEGOTIATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8-1
SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0-1
ATTACHMENTS
1
J L
[;Nrnn S+STFS 55CX4*ES�_�
INTRODUCTION
On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District
("District") , the District hereby provides the following written
testimony to be entered into the public hearing record.
The District does hereby oppose and object to the approval of any
action of the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach
to 1) accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 by Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450; b)
approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adoption of Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451; and c) approval of Zone Change No.
91-10 and Code Amendment No. 91-10 on the following grounds:
1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative
procedures and requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines;
2) The applications are not in compliance with the Huntington
Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended through
July, 1990;
3) The applications are not in compliance with the Holly-Seaciiff
Development Agreement by and between the City of Huntington
Beach and Pacific Coast Homes ("Developer or Applicant") and
Garfield Partners;
4) The applications are not in compliance with General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1 and Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1;
and
5) The Specific Plan does not comply with Section 65451 of the
Government Code. i
The following summarizes the District' s objections to the approval
of the stated applications, and sets forth their opposition.
1-1
7- J,
,Co.--S E.S iSSO WES.
FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH CEQA
On June 6, 1991 the City of Huntington Beach Environmental
Assessment Committee recommended to Mr. Robert Franklin that an
Addendum to EIR No. 89-1 (incorporated herein by reference) be
prepared on the subject applications. These recommendations came
after City Staff had conducted an initial study to assess the
environmental impact associated with the applications. The
Committee' s finding was stated as follows:
"The initial study has indicated that the proposed General
Plan Amendment is substantially consistent with the project
analyzed in EIR 89-1 and no analysis or mitigation measures
in addition to that contained in EIR 89-1 will be required for
the project. In view of this, the Environmental Assessment
Committee determined that an addendum to EIR 89-1 may be
prepared for the project. "
On August 1, 1991 the City issued a notice soliciting comments on
the Draft Addendum to Final EIR No. 89-1. Specifically, the City
sought "comments as to the scope and content of the environmental
information and project" , requesting responses no later than August
27, 1991.
On August 16, 1991, the District sent a letter (incorporated 'herein
by reference) to the City setting forth the CEQA' s administrative
procedures which the City failed to comply with, and which set
forth further the inadequacy of the Addendum and the additional
contents to be incorporated within a Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report. The City' s response to the District' s comments as
contained in their Staff Report dated September 17 , 1991 stated as
follows:
"Comments CSA-1 through CSA-16 are acknowledged. The General
Plan designates a site within the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan
area for a new elementary school to serve students generated
by the residential development. The potential school site is
located in the Ellis-Golderwest Specific Plan area, which is
not affected by proposed General Plan Amendment 91-2 . The
General Plan Amendment covered by this EIR Addendum retains
the same intensity of development and total number of dwelling
units in each Planning Area as analyzed in EIR 89-1, Section
4. 16, Public Services and Utilities.
2-1
�y.yriv SrSiE . SSOCuiES wC i Mi
Currently, Pacific Coast Homes, the major landowner within the
area, and the Huntington Beach City School District are
negotiating an impact mitigation agreement to provide adequate
school facilities and implement the mitigation program
contained in certified EIR 89-1. "
It is unclear as to what is meant by "acknowledged. " Does the City
agree with the District' s comments? If so, then why has the
Addendum not been modified or a Subsequent EIR prepared to reflect
the District' s concerns? If the City notes the comments, but does
not agree with them, then why wasn 't an explanation of the
disagreement provided?
An addendum is considered to be a variation of an EIR pursuant to
Section 15160 et.seq. of the CEQA Guidelines. As such, the
provisions of Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines applies to the
response to comments. Section 15088 of the CEQA Guidelines states:
" (a) The Lead Agency shall evaluate comments on environmental
issues received from persons who reviewed the draft EIR
and shall prepare a written response. The Lead Agency
shall respond to comments received during the noticed
comment period and any extensions and may respond to late
comments.
(b) The written response shall describe the disposition of
significant environmental issues raised (e.g. , revisions
to the proposed project to mitigate anticipated impacts
or objections) . In particular, the major environmental
issues raised when the Lead Agency' s position is at
variance with recommendations and objections raised in
the comments must be addressed in detail giving reasons
why specific comments and suggestions were not accented.
There must be good faith, reasoned analysis in response.
Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information
will not suffice.
(c) The response to comments may take the form of a revision
to the draft EIR or may be a separate section in the
final EIR. Where the response to comments makes
important changes in the information contained in the
text of the draft EIR, the Lead Agency should either:
(1) Revise the text in the body of the EIR, or
(2) Include marginal notes showing that the information
is revised in the response to comments. " (emphasis
added)
2-2
CO.iwtin Si'SiEi aS50CuiE5.iC ��
The response is an obvious avoidance of the sixteen (16) comments
set forth by the District, and does not provide a good faith,
reasoned analysis, does not provide a full disclosure of the
concerns raised, or respond to the District' s criticism of the
Addendum. In addition, the conclusory statements are not supported
by factual information or the contents of EIR No. 89-1
(incorporated herein by reference) . The City' s Staff Report
response does not comply with the provisions of CEQA.
The District is in receipt of Environmental Assessment No. 91-6 set
forth in the September 17 , 1991 Staff Report, which we note as
being undated and unsigned. We further acknowledge Section 14 ,
which identifies that the applications may have an effect upon, or
result in a need for new or altered governmental services (i . e. ,
schools) . Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines, "yes" and "maybe"
responses are required to have explanations. The discussion set
forth in Environmental Assessment No. 91-6 states:
"Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will
result in impacts to- Fire, Police, School and Park services
and maintenance of public facilities. Public Service impacts
associated will implementation of a substantially similar land
use plan for the area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and
can be mitiaated to a level of insignificance. Public
facilities impacts were assessed based upon the intensity of
development proposed for project area. The relocation of land
uses within HSSP Planning Areas proposed by the general plan
amendment is consistent with the intensity of development
addressed in the EIR. Because the HSSP has incorporated all
mitigation measures recommended by EIR 89-1, no significant
impact is anticipated. " (emphasis added)
The District has previously and herein advises the City that 1) EIR
89-1, including the mitigation measures set forth therein, does not
mitigate the impacts of the subsequent land use development to a
level of insignificance; 2) substantial changes have occurred with
respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken,
which require important revisions in EIR 89-1 due to the
involvement of new significant environmental impacts not covered
in the previous EIR; and 3) new information of substantial
importance to the project has been available, and a) the
information was not known and could not have been known at the time
EIR 89-1 was certified as complete; and b) the new information
shows the following:
i) the project will have one or more significant effects not
discussed in EIR 89-1;
ii) significant effects previously examined will be
substantially more severe than shown in EIR 89-1 ;
2-3
------------
'CWwl -SnIE.S
iii) mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not
to be feasible would in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more significant effects of
the project; and
iv) mitigation measures or alternatives which were not
previously considered in EIR 89-1 would substantially
lessen the significant effects on the School District' s
environment.
Based upon this information, the conclusions reached by the City
in Environmental Assessment No. 91-6 cannot be substantiated or
supported, and the conclusion of no significant impact is not
justified.
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part:
" . . . . (g) Consultation. As soon as a Lead Agency has
determined that an Initial Study will be required
for the project, the Lead Agency shall consult
informally with all Responsible Agencies and all
Trustee Agencies responsible for resources affected
by the project to obtain the recommendations of
those agencies as to whether an EIR or a Negative
Declaration should be prepared. . . . "
The City did not consult with the District with regard to the
resources affected by the application to which the District is
responsible for, and did not obtain the recommendation of the
District as to whether an EIR or a Negative Declaration should be
prepared. Upon receiving a copy of the Addendum, the District did
however provide appropriate comments, to which the City has
responded inappropriately.
Section 15063 of the CEQA Guidelines further states, in part:
" . . . . (c) Purposes. The purposes of an Initial Study are to:
(1) Provide the Lead Agency with information to use
as the basis for deciding whether to prepare
an EIR or Negative Declaration;
(2) Enable an applicant or Lead Agency to modify
a project, mitigating adverse impacts before
an EIR is prepared, thereby enabling the
project to qualify for a Negative Declaration;
(3) Assist the preparation of an EIR, if one is
required, by:
2-4
i._lu Milli
,GC wuwT S'STE-S.ESOC.TES���
(A) Focusing the EIR on the effects determined
to be significant;
(B) Identifying the effects determined not to
be significant; and
(C) Explaining the reasons for determining
that potentially significant effects would
not be significant.
(4) Facilitate environmental assessment early in
the design of a project;
(5) Provide documentation of the factual basis for
the finding in a Negative Declaration that a
project will .not have a significant effect on
the environment;
(6) Eliminate unnecessary EIRs;
(7) Determine whether a previously prepared EIR
could be used with the project. . . . "
By not seeking consultation with the District the City has not
substantiated its ability to adequately respond to the purposes of
Section 15063 (c) , in that factual data and information available
to the District and unknown to the City has not been considered by
the City in conjunction with the preparation of the Addendum. Nor
has the City attempted to gain this information and data in order
to provide a reasoned analysis of the environmental impact on the
District.
Section 15002 (j) states:
" (j ) Public Involvement. Under CEQA, an a�encv must solicitmust solicit
and respond to comments from the public and other
agencies concerned with the project. (See: Sections
15073 , 15086, 15087 and 15088) . " (emphasis added)
Although required under CEQA, the City did not solicit comments
from the District, and as such the public review process has been
pursued inappropriately.
Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines states:
"The purpose of review of EIR's and Negative Declarations
include:
2-5
1
rryrn S'TEr3 SSOGyFF.0 ��'
LJ
(a) Sharing expertise;
(b) Disclosing Agency analyses;
(c) Checking for accuracy;
(d) Detecting omissions;
(e) Discovering public concerns; and
(f) Soliciting counter proposals. "
The fact of the matter is that the City did not consult with the
District on these issues. The purpose of the review process
appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a
difficult position of having to either a) seed administrative and
legal remedies available to the District; or b) overlook the error
and not pursue any further remedies.
Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines sets forth the criteria as to
when an Addendum to an EIR is to be used. It states, in part:
" (a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an
addendum to an EIR, if:
(1) None of the conditions described in Section 15162
calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have
occurred;
(2) only minor technical changes or additions are
necessary to make the EIR under consideration
adequate under CEQA; and
(3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not
raise important new issues about the significant
effects on the environment. . . . "
Having not consulted with the District, the City is unable to and
has not provided evidence to substantiate that these conditions
have been met. To the contrary, the District has previously
provided information (incorporated herein) that supports the
contention that EIR 89-1 was prepared inadequately, contained
information that does not reflect present conditions, and that new
issues and information raised by the District are critical to
understanding the significant effects of the applications on the
School District's environment.
In compliance with Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, there
appears to be adequate justification to require a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report versus an Addendum.
2-6
CGruyrn S31EYS 45 IutES u+C V��
\�I
Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part:
1115162 .
(a) Where an EIR or Negative Declaration has been prepared,
no additional EIR need be prepared unless. . . .
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the
circumstances under which the project is undertaken,
such as a substantial deterioration in the air
quality where the project will be located, which
will require important revisions in the previous EIR
or Negative Declaration due to the involvement of
new significant environmental impacts not covered
in a previous EIR or Negative Declaration; or
(3) New information of substantial importance to the
project becomes available, and
(A) The information was not known and could not
have been known at the time the previous EIR
was certified as complete or the Negative
Declaration was adopted, and
(B) The new information shows any of the following:
1. The project will have one or more
significant effects not discussed
previously in the EIR;
2. Significant effects previously examined
will be substantially more severe than
shown in the EIR;
3 . Mitigation measures or alternatives
previously found not to be feasible would
in fact be feasible and would
substantially reduce one or more
significant effects of the project; or
4 . Mitigation measures or alternatives which
were not previously considered in the EIR
would substantially lessen one or more
significant effects on the
environment. . . . " (emphasis added)
Even if the City could not have made the initial findings that a
Subsequent EIR be prepared, at a minimum the District could have
substantiated that a) conditions set forth in Section 15162 exist
that may require the preparation of a Subsequent EIR; and b) that
2-7
CO�� ,� VVI.S.S3=WES wC On
'"Mr
at least minor changes or additions to EIR No. 89-1 would have been
necessary in order to make it adequately apply to the project and
the changed situation that exists today. That being so, at a
minimum a Supplemental EIR would be required.
Both a Subsequent EIR and a Supplemental EIR are required by CEQA
to give the same kind of notice and public review as is given to
a draft EIR under Section 15087 of the CEQA Guidelines.
In our opinion, there have been substantial changes in the
resources available to school districts to finance capital facility
requirements, and that information relative to the District' s and
State' s capability to finance costs in excess of the present $1. 58
per square foot of residential and $0. 26 per square foot of non-
residential is of substantial importance to the successful
implementation of mitigation of impacts as set forth in EIR No. 89-
1. The State Legislature's adoption of AB 2926, the enabling
legislation which established the authorization to impose developer
fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, was adopted
at a time when the Leroy F. Green State School Building Lease-
Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its
obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The
amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State
participation, which together would have adequately funded the
mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development. The
State's inability to meet its obligation to fund the State School
Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction
bond issues to pass, has resulted in an impacted school district
not having adequate funds to mitigate impact. In essence,
development fees only address, at a maximum, 50% of the actual cost
of impact mitigation. This information and the State's condition
was not known or acknowledged at the time EIR No. 89-1 was
certified, and the information shows that the significant effectseffects
of the applications will be more severe than originally shown in
EIR No. 89-1. EIR 89-1 assumed that the sole source of funding Co
acquire the designated site and construct necessary school
facilities would be the payment of school impact fees, as defined
in the EIR. As will be shown herein, projected development fees
from the implementation of the applications will be inadequate to
finance the acquisition of property and the construction of
facilities. Clearly, a more severe condition than had been stated
in EIR No. 89-1.
It is also worthy to note that the EIR also assumed erroneously
that the District receives fees equal to $1. 50 per square foot on
residential and $0.25 on commercial. In reality, there is an
agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District
and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a
sharing of collected development fees. The Huntington Beach City
School District receives only 61% of development fees paid. This
information was either not known at the time of preparation of EIR
2-8
4
ij ■
\4 ii!iil A li_'t
C'J�uv SvS*Er3�SSOC.ES•K �C
\�I
No. 89-1, or was ignored as being relevant to the discussion of
impact and mitigation. Obviously, if the State cannot meet its
financial responsibility and the District only receives 610 of the
fees stated in the EIR, it is readily clear that EIR No. 89-1 has
failed to adequately disclose the conditions which would or would
not enable the mitigation measures to adequately mitigate the
impacts to a level of insignificance. This is particularly
important in terms of the conclusions reached in Environmental
Assessment No. 91-6.
EIR No. 89-1 set forth student generation factor yields of . 21
students per single family dwelling and . 12 students per multi-
family dwelling units, concluding that General Plan Amendment No.
89-1 would have an impact of 678 elementary students (K-8 grades) .
There was no analysis to support the finding that the development
fees set forth in EIR No. 89-1 would provide adequate funding to
meet the demand for facilities to accommodate these 678 students.
In addition, the calculations to support the finding of 678
students was not set forth in EIR No. 89-1.
The District 's Development Fee Justification Report, prepared
following the certification of EIR No. 89-1, supports an average
District-wide student generation yield of . 1171 students for grades
K-5, . 0191 students for grade 6, and . 0434 students for grades 7-
8, or a total of . 1796 students. This yield factor applied to the
Specific Plan total units of 3 , 930 (569 acres) , represents 705
students. This is considerably higher than the projection set
forth in EIR No. 89-1 which applied to 768 acres or 4 , 410 units.
Apply this student yield factor to the EIR No. 89-1 defined
project, would yield 792 students versus the projected 678
students, an increase of almost 20%.
More importantly, recent evaluations of new residential
construction in the City over the past 12-18 months reveal student
generation yields considerably higher than the average District-
wide yields. Developments evaluated included:
Town Square;
Pier Colonv;
Huntington Place;
Seacliff Estates;
Ocean Point;
The Villas;
The Huntington Classics;
The Heritage at Huntington Shores; and
Central Park.
The student generation factor yield which appears to represent
today' s generation of students from new developments has an average
rate of . 2695. Applying this to the EIR No. 89-1 defined project
2-9
'GDUYywTY{K'rFu51550Cu.TfS����
would yield 1, 188 students, substantially more than anticipated to
be mitigated by the provisions of EIR No. 89-1. Apply this to the
Specific Plan, the impact would be 1, 059 students. This update of
student yields and the apparent additional student population
impact on the District, clearly sets forth a case to provide
additional environmental evaluation and mitigation, and does not
support the City's contention that EIR No. 89-1 adequately
mitigates all impacts to a level of insignificance.
EIR No. 89-1 was adopted containing the designation of a school
site as one of the mitigation measures, to be located at the
northwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Saddleback Lane. The Final
EIR contained letters from the District which set forth the
criteria that this site would accommodate 600 students on 10-acres
net. Recent information resulting from the preparation of the
Specific Plan indicates that following the dedication of rights-
of-way and easements as required by the City, the site will have
a size of 8 . 3 (±) acres, unacceptable to the District. This new
information has an adverse effect on the adequacy of the mitigation
measures as set forth in EIR No. 89-1, and precludes the District ' s
ability to adequately accommodate the student yields of General
Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and the Specific Plan. This new
information of an inadequate site designation is relevant to the
applicability and adequacy of the mitigation measures set forth in
EIR No. 89-1.
EIR No. 89-1 did not evaluate the traffic and pedestrian movement
related to student access/egress to the school site within the
area, and other school sites within the District which would need
to accommodate student generation from the Holly-Seacliff and
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plans. The potentially hazardous
conditions between student pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicle
movement along the various vehicular corridors (i. e. , Garfield
Avenue, Goldenwest Avenue, Gothard Street, and Edward Street, etc. )
have not been evaluated and analyzed to determine the impact on the
students within the District. These conditions should have been
evaluated in EIR No. 89-1.
These four (4) areas which represent new and/or more accurate
information on 1) financial resources applicable to the mitigation
measures set forth in EIR No. 89-1; 2) present and more accurate
student generation factors and yields; and 3) site designation
inadequacy; and 4) issues not addressed in EIR No. 89-1 would
indicate the need to provide Supplemental and/or Subsequent
environmental analysis, supporting the District' s contention that
an Addendum is inappropriate.
2-10
�r _�_...
.6uTEi iMC -o
'"
MI
In a telephone conversation with Mr. Robert Franklin on October 24,
1991, Mr. Franklin stated that the Addendum was not intended to
apply to the Specific Plan. He stated that the Specific Plan was
subject to the environmental review findings and conclusions of EIR
89-1. The District notes that neither the project description nor
the proposed actions as set forth in EIR 89-1 indicated that EIR
89-1 would be applied to the Specific Plan.
Section 15124 of the CEQA Guidelines states in part:
1115124 .
The description of the project shall contain the following
information but should not supply extensive detail beyond that
needed for evaluation and review of the environmental
impact. . . .
(d) A statement briefly describing the intended uses of the
EIR.
(1) This statement shall include, to the extent that the
information is known to the Lead Agency,
(A) A list of the agencies that are expected to use
the EIR in their decision-making, and
(B) A list of the approvals for which the EIR will
be used.
(2) If a public agency must make more than one decision
on a project, all its decisions subject to CEQA
should be listed, preferably in the order in which
they will occur. . . . " (emphasis added)
Having not identified GPA No. 91-2, Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code
Amendment No. 90-10, we must assume from Mr. Franklin' s comments
that the City' s intention was to utilize the provisions of Section
15153 of the CEQA Guidelines which states:
1115153 .
(a) The Lead Agency may employ a single EIR to describe more
than one project, if such projects are essentially the
same in terms of environmental impact. Further, the Lead
Agency may use an earlier EIR prepared in connection with
an earlier project to apply to a later project, if the
circumstances of the projects are essentially the same.
(b) When a Lead Agency proposes to use an EIR from an earlier
project as the EIR for a separate, later project, the
Lead Agency shall use the following procedures:
2-11
L
cc-.11 SIPE.$"50CuiES.�C
(1) The Lead Agency shall review the proposed project
with an Initial Study, using incorporation by
reference if necessary, to determine whether the EIR
would adequately describe:
(A) The general environmental setting of the
project,
(B) The significant environmental impacts of the
project, and
(C) Alternatives and mitigation measures related
to each significant effect.
(2) If the Lead Agency believes that the EIR would meet
the requirements of subsection (1) , it shall provide
public review as provided in Section 15087 stating
that it plans to use the previously prepared EIR as
the draft EIR for this rproiect. The notice shall
include as a minimum:
(A) An identification of the project with a brief
description;
(B) A statement that the agency plans to use a
certain EIR prepared for a previous project as
I EIR for this project;
(C) A listing of places where copies of the EIR may
be examined; and
(D) A statement that the key issues involving the
EIR are whether the EIR should be used for this
project and whether there are any additional,
reasonable alternatives or mitigation measures
that should be considered as ways of avoiding
or reducing the significant effects of the
project.
(3) The Lead Agency shall prepare responses to comments
received during the review period.
(4) Before approving the project, the decision-maker in
the Lead Agency shall:
(A) Consider the information in the EIR including
comments received during the review period and
responses to those comments,
2-12
4 A�
COwwyrn^ASrE wS♦SSpCutES���
(B) Decide either on its own or on a staff
recommendation whether the EIR is adequate for
the project at hand, and
(C) Make or require certification to be made as
described in Section 15090.
(D) Make findings as provided in Sections 15091 and
15093 as necessary.
(5) After making a decision on the project, the Lead
Agency shall file a Notice of Determination.
(c) An EIR prepared for an earlier project may also be used
as part of an Initial Study to document a finding that
a later project will not have a significant effect. In
this situation a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
(d) An EIR for an earlier project shall not be used as the
EIR for a later project if any of the conditions
described in Section 15162 would require nreparation of
a subsequent or supplemental EIR. " (emphasis added)
The District notes that the City did not comply with the procedures
of Section 15153 (b) . The City did not prepare an Initial Study,
and it did not provide public review as provided in Section 15087
of the CEQA Guidelines. In addition, as noted herein, the District
has provided information which supports the existence of conditions
set forth in Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines which would
require preparation of a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR.
The District further wants to refer the City to several provisions
of Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines which further supports the
District' s position, as follows:
"Section 15064 .
(a) Determining whether a project may have a significant
effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process.
(1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is
substantial evidence that a project may have a
sianificant effect on the environment , the agencv
shall prepare a Draft EIR.
Draft EIR.
(2) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant
effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency
shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each
significant effect and may need to make a statement
of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for
the project.
2-13
UA 4j;_
C7w�uM S'TFuS♦SSOCuiES,MC �C
(b) The determination of whether a project may have a
significant effect on the environment calls for careful
judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based
to the extent possible on scientific and factual data.
An ironclad definition of significant effect is not
possible because the significance of an activity may vary
with the setting. For example, an activity which may not
be significant in an urban area may be significant in a
rural area.
(c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or
beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held
by members of the public in all areas affected. If the
Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial bodv
of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to
be adverse , the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as
adverse. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the
Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental
change itself might be substantial .
(d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental
effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both
primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences.
(1) Primary consequences are immediately related to the
project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of
heavy equipment that would result from construction
of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from
operation of the plant.
(2) Secondary consequences are related more to effects
of the primary consequences than to the project
itself and may be several steps removed from the
project in a chain of cause and effect. For
example, the construction of a new sewage treatment
plant may facilitate population growth in the
service area due to the increase in sewage treatment
capacity and may lead to an increase in air
pollution. . . .
(g) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more
significant effects shall be based on information in the
record of the Lead Agency.
(1) If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial
evidence in the record that the project may have a
significant effect on the environment, the Lead
Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v.
City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988) . Said
another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a
fair argument that a project may have a significant
2-14
CGrwrr.S3TE r5/SSOCu1E5����
effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall
prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented
with other substantial evidence that the protect
will not have a significant effect (No oil , Inc. v.
City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68) .
(2) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial
evidence that the project may have a significant
effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall
prepare a Negative Declaration (Friends of B Street
v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988) .
(h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is
substantial evidence that a prof ect may have a
significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency
shall be auided by the following factors:
(1) If there is serious public controversy over the
environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency
shall consider the effect or effects subject to the
controversv to be sianificant and shall prepare an
EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental
issue does not require preparation of an EIR.
(2) If there is disagreement between experts over the
significance of an effect on the environment, the
Lead Aaencv shall treat the effect as sianificant
and shall prepare an EIR. " (emphasis added)
It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard
to the environmental effects of the applications, the adequacy of
prior designated mitigation measures, and the appropriateness of
the Addendum. There is further disagreement among the Developer ' s
expert and the District's expert, and therefore the CEQA Guidelines
suggest that the effects shall be treated as significant, and an..
EIR form of disclosure shall be prepared. The District has
suggested and supported that the appropriate EIR for the
applications is a Subsequent Environmental Impact Report, pursuant
to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines.
The District therefore challenges and objects to the consideration
of the Addendum, and requests that further consideration of
applications be delayed and deferred until a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report has been prepared addressing the
impacts of the application on the District, setting forth adequate
and appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with Section
65996 of the Government Code, and until adequate responses are
provided by the City relative to the comments set forth in the
District letter to the City dated August 16 , 1991.
2-15
CO.--flrE-S/SSOC-ES
The Planning Commission should be apprised of various legal
decisions since the adoption of AB 2926, the development fee
legislation. On January 25, 1991, Division Three of the Second
District Court of Appeals issued its decision in William S. Hart
Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the
County of Los Angeles, 91 Daily Journal DAR 1147 (2nd Dist. January
25, 1991) (hereinafter, "Hart") .
The Court of Appeals in Hart considered and decided a number of the
same issues that can be raised with regard to the applications.
In particular, the Hart Court held:
a) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205
Cal.App. 3d 1201, was correctly decided. Government Code
Section 65996 does not apply to legislative land use
decisions, and a local agency retains the authority to
deny a general plan or a zone change on the basis of the
inadequacy of school facilities. (Id. at 1148-1150) .
b) The Mira holding actually is "bolstered" by Stats. 1989 ,
c. 1209. (Id. at 1149) . As noted by the Court (Id. at
n. 11) , the Legislature expressly stated in Section 34 of
that statute that the slight change to the definition of
"development project" in Government Code Section 65996
was "declaratory of existing law. " The Court further
pointed out that the Legislature was presumed to have
knowledge of Mira and to have amended the statute with
Mira in mind. (Id. )-
c) Government Code Section 65995 (e) pre-empts only "the
requirements for school facilities finance that a local
agency will impose -on a development project, " not
the legislation of land use policies such as the zoning
ordinances at issue in that case and in Mira. (Id. at
1150) .
d) The County's mistaken reliance upon "erroneous legal
advice" that it had no authority to consider school
impacts when acting on zone changes was an abuse of
discretion. (Id. at 1150) .
e) The school district had the right to challenge zoning
changes approved without consideration of school impacts
on the ground that they were inconsistent with the
County' s adopted general plan provisions requiring
adequate public facilities. (Id. at 1150) .
2-16
i It
lAuurx iv S+SiF US aS50CuiE5 wL ��
�i►
f) The trial court should not have sustained the County ' s
demurrer to the school district' s petition without leave
to amend since there was a reasonable possibility that
the District could amend the complaint to add allegations
regarding the Mira decision's impact on the County' s
decision to grant the rezoning application. (Id. at
1148, 1150) .
On March 26, 1991, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of
Appeals issued its decision in Murrieta Valley Unified School
District v. County of Riverside, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3648 (Fourth
District, April 2, 1991) (hereinafter "Murrieta") .
The Court of Appeals in Murrieta considered and decided a number
of issues. In particular, the Murrieta case held:
a) The County's authority to specify land use and
development mitigation measures to address school impacts
in connection with an amendment of its General Plan is
not pre-empted by Government Code Sections 65995 and
65996. The County had argued that those statutes, which
place a limit on the amount of school fees that cap be
imposed upon "development projects, " prohibit the County
from considering school impacts when making land use
decisions and prohibit the County from requiring
mitigation of those impacts. The Court of Appeal ruled
that while Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 pre-
empt the field of school facilities financing, they do
not pre-empt the County' s authority to mitigate school
impacts through non-financial means such as denial of
densities, and timing and phasing controls designed to
assure that school facilities are provided in conjunction
wi`h new development.
b) Government Code Sections 65995-65996 apply only to
"development projects" which the courts have historically
classified as non-legislative in character, such as
tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, and
variances. Those sections do not apply to legislative
land use decisions such as general plan amendments, zone
changes, and specific plans.
c) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205
Cal.App.3d 1201, and the more recent decision in William
S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning
Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226
Cal.App. 3d 1612, were correctly decided. Both Mira and
William S. Hart Union High School District also held that
2-17
�,^,uuwwty SvSTE US h550C:.ES wC ��
Government Code Sections 65995-65996 do not prohibit a
local agency from taking school impacts into account in
making legislative land use decisions.
d) Legislative amendments to Government Code Sections 65995-
65996 adopted in 1989 were declaratory of existing law
and were not intended to abrogate the holding in Mira.
e) Since the County was not pre-empted from considering
school impacts in conjunction with its approval of the
SWAP, the District stated a valid cause of action under
CEQA by alleging that the County breached its mandatory
duty to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report
fully disclosing all school impacts, by failing to adopt
feasible mitigation measures which would reduce school
impacts to a level of non-significance, and by failing
to adopt an adequate "Statement of Overriding
Considerations" explaining why the County decided to
approve the SWAP in the face of the significant
unmitigated school impacts.
f) The provisions in the SWAP which authorized development
causing unmitigated adverse impacts on the District ' s
school facilities were inconsistent with other provisions
in the County' s General Plan that mandated provision of
adequate public improvements and facilities, including
schools, in conjunction with new development. The
District therefore stated a valid claim that the County' s
General Plan was internally inconsistent and invalid
under Government Code Section 65300. 5.
The County filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to
consider the Murrieta case. The Supreme Court rejected the
petition, and the case was remanded back to the Superior Court, now
pending action. The Court ' s decision as certified for publication
is a precedent that applies State-wide and is binding on all trial
courts in California.
The Court of Appeal 's decision in the Murrieta case is an important
logical extension of the previous rulings in Mira and Hart. For
The first time since Government Code Section 65995-65996 were
adopted in 1986, a court has ruled that a local land use agency not
only has the authority to consider school impacts when considering
legislative land use decisions, it has the duty to do so.
Although the applications are not considered to be a "development
project" pursuant to Mira, Hart, and Murrieta, the District wants
the Planning Commission to note Section 65996 of the Government
Code, which states:
2-18
U1 -
CurywTv S1SlE 5 45SpCui ES.6 Wo
"Section 65996. The following provisions shall be the
exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related
to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the
approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval
of a development project, as defined in Section 53080,
pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the
Public Resources Code:
(a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of
the Education Code.
(b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of
the Education Code.
(c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of
the Education Code.
(d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter
3 of Part 23 of the Education Code.
(e) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
(f) Chapter 2. 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division
2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
(g) Chapter 4 . 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division
1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing
with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division
2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval
of a project on ' the basis of the adequacy of school
facilities. "
These kinds of mitigation measures were not even considered in the
deliberations on EIR No. 89-1, and should have at least been
discussed in the Environmental Impact Report, so as to ensure full
and complete disclosure and mitigation.
The District acknowledges that the City does not have the authority
to deny non-legislative applications on the basis of the adequacy
of school facilities; however the City has the obligation to review
and evaluate legislative applications, and may deny such
application on the grounds of inadequate school facilities.
General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code
Amendment No. 90-10 are legislative applications that can be denied
by the City on the basis that the District does not have adequate
facilities to accommodate the subsequent development resulting from
the approvals of the legislative applications.
2-19
E
COwn.T S'S,[ S/SSOCUTEi MC
\�I
With the level of environmental inadequacy substantiated in terms
of EIR No. 89-1 and the proposed Addendum, it would appear that the
City has the duty to consider the impacts on the District in a more
logical and accurate manner through a Subsequent Environmental
Impact Report. In addition, the City has the obligation to ensure
that the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the
Guidelines for the implementation of CEQA, are complied with, so
as to protect the interests of the existing students and residents
anticipated to acquire homes and property within the Specific Plan
area.
2-20
I i•
I �
r+x i•S•'$rE.S♦SSX:.ES+C WOW
\ I
NON-COMPLIANCE WITH HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN
Section 65454 of the Government Code states:
"No specific plan may be adopted or amended unless the
proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the general
plan. "
Further, Section 65860 requires that zoning shall be consistent
with the General Plan. Finally, Sections 65300-65302 of the
Government Code requires that every California city and county have
a general plan that includes certain prescribed elements. Section
65300.5 of the Government Code specifically requires that the
general plan and elements and parts thereof "comprise an
integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of
policies. " The District contends that the City' s present General
Plan is internally inconsistent and that General Plan Amendment No.
91-2 , Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 is not
consistent and in compliance with the City' s General Plan.
The Huntington Beach General Plan states:
"A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like
Huntington Beach:
1. Policv Determination - permits the evaluation of a
definite set of policies to govern future development of
the City, and a general design for the City.
2 . Policv Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of
specific protects in terms of a definite framework for
long-range development of the City.
3 . Communication - permits the communication of the City' s
long-range policies to the business community and the
public; encourages constructive debate and stimulates
political action.
4 . Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning
Commission and other advisory boards to make
recommendations to the City Council concerning
development of the City in a coherent, unified form.
5. Education - facilitates the education of government
officials and the community regarding the problems and
opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic,
environmental, and social) . "
3-1
J
"tE S ESOC-ES
1�I
The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the following
goals and policies, in part:
It. . . . 3 .4 .2 .5 Housing
To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that
members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside
in Huntington Beach, by:
1. Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the
City.
2 . Providing an adequate level of community services ,
facilities improvements . and maintenance in all areas
of the Citv. " (emphasis added)
113 .4 . 2 . 6 Community Facilities
To ensure a full range of community facilities that provide
for the general public's health, safety and welfare, by:
1. Providing utility systems to meet projected demands.
2. Providing meeting centers for civic and other groups.
3 . Providing efficient, economical refuse disposal.
4 . Encouraging the proper location and planning of
facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care
centers, well-baby clinics, etc.
5. Encouraging the location of municipal, county, state,
federal, and other governmental facilities within or near
the Civic Center. . . . "
Further, the Community Facilities element of the General Plan
states, in part:
11 . . . . 3 . 5. 6 Policies
This section presents the City's policies regarding the
provision of community facilities. Implementation of these
policies will occur primarily through the implementation of
the City' s capital improvement program. Additional
implementing actions will be required, however, such as
preparation of feasibility studies, revision of standards, and
increased coordination with other entities. " (emphasis added)
3-2
c
E_rWwir SS':lrS aSSOC rTEl.K ��
\S�
113 .5. 6. 1 Adequacy of Facilities
This Element has identified a number of deficiencies in the
city's existing community facilities systems. Additional
deficiencies may be expected to occur when the City is
developed to ultimate buildout under the General Plan unless
corrective actions are taken. The following policies state
the City's intent to correct existing deficiencies where
funding permits and to ensure that new development is
adequately served.
1. Promote the provision of adecruate community facilities
within the City of Huntinaton Beach.
2. Pursue funding for projects to correct existing
deficiencies in community facility systems.
3. Prior to issuance of a development entitlement the Citv
shall make the finding that adequate services can be
provided to serve the proposed development, consistent
with policies contained in the plan at the time of
occupancy.
4 . Prior to constructing new community facilities, consider
the impact of those facilities on annual maintenance and
operating costs and staffing requirements for
maintenance. . . . " (emphasis added)
Section 6 of the General Plan sets forth General Plan Amendments.
This section states, in part:
" . . . .Community Facilities Element
o Evaluates existing and planned infrastructure facilities
and capacities to serve development in the study area.
o Provides a master plan of improvement for water, sewer
and storm drainage facilities.
o Prepares nhasina and financing recommendations for the
completion of community facilities to serve the area. "
(emphasis added)
It further states:
"The proposed project will result in a need for new utilities
systems, and improvements to electrical, natural gas, water,
sewer, storm drainage, solid waste disposal and similar
infrastructure systems. Additionally, increased numbers of
3-3
school-aaed children will be cenerated by the project,
requiring a new school site. The proposed school site is
designated on the Land Use Element. "
Also, this section states:
" . . .B. Policies
1. LAND USE ELEMENT
1. 6 Provide an infrastructure phasina plan to ensure that
adequate public facilities and services are provided to
accommodate new development. . . . " (emphasis added)
Finally, this section states, in part:
113. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ELEMENT
3 . 1 Provide a phasing plan for sewer, water and drainage
system improvements to ensure that facilities are
provided concurrent with new development, consistent with
the amended Community Facilities Element. Identifv
appropriate fundina/reimbursement mechanisms at the time
of Specific Plan adoptina or tentative tract approval .
Require developers to provide improvements on a fair-
share basis.
3 .2 Reauire participation in funding nroarams for
construction and/or expansion of such facilities as
schools and the library.
3. 3 Require necessary agreements for the acquisition and
development of the school site desianated in the amended
Land Use Element.
3 .4 Institute conservation policies in future Specific Plans
for the reduction of solid waste, water, electricity and
gas use.
3 . 5 All future infrastructure shall be designed and
constructed in substantial conformance with the
alignments and capacities shown on the Community
Facilities Element.
3 . 6 In the event of adequate City water supplies, the
developer shall provide for the fair share of water
necessary to service the development.
3-4
C:. w,.*•STf3.SSOCuiES K �w
`vaI
3 .7 Development shall be contingent upon the adoption of a
public facilities improvement and phasing plan to ensure
adeauate infrastructure is installed concurrent with
protect development. " (emphasis added)
The common thread throughout the General Plan is the assurance,
provision and adequacy of public facilities, including schools as
a pre-requisite to development. Throughout the Land Use Element,
Community Facilities Element and Section 6. 1 of the General Plan
entitled "Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment" , there is
consistent discussion relative to the provision and adequacy of
public facilities. The proposed adoption of the Specific Plan is
based upon the findings that there will be no significant effect
on the District in terms of the assurance, provision and adequacy
of public facilities as a result of the mitigation measures set
forth in EIR No. 89-1.
The District has provided information to the City which is re-
stated herein, which indicates that it is unable to meet the
facility demands of the Specific Plan, and that EIR No. 89-1 did
not adequately and accurately evaluate the impacts on the District.
Therefore, it cannot be stated that an adequate level of community
facilities (i.e. , schools) _is available or will be provided to meet
the Specific Plan requirements. Without specific requirements, the
applications and in particular the Specific Plan are not in
compliance with the City' s General Plan.
Based upon State statutes, and the impact analysis set forth
herein, the subject applications and in particular the Specific
Plan do not comply with the City's General Plan, and are
inconsistent with its statement of policies.
3-5
_„rrr.it 3"S*F rS�SSOC.i[S.rC�
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NON-COMPLIANCE
The Staff Report states, as follows:
"The Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan implements the Holly-
Seacliff Master Plan and Development Agreement No. 90-1 and
is inconsistent with the City's General Plan. . . . "
The Development Agreement entered into between the City of
Huntington Beach and Pacific Coast Homes and Garfield Partners
applied to Parcel No's. 14 , 15 and 16, as shown on Exhibit "B" of
the Development Agreement, as well as the proposed Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan area. The City entered into the Development
Agreement to receive "the following public benefit from the
Developer" :
114 . Designation of a portion of the property for a future
school site. . . .
Pursuant to Section 2 . 2 . 8 of the Development Agreement, by
execution of the Agreement, the Developer agreed and became
obligated to the following:
112 .2.8 School Facilities
(a) Developer agrees to designate an area for a public school
site as provided in the California Government Code, City
ordinances and other applicable law. The City encourages
the Developer and the school district " negotiate in
good faith to reach mutual agreement. " (emphasis added)
Further, by execution of the Agreement, the Developer agreed and
became obligated to the following:
112 . 3 . 1 Permitted Development On and Uses of the Property.
The permitted used of the property, the density and intensity
of use, the maximum height, bulk and size of proposed
buildings, parking requirements, other development and
building standards, provisions for reservation or dedication
of land for public purposes, the location and design of public
improvements, and all other terms and conditions applicable
to development of the property shall be those set forth in
City' s Existing Land Use Regulations and all other terns and
conditions set forth in this Agreement. "
4-1
^yWwi.SvREUS KZOCuIts �W MF---
tm/
Existing Land Use Regulations is defined in the Agreement, as
follows:
111. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, approved by the City
Council through its adoption of Ordinance No. 2998 on
June 26, 1989;
2. Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 approved
by the City Council through its adoption of Resolution
No. 6098 on January 8, 1990 ;
3 . EIR No. 88-2 prepared for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific
Plan (adopted on May 1, 1989, by Resolution No. 6022) ;
4 . EIR No. 89-1 prepared for the Holly-Seacliff General Plan '
Amendment (adopted on January 8 , 1990, by Resolution No.
6097) ;
5. All elements of the City' s General Plan, including the
recently adopted Housing Element and the current Coastal
Element;
6. The City's existing zoning code shall serve as the
development standards for the project unless and until
superceded by the City' s adoption and incorporation into
this Agreement of the "Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan" ;
7. All other ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules and
regulations of the City which are in force on the
effective date of this Agreement; and
8. All other provisions of this Agreement relating to the
development and use of the property. "
I
We note that EIR No. 89-1 designates a school site on the northwest
corner of Garfield Avenue and Saddleback Lane. In addition, the
following comment and response is contained in Final EIR No. 89-1:
"Comment
2 . In order to mitigate the impact on K-5 students, a 10-
acre site and approximately 24 classrooms are needed.
As of this date, Huntington Beach City School District
is negotiating with the Huntington Beach Company with
regard to elementary school (land and building) in the
proposed General Plan Amendment area, with both groups
working cooperatively toward a resolution.
4-2
,Mw
Response
The comment is not related to the adequacy of the EIR. The
comment is noted and included in the record for review by the
appropriate decision-makers. "
The response acknowledges and incorporates into the record the
District' s requirement for a 10-acre school site. It is the
District's opinion that Pacific Coast Homes and Garfield Partners
are responsible for designating a 10-acre school site less street
rights-of-way, and any school unusable easements for other
purposes, at the northwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Saddleback
Lane.
We conclude that the location of the potential school site on Lot
No' s. 63 - 94 of Tentative Tract Map No. 14010 is in accordance
with General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 of the Holly-Seacliff project.
We have however raised the concern that the site proposed and
designated does not conform to the standards which we have
previously advised the City of, and which was acknowledged in Final
EIR No. 89-1. We note that Lot No 's. 63 - 94 consist of 9 . 9977
acres which includes .Lot 'IF" and "G" , and street rights-of-way.
We have been advised by the City that Lots "F" and "G" are a
requirement of the Citv for purposes of an equestrian path and
landscaping easements, and that no other use may be permitted
within that area. Therefore, deleting Lots "F" and "G" and the
Saddleback Lane and Garfield Avenue rights-of-way, the net acreage
which is being offered to the District represents 8. 3116 acres
versus the previously stated 10-acres. This is unacceptable to the
District and does not meet the standards for development of the
school site, or the guidelines of the State Department of
Education.
In order to meet the requirements of the District, the Developer
may need to relocate the school site into the Specific Plan area,
thereby affecting the integrity of the Specific Plan as proposed.
We are also concerned -that the Developer has failed to negotiate
in good faith towards reaching a mutual agreement. On September
30, 1991 and October 1, 1991 the District net in all-day sessions
with the Developer to attempt to attain an agreement relative to
the final designation of a school site and an agreement as to a
financing plan. This came about as a result of the Planning
Commission' s continuation on September 17 , 1991 of the
applications. Although the District has made considerable
concessions, the Developer has proposed a "bottom-line" position
which places a severe financial obligation or. the District
4-3
T.
and the community to participate in the mitigation of the impact
of the development of the area. This is unreasonable and
inconsistent with EIR No. 89-1 and Development Agreement No. 90-1.
The District has made several major concessions in order to
negotiate in good faith towards a mutually acceptable agreement.
These have included, but are not limited to:
1) Reducing the student generation yield rates from . 2695
(which represents comparable new developments in
Huntington Beach) to . 2035, a yield reduction of 25%;
2) Modifying the school acreage requirement for a non-joint
use facility from 10. 0 acres to 8. 6 acres, or a 14%
reduction in land requirements and subsequent costs;
3) Capping the K-5 grade mitigation requirement to 600
students versus the projected 757 student estimate;
4) Modifying the mitigation requirement for 6-8 grade
student yields from the provision of land and permanent
facilities at a cost of $23 , 089 per 6 grade student and
$36, 150 per 7-8 grade student, to the provision of
relocatable facilities at a cost of $3 ,333 per 6-8 grade
student;
5) Eliminating a present value inflation factor on
improvement costs; and
6) Agreeing to a joint use facility thereby enabling the
Developer to gain dual use of the property, reducing
their financial obligation jointly with the City and the i
District.
i
The Developer' s two (2) concessions have been to:
1) Increase the District's present development fee from
$. 964 per square foot of residential to $1. 1568 per
square foot, or a 20% increase in estimated development
fees. This represents an increase in fees of $1. 565
million; and
2) Maintain the purchase price of the site to be acquired
at a present value for six (6) months.
The concessions made by the District far more represent a good
faith effort, than the Developer' s proposal to mitigate only a
portion of the development 's impact. This is inconsistent with the
provisions of Development Agreement No. 90-1.
4-4
CO-71 svrTws 450Cugs.1C
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 89-1
AND
EIR NO. 89-1 NON-COMPLIANCE
The Statement of Findings and Facts of EIR No. 89-1 on General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1 states, in part:
"Significant Effect
Development of the project will impact elementary and high
school facilities.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the
extent feasible by virtue of the following mitigation measures
identified in the Final EIR and incorporated into the project.
i. The GPA designates a site for a new elementary school to
serve students generated by residential development
within the project area.
2 . The school district and major landowner should enter into
an agreement for acquisition or lease of the site as part
of implementation of this GPA.
3 . Developers should tea school impact fees to finance i
F _ Y F
construction of necessary school facilities.
a . The Huntington Beach Union High School District should I
coordinate its expansion plans with phasing of
development within the project area and surrounding
areas. "
Further, the Mitigation Measures of EIR No. 89-1 and General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1 states, in part:
"Schools
9 . The GPA designates a site for a new elementary school to i
serve students generated by residential development
within the project area.
5-1
Ij
�„uruw T Sv5TE v5JSv5tE v5�SSOCuiES���
10. The school district and major landowner should enter into
an agreement for acquisition or lease of the site as part
of implementation of this GPA.
11. Developers should pay school impact fees to finance
construction of necessary school facilities.
12. The Huntington Beach Union High School District should
coordinate its expansion plans with phasing of
development within the project area and surrounding
areas. "
Finally, Final EIR No. 89-1 states:
"Comment
1. The proposed Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment will
have a significant impact on the school district. It may
generate approximately 600 K-5 students from the proposed
new housing. Additional students of middle school age
from this project may also impact Dwyer Middle School .
Response
Comment acknowledged. The General Plan Amendment designates
a site for a new elementary school to serve students generated
by the residential development. Impacts to Dwyer Middle
School are not anticipated to require the provision of a
middle school.
Comment
2. In order to mitigate the impact on K-5 students, a 10-
acre site and approximately 24 classrooms are needed.
As of this date, Huntington Beach City School District
is negotiating with the Huntington Beach Con, any with
regard to an elementary school (land and building) in the
proposed General Plan Amendment area, with both groups
working cooperatively toward a resolution.
Response
The comment is not related to the adequacy of the EIR. The
comment is noted and included in the record for review by the
appropriate decision-makers.
5-2
�-C =
CCw rl STSTt.S"SCC.
EMI
Comment
3 . We would appreciate these factors being considered prior
to final action being taken.
Response
Comment acknowledged. "
The Developer has failed to designate an adequate site in
accordance with the provisions of EIR No. 89-1. The Developer has
also not entered into an agreement for acquisition or lease of the
site as a part of implementation of the General Plan Amendment.
Finally, the Developer has failed to agree to pay fees to finance
the construction of the "necessary school facilities" .
Further impact analysis set forth in this letter will substantiate
that statutory or developer proposed development fees are
inadequate to meet the required costs of impact mitigation, and
that the Developer has not negotiated in good faith the provision
of a financing plan to comply with the mitigation requirements of
EIR No. 89-1.
5-3
:,rwwi.f'STE rE 4ESOC.wi[[+{�
SPECIFIC PLAN NON-COMPLIANCE
The District notes the contents of the State of California General
Plan Guidelines promulgated by the Office of Planning & Research,
and the provisions of Section 65451 of the Government Code, which
states:
"Section 65451. Required contents
(a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or
diagrams which specify all of the following in detail:
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses
of land, including open space, within the area
covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent and
intensity of major components of public and private
transportation, sewage, water, drainage, solid waste
disposal, energy, and other essential facilities
proposed to be located within the area covered by
the plan and needed to SUAnOrt the land uses
described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will
proceed, and standards for conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources,
where applicable.
(4) A program of implementation neasures including
regulations , programs , public works nrolects , and
financing measures necessary to carry out naraaranhs
(1) , (2) , and (3) .
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the
relationship of the specific plan to the general plan. "
(emphasis added)
The District notes that the Specific Plan does not provide
"financing measures necessary to carry out" the Plan, specifically
as it relates to essential school facilities needed to support the
land uses of the Plan. In lieu of such financing measures the
Specific Plan refers to the statutory development fees and the
mitigation measures set forth in EIR No. 89-1, which both can be
shown to be inadequate. The Specific Plan states:
6-1
i�i
"The Specific Plan Area is located within the Huntington Beach
City School District (Grades K-8) and the Huntington Beach
Union High School District (Grades 9-12) . All development
within the Specific Plan Area is subject to the payment of
school impact fees at the time of issuance of building
permits, in accordance with Government Code Section 53080.
School facility impact mitigation measures per Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 shall be applied to
development within the Specific Plan Area (see Section VI) . "
This is inconsistent with the City' s General Plan policies and
programs which require the assurance, provision, and adequacy of
public facilities, does not adequately address impact mitigation
based upon the most recent information, and does not comply with
Section 65451 of the Government Code.
6-2
L iL
cow .S'S t.sS S XWES i
IMPACT ANALYSIS
In order to validate the District' s position relative to
unmitigated impact resulting from the Specific Plan, the following
is offered for the record. The District has received the following
items from the Developer as a part of the District/Developer
negotiated process, and are incorporated herein by reference:
1) Holly-Seacliff Area School Facilities Impact Analysis and
Student Housing Mitigation Plan - July, 1991;
2) August 5, 1991 letter from Urban West Communities responding
to my letter of July 29, 1991; and
3) August 7 , 1991 memorandum from Urban West Communities.
The following presents an evaluation of the materials, and their
comparison to District' s factual information and impact analysis.
It is noted that the impact analysis discussion herein refers only
to that area within the Specific Plan boundaries, although the
overall area of impact applies to both the Holly-Seacliff and
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan areas.
Please note that where stated amounts are inconsistent for
similarly discussed items, this is due to mathematical rounding
resulting from the specificity and detail of formulas utilized.
} All conclusions should be considered plus or minus amounts.
1) Determination of Impact
Impact on the District by the development of the Holly-
Seacliff Specific Plan can be defined as 1) students generated
to be accommodated by the District; and 2) cost to the
District to accommodate the students.
Impact, and subsequently impact mitigation, is driven by three
(3) variables:
1) student generation factors or student yield;
2) required land and subsequent costs; and
3) required new improvements or reconstructed improvements
and subsequent costs.
7-1
:rurwrtv SKTE uS aSSOCIL I
:.iEi wC
These are two (2) categories of impact and cost which should
be addressed. These include K-5 grade facilities and 6-8
grade facilities. Further, there are two (2) significant
variables related to cost. These include 1) improvement
construction and furnishing costs; and 2) land acquisition
costs.
It is important to note that the District' s determination of
improvement construction and furnishing costs follow the
procedures and formulas as have been established by the State
of California Office of Local Assistance and the Department
of Education. Throughout previous discussions and
negotiations with the Developer, the Developer has not
challenged the procedures, formulas, or conclusions reached
by the District relative to these improvement construction and
furnishing costs.
A second important condition to note relates to the land
acquisition cost. The feasibility and viability of the impact
mitigation measures set forth in EIR No. 89-1 is completely
driven by the purchase price of the land. Normally, and as
required by Sate law, this would be determined based upon an
appraisal process using "comparability" (i.e. , value based
upon comparison of similar properties) . However, the
Developer has established the purchase price of the property,
based upon a value negotiated as a part of the partnership
transaction between Pacific Coast Homes (Huntington Beach
Company) and Urban West Communities. It appears that this
value is not based upon comparable sales, but rather is a
projected value assuming the receipt of entitlements and
future market conditions. In essence, a substantial profit
margin has been added to the land basis in order to establish
the relationship between the prior owner of the land who is
now a partner in the development, and Urban West Communities.
In addition, the land value has been increased by the
property' s pro-rata share of infrastructure and public
facility improvements required of other public agencies. For
a 10-acre site, this equates to $800, 000.
It is the District' s opinion that the proposed purchase price
offer of the land has been arbitrarily set at a value higher
than comparable parcels, far in excess of the land basis held
by the Developer partnership. In so doing, the Developer is
receiving an unreasonable profit margin which is resulting in
the need for the District and community to provide funding in
excess of development fee requirements.
7-2
ywT•S+SxE va�SSOCutES�C ��
We note that where the Developer was required to make
available rights-of-way, easements, and parcels for the
benefit of the development, but required by other public
agencies, that these lands were dedicated at not cost versus
acquired by the public agency at the Developer' s value of the
property. The District would suggest that it is the
Developer' s profit margin above the land basis which is
causing in part, the mitigation measures of EIR No. 89-1 to
be ineffective towards mitigating the impact of the
development.
The following impact analysis will substantiate the District ' s
contentions relative to impact mitigation revenues and
expenditures.
2) student Generation
The District has previously used average District-wide student
generation factors or student yields, as follows:
K-5 . 1171 students/dwelling unit
6 . 0191 students/dwelling unit
7-8 . 0434 students/dwelling unit
Total . 1796 students/dwelling unit
However, this is an average District-wide factor which assumes
a mature community, and does not reflect actual yield rates
of new developments in the community. A survey of various new
developments in the community as previously discussed reflects
yield factors which range higher than the average District-
wide factors.
These new development yields are as follows:
K-5 . 1779 students/dwelling unit
6 . 0305 students/dwelling unit
7-8 . 0611 students/dwelling unit
Total . 2695 students/dwelling unit
The Developer has provided the District with a 10-year Phasing
Plan (1991-2001) identifying the number of units and average
square feet by product type for the total units proposed
within General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 (4 , 410 dwelling units) ,
and not presently existing. There are 155 existing units.
The following is a summary of that Plan:
7-3
No. of Units 4 , 255
Total Residential Sq. Ft. 8 , 120, 000
Average Sq. Ft./Unit 1,908
The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan includes 3, 930 or 92. 36 (±) %
of the 4,255 units.
The District's projection of students is as follows:
a) Specific Plan - 3 ,930 Units
Avg. District-Wide Yield (+) New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 460 699
6 75 120
7-8 171 240
TOTAL 706 1, 059
b) Developer Proposed - 4 ,255 Units
Avg. District-Wide Yield (+) New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 498 757
6 81 130
7-8 185 260
TOTAL 764 1, 147
c) Total Units Holly-Seacliff/Ellis-Coldenwest - 4 , 410 Units
Avg. District-Wide Yield (+) New Dev. Yield (T)
K-5 516 785
6 84 135
7-8 191 269
TOTAL -791 1, 189
3) Projected Development Fees
The Developer's Mitigation Fees Collection Projection
estimates present development fees, as follows for the 4 , 410
proposed units:
7-4
cwwMn STEMS ALWCWE7 wC FMM=
"M W
Residential Fees @ $ .934/sq. ft. $7 , 584 , 082
Commercial Fees @ $. 1586/sq. ft. 214 , 110
Total Fees $7, 798 , 192
It appears that the Developer's residential fee per square
foot was based upon $1. 53 x 61% or $.934 . The District 's
share of the present fee is actually $1.58 x 61%, resulting
in a fee per residential square foot of $.964 , or $7,827, 680.
Assuming that the Specific Plan represents 92. 36% of the 4 , 410
proposed units, the residential fees projected for the
Specific Plan area would be $7, 827, 680 x 92 . 36% or
$7, 229, 645 (±) . Said another way, assuming an average unit
size of 1, 908 which has been identified in the Phasing Plan,
the Specific Plan 3 , 930 units would equate to 7 , 498 , 440 square
feet, or a residential development fee of $7, 228 , 496 (±) .
4) Land Coss
The Developer has set forth land costs as follows for several
alternative site locations:
Cost/Acre
a) Northwest corner of Garfield Avenue
and Saddleback Lane $720, 000
b) South side of Garfield Avenue $825, 000
c) Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue
and Gothard Street $730, 000
There is no information to substantiate the land cost per
acre, except that $80, 000 of each is allocated to
infrastructure required by Development Agreement No. 90-1.
This $80, 000 per acre is intended to be allocated to parks,
police sub-stations, fire stations, equestrian paths, and
basic infrastructure, etc. It is the District ' s contention
that the District should not be obligated to fund such
facilities which have been required of the Developer by other
public agencies.
Based upon a 35, 400 square foot building area for a K-6 school
and 60, 000 square foot building for a 7-8 school, the land
cost per building square feet would be as follows for
different sized sites:
7-5
SME.5"SM-ES-c aOT
`-w
a) $720 , 000 Purchase Price/Acre
Land Closing Total Land Closing Total
K-6 K-6 K-6 7-8 7-8 7-8
Site Total Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg.
Acreage Cost Sq. Ft. So. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sa.Ft.
10.0 S 7,200,000 S203.39 $1.41 $204.80
9.5 S 6,840,000 5193.22 S1.41 $194.63
9.0 S 6,480,000 $183.05 S1.41 S184.46
8.5 S 6,120,000 $172.88 $1.41 $174.29
8.0 S 5,760,000 S162.71 $1.41 $164.12
7.5 S 5,400,000 $152.54 S1.41 $153.95
7.0 S 5,040,000 $142.37 $1.41 $143.79
6.5 S 4,680,000 $132.20 $1.41 $133.62
6.0 S 4,320,000 $122.03 $1.41 $123.45
5.5 S 3,960,000 $111.86 $1.41 $113.28
5.0 S 3,600,000 $101.56 $1.41 $103.11
4.5 S 3,240,000 S 91.53 $1.41 S 92.94
8.6 S 6,192,000 $174,92 $1.41 $176.33
8.3 S 5,976,000 $168.81 $1.41 $170.23
21.0 S15,120,000 $252.00 $0.83 $252.83
b) $730 , 000 Purchase Price/Acre
Land Closing Total Land Closing Total
K-6 K-6 K-6 7-8 7-8 7-8
Site Total Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg.
Acreage Cost So. Ft. So. Ft. So. Ft. So. Ft. So. Ft. So. Ft.
10.0 S 7,300,000 $206.21 $1.41 S207.63
9.5 S 6,935,000 $195.90 $1.41 S197.32
9.0 S 6,570,000 $185.59 $1.41 $187.01
8.5 S 6,205,000 $175.28 $1.41 $176.69
8.0 S 5,840,000 $164.97 $1.41 S166.38
7.5 S 5,475,000 $154.66 $1.41 $156.07
7.0 S 5,110,000 $144.35 $1.41 $145.76
6.5 S 4,745,000 $134.04 S1.41 $135.45
6.0 S 4,380,000 $123.73 $1.41 S125.14
5.5 S 4,015,000 S113.42 $1.41 S114.83
5.0 S 3,650,000 $103.11 S1.41 $104.52
4.5 S 3,285,000 S 92.80 $1.41 S 94.21
8.6 S 6,278,000 S177.34 $1.41 $178.76
8.3 S 6,059,000 $171.16 S1.41 S172.57
21.0 $15,330,000 $255.50 $0.83 $256.33
7-6
Co..--VVErVVErss"Ux-Es..K
\mI
c) $825 , 000 Purchase Price/Acre
Land Closing Total Land Closing Total
K-6 K-6 K-6 7-8 7-8 7-8
Site Total Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg.
Acreage Cost Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. So. Ft. SS. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
10.0 S 8,250,000 $233.05 $1.41 $234.46
9.5 S 7,837,500 S221.40 $1.41 $222.81
9.0 S 7,425,000 $209.75 $1.41 S211.16
8.5 S 7,012,000 $198.09 S1.41 S199.51
8.0 $ 6,600,000 $186.44 $1.41 $187.85
7.5 S 6,187,500 $174.79 $1.41 $176.20
7.0 S 5,775,000 S163.14 $1.41 $164.55
6.5 $ 5,362,500 $151.48 S1.41 $152.90
6.0 S 4,950,000 $139.83 S1.41 $141.24
5.5 $ 4,537,500 S128.18 $1.41 $129.59
5.0 S 4,125,000 $116.53 $1.41 $117.94
4.5 S 3,712,500 $104.87 $1.41 $106.29
8.6 S 7,095,000 $200.42 $1.41 $201.84
8.3 S 6,847,500 $193.43 S1.41 $194.84
21.0 S17,3Z5,000 $288.75 $0.83 $289.58
These three (3) alternative sites proposed by the Developer
would have a total cost as follows:
Cost
a) Northwest corner of Garfield Avenue
and Saddleback Lane (10. 0 acre purchase) $7 , 200, 000
b) South side of Garfield Avenue
(5. 5 acre purchase) $4, 537, 500
c) Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue
and Gothard Street (6. 0 acre purchase) $4 , 380, 000
A 10-acre K-5 or K-6 grade 600 student school site would have
the following costs per student based upon the stated purchase
prices per acre:
Cost/Acre Cost/Student
$825, 000/acre $13,750
$730, 000/acre $12 , 167
$720, 000/acre $12, 000
A 21-acre 6-8 or 7-8 grade 750 student school site would have
the following cost per student based upon the stated purchase
price per acre:
7-7
1
�,., ,,..Tv„siE.S�SSpCuiEE WC �c
\�I
Cost/Acre Cost/Student
$825, 000/acre $23 , 100
$730, 000/acre $20, 400
$720, 000/acre $20, 160
5) Improvement Costs (K-5)
The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs
is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building
area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net
building square footage of 35, 400 square feet, based upon 59
square feet per student. A 750 student 7-8 grade school
requires a net building square footage of 60, 000 square feet,
based upon 80 square feet per student.
state construction practices accept a base building cost of
$90. 87 per square foot for K-6 grade schools, and $93 . 61 per
square foot for 7-8 grade schools. These costs assume 300 of
the building square footage as relocatable classrooms.
The Developer has used a K-5 combination figure of permanent
facilities at $92 . 00(±) per square foot and relocatable
facilities at $97. 23 (+) , or a combined average of $92 . 91 (±)
per square foot. This represents a slight .increase over the
District' s base building costs for a grade K-5 school.
The categories of cost have been calculated in Tables 1-1 and
1-2 for both the District' s and the Developer' s cost
estimates. As noted, when comparing columns 11G" & "p, " the
Developer costs appear to under-estimate the other non-
building costs. Of particular significance is the lack of a
cost calculation for furniture, the under-estimation of
service site and off-site improvements, and an unrealistic
estimate for contingencies. It is noted that some of the off-
site improvement costs set forth in the Developer's estimate
may be set forth within, the land cost of $80, 000
infrastructure improvements.
With these general comments, the comparison of total K-5
improvement and furniture costs are as follows:
District Develooer
Total Cost (excludes land) $5,553,700 54,107,480
cost/sq. Ft. of Building S 156.88 s 116.03
As an example, the improvement cost of a K-5 school of 600
students at $156. 88 per square foot is $5, 553 ,700 or $9 , 256 (±)
per student.
7-8 1
T
CO„,u+n YT3TEY3 1S30C�TE5 WC �C
6) 6-8 Improvement Costs
The Developer has proposed a relocatable improvement program
to address 6-8 grade demands, at $100, 000 per relocatable.
For permanent facilities, the District would use a total cost
per square foot (excluding land) of $156.88 for grade 6 and
$162 .30 for grades 7-8. A more detailed explanation is set
forth in Table 1-1.
As an example, the improvement cost of a 7-8 grade school of
750 students at $162 . 30 per square foot is $9, 738 , 000 or
$12 , 984 per student.
7) Inflation Standards
The Developer has used an annual inflation factor of 3 . 0% to
project future land and improvement costs. Although the land
cost inflation factor is driven by Developer/District
negotiations, the use of an improvement cost inflation factor
of 3% is unrealistic. A more prudent inflation factor would
be 5% (±) , based upon 10-year historical records. For purposes
of this analysis, constant numbers or a non-inflated analysis
has been used herein.
8) Total Costs and Revenue Surolus/Deficit
Based upon the Specific Plan projection of 3, 930 dwelling
units, the projected improvement cost would be as follows:
Units - 3 , 930
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9, 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Improvement Improvement
Students Cost Students Cost
K-5 460 $ 4 , 259, 639 699 $ 6, 471, 305
6 75 $ 694 ,738 120 $ 1, 109 , 470
7-8 171 $ 2 , 214 ,577 240 S 3 , 117 ,757
TOTAL 706 $ 7,168,999 1, 059 $10, 698 , 532
Based upon the Developer proposed units of 4 , 255, the
projected impact cost would be as follows:
7-9
Co.--SKT S"Soc u,ES,VaC
Units - 4 , 255
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9 , 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
Average District-Wide Yield New Development Yield
Improvement Improvement
Students Cost Students Cost
K-5 498 $ 4, 611,899 757 $ 7, 006, 463
6 81 $ 752 , 240 130 $ 1, 201, 221
7-8 185 2 , 397 ,716 260 $ 3 , 375 , 587
TOTAL 764 $ 7,761, 855 1, 147 $11, 583 , 271
Based upon the total units of 4, 410 (Holly-Seacliff/Ellis
Goldenwest) , the projected improvement cost would be as
follows:
Units - 4 , 410
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9, 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Improvement Improvement
Students Cost Students Cost
K-5 516 $ 4, 779, 900 785 $ 7 , 261, 693
6 84 $ 779, 642 135 $ 1, 244, 978
7-8 191 S 2 ,485, 060 269 $ 3 ,498 , 552
TOTAL 792 $ 8, 044, 602 1, 188 $12 , 005, 223
The land cost can be similarly compared. Based upon the
Specific Plan projection of 3 , 930 dwelling units, the
projected land cost would be as follows:
Units - 3 , 930
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
a S825,000 a $730,000 2 $720,000 a S825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000
Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre
K-6 1 S 13,750 $ 12,167 S 12,000 1 $ 13,750 S 12,167 $ 12,000
7-8 1 S 23,100 $ 20,400 S 20,160 1 S 23,100 S 20,400 S 20,160
7-10
�p,W,rn S'STEMS ISSOCMTES MC ��
K-5 460 S 6,327,791 S 5,599,290 S 5,522,436 699 S 9,613,271 S 8,506,522 S 8,389,764
6 75 S 1,032,116 S 913,292 S 900,756 120 $ 1,648,144 S 1,458,397 S 1,438,380
7-8 171 $ 3,939,982 S 3,479,465 S 3,438,530 240 S 5,546,841 S 4,898,509 S 4,840,880
TOTAL 706 $11,299,890 S 9,992,046 S 9,861,722 1,059 S16,808,256 $14,863,428 S14,699,024
Based upon the Developer proposed units of 4 , 255, the projected
land cost would be as follows:
Units - 4 ,255
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 a $825,000 a S730,000 a $720,000
Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre
K-6 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000
7-8 1 S 23,100 $ 20,400 S 20,160 1 S 23,100 S 20,400 $ 20,160
K-5 498 S 6,851,082 S 6,062,336 S 5,979,126 757 $10,408,262 S 9,209,987 S 9,083,574
6 81 S 1,117,469 S 988,818 S 975,246 130 S 1,784,441 S 1,579,003 S 1,557,330
7-8 185 S 4,265,808 S 3,767,207 S 3,722.887 260 S 6,005,550 S 5,303,602 S 5,241,207
TOTAL 764 S12,234,359 $10,818,360 $10,677,259 1,147 $18,198,252 $16,092,592 $15,882,111
Based upon the total units of 4 , 410 (Holly-Seacliff/Ellis-
Goldenwest) , the projected land cost would be as follows:
Units - 4 ,410
Averaae District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000
Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre
K-6 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000
7-8 1 S 23,100 S 20,400 S 20,160 1 $ 23,100 S 20,400 S 20,160
K-5 516 S 7,100,651 S 6,283,173 S 6,196,932 785 S10,787,411 $ 9,545,486 S 9,414,468
6 84 S 1,158,176 S 1,024,839 S 1,010,772 135 $ 1,849,444 S 1,636,522 $ 1,614,060
7-8 191 S 4,421,201 S 3,904,438 S 3,858,503 269 S 6,224,318 _ S 5,496,800 S 5,432,132
TOTAL 792 $12,680,029 $11,212,449 S11,066,207 1,188 $18,861,173 $16,678,809 $16,460,660
In addition, all of the land costs would need to be increased
by the cost of appraisals and closing cost which equate to
approximately $50, 000 per site.
7-11
1
i
At-
SrJLJ�C�w.un'TE mS AS50C�rFS WC
\�r
The following presents the revenue surplus/ (deficit) based
upon 3 , 930, 4, 255, and 4 ,410 units, respectively:
a) Units - 3 , 930
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
@ S825,000 @ $730,000 @ $720,000 2 $825,000 Z $730,000 a $720,000
Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre
K-5 S 6,327,791 $ 5,599,290 S 5,522,436 S 9,613,271 S 8,506,522 S 8,389,764
6 S 1,032,116 S 913,292 S 900,756 S 1,648,144 S 1,458,397 S 1,438,380
7 S 3,939,982 $ 3,479,465 S 3,438,530 S 5,546,841 S 4,898,509 $ 4,840,880
SUB-TOTAL LAND $11,299,890 $ 9,992,046 S 9,861,722 $16,808,256 S14,863,428 $14,669,024
K-5 S 4,259,639 $ 4,259,046 S 4,259,639 S 6,471,305 S 6,471,305 S 6,471,305
6 S 694,783 S 694,783 S 694,783 S 1,109,470 S 1,109,470 S 1,109,470
7 S 2,214,577 S 2,214,577 S 2,214,577 S 3,117,757 S 3,117,757 S 3,117,757
SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS S 7,168,999 $ 7,168,999 S 7,168,999 S10,698,532 $10,698,532 $10,698,532
TOTAL $18,468,889 $17,161,045 $17,030,721 $27,506,799 S25,561,960 $25,367,556
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
FEES S,0964 S 7,228,496 S 7,228,496 S 7,228,496 S 7,228,496 S 7,228,496 S 7,228.496
REVENUE
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($11,240,393) (S 9,932,549) (S 9,802,225) (S20,278,292) (S18,333,464) ($18,139,060)
b) Units - 4 , 255
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
a S825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 a S825,000 a S730,000 a $720,000
Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre
K-5 S 6,851,082 S 6,062,336 S 5,979,126 S10,408,262 S 9,209,987 S 9,083,574
6 S 1,117,469 S 988,818 S 975,246 S 1,784,441 S 1,579,003 S 1,55,7,330
7 S 4,265,808 $ 3,767,207 S 3,722,887 S 6,005,550 S 5.303,602 S 5,241,207
SUB-TOTAL LAND $12,234,359 S10,818,360 $10,677,259 $18,198,252 $16,092,592 S15,882,111
K-5 S 4,611,899 S 4,611,899 $ 4,611,899 $ 7,006,463 S 7,006,463 S 7,006,463
6 S 752,240 S 752,240 S 752,240 S 1,201,221 $ 1,201,221 S 1,201,221
7 S 2,397,716 S 2,297,716 S 2,397,716 S 3,375,587 S 3,375,587 S 3,375,587
SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS S 7,761,855 S 7,761,855 S 7,761,855 $11,583,271 $11,583,271 $11,583,271
TOTAL $19,996,214 $18,580,216 $18,439,114 $29,781,523 $27,675,863 $27,465,382
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
FEES S.0964 S 7,826,273 S 7,826,273 S 7,826,273 S 7,826.273 S 7,826,273 S 7,826,273
REVENUE
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($12,169,942) ($10,753,943) ($10,612,841) ($21,955,250) ($19,849,590) (S19,639,109)
7-12
[p, _Wri-S eS -13
_=P
c) Units - 4 , 410
Averacre District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
a $825,000 a $730,000 @ S720,000 2 S825,000 a S730,000 a S720,000
Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre
K-5 S 7,100,651 S 6,283,173 S 6,196,932 $10,787,411 S 9,545,486 S 9,414,468
6 S 1,158,176 S 1,024,839 S 1,010,772 S 1,849,444 S 1,636,522 $ 1,614,060
7-8 S 4,421,201 S 3,904,438 S 3,858,503 S 6,224,318 S 5,496,800 S 5,432,132
SUB-TOTAL LAND S12,680,029 S11,212,449 $11,066,207 $18,861,173 S16,678,809 $16,460,660
K-5 S 4,779,900 S 4,779,900 $ 4,779,900 S 7,261,693 S 7,261,693 S 7,261,693
6 S 779,642 S 779,642 $ 779,642 $ 1,244,978 S 1,244,978 S 1,244,978
7-8 S 2,485,060 $ 2,485,060 S 2,485,060 S 3,498,552 S 3,498,552 S 3,498,552
SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS S 8,044,602 S 8,044,602 S 8,044,602 S12,005,223 $12,005,223 $12,005,223
TOTAL $20,724,631 $19,257,051 $19,110,809 $30,866,396 $28,684,032 $28,465,883
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
FEES S.0964 S 8,111,366 S 8,111,366 S 8,111,366 S 8,111,366 S 8,222,366 S 8,111,366
REVENUE
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (S12,613,265) (S11,145,685) (S10,999,443) ($22,755,030) (S20,572,666) ($20,354,517)
In all cases, the analysis indicates a substantial def icit
resulting in a need for revenues in excess of statutory fees.
9) Use of Development Fees
The Developer is proposing that both residential and
commercial development fees be applied to the cost of
providing classroom facilities caused by the development of
the area.
It is suggested that only residential fees be - applied to the
construction of classrooms. The District' s reasoning is as
follows. The District will experience costs for the following
requirements as a result of development:
1) busses and transportation facilities ;
2) maintenance and operation equipment and facilities.; and
3) administration facilities.
7-13
:O....y..r.VVEUS"SOCWES.
It is suggested that the proposed commercial development fees
would be more appropriately applied to these cost areas, so
as to ensure that the District is not further impacted. Based
on the District's projections, this represents approximately
$233 , 363 (±) over 10 years, or $23 , 336 (±) average per year.
This is not an unrealistic amount considering the cost of
transportation equipment, and the development' s projected pro-
rata share of these costs.
10) Existing District Enrollment/Capacity
The District is and will continue to experience severe
District facility capacity utilization and overcrowding. The
following list sets forth the various open District schools,
grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment
as of October 1, 1990 and October 11 1991:
1991
Enrollment
Enrollment Available Classrooms Caoacity % of Total
School Acreage 1990 1991 Permanent Portable Total Permanent Portable Total Capacity
Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 10.1(±) 816 803 24 2 26 720 60 780 1.0295%
1502 Palm Avenue
Huntington Beach
Sowers Middle School (6-8) 17.3(±) 1,118 1,115 28 9 37 840 270 1,110 1.0045%
9300 Indianapolis
Huntington Beach
Smith School (K-5) 10.3(±) 694 693 19 4 23 570 120 690 1.0043%
770 17th Street
Huntington Beach
Perry School (K-5) 10.6(±) 558 559 18 0 18 540 0 540 1.0352;:
19231 Harding Lane
Huntington Beach
Eader School (K-5) 13.0(±) 725 725 23 1 24 690 30 720 1.0069%
9291 Banning Avenue
Huntington Beach
Kettler School (K-5) 12.8(±) 612 698 20 3 23 600 90 690 1.0116%.
8750 Dorsett Drive
Huntington Beach
Hawes School (K-5) 10.6(±) 382 395 13 0 13 390 0 390 1.0128'.
9682 Yellowstone Drive
Huntington Beach
Moffett School (K-5) 9.2(±) 654 693 21 2 23 630 60 690 1.0043'
8800 Burlcrest Avenue
Huntington Beach
Total 5,559 5,681 166 21 187 4,980 630 5,610 1.0127%
7-14
". 02=
i i [e"Id
co..w..n
The student differences between enrollment and capacity are
housed in special classrooms, laboratories, and other
reconfigured school areas.
The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used
District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity:
School Acreage Capacity
LeBard School 10.8(±) 540
20451 Craimer Lane
Huntington Beach
(Currently District Office)
Burke School 7.9(±) 690
9700 Levee Drive
Huntington Beach
(leased to Private High School
and Child Care Agency)
Peterson School 9.6(+) 690
20661 Farnsworth Lane
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Coast Community College)
Clapp School 5.8(+) 270
20581 Farnsworth Lane
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Orange County
Department of Education)
Gisler School (Closed) 16.3(±) 960
21141 Strathmoor Lane
Huntington Beach
The only schools available to the Specific Plan area which
would not require a total re-organization of the enrollment
attendance areas, but will still require costs to the District
in terms of bussing students, include Dwyer Middle School and
Smith Elementary School.
Dwyer Middle School consists of 26 regular classrooms, of
which 2 are relocatables, with a total capacity of 780
students. Based upon the October, 1991 enrollment, Dwyer
Middle School is at a capacity of 1. 03%.
Smith Elementary School consists of 23 regular classrooms, of
which 4 are relocatable, with a total capacity of 690
students. Based upon the October, 1991 enrollment, Smith
Elementary School is at a capacity of 100%.
7-15
CC,..TV SITTE..S ASS=WtS.K
Based upon the student generation yields described herein for
the Specific Plan area, the impact on Dwyer Middle School and
Smith Elementary School create an even more overcrowded
condition requiring the District to pursue significant
enrollment attendance boundary modifications and/or the re-
opening of schools in areas which would not be effective in
terms of the educational programs and operations of the
District. In addition, the District would incur school re-
opening and re-configuration costs, bussing costs, loss
revenues from existing leases, and the cost to acquire land
and construct a new District office.
The Developer has set forth a recommendation to utilize the
District' s existing development fee fund to re-open existing
schools to mitigate the Developer' s impact. This is
inconsistent with the District' s policy and procedures. The
District' s previously collected development fees in the
approximate amount of $4 . 0 million has been designated to
mitigate impact of previous developments for which the fees
were paid, in accordance with Section 65995 of the Government
Code. It is inappropriate for the District to reallocate
these monies to a new purpose, thereby jeopardizing the
partial mitigation of previous developments. In addition, the
utilization of existing school sites is misleading. As is
noted herein, the District's open schools are at or exceeding
capacity of both permanent and portable (temporary)
facilities. The re-opening of existing schools places
financial liabilities on the District in terms of
reconstruction/re-opening costs, transportation costs, and
operation and maintenance costs, etc. ; and will result in
social/political implications in terms of attendance boundary
modifications, busing of students, and social maladjustments
between already established neighborhood school areas.
In addition, the District' s disposal of existing closed or
non-school used school sites would have an adverse effect on
the District' s operational, management and administrative
responsibilities to the community, and would adversely effect
the asset (land and revenue) management direction and planning
of the Board of Trustees.
7-16
IMPACT MITIGATION NEGOTIATIONS
In an attempt to reconcile differences between the Developer and
the District, and to implement a realistic mitigation program
acceptable to the District, the District proposed to the Developer
a mitigation program which contained various concessions, and which
resulted in a Developer additional contribution of $3 . 066 million
over statutory fees versus the magnitude of revenue deficits
previously stated.
The District's concessions have been previously noted in this
letter. The following represents the District' s prior proposal to
the Developer which the District believed was a fair and equitable
mitigation plan considering the items the Developer has previously
raised:
1) School Site Designation Alternatives - The District would keep
the option open to acquire the property and site the school
either has a) a joint use school/park consisting of a net six
(6) acre school and a net four (4) acre park at the northeast
corner of Garfield and Crystal (Gothard Extension) ; or b) a
school of nine (9) acres at the northwest corner of Garfield
and Saddleback Lane;
2) Site Purchase Price - The District would purchase the property
chosen by the District at a fixed non-escalated price, as
follows:
Garfield/Crystal (Gothard Extension) Site - $730, 000 per
acre or $4 , 380, 000 (6. 0 acres) ;
Garfield/Saddleback Lane Site - $720, 000 per acre or
S6 , 192 , 000 (8. 6 acres) ;
Garfield/Saddleback Lane Site - $720, 000 per acre or
55 , 976 , 000 (8 . 3 acres;
3) Transfer of Property - Fee title to the chosen site would be
transferred to the District upon the District ' s decision to
acquire the site and upon receiving State approval ;
4) Base Development Fee Rate - Development fees on properties
within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area and those
properties presently held by Pacific Coast Homes/Urban West
Communities within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area
would be collected at a rate of 1. 20% of the statutory fee in
effect at the time of issuance of building permits;
8-1
J91 tl J11A 4 ;_1r 1
5) Additional Development Fees - The District calculated a
deficit of $1.5 million against projected costs of $10. 9
million. The District would seek an additional fee increase
or property purchase price reduction, or combination thereof
equal to $1. 5 million. The proposed development fee would be
1. 40% of the statutory fees, and the property price reduction
would be $250, 000 per acre on the Garfield/Crystal (Gothard
Extension) site; or $174 ,419 per acre assuming 1. 6 (±)
purchased acres or $180,723 per acre assuming 8.3 purchased
acres on the Garfield/Saddleback site;
6) Expansion of Garfield/Saddleback Lane Site - If the District
chooses to add additional property to the Garfield/Saddleback
site, the District would utilize its authority to acquire the
property and would finance the acquisition with District
revenues; and
7) Housing of 6-8 Students - The District would not house 6-8
grade students generated by the development in permanent
facilities, but would allocate no more than $900, 000 of
collected development fees CO fund relocatables, as
appropriate.
For purposes of understanding the District's prior proposal, the
following mathematical calculations represent the present value
analysis:
Garfield/Crystal
Garfield/Saddleback Garfield/Saddleback (Gothard Extension)
(8.6 acres) (8.3 acres) (6.0 acres)
K-5
Land Cost S 6,192,000 S 5,976,000 S 4,380,000
Closing Cost 50,000 50,000 50,000
Improvement Cost S 5,553,552 S 5,553,552 S 5,553,552
Sub-Total S11,795,552 $11,579,552 S 9,983,552
6-8 Relocatables S 900,000 S 900,000 S 900,000
Total Cost $12,695,552 $12,479,552 S10,883,552
Development Fees
2 1.201 (Est.) S 9,391,267 S 9,391,267 S 9,391,267
Total Cost Less
Development Fees S 3,304,285 S 3,304,285 S 1,492,285
I
Additional Developer
Contributions S 1,500,000 S 1,500,000 S 1,492,285
Additional District
Contributions S 1,804,285 S 1,588,385 S .0-
8-2
coww.n s,srss.ssoc�*ss..c _t�
It is the District's opinion that the District has made several
concessions in order to negotiate in good faith towards a mutually
acceptable agreement. The Developer rejected this alternative
proposal and has instead sought financial contributions from the
District at the minimum amount of $1. 5 (±) million, but which could
be as high as $3.0(±) million or greater, depending on the site
chosen by the District.
8-3
r
Li
C:r.www SOCuTES..iC
SPECIFIC PLAN MODIFICATIONS
On September 3 , 1991, the District submitted a letter to the City
setting forth recommended revisions to the Specific Plan which
would address the District's concerns. The September 17 , 1991
Staff Report stated:
" . . . .Staff has received the School District letter and feels
that the additional language, as presented, is not necessary.
The Draft Specific Plan states that all development in the
Specific Plan area shall conform to applicable State laws
regarding school fees and that appropriate mitigation measures
from Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 shall be
applied to development in the Specific Plan area. . . . "
The District cannot support the Staff conclusions and believes that
it is without any basis. In order to preclude any interpretation
of the EIR No. 89-1 mitigation measures, and to fulfill the
requirements of Section 65451 of the Government Code, the District
would again suggest that the following revisions to the Specific
Plan be incorporated therein:
1) Page I-1 should be revised to read as follows:
"B. Goals
The goals of the Specific Plan are to define the holly-
Seacliff development plan, including:
o Distribution of planned residential uses and
definition of permitted housing types.
o Location, character and intensities of planned
commercial, industrial and mixed development uses.
o Alignments and design of arterial highways and
locations of traffic control devices.
o Design of community open spaces, parks, trails, and'
recreation facilities.
o Grading guidelines.
o Design and implementation of required public
facilities including school facilities to serve
existing and proposed development.
o Design and implementation of the community theme
elements. "
9-1
[o y 'VVE.E•EEOC-ES.2
2) Page II-5 should be revised to include the following:
116. Schools
Schools are permitted to be designated and located within
any Planning Area so as to accommodate a minimum of 600
grade K-5 students generated by the development of the
Specific Plan and surrounding areas , in conjunction with
appropriate General Plan amendments. "
3) Page II-10 should be revised to read as follows:
"h. Schools
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Huntington
Beach City School District (Grades K-8) and the
Huntington Beach Union High School District (Grades 9-
12) . All development within the Specific Plan Area is
subject to the payment of school impact fees at the time
of issuance of building permits, in accordance with
Government code Section 53080. School facility impact
mitigation measures per Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 89-1 shall be applied to development within the
Specific Plan Area (see Section VI) .
In accordance with the terms and conditions of
Development Agreement No. 90-1 , the Developer shall
designate an area for a public school site as provided
for in the California Government Code, City Ordinances
and other applicable laws. The conveyance of the school
site from the Developer to the Huntington Beach City
School District, and the construction of the school
facilities shall be pursuant to an Impact Mitigation and
Financing Agreement by and between the Developer and the
District. The Agreement shall provide, at a minimum:
1. The designation of a 10-acre net school site for a
~ K-5 grade school to serve students generated by the
residential development;
2 . Provisions for the conveyance of the school site to
the District as part of the implementation of this
Specific Plan; and
3 . Payment of school impact fees and provisions for
other revenues to finance construction of the
necessary school facilities. "
9-2
MMW
4) Page III-8 should be revised to include the following:
18. School Facility
A K-5 grade school facility shall be developed in
accordance with the standards and requirements of the
Huntington Beach City School District, the State of
California Architect, and the State of California
Department of Education. The school site shall be
located in a Plannina area of the development, so as to
provide reasonable vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian
access/egress by all potential students , and shall not
be located on an arterial highwav, primary highway, or
secondary highway, without the approval of the District.
The site shall consist of a minimum of 10 acres (net) ,
a conficruration where the depth of the site does not
exceed width by 200% , a grade differential of no more
than 2% , no on-site or close proximity of oil wells or
refinery operations, all utilities stubbed to the
property line, and at least two (2) access/egress points
to the site.
5) Page III-6 should be revised to include the following:
1115. Air Quality Conservation Measures
Development within the Specific Plan Area should consider
the following during project design: bicycle facilities,
bus turnout lanes, bus shelters, park and ride areas,
energy conserving lighting and traffic signal
synchronization, where feasible.
Bus turn-outs should be provided throughout the
development in order to accommodate the public
transportation and school district transportation rider
access/egress in a safe and hazard free condition. The
location of such turn-outs shall be coordinated with the
public transportation companies serving the area , and the
Huntington Beach City School District.
Bicycle routes and lanes shall be established , signed ,
and implemented throughout the development to provide
safe, hazard free and efficient routes to parks and
schools. Route locations shall be coordinated with the
Huntington Beach City School District. "
9-3
LI
Cl�+u S.REYS"WCWES.K =
6) Page IV-1 should be revised to read as follows:
"B. Public Facilities Improvement Responsibilities
In order to provide for public facilities improvements
necessary to serve all future development within the
Holly-Seacliff area, developers will have a fair-share
responsibility for either 1) constructing the necessary
improvements required as described in the Specific Plan
concurrent with project development, or 2) funding such
necessary improvements if constructed by other
developers. The City will determine and administer the
fair-share responsibility for the master public
facilities improvements, including sewer, water,
drainage, roads, traffic controls, fire and police
capital facilities as described in the Specific Plan.
If a developer provides the necessary facilities beyond
his fair-share responsibility, that developer shall be
reimbursed from funds collected from other developers.
If a developer is required to pay fees, those fees will
be based on the City' s fair-share responsibility
determination. This determination will be based on a
development's proportional use of the master public
facilities improvements necessary to serve the
development utilizing assessment on a dwelling unit,
acreage, building square footage or front footage basis.
All improvements shall be conditioned to construct or pay
fees per a Holly-Seacliff Public Facilities Fee
ordinance. Such construction or payment of fees shall
be based on a fair-share responsibility program as
administered by the City Public Works Department.
As an alternative to developer funding, public
improvements financing may be available through the
formation of assessment districts or community facilities
(Mello-Roos) districts. These districts provide for the
issuance of bonds for the design and construction of
public facilities which shall be repaid by land owners
in proportion to the benefits received by each user.
The school facility improvements shall be implemented
pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Impact
Mitigation and Financing Agreement between the Developer
and the Huntington Beach Citv School District. Buildina
- permits shall be issued only in conjunction with the
terms and conditions of that Agreement. "
9-4
„SS=W[s we
The City has asked for more simplified modifications to the
Specific Plan. As such, the District would recommend the following
alternative language:
1) Page II-5 should be revised to include the following:
116. Schools
Schools are permitted to be designated and located within
any Planning Area so as to accommodate a minimum of 600
grade K-5 students generated by the development of the
Specific Plan and surrounding areas, in conjunction with
apuropriate General Plan amendments. ”
2) Page II-10 should be revised to read as follows:
"h. Schools
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Huntington
Beach City School District (Grades K-8) and the
Huntington Beach Union High School District (Grades 9-
12) . All development within the Specific Plan Area is
subject to the payment of school impact fees at the time
of issuance of building permits, . in accordance with
Government Code Section 53080. , School facility impact
mitigation measures per Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 80-1 shall be applied to development within the
Specific Plan Area (see Section VI) .
There shall be designated within the Specific Plan area
a school site as an alternative to the school site
designated by GPA 89-1. The conveyance of the school
site from the land owner to the Huntington Beach jCity
School District, and the construction of the school
facilities shall be pursuant to an Impact Mitigation and
Financing Agreement(s) by and between the developers
within the Specific Plan area and the District, The
Agreements (s) shall provide, at a minimum:
1. The designation of a 10-acre school site for a K-5
arade school to serve students generated by the
residential development;
2 . Provisions for the conveyance of the school site to
the District as part of the implementation of this
Specific Plan; and
3_ Payment of school impact fees and provisions for
other revenues to finance construction of the
necessary school facilities. "
9-5
i�o,,,,,,..`�EvsfEvS SSOCuiEi✓2
3) Page IV-1 should be revised to read as follows:
"B. Public Facilities Improvement Responsibilities
In order to provide for public facilities improvements
necessary to serve all future development within the
Holly-Seacliff area, developers will have a fair-share
responsibility for either 1) constructing the necessary
improvements required as described in the Specific Plan
concurrent with project development, or 2) funding such
necessary improvements if constructed by other
developers. The City will determine and administer the
fair-share responsibility for the master public
facilities improvements, including sewer, water,
drainage, roads, traffic controls, fire and police
capital facilities as described in the Specific Plan.
If a developer is required to pay fees, those fees will
be based on the City' s fair-share responsibility
determination. This determination will be based on a
development' s proportional use of the master public
facilities improvements necessary to serve the
development utilizing assessment on a dwelling unit,
acreage, building square footage or front footage basis.
All improvements shall be conditioned to construct or pay.
fees per a Holly-Seacliff Public Facilities Fee
Ordinance. Such construction or payment of fees shall
be based on a fair-share responsibility program as
administered by the City Public Works Department.
As an alternative to developer funding, public
improvements financing may be available through the
formation of assessment districts or community facilities
(Mello-Roos) districts. These districts provide for the
issuance of bonds for the design and construction of
public facilities which shall be repaid by land owners
in proportion to the benefits received by each user.
The school facility improvements and land acquisition
shall be implemented pursuant to the terms and conditions
of an Impact Mitigation and Financing Agreement (s)
between the developers within the Specific Plan area and
the Huntington Beach City School District. No
development entitlement, including but not limited to
tentative tract tract maps subdivision maps, maps subdivision maps�arcel mans
buildingpermits , etc. shall be issued by City prior
shall be issued by the Cityprior
to the approval of the terms and conditions of the
Agreement(s) by the District. "
9-6
It would appear to the District that until the Specific Plan
addresses the concerns raised by the District, the Specific Plan
is incomplete and is not in conformance with Section 2.2 .9 (b) of
the Development Agreement, Section 65451 of the Government Code,
and the policies and programs as contained in the City's General
Plan. Under the provisions of Mira, Hart and Murrieta, the City
has the authority to deny the approval of the Specific Plan ,on the
grounds that there are inadequate facilities to accommodate the
student generation of the implementation of the Specific Plan. The
District would suggest that the District's proposed revisions
provide adequate safeguards to allow the Specific Plan to proceed
for approval.
9-7
ATTACHMENTS
1
A B C D E F G II 1 J K L M N 0 P n
TABLE 1-1 2
08-Oct-91 3
01:11:11 PM 1
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5
COST ESTIMATES PER SQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 6
HOLLY-SEACLIFF / ELLIS-GOLOENWEST SPECIFIC PLANS I
8
1991 DISTRICT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9
10
11
K-5 TOTAL 6 1-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR I1
PER SQ. FT. COSTS PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. COS15 COSTS CUSTS PER SQ. FT. COMPARISONS 13
11
15
ACRES 10 10 21
10 16
LAND SQ. F1 435.600 435,600 914.160 435.600 17
STUDENTS 600 600 750 600 18
NET SQ. FT. PER STUDENT 59 59 60 59 19
GROSS SO. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83
62 20
NET BUILDING SQ. FT, 35,400 35,100 60,000
35,100 21
GROSS BUILDING SO. FT. 37,200 31,200 62,250 37,200 22
FACTORS
23
21
BUILDING COSTS FIXED 190.87 13.216,791 $90.11 193.61 13,288,960 192.91 25
GENERAL SITE 8.00\ Of BUILDING COSTS $7.21 1251.311 11.21 17.49 $225,000 $6,36 6.81\ 26
GENERAL SITE 115.000 PER ACRE 11.21 1150,000 14.21 15.25 f0 10.00 27
SERVICE SITE 15.001 Of BUILDING COSTS 113.63 1492.520 $13.63 114.01
190,000 $2.54 2.11\ 18
UTILITIES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 180,110 $2.21 12.34 130.000 11101 1.16% 29
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 1482,520 113.62 114.04 133,000 10.93 1.00\ 30
31
HARD COST SUB-IOIAL 1131.91 11,669,601 1131.91 1136.77 $3,674,980 $103.01 32
33
ARCH./ENG. FEES 8.25% OF HARD COSTS 17.50 1265,306 11.50 17.12 $268,000 11,51 7.29% 31
INSPEC110N/TESTS 2.50% OF HARD COSTS 12.27 $80,120 12.21 12.34 $39.500 11.12 1.01\ 35
PLAN CHECK FEES 0,751 OF HARD COSTS $0.68 $24,126 10.68 10.70 $25,000 $0.11 0.68% 36
31
SOFT COST SUB-TOTAL $10.45 1369,932 $10.45 110.77 1332,500 19.39 38
39
FURNITURE 6 EOUIPMENT (FF6E) $7.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. $7.00 1247,100 17.00 $7.00 10 10.00 $0 10
11
IIARD/SOFT 1, ME COST SUB-TOTAL 1119.36 1S,287,333 1142.36 1154.54 11,001,180 $113.21 12
13
STATE CONTINGENCY 1.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $2.24 $79.310 12.24 $2.32 $100,000 12.82 2.501 11
STATE CONTINGENCY 12,000 PER SCHOOL 10.06 32.000 10.06 10.03 10 10.00 10 IS
DISTRICI CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL 15.23 1185,057 15.23 15.41 10 10,00 0.001 16
11
CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL 17.52 1266,367 11.51 17.76 1100,000 12,82 18
19
HARD/SOFT, FF6E, 6 CONTINGENCY COST SUB-TOTAL 1156.88 15.553.700 1156.88 $162.30 14,101,480 $116.03 SO
51
LAND 1025,000 PER ACRE 10.0 ACRES 1233.OS 18,250.000 1233.05 1288.75 18,250,000 1231,05 52
APPRAISAL 6 CLOSING COSTS $50,000 PER SITE 11.41 $50,000 $1.41 10.83 150,000 11111 53
51
LAND SUB-TOTAL 1234.46 18,300.000 1234.46 $289.58 10,300.000 1231,46 55
56
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LANO COST PER SQ. FT. 1391.3S $13.853.700 1391.35 1451.80 112,407,480 1350.49 51
58
^^ ^n rr 111.00 10 10.00 10.00 10 10.00 59
en 1n nn Kn
INTERIM FACILITIES 1-8 $0.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. $0.00 10 10.00 10.00 10 $0.00 61
62
SUB-TOTAL OTHER FACILITIES PER SQ. FT. 10.00 10 $0.00 10.00 10 10.00 53
61
GRAND TOTAL 1NPROVEMENT/LAND/01IIER FACILITIES COST PER SQ. FT. $391.35 113.653.700 1391.35 $451.48 112.407,480 1350.19 65
66
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $21.089 123,089 136,150 $20,679 67
TOTAL COST PER SCHOOL 113,853,100 113.853.700 127.112,811 140,966,543 $54,820.242.82 $12.401.480 68
69
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR 0.1171 0.0191 0.0131 0.0525 0.1796 0.1111 TO
TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD $2.104 1111 11.569 12,010 11,714 $2,122 71
1 COST SPLIT PER HOUSEHOLD 51.36% 9.36% 33.281 11.611 100.001 12
TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD SQ. FT. $1.42 10.23 10.82 $1.05 12.47 11.21 73
11
TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD $2.704 1111 $1.562 12.010 14,714 $2,422 15
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT FEES 1.908 SQ. HT-AIOUSEHOLD $1.50 61.00% $1.055 $112 1612 $181 11.839 11,839 16
71
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) PER HOUSEHOLD (11,614) (1269) (1957) (11,226) (12,874) (1582) 18
SURPI.US/(DEFICIT) PER HOUSEHOLD SO, FT. (10.86) (10.14) (10.501 (10.6/) (11.51) (10.31) 19
80
SOURCE: COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 81
1 B C D E F G H I J K l M N 0 P Q
2
TABLE 1-? 08-Oct-91 3
01:52:54 PM 1
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5
COST ESTIMATES PER SQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 6
IIOLLY-SEACLIFF / ELLIS-GOLDEMNEST SPECIFIC PLANS 1
8 '
1991 DISTRICT COSTS 1921 DEVELOPER COSTS 9
10
If
K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-S 9-5 FACTOR 12
PER SQ. FT. COSTS PER SQ. Ff. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ, FT. COMPARISONS 13
11
IS
ACRES 10 10 21 10 16
LAND SQ. F1 435.600 435.400 914.760 13S,600 17
STUDENTS 600 600 750 600 18
NEI SO. FT. PER STUDENT 59 59 80 59 19
GROSS SQ. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20
NET BUILDING SQ. FT. 35,400 3S.400 60.000 3S,10D 21
GROSS BUILDING 50. FT. 31,200 37.700 62,250 31,200 22
FACTORS
23
21
BUILDING COSTS FIXED $10.87 13,216.198 190.11 193.61 $3,288,980 $22.91 25
WIJERAL SITE 8.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $1.21 1257.311 $7.27 $1.49 $225.000 $6.36 6.84% 26
GENERAL SIIE IIS,000 PER ACRE 11.24 1150,000 11,24 15.25 10 10.00 21
SERVICE SITE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS 113.63 $482,520 113.61 $14.04 $90,000 $2.54 2.14% 28
UTILITIES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS 12.?l 180,120 12.21 12.34 $38,000 $1.01 1.16% 29
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS 113.63' 1182.520 $13.63 114.04 133.000 10.91 1.00% 30
31
HARD COST SUB-TOTAL 1131.91 14.661,601 1131.91 1136.77 13,614,900 1103.81 32
33
ARCIt./ENG. FEES 8.2S1 OF HARD COSTS 17.50 1265,306 11.50 17.72 $261,000 17.51 7.29% 31
INSPfCII(RIITESTS 2,50% Of HARD COSTS 12.27 110,120 $2.21 12.34 139.500 $1.12 1.07% 35
PLAN CHECK FEES 0.751 OF HARD COSTS $0.68 124,126 10.61 10.70 125.000 10.71 0.68% 36
31
SOFT COST SUB-IOTAL 110.45 1369,932 110.45 110.71 $332,500 19.39 38
39
FURt1ffURE & EQUIPMENT (FF6E) 11.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. $7.00 1247,000 17.00 17.00 i0 10.00 10 10
11
HARD/SOFT & FF&E COST SUB-TOTAL 1149.36 15,287,333 $149.36 1154.54 14.007.410 1113.21 12
13
STATE CONTINGENCY I.S01 Of SUB-TOTAL $2.24 179.310 12.24 12.32 1100,000 12.82 2.50% 11
STATE CONTINGENCY $2.000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 $2.000 $0.06 $0.03 10 $0.00 f0 15
DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $5.23 1185,057 $5.23 15.41 10 10.00 0.001 16
11
CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL $7.52 1266,367 17.52 17.76 1100,000 $2.82 18
19
HARD/SOFT, FF&E, & COIITINGENCY COST SUB-TOTAL 1156.88 1S1553,700 1156.88 1162.30 $4,107,480 1116.01 50
51
LAND $720,000 PER ACRE 8.3 ACRES $168.81 IS,976,000 $203.39 1252.00 $5,116,000 $166.81 5?
APPRAISAL & CLOSING COSTS ISO,000 PER SITE 11.41 150,000 $1.41 $0.83 150.000 $1.41 53
51
LAND 5118-TOTAL 1170.23 $6.026.000 1204.80 12S2.83 15,026,000 1170.23 55
56
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO• FT. $327.11 111,579.100 1361,69 111S.13 $10.133,480 1286.26 $7
S8
In nn to on 10 10.00 59
I
INTERIM FACILITIES 1-8 10.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. 10.00 10 $0.00 10.00 10 10.00 61 `
62
SUB-TOTAL OTHER FACILITIES PER SQ. FT. 10.00 10 10.00 $0,00 1D 10.00 63
61
GRANO TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND/OTIIER FACILITIES COST PER SQ. FT. 1321.11 111,519.700 1361.69 1415.13 110,133,180 $286.26 65
66
TOTAL COST PER STUDENT 119.299 $21,339 133,210
316,889 61 �
TOTAL COST PER SCHOOL 111,579.700 $12.803.700 124,907,811 137,711,543 $49.291.242.82 110.133.480 68
59
STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR 0.1111 0.0191 0.0434 0.0625 0.1796 0.1171 70
TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD $2.260 1409 11.111 $1,849 14,109 11.978 11
t COST SPLIT PER HOUSEHOLD 55.00% 9.92% 35.08% 15.00t 100.00% 72
TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD SO. FT. 11.18 10.21 $0.76 10.97 12.15 $1.04 13
11
TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD 12.260 1401 $1,111 $1,849 $1,109 .31,91A 15
TOTAL DEVELOPMENT FEES 1.908 SQ. HT./IIOUSEHOLO 11.58 61.00% $1.012 1162 1645 $828 11,839 11,839 16
77
SURPLUS/(OEF(CIT) PER HOUSEHOLD (11.248) (1225) (1796) ($1,021) (12,270) 0 138) 78
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) PER HOUSEHOLD SQ. FT. (10.65) (10.12) (10.12) (10,51) (11.19) (10.01) 19
80'
SOURCE: COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 81
COX. CASTLE 8 NICHOLSON
c H'L-;P R. N+C,OLSON' STEVEN A. .:UNG A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS OF COUNSEL
aWRENCE-EPLIN 5ANDRA C. STEWART � �� 3EORGE N.M.0 COX
RONALD !. SILVERMAN ROGER C. GLIENKE RICHARD ASTLE
STEPHEN G. SHAPIRO J1LL JASPER ANDERSON
LAWRENCE J. 7RACY
MARIO CAMARA ALISA J. FREUNDLICH 2O49 CENTURY PARK EAST DAMES E. BARNETT
GECRGE 0. CALKINS. 11 CAROL L. MATSUNAGA HOWARD GOLDSTEIN
✓O"N -I. KUHL KENNETH WILLIAMS TVVE H NTY-EIGHT FLOOR SAMUEL H. GRUENRA UM
PHILLIP E. HiMELSTEIN SUSAN J.JACKS ON EDWARD C. DYGERT
R ARTHU O. SPAULDING,JR- MICHAEL J. KAMINSKY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067
.J EFFREY LAPOTA KATH14YN M. LYDDAN {� /.� �-+r XEI?H C. ENRICH
DAVID A. LEIPZIGER DAV1D S. ROSENBERG TELEPHONE (213) 277- 2y. y _ tv ii � il�r CLfFTON B. CATES 7.L
^v HN S. MILLER.JR. CAROA K. RYHAL r.w vW da tl ��V777 is
KENNETH 8. BLEY MICHAEL L. TIDUS
� ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE
IRA J WALDMAN MATHEW A.WYMAN FACSIMILE (2!31 277-7889^y�(-`,i, /t A ^.
JOHN F. NICHOLSON AMV W. BRAMMER N 1 J r U '1-i 11� !9800 M..ARTH UR BOULEVARD
CnARLES E. NONEMAN PHILIP J. COLLIAS J J
'NILLIAM KAMER STATHI G. MARCOPULOS SUITE 600
MARLENE D. GOODFRIED H. MARK MERSEL 1n' !RVINE, CALIFORNIA 92715
EVERITT �. BEERS SARPY C SEATON
BARRY P .;ABLON LISA A.STERES ' I 1714)476-2111
JEFFREY D. MASTERS JANE 9.THOMASSEN
ROBERT 0. INFEUSE DIANE E. TMEREND (213)284-2187
EDWARD G.SHIRLEY ANDREW E.ZOBLER
BRADLEY D. FRAZIER SCOTT D- BROOKS /� (�
TAMAR C. STEIN JOHN C. CONDAS November 20, 1991
E DYTHE L. BRONSTON JEAN K. MURRELL
CAROB M. LIFLAND SHARCN L. TAMIYA OUR FILE NO:
DOUGLA5 P. SNYDER ROSS 0- VINCENTI
JOHN R_ CAUBLE,JR. AMV H.WELLS
GARY A. GLICK ROBERT L. BENUN 21200
_.RA LEE MOORE MITCHELL 1. BURGER
LEWIS G. FELDMAN LISA GUZMAN WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER
PETER F. McANDREWS ADRIENNE TYMON KENTOR
P.JEROLD WALSH MARK A. REZAC
MARK P. McCLANATHAN DONALD J. CHAVEZ
JOHN A. KINCANNON ADAM D. DUNCAN 3 1 0/2 8 4—2 2 3 1
STANLEY W LAMPORT SHERRY M. OVPONT
RANDALL W. BLACK JACKIE K. MILLER
W. MCLIN LINES HONG-PHUOC P. NGUYEN
PERRY O.MOCCIARO JACQUELINE PHILLIPS-JACKSON
JESS R. BRESSI JOEL H. ROTHSTEIN
GREGORY J. KARNS MYRON S.STEEVES
D. SCOTT TURNER PAUL J. TITCHER
HERBERT J. KLEIN KERRY V.WILKINSON
DONNA J. CHRISTENSEN
A ROrr 101AL CORRORATIO.
Honorable Peter Green, Mayor,
and the Honorable Members of the
Huntington Beach City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No.
89-1, General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, Zone Change
No. 90-10, and Code Amendment 90-10.
Ladies and Gentlemen: i
My clients, Pacific Coast Homes and Urban West Communities,
have been involved with the development of the Holly Seacliff
Master Plan area for a number of years. On October 29, 1991, the
Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 1450, accepting the
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1, adopted
Resolution No. 1451, approving General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, and
recommended the approval of Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code
Amendment No. 90-10 (collectively, the "Approvals") . It did so
after holding several hearings and imposing a number of ad-
ditional conditions, most particularly, in response to concerns
voiced by the Huntington Beach City School District (the "Dis-
trict") .
However, on November 8, 1991, Marshall B. Krupp, president of
Community Systems Associates, Inc. , submitted a document on behalf
of the District of approximately 70 pages which, when boiled down
to its essentials, demands that the City require that Pacific Coast
ATTAGHN4ENT N U.
Honorable Peter Green, Mayor
November 201 1991
Page 2
Homes bear all the costs associated with providing school services
for the children (many of whom will be from homes which are not
being built by my clients) who will someday inhabit the Holly
Seacliff area.
This letter responds to each of the arguments submitted by the
District and demonstrates that they are without foundation.
DISCUSSION
On November 5, 1990, the City Council enacted Ordinance No.
3080 which approved Development Agreement NO. 90-1. The Develop-
ment Agreement allowed my clients the right to build a total 3,780
dwelling units as part of the Holly Seacliff project. That
agreement was, of course, in full compliance with the Holly
Seacliff Master Plan and was fully analyzed for environmental
effects in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1.
Section 2.4. 1 of the Development Agreement recognized that the
City was in the process of adopting the Holly Seacliff Specific
Plan in order to provide even greater direction to the development
of the Holly Seacliff project. The actions of the Planning
Commission on October 29, 1991, constituted the implementation of
the actions taken by the City Council in 1990 with some minor
changes, none of which had anything to do with changing the number
of dwelling units which would be allowed. In particular, the minor
changes set forth in General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 do nothing but
move residential and commercial uses within the Specific Plan area.
Nothing which was done by the Planning Commission, and which is now
before the City Council, did anything which would in any way
increase the number of children who will be using the District's
schools.
With these introductory comments in mind, it is worthwhile
looking at each of the arguments raised by the District.
The City Has Fully Complied With The California
Environmental Ouality Act And The CEOA Guidelines
The District's first argument is that the use of the Adden-
dum violated the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") .
It is wrong.
The Department of Community Development correctly deter-
mined that an addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No.
89-1 would be sufficient because none of the requirements for a
Honorable Peter Green, Mayor
November 20, 1991
Page 3
subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report ("EIR")
existed. This is in line with the view that the courts of
California have taken that, while a very low threshold exists in
determining whether EIR should be prepared, that threshold rises
substantially when, as in the present case, one has been prepared.
The question is whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR should be
prepared. This was set out at length in a letter dated June 26,
1991, to Howard Zelefsky, a copy of which is attached.
It should also be noted that CEQA Guidelines S 15164 (b)
states:
"An addendum need not be circulated for
public review but can be included in or
attached to the final EIR. "
In the present case, the Staff went well beyond what the law
required and circulated the Addendum, obtained comments from the
District, and responded to those comments.
Finally, as noted above, none of the Approvals will in any way
increase the impact on the District. In an analogous situation,
the courts of California have held that, when analyzing a project
for consistency with a general plan, only those elements of the
general plan involved with the project need be considered. gge
e.g. , Guardians of Turlock's Integrity v. Turlock City Council, 149
Cal.App.3d 584, 592-593 (1984) . The analogy to environmental
review is obvious; if the project has no impact on a particular
part of the environment, then there should be no requirement to do
environmental review with respect to that particular part of the
environment. The Legislature has also made this clear by the
adoption of Public Resources Code S 21104 (c) , part of CEQA, which
limits the comments that a public agency can make on an EIR to only
those within the agency's area of expertise. As applied to the
present situation, this means that, even if an EIR had been
required, the District would have been limited to commenting on
problems associated with the Approval in terms of their impacts on
the District, which, as noted above, are nonexistent.
The ARprovals Are In Full
Compliance With The City's General Plan
The District's second argument is that the approvals are
inconsistent with the City's General Plan. The District is
wrong.
Honorable Peter Green, Mayor
November 20, 1991
Page 4
At the hearing before the Planning Commission on October 29,
i
1991, the Commission revised the language of the Specific Plan
precisely in order to make sure that adequate school facilities
would be available when and as needed. The exact language
suggested by the Planning Commission was:
"Any new school facility shall be developed
in accordance with the construction and
planning standards and requirements of the
City of Huntington Beach, the Huntington
Beach City School District, the State of
California Architects Office, and the State
of California Department of Education.
"In order to comply with mitigation measures
identified in Environmental Impact Report No.
89-1, proposed future development within the
Specific Plan may be required to dedicate and
convey land to the school district, pay
additional school impact fees and/or provide
other revenues to facilitate the financing of
construction and land for new school
facilities. In addition, mitigation may be
achieved by providing new or existing
permanent or temporary classroom facilities.
"Compliance with the above shall be addressed
concurrent with the filing of the first
tentative tract map. The developer shall
demonstrate to the City's satisfaction and
upon receipt of the School District's review
that the mitigation measures identified in
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1
have been or will be implemented prior to the
approval of any tract maps."
Thus, the Planning Commission acted to ensure that the
requirements of the General Plan as to the provision of school
facilities would be satisfied.
The Specific Plan Is In Full
Compliance With The Development Agreement
The District's third argument is that the Specific Plan is
not in compliance with the Development Agreement and that, in
particular, my clients have failed to negotiate with the District
in good faith. The District is wrong.
Honorable Peter Green, Mayor
November 20, 1991
Page 5
As pointed out in the October 29, 1991, Staff Report con-
cerning the Addendum, at 2:
"As stated in prior Staff Reports, the des-
ignated school site in the Holly Seacliff
Specific area is located outside the proposed
Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area."
Thus, the location of the school site has nothing to do with
the Specific Plan presently before the City Council.
Nor is it true that my clients have failed to negotiate with
the District in good faith. As pointed out in the District's
opposition at 4-3 to 4-4, my clients have repeatedly met with the
District and has offered to pay more than state law requires and to
maintain the purchase price of the site at its present value for at
least six months.
The Approvals Are In Full Compliance With
General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 And Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 891
The District's fourth argument is that the approvals are
not in compliance with General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. As set forth in the
preceding subsections, the District is wrong.
The Specific Plan Complies With JJ
Government Code S 65451 1
The District's fifth argument is that Specific Plan does
not provide the information required by Government Code Section
65451 dealing with the location of essential facilities and the
implementation programs necessary to make sure that his facili-
ties come into existence. As set forth in the preceding subsec-
tions, the District is wrong.
It Is Entirely Appropriate To Place The
Responsibility For Implementation Of
Mitigation Conditions In The City's Hands
The District's sixth argument is that it is inappropriate
to place the responsibility for making sure that school impacts
are suitably mitigated in the City's hands. The District is
wrong.
e
Honorable Peter Green, Mayor
November 20, 1991
Page 6
The Legislature has limited the District's authority to the
imposition of school fees pursuant to Government Code $ 53080.
This is the limit of the District's authority. All further
responsibility for the mitigation of adverse impacts resulting from
development is in the hands of the City. Indeed, the City has no
right to delegate that responsibility. Citizens for Quality Growth
v. City of Mt. Shasta, 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 443 n.8 (1988) . For the
same reason, if there should be any ambiguities in what mitigation
measures are required or how effective they are, it is up to the
City, acting through its Department of Community Development, its
Planning Commission, and its City Council, to resolve those
ambiguities in order to make sure that the development of the Holly
Seacliff Specific Plan area goes forward in full compliance with
all of the rules, regulations and policies which the City Council
has adopted over these last several years.
CONCLUSION
The development of the Holly Seacliff area has been, and will
continue to be, a joint effort between the City, Pacific Coast
Homes, and Urban West Communities. The concerns expressed by the
District are of importance to both the City and to my clients; they
have been, and will continue to be, addressed by all three.
For all of the reasons set forth in this letter the arguments
advanced by the District are without merit. Instead, the City
Council has the right, and should exercise that right to adopt the
Addendum and approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-2, Zone Change
No. 90-10, and Code Amendment No. 90-10.
Very truly yours,
Ken eth B. Ble
KBB/bp
E189101
Enclosure
cc: Michael Uberuoga
Gail Hutton
Connie Brockway
Michael Adams
Howard Zelefsky
Robert Adams
Dwayne Dishno
F
i huntington beach department of community development
STAf f
--' REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: October 29 , 1991
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1
AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2 (CONTINUED FROM THE
OCTOBER 8, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Homes
2120 Main Street, Suite 260
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Motion to :
A. "Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No . 89-1 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No .
1450 and forward to the City Council; and"
B . "Approve General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451 and forward to the City council
for adoption. "
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Pacific Coast Homes has submitted General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 in
order to shift seven (7) acres of commercial from the southeast
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to the southwest
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street . Also, the
applicant is requesting to shift residential densities near the
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Main Street which will result in
no additional units . The third request is to permit oil
production/oil consolidation in the two (2) industrial land use
areas .
The requested amendments to the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan require
the processing of a general plan amendment to the City' s Land Use
Element . In order to process the amendment, staff has prepared an
addendum to the original environmental impact report . Section 15164
of the California Environmental Quality Act states "The lead agency
shall prepare an addendum to an environmental impact report if only
minor technical changes or alterations are necessary to make the
environmental impact report under consideration adequate under the
California Environmental Quality Act and no new significant effects
on the environment are raised. "
ATTACH��E� 1" U.
i
. 0 DISCUSSION:
4
The following is a discussion of major topics of concern relating to 1�
General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 and the Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1.
School District Concerns
The Huntington Beach City Elementary School District has stated that
the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 does not
adequately address the District ' s concerns regarding the development
of a future school site. The District contends that the Addendum is
inadequate and a supplemental environmental impact report should be
prepared . The District has prepared a letter dated October 23 , 1991
which puts forth the student generation figures and potential
impacts in the Holly-Seacliff area (see Attachment No. 1) . As
stated in prior staff reports, the designated school site in the
Holly-Seacliff Specific area is located outside the proposed
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area. The designated school site is
located north of Garfield Avenue between Edwards Street and
Goldenwest Street which is within the boundaries of the
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan.
Staff feels that the mitigation measures contained in Final
Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 are adequate and are being
implemented in a proper manner. The following adopted mitigation
measures read as follows :
a . The General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 (the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan) designates a site for a new elementary school to
serve students generated by residential development within
the project area .
b. The school district and major landowner should enter into an
agreement for acquisition or lease of the site as part of
implementation of this General Plan Amendment .
c. Developers should pay school impact fees to finance
construction of necessary school facilities .
d. The Huntington Beach Union High School District should
coordinate its expansion plans with phasing of development
within the project area and surrounding areas .
All developers within the Specific Plan area are required to pay
school impact fees as indicated in the language on page II-10 of the
Specific Plan, and the above mitigation measures are repeated on
page VI-10, since the designated school site is located outside of
adjacent to the Specific Plan area; therefore, the mitigation
measure has been implemented. A general plan amendment would be
required to relocate the designated school site. Staff recommends
the following language be added to the proposed Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan.
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -2- ( 1236d)
h. "In the event that the existing designated school site located
outside the boundaries of the Specific Plan is deemed
unacceptable to the School District, a potential school site
within the Specific Plan boundaries may be established by means
of a general plan amendment initiated by the City of Huntington
Beach.
The general plan amendment shall thoroughly analyze all concerns
and associated impacts as identified by the School District with
the siting and construction of a school site. The processing of
the general plan amendment shall begin within 3 months of the
determination that the existing designated school site within
the Holly-Seacliff Masterplan area has been formally deemed
unacceptable by the School District . "
In addition, the school planning consultant for Pacific Coast Homes
has prepared an analysis of the school situation which has a
slightly different focus (see Attachment No . 2) .
Request by John Gustafson to Change Residential Area to Industrial
In order to properly analyze the request to change a residential
area to industrial , additional CEQA (California Environmental
Quality Act) review is required which needs a minimum of four (4)
weeks of analysis combined with a 21-day comment period. The
general plan amendment analysis is performed concurrently. Staff
recommends that the General Plan amendment request be expedited as a
separate document and that at the time of Planning Commission action
on the Specific Plan they take minute action identifying their
understanding that the amendment will follow.
Summary:
The Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 has been
proposed in order to address possible impacts associated with
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 . Staff feels that the Addendum
adequately addresses any impacts that may pertain to the shift in
the relocation of seven (7) acres of commercial, the shift of
residential land use densities with no additional units and permit
oil consolidation projects in the industrial areas . The School
District is maintaining that the existing mitigation in Final
Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 is inadequate. Staff maintains
that the mitigation is adequate and that the City has complied with
all requirements .
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -3- (1236d)
4 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
A. Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No.
1450 and forward to the City Council; and
B. Approve General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451 and forward to the City Council
for adoption.
5 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may modify the Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 and General Plan Amendment No .
91-2 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . School District letter dated October 23 , 1991
2 . Consultant report dated October , 1991
3 . Planning Commission staff report dated october 8, 1991
HS :RLF: kjl
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -4- (1236d)
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC
October 23 , 1991
Mr. Mike Adams
Community Development Director.
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street '
Post Office Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648 !`
SUBJECT: Staff Report
Planning Commission Workshop of October 22 , 1991
Dear Mr. Adams:
The Huntington Beach City School District ("District") is in
receipt of the Staff Report to the Planning Commission dated
October 22 , 1991. The Staff Report states:
" . . . .Recent discussions with the school district staff
indicate that the needs of the school district have changed
since Final Environmental Impact Report 89-1 was adopted by
the City Council . The school district has determined that the
adopted mitigation measures which pertain to impacts to school
facilities are inadequate. In order to re-examine the school
district' s concerns, the district needs to explicitly
demonstrate that the current needs create a significant impact
which cannot be mitigated by the adopted mitigation measures. "
(emphasis added)
On October 16, 1991, after a telephone conversation with Mr. Robert
Franklin, the enclosed letter and accompanying information was
provided by fax, to demonstrate and validate to the City, the
unmitigated impact of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan on the
District.
In addition, we have enclosed a more detailed analysis which
represents part of the public hearing testimony which we were
prepared to present to the Planning Commission on October 8 , 1991.
A more detailed written presentation will be available for the
Planning Commission on October 29 , 1991.
"public/private project management, feasibility, and Implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD •SUITE 100 • ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92806 •TELEPHONE(714)978.8887
ATTACHMENT NO. ►
• r
CAMYVNITr SYSTEMS ASSOCNSFS.MIG
Mr. Mike Adams
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
October 23 , 1991
Page 2
The District is quite concerned that the previously faxed materials
were not made available in the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission. We would request that every effort be made to appraise
the Planning Commission of the availability of this material, so
that our discussion on October 29, 1991 can be constructive.
Thank you for your interest and assistance.
Sincerely,
C UNITY SY EM ASSOCIATEB, INC.
M&l
sideni
MBK:dl
wpl/ltr. 36
cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
Mr. Kirk Kirkland, Chairman
City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission
ir
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES.INC77
October 16 , 1991
Mr. Bob Franklin
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: Information Requested October 16 , 1991
Dear Mr. Franklin:
Enclosed please find the information you recuested in our telephone
conversation of October 16 , 1991 , relative to the impact of the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and the relate- impacts of GPA No . 39-
1 . Enclosed also are the two letters whi,^ I indicated had been
sent to Mr. Tom Zanic .
As I indicated to you, I will be out of town. between October 16 and
23 , 1991 . However, if you need to discuss these materials with me ,
please contact my secretary and she will advise me accordingly, so
that I may return your telephone call . In addition, please feel
free to contact Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent of the Huntington
Beach City School District.
Thank you for your consideration of these 7aterials .
Sincerely,
CJisha
NITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
l Krupp
Pdent
mbk:mmg
enclosures
wp/dl : 33
cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent
Huntington Beach City School District
"public/private project management, feasibility, and implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 100 • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 • TELEPHONE(714)978-8887
I
The following impact analysis will substantiate the District ' s
contentions relative to impact mitigation revenues and
expenditures .
1) Student Generation
New development yields are as follows :
K-5 . 1779 students/dwelling unit
6 . 0305 students/dwelling unit
7-8 . 0611 students/dwelling unit
Total . 2695 students/dwelling unit
The District ' s projection of students is as follows :
a) Specific Plan - 3 , 930 Units
New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 699
6 120
7-8 240
TOTAL 1, 059
b) Developer Proposed - 4 , 255 Units
New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 757
6 130
7-8 260
TOTAL 1, 147
c) Total Units Holly-Seacliff/Ellis-Goldenwest - 4 410 Units
New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 785
6 135
7-8 269
TOTAL 1 , 189
I
1
2) Improvement Costs (K-5)
The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs
is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building
area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net
building square footage of 35, 400 square feet, based upon 59
square feet per student. A 750 student 7-8 grade school
requires a net building square footage of 60 , 000 square feet,
based upon 80 square feet per student.
State construction practices accept a base building cost of
$90 . 87 per square foot for K-6 grade schools, and $93 . 61 per
square foot for 7-8 grade schools . These costs assume 30% of
the building square footage as relocatable classrooms .
As an example, the improvement cost of a 10-acre K-5 school
of 600 students at $156 . 88 per square foot is $5, 553 , 700 or
$9 , 256 (+) per student .
As an example, the improvement cost of a 21-acre 7-8 grade
school of 750 students at $162 . 30 per square foot is
$9, 738 , 000 or $12 , 984 per student.
3) Land Costs
The Developer has set forth land costs as follows for several
alternative site locations:
Cost/Acre
a) Northwest corner of Garfield Avenue
and Saddleback Lane $720, 000
b) South side of Garfield Avenue $825 000
c) Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue
and Gothard Street $730, 000
4) Site Size Requirement
The site requirements for the projected students is as
follows:
a) Specific Plan - 3 , 930 Units
New Dev. Yield (+) Required Acreage
K-5 699 10. 20
6-8 360 12 . 01
TOTAL 1, 059 22 . 21
2
b) Specific Plan - 4 , 255 Units
New Dev. Yield (+) Required Acreage
K-5 757 10 . 20
6-8 960 12 . 01.
TOTAL 1, 147 22 . 21
c) Specific Plan - 4 , 410 Units
New Dev. Yield +) Required Acreage
K-5 785 10 . 20
6-8 404 12 . 01
TOTAL 1 , 189 22 . 21
5) Costs
Based upon the Specific Plan projection of 3 , 930 dwelling
units, the projected improvement cost would be as follows :
Units - 3 , 930
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9 , 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
New Development Yield
Improvement
Students Cost
K-5 699 $ 6 , 471 , 305
6 120 $ 1, 109 , 470
7-8 240 $ 3 , 117 , 757
TOTAL 1, 059 $10 , 698 , 532
Based upon the Developer proposed units of 4 , 255 , the
projected impact cost would be as follows :
Units - 4 , 255
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9 , 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
3
New Development Yield
Improvement
Students Cost
K-5 757 $ 7 , 006, 463
6 130 $ 1, 201, 221
7-8 260 $ 3 , 375 , 587
TOTAL 1, 147 $11, 583 , 271
Based upon the total units of 4 , 410 (Holly-Seacliff/Ellis
Goldenwest) , the projected improvement cost would be as
follows:
Units - 4 , 410
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9 , 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
New Development Yield
Improvement
Students Cost
K-5 785 $ 7 , 261 , 693
6 135 $ 1, 244 , 978
7-8 269 $ 3 , 498 , 552
TOTAL 1, 188 $12 , 005, 223
Estimated land costs would be as follows :
Total Land Cost
K-5 6-8
Land Cost/Acre 10 . 20 Acres 12 . 01 Acres Total
$825, 000 $8 , 415, 000 $9 , 908 , 250 $18 , 323 , 502
$730, 000 $7 , 446, 000 $7 , 446 , 000 $16 , 213 , 330
$720, 000 $7 , 344 , 000 $8 , 647 , 200 $16 , 111 , 200
6) Projected Development Fees
a) Units - 3 , 930
Projected Development Fees $7 , 228 , 496
b) Units - 4 , 255
Projected Development Fees $7 , 826 , 273
4
c) Units - 4 , 410
Projected Development Fees $8 , 111 , 366
7) Existing District Enrollment/Capacity
The District is and will continue to experience severe
District facility capacity utilization and overcrowding. The
following list sets forth the various open District schools ,
grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment
as of October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1991 :
Enrollment
School Acreage 1990 1991 Capacity
Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 10.1(+) 816 803 780
1502 Palm Avenue
Huntington Beach
Sowers Middle School (6-8) 17.3(±) 1,118 1,115 1,110
9300 Indianapolis
Huntington Beach
Smith School (K-5) 10.3(±) 694 693 690
770 17th Street
Huntington Beach
Perry School (K-5) 10.6(+) 558 559 540
19231 Harding Lane
Huntington Beach
Eader School (K-5) 13.0(+) 725 725 720
9291 Banning Avenue
Huntington Beach
Kettler School (K-5) 12.8(+) 612 698 690
8750 Dorsett Drive
Huntington Beach
Hawes School (K-5) 10.6(+) 382 395 390
9682 Yellowstone Drive
Huntington Beach
Moffett School (K-5) 9.2(+) 654 693 690
8800 Burlcrest Avenue
Huntington Beach
Total 5,559 5,681 5,610
The student differences between enrollment and capacity are
housed in special classrooms, laboratories, and other
reconfigured school areas .
5
I
The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used
District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity:
School Acreage Capacity
LeBard School 10.8(+) 5.�0
20451 Craimer Lane
Huntington Beach
(Currently District Office)
Burke School 7.9(+) 690
9700 Levee Drive
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Private High School
and Child Care Agency)
Peterson School 9.6(+) 690
20661 Farnsworth Lane
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Coast Community College)
Clapp School 5.8(±) 2'-0
20581 Farnsworth Lane
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Orange County
Department of Education)
Gisler School (Closed) 16.3(+) 11410
21141 Strathmoor Lane
Huntington Beach
The only schools available to the Specific Plan area which
would not require a total re-organization of the enrollment
attendance areas, but will still require costs to the District
in terms of bussing students, include Dwyer Middle School and
Smith Elementary School .
Dwyer Middle School consists of 26 regular classrooms , of
which 2 are relocatables, with a total capacity of 780
students. Based upon the October, 1991 enrollment, Dwyer
Middle School is at a capacity of 1 . 03% .
Smith Elementary School consists of 23 regular classrooms, of
which 4 are relocatable, with a total capacity of 690
students. Based upon the October, 1991 enrollment , Smith
Elementary School is at a capacity of 100% .
Based upon the student generation yields described herein for
the Specific Plan area, the impact on Dwyer Middle School and
Smith Elementary School create an even more overcrowded
condition requiring the District to pursue significant
enrollment attendance boundary modifications and/or the re-
opening of schools in areas which would not be effective in
6
terms of the educational programs and operations of the
District. In addition, the District would incur school re-
opening and re-configuration costs, bussing costs, loss
revenues from existing leases, and the cost to acquire land
and construct a new District office.
mg/msc2 :hbcsd.mk
7
FII'- � i IIII':'1 ■
Li
COD.IMUNITYSYSTEMS ASSOC;ATES, INC October 3 , 1991
Mr. Tom Zanic
URBAN WEST COMMUNITIES
520 Broadway, Suite 100
Santa Monica, California 90401
RE: Holly-Seacliff School Impact Mitigation
Huntington Beach City School District Proposal
Dear Mr. Zanic:
At the Huntington Beach City School District Board of Trustees
meeting of October 1, 1991 , the Board, after careful discussion
and evaluation, rejected the offer made by Pacific Coast Homes
and Urban West Communities with regard to the desi,.nation of a
school site and the financing of facilities as previcusly dis-
cussed with Dr. Dishno, Dr. Burgner, and myself earlier that day.
The District remains open to further discussions and nego
tiations , and we hope your statement that your of_`e-r is "bottom
line" will not jeopardize continued discussions to reconcile our i
differences .
As such, the following represents the Board of Trustees proposal
which remains on the table for your consideration, and which the
Board believes is a fair and equitable mitigation plan consider-
ing the items you have previously raised:
1) School Site Designation Alternatives - The District
wants to keep the option open to acquire the property
and site the school either as a ) a joint use
school/park consisting of a net six (6) acre school and
a net four (4) acre park at the northeast corner of
Garfield and Crystal (Gothard Extension) ; or b) a
school of nine (9) acres at the north-west corner of
Garfield and Saddleback Lane;
2) Site Purchase Price - The District will purchase the
property chosen by the District at a fixed non-
escalated price, as follows :
Garfield/Crystal (Gothard Extension) Site -
$730, 000 per acre or $4 , 380 , 000 (6 . 0 acres) ;
"public/private project management, feasibility, and implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 1C0 • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 • TELEPHC`4c (71.)978-8887
1
Mr. Tom Zanic
October 3 , 1991
Page 2
Garfield/Saddleback Lane Site - $720 , 000 per acre
or ,56 , 192 , 000 (8 . 6 acres) ;
Garfield/Saddleback Lane Site - $720, 000 per acre
or $5 , 976 , 000 (8 . 3 acres) ;
3) Transfer of Property - Fee title to the chosen site
shall be transferred to the District upon the
District ' s decision to acquire the site and upon
receiving State approval ;
4 ) Base Development Fee Rate - Development fees on
properties within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area
and those properties presently held by Pacific Coast
Homes/Urban West Communities within the Ellis -
Goldenwest Specific Plan area will be collected at a
rate of 1 . 20% of the statutory fee in effect at the
time of issuance of building permits ;
i
5) Additional Development Fees - The District has calcu-
lated a deficit of $1 . 5 million against projected costs
of $10 . 9 million. The District seeks an additional fee
increase or property purchase price reduction, cr com-
bination thereof equal to $1 . 5 million . The proposed
develop-ient fee would be 1 . 400 of the statutor:• fees ,
and the property price reduction would be $250 , 000 per
acre on the Garfield/Crystal (Gothard Extension) site ;
or $1711 , 419 per acre assuming 1 . 6 (±) purchased acres or
$180, 723 per acre assuming 8 . 3 purchased acres on the
Garfield/Saddleback site ;
6) Expansion of Garfield Saddleback Lane Site - If the
District assumes to add additional property to the
Garfield/Saddleback site , the District will utilize its
authority to acquire the property and will finance the
acquisition with District revenues; and
7) Housing of 6-8 Students - The District will not house
6-8 grade students generated by the development in per-
manent facilities , but will allocate no more than
$900 , 000 of collected development fees to fund
relocatables , as appropriate .
s
..,r '.VVI.S..SScck.vfs
row
Mr. Tom Zanic
October 3 , 1991
Page 3
i
For purposes of understanding the District's proposal , the fol-
lowing mathematical calculations represent the present value
analysis .
Garfield/Crystal
Garfield/Saddleback Garfield/Saddleback (Gothard Extension)
(8.6 acres) (8.3 acres) (6.0 acres)
K•5
Land Cost S 6,192,000 S 5,976,000 S 4,380,000
C:osing Cost 50,000 50,000 50,000
17.�rovement Cost S 5,553,552 S 5,553.552 S 5,553,552
Sub-Total $11,795,552 $11,579,552 S 9,923,552
6.3 Relocatables S 900,OCO S 900,000 S 900,000
Total Cost 512,695,552 512,479,552 $10,°. 3,552
CeveloFment Fees t
1 1.20% (Est.) S 9,391,267 $ 9,391,267 S 9,391,267 II
Totat Cost i
Less Oevelcprent
Fees S 3,3G4,285 S 3,304,285 S 1,492,285
Acditionat
Developer
Ccntributions S 1,500,000 S 1,500,000 S 1,492,285
Additional
District
Ccntributions S 1,804,285 S 1,5U,385 S .0-
It is the Board's opinion that the District has made several con-
cessions in order to negotiate in good faith towards a mutually
acceptable agreement. These have included, but are not limited
to:
1) Reducing the student generation yield rates from . 2695
(which represents comparable new developments in Hun-
tington Beach) to . 2035 , a yield reduction of 25% ;
. I ,
�a7
Lmr. Tom Zanic
October 3 , 1991
Page _
2) Modifying the school acreage requirement for a non-
joint use facility from 10. 0 acres to 8 . 6 acres , or a
14 % reduction in land requirements and subsequent
costs ;
3) Capping the K-5 grade mitigation requirement to - - -
students versus the projected 757 student estirate;
4 ) Modifying the mitigation requirement for 6-8 grade Stu-
dent yields frcm the provision of land and permanent I
facilities at a cost of $23 , 089 per 6 grade student and �
$36 , 150 per 7-3 grade student, to the provision of
relocatable facilities at a cost of $3 , 333 per 6-8
grade student; j
i
5) Eliminating a :resent value inflation factor on im-
provement costs ; and I
i
6) agreeing to a Joint use facility thelre!-,y enabling the I
developer to gain dual use of the property reducing
your financial obligation jointly wit:: the Cizy and the
District.
Seeking an additional $1 . 5 million contribution has an impact on
the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area of $2 , 636 per acre . Based j
upon the development of new dwelling units for the en:.ire area,
the additional financial impact is $353 (-�-) per unit . j
I
The District does not believe that its requests are unreasonable
considering a) the concessions made by the District tc date ; b)
the financial magnitude c' the development; and c) the level of �
public facilities and in:�rastructure which has been acreed to be
provided with other impacted public agencies . The District
believes that quality and effective school facilities are just as
important as parks , police sub-stations , fire stations ,
equestrian paths, and basic infrastructure.
We hope that we have expressed clearly the Board's position. If
you have any questions, please give me a call . The Board cer-
tainly would like to finalize an equitable relationship, however,
it cannot compromise the future educational demands , place the I
District in undue financial risk, or impose an unrealistic finan-
cial obligation on the community as a result of the developer' s
unwillingness to mitigate fully the impact of the Holly-Seacliff
development.
�_uuyw •ST lui•fSK•..[S K ��
Mr. Tom Zanic
October 3 , 1991
Page 5
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration.
Sincerely,
COMMUNITY S` gTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
rshal Krupp s
President
mbk:mmg
b:1.18 f
cc: Dr. Duane Dishno
Huntington Beach City School District j
Dr. Gary Burgner
Huntington Beach City School District
Dr. Joel Kirschenstein
The Sage Institute
t
Mr. William D. Holman
Pacific Coast Homes
A
t
i
1
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITE' SCHOOL DISTRICT
'-ana . P.u. Cox r i rtun7,n;tpn oaa_n, CnGrcrr,ia 026A? 171A1 554-6623
O
BOARD OF TRUSTEES October 15, 1991
A.obert Manr„ E 0.
Profidant
Brian Gar'and
Clerk Mr. Tom Zanic
Shirley Grey Urban West Cor:�munities
PA.e'nbar 520 Broadway, Suite 100
c:ry Nelfcn, D.D.S. Santa Monira, California 90401
Memnel
Karen O' Prlc it
RE: Hoilv-5eacli r
Mamber
Deve'.oper/Districi Continued Negotiation
AOM_ IN:STRAT!ON
Dear ?�1r. Zan::c:
G:.9nd A. C,fnno. �C. D. �
S.p�rintonrlant
Oil October 8, 1991, the City of Hunt:ngtcn Beach : lan.;:nC
C'ornniissicn continued variuu5 iter_ls retadnp' to t::e 'riQ.ly-Seac'.i t
Gary A. Surihar, ;:, D, b l
ao_ty s��afin:e^.-ant Specific I-'la- , to a special meeting of Octo; er 29� 1991.
Al.n Aaan-us:a- J. The Coinn,:---;inn suc-ested strongly that the ]Hurltin--- .'or1 Be cil C:-- i
As:faantnS'p,r,ntCG1an• i School Dls'rlct and Urban `Vest COMM Unl ties/Piciflc Co. zt Home-
continue to attempt to reach an understanding relative to ti,e sc',o3l
issues. As o. this date, the District has not recelved your :zspon e tC%
our proposal of October or a.^y furthe, inquiries frcnn you, and we
have noi, r�;cived ally indication of your desire to I11.eet agai::.
On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the District, axe to again
indicate cur Willingness to continue the discus=ion-c, an.0 t0 a'\-
every effort to reach an agreement that atta:ns our co-moron Go'!s,
With the October 29, 1991 Planning C.ommiss:on meetina )�.
o �t -; rounc
the Corner, it would apptrdr that every ^ 3 �'� -* � , �� r LE
.�. e:rort r.,tAsl �.- ., z to n;_e:
the earliest ossible date.
We certainly loot: forward to anv further suggestions or iiiternatives
which you believe will address the mitigation Novhich will be necessary
to address the impacts on the District from the im le.-nr= :a"ion of the
Holly-SeacLff Specific Plan and GPA 89-1.
.Mr. Tom Zanic
October 15, 1991
page two
I loot: forward to hi; arinba :rocs you to schedule a meeting date.
Sincerely,
Duane Dishno, Ed.D.
Superintendent
cc: Mr. Marshail B. K.rupp
Comm- unity Systems Associates, Inc.
Mr. Bill Holman
Pacific Coast Homes
i✓ir. Ki:k Kirkland, Chairman
City of Huntington Beach Planni7 Commicssic-n
Honorably Peter Green
Mayor, City of Hunr'lington Beach
IMPACT ANALYSIS DRAFT
In order to validate the District's position relative to
unmitigated impact resulting from the Specific Plan, the following
is offered for the record. The District has received the following
items from the Developer as a part of the District/Developer
negotiated process, and are incorporated herein by reference:
1) Holly-Seacliff Area School Facilities Impact Analysis and
Student Housing Mitigation Plan - July, 1991 ;
2) August 5, 1991 letter from Urban West Communities responding
to my letter of July 29 , 1991 ; and
3) August 7 , 1991 memorandum from Urban West Communities.
The following presents an evaluation of the materials, and their
comparison to District ' s factual information and impact analysis.
It is noted that the impact analysis discussion herein refers only
to that area within the Specific Plan boundaries, although the
overall area of impact applies to both the Holly-Seacliff and
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan areas.
Please note that where stated amounts are inconsistent for
similarly discussed items, this is due to mathematical rounding
resulting from the specificity and detail of formulas utilized.
All conclusions should be considered plus or minus amounts.
1) Determination of Impact
Impact on the District by the development of the Holly-
Seacliff Specific Plan can be defined as 1) students generated
to be accommodated by the District; and 2) cost to the
District to accommodate the students.
Impact, and subsequently impact mitigation, is driven by three
(3) variables:
1) student generation factors or student yield;
2) required land and subsequent costs; and
3) required new improvements or reconstructed improvements
and subsequent costs.
7-1
These are two (2) categories of impact and cost which should
be addressed. These include K-5 grade facilities and 6-8
grade facilities. Further, there are two (2) significant
variables related to cost. These include 1) improvement
construction and furnishing costs; and 2) land acquisition
costs.
It is important to note that the District' s determination of
improvement construction and furnishing costs follow the
procedures and formulas as have been established by the State
of California Office of Local Assistance and the Department
of Education. Throughout previous discussions and
negotiations with the Developer, the Developer has not
challenged the procedures, formulas, or conclusions reached
by the District relative to these improvement construction and
furnishing costs.
A second important condition to note relates to the land
acquisition cost. The feasibility and viability of the impact
mitigation measures set forth in EIR No. 89-1 is completely
driven by the purchase price of the land. Normally, and as
required by Sate law, this would be determined based upon an
appraisal process using "comparability" (i. e. , value based
upon comparison of similar properties) . However, the
Developer has established the purchase price of the property,
based upon a value negotiated as a part of the partnership
transaction between Pacific Coast Homes (Huntington Beach
Company) and Urban West Communities. It appears that this
value is not based upon comparable sales, but rather is a
projected value assuming the receipt of entitlements and
future market conditions. In essence, a substantial profit
margin has been added to the land basis in order to establish
the relationship between the prior owner of the land who is
now a partner in the development, and Urban West Communities.
In addition, the land value has been increased by the
property' s pro-rata share of infrastructure and public
facility improvements required of other public agencies. For
a 10-acre site, this equates to $800, 000.
It is the District ' s opinion that the proposed purchase price
offer of the land has been arbitrarily set at a value higher
than comparable parcels, far in excess of the land basis held
by the Developer partnership. In so doing, the Developer is
receiving an unreasonable profit margin which is resulting in
the need for the District and community to provide funding in
excess of development fee requirements.
7-2
We note that where the Developer was required to make
available rights-of-way, easements, and parcels for the
benefit of the development, but required by other public
agencies, that these lands were dedicated at not cost versus
acquired by the public agency at the Developer ' s value of the
property. The District would suggest that it is the
Developer' s profit margin above the land basis which is
causing in part, the mitigation measures of EIR No. 89-1 to
be ineffective towards mitigating the impact of the
development.
The following impact analysis will substantiate the District ' s
contentions relative to impact mitigation revenues and
expenditures.
2) Student Generation
The District has previously used average District-wide student
generation factors or student yields, as follows:
K-5 . 1171 students/dwelling unit
6 . 0191 students/dwelling unit
7-8 . 0434 students/dwelling unit
Total . 1796 students/dwelling unit
However, this is an average District-wide factor which assumes
a mature community, and does not reflect actual yield rates
of new developments in the community. A survey of various new
developments in the community as previously discussed reflects
yield factors which range higher than the average District-
wide factors.
These new development yields are as follows:
K-5 . 1779 students/dwelling unit
6 . 0305 students/dwelling unit
7-8 . 0611 students/dwelling unit
Total . 2695 students/dwelling unit
The Developer has provided the District with a 10-year Phasing
Plan (1991-2001) identifying the number of units and average
square feet by product type for the total units proposed
within General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 (4 , 410 dwelling units) ,
and not presently existing. There are 155 existing units.
The following is a summary of that Plan:
7-3
No. of Units 4 , 255
Total Residential Sq. Ft. 8, 120, 000
Average Sq. Ft./Unit 1, 908
The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan includes 3 , 930 or 92 . 36 (+) %
of the 4 , 255 units.
The District ' s projection of students is as follows:
a) Specific Plan - 3 , 930 Units
Avg. District-Wide Yield (+) New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 460 699
6 75 120
7-8 171 240
TOTAL 706 1, 059
b) Developer Proposed - 4 , 255 Units
Avg. District-Wide Yield (+) New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 498 757
6 81 130 •
7-8 185 260
TOTAL 764 1, 147
c) Total Units Holly-Seacliff/Ellis-Goldenwest - 4 , 410 Units
Avg. District-Wide Yield (+) New Dev. Yield (+)
K-5 516 785
6 84 135
7-8 191 269
TOTAL 791 1, 189
3) Projected Development Fees
The Developer' s Mitigation Fees Collection Projection
estimates present development fees, as follows for the 4 , 410
proposed units:
7-4
Residential Fees @ $ . 934/sq. ft. $7 , 584 , 082
Commercial Fees @ $. 1586/sq. ft. 214 , 110
Total Fees $7 , 798 , 192
It appears that the Developer' s residential fee per square
foot was based upon $1. 53 x 61% or $. 934 . The District ' s
share of the present fee is actually $1. 58 x 61%, resulting
in a fee per residential square foot of $. 964 , or $7 , 827 , 680.
Assuming that the Specific Plan represents 92 . 36% of the 4 , 410
proposed units, the residential fees projected for the
Specific Plan area would be $7 , 827 , 680 x 92 . 36% or
$7 , 229, 645 (±) . Said another way, assuming an average unit
size of 1,908 which has been identified in the Phasing Plan,
the Specific Plan 3 , 930 units would equate to 7 , 498 , 440 square
feet, or a residential development fee of $7 , 228 , 496 (±) .
4) Land Costs
The Developer has set forth land costs as follows for several
alternative site locations:
Cost Acre
a) Northwest corner of Garfield Avenue
and Saddleback Lane $720, 000
b) South side of Garfield Avenue $825, 000
c) Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue
and Gothard Street $730, 000
There is no information to substantiate the land cost per
acre, except that $80, 000 of each is allocated to
infrastructure required by Development Agreement No. 90-1 .
This $80, 000 per acre is intended to be allocated to parks,
police sub-stations, fire stations, equestrian paths, and
basic infrastructure, etc. It is the District ' s contention
that the District should not be obligated to fund such
facilities which have been required of the Developer by other
public agencies.
Based upon a 35, 400 square foot building area for a K-6 school
and 60, 000 square foot building for a 7-8 school , the land
cost per building square feet would be as follows for
different sized sites:
7-5
a) $720, 000 Purchase Price/Acre
Land Closing Total Land Closing Total
K-6 K-6 K-6 7-8 7-8 7-8
Site Total Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg.
Acreage Cost Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq.Ft.
10.0 $ 7,200,000 $203.39 $1.41 $204.80
9.5 S 6,840,000 S193.22 S1.41 S194.63
9.0 S 6,480,000 $183.05 S1.41 S184.46
8.5 S 6,120,000 $172.88 S1.41 $174.29
8.0 S 5,760,000 S162.71 $1.41 $164.12
7.5 S 5,400,000 $152.54 $1.41 $153.95
7.0 S 5,040,000 $142.37 S1.41 $143.79
6.5 S 4,680,000 $132.20 $1.41 $133.62
6.0 S 4,320,000 S122.03 S1.41 $123.45
5.5 S 3,960,000 $111.86 $1.41 $113.28
5.0 S 3,600,000 $101.56 $1.41 $103.11
4.5 S 3,240,000 $ 91.53 $1.41 S 92.94
8.6 S 6,192,000 $174,92 $1.41 $176.33
8.3 S 51976,000 S168.81 S1.41 $170.23
21.0 S15,120,000 $252.00 $0.83 $252.83
b) $730, 000 Purchase Price/Acre
Land Closing Total Land Closing Total
K-6 K-6 K-6 7-8 7-8 7-8
Site Total Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg.
Acreage Cost Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
10.0 $ 7,300,000 $206.21 $1.41 $207.63
9.5 S 6,935,000 $195.90 $1.41 $197.32
9.0 S 6,570,000 $185.59 $1.41 S187.01
8.5 S 6,205,000 $175.28 $1.41 $176.69
8.0 S 5,840,000 $164.97 $1.41 S166.38
7.5 $ 5,475,000 S154.66 $1.41 $156.07
7.0 S 5,110,000 $144.35 $1.41 $145.76
6.5 S 4,745,000 $134.04 $1.41 $135.45
6.0 S 4,380,000 $123.73 $1.41 $125.14
5.5 S 4,015,000 $113.42 $1.41 $114.83
5.0 $ 3,650,000 $103.11 $1.41 $104.52
4.5 S 3,285,000 S 92.80 $1.41 $ 94.21
8.6 S 6,278,000 S177.34 $1.41 $178.76
8.3 S 6,059,000 S171.16 $1.41 $172.57
21.0 $15,330,000 $255.50 $0.83 $256.33
7-6
c) $825, 000 Purchase Price/Acre
Land Closing Total Land Closing Total
K-6 K-6 K-6 7-8 7-8 7-8
Site Total Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg. Cost/Bldg.
Acreage Cost Sq. Ft, Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft.
10.0 $ 8,250,000 $233.05 $1.41 $234.46
9.5 S 7,837,500 $221.40 $1.41 $222.81
9.0 S 7,425,000 $209.75 $1.41 $211.16
8.5 S 7,012,000 S198.09 $1.41 S199.51
8.0 $ 6,600,000 $186.44 $1.41 $187.85
7.5 $ 6,187,500 $174.79 $1.41 $176.20
7.0 S 5,775,000 $163.14 S1.41 $164.55
6.5 $ 5,362,500 S151.48 $1.41 $152.90
6.0 $ 4,950,000 $139.83 $1.41 $141.24
5.5 $ 4,537,500 $128.18 $1.41 $129.59
5.0 S 4,125,000 $116.53 S1.41 S117.94
4.5 $ 3,712,500 $104.87 $1.41 $106.29
8.6 S 7,095,000 $200.42 $1.41 $201.84
8.3 S 6,847,500 $193.43 $1.41 $194.84
21.0 $17,325,000 $288.75 $0.83 $289.58
These three (3) alternative sites proposed by the Developer
would have a total cost as follows:
Cost
a) Northwest corner of Garfield Avenue
and Saddleback Lane (10. 0 acre purchase) $7 , 200, 000
b) South side of Garfield Avenue
(5. 5 acre purchase) $4 , 537 , 500
c) Northeast corner of Garfield Avenue
and Gothard Street (6 . 0 acre purchase) $4 , 380, 000
A 10-acre K-5 or K-6 grade site would have the following costs
per student based upon the stated purchase prices per acre:
Cost/Acre Cost/Student
$825, 000/acre $13 , 750
$730, 000/acre $12 , 167
$720, 000/acre $12 , 000
A 21-acre 6-8 or 7-8 grade site would have the following cost
per student based upon the stated purchase price per acre:
Cost/Acre Cost/Student
$825, 000/acre $23 , 100
$730, 000/acre $20, 400
$720, 000/acre $20, 160
7-7
5) Improvement Costs (K-5)
The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs
is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building
area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net
building square footage of 35, 400 square feet, based upon 59
square feet per student. A 750 student 7-8 grade school
requires a net building square footage of 60, 000 square feet,
based upon 80 square feet per student.
State construction practices accept a base building cost of
$90. 87 per square foot for K-6 grade schools, and $93 . 61 per
square foot for 7-8 grade schools. These costs assume 30% of
the building square footage as relocatable classrooms.
The Developer has used a K-5 combination figure of permanent
facilities at $92 . 00 (±) per square foot and relocatable
facilities at $97 . 23 (+) , or a combined average of $92 . 91 (±)
per square foot. This represents a slight increase over the
District' s base building costs for a grade K-5 school .
The categories of cost have been calculated in Tables 1-1 and
1-2 for both the District' s and the Developer' s cost
estimates. As noted, when comparing columns "G" & "P, " the
Developer costs appear to under-estimate the other non-
building costs. of particular significance is the lack of a
cost calculation for furniture, the under-estimation of
service site and off-site improvements, and an unrealistic
estimate for contingencies. It is noted that some of the off-
site improvement costs set forth in the Developer' s estimate
may be set forth within the land cost of $80, 000
infrastructure improvements.
With these general comments, the comparison of total K-5
improvement and furniture costs are as follows:
District Developer
Total Cost (excludes land) $5,553,700 $4,107,480
Cost/Sq. Ft. of Building $ 156.88 $ 116.03
As an example, the improvement cost of a K-5 school of 600
students at $156. 88 per square foot is $5, 553 , 700 or $9 , 256 (±)
per student.
6) 6-8 Improvement Costs
The Developer has proposed a relocatable improvement program
to address 6-8 grade demands, at $100, 000 per relocatable.
7-8
• T �
For permanent facilities, the District would use a total cost
per square foot (excluding land) of $156. 88 for grade 6 and
$162 . 30 for grades 7-8. A more detailed explanation is set
forth in Table 1-1.
As an example, the improvement cost of a 7-8 grade school of
750 students at $162 . 30 per square foot is $9 , 738 , 000 or
$12 , 984 per student.
7) Inflation Standards
The Developer has used an annual inflation factor of 3 . 0% to
project future land and improvement costs. Although the land
cost inflation factor is driven by Developer/District
negotiations, the use of an improvement cost inflation factor
of 3% is unrealistic. A more prudent inflation factor would
be 5% (+) , based upon 10-year historical records. For purposes
of this analysis, constant numbers or a non-inflated analysis
has been used herein.
8) Total Costs and Revenue Surplus/Deficit
Based upon the Specific Plan projection of 3 , 930 dwelling
units, the projected improvement cost would be as follows:
Units - 3 , 930
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9 , 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Improvement Improvement
Students Cost Students Cost
K-5 460 $ 4 , 259, 639 699 $ 6, 4711305
6 75 $ 694 , 738 120 $ 1, 109 , 470
7-8 171 $ 2 , 214 , 577 240 $ 3 , 117 , 757
TOTAL 706 $ 7 , 168 , 999 1, 059 $10, 698 , 532
Based upon the Developer proposed units of 4 , 255, the
projected impact cost would be as follows:
Units - 4 , 255
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9 , 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
7-9
Average District-Wide Yield New Development Yield
Improvement Improvement
Students Cost Students Cost
K-5 498 $ 4 , 611, 899 757 $ 7 , 006, 463
6 81 $ 752, 240 130 $ 1, 201, 221
7-8 185 $ 2 , 397, 716 260 $ 3 , 375, 587
TOTAL 764 $ 7, 761, 855 1, 147 $11, 583 , 271
Based upon the total units of 4 , 410 (Holly-Seacliff/Ellis
Goldenwest) , the projected improvement cost would be as
follows:
Units - 4 , 410
Improvement Cost per K-6 Student $ 9 , 256
Improvement Cost per 7-8 Student $12 , 984
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Improvement Improvement
Students Cost Students Cost
K-5 516 $ 4 , 779 , 900 785 $ 7 , 261, 693
6 84 $ 779, 642 135 $ 1, 244 , 978
7-8 191 $ 2 , 485 , 060 269 $ 3 , 498 , 552
TOTAL 792 $ 8 , 044 , 602 1, 188 $12 , 005, 223
The land cost can be similarly compared. Based upon the
Specific Plan projection of 3 , 930 dwelling units, the
projected land cost would be as follows:
Units - 3 , 930
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
a $825,000 a $730,000 @ 5720,000 a 5825,000 a 5730,000 a $720,000
Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre
K-6 1 $ 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000
7-8 1 S 23,100 $ 20,400 S 20,160 1 S 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160
K-5 460 S 6,327,791 S 5,599,290 $ 5,522,436 699 S 9,613,271 S 8,506,522 S 8,389,764
6 75 $ 1,032,116 $ 913,292 S 900,756 120 S 1,648,144 $ 1,458,397 S 1,438,380
7-8 171 S 3,939,982 S 3,479,465 S 3,438,530 240 S 5,546,841 S 4,898,509 $ 4,840,880
TOTAL 706 511,299,890 S 9,992,046 S 9,861,722 1,059 $16,808,256 $14,863,428 $14,699,024
7-10
Based upon the Developer proposed units of 4 , 255, the
projected land cost would be as follows:
Units - 4 , 255
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
@ $825,000 @ $730,000 51 $720,000 @ $825,000 51 $730,000 @ $720,000
Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre
K-6 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000
7-8 1 $ 23,100 S 20,400 S 20,160 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160
K-5 498 S 6,851,082 $ 6,062,336 S 5,979,126 757 $10,408,262 S 9,209,987 S 9,083,574
6 81 $ 1,117,469 S 988,818 $ 975,246 130 $ 1,784,441 $ 1,579,003 S 1,557,330
7-8 185 $ 4,265.808 S 3,767.207 S 3,722.887 260 $ 6,005,550 $ 5,303,602 S 5,241,207
TOTAL 764 S12,234,359 $10,818,360 $10,677,259 1,147 $18,198,252 $16,092,592 $15,882,111
Based upon the total units of 4 , 410 (Holly-Seacliff/Ellis-
Goldenwest) , the projected land cost would be as follows:
Units - 4 , 410
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
51 $825,000 51 $730,000 51 $720,000 a $825,000 a $730,000 @ $720,000
Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre
K-6 1 $ 13,750 S 12,167 $ 12,000 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 S 12,000
7-8 1 $ 23,100 S 20,400 $ 20,160 1 $ 23,100 S 20,400 S 20,160
K-5 516 $ 7,100,651 S 6,283,173 S 6,196,932 785 $10,787,411 S 9,545,486 S 9,414,468
6 84 $ 1,158,176 $ 1,024,839 S 1,010,772 135 $ 1,849,444 $ 1,636,522 $ 1,614,060
7-8 191 $ 4,421,201 $ 3,904.438 $ 3,858,503 269 S 6,224,318 S 5,496,800 S 5,432,132
TOTAL 792 $12,680,029 $11,212,449 $11,066,207 1,188 $18,861,173 $16,678,809 $16,460,660
In addition, all of the land costs would need to be increased
by the cost of appraisals and closing cost which equate to
approximately $50, 000 per site.
The following presents the revenue surplus/ (deficit) based
upon 3 , 930, 4 , 255, and 4 , 410 units, respectively:
7-11
5
a) Units - 3 ,930
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
is $825,000 is $730,000 a 5720,000 @ $825,000 a 5730,000 a $720,000
Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre
K-5 S 6,327,791 S 5,599,290 S 5,522,436 S 9,613,271 S 8,506,522 S 8,389,764
6 S 1,032,116 S 913,292 S 900,756 S 1,648,144 S 1,458,397 S 1,438,380
7 S 3,939,982 S 3,479,465 $ 3,438,530 S 5,546,841 S 4,898,509 $ 4,840,880
SUB-TOTAL LAND $11,299,890 S 9,992,046 $ 9,861,722 $16,808,256 $14,863,428 $14,669,024
K-5 S 4,259,639 S 4,259,046 S 4,259,639 S 6,471,305 S 6,471,305 S 6,471,305
6 S 694,783 S 694,783 S 694,783 $ 1,109,470 S 1,109,470 $ 1,109,470
7 S 2,214.577 $ 2,214.577 S 2,214.577 S 3,117,757 S 3,117,757 S 3,117.757
SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS S 7,168,999 S 7,168,999 S 7,168,999 $10,698,532 $10,698,532 $10,698,532
TOTAL 518,468,889 $17,161,045 $17,030,721 527,506,799 $25,561,960 $25,367,556
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
FEES 5.0964 S 7,228,496 $ 7,228.496 S 7,228,496 $ 7,228,496 $ 7,228,496 $ 7,228.496
REVENUE
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($11,240,393) (S 9,932,549) ($ 9,802,225) ($20,278,292) ($18,333,464) ($18,139,060)
b) Units - 4 , 255
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
51 $825,000 a $730,000 @ $720,000 @ $825,000 a $730,000 51 $720,000
Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre
K-5 S 6,851,082 $ 6,062,336 S 5,979,126 $10,408,262 $ 9,209,987 S 9,083,574
6 $ 1117,469 S 988,818 S 975,246 S 1,784,441 S 1,579,003 S 1,557,330
7 $ 4:265,808 S 3,767.207 $ 3,722.887 S 6,005.550 S 5,303,602 S 5,241.207
SUB-TOTAL LAND $12,234,359 $10,818,360 $10,677,259 $18,198,252 516,092,592 $15,882,111
K-5 S 4,611,899 $ 4,611,899 $ 4,611,899 $ 7,006,463 $ 7,006,463 S 7,006,463
6 S 752,240 S 752,240 S 752,240 S 1,201,221 $ 1,201,221 S 1,201,221
7 S 2,397,716 $ 2,297,716 S 2,397,716 S 3,375,587 S 3,375,587 $ 3,375,587
SUS-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS S 7,761,855 S 7,761,855 $ 7,761,855 $11,583,271 $11,583,271 $11,583,271
TOTAL $19,996,214 518,580,216 $18,439,114 $29,781,523 $27,675,863 $27,465,382
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
FEES 5.0964 S 7,826,273 S 7,826,273 S 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 S 7,826,273
REVENUE
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($12,169,942) (510,753,943) ($10,612,841) ($21,955,250) ($19,849,590) ($19,639,109)
7-12
c) Units - 4 , 410
Average District Wide Yield New Development Yield
Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost Land Cost
a $825,000 @ $730,O0O 51 $720,000 a $825,000 a $73O,000 a 5720,OOO
Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre
K-5 S 7,100,651 $ 6,283,173 S 6,196,932 $10,787,411 S 9,545,486 S 9,414,468
6 S 1,158,176 $ 1,024,839 S 1,010,772 S 1,849,444 S 1,636,522 S 1,614,060
7-8 S 4,421,201 $ 3,904.438 S 3,858,503 S 6,224,318 S 5,496,800 $ 5,432,132
SUB-TOTAL LAND $12,680,029 $11,212,449 $11,066,207 $18,861,173 $16,678,8O9 $16,460,66O
K-5 S 4,779,900 S 4,779,900 S 4,779,900 S 7,261,693 S 7,261,693 $ 7,261,693
6 S 779,642 $ 779,642 $ 779,642 S 1,244,978 S 1,244,978 S 1,244,978
7-8 S 2,485,060 S 2,485,060 S 2,485,060 S 3,498,552 S 3,498,552 S 3,498,552
SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS S 8,044,602 $ 8,044,602 S 8,044,602 $12,005,223 $12,O05,223 $12,005,223
TOTAL $20,724,631 $19,257,051 $19,110,809 530,866,396 $28,684,032 $28,465,883
PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT
FEES 5.0964 S 8,111,366 $ 8,111.366 $ 8,111.366 S 8,111,366 S 8,222,366 S 8,111.366
REVENUE
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($12,613,265) ($11,145,685) ($10,999,443) (522,755,O30) ($20,572,666) (820,354,517)
In all cases, the analysis indicates a substantial deficit
resulting in a need for revenues in excess of statutory fees.
9) Use of Development Fees
The Developer is proposing that both residential and
commercial development fees be applied to the cost of
providing classroom facilities caused by the development of
the area.
It is suggested that only residential fees be applied to the
construction of classrooms. The District' s reasoning is as
follows. The District will experience costs for the following
requirements as a result of development:
1) busses and transportation facilities ;
2) maintenance and operation equipment and facilities; and
3) administration facilities.
7-13
It is suggested that the proposed commercial development fees
would be more appropriately applied to these cost areas, so
as to ensure that the District is not further impacted. Based
on the District' s projections, this represents approximately
$233 , 363 (±) over 10 years, or $23, 336 (±) average per year.
This is not an unrealistic amount considering the cost of
transportation equipment, and the development ' s projected pro-
rata share of these costs.
10) Existing District Enrollment/Capacity
The District is and will continue to experience severe
District facility capacity utilization and overcrowding. The
following list sets forth the various open District schools,
grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment
as of October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1991:
Enrollment
School Acreage 1990 1991 Capacity
Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 10.1(+) 816 803 780
1502 Palm Avenue
Huntington Beach
Sowers Middle School (6-8) 17.3(+) 1,118 1,115 1,110
9300 Indianapolis
Huntington Beach
Smith School (K-5) 10.3(+) 694 693 690
770 17th street
Huntington Beach
I
Perry School (K-5) 10.6(+) 558 559 540
19231 Harding Lane
Huntington Beach
Eader School (K-5) 13.0(+) 725 725 720
9291 Banning Avenue
Huntington Beach
Kettler School (K-5) 12.8(+) 612 698 690
8750 Dorsett Drive
Huntington Beach
Hawes School (K-5) 10.6(+) 382 395 390
9682 Yellowstone Drive
Huntington Beach
Moffett School (K-5) 9.2(+) 654 693 690
8800 Burlcrest Avenue
Huntington Beach
Total 5,559 5,681 5,610
7-14
The student differences between enrollment and capacity are
housed in special classrooms, laboratories, and other
reconfigured school areas.
The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used
District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity:
School Acreage Capacity
LeBard School 10.8(+) 540
20451 Craimer Lane
Huntington Beach
(Currently District Office)
Burke School 7.9(+) 690
9700 Levee Drive
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Private High School
and Child Care Agency)
Peterson School 9.6(+) 690
20661 Farnsworth Lane
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Coast Community College)
Clapp School 5.8(+) 270
20581 Farnsworth Lane
Huntington Beach
(Leased to Orange County
Department of Education)
Gisler School (Closed) 16.3(+) 960
21141 Strathmoor Lane
Huntington Beach
The only schools available to the Specific Plan area which
would not require a total re-organization of the enrollment
attendance areas, but will still require costs to the District
in terms of bussing students, include Dwyer Middle School and
Smith Elementary School .
Dwyer Middle School consists of 26 regular classrooms, of
which 2 are relocatables, with a total capacity of 780
students. Based upon the October, 1991 enrollment, Dwyer
Middle School is at a capacity of 1. 03%.
Smith Elementary School consists of 23 regular classrooms, of
which 4 are relocatable, with a total capacity of 690
students. Based upon the October, 1991 enrollment, Smith
Elementary School is at a capacity of 100% .
7-15
Based upon the student generation yields described herein for
the Specific Plan area, the impact on Dwyer Middle School and
Smith Elementary School create an even more overcrowded
condition requiring the District to pursue significant
enrollment attendance boundary modifications and/or the re-
opening of schools in areas which would not be effective in
terms of the educational programs and operations of the
District. In addition, the District would incur school re-
opening and re-configuration costs, bussing costs, loss
revenues from existing leases, and the cost to acquire land
and construct a new District office.
7-16
A B 0 E F N r, N 0 P ,
H J K L 0
?
TABLE 1-1
08-Oct-91 3
01:47:41 PM 1
HLINIINGTCN ?EACH CITY SCHOOL D IS'•'"' S
COST EST!M.AT ES PER SQ. FT. OF ?G'.',:.S0 ARE.A
5
OLLY SE%CLIFF / ELL]S-GOLDENWES' : EC' !C PLANS
7
1
1991 DISTRICT (:MIS 1991 DEVELOPER COSIS 9
10
11
K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12
PER SO. FT, COSTS PER SQ. Ff. PER SQ, fT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ, FT. COMPARISOt4S 13
14
15
ACRES 10 10 21 10 16
LAND SQ. F1 435,600 435,600 914,760 435,600 )7
SIUDENIS boo 600 750 600 18
NET SQ. F1, PEP STODENT 59 59 80
55 19
GROSS SO. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20
NET ?J!L0hG SQ FT. 35,400 35,400 60.000 35.400 21
GROSS 8UILD!NS SO. FT. 37,200 37,200 62,2SD 37,200 21
F:C'
23
24
BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 $92.91 25
GENEk4'l- S!IE ;.'; OF BUILDING COSTS $7.27 $257.344 11.27 $7.49 $225,000 $6.36 5.84% 26
GENEkAL S!IE f15,000 PER ACRE $4.?4 $150,000 $4.24 $5.25 $0 f0.U0 27
SERVICE SITE !'.^01 OF BUILDING COSTS 1 13.63 $482.520 $13,63 f14.04 $90,000 12.54 2.741 28
UTILITIES 2.501 OF BUILDING COSTS 12.27 $80,410 $?.27 $2.34
$38,000 f1.01 1.161 29
JFh YP4DVE+EN'S OF a iEnnlr, rnctc $13 b3 $48? 5?0 $13.63 S14.04
1J3,000 f0.93 1.00t 30
31
HARD COST SUB-IOIAL 1131.91 $4,669,601 f131.91 f136.77 $3,674,980 $103.01 32
33
ARCH./ENG. FEES 8 251 OF HARD COSTS 37 50 f:65.386 $7.:0 S7.7? $268,000 $7.57 7.291 34
INSPECTION/TESTS 2.Sol Uf HAND COSTS 32.21 180,420 $2.21 S2.34
f39.5UU f1.17 1.071 35
PLAN CHECK FEES 0.751 OF HARD COSTS $0.68 $24,126 $0.68 $0,70 f25,000 $0.71 0.68% 36
31
SOFT COST SUB-TOTAL $10.45 $369.932 S10.45 S10.77 1332,5U0 19.39 38
39
FURNITURE & EOUIPMENI (FF&E) $7.00 PER SLOG. SO. FT. $7.00 $247,800 $7.00 $7.00 SO $0.00 $0 40
dl
HARD/SOFT & FF&E COST SUB-TOTAL 5149.36 f5,281,333 f149.36 3154.54 S4,001,480 f113.21 12
43 M
STATE CONTINGENCY I,501 Of SUB-101Al 3 L 24 f19,310 $?.24 52.32 $100,000 $2.82 2.501 44
SIA1E CONTINGENCY 3.',000 PER SCHOOL $U.06 32,Goo $0.06 $0.03 $0 $0.00 $0 45
DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-IOTAL $5.23 $185,057 $5.?3 15.41 $0 10.00 0.00% 46
47 mn
CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL $7.52 $266,367 $7.52 $7.76 $100,000 $2.82 48
49
HARD/SOFT, FF&E, & CONTINGENCY COS' ;i;'P-TOTAL S156.88 SS.551,700 $156.68 $162.30 $4,107,480 $116.03 50
51
LAND $S;S,"% PER A!'RF 10 D u 1,15 1.31.05 $8,?50.0110 $1!3.05 S?H8.1S $8,250,000 1233.05 51
APPRAISAL & CLOSING COSTS 35J.'J00 PER 511E $1.41 350,ou0 $1 41 Su s3 $.'0.got, S1 41 53
54
LAND SUS-10TAL $234.46 18,300,000 S234.46 $289.58 $8,300,000 5234.46 55
56
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO. Fl $391.35 $13.853,700 f391.35 $451.88 $12.407,480 $350.49 57
58
SJPPORI FACILITIES f0.J0 PER H:OG sn !l. $11,ou So 30.00 $0.00 $U 10.00 59
I N I t R I M fAC,ILIIIE5 K-6 Sr: CO PER BLDG. SQ. rI. fU go So $U U0 50.09 Sn Woo 6U
A 8 C D E F G H 1 ! K L H 14 0 P 0
TABLE 1-I
2
08-Oct-91 3
HIINTINGTIIN BEACH MY SCHOOL DDISTRICT01:47:41 PM 45
('(1ST ESTIMATES PER 5). F1. OF BUILDING AREA 5
HOLLY-SEACLIFF j -; -3pL0ENWESi SPECIF'!C PLAYS
1
8
1991 DlSllt!Cl COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9
10
11
K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR I2
PER SO. FT, COSTS PER S(). FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ. FT. COMPARISONS 13
14
15
ACRES 10 10 21 10 16
LAND SQ. FT 435,600 435.600 914.760 435,600 17
STUDEN15 boo 600 750 600 Itl
NE SQ. F1. PER 5!t'Eti' 59 59 80 59 19
GHOSS SO. FT. PER S%! ENT 62 62 83
NET BUILDING SQ. FT. 35.400 62 10
GROSS BUILDING 50. f' FACTORS 35.a00 60,000 35,400 21
37,200 37,200 62,250 37,200 22
23
24
BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 $92.91 25
GLNERAL SITE 8.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $7.27 $257.344 $7.27 $7.49 $225,000 $6.36 6.84% 26
GENERAL SITE $15,000 PER ACRE $4.24 $150,000 $4.24 15.25 $0 $0.00 27
SERVICE SITE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482,520 $13.63 $14.04 $90.000 $2.54 2.741 28
UTILITIES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 $80,420 $2.27 $2.34 $38,000 11.07 1.16% 29
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00; OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482.520 $13.63 $14.04 f33,000 $0.93 1,00% 30
31
HARD COST SUB-IOTA', $131.91 $4,669,601 $131.91 $136.77 $3.674,980 $103.81 32
33
ARCH./ENG. FEES 8.25% OF HARD COSTS $7.50 11265,386 $7.50 $7.72 $268,000 17.57 7.29% 34
INSPECTION/TESTS 2.50% OF HARD COSTS $2.21 $80.420 $2.27 $2.34 $39,500 $1.12 1.011 35
PLAN CHECK FEES 0.75, Of HARD COSTS $0.68 $24,126 $0.68 $0.70 $25,000 $0.71 0.68% 36
31
SOFT COST SUB-TOTAL $10.45 $369,932 $10.45 f10.77 $332,500 $9.39 38
39
FURNITURE 6 EOUIPMENT (FF&E) f7.00 PER BLDG. SO. FT. $7.00 $247,800 $7,00 $7.00 $0 $0.00 $0 40
HARD/SOFT 6 FF&E COST SUB-TOTAL $149.36 $5,287,333 $149.36 $154.54 11 fd,001,480 f113.21 42
13 omSPATE CONTINGENCY !.SD't Of SUB-TOTAL f2.24 f19,3I0 f2.2d f2.32 S100,000 f2.82 2.50% 14
STATE CONTINGLNCY f2,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 $2,000 f0.06 $0.03 $U $0.00 $0 45
DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.501 OF S1i8-TOTAL. fS.23 11185,0S7 $5.23 $5.41 $0 f0.00 0.00% 46
47
CONTINGENCY SUB-10'4( f1,51 f2hb,30 f'I.S2 37 10 fI0U,0(lU f2.82 48 18
/9
HARD/SOFT, FF&E, 6 CONTINGENCY COST SUE-TOTAL $156.88 f5,553,'IUO f156.88 1162.30 f4,107,ABU 1116.03 50
51
LAND $825,000 PER ACRE 10.0 ACRES $233.05 $6,250,000 f233.05 $288.75 $8,250,000 $233.05 52
APPRAISAL 6 CLOSIN; CCS1S $50.000 PER SITE f1.41 f50,000 f1.41 f0.83 $S0,000 $1.41 53
54
LAND SUB-TOTAL $234.46 $8,300.000 f23:.46 1289.58 f8,300,000 $231.46 55
56
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO. Fl. $391.35 $13,853,700 f39I.35 $451.88 112,407,480 $350.49 53
58 r
SUPPORT FACIL1q $0.00 PLR ULDG. S(1. FT. $o'ou fU $0.00 $0.00 fU $0.00 59
rurcure PA('!r, 6 fD.CO PEP BtAG. 5p, f1. Moo fU �0.00 $0.00 f0 $0.00 0 60
i
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 p V
2
TABLE 1-2 08-Oct-9) 3
01:52:54 PM 4
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5
LISP ESIIMAIES PER Sit. FT. OF BUILUING AREA 6
HOLLY-SEALLIFF / EL LI S-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLANS 7
8
1991 D!STR!CT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9
10
11
K-5 TOTAL 6 1-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12
PER S0. FT. COSTS PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ, Ff. COMPARISONS 13
14
15
ACRES 10 10 21 10 16
LAND SQ. FT 4 35.600 435,600 914,760 435,600 17
STUDENTS 60, 600 750 600 18
NET SO. FT. PER STUDENT 59 59 80 59 19
GROSS SQ. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20
NET BUILDING SQ, Fl. 35,4CC 36,400 60.0CC 35,400 21
GROSS BUILDING SQ. FT. 37,200 37,200 62,?SC 37,200 22
FACTORS
23
24
BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.67 13.?15,798 $90.87 ;91.6I $3,288,980 $92.91 25
Gt'.ER.AL SITE 9.00% OF BUILDING CCSIS 17.27 $257.344 17.27 $1.49 $225,000 S6.36 6.84% 26
GENERAL SIIE $15,000 PER ACRE 14.14 $150,000 $4.14 $5.15 ;0 $0.00 27
SERVICE SIIE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482.520 $13.63 $14.04 $90.000 12.54 2.74% 28
UTIL!T!FS 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS 12.27 ;80,420 $2.27 12.34 $38,000 11.07 1.16% 29
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00% Of BUILDING COSTS $13.53 $482,520 1i3.63 ;14.L4 $33,000 $0.93 1.00E 30
31
HARD COST SUB-107AL ;131.91 14,669,601 ;131.91 1136.77 $3,674,980 ;103.81 32
33
ARCH./ENG. FEES 8,151 OF HARD COSTS ;7.50 $265,386 $7.50 17.7? ;?68,000 $7.57 7,29% 34
INSPECTION/TESIS 2.50% OF HARD COSTS $2.27 ;90,420 $1,27 $2,34
;39,500 $1.11 1.071 35
PLAN CHECK FEES 0.751 OF HARD COSTS 10.6E 124,126 f0.6B $0.70 $25,000 $0.71 0.68% 36
37
SO-I COST SUD-TOTAL 110.AS $369,932 $10.45 ;10.77
$332,500 f9.39 38
39
FURNITURE 6 EQUIPMFNT (FF&E) $7.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. 17.00 $247.000 13.00 17.00 ;0 1n.00 so 40
41
HARD/SOFT 6 FF&E COST SUBTOTAL $149.36 ;5,201,333 $149.36 $154.54 $4,007,480 $113.21 42
43
STALE CONTINGENCY 1.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $2.24 $79,310 $1.24 1?.32 $100,000 $2.92 2.50% 44
STATE CONTINGENCY $2,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 11,000 10.06 $0.03 10 $0.00 10 45
DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL 15.23 $185,057 1S.13 15.41 ;0 $0.00 0.00% 46
47
CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL $1.52 ;166,367 $7.52 $7.76 1100,000 $2.82 A8
49
HARD/SOFT, FF&E, 6 CONTINGENCY COST SUB-TOTAL ;155.80 15,553,?00 $156.88 $162.30 $4,107,480 $116.03 50
51
LAND $710,000 PER ACRE 8.3 ACRES $168.81 $5,976,000 ;2C3.39 $252.00 $5,976,000 $168.81 52
APPRAISAL 6 CLOSING COSTS $50.000 PER SITE $1.41 150,000 11.41 $0.83 $50.000 $1.41 53
54
LAND SUB-TOTAL ;170.23 15,026,000 $204.90 $252.B3 $6,026,000 $170.23 55
S6
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO. Ff. 13)7.)) 111,579,700 ;361.69 $415.13 ;10,133,480 $286.26 57
S8
SUPPORT FACILITIES $0.00 PER BLDG. SO. ff. 10.00 10 $0.of) $0.00 10 $0.00 59
"."� -, Cl So.00 10 10.Do 10.00 ;0 10.00 60
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P 0
2
TABLE 1-2 08-Oct-91 3
01:$2:54 PM 4
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5
CUST ESTIMATES PER SQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 6
HOLLY-SEACLIFF / ELLIS-GOLDENNESI SPECIFIC PLANS 7
8
1991 DISTRICT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9
10
11
K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12
PER S0. FT. COSI5 PER SO, FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ, Ff. COMPARISONS 13
14
IS
ACRES IU 10 21 10 16
LAND SU. FI 4 35.600 435,600 914,7bO 435.600 17
ST((OEHfS 600 600 750 600 18
NEf SO. FT. PER STUDENT 59 59 90 59 1.9
GROSS 50. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20
NET BUILDING SQ. -T. 3$,400 39.400 60.000 35,400 21
GROSS BUILDING SC. FT. 37.200 37,200 62,25C 37,200 22
FACTORS
23
24
BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 $92.91 25
W:jER.AL SITE 8.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $7.27 $257.344 $7.27 $7.49 $225,000 $6.36 6.84% 26
GENERAL SITE $15,000 PER ACRE $4.24 $150,000 14.24 $5.25 $0 $0.00 27
SERVICE SITE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482,520 $13.53 114.04 190.000 $2.54 2.74% 28
UTILITIES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 $80,420 $2.27 12.34 138,000 1).07 1.16% 29
OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00% OF BUILDING, COSTS $13.63 $482.520 $13.63 $14.04 $33.000 $0.93 1.00% 30
31
HARD COST SUB-TOTAL $131.91 $4,569,501 $131.91 $136,77 $3,674,980 $103.81 32
33
ARC1f./ENG. FEES 8.25% OT IIARU C0S1S 17 50 $265,386 $7.50 $7.72 1268,DOD $7.57 7.29% 34
INSPECII(WIESIS 2.501 OF HARI) COSTS 12.27 $80.420 I2.27 $2.34 $39.500 $1.12 1.07% 35
PLAN CHECK FEES 0.753 OF HA.RO COSTS $0.68 $24,126 $0.68 10.70 125,000 10.71 0.68L 36
37
SOFT COST SUB-10TAL 1 10,45 $369,932 110.A5 110.77 $332,500 $9.39 38
39
FURNITURE 6 EQUIPMENT (FF6E) $7.00 PER BLDG. SO. FT. $7.00 $247,800 $7.00 $7.00 $0 $0.00 10 40
41
HARD/SOFT d FF&E COST SUB-TOTAL $149.36 $5,267,333 $149.36 1154.54 $4,007,480 $113.21 42
43
STATE CONTINGENCY 1.50% OF SUB-TOTAL 12.24 179,310 $2.24 12.32 $100,000 $2.82 2.50% 44
STATE CONTINGENCY 12,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 $2.000 $0.06 $0.03 10 $0.00 10 45
DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL I5.23 1185.057 $5.23 $5.41 $0 $0.00 0.00% 46
47
CONTINGENCY SU8-TOTAL $7.52 126b,361 $1.52 $7,76 1100,D00 $2.82 48
49
HARD/SOFT, FF6E, 6 CONTINGENCY COST SUB-TOTAL 1156.80 15,553,700 I156.88 $162.10 $4.107,480 1116.03 50
51
LAND $720,000 PER ACRE 8.3 ACRES $168.91 $5,976,000 $203.19 1252.00 $5.976,000 $168.81 52
APPRAISAL 6 CLOSING COSTS $50,000 PER SITE $1.41 $50.000 $1.41 $0.83 150,000 $1.41 53
54
LAND SLID-TOTAL 1170.23 $6,026,000 $204.90 $252.83 16,026,D00 $170.23 55
56
TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO. FT. 1321.11 $11,579,700 $351.69 $415.13 110,133,480 $286.26 57
58
SUPPORT F4CILI� $0,00 PER III.UG. 5Q. I'. fO.uU In so.no In 00 $0 $0.00 59
'1�'^. �'•` $0.00 f(' �I1.00 10.DU 10 10.00 � e0 �
re
i
F'
a
>a
J%
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA
z SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT ANALYSIS
AND
STUDENT HOUSING MITIGATION PLAN
} HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
5
X
a
i
t
e
Prepared For:
r
3 Garfield Partners
i
Y
fi
y
##; Prepared By:
SAGE INSTITUTE, INC.
�' Revised: October, 1991
SII
Sage Institute Incorporated
0 29800Agoura Road, Suite #220
Agoura Hills, California 91301
1'&1ic 1'olicv
Master Planning
Finance
Asset Management
I. INTRODUCTION
Upon review and analysis of existing Huntington Beach City School District
("District"), City of Huntington Beach ("City") and project information, Sage Institute,
Inc. ("Consultant") on behalf of the Garfield Partners ('Developer"), representing a
portion of the proposed development of the Holly-Seacliff Project ("Project") within
the City, has been commissioned to prepare a comprehensive School Facilities Impact
Analysis and Student Housing Mitigation Plan ("School Mitigation Plan") as part of
an overall public facilities plan and technical testimony for the Project area. The
overall area covered by this School Mitigation Plan is the area of the Holly-Scaclitf
General Plan Amendment 89-1 ("Plan" or "Plan area"), which consists of they
approved Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the pending I lolly-Seachl'I'Specitic N;m.
Therefore, the data presented in this School Mitigation Plan is intended for
information and discussion purposes, and is being provided at the present time as
additional information as part of the overall entitlement and environmental review
processes.
This School Mitigation Plan sets forth specific findings regarding students generated
by the Project, and addresses specific mitigation measures and the on-line availability
of school facilities, grades K-8, for the District as related to providing facilities to
serve the Project.
Finally, the School Mitigation Plan identifies alternative mitigation and financing
options consistent with City-adopted school facilities impact mitigation measures for
the Project
1
(805)497-,8.557/(818)991-0646
fax (818)991-0754
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
II. PROJECT OVERVIEW & LANI) USE SUMMARY
A. RESIDENTIAL LAND USES - the Project, which includes the Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan, provides for the construction of a total of 4,255 new residential
dwelling units; of these, 3,760 units are proposed to be constructed by the
Developer. The total square footage of all proposed residential uses is
8,120,000 square feet.
A breakdown of the residential densities and housing types for the total
number of new units is set forth below.
1. Estate Residential:
a. maximum 4 dwelling units per gross acre; single-family detached
homes on custom lots or within traditional subdivisions.
b. 550 units averaging 3,500+ square meet in size are proposed.
2. Low Density:
a. 4 to 7 dwelling units per acre;
b. two product types in this category are proposed:
1) 590 units of single-family detached homes witli an
average size of 3,000 square feet.
2) 310 units of single-family detached homes with an
average size of 2,500 square feet.
3. Medium Density:
a. 7 to 15 dwelling units per acre; single-family detached, single -
family attached, and multi-family residential homes.
b. 1,690 units averaging 1,500 square feet in size are proposed.
4. Medium-High Density:
a. 15 to 25 units per acre; multi-family uses such as condominium
and/or stacked flats and apartments;
b. 1,115 units averaging 1,000 square feet in size are proposed.
B. COMMERCIAL LAND USES
Approximately 1,350,000 square feet of commercial buildings are proposed,
consisting of neighborhood and convenience commercial, professional offices
and light industrial uses.
2
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
C. OPEN SPACE/RECREATION/PARKS
Approximately 92 acres of open space areas and park uses are designated
within the Project. This includes 16 acres of neighborhood park a eas which
are designated within the residential neighborhoods and will provide local
open space and recreational amenities.
D. PUBLIC SCHOOLS
School facility impacts of the Project, including the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan,
can be mitigated by the payment of statutory developer fees, the designation
of a school site and the utilization of existing surplus school facilities and
previously collected fees.
E. DESIGNATED SCHOOL SITE
The City's General Plan designates a "Potential School Site" at the northwest
corner of intersection of Garfield Avenue and Saddleback Lane. Within the
designated area the Developer owns 8.3) net acres which are part of approved
Tentative Tract Male No. 14009. In accordance with California Government
Code Section 66478 and City Ordinance Code Section 9962, the City has
required the Developer to reserve the site for a period of six months for
potential acquisition by the District.
F. ALTERNATIVE SITE
In an attempt to be responsive to District's desire for a target 10 acre site and
lower the cost of land acquisition to the District, the Developer is open to
relocating the school site to a location south of Garfield Avenue owned by the
Developer. The alternative site has the additional benefit of incorporating
passive and active open space uses and a public school site into a joint-use
concept.
In addition, the Developer proposed other alternative joint use sites, which
were rejected by the District.
3
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
III. FINDINGS
A. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY - PLAN AREA
1. The Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plan, covering a portion of the Plan area
was adopted in June 1989.
2. The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is currently the subject of public
hearings before the City Planning Commission and is anticipated to be
adopted by the end of 1991.
3. The Plan Area is anticipated to be built out over a period of
appro)dmately ten years, with a target completion date of 2001. The
Development Phasing Summary for the Plan Area is set forth in
Appendix A attached hereto.
4. Existing fees along with future Developer fees, including existing;
District-wide surplus classroom space provide adequate mitigation for
future students from the Plan area.
B. ASSUMPTIONS
1. Student Yield Rates
Students to be generated by the Project, including the Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan, were determined from yield rates provided by the
District; these yield rates are set forth in the following table.
Table 2
STUDENT YIELD RATES
School SFD SFA MFR
Type (low & med.density) (med.& high density) (high density)
K-5 .1117 .1117 .1117
6-8 .0622 .0622 .0622
2. School Facility Capacities and Enrollment
Student capacities at existing school facilities and October, 1991
enrollment figures for the District are set forth in the following Table
3. Table 3 also identifies District surplus school sites and related
classroom space.
4
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
Table 3
FACILITIES CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENTS
SCHOOLTYPI1. 00111?RM FAC 001991-1992 OVER <I1NI)fiR>
CAPACITIES ENROLLMENTS FNROLLF.0
K-5
• Smith 700+ 700+ 0
Eader 832 724 <108>
• Perry 640 565 <75>
Kettler 748 703 <45>
Hawes '•• 480 ••• 345 <135>
Moffet 768 700+ <68>
K-5 SUB-TOTALS 6.058 5,627 <431>
6-8
• Dwyer ••• 900 '•• 782 <119>
Soaves •.• 990 ••• 1,108 118
6-8 SUB-TOTALS 1,890 1,890 0
TOTAL K-8 6,058 5,627 <431>
SURPLUS SITES <SEATS AVAIL>
Peterson -5 <600> 100% leased <600+>
Clapp(Spec.Ed.) Spec. Fac.for 100%leased N/A
handicapped-9
classrooms
Burke -5 500+ 50%leased <500+>
s 6.8 600+ Vacant <600+>
L.eBard K-5 N/A Dist. office N/A
Tot.Seats Avail.K-5 <1100+>
Tot.Seats Avail.6-8 <600+>
GRAND TOTAL K-E <1700+>
• Closest proodmity to Project area.
•• Note: The above data are updates for the 1991-92 school year and arc in the process of being refined. Capacities are based on a
maximum load;-.-standard of 32 per regular classroom.
••• Update pending.
5
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
C. SCI1001_ FACII rry IMPACT'
Table 4 below sets forth an analysis of the student generation impact resulting
from construction of new residential units within the Project area; which
includes the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. The Table presents data regarding
the estimated total student generation impact of the Project, the number of
students that can be housed at existing facilities District-wide, and the net
student impact and the resulting number of new school seats needed as a
result of the project. The table indicates that there is current capacity to
house an estimated 431 students, resulting in a net impact of 310 students.
Table 4
HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA (TOTAL)
STUDENT GENERATION IMPACT
TOTAL STUDENT YIELD STUDENTS
RATES GENERATED
UNITS
K-5 6-8 K-5 6-8 Total
4,255- 1117 .0622 476 265 741
AVAILABLE STUDENT HOUSING 431 0 431
CAPACITY
NET PROJECT IMPACT 45 265 310
*Note: Total units in General Plan Amendment 89-1 (4,410 units)
minus existing units (155 units).
6
r
a r
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
IV. PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT AND MITIGATION
The District currently has excess capacity to mitigate future student impact. In
addition to available student capacity at operating schools, it should also be noted
that the District has closed several public school sites, thereby creating an additional
inventory of approximately 1,700 unused seats as previously set forth in Table 3.
Therefore, students generated from the initial phases of the Project can be
accommodated at existing operational facilities or closed school sites. Subsequent
increases in student enrollment could be housed at designated renovated closed
school sites utilizing appropriate attendance boundary adjustments as needed.
The District presently collects school impact fees in the amount of$0.964 per square
foot of residential construction and $0.159 per square foot of commercial construction
in accordance with AB 2926. Development of the Project will generate
approximately $8,042,330 in school impact fees. The District currently has a balance
of over $4 million in its impact fee account.
Table 5 sets forth the capital outlay and site acquisition cost estimates for the
construction of new school facilities to house K-5 and 6-8 students generated by the
Project. Land costs have been calculated for both the designated site and the
alternative site. The total cost of improvements reflect a 600-student capacity K-5
facility consisting of both permanent and relocatable structures; cost of improvements
to house 6-8 students are calculated on relocatable structures added to existing sites.
A cost-per-student has been calculated for both the K-5 and 6-8 grade levels, with
this being the cost factor used in the school finance plan alternatives in Table 6
described below.
Tables 6 sets forth three basic student housing alternatives to be considered for a
comprehensive School Mitigation Plan.
Alternative A is based on the existence of existing closed school facilities. Although
one site is currently used as the District office, the other three are either fully leased,
partially leased or vacant (see Table 3). One of those facilities can be rehabilitated
or modernized to house the K-8 students generated from the Plan at a cost that is
roughly estimated to be $2,000,000.
Alternative B is based on the acquisition of a new elementary school site (either the
designated site or the alternative site) and construction of a new facility to house
students grades K-5 that are unable to be accommodated at existing on-line facilities,
and the construction of classroom facilities at existing sites to house students in
grades 6-8.
7
1
1
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
Alternative C is based on the acquisition of a new elementary school site (either the
designated site or the alternative site) and construction of a new school facility to
house grades K-5 total students as generated from the Project area and the
construction of classroom facilities at existing sites to house students in grades 6-8.
Potential sources of additional funding to construct a 600 student capacity, K-5 school
can include income from lease or sale of existing closed school sites, and other
developer fees.
8
School Facilities Analysis & Student IIousing Mitigation Plan
Table 5
HOLLY SEACLIFF PROJECT
CAPITAL OUTLAY/SITE ACQUISITION
(Elementary and Middle Schools)
ESTIMATED NEW FACILITIY COSTS ELEMENTARY K-5 MIDDLE
A. Cost of Land: IDesignated Slte Alternative Site 6-8
Site Area 8.3 acres 10 acres
Designated Site: 8.3 acres; cost per acre = $720,000 N/A
Alternative Site:
Joint Use Portion of 4.5 acres; cost per acre = N/A $0 N/A
District Portion of 5.5 acres; cost per acre = N/A $825,000
Base Land Cost $5,976,000 $4,537,500
Appraisal and Closing $50,000 $50,000 N/A
TOTAL LAND COSTS 6,026,000 $4,587,500 N/A
B. Cost of Improvements Permanent Structures:
Student Capacity 600 600
Required Area/Student (s.f.) 59 59 _N/A
Total Facility Area (s.f.) 35,400 35,400
Less: Relocatable Classrooms 6,171 6,171 N;'A
Permanent Facility Area (s.f.) 29,229 29,229
Applied Construction Cost $120 $120 N/A
TOTAL PERMANENT COSTS $3,507,480 $3,507,480 N/A
C. Cost of Improvements Relocatable Structures:
Total Student Capacity 600 600 265
Pupils Per Classroom 30 30 30
Total Classrooms 20 20 N/A
% Relocatable Classrooms 30% 30%
Required Relocatables 6 6 g
Cost Per Relocatable $100,000 1 $100,000 $100,000
TOTAL RELOCATABLE COSTS $600,000 $600,000 $900,000
D. TOTAL LAND COSTS $6,026,000 $4,587,500 N/A
E. TOTAL IMPROVEMENT COSTS $4,107,480 $4,107,480
F. TOTAL SCHOOL COSTS (Land & Improvements) $10,133,480 $8,694,980 $900,000
Cost Per Student $16,889 1 $14,492 $3.396
SOURCE: SAGE INSTITUTE, INC.
Note: Construction cost estimates are calculated at the high end and can be modified
with architectural and design adjustments.
9
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
..Table 6
HOLLY SEACLIFF PROJECT (TOTAL)
SCHOOL FINANCE PLAN ALTERNATIVES
COST TO MITIGATE FEES PER
GRADE NEW RESD. STATE
#student SITE CONST. REHAB. TOTAL FEES SQ. FT. ** MATCH
A. Rehab. Existing K-8
Facilities by Use of (741) 0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 $0.22 $0
Fees
B. Build New Facilities K-5 (des.) $760,005
for Students 45 alt. $652,140 $0 (des.) S1,660,005 (des.) $0.18
Requiring Housing * 6-8 $0
265 0 $900,000 $0 (alt. t,552,14U (all. $0.1 ti
K-5 (des.) $8,039,164
C. Build New Facilities 476 alt. $6,898,192 $0 (des.) S3.939,164 (des.) $1.07
for all Students* 6-8 $0
(265) 0 $900,000 $0 alt. $7,798,192 (alt.) $0.93
SOURCE: SAGE INSTITUTE, INC.
NOTES
' Potential sources of additional funding to construct a 600 student capacity, K-5
school can include income from lease or sale of existing surplus sites, and other
deceloper fees.
** Fees per residential square foot exclude collection of$215,000 in fees from
commercial development.
LEGEND
(des.) Designated Site
(alt.) Alternative Site
10
School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan
IV. CONCLUSION
The foregoing report addresses impacts upon public school facilities and related
findings for the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan in particular and the planning area in
general, and sets forth specific mitigation alternatives consistent with the: City's
adopted mitigation measures per final Environmental Impact Report 89-1.
The Project impacts are clearly mitigated per the following:
A. the collection of approximately $8,000,000 (eight million dollars) in Project
area impact fees calculated at $0.964 per square foot of residential
construction and $0.159 per square foot of commercial construction;
B. the designation of, including the option to lease/purchase, an elementary
school site;
C. the willingness to consider a joint use school/park site;
D. the existence of over $4,000,000 (four million dollars) in the District's existing
developer fee account; and,
• E. the availability of significant District surplus property of 36.3 acres valued at
over $26,000,000 (twenty-six million dollars).
Per the foregoing, the impacts of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan are fully mitigated
per CEQA and State law.
11
Exhil.ic A
DEVELOPMENT PHASING - Holly Seacliff Area (Total)
PLANNING PRODUCT AVERAGE TOTAL EXISTING PHASE 1 PHASE II PHASE III NEW
AREA j TYPES SQ.FT UNITS UNITS 1990 1991 1992 1993 199-1 1995 1 1996 1997 1998 1 1999 1 2000 1 2001 UNITS
IEsta'e 3 50C 17 - 1 21C w, ^C1 :, 2C -3ti1 ?' 170
Law 1 3, 'T.;4� 1 -
A Law 2 2,50C "r31r"c �a:
Medium c
Med-High 1,00c S:i%xfw- -- - - - ---- ----
Estate 3,50C 47C 90 100 100 30 20_ 20 20 30 20 20 20 _
Low 1 3, 'VIW
B Low 2 2.5001 tvm4*-- --- -- --
Medium 1, 4:wlst t --- - - - ----- -- --- -
Med-H�h 1, >%lv6w - - - --- ------ --- --
Estate 3, _
Lew 1 3, _ __ - -- ---- --
C Low 2 2 31 -50 --- -75 _ 75- - 60 - - - --- - - --- ------31
Medium 1 - 50- --75 100 125 125 125 100 60 45
Med-H h 1,= 42C 50 75 75 75 100 45 -
Estate 3, 4D6 I _ ____
Law 1 3 59C 20 so-- 65 - 651 65 55 70 70 70 60 59
D Law 2 2, " ,3�i"�r _ _
Medium 1 20 ---60 -75 _-- 75 ` 75 75 ---- 70- 70 60 60
Med-H h 1, - 50 - 50 - -50 50 20- --- ---- —- - -2 /
Estate 3.m MONI[
Low 1 3, .'?�I+�III;�kF - ----- - ---- - --- -- ----
- ----- -- - - -- -- - - 0
E Law 2 2, - - - - - —- - ---
Medium 1, 31 85 25 ---30 - 30 _— 30 -`;C _ 40- 3C 3C-- ---
-_:::::::30
45
Med H h 1, 47 75 45 45 45 45 55 55 55 55_ 47
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS 4,41 1 1551 C1 0 240 53C 575 565 s55 52CI 46C 335 2801 1951 425
STUDENT GENERATION
PROJECTIONS TOTAL EXISTING PHASE 1 PHASE II PHASE III NEW
FOR NEW UNITS UNITS UNITS 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UNITS
TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS 4,410 155 0 0 240 530 575 565 555 520 460 335 280 195 4,25
YIELD RATE K-5 at-on, "4,;q ; ,' , ; + •;;x:ii.,�" i,,,y.yr .x .: a'; ._ ;t. }• •,+4� r,:`
STUDENTS Annual N/A 0 0 27 59 64 63 62 58 51 37 + 31 22 47
GENERATED
C O Cumulative N/A �}0 0 27 r86 150 213 275 333 385 422 454 475 47
YIELD RATE Mim, '�'74 ,t 1q°9'"'�Jy 'YFr" ,k ;';.��'0 w 'I'.ti f�;1 a. ''�in "ti ', 54„ •N; 4_� -
STUDENTS lAnnual N/A 0 0 15 33 36 35 35 _32 29 F 21 17 122655
GENERATED Cumulative N/A 0 0 15 48 84 119 — 153 188 214 235 253 265 26
TOTAL ��`, M 3 rO+.1•:kA 1@L`e" 1 V °° :A ,i.n .w i� :,ax+', •i.• :i', i 'v': n?S
STUDENTS lAnnual _ NJA o 90 80 58 0 42 92 100 98 97 49 34 7•*_
40
GENERATED cum;I35V9 I, NIA C 0 42 134 234 332 429 519 599 65- 706 740 7
SOURCE-: SAGE INSTITUTE,INC.
Date: 07/0*91
studgen xis
srAf f huntington beach department of community development
•
EPOR
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: October 8, 1991
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1
AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2 (CONTINUED FROM THE
SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING)
APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Homes
2120 Main Street, Suite 260
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Motion to:
A. "Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No.
1450 and forward to the City Council; and"
B. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451 and forward to the City council
for adoption. "
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Pacific Coast Homes has submitted General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 in
order to shift seven (7) acres of commercial from the southeast
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to the southwest
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street . Also, the
applicant is requesting to shift residential densities near the
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Main Street which will result in
no additional units . The third request is to permit oil
production/oil consolidation in the two (2) industrial land use
areas .
The requested amendments to the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan require
the processing of a general plan amendment to the City' s Land Use
Element. In order to process the amendment, staff has prepared an
addendum to the original environmental impact report . Section 15164
of the California Environmental Quality Act states "The lead agency
shall prepare an addendum to an environmental impact report if only
minor technical changes or alterations are necessary to make the
environmental impact report under consideration adequate under the
California Environmental Quality Act and no new significant effects
on the environment are raised. "
A-F M-23C
At the September 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting several
concerns regarding the Addendum were identified. The following is a
discussion of each concern and a response from staff :
Implementation of mitigation measures from Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-1:
Staff has prepared a comprehensive response to how the Specific Plan
implements all pertinent mitigation measures from Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 (see Attachment No. 1) . The
Specific Plan contains language and exhibits which require future
development to conform to the adopted mitigation measures .
Access and circulation on Gothard Street between Ernest Street and
Garfield Avenue:
The Specific Plan street exhibits depict a raised median for Gothard
Street between Ellis Avenue and Main Street. The Holly-Seacliff
Masterplan and the discussion in Final Environmental Impact Report
No. 89-1 do not require a raised median in Gothard Street . Although
the Masterplan and environmental impact report do not prohibit a
raised median it seems that industrial property owners located on
the west side of realigned Gothard Street have a problem with a
raised median in front of their property.
Staff has analyzed the median issue and had determined that now is
the time to construct the raised median in order to control traffic
along Gothard Street . Once the Specific Plan is adopted, staff
anticipates new construction of residential units on the east side
of Gothard Street . The amount of traffic generated by the new
residential units warrants a raised median to prevent conflicts with
thru traffic and left turn movements .
Response to the Huntington Beach City School District Letter dated
August 16 . 1991 :
The City of Huntington Beach General Plan designates a site within
the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area north of Garfield Avenue for a
new elementary school to serve students generated by the residential
development . The potential school site is located in the
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area which is outside the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area. The General Plan Amendment
covered by this environmental impact report addendum retains the
same intensity of development and total number of dwelling units in
each Planning Area as analysied in Environmental Impact Report
No . 89-1, Section 4 . 16, Public Services and Utilities .
Staff Report - 10/8/91 -2- (0977d)
Currently Pacific Coast Homes , the major landowner within the area,
and the Huntington Beach City School District are negotiating an
impact mitigation agreement to provide adequate school facilities
and implement the mitigation program contained in certified
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1.
Staff recommends that additional language be incorporated into the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan which will allow a potential school
site based on the needs of the school district . The language should
also indicate that any relocation of the potential school site will
require an amendment to the City' s General Plan.
Summary:
Staff has responded to the major discussion items relating to the
Addendum and General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 . Staff has
demonstrated that all applicable mitigation measures pertaining to
the Specific Plan have been implimented. Staff feels that the
construction of the raised median between Ernest Street and Garfield
Avenue will best provide traffic control for future residential j
traffic. The school district ' s concerns will be addressed by adding
language to the Specific Plan, which permits a potential school site
subject to an amendment to the City' s General Plan.
3 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
A. Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No .
1450 and forward to the City Council; and
B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451 and forward to the City Council
for adoption.
4 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may modify the Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 and General Plan Amendment No.
91-2 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Response to Specific Plan Implementation of Mitigation Measures
2. Planning Commission staff report dated September 17, 1991
HS:RLF: kjl
Staff Report - 10/8/91 -3- (0977d)
ATTACHMENT 1 t
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Checklist identifies nineteen mitigation measures from
Final EIR 89-1 to be addressed as part of any specific plan prepared for the Holly Seacliff area.
The following table identifies each mitigation measure and where it is addressed in the Holly
Seacliff Specific Plan.
1. Iand Use-5
In order to retain the existing Swale character, future Specific Plans should incorporate
policies which specify the grade of slope, permitted amount of cut and fill, improvements
for storm drainage and include a schematic design for recreational and open space
treatment within drainage swales.
Grading policies are contained in Section II.E, Grading Guidelines, on page II-6. A swale area
overlay is identified on Exhibit 14 and additional guidelines are contained on page III-3. A
schematic design for recreational open space treatment within the drainage swale is presented on
Exhibit 15.
2. Aesthetics-1
Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of slope, permitted
amount of cut and fill, improvements for storm drainage and a schematic design for
recreational and open space treatment within the ravines.
Grading policies are contained in Section II.E, Grading Guidelines, on page II-6. A swale area
overlay is identified on Exhibit 14 and additional guidelines are contained on page III-3. A
schematic design for recreational open space treatment within the drainage swale is presented on
Exhibit 15.
3. Aesthetics-2
The topography of the natural ravines and their associated drainage courses should be
preserved in accordance with standards adopted with approval of future Specific Plans.
Grading policies are contained in Section II.E, Grading Guidelines, on page II-6. A swale area
overlay is identified on Exhibit 14 and additional guidelines are contained on page III-3. A
schematic design for recreational open space treatment within the drainage swale is presented on
Exhibit 15.
4. Aesthetics-7
As future development occurs, the designated railroad transportation corridor should be
preserved for future use as trails or transit.
The transportation corridor is addressed in Section II.C, Circulation Plan, page II-5, and
identified on Exhibit 8, the Open Space, Parks, and Trails Plan. Preservation of the corridor is
addressed in Section III.D.41.3 on page III-17 and Section 1I1.13.51.3 on page I1I-20. A typical
cross section indicating the overall width of and landscape and trail treatment within the corridor
may be found on Exhibit 17.
-1-
S. Hydrology-1
Prior to approval of future Specific Plans or grading permits, a detailed area-wide flood
control/hydrology/hydraulic study should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as
required by the City and completed by the applicant (per the current County of Orange
Hydrology Requirements) to further quantify and detail the combined drainage impacts of
development within the watershed area. These detailed studies may be used to adjust the
suggested conduit sizes proposed for the EIR and shown on Exhibit 14. A separate detailed
study should be completed for each tributary area. These studies shall be completed prior
to the approval of future Specific Plans or at the time of grading permit.
The required stud has been completed and is included in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan
q Y P Y Pe
Technical Appendix, Section VII. The general locations of all major drainage improvements are
illustrated in the Specific Plan on Exhibit 9a.
6. Population'and Housing-1
The applicant should strive to develop a variety of housing types and sizes at a range of
prices in order to comply with the General Plan Housing Element policies for affordable
housing as well as the needs identified in the RHNA.
The Specific Plan includes five different residential districts and a mixed development district
which contain development standards to permit the construction of a variety of housing types and
sizes. The City's Housing Element policies regarding affordability are incorporated by reference
in Section III.C.12 and a specific policy is included on page III-7. In conformance with these
policies, the City will utilize incentives where feasible to encourage the production of affordable
housing.
7. Transportation-3
Prior to the first Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, a fair share funding program for
the construction of the cross-gap connector from Edwards to Bolsa Chica as a modified
secondary arterial and the Seapointe Avenue extension from Garfield to Coast Highway
should be determined. In the determination of this fair share funding program, a credit
should be given for the segment of the cross-gap connector and Seapointe Avenue
constructed with the project boundary.
The Specific Plan requires all developers within the Specific Plan area to either construct or fund
required public facilities improvements on a fair share basis, as determined by the Public Works
Department. This requirement is contained in Section 1V.B, Public Facilities Improvement
Responsibilities, on page IV-1, as well as in the Technical Appendix.
The City's Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance provides a mechanism for developer funding of off-site
traffic and circulation improvements. Specific public improvement requirements and fee
obligations for Pacific Coast Homes are addressed in Development Agreement No. 90-1. In
accordance with Development Agreement No. 90-1, Pacific Coast Homes shall be responsible
for the construction of the crossgap connector(Garfield Avenue)from Edwards Street to Seapoint
-2-
4
Street, and Seapoint Street from Garfield to Palm Avenue, and shall also pay double traffic
impact fees. The extension of Seapoint Street from Palm Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway will
be constructed as a condition of approval of the Surfcrest residential project located at the corner
of Palm and Seapoint.
8. Transportation-8
Prior to any Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, the Orange County Transit District shall
be consulted for the need to construct bus stops, turnouts and shelters.
OCTD was consulted during preparation of EIR 89-1 and GPA 89-1. All existing OCTD bus
stops within the Specific Plan area are identified on Exhibit 10, the Community Theme Plan, and
addressed in Section II.C, Circulation Plan, on page II-5. Additional requirements regarding the
location and design of bus stops and shelters are contained in Section II.G.3.c and d on page II-
16, Section II.G.4:h on page II-17, and Section III.C.7 on page III-4.
9. Transportation-9
The current Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) easement shall be preserved as a
transportation corridor for future use for mass transit and trails.
The transportation corridor is addressed in Section II.C, Circulation Plan, page II-5, and
identified on Exhibit 8, the Open Space, Parks, and Trails Plan. Preservation of the corridor is
0 addressed in Section III.D.41.3 on page III-17 and Section III.D.51.3 on page III-20. A typical
cross section indicating the overall width of and landscape and trail treatment within the corridor
may be found on Exhibit 17.
10. Noise-6
The results show that in order for the drilling operations to satisfy the Huntington Beach
Noise Ordinance outdoor standards, electric motors with acoustic blankets must be used.
Diesel motors even when shielded by acoustic blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise
Ordinance standards at the on-site and off-site residences, and will not meet the daytime
Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site residences. If there are plans to conduct the
drilling operations during the nighttime hours, •then according to the Oil Code, the
operations must be soundproofed. Acoustic blankets as well as a 8.0 foot high masonry wall
along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to below the Noise Ordinance
standards.
Section III.C.Le of the Specific Plan requires all oil operations to comply with applicable City
regulations and mitigation measures contained in Final EIR 89-1. This mitigation measure is
listed on page VI-2.
-3-
11. Light and Glare-1
A phased landscaping program should be developed in conjunction with all future Specific
Plans to ensure landscaping commensurate with residential and non-residential occupancy
to adequately screen on-site light and glare impacts.
General landscaping requirements are detailed in Section II.G, Community Theme Guidelines,
on page U-12, and in Section III.C.4 on page III-4. Additional landscaping requirements are
included as part of the development standards for each district (see pages III-10, 12, 15, 17, 19,
24, 25, 26 and 27).
Arterial parkway and median landscaping will be installed concurrently with phased street
improvements in accordance with Development Agreement 90-1.
12. Light and Glare-2
All outdoor lighting should be consistent with the standards established by future Specific
Plans to minimize off-site light intrusion.
The Specific Plan addresses outdoor lighting standards in Section III.C.6 on page III-4 and
Section III.D.6.e.6 on page III-23.
13. Light and Glare-4
Appropriate types and heights of street lights should be consistently established in future
Specific Plans. Street lighting should be standardized throughout the project area.
Street lighting standards are contained in Section II.G.3 on page II-16.
14. Biological Resources-1
The setting aside of 92 acres of parks and other open space will partially mitigate the loss
of the existing open space and provide some wildlife habitat.
The Specific plan designates 44 acres of open space, consisting of 32 acres of land within the
proposed Bolsa Chica Linear Park and three neighborhood parks totalling 12 acres. A schedule
for dedication of linear park land and development of neighborhood parks is contained within
Development Agreement No. 90-1 (referenced in Section II.D on page II-6 and Section II.F.Lf
on page II-10).
The balance of the 92 acres of open space designated in the General Plan and referenced in the
above mitigation measure are located outside the Specific Plan area.
15. Biological Resources-2
The Specific Plan should address revegetation on all graded areas where structures or other
improvements are not built. In public open space areas, consideration should be given to
the use of native or naturalized species which require little irrigation and provide wildlife
habitat, with a gradual transition to more ornamental species along the development edge.
-4-
This mitigation measure is addressed in Section II.E, Grading Guidelines, on page II-6 and II-7,
and in Section II.G.1 on page II-12.
16. Biological Resources-3
Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drainage swale, i.e. utility
lines, sewers, etc., this Swale should remain as open space. Mitigation for the loss of cattail
marsh habitat (0.5 acres) and willow habitat (0.5 acres) which are depicted on Exhibit 28,
will take place such that a minimum of 1.0 acre of riparian vegetation is established In this
drainage swale. The plants utilized in the revegetated area will be chosen from the
recommended plant palette indicated in Appendix H.
Grading policies are contained in Section ME, Grading Guidelines, on page II-6. A swale area
overlay is identified on Exhibit 14 and additional guidelines are contained on page III-3. A
schematic design for recreational open space treatment within the drainage swale is presented on
Exhibit 15. This mitigation measure is also included on page VI-9.
17. Oil Facilities-1
Future Specific Plan(s) should include an area or areas for the consolidation of oil well
facilities.
The Specific Plan designates Industrial Planning Units II-8 and IV-5 as areas in which
consolidation projects may be permitted (see Section III.C.e on page III-2 and Section III.D.8.b
0 on page III-27).
18. Public Services and Utilities-5
The City should enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate designated
parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning Area.
The City and Pacific Coast Homes entered into Development Agreement No. 90-1 in October,
1990, which includes a schedule of parkland dedication. A total of 41 acres of land within the
Bolsa Chica Linear Park, 32 acres of which are within the Specific Plan area, will be dedicated
to the City by December, 1995. Neighborhood parks will be dedicated upon recordation of final
subdivision maps.
19. Sewer Facilities-1
Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as required by the
City so as to precisely calculate the required sewer main sizes. These calculations may be
used to adjust the suggested pipe sizes proposed for the E.I.R. and should be completed for
each tributary area prior to the approval of Specific Plans.
The required studies have been completed and are included in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan
Technical Appendix, Section IV. The general locations of all major sewer improvements are
illustrated on Exhibit 9a.
-5-
huntington beach department of community development
GAFF
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: September 17, 1991
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1 AND
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2
APPLICANT: Pacific Coast Homes
2120 Main Street, Suite 260
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Motion to:
A. "Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 by adopting Planning Commission Resolution No .
1450 and forward to the City City Council; and"
B. "Approve General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No . 1451 and forward to the City Council
for adoption. "
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
Pacific Coast Homes has submitted General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 in
order to shift seven (7) acres of commercial from the southeast
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to the southwest
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street . Also , the
applicant is requesting to shift residential densities near the
intersection of Garfield Avenue and Main Street which will result in
no additional units . The third request is to permit oil
production/oil consolidation in the two (2) industrial land use
areas .
The requested amendments to the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan require
the processing of a general plan amendment to the City' s Land Use
Element . In order to process the amendment, staff has prepared an
addendum to the original environmental impact report . Section 15164
of the California Environmental Quality Act states "The lead agency
shall prepare an addendum to an environmental impact report if only
minor technical changes or alterations are necessary to make the
environmental impact report under consideration adequately under the
California Environmental Quality Act and no new significant effects
on the environment are raised . "
5A
A-FNA-23C
I
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 is being submitted for review and
recommendation by the Planning Commission and then forwarded to the
City Council for final decision. Currently being processed with
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 is Zone Change No . 90-10 and Code
Amendment No . 90-10 which will establish the Holly-Seacliff Specific
Plan . The Specific Plan is being analyzed in a separate report .
3 . 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
On June 5, 1991, the Environmental Assessment Committee reviewed
Environmental Assessment No. 91-6 . Based on review of the checklist
and discussion, the Environmental Assessment Committee determined
that in order to properly address concerns associated with the
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 and the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan
an addendum should be prepared and circulated for comments .
A draft addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 has
been prepared and distributed to interested parties . The 21 day
comment period started on August 1, 1991 and closed on August 22,
1991 . Three (3) comment letters were received and a response has
been prepared for each letter in the addendum.
Staff has analyzed the potential impacts that could result from
General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 and the Holly-Seacliff Specific
Plan. Staff has determined that no new significant impacts will be
generated by General Plan amendment No. 91-2 or the Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan.
4_. 0 COASTAL STATUS:
The coastal portion of the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and the
coastal portion of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan will result in
an amendment to the City' s Local Coastal Program. General Plan
Amendment No . 91-2 will not require Coastal Commission review.
5 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable.
6 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN:
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 is located within the boundaries of
the Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan.
8 . 0 ANALYSIS•
On January 8, 1990, the City Council certified Environmental Impact
Report No . 89-1 and approved the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. In
November of 1990, the City Council approved Development Agreement
No . 90-1 between the City and Pacific Coast Homes . Development
Agreement No . 90-1 requires that Pacific Coast Homes prepare a Draft
Specific Plan for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area . The Draft
Specific Plan for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area contains minor
land use deviations which have resulted in the proposed general plan
amendment .
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -2- (0727d)
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 is a request for three (3)
modifications to the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan:
- Relocate seven (7) acres of commercial from the southeast
corner of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to the southwest
corner of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street. The
relocation of the commercial land use area is based on the
need for better access and visibility for the future
commercial tenants . Although both locations are situated
adjacent to arterial highways, the Garfield/Goldenwest
intersection will provide better market opportunities. The
Traffic Engineer has stated that all direct access to the
relocated commercial area will be from Garfield Avenue.
- Minor redistribution of residential densities resulting in no
additional units near Garfield Avenue and Main Street. The
relocation of the residential densities result in higher
densities adjacent to the major intersection of Garfield
Avenue and Main Street and along the Transportation
Corridor. Lower densities are being proposed further away
from the major arterial highways which is consistent with the
goals and policies in the City's Land Use Element.
- Permit oil consolidation in the industrial land use areas.
The Holly-Seacliff Master Plan currently permits oil
consolidation in area north of Garfield Avenue. The proposed
amendment permits future oil consolidation projects in both
industrial land use areas between Golden West Street and
realigned Gothard Street on both sides of Garfield Avenue.
Staff has reviewed the revisions and all Departments support the
request . A complete analysis is provided in the executive summary
of the addendum.
The Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and Environmental Impact Report No.
89-1 were analyzed on an overall acreage basis. Since the
relocation of the seven (7) acres of commercial does not result in
increased acreage, no new impacts will be generated.
The same holds true for the slight redistribution of residential
densities near Garfield Avenue and Main Street . Since the revision
does not result in additional units no additional impacts will be
generated.
Staff feels that permitting oil consolidation sites in the
industrial land use areas between Goldenwest Street and Gothard
Street near Garfield Avenue is the best location for future oil
consolidation.
Staff supports the request for the revisions to the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan and recommends that the Planning Commission accept the
addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 .
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -3- (0727d)
�l
9 .0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following
actions :
A. Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 by adopted Planning Commission Resolution No.
1450 and forward to the City Council;
B. Approve General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adopting Planning
Commission Resolution No. 1451 and forward to the City Council
for adoption.
10 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning commission may modify the Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 and General Plan Amendment No.
91-2 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Existing General Plan Map
2. Proposed General Plan map
3 . Response to Comments
4 . Reaffirmation of Findings and Facts for Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1
5. Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 with
Mitigation Monitoring
6. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450 accepting as adequate
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1
7. Planning Commission Resolution No. 1451 approving General Plan
Amendment No. 91-2
HS:RLF:kjl
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -4- (0727d)
os
• AO AC 1
i T _ I Aoo-
-1
r.• "'-'"""!7�� I E i w,wc uxe.u+r I•uu:ov�wxo w,m
•N,w,AC
Ct I E x +
1 . _........ ;
I 1I I' I I :•.:+f IMIf = I; ■x•ClYWf A AC"AC
.•M
iI I A2 I i Mo n•wwwa-I:wxo-ua •cns�ornw•c uxx,
I AC
..��..—•• •. I i ..
,
,
f A4 C4 �• Cs r *--I.A—r•n
B3 MH M :� w.wc :wwouu .uu.ornuw u,•n
OS I E C7 I 20 AC nAc
A3 �t E I 22 AC ' '•Cac r•:x :I ---
os
AC •`\ '� d I� I 6 AC
MH
I ou
•• r J :wc�uwf.wcw rw.. x m
01C * D8 DS ., 06 M � E6 GI fWW Avarua ✓'
y` .� �•' \ AC 7 AC 3 M C UAL S I 16 AC ..wxx.wc 'r•xo mr •teu•oruuxa uxin
22 AC +i owc f'• I j1-...-
}��.. -- . - - E E
I:
I �
�•`• 22 is q is _ 07 — E3 E2 .. .xw
s'
•�•• L M
•., •�: :a AC 9 AC j AC +.www eo,waroe e.ae.a on.+u.nwre.
by i w.ar•ua ,,� CbY AVMW •.m�u+••Mwcw•a•ap� v�•,/'w• � � o��,a�aab
•� o, E4 % mnc•,
SA A DC /
L3 !.
63 ACC.
:N� -1�- - - - -- - I -
•'�••�...� EXHIIBIT 2
ADOPTED
CITY nOFF H�U�NTInNGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT
HOL�L�U—3LSlr,1CUFF M FA Ali I.1 1.. I-
Area of Proposed Changes
84
�••�•ro� OS 3 o +.o.uu i•uu onu..o u.m
4 Ac
•A ,
62 1` `�I n.....o •.o.u.r i•cn.:o.iuw win
E i 1 '
,6 Ac cl
_ I
i M 1
4y
B c n 1 n•..�.a 1A.0-6 •CAI 64•nw4
aat
•� � i•I,5 .w.
E z r l.•
.6 AC C
,A ••\ M 1
A _. _ - - �C p
A6 83
f rnuw.u•cn r•n
O$ E `-• �� .w.a ++us.u..,•uu:o.nu.o uwn
2-1 AC AC
cs
A] E :Ac C6 MM
1 MM A AC J
6! •c .,AC iAc .;cn:c M6•Hl. ° I I .. .-
OS . 1 .... 6Ac1 •
,6 AC d
1 '01 ����� 'r a..noa..•cw r•w
M 07 D,--
_-_______ ; E7 C EG GOIMtl MOMr. JV
16 AC M 41H 05 06 1 ES td 6AC
a � •.mw�,•c•n o.4u:.o uwn,
Ac -3 Ac M
6 AC
1 • 07 L 1 I i
6 �'�...:r..•`. :Mc 8t
4rea of Proposed Changes ;r "" '°'"" I =A.=
E6 urao 1
/ 51 AC ..'. _
�' C ,.... .. .
•`• ••o•n a.e..w .
1 ...
•n.a4ri.�cwr...uw M�•�,
�•'`� •�"1••�. = EXHIBIT 3
PROPOSED
�tC-rITTY OF HUNTTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT
H` n V—WACUFF MFA
IOR��-
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1
Introduction
The purpose of this document is to transmit all comments received related to the
addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. This EIR Addendum has been
prepared in conformance with Section 15164 of CEQA as a means of making minor
technical corrections to the previously certified EIR.
Public Review Period
The addendum to EIR No. 89-1 for the project was distributed to various public
agencies, responsible agencies, citizens groups, and interested individuals. The
addendum was also made available for public review and comment for a period of 21
days. The public review period as established by the City of Huntington Beach policy
commenced on August 1, 1991 and expired on August 21, 1991.
Comments
Copies of all comments received as of August 21, 1991 are contained on the following
pages. Comments have been numbered and responses have been correspondingly
number for each letter received.
Commentors
1. Letter - August 5, 1991
City of Seal Beach
2. Letter - August 6, 1991
Southern California Gas Company
3. Letter - August 16, 1991
Marshall B. Krupp
Community Systems Associates, Inc.
City of Huntington Beach
EIR No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -1-
Comment CITY OF SEAL BEACH
CDB-1 The City of Seal Beach has received the Draft Addendum to Final
EIR No. 89-1 for the above-referenced project and concurs that the
proposed addendum to Final EIR 89-1 is the appropriate level of
environmental review for this project.
Response
The comment is noted and included in the record for review by the
appropriate decision makers.
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY
Comment
SCGC-1 Gas service to the project can be served from an existing main as
shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on
the environment.
Resoonse
The comment is noted and included in the record for review by the
appropriate decision makers.
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
Comment
CSA-1 The square footage of all a) anticipated dwelling units by phases;
and b) anticipated non-residential development activity, should be
identified and calculation of development fees should be provided;
CSA-2 The phasing of the Plan's development should be identified;
CSA-3 The location of school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian
movement patterns to school sites, bus routes, etc., relevant to the
Plan's implementation should be identified;
CSA-4 The designated schools that will be attended by students generated
by the Plan's implementation should be identified;
CSA-5 The District's past and present enrollment trends as well as current
enrollment, including facility utilization should be identified;
City of Huntington Beach
EIR No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -2-
CSA-6 The District's past and present enrollment trends as well as current
enrollment, including facility utilization should be identified;
CSA-7 A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared,
identifying vehicular movement and volumes and potential conflicts
with school pedestrian movement, school transportation, and busing
activities;
CSA-8 A complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be prepared,
identifying any noise sources and volumes which may effect school
facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school areas;
CSA-9 A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis should be
prepared identifying any air quality deterioration that would result
from the transportation and busing of students to various schools
within the District as a result of potential overcrowded conditions
and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies;
CSA-10 The utilization impact on the District of the Plan's implementation,
including the identification of projected enrollments, projected
space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected
teacher/staffing requirements, and traffic and noise impacts;
CSA-11 The fiscal impact on the District of the Plan's implementation,
including projected cost of land acquisition, school
construction/reconstruction and other facilities; present and
projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel
financing and funding sources; and personnel, operational, and
maintenance costs;
CSA-12 Appropriate and legal implementational utilization and fiscal
impact mitigation measures should be identified and evaluated,
including but not limited to a complete discussion and analysis of
the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the
Government Code, as follows.
a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10
of the Education Code.
b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10
of the Education Code.
c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10
of the Education Code.
d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter
3 of Part 23 of the Education Code.
e) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
City of Huntington Beach
EIR No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -3-
1
f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of
Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
g) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of
Division I of Title 7 of the Government Code;
CSA-13 Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No's. 7, 8, 9, 10,
11 and 12 should be addressed. Other projects in the geographical
area of the District and included in the cumulative analysis should
be identified by development name, unit size, phasing, and location;
CSA-14 Unavoidable Plan implementation and fiscal impacts on the District
should be addressed, particularly as they relate to the quality and
quantity of District space, and the present and future condition of
the District's enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial
and fiscal conditions, transportation, operational and maintenance
activities, and administrative services;
CSA-15 Appropriate alternative projects, plans, and programs should be
considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein
as No's. 1 through 14 should determined; and
CSA-16 If a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used
relative to the District's utilization and fiscal impacts for
unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along
with quantitative and qualitative substation, should be identified
and made available for public inspection.
Response
Comments CSA-1 through CSA-16 are acknowledged. The General
Plan designates a site within the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area for
a new elementary school to serve students generated by the
residential development. The potential school site is located in the
Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan area, which is not affected by
proposed General Plan Amendment 91-2. The General Plan
Amendment covered by this EIR Addendum retains the same
intensity of development and total number of dwelling units in each
Planning Area as analyzed in EIR 89-1, Section 4.16, Public Services
and Utilities.
Currently Pacific Coast Homes, the major landowner within the
area, and the Huntington Beach City School District are negotiating
an impact mitigation agreement to provide adequate school facilities
and implement the mitigation program contained in certified EIR
89-1.
City of Huntington Beach
EIR No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -4-
CITY HALL 211 EIGHTH STREET
SEAL BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90740
9; ECE ' 0:
August 5, 1991 ^
City of Huntington Beach
Department of Community Development, Planning Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attn: Robert Franklin, Assistant Planner
SUBJECT: DRAFT ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR NO. 89-1, Holly-Seacliff
General Plan Amendment No. 91-2
Dear Mr. Franklin:
The City of Seal Beach has received the Draft Addendum to Final EIR
No. 89-1 for the above-referenced project and concurs that the CS8.1
proposed addendum to Final EIR 89-1 is the appropriate level of
environmental review for this project. The City of Seal Beach
understands that the maximum number of dwelling units within each
residential category and the overall maximum for the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan area, as previously established by General Plan
Amendment 89-1 are in no case exceeded by the proposed plan
refinements. In addition, it is the understanding of the City of
Seal Beach that the minor refinements to the internal circulation
pattern are based on recommendations by the City of Huntington
Beach Traffic Engineering Division, which has certified that there
are no additional impacts resulting from the proposed changes in
circulation design.
If amendments to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan involve an
increase of the number of housing units over that previously
established pursuant to General Plan Amendment 89-1, or if the
circulation refinements would cause additional impacts not
previously analyzed and mitigated, then a Supplemental EIR should
be prepared to adequately those impacts.
The City of Seal Beach appreciates the opportunity to provide
comment on the Proposed Addendum to Final EIR No. 89-1. The contact
person in our department will be myself. If you have any questions
or concerns regarding our comments, please contact my office,
t ,
Page 2 :io
Draft Addendum/Final EIR 89-1
August 5, 1991
telephone ( 213 ) 431-2527 at your earliest convenience. I will be
most happy to provide any additional information which you may
require.
Sincerely,
L e Whittenberg
' Director of Development Services
City of Seal Beach
cc: City Council
Planning Commission
City Manager
Environmental Quality Control Board
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gGS COMPANY
ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P O BOX 3334 ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA 911803.H3.1
August 6, 1991
L'
-l
City of Huntington Beach
Dept. of Community Development
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Attention: Robert Franklin
Subject: EIR - Holly-Seacliff 91-2
This letter is not to be interpreted as a contractual commitment to
serve the proposed project, but only as an information service. Its
intent is to notify you that the Southern California Gas Company has
facilities in the area where the above named project is proposed.
Gas service to the project can be served from an existing main as SCGC-1
shown on the attached atlas sheet without any significant impact on
the environment. The service would be in accordance with the
company's policies and extension rules on file with the California
Public Utilities Commission at the time contractual arrangements are
made.
The availability of natural gas service, as set forth in this letter,
is based upon present conditions of gas supply and regulatory
policies. As a public utility, the Southern California Gas Company is
under the jurisdiction of the federal regulatory agencies. Should
these agencies take any action which affects gas supply or the condi-
tion under which service is available, gas service will be provided in
accordance with revised conditions.
Residential (System Area Average) Yearl
Single-family 1095 therms/year/dwelling unit
Multi-family 4 or less units 640 therms/year/dwelling unit
Multi-family 5 or more units 580 therms/year/dwelling unit
These estimates are based on gas consumption in residential units
served by Southern California Gas Company during 1975 and it should
not be implied that any particular home, apartment or tract of homes
will use these amounts of energy. This is particularly true due to
the State's insulation requirements and consumers' efforts toward
energy conservation.
1
Estimates of gas usage for non-residential projects are developed on
an individual basis and are obtained from a Market Services Staff
representative by calling (114)634-3180.
We have developed several programs which are available, upon request,
to provide assistance in selecting the most energy efficient
appliances or systems for a particular project. If you desire further
information on any of our energy programs, please contact this office
for assistance.
Sincerely,
//2
R. B. Aarvig
Technical Supervisor
AT.-du
attachment
�n
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. &M 1 +� August 16, 1991
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Robert Franklin
Associate Planner Dept.of Development
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Planning Division
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No. 91-2
Draft Addendum to Final EIR No. 89-1
Dear Mr. Franklin:
On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District
("District") , I have received a copy of the August 1, 1991 notice
of the draft Addendum ("Addendum") to the Holly-Seacliff General
Plan Amendment Environmental Impact No. 89-1 ("EIR") to be used
in conjunction with proposed General Plan Amendment No. 91-2
("Project") .
The District certainly appreciates the opportunity to comment on
the draft Addendum and the cooperation and assistance that the
City has offered to ensure that the District maintains an active
role in the implementation of the Holly-Seacliff development. In
addition, we want to express our appreciation to the applicant,
Pacific Coast Homes, for its continued coordination and coopera-
tion with the District.
We note Section 4 . 0, No. 13, which discusses public services.
Therein, the Addendum states:
"The public services and utilities-related impacts as-
sociated with the development of the HSSP are substantially
similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-
1. No additional changes in impacts are expected to result
from the proposed Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures
from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in the implementa-
tion of the HSSP as conditions of approval and the sig-
nificantly adverse impact is covered by the previously ap-
proved Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations. "
"public/private project management, feasibility, and implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 100 •ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92806 • TELEPHONE(714)978.8887
_1
CC_ _)111
[01YMt•Mt/W A//OCW\/MC�
Mr. Robert Franklin
August 16, 1991
Page 2
In our opinion, although the total number of residential units
proposed between the adopted Land Use Element dated January,
1990, and the proposed Land Use Element dated July, 1991, has
remained the same (4,410) , the distribution of residential units
has been changed in a way which may effect the service
capabilities of the District.
In addition, we note that the designated park in Planning Area D-
1 has been removed. We question how this relates to -the joint
use school/park facility which has been discussed over the past
several months.
As you have noted, the District and Pacific Coast Homes have had
a multitude of discussions relating to the adequacy of the size
and funding of the school site on the northwest corner of Sad-
dleback Lane and Garfield Avenue. We have also raised concerns
relative to the adequacy of previous environmental documentation
in terms of the full disclosure of impacts, and appropriate
mitigation measures.
The proposed Addendum and proposed General Plan Amendment No. 91-
2 do not appear to address the concerns the District has raised
nor respond to correspondences previously transmitted to the
City. We are concerned that the proposed Addendum's conclusions
relative to the issues of schools have not addressed the changing
conditions of the District and the District's ability to
adequately service the Holly-Seacliff development without ap-
propriate, adequate, and complete mitigation of impacts.
The District believes that the Public Services section of the Ad-
dendum should be. Pxpanded to discuss the issues which have been
raised by the District via correspondence, oral communication,
and testimony before the Planning Commission and that the concept
of the joint use school/park facility as an alternative to the
proposed land use pattern for Planning Area D-3 be discussed and
evaluated in the Addendum.
Finally, we would request, to the degree that EIR No. 89-1 .did
not, that the proposed Addendum address the following items in
detail as they relate to the proposed Land Use Element.
1) The square footage of all a) anticipated dwelling units
by phases; and b) anticipated non-residential develop- POA-
ment activity, should be identified and a calculation
of development fees should be provided;
-_; �-
COW...
Mr. Robert Franklin
August 16, 1991
Page 3
2) The phasing of the Plan' s development should be ICSA-2
identified;
3) The location of school sites, school bus stops, student
pedestrian movement patterns to school sites, bus CSA-3
routes, etc. , relevant to the Plan's implementation
should be identified;
4) The designated schools that will be attended by stu-
dents generated by the Plan's implementation should be ICSA-4
identified;
5) The District' s existing conditions relative to the
location, size, quality and condition of existing CSA-5
schools, administrative, and operation facilities
should be discussed;
6) The District's past and present enrollment trends as
well as current enrollment, including facility utiliza- I CSA-6
tion should be identified;
7) A complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be
prepared, identifying vehicular movement and volumes CSA-7
and potential conflicts with school pedestrian move-
ment, school transportation, and busing activities;
8) A complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be
prepared, identifying any noise sources and volumes CSA-8
which may effect school facilities, classrooms, and
outdoor school areas;
9) A complete and comprehensive air quality analysis
should be prepared identifying any air quality
deterioration that would result from the transportation
and busing of students to various schools within the CSA-9
District as a result of potential overcrowded condi-
tions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility
deficiencies;
10) The utilization impact on the District of the Plan's
implementation , including the identification of
projected enrollments, projected space requirements, CSA-10
projected busing requirements, projected teacher/
staffing requirements, and traffic and noise impacts;
■1
Cari.t.[.[nil.[wcwu.c
Mr. Robert Franklin
August 16, 1991
Page 4
11) The fiscal impact on the District of the Plan's im-
plementation, including projected cost of land acquisi-
tion, school construction/reconstruction . and other
facilities; present and projected capital facility, C6-11
operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and
funding sources; and personnel, operational, and main-
tenance costs;
12) Appropriate and legal implementational utilization and
fiscal impact mitigation measures should be identified
and evaluated, including but not limited to a complete CSA-12
discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set
forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as
follows:
a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part
10 of the Education Code.
b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785 of Part
10 of the Education Code.
c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part
10 of the Education Code.
d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327) of
Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code.
e) Section 53080 of the Government Code.
f) Chapter 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of
Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code.
g) Chapter 4 . 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of
Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code;
13) Cumulative impacts on the District addressing item
No's . 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11, and 12 should be addressed.
Other projects in the geographical area of the District CSA_13
and included in the cumulative analysis should be iden-
tified by development name, unit size, phasing, and
location;
14) Unavoidable Plan implementation and fiscal impacts on
the District should be addressed, particularly as they
relate to the quality and quantity of District space,
and the present and future condition of the District's CSA-14
enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial
and fiscal conditions, transportation, operational and
maintenance activities, and administrative services;
0
\\\ F 11
COUWNv M1F u3 y3p[u{3 wC
Mr. Robert Franklin
August 16, 1991
Page 5
15) Appropriate alternative projects, plans, and programs
should be considered and evaluated, and the items and CSA
issues set forth herein as No's. 1 through 14 should be
determined; and
16) If a statement of overriding consideration is intended
to be used relative to the District's utilization and
fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, CSA
the text of the statement, along with quantitative and
qualitative substantiation, should be identified and
made available for public inspection.
We would request and recommend that the Addendum identify, both
individually and cumulatively, all environmental impacts, mitiga-
tion measures and appropriate alternatives. Further, the ap-
propriate mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the
Government Code should be incorporated into the mitigation
measures.
If the District can be of any further assistance or provide in-
formation that will allow the City to address issues and concerns
more effectively, please don't hesitate to contact our office.
We appreciate you assistance and consideration.
Sincerely,
7arsh
NITY TEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.
a1 B. Krupp
PresicWr
MBK:mmg
16/86
cc: Dr. Duane Dishno
Huntington Beach City School District
Dr. Gary Burgner
i Huntington Beach City School District
1
Mr. Tom Zanic
Urban West Communities
i
I
REAFFIRMATION OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
ADDENDUM TO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1
CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO
SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED APPROVAL OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT ADDENDUM, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SPECIFIC
PLAN, FOR THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,
CALIFORNIA.
The City of Huntington Beach is considering approval of a General Plan Amendment
(GPA 91-2) and associated Zone Change (Zone Change No. 90-10), Zoning Code
Amendment (Code Amendment No. 90-10) to implement the Holly-Seacliff Master
Plan (GPA 89-1) by establishing Specific Plan Zoning in the Holly-Seacliff area.
Because the proposed actions constitute a project under CEQA Guidelines, an
Environmental Assessment (Environmental Assessment No. 91-6) has been prepared by
the City of Huntington Beach to identify any potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed General Plan Amendment (GPA) and Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan (HSSP). The Environmental Assessment indicated that the proposed
GPA request contained in the HSSP is substantially consistent with the original
Master Plan project analyzed in EIR No. 89-1.
The City of Huntington Beach desires to approve this project and, after determining
that the Addendum to EIR No. 89-1 is complete and has been prepared in accordance
with CEQA and the Guidelines, makes the finding as set forth herein.
EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
Earth
• The project will not result in the creation of objectionable odors.
• The project will not result in any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off site.
Air Quality
• The project will not result in the creation of objectionable odors.
• The project will not result in the alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally.
City of Huntington Beach
EIR. No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -1-
f
Watcr
• The project will not result in changes in currents, or.the course of direction of
water movements, in either marine or fresh waters.
• The project will not result in alterations to the course or flow of flood waters.
• The project will not result in alteration of the direction or rate of flow of
ground waters.
• The project will not result in exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding or tidal waves.
Plant Life
• The project will not result in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants.
• The project will not result in the reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop.
Animal Life
• The project will not result in reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals.
• The project will not result in the introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals.
• The project will not result in the deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat.
Haim
• The project will not result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels.
Natural Resources
• The project will not result in the substantial depletion of any non-renewable
natural resource.
Transportation/Circulation
• The project will not result in effects on existing parking facilities, or demand
for new off-site parking.
• The project will not result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians.
i
City of Huntington Beach
EIR No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -2-
Public Services
The project will not have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
governmental services.
Energy
• The project will not result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy.
Utilities
• The project will not result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations
to communication systems.
Human Health
• The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard.
Cultural Resources
• The project does not have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values.
• The project will not restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area.
City of Huntington Beach
EIR No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -3-
1
EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
AND SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED
IF THE I!ROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
Significant Effect
Impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar Land Use Plan (i.e.,
no new land uses, topographical or other physical changes) for the project area have
been determined by the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Assessment
Committee to be substantially consistent with the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan project
originally analyzed in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1, and are covered
by the Findings, Mitigation Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations
certified by the Huntington Beach City Council on January 8, 1990.
Findinit
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (California Public
Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California
Administrative Code Section 15000 et seq.) in particular Section 15164, an Addendum
to EIR No. 89-1 which does not raise important new issues about the significant
effects on the environment has been prepared to make minor technical changes and
additions necessary to make EIR No. 89-1 adequate to meet the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act.
Facts in Support of Finding
1. None of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for
preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred as a result of the proposed
General Plan Amendment and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan;
2. Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under
consideration adequate under CEQA; and
3. The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new
issues about the significant effects on the environment.
City of Huntington Beach
EIR No. 89-1 Addendum
September 9, 1991 -4-
... ;.: ?,..a.;. :::. :..: ;..:: .. .. ._. ,... s... :,..:.. r•r°, yx 1,�,.,�, ..y.x3 v^ s,�s:�. � s; r x ?5.�: x v. i;.
n a d Ae oirtfn �GheckUst�' =�•�,.,#� q.> �s �r:Y ��� � ;�� k � =r:,��,�>�� fi� ��`�r fy �fi< sn4x�}�a�; :� r ;;:
,� v. v: �. :_,.�s ue�,$C.�..•4",� :•a w; .r, bk r,•y,.. ,b.•. ,<�: }}� ^.s.. F.,, .Y a s:�deS 7^,. hy,. vv.�,
s>s r,, '•` .�.`.�s-'` 3:�. '��'i��, >x fi3�x i:!`s�..r,' o��'��'�0'�5,.>�3:?`�'" ,c� 3� N�< �tk` � 'E: :�vv"•� � y. Y ,� �:'}�✓.•o'£ .G.•� ;G
`` � eac 9�f�:Gerr,.erai planzAim.e.ndmein.t ,��• � �.� _•'4.�,�.� � :. � � '�„�� '`�ab� 's �
sHOIiyLS
s.
. .�.'. a� a Dz •s:,,�.... � s. ` :«� s. 3 .d z, . :�'y,: � � ,.�Z., ,z,.. ,,.�; ,x, K s. �,, „R.:e
s.,
,.:Cl xnt lYt�iTf to�+;:i3eah,.: -�'� �� ,r x�,:�r=.. s :�A � .,�Y �; �: _�,•��• ,�> #V � �, .. ..,;�k:x,.�...�.Ate,...
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Land Use t Prior to issuance of building permits for individual tracts,the applicant Prior to Issuance of Buiki%Permits Fire Department
should demonstrate that service vehicle access to all remaining operating oil
wells on-site is monitored through the existing or proposed residential tracts.
Land Use 2 All potential buyers and renters of on-site residences should be notified of Prior to Final Inspection Department of Community
the effects resulting from on-site and off-site oil production activities. The Development
notification should state the frequency and locations of maintenance and
service operations. The notification should indicate that noise levels from oil
activities may also significantty,increase during these times.
Land Use 3 The City should adopt a redevelopment plan or other strategy to assemble Prior to Development Approvals Department of Community
encyclopedia lots and other non-buildable parcels of land in Planning Areas Development
B,C&E,
Land Use 4 Prior to the approval of tentative tracts adjacent to the Seadiff Country Club Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Community
and golf course,preliminary lanascape plans and development/open space DevelopmentDepartmem
edge treatments should be submitted for City approval. These plans should of Public Works
provide for the review of planting compatibility along the relevant south edge
of the development.
Land Use 5 In order to retain the existing swale character,future Specific Plans should Prior to Specific Plan Approval Departmentot Community
incorporate policies which%peaty the grade of slope,permitted amount of DevelopmenUDepartment
cut and loll,improvements for storm drainage and include a schematic of Public Works
i design for recreational and open space treatment within drainage swales.
Land Use 6 Only limited gracing activities a development should be allowed within Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works
areas encompassing natural swales on-site. This should be limited to
changes requited to install access roads,utility and storm drainage lines
and landscaping to enhance the natural condition of the swale areas.
Land Use 7 Detailed grading plans for all development on-site should be submitted to Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Community
and approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading DevelopmentlDepartment
permits. Such plans should show all natural swales on-site and the areas to of Public Works
be graded.
Land Use a Prior to the issuance of grading permits,the Department of Fish and Game Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works
should be notified o:gracing activities on-site that are scheduled to
commence in the swales,in order to preclude the possible elimination of
wetland areas under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game,
as further specified in the Biological Resources section of this EIR.
Source Reference: Final EIR Beach
City
® K�M
Adopted 110/90,Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No fo097 ,�V�'•`
i a" •t* ;"z: g&$b. w G"N h�e.y±...3".k31?+l.s.G;tx ;�., &� {, r r ,. � .. :. >•At`Ya>F#.: y z. sfir,w.o{d^rtkA'l:"�.Mlti ationMp lot
. " i rx r y 'NS
r,
„r r .> °.� "k a✓'h a '.2 t 'rA" „y Y's. i.�..� s :. 3 s _ s
gilySacllf;Ge� Ks?`
Mwf `
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Aesthetics I Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
slope,permitted amount of cut and fill,improvements for storm drainage Development
and a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within i
the ravines.
Aesthetics 2 The topography of the natural ravines and their associated drainage Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
courses should be preserved in accordance with standards adopted with Development
approval of future Specific Plans.
Aesthetics 3 As required in the Public Services and Unities section of this EIR,new utility Prior to Final Inspection Department of Public Works
fines including.but not limited to,electric(excludes SCE 66KV transmission
fines),telephone,street fighting and cable television should be placed
underground. The applicant should be responsible for complying with this
requirement and should make the necessary anangemenis with the utility
companies for the installation of such facilities.
Aesthetics t Landscaping of future projects should be designed to minimize visual Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
impacts on a4acent parcels. Special consideration should be given to DevelopmenVDepartment of
orientation of the project's residences(i.e.windows and decking)so as to Public Works
respect the privacy of agacent and nearby homes.
Aesthetics 5 Wherever feasible,oil production facilities on-site should be eliminated or Prior to Final Inspection Fire Department/Department
consolidated to reduce their total number. Facilities remaining on-site of Community Development
should be painted,camouflaged,or otherwise screened by perimeter walls,
plantings or Ike treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future residents.
Aesthetics 6 Wherever feasible,windrows should be preserved within park sites or Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community
replaced to maintain the aesthetic benefits they contribute to the community. Approval DevelopmenvDepartmem of
Further studies should be completed to assess the health of these trees. Public Works
Aesthetics 7 As future development occurs,the designated railroad transportation Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
corridor should be preserved for future use as traits or transit. Developmenl
Earth Resources t Subdrains should be installed where necessary. Location and size of Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works
subdrains,if any are required,should be determined after preliminary
geotechnical and grading information is made available.
Earth Resources 2 The design of structures should comply with the requirements of the City of Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
Huntington Beach Code and the standard practices of the Structural Development
Engineers Association of California.
J .
atianNtpnitgrinlld B60
0rtin Checklist �r
�,. ..:x'.8°.�'•1�n�r:?W 8�'`�z'�z•. ,z3: 4' ., .,;. x'�,., ,.,s. � ux";:ti t.,...,. y, g.st n .3rYyry ,..�'. 3 �'q,::< ,,, %'9.
tiY. it "i.. s,r `x" i. 'YY'. '`Mo�'i'T,t?t Y,ehr:ly,;%o :.'v' y � � C. r• ..r•+.?x;i
plain
�,f •1f` .r<. ^. F.<z. ,. tit, 4 y 'ks.�' ;tiitt,`sri",.• ;.'' ;: ? Y 4 ".
. x� •
A � s
-ay,.N• ,e•
.r.�i���1s+����� QCiii h.x.,t �• i:�.:" y �! r><?x�#�.t r k, TS t ".:� 1 �Y
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approyal Verilicalion of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Earth Resources 3 A detailed geologic fault investigation should be undertaken to delineate any Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
additional active trace of the Newporvfngl rwood fault. A setback zone
should be established to prevent the construction of habitable structures
within 50 feet on either side of any active fault trace Thwetore,as is the
case in the waslern portion of the property,where the fault zone as exposed
in the sand borrow pa is 80 feet wide,the ultimate setback zone should
have a total width of t80 feet
Earth Resources 4 Prior to future development,additional information on particle size,densiry. Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Public Works
and ground water levels should be obtained to accurately assess the
potential for Iquelaction due to seismic shaking in the alluvial areas
Earth Resources 5 As future development occurs,continued subsidence rate monitoring for the Ongoing Fire Department
region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are
decGnirtQ with current water-injection methods being used at operating oil
production facilities
Earth Resources 6 The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
design in order to eliminate drsuess to structures and stabs from minor Development
regional subsidence. Although this measure wig provide for a more rigid
slab,it wig by no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the
rapid subsidence of the;and from continued oil and gas withdrawal.
Earth Resources 7 At the time of future development,habitable structures will be located Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Community
outside of the tsunami risk zone Development
Earth Resources 8 During and after project construction,adequate surface drainage should be Ongoing Department of Public Works
maintained by the applicant,in order to eliminate bluff erosion. Surface
water should be carried quickly away from the top of the bluff and not
allowed to pond or run down the slope face
Hydrology t Prior to approved of future Specific Plans or grading permits,a detailed area- Prior to Specific Pian Approval Department of Public Works
wide flood controlrhydrology/hydraulic sturdy should be prepared by a
licensed civil engineer as required by the City and completed by the
applicant(per the current County of Orange Hydrology Requirements)to
further quantity and detail the combined drainage impacts of development
within the watershed area. These detailed studies may be used to adjust
the suggested conduit sizes proposed lot the EIR and shown on Exhibit 14
A separate detailed study should be completed for each tributary area.
These studies shag be completed prior to the approval of future Specific
Plans of at the time of gracing permit
Mitt atlon,Mo'nittirlr /}yj an,d}Air rtin Gh+aklist �
5/ bX'`f'9 a '�`, `G 4',.:: g a ,y,: '^
oU Seaclli Generat Pla e d e � � _ r; �xM
H y n y
K f
r 1�,
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Dale Comments
Hydrology 2 All future discretionary permits should be consistent in preserving area wide Prior to Tootaaw Tract Map Approval Department of Public Works
natural drainage patterns along with preserving and enhancing the goals,
objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation
Element The permits should ensure that development provide for facilities
needed to accommodate runoff from a 100 year storm
Hydrology 3 Individual projects should be required to construct or upgrade on-site and Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works
off-site drainage facilities needed to drain the site according to City
requirements This should include, limited improvements to existing earth
swales so as to convey nuisance flows as well as floodwater,required storm
drain conduits.storm drain crossings under Goldenwest Street,Ellis Avenue
and other proposed streets:and any other facilities determined as needed to
the more detailed hydrology studies
Hydrology 4 An additional dosed conduit system will be required in Garfield Avenue from Prior to Issuance of Budding Permits Department of Public Works
Crystal Street easterly to the connection with the existing storm drain line in
Delaware Street. This system will be required to accommodate(lows
generated by development within the study area.
Hydrology 5 The City should be responsible for the construction of upgraded swales. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
closed conduits and a desilting basin to transport the drainage runoff
rollacsed from the northwest portion of the project site.from north of Ellis
Avenue to Huntington Central Park
Population and I The applicant should sinve to develop a variety of housing types and sizes Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
Housing at a range of prices in order to comply with the General Plan Housing Development
Element policies for affordable lousing as well as the needs identified in the
RHNA.
Recreation I The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within Prior to Development Within Thal Area Department of Administration
the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue
Recreation 2 The City shall enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate Prior to Further Development Approvals Department of Community
designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Services
Planning Area.
Recreation 3 The City should create a special assessment district(s)for the developmenl Prior to Development of Said Trails Department of Administration
and maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area and Parklands
mom
1
1
f �
"g� �p Monito i g and,Reporting Checklist
a IGenera::PIarAmendntent
cn3 ... •: iCl1 .. n ' " `:` is :IDLY 19,1991
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Transportation s Artenal links within the project study area shall be improved to then ultimate Prior to Issuance:of Building Permits Department of Public Works
width,consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the General Plan
Amendment request A listing of the ultimate arsenal widths within the
project study area is presented below
Elks Avenue
Edwards Street to Gothard Street primary 4 lane divided anent
Gotthard Street to project east boundary secondary 4 lane undivided asena:
Garfield Avenue
Seapointe Street to Main Street major 6 lane dvided artenai
Yorktown Avenue
Goldenwest Street to Main Street primary 4 lane divided arterial
Edwards Street
Elks Avenue to Garfield Avenue secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Gdldemvest Street
Yorktown Avenue to Ellis Avenue major 6 lane divided arterial
Gotthard Street
Elks Avenue to Main Street secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Main Street
Huntington Street to Yorktown Avenue primary 4 lane divided arterial
These Improvements should include all necessary curbs gutters,and
misdian requirements per the City of Huntington's standard plans In
addition,all residential collectors,industrial collectors and residential streets
should be improved to then ultimate width consistent with the proposed
Circulation Element for the General Plan Amendment project
Transportation 2 Intersections within the study area should be constructed to the lane Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
geometha identified in Table 1e
Transportation 3 Prior to the first Specific Plan or Tract Map approval,a fan share funding Prior to Specific Plan or Tentative Tract Department of Public Works
program for the construction of the cross-gap connector tram Edwards to Map Approval
Bolsa Chica as a modified secondary arterial and the Seapointe Avenue
extension from Garfield to Coast Highway should be determined In the
debrmination of this fair share funding program,a credit should be given for
the segment of the cross-gap connector and Seapointe Avenue constructed
within the project boundary
Source Reference Final EIR No 99-1 Adopted 1/8190,Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No 6097
a +
'IlAittgetion Mpnitorin%end Reppr�Ing Gh' dkO
Roll �Seacilif Genstal I.an Aiendmen ' €s
C, 1 da urrrFa cM3>, s.,,w• ,> a €iy 'z° br
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monjtoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Transportation 4 The arterial and intersection improvements required to occur commensurate Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
with Planning Area development are as follows.
Plannina Area A
Contribute on a lair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary
intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the
proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross gap
connector
Construct the ultimate westerly half section(40 feet.2 lanes)of Edwards
Street from Ells Avenue to Garfield Avenue
Construct the ultimate northerly hall section(60 feet,3 lanes)of Garfield
Avenue from the protects western border to Edwards Street.
Plannino Area A
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary
intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the
proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap
connector.
Construct the ultimate easterly halt section(40 feet,2 lanes)of Edwards
Street from the project's northern border to Garfield Avenue
Construct the ultimate section(100 feet,4 lanes)of Ells Avenue from
Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street.-Construct the ultimate northerly half
section(60 feet,3 lanes)of Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to
Gofdernvest Street.
Pla nine Area C
Contribute on a fan share basis towards the implementation of all necessary
intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the
proposed project.
Mt i` i n i ran end Re" in �Checkt�st " h :� w�a�
s, r
zx�r,. �,:r"+ `:,"��'• �� ,sx'sk,&.�,;:w•3xbM ,�i•:• ,•);�,. M k ,`#� a y 9 i :.s �`, •, '?.
.1; ..SF +F. ..' a. `ifi"..s3 vs.•. "b•.a. i ' ''^. t f v f7 w, x •e' ':y..
� 4 ....M.h: :,;
Npt� . e �.0 .. y .: :
I•s K F ' i
�:'•'8'r & '"::x�w;yr .,,�x ........
x.: ..avi?. x ,fit-., ' #.. $:.r�,,. 'R ..c'�``.'i� .�:+•a's�,, '.: r .:a! s 3e>as K.,, +'+,E\Y.. '°�' ,,� ¢` a'?~
y� 8. #, °^� s. s.�a :r;: '.a.
LI l7lii'�11IJtC�I1$ Gh,.� x ,! N.'W� >.
Section Mdigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Transportation 4 Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap
(continued) connector.
Vacate the existing Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue
and construct the realigned Gothard Street to the west from Ellis Avenue to
Clay Street. The realigned segment of Gothard Street should be
constructed to its ultimate four lane secondary section from Ellis to Clay
Construct the ultimate nortfherty half section(60 feet,3 lanes)of Garfield
Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern border
Pla nino Area D
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary
intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures lot the
proposed project
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap
connector
Construct the ultimate southerly half section(60 feet,3 lanes)of Garfield
Avenue from the projecrit western border to Goldenwest Street.
Plannirw Area
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary
intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures lot the
proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap
connector.
Construct the ultimate southerly hall section(60 leet,3 lanes)of Garfield
Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern border
Transportation S At the time of Specific Plan or Tract Map approval for a given Planning Area Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Public Works
or portion thereof,a traffic study shall be completed to determine whether
the incremental increase to traffic from the Specific Plan or Tract Map area
causes any of the intersections under investigation to result in unacceptable
levels of service. It unacceptable levels of service result,this traffic analysis
shall determine the portion of the ultimate intersection improvements which
are required,the phasing of the improvement and the funding source
nil�t� at�ana gnitgri� r rt: e o m Checklist � �
�r•'�.. �.u', ^�,�ag�°'.•>s:�� �"�"'�'� .cos :�c c � s',t>z i'!:
tt 8 a„GIB w �t m JULY i 9 199 f,
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Transportation 5 II the project requires intersection improvements which are greater than the
(continued) projects lair share.a reimbursable agreement shall be required of thoso
subsequent developments which oontnbuie to the need lot said
improvement.
Transportation 6 Prior to Tract Map approval,a signal warrant analysis shall be conducted for Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works
any project access paints to the major arterial street system Approval
Transportation 7 As pan of any subsequent Specific Plan or Tract Map that requires access Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works
along Garfield Avenue.an operational analysis of said access shall be Approval
conducted and subrnifted for review and approval of the City Traffic
Engineer. The access on Garfield Avenue shall be limited to right turn in
and out.except one location,mid-block between Edwards Street and
Goldermest Street. A signalized lull movement intersection shall be
permiHed at this location. The access design shall be limited on Garfield
Avenue and spread to other parallel artenals.such as Ellis Avenue.Clay
Avenue and Yorktown Avenue
Transportation 8 Prior to any Specific Plan of Tract Map approval.the Orange County Transit Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Public Works
District shall be consulted for the need to construct bus stops.turnouts and
shelters.
Transportation 9 The current Southern Pacific Railroad(SPRR)easement shall be preserved Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
as a transportation corridor for future use for mass transit and trails Development
Air Ouafity, t To minimize dust generation during grading operations.SCAOMD Rule 403 Prior to Grading Permits Department of Public Works
should be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving
operalrOns. To further reduce the emissions.grading should not occur when
wind speeds exceed 20 mph
Air OuAhry 2 There should be support and cornpliancit with this ROMP for eut ba—to Prior to Issuani a ul tluikfwtq Pnrrnits Dupwtmunl ul PUN.,Works
achieve regional air quohty The AOMP includes improvement of mass
transit facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs.
Energy conservation measures are also included. Specific measures which
may be appropriate for the proposed project include
Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by
promoting public transit usage including the designation of the
transportation corridor and providing secure bicycle facilities.
Provide public transit accommodations such as bus turnout
lanes.park and ride areas.and bus shelters
j
i i i t' rn �nd:Re rtm Checklist Fz 3 5, {
ill t(/y�at an:Mgrtf pr /u• po , 9 { � �� :' h .;z y��: � y� ,� {u� � � �;,
T- 0
S: �i}',,:J.ity�`f ►t tangy c � r ., .. ,,, _ .....
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Provide energy conserving street lighting.
Provide traffic signal synchronization where leasible
Air Ouality, 3 Because it only takes a small amount of material to generate odors,it is Ongoing Fire Department
important to maintain a vary dean operation Therefore,any oil spilled on
the ground should be quickly cleaned up Well sumps should be pumped
out after pulling a well,and periodically in the interim Maintenance of seals
and gaskets on pumps and piping should be performed whenever leaks are
evident, General clean up of the site should result to significant
improvements in the level of odor found in the area.
Air Quality 4 Appropriately designed,vapor recovery systems which pull the gas off the Ongoing Fire Department
well casing should be employed,as wail as vapor recovery systems for oil
transport trucks. A similar system could be employed for any remaining
storage laolities on-site
Noise f Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be Ongoing Department of Community
implemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday Development
working hours
Noise 2 Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
be auceeded in residential outside living areas Where residential buildings Development
are to be located within these 65 CNEL contours,mrtigaaon measures
should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels Mitigation
through the design and construction of a noise barrier(wall,berm,or
combination walVberm)is the most common way of alleviating traffic noise
impacts.
The effect of a noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between
the noise source and the receiver A noise barrier effect occurs when the
'tine of sight'between the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier
A barrier which does not break the line-of-sight is not an affective barrier,
while one which just interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 db reduction in
noise.
The greater the penetration the greater the noise reduction Increasing
building setbacks should also be used to attenuate noise down to
acceptable levels
• e
zt Y Stieort Ml.tlfy�<nf�r..r.:an9G,
3� e.z�,,.rn tmdm z.^mk eh.0 aht e`'acklist ... .. .....
................
..............
...............
alloMittga al
�. . ... . ....
wy a t a i
n
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Noise 3 The City of Huntington Beach should require that the housing portion of this Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
project comply with the State of California Noise Insulation standards. The Development
code requires that interior community noise levels(CNEL)with window
closed,attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNE L of
45 dB in any habitable room' Any measures,such as window upgrades,
can be specified at the time of building permit application.
Noise 4 At the time of budding permit application,the design should again be Prior to Issuance of Budding Permits Department of Community
reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design Development
Noise 5 Noise levels generated by the oil operations should be mitigated to levels Prior to CUP Approval for Consolidated Department of Community
consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance,by locating Well Site Development
consolidetion area(s)at least 300 feet from the nearest residential or other
sensitive lard uses(locating consolidation areas within industrial use areas
would be the most desirable from a noise standpoint) The oil wells could be
located closer to sensitive land uses it a perimeter wall with a minimum
height of 8.0 feet was utilized around the consolidation area(s) The
following mitigation measures assume a 100 loot distance to receptor and
the mitigation effects of an 8.0 foot sound wall. Additional analysis of the
consolidation areas)will be necessary when phasing plans become
available.
Noise 6 The results show that in order for the drilling operations to satisfy the Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
Huntington Beach Noise Ordnance outdoor standards,electric motors with Development
aooustic blankets must be used. Diesel motors even when shielded by
soousbc blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at
the on-site and off-site residences,and will not meet the daytime Noise
Ordinance standards at the on-site residences. If there are plans to conduct
the drilling operations during the nighttime hours,then according to the Oil
Code,the operations must be soundproofed. Acoustic blankets as well as a
8.0 foot high masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the
noise levels to below the Noise Ordnance standards
Noise 7 The well pumps used in the consolidation area should be submerged. If Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Community
other types of well pumps such as ground level electric or diesel pumps may Development/Department
be necessary. Specific mitigation measures should be presented in an of Public Works
additional noise study
Noise 8 Well pulling and drifting operations are confined to daytime hours(7 a m to Ongoing Department of Community
10 p.m.)by Iho Oil Code Any redrilling performed at night must provide Development
soundproofing to comply with the Noise Ordnance The Ohl Code prohibits
the pulling of wells during the nighttime hours(10 p.m to 7 am) Well
1
i
c: n.:..'.a{�tkytre'¢.;t✓;.z.: L^'F'xc�P .7 { x s � ! �; -
�i�'
�■tt� ation>M�:-. tp.tlr� �(s1 e� rt, 6EC. i t r s` �.� .� >� � �,
'::1Y4 .�. ��-`y'.�5,: ..A-y� '*� s: � ,a•:: X �}�6a ..'�Z'.Ii <'3xs .:.ts z � e 'w as; ,'� `:
:&'x xz.�,,�; *.::. � .. . .:.K.,.. '.;:.>'�.: ,..... c '.. •. ,. � ,..,,:..qyr:` s�osyo �1X, � .r '
'� .>T:.%�nYo?n<✓K'�� •A ..�: >� 'S C..^'F.,
.....
..... ... {` \ 'i:i'lv,iz'...�f',h'�;: <•➢' �' �`. ? `2 '�'1✓.. Y 4.
s
'B
y
....
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
maintenance activities should also be conducted between the hours of 7
a.m.and 10 p.m only. Although high levels of noise may be generated by
routine well maintenance operations,these activities would occur inside the
noise barrier surrounding the consolidation area
Noise 9 Service drilling for this project will be conducted during the daytime hours Ongoing Department of Community
only. Data on service drilling operations indicate that with a diesel powered Development
service rig and an B loot high noise barrier,the noise level at 100 feet will
likely be 55 dBA which corresponds to the City's daytime Noise Ordinance
standard. AN servicing of the wells must comply with the noise standards
contained in the Huntington Beach code
Noise 10 Truck operatons should be limited to daytime hours only(7 a.m to 10 p in I Ongoing Department of Community
Development
Noise I 1 Residential development within the helicopter flight corridor should generally Prior to Tentative Traci Map Approval Department of Community
be discouraged Development
Noise 12 All residential buildings to be constructed within the helicopter activity Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
corridor should be designed to achieve a 25 dBA outdoor to indoor noise Development
reduction
Noise 13 Helicopter noise impacts should be addressed in the acoustical ➢nor to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community -
assessments for residential uses within the helicopter Night corridor Any Development
mitigatlon requiremenis necessary to reduce helicopter noise impacts
should be included in the assessment.
Noise 14 A notice(and statement of acknowledgement)to prospective homeowners Prior to Final Inspection Department of Community
is required staling that the property is subject to ovortfight,sight and sound Development
of helicopters associated with the polico lacihty
Light and Glare I A phased landscaping program should be developed in conjunction with al Prior to Spocihc Plan Approval Department of Community
future Specific Plans to ensure landscaping commensurate with residential Development
and non-residential occupancy to adequately screen on-site light and glare
impacts.
Light and Glare 2 All outdoor lighfing should be consistent with the standards established by Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
future Specific Plans to minimize off-site light intrusion Development
f +fir
�tl 'ati "tl i kl f�> 3` �. ref.
4rt: .olco,..n a rt n '!�hc. list M tf �. .
/ny
.y„o.a, s<e X , , -
:#Knt. i `.,�. :�§..:. Nt' ,.y°,,x,#y: ..k,:. uv"£. .,'s,•'. ,� .i /6: ; ,�<; L T
o:.y,. a il. Gen+wal <f m'endment x' y
'
:;S$i�' ?sip ;@,+ •.w;... .:ukx,o-. 'xw¢ k.. :
Ky.rr
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Dale Commonls
Light and Glare 3 All outdoor lighting should be hooded and directed downward to minimize Prior to Final Inspection Department of Community
direct light and glare impacts on public rights-of-way and surrounding Development
properties.
Light and Glare 4 Appropriate types and heights of street lights should be consistently Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
established in future Specific Plans Street lighting should be standardized Development
throughout the project area
Light and Glare 5 Lighting associated with recreational uses.where applicable,should be Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community
designed to minimize light intrusion onto surrounding property and right-of- Approval Development
ways surrounding such uses
Light and Glare 6 Non-residential building materials should be consistent with architectural Prior to Future Development Approval Department of Community
standards incorporated into future Specific Plans. These standards should Development
address the minimization of glare
Cultural t It is suggested that the research design be prepared by the Principal Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works/
Resources Investigator selected to perform the work and that it be reviewed by a Department of Community
second oonsultirg archaeologist. This step will help insure the Development
completeness and viability of the research design prior to its
implementation. The involvement of a second professional is viewed as an
inexpensive means of insuring that no major elements are overlooked
Cultural 2 The archaeological deposits within the Holly-Seadiff study area should be Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works/
Resources subjected lo a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to Department of Community
fully describe the sites The following program is recommended. Development Resources
A.Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast
Archaeological Society.Long Beach State University and any
community college which has such material. If the collections are
properly provenienced and are accompanied by adequate
documentation.they should be brought together during this phase
and complete analysis performed 01 particular importance
during this phase is the recovery o1 survey data to be used to
determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts.
B Prior to the beginning of any excavation effort,a burial strategy
should be developed by the archaeologist retained to accomplish
the excavation,members of the Native American community and
appropriate City Staff. The strategy should address details of the
handing and processing of human remains encountered during
excavation,as well as the ultimate disposition of such
remains.
a a xk^ < ti n �#' gx I s #
♦♦tryry ti NI glj in Fte rt�nry �heCkt[Sct d� a
4s!3s rz paar# r 9� 2 uty t ax
?a. x X. .:.i3^.5 xe` ,R.z:2's s' i ;r2.tx:`t ',' .»,,3. °`>zx> ,4 2 •.� C
o�i �1[ ner Im�aandrM
W:�3'
a■ •r►y C ,.
w,w.:C .�9:,.;, • +V� 3fo!b,�.L d`+..$^,'.'°`t�,•�.fi, vat. � ''.. ... ... , .. .,.n. :.. .. o- ...
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
C.Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the
archaeological deposits. The information gained from the
test excavation will guide the following data recovery excavation
The excavations should have two primary goals
Definition of site boundaries and depth
Determination of the significance of the site and its
degree of preservation
D.A statistically valid sample of site material should be
excavated The data recovery excavation should be conducted
under the provisions of a carefully developed research design
The research questions presented earlier in this repon should be
incorporated into the research design,other important research
questions should be developed from the test excavation data
included,and a statement of methodology to be observed must
be included
E.A qualified observw appointed by the Principle Investigator/
Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites
to recover important material which might appear. The monitor
will be assigned by the Principal Investigator This activity may
require some minor delay or redirecting of grading while material
is being recovered. The observer should be prepared to recover
material as rapidly as is consistent with good archaeological
practice Monitoring should be on a full time basis when grading
is fishing pinca on or nwar an archawdogicwl depotif Howevar.
Ole 9-(hng slruuld lnnoinate whoa awn hits I-—
entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed
F.All excavation and ground disturbing observation protects
should include a Native American Observer Burials are known to
exist al some of the sites,a circumstance which is extremely
important to the Native American community
G.A detailed professional report should be prepared which fully
describes the site and its place in prehistory Reports should
receive sufficient distribution which includes the City,the County
and the UCLA repository for archeology to insure their availability
to future researchers.
Mittg�tion MoitCrrg%asd'R�epArting Ch6cklst
e a � xJ9
Holly Seaif#'GeneFal
Plan Amendment Atz ;,,
L xt f
lty aiDnGh q.�t1 . t9 �t
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
H.Arrangements should be made for proper curabon of the
collections, It is expected that large quantifies of material will be
collected during the excavation. Curation should be at an
institution which has the proper facilities for storage,display and
use by interested scholars and the general public
Cultural 3 The shell and lithic scatters should be subjected to test excavation to Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of public Works/
Resources determine if they are or are not in situ archaeological deposits. If any of the Department of Community
scatters prove to be in situ archaeological material,a site record should be Development Resources
prepared and submitted to the Archaeological Survey,University of
California,Los Angeles,and the site should be treated as in mitigation
number one. If the sites are shown to be not archaeological in nature or not
in situ,then no further action should be taken
Cultural d Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a Ongoing Department of Community
Resources qualified observer assigned by the Principle Investigator/Archaeologist to Development
determine if significant historic deposits,(e.g.foundations,trash deposits,
privy pits and similar features)have been exposed. The monitoring should
be on a full tine basis but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed
geologic formations are exposed. If such exposures occur,appropriate
collections should be made,followed by analysis and report preparation.
Historic material may be encountered anywhere within the Holly-Seadift
property,but the area around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more
sensitive than fha balance of the project area. Historical material recovered
at the archaeological sites should be treated with those deposits.
Cultural 5 The plaque commemorating oil well Huntington A-1 should be preserved. Prior to Final Inspection Department of Community
Resources As development in the area continues,it may be desirable to upgrade this Services
feature
Cultural 6 A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Community
Resources during grading or extensive trenching activities that cat into the San Pedro Development
Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units
Cultural 7 In areas where ossils are abundant,lull-time monitoring and salvage efforts Ongoing Department of Community
Resources will be necessary(8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities) In Development
areas where no fossils are being uncovered.the monitoring time can be less
than eight hours per day.
r
ito'rin
Vrx?,
.k. :.3.&
.>: ;,�
'
1 CII etae� t - a A and t
1m17pf1
:*�A,•Y 'A#� �. f� .us`,'�8a��,�a�R"S�'� '#;'„"�i;. ,r�i` f r i�,�y, �:: 4 r' YtM,., :3"f 'b• ,� �'r'�" <y Zr: ^';�s ;�%
s, x,,: >.E' .:S'a :R". � r," M ,, ., x z,,: « ✓,:, ,.?.: xi.* :d>, ,p :2:3F:. r z s•,
�. , @•.,:�.xvt.'3'; ..f< .,,`Mv.. xca SR'' b ,7':N kL�2"a >,%.' ,v •� :�..'.•",n xiiv v w °{ ,:4 ..3
K„ :.Y �
t
.......... k i;; .>... •�.< :3�p.�,,'n ix,: .may a" :�. .:`..
�.. " ..... :....... .,... .k....., .:.v .... ... .... .., T.rN",,., ... ... :. ..... ,. k: .,. :.:.k.:.....
,
:Y
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Cuttural a The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading Ongoing Department of Community
Resources operators to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils. Development
Cultural 9 Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will Ongoing Department of Community
Resources necessary to salvage any microvertabrate remains. It a deposit of Development
mlcrovenebrates is discovered,matrix material can be moved off to one
side of the grading area to allow for further screening without delaying the
developmental work
Cultural 10 All fossils and their contextual stratgraphic data should go to an institution Prior to Final Inspection Department of Community
Resources with a research interest in the materials•such as the Orange County Natural Development
History Foundation
Biological 1 The settrhg aside of 92 acres of parks and other open space will partially Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
Resources mitigate the loss of the existing open space and provide some wildlife Development
habitat.
Biological 2 The Specific Plan should address revegetabon on all graded areas whore Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
Resources structures or other improvements are not built. In public open spade areas. Development
consideration should be given to the use of native or naturalized species
which reghare little irrigation and provide wildlife habitat,with a gradual
transition to more ornamental species along The development edge.
Biological 9 Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drainage Pnor to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
Resources swale,i e.utility lines,sewers,etc.,this swale should remain as open Development
space. Megaton for the loss of cattail marsh habitat(0.5 acres)and willow
habitat(0,5 acres)which are depicted on Exhibit 28,will take place such
that a mimmum of 1.0 acre of riparian vegetation is established in this
drainage swale. The plants utilized in the revegetaled area will be chosen
from the recommended plant palette indicated in Appendix H.
Biological 4 Through adoption of future Specific Plans large trees suitable for use by Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
Resources raplors such as the red-shouldered hawk,should be preserved or replaced Development
in accordance with the tree species identified in the plant palette contained
in Appendix H
Biological 5 Any gracing or filling in the brackish wetlands in the western portion of the Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Community
Resources project site wig be mitigated by restoration of an equal area of coastal Development
wetland at a nearby location in the open space area
sallMiti ati" n M .ni r'n an e m Gin_ +rrk
;g.. 4 Q. `V �. :.M. a�` 5; 4 �1.}F y'�c, •.T�.a �., M,. y f t .9 £'.r ii. •;•Ss:$r+}. ,.k .;'li:: 5 K '3<:.,,H" ✓:.5. L ..f: rk:: :tik.: 'i' /.5`. :f'.:, 3 GS,a .5 �i`u., rrii.� ,�A.: l
� �k..
{.i *{ 3
„k u.Y.Y.
$ F, 'b''.aM''� "K:�•v q.,yk>o r+s�:, N 1 �'S'S r..n
oIC eallj[�[ enerat:Pla Qndment C =wa a
�v� 'ak'•S:L'"r:,'l� .�'�^9,^.w,� �.'... .� Y..
'o!? >,;" a'
v ?.i
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Biological 6 Effects upon on-site wetlands within the jurisdiction of the California Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Community
Resources Department of Fish and Game will require mitigation defined by 1603 Development
permits
Biological 7 DevelopmenVuse of the linear park(open space areas along the northern Prior to Development of Linear Park Department of Community
Resources and northwest project boundaries)will be limited to passive recreation such Development
as riding and hiking trails. Fencing and vegetative butters shall be designed
to exclude humans and pets from the Boise Ohica Wetlands areas. The
bluffs and other upland areas in the linear park shelf be revegetated with
native plants which are adapted to coastal environments.
Biological 8 The effects of night fighting can be mitigated by the following measures 1) Prior to Development of Linear Park Department of Community
Resources use of low intensity street lamps at the development edge; 2) use of low Development
elevation lighting poles;and 3) shielding by internal silvering of the globe or P
internal opaque reflectors. The degree to which these measures are utilized
should be dependent upon the distance of the light source to the urban
edge. Use of private sources of illumina0on around homes should also be
restricted to prohibit area lighting on lots adjacent to open space areas
Natural 1 Buidng construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Community
Resources Standards set forth in Title 24 of the Cafitomia Administrative Code, Energy Development
conservation features should include:
Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet
or exceed State of California,Title 24 requirements.
•Insulation of hot water pipes and duct systems.
•Use of natural ventilation where possible.
Use of natural gas for space healing and 000king.
•Installation of attic fans or other ventilation devices
Orientation to sunlight and use of overhangs.
Landscaping with deciduous trees,to provide shade in the
summer months and allow sunlight through in the winter months.
Natural 2 It is recommended that the developer consult with both the Southern Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
Resources California Gas Company and Southern California Edison during the building Development
design phase for hither energy conservation measures.
• •
i
i i � �-
patio o' o <a I7dA$ rung Chf3f;,klist
s
a
o acii aa en . flannndment ��
tuLY
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary' Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Oil Facilities I Future Specific Plan(s)should include an area or areas for the consolidation Prior to Specific Plan Approval Fire Department/Department
of oil well facilities of Community Development
Oil Facilities 2 All new development proposals should be accompanied by Pnor to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Fire DepartmenVDepartment
Approval of Community Development
•A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned
wells
•The abandonment plans for extsang wells
•The operational plans for any remaining wells and
facilities
These pans must sabsty the requirements of the City of Huntington Beads
and the Division of Oil and Gas.
Oil Facilities 3 The criteria for the approval of development plans within oil districts should Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Fire Department
Include Approval
(a)That enough open space has been reserved around the oil
operation site to allow existing and future equipment which could
reasonably be expected to be used on the site,including any
setbacks from new development required by the Fire
Chief
(b)That adequate access to all operation sites is provided for
portable equipment and emergency vehides
(c)That reasonable expansion of the existing facrl+aes,0 permitted
in the oil district,can be accomplished.
(d)That any proposed development includes all provisions for
soundproofing and fire protection required by the Fire Chief.
(e)That screening of al facilities from any new development is
included in the plan(section 9680.4.Article 968 OIL DISTRICTS.
City of Huntington Beaus Municipal Code).
Oil Facilities 4 As future development occurs,continued subsidonce rate monitoring for the Ongoing Fire Department
region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are
dedining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil
production facilities.
Source Relerence Final EIR No 89.1 Adopted 118190.Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No 6097
Rltitigation Ma�itorjrg end Reporting Checklist
YM yy.,c�.. `•k M'3'{'Y o\
; till `Secllfenerat Plan Amendmentf�
a;s, ,�:. i ,$:.•>.:»':;.:I�''�%.' ''a;�', .,es;rr�c+ w r v,. :::
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
oB Fadities 5 The use of post-tensioned stabs should be considered to the foundation Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor Development
regional subsidence Although this measure will provide for a more rigid
slab,it will by no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the
rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal
oil Facilities 6 All other mitigation measures pertaining to ai contamination,methane gas Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Fire Department
accumulation and other hazards are contained in other sections of this EIR. Approval
as previously noted
Human Health t Prior to grading and development,a site reconnaissance should be Prior to Issuance o1 Grading Permits Department of Public Works
and Safety performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate
areas where contamination of the sur icial says may have taken place. The
environmental assessment should evaluate existing available information
pertinent to the site and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on-
site contamination Phase I should include
a.Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site to
evaluate current and previous uses
b.Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of
surfiaal soils may have taken place.
c.Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of
near surface contamination of soil
d.Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps
on-site Testing of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals.
e.Completion of sal gas vapor detection excavations
located adjacent to the existing on-site wells
1-Testing of air samples for gas vapor,methane gas and suffix
compounds.
3 e�
_ a
k sj e t a s e vw x£ rxa 3
j.
Rli
JU
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary' Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Oil Facilities 1 Future Specific Plants)should include an area or areas lot the consofidaticxx Prior to Specific Plan App'oval Fire Department/Department
of all well facilities of Community Development
Oil Facilities 2 All new development proposals should be accompanied by Prior to Tentative Tract Mac or CUP Fire Department/Department
Approval of Community Development
•A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned
wells
•The abandonment plans for existing wells
•The operationai plans for any remaining wells and
facilities
These pans must satisty,the requirements of the City of Huntington Beads
and the Division of Oil and Gas
Oil Facilities 3 The criteria for the approval of development plans within oil districts should Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Fire Department
include Approval
(a)That enough open space has been reserved around the oil
operation site to allow existing and future equipment which could
reasonably be expected to be used on the site,including any
setbacks from new development required by the Fire
Chief.
(b)That adequate access to all operation sites is provided for
portable equipment and emergency vehicles
(c)Thal reasonable expansion of the existing facilities,if permitted
in the oil dstnct can be accompltsMrd
(d)That any proposed development includes all provisions for
soundproofing and fire protection required by the Fire Chief.
(e)That screening of al facilities from any new development is
included in the plan(section 9680 d,Article 968 OIL DISTRICTS.
City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code).
Oil Facilities 4 As future development occurs,continued subsidence rate monitoring for the Ongoing Fire Department
region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are
declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil
production facilities.
Source Reference FlnalEIR No,89-1 Adopted 1/Br90,Huntington Beach Ctry Council Resolution No 6097
MRti(�aton'MA itnrl�ry �nc1 Re ttm :;Gheckl��t �� � ,�,� � £,�• ���
£N'oll`.�..eacllff�en'erat PIan�Amendment r � < '°�
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Oil Facilities 5 The use of post tonsroned stabs should be considered w the louodahon Prior to Issuanun of Buodrrg Permits Department of Community
design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor Development
regional subsidence. Although this measure will provide lot a more rigid
slab,it will by no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the
rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal.
Oil Facikties 6 All other mitigation measures pertaining to oil contamination,methane gas Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Fire Department
accumulation and other hazards are contained in other sections of this EIR. Approval
as previously noted
Human Health t Prior to gradrg and development,a site reconnaissance should be Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works
and Safety performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate
areas where contamination of the surfical sails may have taken plane. The
environmentai assessment should evaluate existing available information
pertinent to the site and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on-
ithe contamination Phase I should include
a,Rewew of available documents pertinent to the subject site to
evaluate current and previous uses.
b.Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of
surfiaaf soils may have taken place
c.Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of
near surface contamination of soil,
d.Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps
on-site Testing of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals.
e.Compietion of soil gas vapor detection excavations
bated adjacent to the existing on site wells
f Testing of air samples for gas vapor,methane gas and sulfur
compounds.
::A :.� � � '..y s ,rw:.k. ':s 5 ',g r '.a ✓.. v s^�: ..s,,,?f' s. ;�.a�f'�w, w `;fie; a`;��'^`''rd �,`
,x::•^kg ar'�8'af:� r: -,, k' .::.ri .. :;:. �3^'.s ,,,;;°SE ''�'- /i' ',x Y..A r s six �. ,..r.•>.;:'*3z�
a. ,. >.�,: a' �wn��•s� r���. �rta�!��lt�zf " ;,..�: ,�04� � ��":d � `•'�•'..,�,/�'����:��nv 2�, .."'
IF I
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Human Health 2 The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works
and Safety developed as part of a later phase.Upon completion of the Environmental
Assessment,a Remedial Action Plan can be developed This plan should
address the following items
a.Treatment of possible crude oti contaminated soils. A possible
solution to this condition would be aeration of the contaminated
soils to release the volatile gases and then incorporation of the
treated soils into the roadway fills(subgrade)
b.Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on-site disposal
of non-contaminated drilling fluids or off-site disposal of
contaminated fluids
c.Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane
gas.
Human Health 3 Prior to development,a thorough site study for the presence of surface and Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department
and Salary shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal
findings would require a Remedial Action Plan and further studies to assure
sufficient miepabon of the hazardous areas prior to building construction AN
structures should have a gas and vapor beater installed underneath the
slabs end foundations. Gas collection and ventilation systems should be
installed over abandoned wells which are underneath or within ten(10)feet
of any structure,and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions
of methane gas. Additionally.following construction of structures,an
organic vapor analysis should be conducted and the results evaluated to
assure that acceptable air quality is maintained within buildings and
residences,
Human Health a The presence of methane gas on-site should be the subject of future studies Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works/
and Safety that include the following tasks: Fire Department
a.Drilling of test wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits
and confirm or deny the presence of biogenic methane bearing
strata near the surface in the development area
b Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or
assumed to be potential drilling mud sumps.
c Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic
locations on the site and collection of soil vapor samples,
`<hlf� ( atial�: ni r n /h�►{{��.�ta���yy ��'�rr <. ,e�';z ,.., �.,: �''x a� '�„xfoyws:� ��: �� 'r a ,-.:;.v �+ � `a`�. 's
,.. y;,.:. >.,. 4,.�, .t zr3s „< 9' ,� .r,r `vd' C ✓ 3`" v'y'3' ,..�,%`'' 3, FZ.,�.,,>a::.
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
d.Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells,
e laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil
vapor samples for gases.
Human Health 5 Oil wells scheduled for abandonment should be completed in accordance Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department
and Safety with ft standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and
the Calilomia Division of Oil and Gas. Wells which have previously been
abandoned must be reabandoned to the most current requirements of the
City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas
Human Health 6 Existing oil production lines are located throughout the site Treatment of Pnor to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works
and Safety these lines will depend on proposed land use and development. Utility lines
should be relocated and or removed with the trench being filled with
compacted fill.
Human Health 7 An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored by industries Ongoing Fire Department
and Safety locating within the project area should be maintained and recorded for use
by the City Fire Department. This inventory should include the location at
which each hazardous material is used
Human Health 8 The use,storage and disposal of hazardous materials should be enforced Ongoing Fire Department
and Safety by City of Huntington Beach to provide the greatest possible protection to
the public hom accidental occurrences.
Human Health 9 Active wells remaining on-site should be secured and screened as required Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
and Safety by the City of Huntington Beach, Development
Human Health 10 Prior to development,is review of available public health records should be Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Community
and Safety performed to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the Development
subject site.
Public Services 1 Access roads to oil production areas should be provided where appropriate Prior to Grading Permils/ongoing Department of Public Works
and Utilities and kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts on fire protection due to
ongoing oil production.
Public Services 2 Measures to eliminate or reduce fire and safety risks from existing and Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department
and Utilities abandoned of production facilities and disposal areas are discussed in the
Human Health and Safety section of this EIR.
I •
. e
r
I
„� �'Y � >� `y�r,r y �ss fx
e f . Amendnnen �` _ a
,
.' a, ,s..•,..ab .., w h h� x�i%' sry. .,l �` 4 n a k >nuffaml
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Public Services 3 The Huntington Beach Fire Department should review all developments Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department
and Utilities within the area for adequate emergency vehicle access and water pressure
Public Services 4 The City should budget for additional officers to correspond with phasing of Ongoing Fire Department
and Utilities development in the project area.
Pudic Services 5 The City should enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community
and Utilities designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Development
Planning Area.
Pudic Services 6 The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within Prior to Development Within That Area Department of Administration
and Utilities the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue
Pudic Services 7 The City should create a special assessment district(s)for the development Prior to Development Within That Area Department of Administration
and Utilities and maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area.
Pudic Services 8 With future development,the community enrichment fee should be paid to Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
and Utilities help fund the library expansion program, Development
Public Services 9 The GPA designates a silo for a now elementary school to serve students Prior to Genoral Plan Amendment Department of Community
and UObies generated by residential development within the project area Approval Development
Public Services 10 The school district and major landowner should enter into an agreement for Ongoing Department of Community
and Utf hies acquisition or lease of the site as pan of implementation of this GPA Development
Pudic Services 11 Developers should pay school impact fees to finance construction of Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
necessary school facilities. Development
Public Services 12 The Huntington Beach Union High School District should coordinate its Ongoing Department of Community
and Utilities expansion plans with phasing of development within the project area and Development
surrounding areas.
Public Services 13 To reduce the proposed projects impacts on waste disposal facilities,project Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
and Utilities designs should develop a means of reducing the amount of waste Development
generated both during construction and when the project is in use Potential
ways of reducing project waste loads include implementation of recycling
programs,and utilization of low water use landscaping
Public Services 14 The developer should contact the solid waste disposal firm during the Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community
and Utirtes design stage to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish Approval Development
removal. The design should include rubbish enclosures,projected travel
areas,and turnabouts where necessary. Provisions for recycling should be
included in future project designs
Source Reference: Final EIR No 89-1 Adopted 111r90,Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No 6097 a r
,•:a':xr«v s x::: a a .k'Y ..2�:roti::as r w;•K',..,,' '$'.� h'Xq .., x
R
f
-t�o�l :S�' toll �GenAr E'I�fani:A a dM1en y{�
q•. ,�3a, ,.:� .�i..R�: � F,s � ✓� by k y,Y». s fi G,.,.s.ar•,,„( 't�.�. �..k:F .
'. z,' peace k s as r4sm� 'r s
JUG, 3
K
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No, Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Pudic Services 15 Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
and Wities Standards set forth in Title 24 of the Californian Administrative Code. Development
Public Services 16 It is strongly recommended that developers consul)with the Southern Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community
and thities California Gas Company and the Southern California Edson Company for Approval Development
further energy conservation measures
Public Services 11 Developers should submit to SCG and SCE planning divisions all tract maps Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community
and Utilities and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning,phasing and Approval Development
sizing of needed mains and service lines can be designed
Pudic Services 19 Building construction should comply with the standards and specifications of Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
and Utilities the General Telephone Company and Rogers Cable TV Company Development
Public Services 19 Developers should submit to GTE and Rogers Cade TV Company all tract Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community
and Utilities maps and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, Approval Development
phasing,sizing and maternal ordering for service lines can be made.
Water Fe aties 1 Development of the proposed project should occur concurrently with Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works
development of the City's water system improvements to allow for adequate Approval
water service to the site
Water Facilities 2 All proposed development should comply with the phasing and design of Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Pubic Works
water facilities as shown on the water facilities map so as to provide Approval
adequate looped systems to service the adjoining properties
Water Facilities 3 As Future development occurs prior to the issuance of Use and Occupancy Prior to Final Inspection Department of Public Works
permits,developers should construct the necessary water service lines to
individual residences and lots
Water Facilities 4 As Future development occurs,no permits for Use and Occupancy should Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
be issued unlit the Reservoir Hill booster pump station and the increase in
storage capacity are complete and operating to the satisfaction of the City
Water Division so as to provide adequate water service to each
development.
r
I
srs-sc\ SL`:f&.�'h�:a. i.;�gm,°.:., .5 ,;.r j,�� y, „h .n:' q::. �,Pi/fir✓�v •'s r ,s5 ',s •5 , �,..: i;:<,." > ys s.:.of I
RYA.ieYm: `'' '..�0 .3>,: .. ! ,: ;�Rn '.::. 3xo".e'..:: .,.. ..., .,... .•�'1".�: 4 q.•...:..�7N:h .... ..: �w ..:: .... <S .....,.7i<.F.., ,. i ... .. .y^,�.?F,�,., :...�',L� : .:,�"X:.,..:.k' ......)i"•Y,"k:."�n'Hi.n �i�'ia..
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Water Facilities 5 The following water conservation measures shah be implemented by Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
developers as required by state law and by the City Water Division: Development
a.Low-flush toilets.
b.Low-flow showers and faucets.
c.Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems.
d.Compliance with water conservation provisions of the
appropriate plumbing code.
Water Facilities 6 Irrigation systems which minimize water waste should be used to the Pnor to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community
greatest extent possible. Such measures should involve such features as Development/Department
the following', of Public Works
a.Raised planters and bermng in corijunction with closely spaced
low volume low angle(22.1/2 degrees)sprinkler heads.
b.Drip irrigation.
c.Irrigation systems controlled automatically to
ensure walering during early moming or evening hours to
reduce evaporation losses
Water Facilities 7 Developers and the City should provide information to occupants regarding Prior to Final Inspection Department of Public Works
benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance
for domestic and irrigation water conservation procedures
Waer Facilities 6 Lardanping should use only low water demand(drought-tolerant species) Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
and irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste The use of mulch
extensivety in all landscaped areas is strongly recommended
Water Facilities 9 Minimize use of lawns and utilize water season,drought tolerant grasses. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
Water Facilities to Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
runolf and aid in groundwater recharge.
Water Facities 11 Control slopes and grades to discourage wafer waste through runoff. Prior to Grading Permits Department of Public Works
�:till�titin t Ah�
$y�. i
till: '3 ac1 e,dal
s
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verilication of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Water Facilities 12 As future development occurs.no permits for Use and Occupancy should Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
be issued until additional water supplies as detailed in the 1988 Water
Master Plan are implemented by the City Water Division so as to provide
adequate water supplies to each development
Water Facilities 13 Developers should consult the City Water Division during design and Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works
construction phases for further water conservation measures to review Approval
irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use.
Water Facilities 14 As development occurs,par to approval of future building permits. Prior to issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
complete landscape and irrigation plans should be submitted to and
approved by the Water Division
Water Facilities 15 In order to connect to the Orange County Water District's'Green Acres- Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works
system of reclaimed water(as described and detailed in the 1988 City of Approval
Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan),the project developer should
at this time construct and utilize a reclaimed water system for on-site
irrigated areas and equestrian trails.
Sewer Facilities t Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Public Works
required by Cte City so as to precisely calculate the required sewer main
sizes.
These calculations may be used to adjust the suggested pipe
sizes proposed for the E.I.R and should be completed for each
tributary area prior to the approval of Specific Plans
Sewer Facilities 2 All proposed development should comply with a phasing plan and the Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
design of sewer facilities as shown on the sewer facilities map. This would
provide adequate connections to service adjoining and upstream properties
All required easements for sewer facilities should be in place prior to the
issuance of a building permit of the subject property
Sewer Facilities 3 New development should be phased corresponding to the curtailment of Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
waste water discharge from existing oil production as required for adequate
pipe capacity lbws.
Sewer Facilities 4 Development of the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station Prior to issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
should be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or
until other interim methods are approved
Sewer Facilities 5 AD industrial and commercial users should take on-sire measures to reduce Ongoing Department of Public Works
the bad strength of their sewerage discharge.
e i
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Water Facilities 12 As future development occurs,no permits fix Use and Occupancy should Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Pubic Works
be issued unit additional water supplies as detailed in the 1988 Water
Master Plan are implemented by the City Water Division so as to provide
adequate water supplies to each development.
'afer Facilities 13 Developers should consult the City Water Division during design and Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works
constriction phases lot further water conservation measures to review Approval
irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use.
Water Facilities 14 As development occurs.prior to approval of future budding permits. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
oompletsi landscape and irrigation plans should be submitted to and
approved by the Water Diviwn.
Water Facilities 15 in order to connect to the Orange County Water District's*Green Acres* Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works
system of reclaimed water(as described and detailed in the 19811 City of Approval
Huntington Beach Water System Master Plan).the project developer should
at this time construct and utilize a reclaimed water system for on-site
irrigated areas and equestrian trails.
Sower Facilities I Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Public Works
required by the City so as to precisely calculate the required sower main
sizes.
These calculations may be used to adjust the suggested Poo
sizes proposed for On E.I.R.and should be completed For each
tributary area prior to the approval of Specific Plans.
Sewer Facilities 2 All proposed development should comply with a phasing plan and the Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
design of sewer facilities as shown on the sewer facilities map. This would
provide adequate connections to service adjoining and upstream properties
All required easements for sewer facilities should be in place prior to the
issuance of a building permit of the subject property.
Sewer Facilities 3 Now development should be Owed corresponding to die curtailment of Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
waste water discharge from existing oil production as required for adequate
Poe capacity flows.
Sewer Facilities 4 Development of the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
should be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or
until other interim methods are approved.
Sewer Facilities 5 All industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce Ongoing Department of Pubic Works
the load strength of their sewerage discharge.
. y"• .r: vfy 6,�/°5's"7:iA�... 'b'a, s,H°;s,�'s':y. "%�':: <>r „�.3_: ✓. SH;; �`> x�xF :?iF ff1�� �.. .�> c',:1,,u`�y' 3 '.zv�„'� x x,,,�.
"vAM
afl: flenera Pa . mndment; x x £ w b : v R..:.
"F°,.,..fe i•,.y e "� �1.
�?%�'s A�: ,� �'✓ .�' lig'k � ��.� a .Y �£ ! Y.r, .�:s 9 � ;s yam£ 'Y 5� off. �jy� oy�¢§'£1 a��c x x z��.�£ ,r�{��( re'.
.$. (* * ' # £ �':.S�PK'^.j F 1'✓r 1ryj;Rl,��.f t 'c 1..: J N.,'j r'ttf E Y 5 r.�0�7{ .:
�
Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion
Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments
Sewer Facilities 6 Developers should pay the required connection fees to either O.C.S.D. Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
No.3 or O.C.S.D.No.11,whichever is higher at the time of connection
to County Trunk lines.
Sewer Facilities 7 Each development should be responsible for the construction of sewer Prior to issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
facilities within their project and/or olf-site facilities necessary to serve
the development. It it is required to oversize these facilities so as to
serve other future projects,the developer can enter into a
reimbursement agreement with the City so that future developers pay
their fair share when they develop. This reimbursement procedure is
per the City Ordnance Code
Sewer Facilities 8 Discretionary permits should not be approved for development of an Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works
area until adequate sewer service alignments and capacities are
demonstrated.
r
RESOLUTION NO. 1450
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH ACCEPTING THE ADDENDUM TO FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1 AS ADEQUATE
FOR GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2
WHEREAS, an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No .
89-1 has been prepared; and
The City of Huntington Beach was the lead agency in the
preparation of the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report
No . 89-1; and
All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly
given have been heard by the Planning commission either through
written notice or during a public hearing on September 17, 1991, and
such responses and comments as were made were duly noted and
responded to; and
The Planning Commission contemplates and directs continuing
compliance with CEQA and the Guidelines as necessary in the
implementation of the project; and
This Planning Commission by this Resolution accepts the
Addendum as adequate as required by Section 15091 and 15093 of the
i
CEQA Guidelines .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of
the City of Huntington Beach as follows :
SECTION 1 . The Planning Commission does hereby find that the
Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 has been
completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and all State and local guidelines therefore.
, 1
SECTION 2 . The Planning Commission has considered all
significant effects detailed in the Addendum to Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-1, together with existing and proposed measures
to mitigate such significant effects .
SECTION 3 . The Planning Commission further finds that through
the implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, the
majority of the potentially adverse impacts associated with General
Plan Amendment No . 91-2 can be eliminated or reduced to a level of
insiginificance.
SECTION 4 . The Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach does hereby recommend that the City Council accept as adequate
the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on
the day of 1991.
Director of Community Chairman of the
Development Planning Commission
RESOLUTION NO. 1451
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT NO. 91-2
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington
Beach, California, desires to update and refine the General Plan in
keeping with changing community needs and objectives; and
Amendments to the General Plan are necessary to accomplish
refienement of the General Plan; and
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 proposes to amend the Land Use
Element of the General Plan by:
1. Shifting 7 acres of commercial from the southeast corner of
Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to the southwest corner
of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street .
2 . Shift residential densities near the intersection of
Garfield Avenue and Main Street .
3 . Relocate oil consolidation sites to the industrial areas
between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street .
The Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council
that General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 be adopted .
A public hearing on the adoption of General Plan Amendment No .
91-2 was held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1991
in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of
the City of Huntington Beach, California, hereby approves said
amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach and
• recommends adoption by the City Council .
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of
Hunt ingt-ori---Beach, California, on the 17th day of September, 1991. _..
Director of Community Chairman of the
Development Planning Commission
huntington beach department of community development
staff i
REPO 1
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: October 29, 1991
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-10/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-10
(CONTINUED FROM THE OCTOBER 8, 1991 PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING)
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
REOUEST: Establish the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan which
contains the zoning and development standards for 569
acres in the 780 acre Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area .
LOCATION: Area generally bounded by the Edwards Bluff on the
west, Seacliff Golf Course on the south, Main Street on
the east and Ellis Avenue on the north.
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Motion to :
"Approve Zone Change No . 91-10 and Code Amendment No . 91-10 with
modifications proposed by staff and based on findings and forward to
the City Council for adoption. "
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1
for the Holly-Seacliff area . The Master Plan designates types of
land uses and densities while Final Environmental Impact Report No .
89-1 addresses environmental impacts resulting from future
development in the area . In order for development to occur, staff
is recommending that a Specific Plan be adopted for a portion of the
Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area in order to fully address the goals
and policies in the Master Plan and to implement the mitigation
measures in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 . The City of
Huntington Beach has initiated Zone Change No . 91-10 and Code
Amendment No . 91-10 in order to establish the Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan for 569 acres in the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area .
2,
A-F M-23C
ATTAC�► LN 1_ .
T
r
At the September 17 and October 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting
and October 22, 1991 Study Session, several concerns were
identified. The following is a response to the concerns :
Different Classifications for Planning Areas :
The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan contains planning classifications
which differ from City-wide zoning designations . Staff recommends
that each planning classification contained in the Specific Plan be
defined in definition section of the Specific Plan. Also, staff is
recommending that an existing zoning map be added to the Specific
Plan .
Relationship of Development Agreement No 90-1 and the Proposed
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan
As discussed at the october 8, 1991 Planning Commission Study
Session, the Development Agreement executed between the City and
Garfield Partners on January 8 , 1990, allows the developer to build
up to 3 , 780 units under the existing zoning regulations . The
developer understood at the time the Development Agreement was
prepared that a Specific Plan would be necessary in order to create
a greater diversity of housing products than is permitted under the
existing zoning regulations . However, the City is under no
obligation to approve the Specificv Plan as drafted .
Legal Counsel for Pacific Coast Homes has prepared a response to
this issue . The response (see Attachment No . 1) states that the
total number of units (3 , 780) which the Holy-Seacliff Masterplan
permits is a vested number . Staff recognizes the vesting and still
maintains that the type of product can be determined through the
public hearing process .
Oil Overlay Zones :
Staff has added an existing zoning map to the Specific Plan in order
to identify the properties which currently have "0" and "O1" Oil
production suffixes . The Specific plan is structure so that all
properties with an "0" suffix and rehabilitate and modernize and
existing oil well . The Specific Plan centralizes the area for new
oil well drilling into the industrial land us,e areas between
Goldenwest Street and realigned Gothard Street adjacent to Garfield
Avenue. Staff feels that the industrial land use areas are
appropriate for new oil drilling and future oil consolidation sites .
Access and Circulation on realigned Gothard Street between Ernest
Street and Garfield Avenue:
Staff recommends that the arrow on the east side of realigned
Gothard Street be deleted from the circulation plan and add language
to the Specific Plan which states that access to future residential
projects will be determined at the project level . Also, staff
recommends that a raised median be constructed in order to control
cross traffic movements and provide additional landscaping . In
response to a concern expressed by existing industrial business
owners , a modified median can be designed to provide left-turn
access .
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -2- (1243d)
Traffic Concerns
The traffic studies contained in the Final Environmental Impact
Report No . 89-1 which covered the Holly-Seacliff Masterplan and the
proposed Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan assume that the Bolsa chica
cross-gap connector road will be in operation prior to final build
out of the Holly-Seacliff area . If the cross-gap connector is not
approved the Holly-Seacliff area will be re-evaluated in order to
analyze levels of service and provide alternative recommendations .
Non-Arterial Circulation Plan and Access Points
The Traffic Engineering Division of the Public Works Department has
reviewed both the Specific Plan and the Technical Appendix, which
includes detailed street alignment plans , striping plans ,
intersection details , and traffic control (signal) locations and
interconnect systems . Based on the proposed land uses and traffic
volumes and movements , the Traffic Engineering Division established
additional operation criteria for specific planning units and access
points (please refer to page 8b of the Technical Appendix) .
In particular , the proposed access to Planning Units II-e and II-4
was determined to be acceptable if limited to right turn in, right
turn out movements only. Since the "arrow" designation is used
where left turns could be permitted, it would be appropriate to
remove the arrow at this location based on the above operational
criteria . Additional access points to those indicated may be
proposed at the tentative tract map submittal stage and approved as
deemed appropriate by the Public Works Department .
Local street layouts within the Planning Areas are not intended to
be included within the Specific Plan, since tract design is not part
of the Specific Plan process, and will be the subject of separate
plan review during the tentative tract map review process . Proposed
collector streets within the Specific Plan area are illustrated on
Exhibit 7, Circulation Plan. Only one ( 1) collector street is
proposed to be a private street and is indicated by an asterisk
within Planning Area II .
With respect to the alignment of the collector street relative to
the transportation corridor, the Southern pcific Railroad has
reviewed the Proposed alignment and does not object to a
non-perpendicular crossing . Again acres to the transporation
corridor will be provided at this point .
Bus Turnouts
The language in Section 7 on page III-4 requires all developers to
consult with the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) prior to
approval of tentative tract maps or issuance of building permits for
locations of bust stops , turnouts and shelters . Additionally, bus
stops are addressed on page II-5, II-6 and II-17 . Locations of
existing Orange county Transit District bus stops are illustrated on
Exhibit 10, Community Theme Plan. Additional bus stops and/or bus
turnouts may be requested by OCTA as development in the area occurs .
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -3- (1243d)
Railway Access
On October 8 , 1991 , the Southern Pacific Transportation Company
accepted the recommendation made by the Traffic Engineer and
Planning which provides access at Main Street and also on both the
north and south sides of a future collector street which crosses the
Transportation Corridor (see Attachment No. 2) .
Transportation Corridor
Staff has revised its recommendation regarding the setbacks along
the Transportation Corridor . Staff is currently recommending a 10
foot setback from the Transportation Corridor to any habitable
structure and a zero (0) setback adjacent to non-habitable
structures or open space areas .
Traffic Concerns
The traffic studies contained in the Final Environmental Impact
Report no . 89-1 which covered the Holly-Seacliff Masterplan and the
proposed Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan assume that the Bolsa Chica
cross-gap connector road will be in operation prior to final build
out of the Holly-Seacliff area . If the cross-gap connector is not
approved the Holly-Seacliff area will be re-evaluated in order to
analyze levels of service and provide alternative recommendations .
Equestrian Link to the Bolsa Chica Linear Park
In order to better provide equestrian trail connections to the Bolsa
Chica Linear Park equestrian trail system, increase community
service and reduce the possibility of future traffic conflicts
between vehicles and equestrians , staff recommends that the proposed
Specific Plan provide an equestrian trail link west of Edwards
Street on the north side of Garfield Avenue . This will provide an
internal loop system which will enhance the equestrian component and
prevent future traffic conflicts between vehicles and riders .
Density Transfer
The proposed Specific Plan contains language which permits density
transfer between planning areas (see page IV-4) . The City
Attorney' s office has indicated that the density transfer is legal
if the total overall number of units adopted in the Masterplan are
not exceeded, and that the resulting density after the transfer does
not exceed the General Plan.
Variances and Special Permits
Variances , according to State Law and local ordinances , should be
based on a land related hardship and special circumstances . Special
permits are based on the rationale that minor deviations from
development standards will result in a better project in terms of
architecture or design.
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -4- (1243d)
r.
All residential areas are separated from industrial areas by streets
ranging from 60 to 120 feet in width. As indicated on page III-3
and illustrated on Exhibit 16, the Specific Plan requires
landscaping and solid screen walls to further separate these uses .
Site-specific treatment of these edges beyond the minimum
requirements will vary depending on the specific residential product
type and design (residential densities across from industrial areas
include estate, low, medium, and medium-high) .
Should the Planning Commission desire additional design controls ,
language which requires orientation of future residential away from
industrial uses, prohibiting openings in new industrial buildings
towards residential uses and possible intensified landscaping can be
added to the Specific Plan.
Development Standards
The proposed Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan contains development
standards for planning areas which are different from existing
development standards contained in the City' s Ordinance Code . The
lot sizes for single family detached dwellings range from 6, 000
square feet to 3 , 300 square feet . At the present time, low density
residential lot size range from a minimum 8, 000 square feet to 5, 000
square feet .
Building heights have been generally increased in order to provide
higher ceilings . This provision will be consistent with the
forthcoming Ordinance Code rewrite. Open space and setbacks are
consistent with the forthcoming Ordinance Code rewrite also .
Low Density Residential Areas
The average residential densities indicated on the Land Use Table
(Table 1) and General Development Plan (Exhibit 2) of the Specific
Plan are generally lower than the maximum density permitted by the
General Plan to account for areas devoted to streets , open space,
parks , etc .
Density transfers are permitted, subject to requirements outlined on
pages IV-4 and 5 to allow flexibility in site planning large areas
or if planning unit boundaries are adjusted, but in no case can the
General Plan maximum density for any given planning unit be
exceeded . The written concurrence of all property owners affected
by the proposed transfer is also required.
The Specific Plan proposed a variety of lot sizes to create a
diversity of housing types which are consistent with the General
Plan and vested development rights under Development Agreement No .
90-1 . Lot sizes can be increased as long as the Specific Plan
permits the total number of units vested to be built in some
fashion, whether detached or attached.
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -5- (1243d)
Affordable Housina
Staff is recommending that each development provide an affordable
housing program which identifies how they will meet their affordable
housing requirement . The staff continues to recommend that 20% of
the units constructed within the Holly-Seacliff be affordable to
families of low and moderate income.
Staff recommends that the following language be added to the
Specific Plan. "Prior to issuance of building permits for the
construction of residential units, the Developer shall provide the
City with an Affordable Housing Program acceptable to the City and
in accordance with the provisions of the City' s adopted Housing
Element . This Affordable Housing Program shall provide for the
development of not less than twenty (20%) percent of residential
units which will be available at affordable housing costs to persons
and families of low- or moderate-income. The Affordable Housing
Program shall identify housing proposals , locations and
implementation strategies for the development of new residential
units designed for families of low and moderate income . "
Pacific Coast Homes (Urban West Communities) has submitted a letter
in response to staff ' s recommended language (see attachment no . 3) .
The proposed language is consistent with staff ' s recommendation
except for the requirement of 20% . Staff has consistently
recommended 20% on projects and in the on-going affordable housing
discussions .
Summary
As discussed in the Addendum and General Plan Amendment No . 91-2
report the Specific Plan implements all pertinent mitigation
measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 .
The structure of the Specific Plan is consistent with State Law in
terms of formal organization and content .
Staff has addressed major issues which were identified at the
September 17, and October 8, 1991 Planning Commission meeting .
Staff feels that the Specific Plan provides a wide range of housing
and commercial opportunities while still retaining a significant
industrial area . The Specific Plan is consistent with the
Holly-Seacliff Master Plan which was approved by the City Council on
January 8 , 1990
On October 23 , 1991, staff received a letter from the Huntington
Seacliff Homeowner ' s Association (see attachment no. 4) accompanied
by a petition signed by 101 homeowners . The letter and petition
opposes any low density lot sizes less than 6, 000 square feet . They
support the ten acre school site and feel that the developer should
provide the school site. Lastly, they feel that construction should
be limited to Phase I until the Cross-Gap Connector is completed .
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -6- (1243d)
r.
8 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zone Change
No . 90-10 and Code Amendment No . 90-10 with modifications proposed
by staff with the following findings and forward to the City Council
for adoption:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-1-/CODE AMENDMENT
NO. 90-10 :
1 . The proposed zone change and code amendment to establish the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 91-2 , the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and the
City' s General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies
regarding land use, circulation, recreation and housing .
2 . Zone Change No . 90-10 and Code Amendment No . 90-10 is consistent
with the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element and
the City' s interim affordable housing program by providing a
range of housing opportunities including affordable housing .
3 . Zone Change No . 90-10 and Code Amendment No . 90-10 are
consistent with the City' s Coastal Element and the California
Coastal Act by implementing coastal policies and requiring
coastal development permits in the Coastal Zone.
10 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may modify Zone Change No . 90-10 and Code
Amendment No. 90-10 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS :
1 . Letter dated October 21 , 1991 from Legal Council
2 . Letter dated October 8 , 1991 from Southern Pacific
Transportation Company
3 . Letter dated October 7 , 1991 from Urban West Communities
4 . Letter dated October 22 , 1991 from Seacliff Homeowner ' s
Association
5 . Planning Commission staff report dated October 8 , 1991
HS :RLF: lp
Staff Report - 10/29/91 -7- (1243d)
COX, CASTLE F3 N ICHOLSON
N•IC-• --N STE`.EY > A PARTNERSHIP INCLUCING PROFESS-—AL CORPORATIONS DF =OUNSEL
#^11,,ICE TEPI'. 'iANORA _ �"E'NART iEDRGEMCO%
LD , SIL/ERMAN RCL;ERENKE LA !L M RICHA RD N CAS T_ENGI-- �A5-E. ANDERSON LAWRENCE J TRACI
AMARA AL15A _ FRE UNDLICH 2O49 CENTURY PARK EASTE D CALK'NS, II CAROL L uATSUNAGA .,(4♦MA9 E 9ARNETT
-O GOLDSTEIN
'I)HrvHL KENNETH WLLIAMS TWENTv-EIGHTH '_OOR iAMUEI H. GRI.'EN BA-�-
P� L P EKI-I IMELS'11N 5USAN ,J _A=KSON r
.+al.. •q SPA-__-ING. ,R MICHA EL - KAMINSKY LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90067 EDwARp C D-.Jc-
.!.!rRE• _APl— KATHRYN _vDOAN KE C E�R�C^
_E,P-,ER DAv-•D 5 R05ENBERG "ELEPHONE (2-.3) 277-4222 C_ ON B `_ATES W
—L,-E- _R .-AR_A K P—AL
KEYYEL B R -•LE :HAFT _ "•OU5 HAN .r
_ GE _DVN*- - 'E
a. NALDMAN MAT-E-h A CIAN FACSIMILE (213) 277-7a89
V ICn OLSOrJ AFI'i N' n=A`+MEF 9B:_. u.;ART�UR !±,—c•—RC
.•A 4��5 C 'rOhEMAN vn:L.O _ =„__.AS
- N "c 5C
KAME� =�a'r, NAR:.::P•..••5 ,�
'Aa-EYE - FRIEC .. uARK - - R r Y
.- _"_ -- _ cORNIA y2'-5
f_•+F.R." , BEERS BaRR` ,v
BARR, .,AB,.-' L,CA A =
_ .MAs-EPS ,ANE Bc--_NASSEN
.'SERT 'NF--5 OIANE E ?_REND 2'3! 2B4 29'
ARC 3 SHIR'_EY 4NORF.W _ Z=BEER
9 R—LE' D FP,Z:ER 5C 0'T .. 5.
-.ORS
— q yi1E -,HN C —5 October 21, 1991
, . A 5-IC. 40BE— 20371
_EN'S I-ELDM Ar: 4'SA 1 r__ -. WPITER 5 DIRECT _ Y�ME:E4
ER ANCRE WS ADRIENNEM' NUN KENTC
PF-EgOLD WA,-S" MARK A REZAC
-ARK P u-!'_A•JATHAN CONALO -A`IE7 213/2 8 4-2 2 31
JOHN A KINCANN01 ADAM D -_+•=AN
STANL, W. LAMPORT SHERRI `^ C PONT
R AYCALL W BLACK „ACKIE K __ER
N ON LINES I.I ONG'P- - YG'.IEN
= • ' 4 r I f./
':Rr '� MOr_ARC iAC O'-E-_I_ 1-5-_ACK50N
SS
R 9RE55' JOEL H -5'EIN
IiREGO— J KARNS MVRON S _ vE5 J) -
C c. r TURr.FP PAIL _ �-_`ER -_
HE RB'.lR' µ = KERRY h_ —ON
_iYNA ! H �E YSEY
The Honorable Kirk Kirkland, Chairman,
and the Honorable Members of the
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Re: The Effect of the Development Agreement Between The
City of Huntington Beach and Pacific Coast Homes and
Garfield Partners on the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan
Ladies and Gentlemen:
INTRODUCTION
My clients, Urban West Communities and Pacific Coast Homes,
have told me that several members of the Planning Commission have
indicated that they are unclear as to the effect of Development
Agreement 90-1 on the City' s power to impose new conditions on
the Holly Seacliff project in connection with the City' s approval
of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan. This letter sets out the
history of development agreements and the restrictions they
impose on a city ' s ability to change land use regulations .
SUMMARY
Under state law and the specific terms of the Development
Agreement, the City is limited as to the land use regulations
ATTACHMENT NO.
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
October 21, 1991
Page 2
which it may now adopt with respect to the project. In
particular, the City does not have the right to do anything which
would interfere with the ability of Pacific Coast Homes and
Garfield Partners to develop all 3 , 780 dwelling units when and in
such order as they deem appropriate.
DISCUSSION
In 1976 the California Supreme Court decided a case entitled
Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional
Commission which involved the development of a very large project
within the then new coastal zone. As of the date that the Coastal
Act was adopted by the electorate, the developer had spent over
$2 million dollars and had incurred liabilities of approximately
$750, 000 which were increasing at the rate of over $7 , 000 a day.
However, although the developer had recorded a final subdivision
map on its land, it had not obtained building permits. On these
facts, the Supreme Court held that the developer had not obtained
a vested right to be free of the restrictions imposed by the
Coastal Act but, instead, was required to obtain a coastal
development permit.
The rule laid down by the Supreme Court -- one which
required substantial reliance on a building permit before a
developer had a vested right -- generated a tremendous amount of
concern in the development community given the fact that large
projects frequently involve investments in the millions of
dollars for the acquisition of land, environmental review, site
wide entitlements (such as general plan amendments, rezonings,
and subdivision maps) , all of which must be done prior to the
time that the first building permit is sought.
In 1979 the Legislature reacted to the concerns resulting
from the Avco decision by enacting legislation authorizing
development agreements as a way to v6st rights early in the
development cycle. The purpose for development agreements -
providing developers with the assurance that land use regulations
will not be changed in mid-project - are set out in Government
Code $ 65864 , a copy of which is attached.
The heart of the development agreement statute is found in
Government Code § 65866, in effect, freezes those land use
regulations in existence at the time a development agreement is
signed. A copy of § 65866 is attached.
In November, 1990, the City Council approved Development
Agreement No. 90-1 between the City and Pacific Coast Homes and
Garfield Partners. The Development Agreement allowed Pacific
r
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
October 21, 1991
Page 3
Coast Homes and Garfield Partners the right to build a total of
3 , 780 dwelling units as part of the Holly Seacliff project.
Moreover, under $ 2 . 3 . 2 of the Development Agreement, Pacific
Coast Homes and Garfield Partners were given the right to build
out the project "at such rate and such times and such number of
units as Developer deems appropriate. " The purpose of the
Development Agreement was, of course, to ensure that Pacific
Coast Homes and Garfield Partners would, indeed, be able to build
all 3 , 780 units regardless of any later changes in land use
regulations.
Section 2 .4 . 1 of the Development Agreement explicitly
recognizes that the City was in the process of adopting the Holly
Seacliff Specific Plan which, once adopted, would become part of
the land use regulations applicable to the project. However,
that same section of the Development Agreement provides
additional protection to Pacific Coast Homes and Garfield
Partners by conditioning the effectiveness of any change in land
use regulations -- including the adoption of the Holly Seacliff
Specific Plan -- on the written agreement of Pacific Coast Homes
and Garfield Partners to those changes.
CONCLUSION
The City, Pacific Coast Homes , and Garfield Partners have
worked together for over a year to ensure that the Holly Seacliff
Specific Plan meets the needs of all concerned. The needs of the
public are protected by the careful consideration of both the
Planning Commission and the City Council during the specific plan
adoption process; the needs of Pacific Coast Homes and Garfield
Partners are protected by the limitations in the Development
Agreement on the changes which the City can impose on the
project.
Very truly yours,
K nneth B. Bley
KBB/ks
Encl.
[141271
Policy 6S"4.The Legislature finds and declares that.
(a)The lack of certainty in the approval of development projects can result in a waste of resources,
escalate the cost of housing and other development to the consumer,and discourage investment in
and commitment to comprehensive planning which would make maximum efficient utilization of
resources at the least economic cost to the public.
(b) Assurance .o the applicant for a development project that upon approval of the project,the
applicant may proceed with the project in accordance with existing policies,rules and regulations,
and subject to conditions of approval,will strengthen the public planning process,encourage private
participation in comprehensive planning,and reduce the economic costs of developmenL
(c)The lack of public facilities,including,but not limited to,streets,sewerage, transportation,
drinking water, school, and utility facilities, is a serious impediment to the development of new
housing. Whenever possible, applicants and local governments may include provisions in agree-
ments whereby applicants are reimbursed over time for financing public facilities.
(Amended by Stats. 1984, Ch. 143.)
Regulations affecting 65866. Unless otherwise provided by the development agreement, rules, regulations, and official
property subject to policies governing permitted uses of the land,governing density,and governing design,improvement,
development and construction standards and specifications,applicable to development of the property subject to
agreement a development agreement,shall be those rules,regulations,and official policies in force at the time
of execution of the agreement. A development agreement shall not prevent a city,county,or city
and county,in subsequent actions applicable to the property,from applying new rules,regulations,
and policies which do not conflict with those rules, regulations, and policies applicable to the
property as set forth herein,nor shall a development agreement prevent a city,county,or city and
county from denying or conditionally approving any subsequent development project application
on the basis of such existing or new rules, regulations,and policies.
(Added by Stats. 1979, Ch. 934.)
.Southern Pacific
Transportation Company
1200 Corporate Center Drive•Suite 100•MontereyPark,California 91754-7605• 213 78 90
( ) 06 0
REAL ESTATE
IN RE PLEASE REFER TO
Huntingtoa Beach - Team Track - SR#2473
October 8, 1991
Mr. . Robert Franklin
Associate Planner 1
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan
Mr. Franklin:
Per our conversation this afternoon, Southern Pa:__1c Transportation Company
would recommend the following changes regarding vne impact the realign-
ment of Gothard Street and the planned collector s_reets will have on SS'
owned property at the northeast corner of Gothar! and Main.
Southern Pacific must be guaranteed perpetual acc-ss for truck traffic from
Main Street to the existing team track area. This access should consin of
a right-in/right-out curb cut to be no less that: forty (40' ) feet in width.
The access point should be located approximately eighty (80' ) feet north-
east of the existing Gothard alignment , with the _enterline of the drive
being, no closer than sixty (60' ) feet to the exis_ing Gothard.
At such time when Gothard is realigned Southern i n ific will lose approximately
four hundred (400 ' ) feet of frontage and any acco-s from this street. The
proposed new access from this direction will be from the diagonal collector
running northwest to southeast from the realignen Gothard to `fain. In the
event that this diagonal collector is not in pla at the time Gothard is
realigned, interim access, equivalent to the exis_ing access , will be provided
by the Developer . This interim access must be prA ided via a paved street or
road built to the standards set by the City of r.-.tington Beach for heavy
truck traffic .
Additionally, any crossing improvements necessit_:_ad by this diagonal collector
or any streets required to provide interim access are the sole responsibility
of the Developer.
Southern Pacific Transportation Company reserves :he right to continue to
address this issue throughout the planning and aT_roval process for the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and during the plar7fng process for any devel-
opments in the vicinity of the team track.
w I
IN V iAGHfAviEv i I .J.
,r
Robert Franklin - 2 -- October 8, 1991
We appreciate your continued efforts and the concerns and comments of
the Planning Commission regarding this matter.
Very truly yours,
Charles E. Gamble, II
Sales Manager
(213) 780-6906
cc : R. L. Stacy
It. D. Caluwi-ll
r,
Urban 'West Communities 520 Brc}adw,ly, `eta 1 tC 100
C alifori-i'a 90401 , ( 213 ) 3 4 - 33 t
October 7, 1991
Kirk Kirkland, Chairman
Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN - ITEM B-5
r
As you are aware, we have been working with staff and Council regarding the issue and approach
to affordable housing for some time. Although a committee has been formed to formulate long
range citywide housing strategies, no new policy conclusions regarding the direction of affordable
housing have been reached by the Council.
We would support revising the Specific Plan to require residential developers to submit an
affordable housing plan to the City at the time of a residential development application (this
language is attached). We believe this requirement meets the intent of the General Plan and at
the same time allows flexibility on the part of the City regarding affordable housing.
I7he staff report also recommends revised language regarding affordable housing. Our
requirement differs from the staffs in two respects:
1) Staff suggests that every project be conditioned to provide a specific percentage
of affordable units prior to issuance of building permits. We do not suggest a
specific percentage since that percentage was rejected by the City Council;
2) Staff suggests that both low and moderate income housing be provided, we
suggest moderate only since it is reasonable and feasible for the private sector to
concentrate on moderate and the public sector on low income.
We, therefore, request that the Commission approve the attached change to page III-7 of the
Specific Plan to implement the City's housing policies and goals in this area.
Sincerely,
-/??t- �X '
Tom 7-amc
Vice President
cc: Members of the Planning Commission
Sara Lazarus, Deputy City Attorney
Michael Adams, Director of Community Development
Howard Zelcfsky, Planning Director
Robert Franklin, Associate Planner ATTACHMENT NO.
p.11I-7
12. Affordable Housine
All developers of residential projects shall be required to submit an affordable housing
plan for moderate income households in accordance with the City's adopted Housing
Element. The affordable housing plan shall be submitted as part of the development
application and shall address:
a. The proposed number of affordable units.
b. The proposed location of affordable units. If affordable units are proposed offsite,
the developer shall provide evidence of control of the units or site acceptable to
the City.
C. 1-he development standards applicable to the affordable units.
d. City approvals pquircO for the construction of the affordable units.
C. Any requested reductions in City fees, exactions, or dedication requirements to
make the affordable units economically feasible.
In lieu of providing affordable units, the developer may offer and the City may accept a
reasonable fee toward the construction or maintenance of affordable housing within the
City.
HUNTINGTON SEACLIFF
HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION
L
TO: City of Huntington Beach October 22, 1991
Robert Franklin
Department of Community Development
RE: Holly SeaCliff Specific Plan
As concerned homeowners impacted by the development of Holly SeaCliff and the continuing
development of the Huntington SeaCliff and Ellis Goldenwest Planning areas, we wish to register our
concern about the density proposed by the planned amendment to the Huntington Beach existing zoning
code for the Holly SeaCliff area. We oppose the revision of the existing zoning code and changes in the
open space requirements per lot. For example: low density shall remain 6,000 sq. ft. per lot, not be
decreased to 3,300-5,000 sq. ft. While we understand that this specific plan has already been adopted,
we object to this new "low-density" zoning in Planning Area ill. We request that the beautiful area
surrounding the golf course be zoned Estate Residential and the areas III-1, III-2, III-3 be zoned Specific
Plan RL.
Also, park space must not be included when calculating maximum and average density of units per acre
as proposed in Area II-I. The 3,300 sq. ft. lots in this area are not compatible with Huntington SeaCliff or
Goldenwest - Ellis areas.
We support the position of the Huntington Beach City School District that the ten acre net site for a K-5
school shall be designated and provided by the developer (Pacific Coast Homes) whether it is located
within the Holly SeaCliff plan or Goldenwest - Ellis plan area. Our city and its tax payers should not be
burdened at the developers expense.
The Holly SeaCliff Specific Plan must include a limitation on the amount of development permitted prior
to CCMnlctinn of tho t^rncc l-ar% ('r%nnpc rNr (C rfiglri A-enue eytanCinn). No rnnrP than PhaCP. I of the
Development Phasing Plan (Holly SeaCliff Specific Plan 450/2000, p.IV-2) must be constructed before the
completion of the Cross Gap Connector.
We are concerned about the affect that the development of Holly SeaCliff will have on the quality of life
of the residents of Huntington Beach. We are proud of our city and know that our city planners share in
our pride.
We urge you to consider our concerns.
Sinc ly,
Huntington SeaCliff Homeowners'Association ATTACHMENT NO.
r
huntington beach department of community development
sraff
REPORT
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: October 8, 1991
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-10/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-10
(CONTINUED FROM THE SEPTEMBER 17, 1991 PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING)
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
REQUE T: Establish the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan which
contains the zoning and development standards for 569
acres in the 780 acre Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area .
LOCATION: Area generally bounded by the Edwards Bluff on the
west, Seacliff Golf Course on the south, Main Street on
the east and Ellis Avenue on the north.
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Motion to:
"Approve Zone Change No. 91-10 and Code Amendment No. 91-10 with
modifications proposed by staff and based on findings and forward to
the City Council for adoption. "
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
On January 8 , 1990, the City Council adopted the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1
for the Holly-Seacliff area . The Master Plan designates types of
land uses and densities while Final Environmental Impact Report No .
89-1 addresses environmental impacts resulting from future
development in the area . In order for development to occur, staff
is recommending that a Specific Plan be adopted for a portion of the
Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area in order to fully address the goals
and policies in the Master Plan and to implement the mitigation
measures in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 . The City of
Huntington Beach has initiated Zone Change No . 91-10 and Code
Amendment No . 91-10 in order to establish the Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan for 569 acres in the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area .
1
A-F -23G .
A 1TACHMENT NO. �2
At the September 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting, several
concerns were identified. The following is a response to the
concerns :
Different Classifications for Planning Areas :
The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan contains planning classifications
which differ from City-wide zoning designations . Staff recommends
that each planning classification contained in the Specific Plan be
defined in definition section of the Specific Plan. Also, staff is
recommending that an existing zoning map be added to the Specific
Plan (Attachment No . 1) .
Oil Overlay Zones :
Staff has added an existing zoning map to the Specific Plan in order
to identify the properties which currently have "O" and "01" Oil
production suffixes . The Specific plan is structure so that all
properties with an "O" suffix and rehabilitate and modernize and
existing oil well. The Specific Plan centralizes the area for new
oil well drilling into the industrial land use areas between
Goldenwest Street and realigned Gothard Street adjacent to Garfield
Avenue . Staff feels that the industrial land use areas are
appropriate for new oil drilling and future oil consolidation sites .
The following is a discussion regarding the comments from Weaver and
Mola Company at the September 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting
and a letter dated October 1, 1991 (Attachment No. 4) . Weaver and
Mola Company' s request to eliminate a mid-block road between
Goldenwest Street and realigned Gothard Street can be done without a
general plan amendment since the road is not an arterial highway.
Their request to establish the "O" oil production is already
included in the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan contains language
which designates Planning Area IV-3 and Planning Area IV-4 with and
"O" suffix. This permits the continued operation and the
rehabilitation of existing wells . Staff supports the request for
the "O" designation. In addition, their request to add new oil
drilling operations in the areas south of the industrial areas could
be supported. Oil consolidation sites in residential areas have
been successful in the past and the same requirements would apply to
the Holly-Seacliff area .
Access and Circulation on realigned Gothard Street between Ernest
Street and Garfield Avenue:
Staff recommends that the arrow on the east side of realigned
Gothard Street be deleted from the circulation plan and add language
to the Specific Plan which states that access to future residential
projects will be determined at the project level . Also, staff
recommends that a raised median be constructed in order to control
cross traffic movements .
Staff Report - 10/8/91 -2- (0979d)
Railway Access :
On September 20, 1991, staff received a letter from the Southern
Pacific Transportation Company which states that their company needs
access directly from the current location of Gothard Street
(Attachment No . 3) . Although staff recognizes their need for access
to a major street, staff feels that adequate access can be provided
to the railway intersection with Main Street .
In addition, staff recommends language be added to the Specific Plan
which requires access to the railway be analyzed at the time of
future project evaluation.
Request to Change Existing Medium Density Residential Area to
Industrial •
John Gustafson, a property owner and automotive repair business
owner, has requested to change a medium density residential area to
industrial in order to continue his business . Staff has advised him
that the change requires a general plan amendment . He is currently
working with surrounding property owners in order to submit the
application for a general plan amendment . Staff recommends moving
forward with the Specific Plan as proposed and address the land use
request at a later date.
Huntington Beach City School District Concerns :
During the entire Specific Plan process, the school district has
stated in very extreme detail that the Specific Plan area will
impact the existing school facilities . In essence, the school
district is saying that there exists a need to site, construct and
operate a new elementary school as a result of the build-out of the
Holly-Seacliff area . The mitigation measures in Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-1 and proposed language in the Specific Plan
address the school district ' s concerns . In addition, staff is
recommending additional language which states that a potential
school site can be located within the Specific Plan area subject to
an amendment to the City' s General Plan. This language will allow
the relocation of a potential school site if the present site north
of Garfield Avenue is not acceptable.
Staff has consistently recognized the school district ' s position and
all comments have been acknowledged . Staff feels that all necessary
and required procedures have been followed in processing the
Specific Plan.
Affordable Housing:
The Specific Plan contains language which requires all future
development in the Specific Plan area to conform to the City' s
Affordable Housing program. In the September 17, 1991 staff report,
staff recommended additional affordable housing language which
reflects the interim affordable housing program.
Staff Report - 10/8/91 -3- (0979d)
Affordable housing is a very important issue because of the
commitments contained in the City' s Housing Element . Staff is
pursuing an affordable housing program which implements the City' s
Housing Element and regional housing needs .
Staff recommends that the following language be added to the
Specific Plan. "Prior to issuance of building permits for the
construction of residential units, the Developer shall provide the
City with an Affordable Housing Program acceptable to the City and
in accordance with the provisions of the City' s adopted Housing
Element . This Affordable Housing Program shall provide for the
development of not less than twenty (20%) percent of residential
units which will be available at affordable housing costs to persons
and families of low- or moderate-income. The Affordable Housing
Program shall identify housing proposals , locations and
implementation strategies for the development of new residential
units designed for families of low and moderate income. "
Summary
As discussed in the Addendum and General Plan Amendment No . 91-2
report the Specific Plan implements all pertinent mitigation
measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 .
The structure of the Specific Plan is consistent with State Law in
terms of formal organization and content .
Staff has addressed major issues which were identified at the
September 17, 1991 Planning Commission meeting . Staff feels that
the Specific Plan provides a wide range of housing and commercial
opportunities while still retaining a significant industrial area .
The Specific Plan is consistent with the Holly-Seacliff Masterplan
which was approved by the City Council on January 8, 1990
This report contains a series of charts which compare proposed
development standards in the Specific Plan with existing City
Codes . The charts will provide a basis for the discussion regarding
minimum lot size, setbacks, site coverage and other development
standards contained in the Specific Plan.
3 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zone Change
No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 with modifications proposed
by staff with the following findings and forward to the City Council
for adoption:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 90-1-/CODE AMENDMENT
NO, 90-10 :
1 . The proposed zone change and code amendment to establish the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan
Amendment No . 91-2 , the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and the
City' s General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies
regarding land use, circulation, recreation and housing .
Staff Report - 10/8/91 -4- (0979d)
2 . Zone Change No . 90-10 and Code Amendment No . 90-10 is consistent
with the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element and
the City' s interim affordable housing program by providing a
range of housing opportunities including affordable housing .
3 . Zone Change No . 90-10 and Code Amendment No . 90-10 are
consistent with the City' s Coastal Element and the California
Coastal Act by implementing coastal policies and requiring
coastal development permits in the Coastal Zone.
10 . 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
The Planning Commission may modify Zone change No. 90-10 and Code
Amendment No . 90-10 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Existing Zoning Map
2. Development Standards Comparison Charts
3 . Letter dated September 20, 1991 from Southern Pacific
T portation Company
4 . Letter dated October 1, 1991 from Weaver and Mola Company
5 . Letter dated october 2, 1991 from Pacific Coast Homes
6 . Planning Commission staff report dated September 17, 1991
HS:RLF:kjl
Staff Report - 10/8/91 -5- (0979d)
czo Odi-CD) ml
/(PREZONEDI CD MI-CD
U U RI
-cl
. .... MI-O
MIoI R2 A.-
MI-
6 RA-0
RA-O-CD
i M2-0
............ _0
MI-0
ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN
op
RA-01
-0-
a.
IL M I
mi-011
co
> m
RA-01_cZ mi-O
0
p
p
M,1_0
OP R2
OP
_OR,
mum"m >
CC_CZ_/ z
RA-0 I-C
A 11
i c1_0
L.,� ../ R4-0 mi R2'-
",\�ys
002
MI-A
J L6 0 R2
R#VID
R 2 R2
O-01
R2
ROS-6 M2 01 r
R2
R, _aa RZI
m I
of
R1 2 L!L
cur
RI C2-0-
.1.0
' ROS-0 R1
R2-0-PD -)L
R1
pp
I
R4-01 R
C2-0-CD C
R1 2-0
R1 R2.0-11.
ROS-0 R1 I'�; I R2_0
ri
op-01-
R2 o PD-OP-O-CD
ROS-0 C2-0 CD
RI
c
R RI RI
R4-011
4-0 A2.0-ca
F
R1
R2-PD-0-CZ C CF
CF-E- R2-0-CDKZ-V- u
:!:.FI2.po-o-cz ROS-0
6 F-E-C CITY UNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING ZING
j -I'll In ril I ic-t
ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT EXISTING PROPOSED
STANDARD ESTATE DEVELOPMENT HOLLY-SEACLIFF
Lot Size 8 , 000-15 , 000 sq . ft . 6 , 000 sq . ft .
Frontage 72 ' 60 '
Coverage 450 500
Front Setback 30 ' 15 '
Rear Setback 25 ' 20 '
Height 30 ' (2 st . ) 35 ' ( 2 st . )
Open Space 1, 200 sq . ft . No minimum
25 ' minimum Required
0
0
(0790d-2)
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT EXISTING PROPOSED
STANDARD LOW DENSITY HOLLY-SEACLIFF
Lot Size 6 , 000 sq . ft . 5 , 000-3 , 300 sq . ft .
Frontage 60 ' 50 ' -30 '
Cul-de-Sac 45 ' 45 ' -30 ' -20 '
Lot Coverage 50% 50%-60%
Garage Setback 22 ' 20 '
Exterior Setback 10 ' 10 ' -6 '
Height 25 ' (2 st . ) 35 ' (2 st . )
Open Space 1 , 200 sq. ft . No minimum
25 ' minimum required
(0790d-1)
MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
DEVELOPMENT EXISTING MEDIUM PROPOSED
STANDARD DENSITY RESIDENTIAL HOLLY-SEACLIFF
Lot Size 6 , 000 NA
Frontage 60 ' NA
Cul-de-sac 45 ' NA
Lot Coverage 50% 50%
Garage Setback 22 ' 20 '
Exterior Setback 10 ' 10 '
Height 35 ' (3 st . ) 40 ' (3 st . )
Open Space 60 sq . ft . per unit 75 sq . ft . per unit
25% of floor area 250-350 sq . ft .
in common per unit in common
(0790d-3)
MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL !
DEVELOPMENT EXISTING MEDIUM PROPOSED
STANDARD HIGH DENSITY HOLLY-SEACLIFF
Lot Size 6 , 000 NA
Frontage 60 ' NA
Cul-de-sac 45 ' NA
Lot Coverage 50% 50%
Garage Setback 22 ' 20 '
Exterior Setback 10 ' 10 '
Height 35 ' (3 st . ) 40 ' (3 st . )
Open Space 60 sq . ft . per unit 75 sq . ft . per unit
25% of floor area 250 - 300 sq . ft .
in common per unit in common
i
I
(0790d-4 )
Southern Pacific
Transportation Company
1200 Corporate Center Drive•Suite 100•Monterey Park,California 91754-7605•(213)780-6900
REAL ESTATE
IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO
Huntington Beach Team Track - SR# 2473
September 20 , 1991
Mr. Jim Otterson S`P 3 0 19 91
Traffic Engineer DEPARTMENT of
City of Huntington Beach COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT,
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Holly - Seacliff Specific Plan
Dear Mr. Otterson:
I would like to thank you for taking the time to speak with me
Tuesday evening regarding the above-referenced plan and the
negative effect it will have on Southern Pacific Transportation
Company owned property.
Per your request I have enclosed three additional maps of the
team track showing SP property in yellow, the existing improved
crossing in red and the area slated for expansion in orange.
Please bear in mind any alternatives proposed must meet or exceed
the access presently enjoyed from Gothard Street .
I look forward to speaking with you further regarding this
matter prior to the next scheduled public hearing.
Very truly yours,
Char eA. at le II
Sales Manager
( 213 ) 780-6906
CEG:gg3527
Enclosure
cc : Honorable Mayor and - City of Huntington Beach
Members of the City Council 2000 Main Street
Honorable Chairman and Huntington Beach, CA
Members of the Planning Comm. 92648
Robert Franklin
R. L. Stacy
H. D. Caldwell
WEAVER & MOLA
19061 CRYSTAL STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
TELEPHONE
714 536-8223
714 84 8-009 7
� L �; ►:
October 1, 1991 OCT 0 199�
Michael C. Adams deal. ` ..ry.
Director of Community Development
City of Huntington Beach
City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Holly Seacliff Specific Plan
October 8, 1991 Planning Commission Hearing
Dear Mike:
As a follow-up to our meeting of September 27th, please be informed that John Gustafson
and I will attempt to secure a majority consent from the property owners of the southern
half of the block bound by Garfield, Clay, Crystal and Stewart for the following changes
to the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, which changes were presented by John and I at the
September 17th Planning Commission Hearing:
1. Land Use: We desire an industrial land use designation, not residential as
currently drafted;
2. Road: Elimination of the road mid-block, as this "buffer" will not be needed,
given your concurrence of the land use change as suggested above; and
3. An "O" Oil Classification for Planning Area IV-3 and the adjacent northwest
portion of Planning Area IV-4.
We appreciate your support of our requested changes and will be present at the October
8th Planning Commission meeting to discuss the results of securing the majority consent
Mr. Michael C. Adams
October 1, 1991
Page Two
of the property owners. Again, thanks for meeting with us and providing suggestions for
an amicable resolution to our requests.
Sincerely,
Mo . evelopment Cor ration
Michael K. Ryan
G tafson Brothers
ZJ5q n G—ustatsQnJ --
+' c Howard Zeles y, Planning Director
Robert Frankli , Associate Planner
Dick Harlow, arlow & Associates
Frank Mola, Weaver & Mola
Carl Weaver, Weaver & Mola
0
HOMES OCT o
Dept.of Comm. Oeve;o,^,ment
October 2, 1991
Kirk Kirkland, Chairman
Huntington Beach Planning Commission
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Area IV
Land Ownership and Active Oil Leases
Chairman Kirkland and Commissioners:
Pacific Coast Homes would like to go on record concerning the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Area
IV. Huntington Beach Company concurs with the opinions expressed herein.
At your September 17, 1991 public hearing on the above matter, testimony was presented by
Weaver & Mola concerning their fee ownership and leasehold interests within Area IV of the
Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, and their desire that the Planning Commission consider:
1) Redesignation of certain residential property for industrial use (Planning unit IV-3),
2) Expansion of zoning permitting new oil drilling (-01) into Planning Units IV-3 and
IV-4, and
3) Suspending existing zoning or "white-holing" these areas pending further study.
We would like to clarify the issue of ownership and are attaching a map identifying properties
owned by Pacific Coast Homes/Huntington Beach Company and Weaver & Mola. Weaver &
Mola own or partially own 37.5 percent of the property within Residential Planning Unit IV-3.
Pacific Coast Homes/Huntington Beach Company own 25 percent and three other owners
(Gustafson, Albert, Dabney) each control 12.5 percent. Pacific Coast Homes/Huntington Beach
Company own all of the property within Mixed Development Planning Unit IV-4.
The second map identifies properties leased to Weaver & Mola for oil production. Weaver &
Mola have surface leases covering 62.5 percent of Planning Unit IV-3 and ten percent of
Planning Unit IV-4.
The third map identifies existing zoning. The Draft Holly Seacliff Specific Plan allows continued
oil production and operations in all areas currently having an -0 zoning suffix. In addition, the
2120 Main St., No. 260, Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2499
(714) 960-4351 FAX (714) 969-3659
I
Kirk Kirkland, Chairman
October 2, 1991
Page Two
Specific Plan would add an —01 suffix to all properties within Planning Unit IV-5, which
provides for new oil drilling and consolidation projects in this industrial area.
Pacific Coast Homes is opposed to Weaver & Mola's requests for the following reasons:
1) Weaver & Mola's ability to continue existing oil operations is protected by retention
of the —0 zoning.
2) Weaver & Mola will have the ability to drill new wells and consolidate operations
within Industrial Planning Unit IV-5.
3) We do not feel new drilling is a compatible use within residential or mixed
development areas.
We.encourage the Planning Commission to adopt zoning and development standards for these
areas in conformance with the General Plan and as set forth in the Draft Holly Seacliff Specific
Plan.
Very truly yours,
Pacific Coast Homes Huntington Beach Company
Craig E. Rice Brian 1. Shally
Vice President Vice President, Legal
Attachments
cc: Mike Adams
Robert Franklin
OWNERSHIP
® PACIFIC COAST HOMES
0606080
0000000
WEAVER & MOLA
0000000
0 0 0 0
' II
- I I
fT-LL
T 0 O I
TFR2 0
00 000 0—
O I
l 00000000
0 00 0 00,00 /
I0
0 I
O 000 Olo 1
VIIIA
00000000
oo Oo0o0o00
p000 0o I
�O O I
010 00
0000�
000 6 00 800
00000000
0000
u
0000000
00000000
o 0020209
— — — —
I
-4
r h�
SQkLU
I I'
,•-,ar
i
I
/ —YORKTOMM AVFJIUE _—
�—
/
LEASED TO WEAVER OR WEAVER & MOLA
Y
IV
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�17
- - - -
/ _4
/ YORKTOWN AVENUE
t-
EXISTING ZONING
___1 IGARFIELD I I I
} 4 Hoo
RA-0 S CI
N J
2�96 N R2 530
o
W :
c� MI
`�.
o R A - 0 � R2 � r'---�. \US
a RA 01 R2
F
ti R2 t
cr-
R - 8 0 MR2-01 R2 �-
N U 3 2 =
r� CLAY ss+•M'n:
C2-0-
r
(`'tE$ERVO R)660
4
C2-0 BCD ;� C2_0
sO S a9'59 56 E
z°o CZ-OtCO_°o 164
W
z e w I
W
o i
C2- 0 -CD
I
f roRKT'O"
1
huntington beach department of community development
•
GAFF
Epos
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: September 17 , 1991
SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-10/CODE AMENDMENT NO. 90-10
APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RETEST: Establish the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan which
contains the zoning and development standards for 569
acres in the 780 acre Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area .
LOCATION: Area generally bounded by the Edwards Bluff on the
west, Seacliff Golf Course on the south, Main Street on
the east and Ellis Avenue on the north.
1 . 0 SUGGESTED ACTION: j
Motion to :
"Approve Zone Change No . 91-10 and Code Amendment No . 91-10 with
modifications proposed by staff and based on findings and forward to
the City Council for adoption. "
2 . 0 GENERAL INFORMATION:
On January 8, 1990, the City Council adopted the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan and certified Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1
for the Holly-Seacliff area . The Master Plan designates types of
land uses and densities while Final Environmental Impact Report No .
89-1 addresses environmental impacts resulting from future
development in the area . In order for development to occur, staff
is recommending that a Specific Plan be adopted for the
Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area in order to fully address the goals
and policies in the Master Plan and to implement the mitigation
measures in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 .
The City of Huntington Beach has initiated Zone Change No . 91-10 and
Code Amendment No . 91-10 in order to establish the Holly-Seacliff
Specific Plan for 569 acres in the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area .
55
A-FM-23C
l
Zone Change No . 91-10 and Code Amendment No . 91-10 are being
submitted for review and recommendation by the Planning Commission
and then forwarded to the City Council for a final decision . Zone
Change No . 90-10 will amend the City' s zoning maps by applying the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan zoning designation. Code Amendment No .
90-10 will add the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan to the text of the
City' s Zoning Ordinance .
Concurrently being processed are General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 and
an Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 in order
to bring the Draft Specific Plan into conformance with the City ' s
General Plan. Those items are discussed in a separate staff
report . Prior to any action on Zone Change No . 91-10 and Code
Amendment No . 91-10 , the Planning Commission must first act on
General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 and the Addendum to Final
Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 .
3 , 0 ENVIRONMENTAL STATUS:
On June 5, 1991, the Environmental Assessment Committee reviewed
Environmental Assessment No . 91-6 and determined that an Addendum to
Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 would cover environmental
impacts associated with the Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan .
5 . 0 COASTAL STATUS:
A portion of the Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is located
within the City' s Coastal Zone area . The coastal portion of the
Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and the Specific Plan will be forwarded
to the Coastal Commission in order to amend the City' s certified
Local Coastal Program.
6 . 0 REDEVELOPMENT STATUS: Not applicable.
7 . 0 SPECIFIC PLAN:
The Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan will provide zoning and
development standards for a portion of the Holly-Seacliff Master
Plan area .
8 . 0 ANALYSIS •
The Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan will provide the zoning and
development standards for 569 acres in the 780 acre Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan area . All Departments have thoroughly reviewed the
Draft Specific Plan which required extensive revisions . The
revisions have been incorporated into the Draft Specific Plan which
is composed of a zoning and development standard booklet which is
accompanied by a technical appendix.
The Draft Specific Plan is organized in a similar format to the
City' s existing Specific Plans . Section I and II provide background
information and the Development Concept .
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -2- (0728d)
Section III provides general provisions and details which will
provide the development standards for the Specific Plan area . The
Draft Specific Plan does not contain any new major definitions . The
Draft Specific Plan relies on existing City-wide definitions in
order to maintain consistency.
Section IV provides general provisions regarding development
phasing, public facilities improvements, and other adminstrative
items . An important aspect of the Draft Specific Plan is the
implementation of the mitigation measures of Final Environmental
Impact Report No. 89-1 . All of the mitigation measures have been
incorporated or have been referenced in the Draft Specific Plan.
Staff feels that the Draft Specific Plan represents a very
comprehensive document which is consistent with the City' s General
Plan, Development Agreement No . 90-1 and the goals and policies of
the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan.
Although staff feels that the Draft Specific Plan incorporates staff
concerns, four (4) outstanding issues need to be addressed. The
four (4) issues are: 1) more specific affordable housing language
to implement the Housing Element ; 2) expanding the oil consolidation
area; 3) additional clarification and buffering for the rail/transit
corridor; and 4) Huntington Beach School District concerns .
Affordable Housing
The Draft Specific Plan contains language which requires all
developers in the Specific Plan area to conform to a city-wide
affordable housing program in order to provide for a range of
housing opportunities . Specific language should be included in the
Draft Specific Plan.
On September 9, 1991, as a result of a joint City Council and
Planning Commission meeting, an interim affordable housing program
was sanctioned. Based on the affordable housing program, staff
recommends that the following language be added to the Draft
Specific Plan.
a . General Affordable Housing Requirements
Any residential development that receives a "benefit" as a
result of a public action which ultimately increases the value
of the project, shall provide a minimum of 20% of the units for
low and/or moderate income households, either on-site or
off-site. The basic philosophy behind this policy reasons that
the City should receive a benefit in return for a benefit
granted. For example, if one acre of an industrial property is
re-designated to residential , the value of the property
increases significantly. A portion of the increased value
should be returned to the City to meet the adopted affordable
housing goals of the Housing Element.
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -3- (0728d)
Examples of benefits include, but are not limited to, the
following :
1) A general Plan Amendment
2) Zone Change/Specific Plan
3) Development Agreement with City
4) Direct financial assistance from the City or Agency
5) Significant modification to development standards which can
be translated into a financial savings to the project
It should be noted that the number of affordable units that a
project is required to provide is not linked to the degree of
benefit received, but rather to the number of affordable units
the city needs to have built . Assessing the financial value of
a benefit such as a Development Agreement to a developer is not
possible.
b. Specific Affordable Housing Requirements
P 9 q
1) Master-planned communities exceeding ten (10) acres shall
provide, either on-site or off-site, 20% of the units at
affordable levels .
a . For sale or for rent units need only meet moderate income
levels (80-120% of the Orange County Median Income) ,
rather than very low and low-income levels . However, the
City/Agency would have the option to assist in making the
unit affordable to lessor-income groups by developing a
specific program with the developer in advance of
commencement of construction.
b. For sale units would also have to meet first time buyer
requirements . There would be no resale covenants attached
to the project . However, the City/Agency would be given
the first right of refusal at resale of the units at a
future date in order to increase the availability of
affordable units .
2) Assisted units (bond financing, down payment assistance,
interest write downs, etc . ) shall include covenants regarding
resales .
a . For sale units and rental units need only to meet moderate
income levels, (unless specified otherwise by the
financing program) but would be required to maintain that
level for thirty (30) years . City/Agency financially
assisted units may be provided with longer terms .
3) Less than the (10) acre developments (whether for sale or
rental units) Qr single-family detached subdivisions may:
a . Build 20% of the required affordable units at an alternate
location within the City which is under the control of the
applicant at the time of application to the city.
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -4- (0728d)
b. Rehabilitate existing units and ensure long-term
affordability through recordation of restrictive covenants .
c. Preserve existing affordable units by recording covenants
that ensure long-term affordability.
d . Prepare a program which is designed to generate new
opportunities for affordable housing, subject to approval
of the City/Agency.
e. Make an in-lieu fee payment to an affordable housing trust
fund, if such a program is adopted by the City Council .
Expansion of Oil Consolidation Area
On May 29 , 1991, staff received a letter from the Weaver and Mola
Company requesting that the oil consolidation areas be expanded into
areas beyond the two (2) industrial land use areas into a Medium
Density Residential area near Gothard and Main Streets . Staff feels
that the two (2) industrial land use areas are appropriate sites for
future oil consolidation sites . The areas that Weaver and Mola
Company are requesting are residential and mixed development areas .
Staff believes that the two (2) industrial zones are the only
appropriate oil consolidation sites and that the other sites are not
appropriate. Staff does not support the request from Weaver and
Mola Company.
Transportation Corridor
The Holly-Seacliff Master Plan requires that a transportation
corridor be identified and preserved along the existing railroad
right-of-way east of Gothard Street between Ellis Avenue and Main
Street . The purpose of the corridor is to preserve area for future
public rail transit to and from the I-405 Freeway through the area
and southward toward the beaches . Bicycle and pedestrian trails
could also be an interim or long-term use within the corridor . The
Medium and Medium-High Density Residential land use designations
placed adjacent to the corridor by the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan
were further intended to concentrate rideship in close proximity to
the rail area .
The Draft Specific Plan does allow for preservation of the corridor
as a "Transportation/Trail Corridor, as identified in Exhibit 17 of
the document . The document as proposed; however, would allow
residential construction up to the corridor property line with no
setback requirement. It also fails to specifically identify the
corridor as a future "rail transportation corridor" , identifying it
instead more as a hiking/biking trail .
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -5- (0728d)
In order to protect its use as a future public transit rail corridor
and to enhance compatibility, staff is recommending some monor word
changes to the document ' s treatment of the corridor . Specifically,
Figure 17 should be amended to identify the corridor as a "Rail
Transportation/Trail Corridor" . Also the exhibit and text should be
amended to require a five (5) foot building setback from the
corridor . Text changes to require the five (5) foot setback should
be added to Pages III-17 and III-20 under item K.3) Miscellaneous
Requirements for Medium and Medium-High Density Residential . The
wording for zero (0) setback should be replaced with five (5) foot
setback.
Huntington Beach School District
On September 5, 1991, staff received a letter from Community Systems
Associates, Inc . which represents the Huntington Beach School
District . The letter states that additional language should be
added to the Draft Specific Plan to assure that all mitigation
measures from Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 regarding a
future school site shall be implemented, all required State laws be
implemented and financing language be added in order to guarantee a
school site in the Draft Specific Plan area.
Staff has received the School District letter and feels that the
additional language, as presented, is not necessary. The Draft
Specific Plan states that all development in the Specific Plan area
shall conform to applicable State laws regarding school fees and
that appropriate mitigation measures from Final Environmental Impact
Report No . 89-1 shall be applied to development in the Specific Plan
area .
At the present time, the school site location is located north of
Garfield Avenue which is not located in the Draft Specific Plan
area . The School District and the proponent of the Garfield Tracts
north of Garfield Avenue are working on a school development plan
which is consistent with the City' s General Plan and State law. The
Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area does not contain a future
school site, therefore, the additional suggested language is not
necessary.
Summary
The Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific. Plan implements the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan and Development Agreement No. 90-1 and is consistent
with the City' s General Plan. All required procedures regarding the
California Environmental Quality Act, the California Coastal Act and
the Government Code have been adhered to . Staff has provided ample
opportunity for community involvement by means of two (2) public
workshops and two (2) Planning Commission Study Sessions . Staff
feels that the Draft Holly-Seacli.ff Specific Plan is a concise
working document which will guide the orderly development of a new
community within the City of Huntington Beach.
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -6- (0728d)
9 . 0 RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Zone Change
No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 with modifications proposed
by staff the following findings and forward to the City Council for
adoption:
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONE CHANGE NO, 90-1-/CODE AMENDMENT
NO, 90-10:
1 . The proposed zone change and code amendment to establish the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is consistent with General Plan
Amendment No. 91-2, the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan and the
City' s General Plan by incorporating the goals and policies
regarding land use, circulation, recreation and housing.
2 . Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 is consistent
with the goals and policies contained in the Housing Element and
the City' s interim affordable housing program by providing a
range of housing opportunities including affordable housing.
3 . Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 are
consistent with the City' s Coastal Element and the California
Coastal Act by implementing Coastal policies and requiring
coastal development permits in the Coastal Zone.
10. 0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
VThe Planning Commission may modify Zone change No. 90-10 and Code
Amendment No. 90-10 as desired.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Area map
2 . Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan
3 . Letter from Weaver and Mola Company dated received May 29 , 1991
4 . Letter from Community Systems Associates dated received
September 5, 1991
5 . Letter from Weaver and Mola Company dated received
September 12, 1991
HS:Q,R(L�F/:kj l
I
Staff Report - 9/17/91 -7- (0728d)
�A - ELLIS
_j
N
W
O %
o GARFIELD V'-TrF
� I
I
CF-E CFTC �--
HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN
ZC 91-10/CA 90-10 �-
NUNTINCTON UACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
WEAVER & MOLA
19061 CRYSTAL STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
TELEPHONE
714 536-8223
714 848-0097
May 23, 1991
Mr. Bob Franklin
Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach p
2000 Main Street RAY 2 ; D
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan
Dated May 1991
Dear Bob:
As a significant property owner and oil lease operater in Planning Area IV, we have
received the above-referenced document and would recommend that the second
paragraph of Section C-1-e (located on Page III-2) be expanded to include Planning Units
IV 3 & 4) Until residential development occurs, there may be a need to consolidate
existing oil and gas operations and/or drill a new (or replacement) well as the result of
termination of an existing well on a parcel by parcel basis. That is to say, that on any
given parcel should an existing well be terminated, that a new (i.e., a replacement) well
be permitted to be drilled, as well as, existing operations consolidated until actual
residential development takes place.
Thank you for your consideration. Should you have any questions or comments, please
contact us or Mike Ryan.
Sincerely,
W ver/Mola
F la
i
Carl M. Weaver
cc: Hal Simmons, Senior Planner
Michael K. Ryan, Mola Development Corporation
1
�:f�,�:i� Ir 1
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. September 3 , 1991
R E C E VEE)
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
Planning Director
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (June, 1991)
Dear Mr. Zelefsky:
On August 30, 1991, representatives of the Huntington Beach City
School District ( "District") and I met with Mr. Tom Zanic and
other representatives of Urban West Communities and Pacific Coast
Homes (jointly, "Developer" ) to continue our discussion of
mitigation of school impacts resulting from the Holly-
Seacliff/Ellis Goldenwest Specific Plans. During the meeting,
Mr. Zanic informed us that the tentative schedule of the Planning
Commission's consideration of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is
set for September 17 , 1991. Mr. Zanic also informed us that he
has not considered, nor has the City directed him to incorporate
the District's comments relative to the Specific Plan, which were
set forth in my letter dated April 1, 1991 and restated in my
letter dated June 11, 1991.
Mr. Zanic's comments are confusing inasmuch as we were earlier
informed by Mr. Franklin, that during the review of the draft
Specific Plan that the District's comments would be transmitted
to Mr. Zanic for his consideration. The District is quite con-
cerned that although we have previously made available to both
the City and Mr. Zanic our recommended changes to the Specific
Plan, that a) the Planning Commission may presume that we did not
participate in the Specific Plan preparation process; and b) the
Specific Plan will not be complete with regard to the school
issues , parti-cularly financing responsibility.
We would again recommend that the City and Developer consider and
incorporate within the Specific Plan, language similar to our
April 1 , 1991 letter and recommendations , and as set forth
herein.
"public/private project management, feasibility, and Implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 100 • ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 928M•TELEPHONE(714)978.8887
ESP
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
September 3 , 1991
Page 2
The District has received a notice for a study session to be con-
ducted on September 4 , 1991. In addition, on August 30, 1991, I
spoke by telephone with Mr. Franklin advising him of the
District's concern that the Specific Plan does not adequately
address the school issues , and he advised me that the City ' s
Staff continues to have an opportunity to modify the Specific
Plan to address these District issues.
The District notes the contents of the State of California
General Plan Guidelines promulgated by the Office of Planning &
Research, and the provisions of Section 65451 of the Government
Code, which states:
Section 65451. Required contents
(a) A specific plan shall include a text and a diagram or
diagrams which specify all of the following in detail :
(1) The distribution, location, and extent of the uses
of land, including open space, within the area
covered by the plan.
(2) The proposed distribution, location, and extent
and intensity of major components of public and
private transportation, sewage, water, drainage,
solid waste disposal , energy, and other essential
facilities proposed to be located within the area
covered by the plan and needed to support the land
uses described in the plan.
(3) Standards and criteria by which development will
proceed, and standards for conservation, develop-
ment, and utilization of natural resources, where
applicable.
(4) A program of implementation measures including
regulations, programs, public works projects, and
financing measures necessary to carry out
paragraphs (1) , (2) , and (3) .
(b) The specific plan shall include a statement of the
relationship of the specific plan to the general plan.
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
September 3 , 1991
Page 3
our review of the June, 1991 Draft of the Holly-Seacliff Specific
Plan indicates that the Specific Plan does not provide for the
"systematic implementation" of GPA 89-1 or comply with the provi-
sions of Section 65451 of the Government Code, as it relates to
the provision of school facilities to mitigate the impacts of th-_
implementation of the Specific Plan. For example, as it relates
to school facilities, there is no "program of implementation
measures, including regulations, programs, public works projects
and financing measures" set forth in the Specific Plan. Although
page II-10 of the Specific Plan refers to the school impact
mitigation measures per Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-
1, those measures are limited to the following, they have come
under question in terms of their interpretation , and are in-
adequate in providing full and complete mitigation:
"1 . The GPA designates a site for a new elementaryschool
to serve students generated by residential development
within the project area.
2 . The school district and major landowner should enter
into an agreement for acquisition or lease of the site
as part of implementation of this GPA.
3 . Developers should pay school impact fees to finance
construction of necessary school facilities. . . . "
Of particular importance is what is the interpretation of the
word "should" . If the District and the major landowner do not
enter into an agreement and/or if the Developer does not pay
school impact fees at a level that will finance the construction
of necessary school facilities, what will then occur in terms of
the development of the Specific Plan and the issuance of building
permits.
Please note that although there is considerable cooperation oc-
curring between the District and the Developer, there still has
not been reached a final agreement relative to a designated site
or a financing implementation plan. Additionally, although we
have had representatives of the California Department of Educa-
tion visit the proposed and alternative school sites, they have
noted several areas of concern which would appear to indicate
potential problems with gaining the approvals that are necessary
for the District to also accept the proposed or alternative
sites.
1
� t it
1
C01,4 11$VMV1Y1 MWCWl1-C
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
September 3 , 1991
Page 4
In order to preclude any interpretation of EIR No. 89-1 mitiga-
tion measures, and to fulfill the requirements of Section 65451
of the Government Code, the District would again suggest that the
following revisions to the Specific Plan be incorporated herein:
1) Page I-1 should be revised to read as follows:
"B. Goals
The goals of the Specific Plan are to define the
Holly-Seacliff development plan, including:
o Distribution of planned residential uses and
definition of permitted housing types.
o Location , character and intensities of
planned commercial , industrial and mixed
development uses.
o Alignments and design of arterial highways
and locations of traffic control devices.
o Design o-f community open spaces , parks ,
trails, and recreation facilities.
o Grading guidelines.
o Design and implementation of required public
facilities including school facilities to
serve existing and proposed development.
o Design and implementation of the community
theme elements. "
2) Page II-5 should be revised to include the following:
116 . Schools
Schools are permitted to be designated and located
within any Planning Area so as to accommodate a
minimum of 600 grade K-5 students generated by the
development of the Specific Plan and surrounding
areas , in conjunction with appropriate General
Plan amendments. "
1 �
COY Tv ryR{Y{IN{OCW{�MC
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
September 3 , 1991
Page 5
3) Page II-10 should be revised to read as follows:
{'h. Schools
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Hun-
tington Beach City School District (Grades K-8)
and the Huntington Beach Union High School Dis-
trict (Grades 9-12) . All development within the
Specific Plan Area is subject to the payment of
school impact fees at the time of issuance of
building permits, in accordance with Government
Code Section 53080 . School facility impact
mitigation measures per Final Environmental Impact
Report No. 89-1 shall be applied to development
within the Specific Plan Area (see Section VI) .
In accordance with the terms and conditions of Develop-
ment Agreement No. 90-1 , the Developer shall designate
an area for a public school site as provided for in the
California Government Code, City Ordinances and other
applicable laws. The conveyance of the school site
from the Developer to the Huntington Beach City School
District and the construction of the school facilities
shall be pursuant to an Impact Mitigation and Financing
Agreement by and between the Developer and the Dis-
trict. The Agreement shall provide, at a minimum:
1 . The designation of a 10-acre net school site for a
K-5 grade school to serve students generated by
the residential development;
2 . Provisions for the conveyance of the school site
to the District as part of the implementation of
this Specific Plan; and
3 . Payment of school impact fees and provisions for
other revenues to finance construction of the
necessary school facilities. "
4) Page III-8 should be revised to include the following:
18 . School Facility
A K-5 grade school facility shall be developed in
accordance with the standards and requirements of
the Huntington Beach City School District , the
COb 111 S x I AS/OCuTfS WC
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
September 3 , 1991
Page 6
State of California Architect and the State of
California Department of Education. The school
site shall be located in a Planning Area of the
development , so as to provide reasonable
vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access/egress
by all potential students, and shall not be lo-
cated on an arterial highway, primary highway, or
secondary highway. The site shall consist of a
minimum of 10-acres (net) , a configuration where
the depth of the site does not exceed width by
200% , a cirade differential of no more than 2% , no
on-site or close proximity of oil wells or
refinery operations, all utilities stubbed to the
Property line, and at least two (2) access/egress
Points to the site.
5) Page III-6 should be revised to include the following:
1115. Air Quality Conservation Measures
Development within the Specific Plan Area should
consider the following during project design :
bicycle facilities, bus turnout lanes, bus shel-
ters , park and ride areas , energy conserving
lighting and traffic signal synchronization, where
feasible.
Bus turn-outs should be provided throughout the
development in order to accommodate public
transportation and school district transportation
rider access/egress in a safe and hazard free con-
dition. The location of such turn-outs shall be
coordinated with the public transportation com-
panies serving the area, and the Huntington Beach
City School District.
Bicycle routes and lanes shall be established
signed, and implemented throughout the development
to provide safe, hazard free and efficient routes
to parks and schools. Route locations shall be
coordinated with the Huntington Beach City School
District. "
�I �l
I
�gY/wfY MIYI NgCYlll.IC
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
September 3 , 1991
Page 7
6) Page IV-1 should be revised to read as follows:
IIB. Public Facilities Improvement Responsibilities
In order to provide for public facilities improve-
ments necessary to serve all future development
within the Holly-Seacliff area, developers will
have a fair-share responsibility for either 1)
constructing the necessary improvements required
as described in the Specific Plan concurrent with
project development, or 2) funding such necessary
improvements if constructed by other developers.
The City will determine and administer the fair-
share responsibility for the master public
facilities improvements, including sewer, water,
drainage, roads, traffic controls, fire and police
capital facilities as described in the Specific
Plan . If a developer provides the necessary
facilities beyond his fair-share responsibility,
that developer shall be reimbursed from funds col-
lected from other developers. If a developer is
required to pay fees, those fees will be based on
the City' s fair-share responsibility determina-
tion . This determination will be based on a
development' s proportional use of the master
public facilities improvements necessary to serve
the development utilizing assessment on a dwelling
unit, acreage, building square footage or front
footage basis. All improvements shall be condi-
tioned to construct or pay fees per a Holly-
Seacliff Public Facilities Fee Ordinance. Such
construction or payment of fees shall be based on
a fair-share responsibility program as ad-
ministered by the City Public Works Department.
As an alternative to developer funding, public im-
provements financing may be available through the
formation of assessment districts or community
facilities (Mello-Roos) districts . These dis-
tricts provide for the issuance of bonds for the
design and construction of public facilities which
shall be repaid by land owners in proportion to
the benefits received by each user.
The school facility improvements shall be imple-
mented pursuant to the terms and conditions of an
Impact Mitigation and Financing Agreement between
cover«,.+nnu....oa.n..t
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
September 3 , 1991
Page 8
the Developer and the Huntington Beach City School
District. Building permits shall be issued only
in conlunction with the terms and conditions of
that Agreement. "
It would appear to us that until the Specific Plan addresses the
concerns raised by the District, the Specific Plan is incomplete
and is not in conformance with Section 2 . 2 . 9 (b) of the Develop-
ment Agreement, and Section 65451 of the Government Code. Under
the provisions of Mira , Hart and Murrieta , the City has the
authority to deny the approval of the Specific Plan on the
grounds that there are inadequate facilities to accommodate the
student generation of the implementation of the Specific Plan.
We would suggest that the District's proposed revisions provide
adequate safeguards to allow the Specific Plan to proceed for ap-
proval .
We would request that your office take the appropriate actions to
facilitate the modification of the Specific Plan , so as to
address the District's comments and concerns.
If you have any questions or wish additional information, please
advise me accordingly.
Sincerely,
Psh
NITY SYS MS ASSOCIATES, INC.
a 1 B. r p
dent
mbk:mmg
enclosures
16/97
cc: Mr. Mike Adams
City of Huntington Beach
Dr. Gary Burgner
Huntington Beach City School District
Dr. Duane Dishno
Huntington Beach City School District
Mr. Tom Zanic
Urban West Communities
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES.INC. April 1, 1991
Mr. Howard Zelefski VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Planning Director
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
SUBJECT: Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (Draft)
Comments of Huntington Beach City School District
Dear Mr. Zelefski:
We are in receipt of the Draft Specific Plan for the Holly-
Seacliff area . In order to implement Section 2 . 2 . 8 of the
Development Agreement and the EIR mitigation conditions of ap-
proval for GPA No. 89-1, we believe that the Specific Plan should
be modified to reflect specific revisions to follow, which
address school issues and concerns:
1) Page I-1 should be revised to read as follows:
11B. Goals
The goals of the Specific Plan are to define and refine
the Holly-Seacliff development plan, including:
o Distribution of planned residential uses and
definition of permitted housing types.
o Location, character and intensities of planned
commercial, industrial and mixed development uses.
o Alignments and design of arterial highways and
locations of traffic control devices.
o Design of community open "spaces, parks, trails,
and recreation facilities.
o Definition of grading concepts.
o Design and implementation of required public
facilities including school facilities to serve
existing and proposed development.
o Design and implementation of the community theme
elements. "
"publiciprivate project management, feasibility, and implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 100 •ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92806 • TELEPHONE(714)978.8887
L'.M.F.
Mr. Howard Zelefski
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
April 1, 1991
Page 2
2) Page II-5 should be revised to include the following:
"G. Potential School Site
A potential school site is designated in Planning Area
(to be determined prior to final approval of
Specific Plan) to be utilized by the Huntington Beach
City School District to house a minimum of 600 stu-
dents, grades K-5. The site is intended to serve the
K-5 grade students generated by the development of the
Specific Plan and the surrounding areas. "
3) Page II-10 should be revised to read as follows:
"h. Schools
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Huntington
Beach City School District (Grades K-8) and the Hun-
tington Beach Union High School District (Grades 9-12) .
All development within the Specific Plan Area is sub-
ject to the payment of school impact fees at the time
of issuance of building permits, in accordance with
Government Code Section 53080. A potential school site
has been designated in Planning Area (to be desig-
nated prior to final approval of Specific Plan) . In
accordance with terms and conditions of Development
Agreement No. 90-1 , the Developer shall designate an
area for a public school site as provided for in the
California Government Code, City Ordinances and other
applicable laws. The conveyance of the school site
from the Developer to the Huntington Beach City School
District, and the construction of the school facilities
shall be pursuant to an ImRact Mitigation and Reim-
bursement Agreement by and between the Developer and
the District. In accordance with EIR No. 89-1 the
significant effect of the development on the Huntington
Beach City School District has been substantially les-
sened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and in-
corporated into the prolectinto the proiect:
IJ
iI i"'d1:2"imma
�..,,...,.,.. .,.,«....K
Mr. Howard Zelefski
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
April 1, 1991
Page 3
I
3. The Specific Plan designates a site for a K-5 l
grade school to serve students generated by the
residential development;
2 . The Huntington Beach City School District and
Developer shall enter into an agreement for con-
veyance of the school site to the District as part
of implementation of this Specific Plan; and
3 . Developers shall pay school impact fees to finance
construction of necessary school facilities. "
4) Page III-6 should be revised to include the following:
12 . School Facility
The K-5 grade school facility shall be developed in ac-
cordance with the standards and requirements of the
Huntington Beach City School District, the State of
California Architect and the State of California
Department of Education. The school site shall be lo-
cated in the area of the development so as
to provide reasonable vehicular , bicycle , and
pedestrian access/egress by all potential students, and
shall not be located on an arterial highway, 'Primary
highway, or secondary highway. The site shall consist
of a minimum of 10 acres (net) , a configuration where
the depth of the site does not exceed width by 200% , a
grade differential of no more than 2% , no on-site or
close proximity of oil wells or refinery operations,
all utilities stubbed to the property line, and at
least two (2) access/egress points to the site.
5) Page III-6 should be revised to include the following:
13 . Bus and Bicycle Access/Egress
Bus turn-outs should be provided throughout the
development in order to accommodate public transporta-
tion and school district transportation rider access/
egress in a save and hazard free condition. The loca-
tion of such turn-outs shall be coordinated with the
public transportation companies serving the area and
the Huntington Beach City School District
ITS
C.,5.10.I.L7Mfw.-c �"=w
Mr. Howard Zelefski
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
April 1, 1991
Page 4
Bicycle routes and lanes shall be established, signed
and implemented throughout the development to provide
safe hazard free and efficient routes to parks and
schools. Route locations shall be coordinated with the
Huntington Beach City School District.
6) Page IV-1 should be revised to read as follows:
"B. Public Facilities Improvement Responsibilities
In order to provide for public facilities improvements
necessary to serve all future development within the
Holly-Seacliff area, developers will have a fair-share
responsibility for either (1) constructing the neces-
sary improvements required as described in the Specific
Plan concurrent with project development, or (2) fund-
ing such necessary improvements if constructed by other
developers. The City will determine and administer the
fair-share responsibility for the master public
facilities improvements, including sewer, water,
drainage , roads , traffic controls , fire and police
capital facilities as described in the Specific Plan.
If a developer provides the necessary facilities beyond
his fair-share responsibility, that developer shall be
t reimbursed from funds collected from other developers.
If a developer is required to pay fees, those fees will
be based on the City's fair-share responsibility deter-
mination. This determination will be based on a
development's proportional use of the master public
facilities improvements necessary to serve the develop-
ment utilizing assessment on a dwelling unit, acreage,
building square footage or front footage basis. All
development projects to be served by the master public
facilities improvement shall be conditioned to con-
struct or fund necessary Public Facilities Improvement
based on a fair-share responsibility program as ad-
ministered by the City Public Works Department.
As an alternative to developer funding, public improve-
ments financing may be available through the formation
of assessment districts or community facilities (Mello-
Roos) districts. These districts provide for the is-
suance of bonds for the design and construction fo
public facilities which shall be repaid by land ownersmw
in proportion to the benefits received by each user.
' irsi i'�
_
Mr. Howard Zelefski
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
April 1, 1991
Page 5
The school facility improvements shall be implemented
pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Impact
Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement between the
Developer and the Huntington Beach City School Dis-
trict. Building permits shall be issued only in con- I
junction with the terms and conditions of the Agree-
ment. "
It would appear to us that until the Specific Plan addresses the
concerns raised by the District, and a site is designated and
shown on the General Development Plan which has been approved by
the District, the Specific Plan is . incomplete and is not in con-
formance with Section 2 . 2 . 9 (b) of the Development Agreement. i
We would request that your office take the appropriate actions to
facilitate the modification of the Specific Plan, so as to
address the District's comments and concerns.
Thank you for your assistance and consideration. We look forward
to this revised draft. I
i
Sincerely, `
CO ITY SY/S MS ASSOCIATES, INC.
l
a sha 1 B upp
President
MBK:dl
3 : 129
cc: Dr. Gary Burgner
Huntington Beach City School District
Mr. Tom Zanic
Urban West Communities, Inc.
I
Dr. Joel Kirschenstein
Sage Institute, Inc.
i
s_
:
I=- ir: n lull t
COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. June 11, 1991
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
Planning Director
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
RE: Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (Draft)
Comments of Huntington Beach City School District
Dear Mr. Zelefsky:
On April 1, 1991, on behalf of the Huntington Beach City School
District ("District") , we transmitted a letter indicating provi-
sions of the Specific Plan for the Holly-Seacliff area which
needed to be modified to address the District's school issues and
concerns.
We received from Mr. Bob Franklin, a copy of the Draft Specific
Plan, revised as of June 6 , 1991 , and was informed that the
Specific Plan is tentatively scheduled for consideration by the
Planning Commission on July 2 , 1991.
We note that our April 1 , 1991 comments have not been incor-
porated into the Specific Plan draft dated June 6 , 1991. We want
to reiterate that in order to implement Section 2 . 2 . 8 of the
Development Agreement and the EIR mitigation conditions of ap-
proval for GPA No. 89-1, we believe that the Specific Plan should
be modified to reflect specific revisions to follow, which
address school issues and concerns. These were stated in our
April 1 , 1991 letter and are re-stated herein for
reconsideration:
1) Page I-1 should be revised to read as follows:
"B. Goals
The goals of the Specific Plan are to define and refine
the Holly-Seacliff development plan, including:
o Distribution of planned residential uses and
definition of permitted housing types .
o Location , character and intensities of planned
commercial , industrial and mixed development uses .
"public/private project management, feasibility, and Implementation"
1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 100 • ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92806 •TELEPHONE(714)978-8887
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 2
o Alignments and design of arterial highways and
locations of traffic control devices.
o Design of community open spaces, parks, trails,
and recreation facilities.
o Definition of grading concepts.
o Design and implementation of required public
facilities including school facilities to serve
existing and proposed development.
o Design and implementation of the community theme
elements. "
2) Page II-5 should be revised to include the following:
"G. Potential School Site
A potential school site is designated in Planning Area
(to be determined prior to final approval of
Specific Plan) to be utilized by the Huntington Beach
City School District to house a minimum of 600 stu-
dents, grades K-5. The site is intended to serve the
K-5 grade students generated by the development of the
Specific Plan and the surrounding areas . "
3) Page II-10 should be revised to read as follows:
"h. Schools
The Specific Plan Area is located within the Huntington
Beach City School District (Grades K-8) and the Hun-
tington Beach Union High School District (Grades 9-12) .
All development within the Specific Plan Area is sub-
ject to the payment of school impact fees at the time
of issuance of building permits, in accordance with
Government Code Section 53080. A potential school site
has been designated in Planning Area (to be desig-
nated prior to final_ approval of Specific Plan) . In
accordance with terms and conditions of Development
Agreement No. 90-1 , the Developer shall designate an
area for a public school site as provided for in the
California Government Code, City Ordinances and other
J '
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 3
applicable laws. The conveyance of the school site
from the Developer to the Huntington Beach City School
District and the construction of the school facilities
shall be pursuant to an Impact Mitigation and Reim-
bursement Agreement by and between the Developer and
the District. In accordance with EIR No. 89-1 , the
significant effect of the development on the Huntington
Beach City School District has been substantially les-
sened to the extent feasible by virtue of the following
mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and in-
corporated into the proiect:
1. The Specific Plan designates a site for a K-5
grade-school to serve students generated by the
residential development:
2 . The Huntington Beach City School District and
Developer shall enter into an agreement for con-
veyance of the school site to the District as part
of implementation of this Specific Plan; and
3 . Developers shall pay school impact fees to finance
construction of necessary school facilities. "
4) Page III-6 should be revised to include the following:
12 . School Facility
The K-5 grade school facility shall be developed in ac-
cordance with the standards and requirements of the
Huntington Beach City School District the State of
California Architect and the State of California
Department of Education. The school site shall be lo-
cated in the area of the development so as
to provide reasonable vehicular , bicycle and
pedestrian access/egress by all potential students and
shall not be located on an arterial highway, primary
highway, or secondary highway. The site shall consist
of a minimum of 10 acres (net) a configuration where
the depth of the site does not exceed width by 200$ a
grade differential of no more than 2% no on-site or
close proximity of oil wells or refinery operations,
all utilities stubbed to the property line , and at
least two _(2) access/egress points to the site.
co..r.r..r.sms.syocre i.c �
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 4
5) Page III-6 should be revised to include the following:
13 . Bus and Bicycle Access/Egress
Bus turn-outs should be provided throughout the
development in order to accommodate public transporta-
tion and school district transportation rider access/
egress in a save and hazard free condition. The loca-
tion of such turn-outs shall be coordinated with the
public transportation companies serving the area, and
the Huntington Beach City School District.
Bicycle routes and lanes shall be established, signed
and implemented throughout the development to provide
safe, hazard free and efficient routes to parks and
schools. Route locations shall be coordinated with the
Huntington Beach City School District.
6) Page IV-1 should be revised to read as follows:
B. Public Facilities Improvement Responsibilities
In order to provide for public facilities improvements
necessary to serve all future development within the
Holly-Seacliff area, developers will have a fair-share
responsibility for either (1) constructing the neces-
sary improvements required as described in the Specific
Plan concurrent with project development, or (2) fund-
ing such necessary improvements if constructed by other
developers. The City will determine and administer the
fair-share responsibility for the master public
facilities improvements , including sewer, water,
drainage, roads , traffic controls , fire and police
capital facilities as described in the Specific Plan.
If a developer provides the necessary facilities beyond
his fair-share responsibility, that developer shall be
reimbursed from funds collected from other developers.
If a developer is required to pay fees, those fees will
be based on the City's fair-share responsibility deter-
mination . This determination will be based on a
development's proportional use of the master public
facilities improvements necessary to serve the develop-
ment utilizing assessment on a dwelling unit, acreage,
building square footage or front footage basis . All
r
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 5
development projects to be served by the master public
facilities improvement shall be conditioned to con-
struct or fund necessary Public Facilities Improvement
based on a fair-share responsibility program as ad-
ministered by the City Public Works Department.
As an alternative to developer funding, public improve-
ments financing may be available through the formation
of assessment districts or community facilities (Mello-
Roos) districts. These districts provide for the is-
suance of bonds for the design and construction for
public facilities which shall be repaid by land owners
in proportion to the benefits received by each user.
The school facility improvements shall be implemented
pursuant to the terms and conditions of an Impact
Mitigation and ReimbuKsement Agreement between the
Developer and the Huntington Beach City School Dis-
trict. Building permits shall be issued only in con-
-iunction with the terms and conditions of the Agree-
ment. "
In addition, we want you to note that the alternative school site
proposed to be located from the north side of Garfield Avenue to
the south side of Garfield Avenue , as shown on the General
Development Plan, Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 5, does not conform to
the location as has been previously identified by the Developer.
The proposed alternative site has been shown to be located in
Planning Area III-3 , which consists of 11-acres and is generally
square in shape. Exhibits 2 and 5 also show that Saddleback Lane
on the north side of Garfield Avenue will continue to the south
and extend into the Specific Plan area separating Planning Areas
III-4 and III-5 . This appears to be inconsistent with the
proposal shown to us by the Developer which indicated a) no ex-
tension of Saddleback Lane to the south of Garfield Avenue; and
b) a school site of 5. 5 acres at the southwest corner of Planning
Area III-3 and an adjacent linear park extending through Planning
Areas III-3 , III-4 , and III-7, to be used as a joint use facility
between the City and the School District.
Please note that we are not in any way approving the Specific
Plan school site in Planning Area III-3 as a replacement site to
the one proposed north of Garfield Avenue, but rather are iden-
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 6
tifying an inconsistency between what the Developer has shown the
District and what the Specific Plan shows.
It would appear to us that the location of the school site in
Planning Area III-3 has several constraints or disadvantages:
1) The site appears to be too far southwest of the center
of residential activity of both the Ellis-Goldenwest
and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan residential areas; and
2) The site's proximity to the Alquist-Priolo Zone Over-
lay, as shown in Exhibit 14 , would appear to indicate
that the school site will not be approved by the State
of California Department of Education, or comply with
the requirements of the California State Architect.
Based upon the information presented to date, the school site
location in Planning Area III-3 appears to be unacceptable to the
District in terms of size, configuration, and location.
Assuming the 1991 estimated student generation factor of . 1777
students per residential unit, as set forth in the District's AB
1600 Development Fee Implementation Study and Findings Report
dated March 1 , 1989 , we would project that the Holly-
Seacliff/Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, based upon General Plan
Amendment No. 89-1, would generate 783 . 66 (±) students, based upon
the land use plan and 984 . 64 (±) students, based upon the General
Plan maximum density. This would require the following acreage
in accordance with the 1966 edition of the School Site Analysis
and Development Guide, up-dated as of 1987 .
785 (+) 985 (+ )
Grade Student Enrollment Student Enrollment
Kindergarten 50 50
1 -3 275 351
4-6 275 351
7-8 185 233
Total 785 985
5
�I 'AJi�.�tn=yR1
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 7
Required Acres
785(+) 985(+)
Grade Student Enrollment Student Enrollment
Kindergarten .3 .3
1 -3 2 . 7 3 .9
4-6 5 .8 8. 0
7-8 9. 1 9. 1
Total 17.9 21 .3
In consideration of the fact that the District does not initially
intend to house 6-8 grade students in the proposed school and
that the site is in an urban location, the District has required
that the school site be 10-acres net, calculated as follows:
Required Acres
Grade 785 Students 985 Students
Kindergarten 50 .3 50 .3
1 -3 275 2. 7 351 3 .9
4-5 184 5_8 234 5 .8
Total ( 1 ) 509 8.8 635 10 . 0
( 1 ) Calculation does not provide for expansion requirements to accom-
modate grades 6-8, if other District facilities cannot accommodate
impact , or for day-care requirements of the District .
Assuming the 1991 estimated student generation factor of . 1777
students per residential unit, as set forth in the District's AB
1600 Development Fee Implementation Study and Findings Report
dated March 1 , 1989 , we would project that the Holly-
Seacliff/Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, based upon the Draft
Specific Plan text, would generate 781. 88 (±) students, based upon
the land use plan and 1 , 141 . 01 (±) students , based upon the
General Plan maximum density. This would require the following
acreage in accordance with the 1966 edition of the School Site
Analysis and Development Guide, up-dated as of 1987 .
782(+) 1 , 041 (+ )
Grade Student Enrollment Student Enrollment
Kindergarten 50 50
1 -3 275 372
4 -6 275 372 4
7-8 182 247
Total 782 1 , 041
f
1�I
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 8
Required Acres
782(+) 1 , 041 (+)
Grade Student Enrollment Student Enrollment
Kindergarten .3 .3
1 -3 2. 7 3 .9
4-6 5 . 8 8. 0
7-8 9 . 1 9 . 1
Total 17.9 21 .3
In consideration of the fact that the District does not initially
intend to house 6-8 grade students in the proposed school and
that the site is in an urban location, the District has required
that the school site be 10-acres net, calculated as follows :
Required Acres
Grade 782 Students 1 , 041 Students
Kindergarten 50 .3 50 .3
1 -3 275 2 .7 372 3 .9
4-5 184 5 . 8 248 5=8
Total ( 1 ) 509 8 .8 670 10 . 0
( 1 ) calculation does not provide for expansion requirements to accom-
modate grades 6-8, if other District facilities cannot accommodate
impact , or for day-care requirements of the District .
The District's requirement for a 10-acre net site is the minimum
required school size, and complies with all previous documenta-
tion.
Please be advised that we have contacted the State of California,
Department of Education, School Facilities Planning Division to
determine if they maintain a published guide or internal
guidelines which reflects a more up-to-date standard for school
sites. They have reaffirmed for us that the 1987 update of the
1966 Edition School Site Analysis and Edition School Site Analysis and Development Guide is the
accepted guideline used throughout the State at this time. The
Guide sets forth, on page 8 , the following guidelines:
"This guide offers a valid technique for school ad-
ministrators and governing boards of school districts to
determine more accurately than was previously possible the
to..w•.•fti*t s yso[w is+citisi� d_:+-��
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 9
land requirements for new schools. However, the task con-
tinues to be a do-it-yourself project for each district.
The formulas are flexible enough to permit each district to
tailor its final answers as it wishes and, as necessary, to
meet conditions which are unusual or exceptional.
A district is responsible for deciding whether it will buy
the amount of land determined by following the procedures
explained in this guide . However, the board will know
whether it is the amount of land needed as determined by the
use of the information in this guide . If the board is
buying less than this amount, it can determine what elements
of the school program will be eliminated or curtailed. "
If the Developer is unable to provide a 10-acre net school site,
as shown in General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 to the west of Sad-
dleback Lane and north of Garfield Avenue, we would recommend
that the Developer instead of proposing to relocate the school
site south of Garfield Avenue, initiate a General Plan amendment
to relocate the school site to the northeast corner of Saddleback
Lane and Garfield Avenue. This would preclude conflict with the
Alquist-Priolo Zone Overlay and ensure a central location to
serve both Specific Plan areas with appropriate access/egress .
This certainly would effect the design of Tentative Tract Map No.
14010 presently being processed.
The District raises further objection with regard to the proce-
dure of processing the Specific Plan, particularly the prepara-
tion of environmental documentation. The District understands
that the City intends to utilize Environmental Impact Report No.
89-1 prepared on the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No.
89-1 , and intends to prepare a Negative Declaration on the
Specific Plan.
We would suggest that the Specific Plan is not in conformance
with General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 or the applicable Develop-
ment Agreement between the City of Huntington Beach and Pacific
Coast Homes and Garfield Partners, and that a subsequent Environ-
mental Impact Report , pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA
Guidelines, processed in accordance with the Guidelines for the
Implementation of CEQA, is required.
CM2.5�
%low
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11 , 1991
Page 10
Please note that Section 2 . 3 . 1 of the Development Agreement
states:
112 . 3 . 1 Permitted Development On and Uses of the Property.
The permitted used of the Property, the density and inten-
sity of use, the maximum height, bulk, and size of proposed
buildings , parking requirements , other development and
building standards, provisions for reservation or dedication
of land for public purposes , the location and design of
public improvements, and all other terms and conditions ap-
plicable to Development of the Property shall be those set
forth in City's Existing Land Use Regulations and all other
terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement. "
"Existing Land Use Regulations" is defined in Section 1 of the
Draft Agreement, as follows:
"l. The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, approved by the
City Council through its adoption of Ordinance No. 2998
on June 26, 1989 ;
2 . Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 approved
by the City Council through its adoption of Resolution
No. 6098 on January 8 , 1990;
3 . EIR No. 88-2 prepared for the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific
Plan (adopted on May 1, 1989 by Resolution No. 6022) ;
4 . EIR No. 89-1 prepared for the Holly-Seacliff General
Plan Amendment (adopted on January 8 , 1990 by Resolu-
tion No. 6097) ;
5. All elements of the City's General Plan, including the
recently adopted Housing Element and the current Coas-
tal Element;
6. The City 's existing zoning code shall serve as the
development standards for the Project unless and until
superseded by the City's adoption and incorporation
into this Agreement of the "Holly-Seacliff Specific
Plan" ;
7 . All other ordinances, resolutions, codes, rules and
regulations of the City which are in force on the Ef-
fective Date of this Agreement; and
C puwir it S+T[ 3 ifSOCur[S K ��
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 11
8 . All other provisions of this Agreement relating to the
development and use of the property. "
The total units proposed by the Specific Plan is 3 , 930, while
General Plan Amendment No . 89-1 suggests a land use plan of
3 , 940. There certainly appears to be conformity with regard to
the number of units proposed. However, the extrapolation of the
allowed density would permit 6, 421 total units, or 5, 948 for the
Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. We note that the proposed Land Use
Plan contained within General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and the
Land Use Element set forth in the Development Agreement have been
substantially modified, which may have a significant effect on
the District's ability to provide its educational facilities and
services to the Specific Plan area.
The observed modifications include:
1) The circulation network in Planning Areas II and III
has been modified; and
2) The land use patterns in Planning Areas II and III has
been modified.
These changes are significant enough to require supplemental en-
vironmental analysis including a) traffic impact evaluations ; b)
land use compatibility analysis; and c) school siting locational
analysis, etc.
The additional analysis should be conducted through a Subsequent
Environmental Impact Report, and appropriate review and comment
periods should be provided to the District in order to comply
with CEQA.
It would appear to us that until the Specific Plan addresses the
concerns raised by the District, and a site is designated and
shown on the General Development Plan which has been approved by
the District, the Specific Plan is incomplete and is not in con-
formance with Section 2 . 2 . 9 (b) of the Development Agreement.
We would again request that your office take careful considera-
tion and appropriate actions to facilitate the modification of
the Specific Plan, so as to address the District's comments and
concerns. For reference, we have attached spreadsheets substan-
tiating the General Plan Amendment potential enrollment impacts
and the Specific Plan potential enrollment impacts. In addition,
a copy of the State's School Site Analysis and Development Guide
is attached.
Cpuwr•SRt u3,ysocurtl K ��
Mr. Howard Zelefsky
June 11, 1991
Page 12
Thank you for your assistance and consideration. We look forward
to this revised draft.
Sincerely,
CO UNITY SY S ASSOCIATES, INC.
s� uPP
r siden
MBK:mmg
Enclosures
16/45
cc: Mayor John Erskine
City of Huntington Beach
Dr. Gary Burgner
Huntington Beach City School District
Mr. Tom Zanic
Urban West Communities
HUNTINGTON BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT
HOLLY-SEACLIFF/ELLIS -GOLDENWEST AREA
GENERAL PLAN A14ENOMENT
AREA SUB-AREA ACRES UNITS UNITS STUDENTS STUDENTS
L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX
0.1700 0.1700
A A-1 7 25 28 4.25 4.76
A-2 26 90 104 15.30 17.68
A-3 16 55 64 9.35 10.88
A-4 26 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 75 170 196 28.90 33.32
1; OF TOTAL 9.77% 3.85% 3.54% 3.85% 3.54%
8 B-1 56 165 168 28.05 28.56
B-2 46 140 140 23.80 23.80
B-3 58 165 165 28.05 28.05
B-4 40 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 200 470 473 79.90 80.41
% OF TOTAL 26.04% 10.56`r 8.54% 10.66, 8.54%
C C-1 64 310 448 52.70 76.16
C-2 29 240 435 40.80 73.95
C-3 7 60 105 10.20 17.85
C-4 20 400 500 68.00 85.00
C-5 33 425 495 12.25 84.15
C-6 6 100 150 17.00 25.50
C-7 32 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 191 1,535 2,133 260.95 362.61
% OF TOTAL 24.87% 34.81% 38.49% 34.81% 38.49%
NORTH OF GARFIELD 465 2.175 2.802 369.75 476.34
% OF TOTAL 60.68% 49.32% 50.57% 49.32% 50.57%
D 0-1 18 225 270 38.25 45.90
0-2 23 150 161 25.50 27.37
D-3 63 370 441 62.90 74.97
0-4 17 100 119 17.00 20.23
0-5 22 265 330 45.05 56.10
0-6 13 260 325 44.20 55,25
0-7 14 80 98 13.60 16.66
0-8 7 0 0 0.00 0.00
D-9 13 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 190 1,450 1,744 246.50 296.48
% OF TOTAL 24.14% 32.88% 31.47% 32.88% 31.47%
E E-1 16 155 240 26.35 40.80
E-2 8 70 120 11.90 20.40
E-3 9 85 135 14.45 22.95
E-4 53 475 500 80.75 85.00
E-5 4 0 0 0.00 0.00
E-6 22 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 112 785 995 133.45 169.15
% OF TOTAL 14.58% 17.80% 17.96% 17.80% 17.96%
SOUTH V GARFIELD 302 2,235 2,739 379.95 465.63
% OF TOTAL 39.32% 50,68% 49.43% 50.68% 49.43;
TOTAL 768 4,410 5,541 749.70 941.97
% OF TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
I `
HUNTINGTON BEACH SCHOOL DISTRICT
HOLLY-SEACLIFF/ELLIS -GOLDENWEST AREA
SPECIFIC PLANS
AREA SUB-AREA ACRES UNITS UNITS STUDENTS STUDENTS
L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX
0.1777 0.1777
1 1-1 6 15 24 2.67 4.25
1-2 26 90 104 15.99 18.48
I-3 16 55 64 9.77 11.37
1-4 16 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUE-TOTAL 64 160 192 29.43 34.12
OF TOTAL 8.32% 3.64% 2.99% 3.64% 2.99%
B 8-1 56 165 168 29.32 29.85
B-2 46 140 140 24.88 24.88
B-3 58 165 165 29.32 29.32
B-4 40 0 0 0.00 0.00
SU8-TOTAL 200 470 473 83.52 84.05
OF TOTAL 26.01% 10.68% 7.37% 10.68% 7.37%
II II-1 62 310 434 55.09 77.12
11-2 40 415 600 73.75 106.62
1I-3 34 390 510 69.30 90.63
II-4 9 170 225 30.21 39.98
11-5 4 75 111 11,33 17.77
II-6 4 75 100 13.33 17.77
11-7 6 100 150 17.77 26.66
II-8 32 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 191 1,535 2,119 272.77 376.55
% OF TOTAL 24.84% 34.89% 33.00% 34.89% 33.00%
NORTH OF GARFIELD 455 2,165 2,784 384.72 494.72
% OF TOTAL 59.17% 49.20% 43.35% 49.20% 43.36%
11I 111-1 19 260 285 46.20 50.64
111-2 109 550 763 97.74 135.59
II1-3 11 140 165 24.88 29.32
111-4 10 220 250 39.09 44.43
III-5 18 240 270 42.65 47.98
111-6 7 0 0 0.00 0.00
111-7 12 40 84 7.11 14.93
111-8 16 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 202 1,450 1,817 257.67 322.88
% OF TOTAL 26.27% 32.95% 28.30% 32.95% 28.30%
IV I1-1 16 155 241 21,54 42.65
IV-2 8 70 120 12.44 21.32
IV-3 9 85 135 15.10 23.99
IV-4 53 475 1,325 84.41 235.45
IV-5 22 0 0 0.00 0.00
IV-6 4 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 112 785 1,820 139.49 323.41
% OF TOTAL 14.56% 17.84% 28.34% 17.84% 28.34%
SOUTH OF GARFIELD 314 2,235 3,637 397.16 646.29
% OF TOTAL 40.83% 50.80% 56.64% 50.80% 56.64%
TOTAL 769 4,400 6,421 781.88 1,141.01
OF TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00; 100.00%
HUNTINGTON BEA DISTRICT
HOLLY-SEACLIFFGOLDENNESI AREA
SPECIFIC PLANS
AREA SUB-AREA ACRES UNITS UNITS STUDENTS STUDENTS
L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX
0.1777 0.1777
1 1-1 6 IS 24 2.67 4.26
1-2 26 90 104 15.99 18.46
1-3 16 55 64 9.77 11.37
1-4 16 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOIAL 64 160 192 28.43 34.12
t OF TOTAL 8.32% 3.64t 2.29% 3.64% 2.99%
8 8-1 56 165 168 29.32 29.85
8-2 46 140 140 24.88 24.88
8-3 58 165 165 29.32 29.32
8-4 40 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 200 470 473 83.52 84.05
t OF TOTAL 26.01% 10.69% 7.31% 10.68% 7.37%
11 11-1 62 310 434 55.09 77.12
11-2 40 415 600 73.75 106.62
11-3 34 390 510 69.30 90.63
11-4 9 170 225 30.21 39.98
11-5 4 75 100 13.33 17.77
11-6 4 15 100 13.33 17.77
11-7 6 100 150 17.77 26.66
11-8 32 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 191 1.535 2,119 272.77 376.55
t Of TOTAL 24.84% 34.89t 33.00t 34.89% 33.00%
NORTH OF GARFIELD 455 2,165 2,784 364,72 494.72
t OF TOTAL 59.17% 49.20t 43.36% 42,20% 43.36%
111 111-1 19 260 285 46.20 50.64
111-1 109 550 763 97.74 135.59
111-3 11 140 165 24.90 29.32
111-4 10 220 250 39.09 44.43
111-5 18 240 270 42.65 47.98
111-6 7 0 0 0.00 0.00
111-7 12 40 84 7.11 14.93
111-8 16 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 202 1,450 1,817 257.67 322.88
t OF TOTAL 26.27% 32.95% 29.30% 32.95% 28.30%
IV IV-1 16 155 240 27.54 42.65
IV-2 8 70 120 12.44 21.32
IV-3 9 85 135 15.10 23.99
IV-4 53 475 1.325 $4.41 235.45
IV-5 22 0 0 0.00 0.00
IV-6 4 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 112 785 1,820 139.49 323.41
% OF TOTAL 14.56% 17.84% 28.34% 17.84% 28.34%
SOUTH OF GARFIELD 314 2.235 3,637 397.16 646.29
1 OF TOTAL 40.83% 50.80% 56.64% 50.80% 56.64%
TOTAL 769 4,400 6,421 781.88 1,141.01
% OF TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
J
t
MUNTlk6TON BE3 OOL DISTRICT
HOLLY-SEACLIFF, , -GOLDEMWEST AREA
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
AREA SUB-AREA ACRES UNITS UNITS STUDENTS STUDENTS
L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX L.U. PLAN G.P. NAX
0.1700 0.1700
A A-1 7 25 28 4.25 4.76
A-2 26 90 104 15.30 17.68
A-3 16 55 64 9.35 10.88
A-4 26 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 75 170 196 28.90 33.32
% OF TOTAL 9.77% 3.85% 3.54% 3.85% 3.54%
B B-1 56 165 168 28.05 28.56
B-2 46 140 140 23.80 23.80
B-3 58 165 165 28.05 28.05
B-4 40 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 200 470 473 79.90 80.41 4
% OF TOTAL 26.04% 10.66% 8.54% 10.66% 8.54%
C C-1 64 310 448 52.70 76.16
C-2 29 240 435 40.80 73.95
C-3 7 60 105 10.20 17.85
C-4 20 400 500 69.00 85.00
C-5 33 425 495 72.25 04.15
C-6 6 100 150 17.00 25.50
C-7 32 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 191 1.535 2,133 250.95 362.61
% OF TOTAL 24.87% 34.81% 38.49% 34.81% 38.49%
NORTH OF GARFIELD 466 2,175 2,802 369.75 476.34
% OF TOTAL 60.68% 49.32% 50.57% 49.32% 50.57%
D 0-1 18 225 270 38.25 45.90
D-2 23 150 161 25.50 27.37
0-3 63 370 441 62.90 74.97
0-4 17 100 119 17.00 20.23
0-5 22 265 330 4S.05 56.10
D-5 13 260 325 44.20 55.25
D-7 14 80 98 13.60 16.66
0-8 7 0 0 0.00 0.00
D-9 13 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 190 1,450 1,744 246.50 296,48
% OF TOTAL 24.74% 32.88% 31,47% 32.88% 31.47%
E E-1 16 155 240 26.35 40.80
E-2 8 70 120 11.90 20.40
E-3 9 85 135 14.45 22.95
E-4 53 475 500 80.75 85.00
E-5 4 0 0 0.00 0.00
E-6 22 0 0 0.00 0.00
SUB-TOTAL 112 785 995 133.45 169.15
t OF TOTAL 14.58% 17.80% 17.96% 17.80% 17.96%
SOUTH OF GARFIELD 302 2,235 2.739 379.95 465.63
% Of TOTAL 39.32% 50.68% 49.43% 50.68% 49.43%
TOTAL 768 4.410 5,541 749.70 941.97
% OF TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00%
WEAVER & MOLA
19061 CRYSTAL STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
TELEPHONE
714 536-8223
714 848-0097
C � ' � n
September 12, 1991 Dc;,r. of
Chairman & Members of the Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Holly Seacliff Specific Plan
September 17, 1991 Planning Commission Hearing
Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission:
-� As significant property owners in the area bound by Garfield on the north, Clay on the
south, Crystal on the east, and Stewart on the west, Weaver & Mola and Gustafson
Brothers have reviewed the draft Holly Seacliff Specific Plan and attended the various
public workshops in connection with the development of that Plan. Although we are not
desirous of delaying the approval of the Plan, we are vitally concerned about (i) the
proposed road bisecting the above referenced block and (ii)the proposed residential land
use designation for the southern part of that block, which area encompasses the lot
currently owned and operated by Gustafson Brothers (automotive repair).
In pursuing an appropriate resolution in connection with both the elimination of the road
(which initially was proposed in the Plan as a buffer element between the industrial and
residential land uses), and the elimination of the residential land use designation so the
area will remain industrial,we have met with staff and staff has suggested, and we concur,
that this area be "white-holed" (temporary suspension of zoning designation), thus
allowing the Plan to move forward for approval. This approach will allow us to work with
staff in resolving both the circulation and land use concerns noted above, thus allowing
us to file the appropriate GPA and Plan amendments needed to resolve these concerns.
1
i � -
1
Chairman, Members of the Planning Commission
City of Huntington Beach
September 12, 1991
Page Two
Accordingly, we would respectively request that the Planning Commission support this
"white-holed" approach for the referenced block as confirmed by your staff and the
undersigned.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Wearer & Mola
J
rl We er
By:
ra o
Gustafson Brothers
.1 n GusiafsbtV
i
i
cc: Robert Franklin, Associate Planner
Howard Zelesky, Planning Director
Dick Harlow, Harlow & Associates
r
r
J
O
R
qF
r
ADDENDUM
To
Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1
for The Holly-Seacliff
MASTER PLAN
Prepared for:
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Prepared by:
FORMA
July 1991
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 Environmental Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Purpose and Scope of EIR Addendum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.3 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.4 Project Approvals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.1 Geographical Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.2 Project Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3.3 Project Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS REVIEWED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Subject
Analysis
Findings/Mitigation Measures
Conclusion
1. Earth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
_ 2. Air . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3. Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4. Plant Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
5. Animal Life . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
6. Noise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
7. Light and Glare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
8. Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
_ 9. Natural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
10. Risk of Upset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
11. Population/Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
12. Transportation/Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
13. Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
14. Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
15. Utilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
16. Human Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
17. Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
18. Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
19. Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
5.0 REFERENCES/AUTHOR AND CONTACT PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
6.0 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 i
,
w EXHIBITS
Page
1. Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
.� 2. Adopted Land Use Element Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3. Proposed Land Use Element Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
4. Land Use Element Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5. Land Use Element Statistical Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 ii
T
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project consists of a Zone Change (Zone Change No. 90-10), Zoning
Code Amendment (Code Amendment No. 90-10) to implement the Holly-Seacliff
Master Plan (GPA 89-1) by establishing Specific Plan Zoning in the Holly-Seacliff
area. Additionally, an amendment to the City of Huntington Beach existing General
Plan (GPA 91-2) is proposed to provide for:
• The relocation of eight acres of Medium-High Density Residentially
designated property in Holly-Seacliff Master Plan Area C (Specific Plan
Area II) from the east side of Gothard Street to the west side of Main
Street;
• The relocation of seven acres of General Commercially designated
property in Holly-Seacliff Master Plan Area D (Specific Plan Area III)
from the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Edwards Street to the
— southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street; and
• The addition of Resource Production as a permitted land use within the
Industrial District (Planning Unit IV-5 of Specific Plan Area IV) and the
deletion of Resource Production as a permitted land use in the residential
districts (Planning Units II-2 and II-3).
Other proposed refinements are the result of City-requested modifications to the
internal circulation system and more precise acreage calculations. The intensity of
�- development and the total number of dwelling units in each Planning Area remain
unchanged.
Based on an Environmental Assessment prepared by the City of Huntington Beach to
identify any potential environment impacts associated with the proposed General
Plan Amendment and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP), the proposed request has
been determined to be substantially consistent with the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan
project originally analyzed in Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 89-1.
Holly-Seacliff
—� EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 1
Although no additional environmental impacts have been identified as part of the
Environmental Assessment process, the City of Huntington Beach Environmental
Assessment Committee has determined that the preparation of this Addendum to EIR
No. 89-1 to provide minor technical changes is adequate to meet the environmental
review requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The components of this Addendum to Final EIR No. 89-1 are organized into six (6)
sections:
1) Executive Summary -- provides an overview of the proposed General Plan
Amendment, Zone Change, Code Amendment and document organization.
2) Introduction -- describes previous environmental review of the project
area, proposed scope and background for the EIR Addendum, and
provides a review of applicable project-related approvals.
3) Project Description -- describes the project location and characteristics,
objectives for amending the General Plan, and a detailed review of the
requested land use refinements.
4) Environmental Components Reviewed -- provides a comparative analysis
of the proposed General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Land Use
refinements with the environmental analysis and Findings contained in
Final EIR No. 89-1.
5) References/Author and Contact Persons -- provides a listing of reference
documents used to prepare the Addendum to EIR No. 89-1 and contact
persons responsible for its preparation.
6) Appendices -- provides a copy of City of Huntington Beach Planning
Division Environmental Assessment No. 91-6.
Holly-Seacliff
`- EIR Addendum •
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 2
AD2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Environment Review Procedures
In conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the
City of Huntington Beach Guidelines for Implementing CEQA, Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) No. 89-1 was prepared to facilitate an objective assessment
of the environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment No.
89-1 for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan approved on January 8, 1990.
r
An Environmental Assessment was conducted by the City of Huntington Beach
to assess the environmental impacts associated with the proposed General Plan
Amendment (GPA) and Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP). The environmental
impacts associated with implementation of the previously approved Holly-
` Seacliff Master Plan were analyzed in EIR No. 89-1, which was adopted with a
Statement of Overriding Considerations by the Huntington Beach City Council
on January 8, 1990. The Environmental Assessment indicated that the proposed
GPA request contained in the HSSP is substantially consistent with the original
Master Plan project analyzed in EIR No. 89-1. Therefore no analysis or
mitigation measures in addition to those contained in EIR No. 89-1 are required
for the proposed project. In view of this, the City of Huntington Beach
r
Environmental Assessment Committee determined that this addendum to
provide minor technical changes to the certified EIR No. 89-1 is adequate to
-- meet the requirements of CEQA.
2.2 Purpose and Scope of EIR Addendum
Section 15164 of CEQA provides the statutory authority for the preparation of
an addendum as a means of making minor corrections to an EIR. The City of
Huntington Beach Environmental Assessment No. 91-6 confirms that the
proposed General Plan Amendment, Zone Change and Zoning Code Amendment
are substantially consistent with the project analyzed in EIR No. 89-1.
Additionally, no analysis or mitigation measures are required to supplement the
Holly-Seacliff
`-� EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 3
information contained in the Final EIR. As noted by Section 15162 of the
CEQA Guidelines, none of the conditions calling for preparation of a
subsequent EIR exist for the proposed project:
The Addendum does not raise important new issues about significant effects to the
environment, and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make
the EIR adequate under CEQA.
2.3 Background
Subsequent to the adoption of General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 and the
certification of EIR No. 89-1, the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP) has been
initiated which implements the City of Huntington Beach General Plan as
amended for the Holly-Seacliff Area. The Specific Plan includes a Zone
Change (Zone Change No. 90-10) request to establish Specific Plan Zoning in the
Holly-Seacliff Area and a Code Amendment (Code Amendment 90-10) to
incorporate the HSSP into the City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The
proposed Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan also requests a General Plan Amendment
(GPA 91-2) to relocate eight acres of residential uses in Master Plan Area C,
relocate seven acres of commercial uses in Master Plan Area D and to
redesignate the resource production areas, as well as a Local Coastal Plan
Amendment to change zoning within the Coastal Zone.
"w 2.4 Project Approvals
The project area has been the subject of numerous planning and zoning actions.
These include the following dates and actions:
• In 1976, following the adoption of the City's first General Plan, the Seacliff
peninsula area, originally designated planning reserve, was changed to Planned
Community.
Holly-Seacliff
'— EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 4
• Final Environmental Impact Report No. 88-2 was prepared for the Ellis-
Goldenwest Specific Plan (adopted on May 1, 1989, by Resolution No. 6022.)
• The Ell is-Golden west Specific Plan, approved by the Huntington Beach City
Council through its adoption of Ordinance No. 2998 on June 26, 1989, provides
` comprehensive development standards for 160 acres between Edwards and
Goldenwest Streets and Ellis and Garfield Avenues. (Not a part of the Holly-
Seacliff Specific Plan.)
• Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 approved by the City Council
through its adoption of Resolution No. 6098 on January 8, 1990, assessed the
type of potential land uses that would be most beneficial to the community
including the range and mix of housing products, the amount and viability of
commercial and industrial uses, improving coordination among numerous
property owners and improving the relationship of open space to development.
• Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 prepared for the Holly-Seacliff
General Plan Amendment (adopted on January 8, 1990, by Resolution No. 6097)
was prepared to facilitate an assessment of the individual and collective
I
environmental impacts associated with General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 for
I
the Holly-Seacliff property.
• Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement No. 90-1 (adopted on November 5, 1990,
by Ordinance No. 3080) establishes the contractual development responsibilities
between the City of Huntington Beach, Pacific Coast Homes and the Garfield
— Partners regarding project phasing, open space dedications, infrastructure
improvements, reimbursable costs and other obligations for each party.
Although the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement applies only to the
portions of the Holly-Seacliff area to be developed by the parties specified in
the Agreement, it does provide for the future public infrastructure
improvements for the entire Holly-Seacliff area.
Holly-Seacliff
'—� EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 5
r
• The Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 approved on January 8,
1990, added new policies to the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and
amended the following General Plan Elements:
1. Land Use Element
2. Circulation Element
3. Community Facilities Element
4. Open space/Conservation Element
5. Recreation Element
6. Housing Element
7. Seismic/Safety Element
8. Noise Element
'— 9. Coastal Element
•
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 6
3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
3.1 Geographical Location j
The Holly-Seacliff area covers 780 acres located in the central portion of the
City of Huntington Beach as depicted in Exhibit I (Vicinity Map). The site is
bounded by Central Park/Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main
Streets on the east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south and the Orange
County boundary line on the west.
3.2 Project Characteristics
The previously adopted Land Use Element concept provides for a variety of
land uses, including residential, commercial, mixed development, industrial,
open spaces, parks and recreation areas. The project area is divided into five
individual Planning Areas (A through E) as shown on Exhibit 2, Adopted Land
Use Element.
Residential areas are planned at a range of densities providing a variety of
housing types from large single-family detached homes to various types of
multi-family dwellings. The lower-density residential areas are located in the
western and central portions of the project and the area abutting Seacliff
Country Club. The medium density areas are predominately located in the
eastern and central portion of the community, along Garfield Avenue, Main
Street and Gothard Street. Medium-high density areas are planned along
Garfield Avenue, near planned commercial and industrial uses. A total of 475
residential units are also planned as part of a mixed development project as part
of the Seacliff Village area.
An industrial park area is centrally located within the community, at the
intersection of the major arterial roadways. Neighborhood and convenience
commercial centers will be located along Garfield Avenue. The Land Use
Element also designates a total of 92 acres of Open Space.
Holly-Seaclif f
_. EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 7
\AVENUE
SLATER
W
CC
rw
TALBERT AVENUE
H
W
3
ELLIS AVENUE
...
GARF E D I AVENUE
L A
:1
FA
s
A�
AVENUE
ADAMS AVENUE
A
'9C�j c w
< Z
W
Lu
� Q
m W
C, v>
... Cie
x �
U x
cel O
Q m
z
EXHIBIT 1
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VICINITY MAP
Aos i :3 oj! — ----- — — �
.. ..,
82
to
... E
4 a6 ac Ci
W 4C C2
29 A
C3 \ o
E _ -
\ � i
.c X' .. ., ...
n
A � L
s wcwo...
Os E C7 I 20 ac zs ac r
A3 ti E
is c I 56 ac i C6
OS E
�3
J
- Di --� --- -DB E6 Gailrol°Avw ♦,.J; M:wttuof11 IA.
MJ
D6 —. _— -
M
•r j C�, i8 Ac ACC MH E m
5 Mc a C act/ uwc.
h A2 22IAC +a
° E
I
L_.
D4 ._
••\• 27 Ac nLac D7 I E3 i E2 w�.
6 AC
Avenge C°V Al.nue urr '�:eaa�•�arenam�•oh '.o.
-I I E4
NI 53 AC
D3
EXHIBIT 2
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELDEMENTT
LRI�L�L�IfLSG�1�1���� LAG .1 Al I I I I I ii�t�►1
3.3 Project Objectives
The proposed Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment addresses and refines the
objectives for the Holly-Seacliff area as identified by the City of Huntington
Beach. These objectives include:
r
• To specifically amend the City's Land Use, Circulation, Open Space
and Community Facilities Elements in order to provide for a better
integrated community.
• To redesignate "resource production" area as residential or
commercial.
• To provide for increased variety of single-family attached and
multi-family housing opportunities within the City.
• To enhance the community image through the establishment of a
unified community theme. .
• To develop adequate community infrastructure to serve existing and
proposed development.
The Land Use Element modifications proposed by the General Plan Amendment
contained in the HSSP are substantially consistent with the City of Huntington Beach
General Plan and the approved Holly-Seacliff Master Plan (General Plan Amendment
89-1) as shown in Exhibit 3, Proposed Land Use Element. The City of Huntington
Beach staff has determined however, that three of the proposed changes require
approval of a General Plan Amendment. These three changes include:
• The relocation of eight acres of Medium-High density residential uses in
Master Plan Area C from the east side of Gothard Street to the west side
of Main Street;
• The relocation of seven acres of commercially designated use in Master
Plan Area D from the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Edwards •
NQUY-Seaclif f
.- SIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 10
Area of Proposed Changes
os
10 AC
� � Fins Avanua _ _
� -�--1 .ruxxixo ..M_,I.Cnf,:D_uxG uxnf
B2
�b of. l AC %1 C2 I ----- -1 is
I iO4C O—
n,..r _ 1,
= 11P
AlII I'I� C
26 AC _ C6
q1 AC
.xK.YDn.
AC gt E ,:1 M
A3 E 4 ACAC
VL
Ir—; -M------ -D3--- ——-- ---------- ------1 Et-- —C E6 c;a�Deie,.venue r�xc.Yw, C...w ..
I 19 AC M DS 1 ES MH M a 4 _ e v __
I ib Ac W:
11 AC to AC M
-- iP AC 7 C
`Y.
1 ..: ------- E
E
E7 E2 •....�D�..
,•` 1 n4C b^AC v sw�'�-i-�e wesw m"'svn u.Rn
c:Dv A
Area of Proposed Changes
• 'Da.Y�.xDx.-, :xD.�x
E4 ire®
% n MD
5]AC
,- D2 ,� ..... ..
-�•» EXHIBIT 3
PROPOSED
CITY OF// HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT
UIOLLn�I(��-3L�6 CL OFF RL5(� Lllllllllgll I I �
CI�
Street to the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street;
and
• The redesignation of resource production policy to allow for resource
production (new oil and gas well drilling) within the Industrial District,
Planning Area E-5 (IV-5) and to remove resource production as a
permitted use from the Residential Districts (Planning Areas C4 and
-- C5)(II-3 and II-4).
Exhibit 4, Land Use Element Comparison, provides an focused correlation of
the proposed land use and circulation refinements within Planning Areas C and
D. The Proposed Land Use Element also contains other minor changes to the
adopted Land Use Element that are the result of more precise acreage
calculations. A statistical comparison of the previously adopted and proposed
Land Use Plan is shown in Exhibit 5, Land Use Element Statistical Comparison.
The following is a summary of the proposed Planning Area and statistical
refinements:
Planning Area C
• A decrease of 2 acres of Low Density Residential area.
• Net decrease of 3 acres of Medium High Density Residential area and
decrease of 80 dwelling units.
• Net increase of 5 acres of Medium Density Residential area and increase
of 80 dwelling units.
�- 0 Reconfiguration of internal circulation to provide direct access to Main
Street.
Planning, Area D
• Relocation of the Medium High Density Residential area, net decrease of
3 acres and decrease of 40 dwelling units.
• Net increase of 4 acres of Low Density Residential area and decrease of
110 dwelling units.
• Net increase of 8 acres of Medium Density Residential area and increase
of 150 dwelling units.
Holly-Seacliff
�— EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 12
• 0
l f nis•v.nw
A—M hnad•a
iI - �, / M _ it: M c - y x
I J
.,a
a
la
C EIG C 7 AC
CDi -
�'"ter Ef 1` CI C5 /•. la<C \
ii. .• L 1 MH M
}' »•� c
I
ll D' '� __ ow• I n.. � CO MH
KC, C6 sic �C
MH MH
Ave—
ADOPTEDI�p•.Mw PROPOSED'ab
KEY MAP (Planning Area Q (Planning Area Q
r r
D6
os
t6 1C
0$
• IJ•C
/ M D
- - - D�
DI '-� M :4j
05 D6
M D8 M
aN �. DS D6 ••yn` n•c to AC r•C
MH
12 AC
fi.. D2 DO
i
1]PC
v
D2 \ u
I DD $� roe c \
63LAC
ADOPTED PROPOSED
(Planning Area D) (Planning Area D)
EXHIBIT 4
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT COMPARISON
LAND USE ELEMENT
STATISTICAL COMPARISON
Adopted Proposed
Land Use Element Land Use Element
January/ 1990 July. 1991
PUNNING LAND-USE ACRES DWEWNG UNWS PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWEWNG UNITS
AKA UNR LW PLAN I G.P.MAX ANA UNIT LU.RAN r0.P.MAX
1 E 10 25 25
A 2 E 25 ao ro4 A 2 E 25 90 EN
3 E .16 1M 3 E 16 55 64
4 OS 73 4 OS 23
TOTAL PLANJNC AKA AMAMI 75 170 TOTAL KANNNG ANA AMAMI 75 170
ALLOWAKA UNO ALLOWAKE 1!!IE
PLAI NIN ACRES PLA NING LAND-USE ACRES DWEWN UNITS
ANA LN" LU.KAN O.►.MAX AMA UNIT UL RAN C.P.MAX
B 2 E 46 Im 140 B 2 E 46 140 14D
3 E 55• 166 166 3 E 55• 166 165
4 OS 40 4 0S 47
•"� TOTAL KANMIG ANA ACMMKI 2DD d70 TOTAL RAIl1lIG AIEA AGEACE/ 200 4M
ALLOWAW{NIL! ALLOWAME LIM
• INCLL1034 ACK►A! • OK UM34 ACE PAW(
PLANNING 1AND-US1 ACRES I DWEWNG UNITS ►TANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWEWNG UNITS
•"" AREA UNIT L.U.PLAN I G.I.MAX AKA UNIT L.U.PLAN I C.I.MAX
1 L 62• 310 1 434
2 M 29 240 435 '.'J:a :%; 2 M 4D 415 1 69I1
3 M 7 60 106 3 M 34• 390 510
4 MN 9 170 225
�c 4 M14 20 4M � }#:; ;;:;:
5 M 33• 425 405 ::::');:is 3 5 MH d 75 10D
6 MH 6 100 I50 :`% 5.%%:%< 6 M14 d 75 1m
7 1 32 >:=>} 7 MN 6 w
:
I
TOTAI KANNNG ANA AMAMI 191 1635
ALLOWANE INIE
......TOTAL KANNNG AMA AMAMI 191 1536
ALLOWAKI U0U
• INCL MSA AGE PAN
•P NNI LAND-USE ACRES DWEWNG NWS NCWOEf/AGE PAM
ANA UNIT LU.PLM i C.I.MAX PLANNING LAND-USEACRES DWEWN UNWS
I M 15 226 270 AKA UNIT LU.RAN G.►.MAX
2 L 73 I50 Ibl 1 M 19 260 266
3 L 63 370 441 2 L w 560 763
4 L 17• 1m 119 3 M i 11 140 1 166
22 ASS - 330 4 W4 10 220 250
_ 6 MH 13 260 325 5 M 15 240 270
7 L 14 55 95 ': ': :
6 C 7
5 c 7 7 L u ab
9 os n a OS 1e•
TOTAL PLANNING ANA AMAMI 190 1450 TOTAL KANNNC A[A AMAMI
ALLOWALE U!T! ALLOWAI[UNTE W2 145D
INCLUOE34 AGE►A[ • INCLU0EE4 AGE PAW
PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES OWEWNG UNITS PLANNING LAND-VSE ACRES DWEWNQ UNWS
AREA UNIT LU.KAN C.►.MAX ANA UNIT LU.PAN I G.P.MAX
1 M 16 156 240 1 M 16 166 2AD
2 M 5 70 120 2 M E A 120
3 M I 9 56 136 ] M 9 K 135
E e do 53 475 WD E 4 Mo 53 475 SD0
5 1 22 5 1 22
6 c 1 4 6 C d
TOTAL ILAINNG AEA AMAMI 112 165 TOTAL KMWNC AEA AMAMI 112 I 765
ALLOWAW UNTIE ALLOWAKI UNITE
Ga"0 TOTAL 7" 4410 C!AW TOTAL 780 4410
-- Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 1991 EXHIBIT 6
—� 0 Net increase of 3 acres of Open Space.
• An increase of 12 acres in total area based on more precise acreage
calculations.
• Relocation of collector street off Garfield to align with Saddleback Lane;
elimination of collector streets accessing Goldenwest Street and Seapoint
Street.
• Neighborhood Park Site N59 relocated within Planning Area D from
Planning Unit D4 (III-2) to D7 (III-7).
The maximum number of dwelling units within each residential category and
the overall maximum for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan area, as previously
established by General Plan Amendment 89-1 are in no case exceeded by the
proposed plan refinements. The minor refinements to the internal circulation
pattern are based on recommendations by the City of Huntington Beach Traffic
Engineering Division, which has certified that there are no additional impacts
resulting from the proposed changes in circulation design.
Holly-Seaclif f
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 15
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS REVIEWED
Impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar Land Use
Plan for the project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and have
been determined to be insignificant, can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance, or in a few cases significantly adverse. In conformance with
CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091 and 15093, the Huntington Beach City Council
certified No. EIR 89-1 and set forth Findings accompanied by a Statement of
Overriding Considerations regarding the significantly adverse impacts of the
project.
As no new land uses, topographical or other physical changes are proposed by
the General Plan Amendment request contained with the Holly-Seacliff Specific
Plan, no additional environmental impacts are anticipated. The project-related
impacts, therefore, are covered by the previous Findings, Mitigation Program
and Statement of Overriding Considerations approved as part of certified EIR
_. No. 89-1.
The analysis provided below is organized b environmental topic, consistent
_ Y P 8 Y P ,
with the City of Huntington Beach Environmental Assessment Form and
compares the proposed General Plan Amendment/Zone Change Land Use
refinements with the previously approved environmental analysis and a
summary of the Findings/Mitigation Measures and Statement of Overriding
-- Considerations contained in Final EIR No. 89-1. Following the review of each
environmental topic, a conclusion statement is provided to affirm consistency
with the previously approved environmental documentation for the project.
1. Earth
Analysis:
The proposed General Plan Amendment 91-2 is a request to relocate a portion of
the Medium-High Density Residential designated property within HSSP Area II,
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum •
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 16
—• the General Commercial designated property within HSSP Area III and to allow
for oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. It does not involve any new
— topography or soils impacts. As such, it is not anticipated to result in any
additional or different earth-related impacts from those identified in Final EIR
No. 89-1.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made seven Findings regarding the
anticipated earth resource impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
- Degradation of groundwater and increased erosion and siltation;
- Seismic related impacts;
- Liquefaction potential;
- Potential for subsidence to occur;
- Tsunami Risk; and
- Occurrence of bluff erosion.
The HSSP has incorporated all earth-related mitigation measures recommended
by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as
identified.
The project will however, alter the existing topography and soils through the
proposed grading and construction activities on-site. This effect is considered
unavoidable with project implementation, but substantially lessened through the
incorporation of the previously approved mitigation measures into the projects
design.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 17
Conclusion:
The earth resources impacts associated with the development of the HSSP are
substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No
additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed Land
Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in
the implementation of the HSSP as Conditions of Approval and all significantly
adverse impacts are covered by the previously approved Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
2. Air
Analysis:
"r Short-term: Development of the project area will result in short-term
construction related impacts to air quality. The proposed General Plan
--• Amendment does not anticipate creating any additional or different
construction emissions impacts from those addressed in EIR No. 89-1.
Long-term: Increased traffic generated by the project will contribute to the
degradation of regional air quality. Air quality impacts associated with
implementation of a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the project area
have been thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and determined to be
significantly adverse. Since the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent
with the dwelling unit counts and non-residential acreage land uses analyzed in
EIR No. 89-1, it is anticipated that the HSSP and GPA 91-2 will have similar air
quality impacts.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the
anticipated short-term and long-term air quality impacts resulting from the
Holly-Seaclif f
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 18
—� proposed project. Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated
to a level of insignificance included:
- Short-term construction related impacts;
- Long-term increases in vehicular source emissions; and
- Future residents exposure to odors from oil leakage.
The HSSP has incorporated all air quality-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
The project will however, contribute to the degradation of regional air quality.
This is considered a cumulative significant impact that cannot be lessened
through mitigation as this impact is a consequence of the urbanization process.
Conclusion:
The HSSP has incorporated all recommended mitigation measures contained in
EIR No. 89-1, therefore, no significant impacts related to construction or oil
production activities are anticipated. The long-term air quality impacts of the
proposed project are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously
approved EIR No. 89-1 and are covered by the previously approved Findings
and Statement of Overriding considerations.
3. Water
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may result in
alterations to absorption rates, drainage patterns and surface runoff as well as
impacts to groundwater. Drainage and groundwater impacts associated with
implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the project area are
thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 19
insignificance. The GPA does not involve any swale areas nor is it anticipated
to alter drainage patterns in any manner different from that which was
addressed in EIR No. 89-1. No significant drainage or groundwater impacts are
therefore anticipated.
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may also result in
impacts to water quality and water demand. The northeast portion of the
project area drains into Sully-Miller Lake; development of the project area may
increase down stream desiltation and contribute to the degradation of water
quality in the lake. Development may also result in an incremental increase in
water demand. Water quality and demand impacts associated with
implementation of a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the project area
have been thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and have been determined to be
significantly adverse.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made two Findings regarding the
anticipated drainage impacts resulting from the proposed project. The
significant environmental effect considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance was:
The elimination of swales by development could potentially cause
drainage impacts.
._ The HSSP has incorporated all drainage-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effect as identified.
The project will however, increase downstream siltation and contribute to the
degradation of water quality. This effect is considered unavoidable with
project implementation, but substantially lessened through the incorporation of
the previously approved mitigation measures into the projects design.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum .
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 20
—� Conclusion:
The drainage-related impacts associated with the development of the HSSP are
substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No
additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed Land
Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in
the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and the significantly
adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
4. Plant Life
Analysis:
The development of the HSSP will result in the introduction of new plant
species through project landscaping. Plant impacts are substantially similar to
those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1 and have been determined
to be significantly adverse. The proposed project does not involve any activities
not analyzed in EIR No. 89-1. As such, it is not anticipated to result in any
additional impacts.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made two Findings regarding the
anticipated plant life impacts resulting from the proposed project. The
significant environmental effect considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance was:
Potential loss of brackish wetlands on the western project border.
The HSSP has incorporated all plant life-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effect as identified.
Holly-Seacliff
r• EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 21
The project will however, result in the removal of vegetation. This effect is
considered unavoidable with project implementation, but substantially lessened
through the incorporation of the previously approved mitigation measures into
the projects design.
Conclusion:
-- The plant life-related impacts associated with the development of the HSSP are
substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No
additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed Land
Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in
the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and the significantly
adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
5. Animal Life
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will result in the loss
of existing large trees and vegetation which may displace wildlife habitats.
Animal impacts associated with a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the
project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and have been determined
to be significantly adverse. It does not involve any activities which were not
covered in EIR No. 89-1. As such, it is not anticipated to result in any
additional or different plant or animal impacts from those identified in EIR
No. 89-1.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the
anticipated animal life-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 22
.--� Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
The loss of large trees will reduce raptor nesting sites;
Increased public access into the wetlands located to the west of the project
site may destroy habitat and disrupt breeding and foraging activities of
wildlife; and
Night lighting may disrupt wildlife activity.
The HSSP has incorporated all animal life-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
The project will however, result in the removal of vegetation and the
destruction or displacement of wildlife which uses the on-site habitat. This
effect is considered unavoidable with project implementation, but substantially
lessened through the incorporation of the previously approved mitigation
measures into the projects design.
Conclusion:
The animal life-related impacts associated with the development of the HSSP
are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1.
No additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed Land
Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in
the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and the significantly
adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 23
6. Tloise
Analysis:
Development of the project area will result in short-term impacts related to
noise generated by construction activities. Construction-related noise impacts
are thoroughly analyzed by EIR No. 89-1 and have been determined to be
significantly adverse. Development of the project area under the proposed
HSSP may also result in exposure of future residents/occupants to oil
production, arterial and police helicopter associated noises. Since the proposed
General Plan Amendment is consistent with the dwelling unit counts and non-
residential acreage Land Uses analyzed in EIR No. 89-1, it is anticipated that
the HSSP and GPA 91-2 will have similar noise impacts.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made five Findings regarding the
anticipated noise-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignif icance included:
- Traffic related increase in outdoor and indoor noise levels in residential
and commercial areas;
-- - Short- and long-term noise from oil operations;
- Truck associated noise nuisances to future residents; and
- Exposure to police heliport activities operations.
The HSSP has incorporated all noise-related mitigation measures recommended
by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects as
identified.
The project will however, expose existing residential land uses situated adjacent
to the project site to construction-related noise impacts from occasional single-
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 24
—� event disturbances caused by construction equipment. This effect is considered
unavoidable with project implementation, but substantially lessened through the
incorporation of the previously approved mitigation measures into construction
techniques used during project implementation.
Conclusion:
The noise-related impacts associated with the development of the HSSP are
substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No
additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed Land
Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in
the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and the significantly
adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
7. Light and Glare
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may result in new
light and glare impacts. Light and glare impacts associated with
w implementation of a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the project area
have been thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level
insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made two Findings regarding the
anticipated light and glare-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 25
-- - Increase in street, vehicular, and security related lighting visible to
surrounding areas; and
Increase in the amount of glare caused by reflective surfaces on buildings
and by vehicles.
The_HSSP has incorporated all light and glare-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
Conclusion:
The GPA is not anticipated to result in any additional or different light and
glare impacts from those identified in EIR No. 89-1. Because the HSSP has
incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR No. 89-1, no
significant light and glare impacts are anticipated.
S. Land Use
Analysis:
_ y
The purpose of the proposed project is to establish zoning for the Holly-Seacliff
area which complies with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan (pursuant
to the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment). The General Plan Amendment
is a request to relocate a portion of the Medium-High Density Residential
designated property within HSSP Area II, General Commercial designated
property within HSSP Area III and to allow for oil resource production in HSSP
Area IV-5. It is consistent with the acreage of development analyzed in EIR No.
89-1. The GPA is not anticipated to result in any additional or different
impacts from those identified in EIR No. 89-1.
Holly-Seacliff
_ EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 26
-- Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the
anticipated land use-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
- Disturbances to future residents due to oil service vehicles driving
through residential tracts;
- Landscape incompatibilities due to development adjacent to the golf
course; and
- Grading activities could disrupt or destroy on-site natural swales.
" The HSSP has incorporated all land use-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
The project will however, result in the conversion of 780 acres of land to urban
uses that are at a much greater degree of development than what is presently
existing. This effect is considered unavoidable with project implementation
and certain economic and social needs of the City preclude the feasibility of
mitigation.
I
Conclusion:
The land use-related impacts associated with the development of the HSSP are
substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No
additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed Land
Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in
the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and the significantly
adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings and Statement
-- of Overriding Considerations.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 27
9. Natural Resources
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will increase the use
r. of energy in the area for the life of the project. Energy resource impacts
associated with a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the project area are
analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and have been determined to be significantly adverse.
Findings./Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made one Finding regarding the
anticipated natural resources-related impacts resulting from the proposed
project. The project, upon completion will generate an increased demand on
natural gas and electricity. This effect is considered unavoidable with project
implementation, but substantially lessened through the incorporation of the
previously approved mitigation measures into construction techniques used
during project implementation.
Conclusion:
The natural resources-related impacts associated with the development of the
HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No.
89-1. No additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed
Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been
incorporated in the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and
the significantly adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 28
10. Risk of Upset
Analysis:
The project area has a history of use for oil production and is located within
the City methane zone overlay area. The development in the vicinity of the
methane overlay area zone and on-going oil activities will potentially expose
future occupants to oil leakage, blow-outs, explosions and fires. Oil- and
methane-related impacts associated with implementation of a substantially
similar land-use plan for the project area were thoroughly analyzed in EIR No.
89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the
anticipated risk of upset-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
- Consolidation of oil wells adjacent to new development;
- Location of an oil district within development areas;
- Oil activities may result in subsidence impacts to new structures; and
- Exposure of new development to operating oil well hazards.
The HSSP has incorporated all oil facilities-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
Conclusion:
As the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR No.
89-1, no significant oil- and methane-related impacts are anticipated.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
f July 31, 1991 29
-- 11. Population/Housine
Analysis:
The proposed project will implement the City of Huntington Beach General
Plan for the area. Population and housing impacts associated with
implementation of a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the area are
thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1. The GPA is not anticipated to result in
any additional or different impacts from those identified in EIR No. 89-1.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made one Finding regarding the
anticipated population/housing-related impacts resulting from the proposed
project. The project, upon completion will impact the goals of the Housing
Element by reducing the housing stock by 25% This effect is considered
unavoidable with project implementation, but substantially lessened through the
incorporation of the previously approved mitigation measures into construction
techniques used during project implementation.
Conclusion:
The population/housing-related impacts associated with the development of the
HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No.
89-1. No additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed
Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been
incorporated in the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and
the significantly adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Holly-Seaclif f
EIR Addendum •
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 30
12. Transportation/Circulation
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will result in an
-
increase in vehicle trips over what is presently generated by the area.
Development of the project may also impact the railroad transportation
corridor. Traffic/circulation impacts associated with implementation of a
substantially similar Land Use Plan for the area are thoroughly analyzed by
EIR No. 89-1 and with the exception of impacts to the intersection of Garfield
Avenue/Main Street, can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made five Findings regarding the
anticipated traffic/circulation-related impacts resulting from the proposed
project. Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level
of insignificance included:
- Development will result in a reduced LOS for traffic in the area;
- Access impacts to major arterial streets;
- Impacts to designations for bus stop turnouts; and
- Impacts to a future railroad transportation corridor.
The HSSP has incorporated all traffic/circulation-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
The project will however, result in impacts to the Garfield Avenue/Main Street
intersection from access locations along Garfield Avenue. This effect is
considered unavoidable with project implementation, but substantially lessened
through the incorporation of the previously approved mitigation measures into
-- the projects design.
Holly-Seacliff
_. EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 31
r 1
�- Conclusion: •
The traffic/circulation-related impacts associated with the development of the
HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No.
89-1. No additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed
Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been
incorporated in the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and
the significantly adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
13. Public Services
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will result in impacts
to fire, police, school and park services and maintenance of public facilities.
—. Public service impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar
Land Use Plan for the area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made eight Findings regarding the
anticipated public services and utilities-related impacts resulting from the
proposed project. Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated
to a level of insignificance included:
- Creation of additional need for fire protection services;
- Creation of additional need for police protection services;
- Creation of additional need for expanded park facilities and library
facilities;
Holly-Seaclif f
EIR Addendum •
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 32
--� - Incrementally increase already overcrowded conditions at the central
Library and may additionally increase the use and demand of the Main
Street Branch;
Creation of additional need for elementary and high school facilities;
Creation of additional need for waste disposal facilities and services;
Potentially impact gas conservation and planning efforts; and
Potentially impact service delivery and planning efforts.
The HSSP has incorporated all public services and utilities-related mitigation
measures recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects as identified.
Conclusion:
The public services and utilities-related impacts associated with the
development of the HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in
previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No additional changes in impacts are
expected to result from the proposed Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures
from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in the implementation of the HSSP as
conditions of approval and the significantly adverse impact is covered by the
previously approved Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
14. Enerav
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will increase the use
of energy in the area for the life of the project. Energy resource impacts
associated with a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the project area are
analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and have been determined to be significantly adverse.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 33
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made one Finding regarding the
anticipated energy resources-related impacts resulting from the proposed
project. The project, upon completion will generate an increased demand on
natural gas and electricity. This effect is considered unavoidable with project
implementation, but substantially lessened through the incorporation of the
-� previously approved mitigation measures into construction techniques used
during project implementation.
V
Conclusion:
r
The energy resources-related impacts associated with the development of the
HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No.
89-1. No additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed
Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been
•. incorporated in the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and
the significantly adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings
and Statement of Overriding Considerations.
15. Utilities
Analysis:
Improvements to water/sewer facilities required to serve the proposed project
area under a substantially similar Land Use Plan were analyzed in EIR No. 89-1
and determined to be significant. Development of the project site under the
proposed HSSP will impact the City's existing water and sewer facilities.
Utility service impacts to the above system were thoroughly addressed by EIR
No. 89-1.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 34
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made three Findings regarding the
anticipated utilities-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
Creation of additional need for water facility improvements such as
major transmission lines and a booster station;
- Creation of additional need for water storage facilities; and
- Creation of additional need for sewer facility improvements including
four major trunk lines and one pump station;
r
The HSSP has incorporated all public services and utilities-related mitigation
measures recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the
significant effects as identified.
Conclusion:
The public services and utilities-related impacts associated with the
development of the HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in
previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No additional changes in impacts are
expected to result from the proposed Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures
" from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in the implementation of the HSSP.
.. 16. Human Health
Analysis:
The project area has a history of use for oil production and is located within
the City Methane Overlay Zone. The development in the vicinity of the
methane overlay zone and on-going oil activities will potentially expose future
occupants to oil leakage, blow-outs, explosions and fires. Oil- and methane-
related impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar Land
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 35
-- Use Plan for the project area were thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and can
be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the
anticipated human health-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
- Previous oil contamination may require site specific evaluation to direct
_ cleanup operations;
- Potential Methane gas hazards;
- Potential hazards related to oil well operations; and
- Potential hazards associated with the storage of hazardous materials.
The HSSP has incorporated all human health-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
Conclusion:
As the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by the EIR
No. 89-1. No significant oil- and methane-related impacts are anticipated to
result from the proposed GPA.
17. Aesthetics
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may have aesthetic
impacts on the project area due to its contribution to a cumulative loss of open-
space views. Aesthetic impacts associated with implementation of a
Holly-Seacliff
_ EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 36
substantially similar Land Use Plan for the area are thoroughly addressed in
EIR No. 89-1 and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made five Findings regarding the
anticipated aesthetic-related impacts resulting from the proposed project.
Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance included:
Grading activities may result in de-vegetation and potential modifications
to drainage swales;
Addition of overhead utility lines;
Removal of existing windrows; and
Loss of open space land where the railroad transportation corridor exists.
The HSSP has incorporated all aesthetic-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
The project will however, result in the cumulative loss of open space views.
This effect is considered unavoidable with project implementation and cannot
be lessened through mitigation as this impact is a consequence of the
urbanization process.
Conclusion:
The aesthetic-related impacts associated with the development of the HSSP are
substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 89-1. No
additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed Land
Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been incorporated in
the implementation of the HSSP as conditions of approval and the significantly
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 37
-- adverse impact is covered by the previously approved Findings and Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
18. Recreation
r
Analysis:
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may impact the
quantity/quality of recreational facilities in the area. Recreational impacts
associated with implementation of a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the
project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and can be mitigated to a
level of insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made one Finding regarding the
-- anticipated recreation-related impact resulting from the proposed project. The
significant environmental effect considered to be mitigated to a level of
insignificance was:
Creation of additional demand for a total of 54 acres of parkland.
The HSSP has incorporated all recreation-related mitigation measures
recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
Conclusion:
The HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by the EIR
No. 89-1. No significant recreational impacts are anticipated to result from the
proposed GPA.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 38
19. Cultural Resources
Analysis:
The proposed project area is located in the vicinity of known archaeological
and paleontological sites. Development of the project area under the proposed
HSSP may impact cultural resources in the area. Cultural resource impacts
associated with a substantially similar Land Use Plan for the project area were
thoroughly analyzed in EIR No. 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance.
Findings/Mitigation Measures:
The City Council certified EIR No. 89-1 and made two Findings regarding the
anticipated cultural resources-related impacts resulting from the proposed
project. Significant environmental effects considered to be mitigated to a level
of insignificance included:
• - Destruction of potentially significant archaeological resources; and
- Possible exposure of fossil remains and potential destruction of resources
due to grading operations.
The HSSP has incorporated all cultural resources-related mitigation measures
-- recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant
effects as identified.
Conclusion:
The cultural resources-related impacts associated with the development of the
HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No.
89-1. No additional changes in impacts are expected to result from the proposed
Land Use Plan. All mitigation measures from EIR No. 89-1 have been
incorporated into the project design.
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 39
-- 5.0 REFERENCES/AUTHOR AND CONTACT PERSONS •
References
1. Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 (1/08/90).
2. Holly-Seacliff Final EIR No. 89-1 (1/09/90).
3. City of Huntington Beach Environmental Assessment No. 91-6 (6/05/91).
4. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan, Draft (6/91).
Contact Persons
City of Huntington Beach
Mr. Robert Franklin
Associate Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-5571
'- Author
Mr. H. Gene Hsieh
Principal
FORMA Design, Inc.
3100 Bristol Street, Suite 100
Costa Mesa, California 92626
(714) 540-4700
Holly-Seacliff
EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 40
6.0 APPENDICES
Holly-Seacliff
r. EIR Addendum
450/04.000
July 31, 1991 41
• f�^ 1., rA r 1
—� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PLANNING DIVISION
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 91-6
1. Name of Proponent City of Huntington Beach _
Address 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
.— Phone Number (714) 536-5271
2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review June 5. 1991 _
3. Concurrent Entitlement(s) _Zone Change No. 90-10, General Plan _
Amendment No. 91-2. and Code Amendment No. 90-10.
4. Project Location Holly—Seacliff Area, see attached map.
• 5. Project Description A Zone Change request to amend the zoning on the
Holly—Seacliff area in order to implement the City of Huntington
Beach General Plan and the Holly—Seacliff Master Plan (GPA 89-1).
The project proposes establishing a Holly—Seacliff Specific Plan
(HSSP) which provides development standards, design theme and
administrative procedures for development of the Holly—Seacliff area
in conjunction with a code amendment request to add the
Holly—Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP) to the Huntington Beach Zoning
Code. The project also includes an amendment to the General Plan to
relocate eight acres of Medium—High Density Residentially designated
Property in Holly—Seacliff Master Plan Area C ( Specific Plan Area
II) from the east side of Gothard Street to the west side of Main
Street: to relocate the seven acres of General Commercially
designated property in Holly—Seacliff Master Plan Area D (Specific
Plan Area III) from the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and
_ Edwards Street to the southwest corner of Garfield Avenue and
Goldenwest Street: and to relocate a school site from Holly—Seacliff
Planning Area B (Ellis—Goldenwest Area) to Holly—Seacliff Planning
Area D (Specific Plan Area III). See attached maps. In addition.
the GPA will allow for resource production within the industrial
district (Planning Unit IV-5) of Specific Plan Area IV and will
remove resource production as a permitted use from the residential
districts (Planning Units II-2 and II-3).
Note: The intensity of development and the total number of dwelling •
units in each planning area will remain consistent with the
development analyzed in EIR 8 —1 which includes a statement of
overriding considerations for earth resource, air quality, water,
biological , noise, land use, natural resource, housing/population,
transportation/circulation, energy and aesthetic impacts. All
applicable mitigation measures recommended by EIR 89-1
(Holly—Seacliff General Plan Amendment EIR) have been incorporated
�. into the Holly—Seacliff Specific Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
(Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.)
Yes Maybe No
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ X
b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? X
Discussion: See lg below. •
C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X _
Discussion: See lg below.
,^ d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ X _
Discussion: See lg below.
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? Y.
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition
or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean
or any bay, inlet or lake? X
Discussion: A portion of the project area drains into Sully Miller Lake. Development of the project area
may impact deposition/siltation into Sully Miller Lake; see 3h.
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? X*
Environmental Checklist —2— (9692d)
r
.1 Ye s Maybe N2
— Discussion (b,c,d, and g): Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may result in some earth
resource impacts such as disruptions, displacements and overcovering of soils as well as changes to
topographical features. Portions of the project area are also located in the vicinity of seismic and other
geologic hazards. Earth resource impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use
plan for the project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and have been determined to be significantly
adverse. The City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of overriding considerations regarding
the anticipated earth resource impacts. The proposed General Plan Amendment 91-2 is a request to relocate a
portion of the Medium—High Density Residential designated property within HSSP Area II, the General
Commercial designated property within HSSP Area III and the school site to HSSP Area III and to allow for
oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. It does not involve any new topography or soils impacts. As
such, it is not anticipated to result in any additional or different earth impacts from those identified in
EIR 89-1. The HSSP has incorporated all earth related mitigation measures recommended by EIR 89-1 to reduce
earth impacts to the extent feasible. The earth resource impacts of the proposed project are, therefore,
covered by the previous statement of overriding considerations.
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X* _
Discussion:
Short—term: Development of the project area will result in short—term emissions from construction
activities. However, construction impacts to air quality are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed General Plan Amendment is not anticipated to result in
' any additional or different construction emissions impacts from those is addressed in EIR 89-1. The HSSP
has incorporated all recommended mitigation measures contained in EIR 89-1, therefore, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
Long—term: Increased traffic generated by the project will contribute to the degradation of regional air
quality. Air quality impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for
the project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and have been determined to be significantly adverse.
The City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of overriding considerations regarding the
anticipated impacts to air quality. The EIR assesses air quality impacts based upon projected traffic
generation, which has been calculated based upon the projected number and type of residential units and
acreage of non—residential properties. Since the proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the
housing unit counts and non—residential acreage analyzed in EIR 89-1, it is anticipated that the HSSP and
GPA 91-2 will have similar air quality impacts to those identified in the EIR. The HSSP has incorporated
all recommended mitigation measures to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The long—term air quality
impacts of the proposed project are, therefore, covered by the previous statement of overriding
considerations.
b. The creation of objectionable odors? _ X
Discussion: Oil activities allowed in the project area may result in the generation of objectionable
odors. Odor related impacts are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. The proposed GPA 91-2 will not allow for any oil activities different from those addressed
in EIR 89-1 and is not anticipated to result in any different odor impacts from those identified in EIR
89-1. The HSSP incorporates all recommended mitigation measures contained in EIR 89-1, therefore no
significant impacts are anticipated.
Environmental Checklist —3— (9692d)
�. �... Yes Maybe No
C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either 0
locally or regionally? _ X
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or
-- fresh waters? _ _ X
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X
Discussion: See 3g below.
C. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X
d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ X _
Discussion: See 3h below.
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ X
Discussion: See 3h below.
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters?
g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,
or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ X
Discussion (b and g): Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may result in alterations to
absorption rates, drainage patterns and surface runoff as well as impacts to groundwater. Drainage and
groundwater impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the project
area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed
General Plan Amendment is a request to relocate a portion of the Medium-High Density Residential designated
property within HSSP Area II, General Commerical designated property within HSSP Area III and the school
site to HSSP Area III and to allow for oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. The GPA does not involve
any swale areas nor is it anticipated to alter drainage patterns in any manner different from that which was
addressed in EIR 89-1. As such, it is not anticipated to result in any additional or different drainage or
groundwater impacts from those identified in EIR 89-1. Because the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation
measures recommended by EIR 89-1, no significant drainage or groundwater impacts are anticipated.
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water
supplies? _ X*
Discussion (d,e, and h): Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may result in impacts to
water quality and water demand. The northeast portion of the project area drains into Sully-Miller Lake;
development of the project area may increase down stream desiltation and contribute to the degradation of
water quality in the lake. Development may also result in an incremental increase in water demand. Water
quality and demand impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the
project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and have been determined to be significantly adverse. The
City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of overriding considerations regarding the anticipat e
'— impacts to water quality and demand. The proposed GPA 91-2 does not propose any changes to areas which
Environmental Checklist -4- (9692d)
Yes Maybe
drain into Sully-Miller Lake. Furthermore, the HSSP and GPA are consistent with the residential unit counts
and non-residential acreage used in the EIR to project water demand for the area. It is, therefore,
anticipated that the HSSP and GPA will have similar water impacts to those identified in EIR 89-1. The HSSP
has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by the EIR to reduce impacts to the extent feasible.
The water impacts of the proposed project are, therefore, covered by the previous statement of overriding
considerations.
i . Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal: waves? — _ X
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? _ X*
Discussion: See 5d below.
b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature, unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ _ X
C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal
replenishment of existing species? _ X* _
Discussion: See 5d below.
d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? _ _ X
.-. 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? _ X*
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X
C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to thbe
migration or movement of animals? X
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X
Discussion (4a-c and 5a-d): Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will result in the
introduction of new plant species through landscaping provisions and will result in this loss of existing
large trees and vegetation which may displace wildlife habitats. Plant and animal impacts associated with a
substantially similar land use plan for the project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIIR 89-1 :and have been
determined to be significantly adverse. The City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of
overriding considerations regarding the anticipated biological resource impacts. The proposed General Plan
Amendment is a request to relocate a portion of the Medium-High Density Residential designated property
within HSSP Area II, General Commerical designated property within HSSP Area III and time sch®ol site to HSSP
Area III and to allow for oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. It does not involve any activities
which were not covered in EIR 89-1 and will result in the removal of vegetation or loss of amy wildlife
habitat. As such, it is not anticipated to result in any additional or different plant or animal impacts
from those identified in EIR 89-1. The HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR
89-1 to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The biological resource impacts of the project are
considered to be covered by the previous statement of overriding considerations.
Environmental Checklist -5- (9692d)
�. C Ah �,►
Yes Maybe No
~I 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels? X* _
Discussion: See 6b below.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? — X
Discussion (a.b):
Short—term: Development of the project area will result in short—term impacts related to noise generated by
construction activities. Construction related noise impacts are thoroughly analyzed by EIR 89-1 and have
been determined to be significantly adverse. The City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of
-- overriding considerations regarding the anticipated short—term noise impacts. The HSSP has incorporated all
mitigation measures recommended in EIR 89-1 to reduce the impacts to the greatest impact feasible. Because
construction noise impacts are not anticipated to be altered by the proposed HSSP and GPA, the noise impacts
of the proposed project are considered to be covered by the previous statement of overriding
r
considerations.
Long-term: Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may result in exposure of future
-� residents/occupants to oil production, arterial and police helicopter associated noises. Noise impacts
associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the project area were thoroughly
analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The EIR analyzed noise impacts on
an area-wide basis. The analysis was based upon the types and acreages of land uses in the Holly-Seacliff
area. The proposed General Plan Amendment is a request to relocate a portion of the Medium-High Density
Residential designated property within HSSP Area II, General Commercial designated property within HSSP A
III and the school site to HSSP Area III and to allow for oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. The
-- GPA is consistent with the types and acreages of land uses analyzed in EIR 89-1. As such, it is not
anticipated to result in any additional or different noise impacts from those identified in EIR 89-1 .
Because the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended in the EIR 89-1, no significant
impacts are anticipated.
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? _ X _
Discussion: Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may result in new light and glare
impacts. Light and glare impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan
for the project area were thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of
insignificance. The EIR analyzed light and glare impacts on an area-wide basis. The analysis was based
upon acreages and types of land uses. The proposed General Plan Amendment is a request to relocate a
portion of the Medium-High Density Residential designated property within HSSP Area II, General Commercial
designated property within HSSP Area III and the school site to HSSP Area III and to allow for oil resource
production in HSSP Area IV-5. It does not alter the acreages and types of land uses identified in the EIR.
As such, the GPA is not anticipated to result in any additional or different light and glare impacts from
those identified in EIR 89-1. Because the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR
-- 89-1, no significant light and glare impacts are anticipated.
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned
land use of an area? X* V
Discussion: The purpose of the proposed project is to establish zoning for the Holly-Seacliff area which
complies with the General Plan Land Use designation for the area (pursuant to the Holly-Seacliff General
Plan Amendment). The proposed zone change will allow for a greater degree of development than what is
Environmental Checklist -6- (9692d)
k f I,\
._ \ Yes Maybe NQ
presently existing. Land use impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use
-0 plan for the proposed project area where analyzed in EIR 89-1 and were found to be significantly adverse.
The City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of overriding considerations regarding anticipated
land use impacts.
The General Plan Amendment is a request to relocate a portion of the Medium-High Density Residential
designated property within HSSP Area II, General Commercial designated property within HSSP Area III and the
school site to HSSP Area III and to allow for oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. It is consistent
with the acreage of development analyzed in EIR 89-1. The GPA is not anticipated to result in any
additional or different impacts from those identified in EIR 89-1. The HSSP has incorporated all mitigation
measures identified by EIR 89-1 to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The land use impacts associated
with the project are, therefore, considered to be covered by the previous statement of overriding
considerations.
-- 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ X*
b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? _ _ X
Discussion (a,b): Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will increase the use of energy
in the area for the life of the project. Energy resource impacts associated with a substantially similar
land use plan for the project area are analyzed in EIR 89-1 and have been determined to be significantly
adverse. City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of overriding considerations regarding
anticipated energy resource impacts. Energy resource impacts are assessed in the EIR based upon residential
unit counts and non-residential acreage. The proposed GPA is consistent with total unit counts and acreages
analyzed in EIR 89-1; it is, therefore, anticipated that the HSSP and GPA will have similar energy resource
impacts to those identified in the EIR. The HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures identified to
-- reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The energy resource impacts of the proposed project are, therefore,
covered by the previous statement of overriding considerations.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or
-- upset conditions? _ X
b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? _ _ X
Discussion (a,b): The project area which has a history of use for oil production and is located within the
methane zone. The development in the vicinity of the methane zone and on going oil activities will
potentially expose future occupants to oil leakage, blow outs, explosions and fires. Oil and methane
related impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the project area
were thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed
General Plan Amendment will serve to reduce the number of residential areas in which oil production
activities are allowed and is, therefore, anticipated to result in exposure of fewer residences to
oil/methane related risks. Because the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by the
EIR, no significant oil and methane related impacts are anticipated.
11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of
the human population of an area? X*
Environmental Checklist -7- (9692d)
Yes Mavbe Hs
y i
Discussion: The proposed project is to implement the existing General Plan for the area. The Zone Change
will result in a reduction in the number of units allowed under the existing zoning. Population and Housing
impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the area are thoroughly
analyzed in EIR 89-1 and cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council certified EIR
89-1 and made a statement of overriding considerations regarding population and housing impacts. Because
the proposed GPA (91-2) will not alter the total number of residential units projected for buildout of the
area under the existing general plan it is not anticipated to result in any different impacts from those
addressed in EIR 89-1. The HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures identified in EIR 89-1 to reduce
impacts to the extent feasible. The population and housing impacts of the proposed project are consistent
with EIR 89-1 and, therefore, are covered by the previous statement of overriding considerations.
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? _ X*
-- Discussion: See 11.
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X*
Discussion: Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will result in an increase in vehicle
trips over what is presently generated by the area. Traffic/circulation impacts associated with
implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the area are thoroughly analyzed by EIR 89-1 and
with the exception of impacts to the intersection of Garfield Avenue/Main Street, can be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. The City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a statement of overriding
r considerations regarding Garfield Avenue/Main Street impacts. Because the traffic impacts were assessed
based upon trip generations, which are based on land use categories and anticipated buildout of the area a
because the proposed GPA is consistent with the permitted land uses and housing unit counts addressed in the
EIR, the traffic/circulated impacts for the HSSP and GPA are anticipated to be similar to those addressed by
EIR 89-1. The Traffic Division has reviewed the proposed GPA and has indicated that it is consistent with
the development analyzed in EIR 89-1; no additional analysis is required. The HSSP has incorporated all
mitigation measures identified in EIR 89-1 to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. The traffic/
circulation impacts of the proposed project are consistent with EIR 89-1 and are, therefore, covered by the
previous statement of overriding considerations.
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off-site parking? X
Discussion: The HSSP requires that all parking comply with article 960 "Parking and Landscaping" of the
,M Huntington Beach Ordinance Code; no significant impacts are anticipated.
C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? X _
Discussion: See 13a.
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? X
Discussion: See 13a.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X
Discussion: The Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) easement runs through a portion of the project area.
Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may impact the railroad transportation corridor.
Railroad impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the area are
Environmental Checklist -8- (9692d)
l 1.Q.. Y.n Abe N4
thoroughly addressed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed GPA does
not propose any alterations to .the railroad corridor. The GPA is not anticipated to result in any
additional or different SPRR transportation corridor impacts from those analyzed in the EIR. The HSSP has
incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR 89-1, therefore, no significant impact is
anticipated.
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ _ X
Discussion: See 13a.
_ 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
a. Fire protection? — X —
b. Police protection? — X —
C. Schools? X
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? X
-- e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — X —
f. Other governmental services? — _ X
._ Discussion a—f): Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will result in impacts to Fire,
Police, School and Park services and maintenance of public facilities. Public Service impacts associated
will implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR
89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Public facilities impacts were assessed based upon
the intensity of development proposed for project area. The relocation of land uses within HSSP Planning
Areas proposed by the general plan amendment is consistent with the intensity of development addressed in
the EIR. Because the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR 89-1, no significant
impact is anticipated.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? — — X
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy, or require the
development of sources of energy? _ X* —
Discussion: See 9 (a,b).
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations
to the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? _ X —
Discussion: Power/Natural Gas facility improvements required to serve the proposed project area under a
substantially similar land use plan were analyzed in EIR 89-1 and determined to be insignificant.
Assessment of power/natural gas facilities needs were based upon unit counts and intensity of development at
buildout. Since the proposed General Plan Amendment will not alter the number of residential units or
-- intensity of development from that analyzed in the EIR, the impacts are anticipated to be the same as those
Environmental Checklist —9— (9692d)
�? Ah rA.h Maybe No
--- :.: Yes
identified in the EIR. Mitigation measures identified in EIR 89-1 have been incorporated into the HSSP;
therefore, no significant power/natural gas impacts are anticipated.
b. Communication systems? X
C. Water? X —
d. Sewer or septic tanks? _ X
e. Storm water drainage? _ X —
` f. Solid waste and disposal? X _
Discussion (c-f): Development of the project site under the proposed HSSP will impact the City's existing
water, sewer, solid waste and storm drain system. Utility Service impacts to the above system were
thoroughly addressed by EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Assessment of utility
system improvements required to serve the area was based upon buildout of the site. The GPA is consistent
with the level of development analyzed in EIR 89-1. Because the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation
recommended in EIR 89-1, no significant utility impacts are anticipated.
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: l
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ X
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ X
Discussion: See 10a.
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site
open to public view? _ X*
Discussion: Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may have aesthetic impacts on the
project area due to its contribution to a cumulative loss of open space views. Aesthetic impacts associated
with implementation of a substantially similar land use plan for the area are thoroughly addressed in EIR
89-1 and can not be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The City Council certified EIR 89-1 and made a
statement of overriding considerations regarding aesthetic impacts. The EIR based its analysis on area wide
development of the Holly-Seacliff area. The proposed GPA is consistent with the level of development
analyzed in EIR 89-1. As such, the proposed GPA is not anticipated to result in any different or additional
impacts to those addressed by EIR 89-1. The HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended in
the EIR to reduce impacts to the extent feasible. Because the aesthetic impacts are anticipated to be the
same as those addressed in EIR 89-1, the proposed project is covered by the previous statement of overriding
considerations.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities? X
Discussion: Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may impact the quantity/quality of
recreational facilities in the area. Recreational impacts associated with implementation of a substantially
.. similar land use plan for the project area are thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a
level of insignificance. The proposed General Plan Amendment request is consistent with park acreage and
unit counts used in the EIR to assess recreational impacts and is not anticipated to result in any •
additional or different recreational impacts from those identified in EIR 89-1. Because the HSSP has
incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by the EIR, no significant recreational impacts are
anticipated.
Environmental Checklist -10- (9692d)
I r
Yet Mahe Ng
`10). Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site? _ X _
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric
r, or historic building, structure, or object? _ X
Discussion (a,b): The proposed project area is located in the vicinity of known archaeological and
paleontological sites. Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP may impact cultural
resources in the area. Cultural Resource impacts associated with a substantially similar land use plan for
the project area were thoroughly analyzed in EIR 89-1 and can be mitigated to a level of insignificance.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is a request to relocate a portion of the Medium—High Density
Residential designated property within HSSP Area II, General Commerical designated property within HSSP Area
III and the school site to HSSP Area III and to allow for oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. It is
not anticipated to result in any additional or different impacts to cultural resources from those identified
in EIR 89-1. Because the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended in EIR 89-1, no
significant impact to cultural resources are anticipated.
C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area? _ _ X
�. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
�— a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub—
stantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or
animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory? _ X* _
Discussion: See 5d.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of
long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which
occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will "
endure well into the future.) _ _ X
C. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively consid—
erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts
on the environment is significant.) _ X*
Discussion: See 2a, 3h, 5d, 8, 9b, 11, and 18.
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X*
0 Discussion: See lg, 2a, 3h, 5d, 6b, 8, 9b, 11, 13a, and 18.
*Covered by statement of overriding considerations for EIR 89-1 .
Environmental Checklist —11— (9692d)
3C�k-�
_ �J- 4
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a _
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL
BE PREPARED.
I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date Signature
Revised: March, 1990 For: City of Huntington Beach
Community Development Department
Environmental Checklist —12— (9692d)
�Q
FF
�9
SLATER AVENUE '
N
3 TALBERT AVENUE
3 CENTRAL W
o PARK
W ''0
ELLIS AVENUE
{•},+.{ht;:'•.r:C: :?ik::t::3::::Y�:s�•i•:a•>;.}>:.}..}�4{R`: t
LINEAR }:•.::{ . {..»;::r:.;:{.}:.t2:;:;:;:::>::::s:�:..
PARK "� 2i t+: YS::•:i.r:!i
' ?`'s''•' GARFIELD AVENUE
•:':i;iY•,e��ti,µ''r,:}i:•:}fi}iii}i::.}:<.iiii:{:ii}:i•}:L;L}}}}::ii:i%.^,:CY.
>+:a'•:;fit.}:;�};4.,;.}�;`�.ni.;:ir`�''{.•[:}\:;`:•;4•:.ix>.•:•r.�:'':�.::,s:.:.
}}:{•i<+"•:'F��: ...Y:}iA:.S. .'�:5:,::. n:•};;:{:::.::•:C.;:} g:':>:: Ali
YORKTOWN AVENUE
e `t}.
�:i>•:L>.zs<.:c. H.B.
HIGH
+'`" SCHOOL CIVIC
CENTER
AVENUE
SEACLIFF ADAMS AVENUE
COUNTRY
CLUB
A Q ,
qC`j
.
r�,C x Z
U U' x ._
Ll 2 O
0
m
ENVIRONMENTAL.
i, ►
A55F-.SSMF-N-r NO, QI -60 ea '
HUNTINGTON BEACH
HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION
ZONING INDEX MAP
9-5-I l 10-5 I I
1
DM 9 DM I I
r.ND
LEGEND
3� 19-6-10-SECTION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE
M 16-5-II IS-5 II 14 5�11
DM 22-DISTRICT MAP 22
M DM 18 D17 DM'15
(
N5�1119-5-II LO-5-11 214-11 22 5-II 2 -5-II 24- -1
DM 28\ I DM 21 DM323 i D 24 D 25 D 26 DM�27
30-5-11 wI 29-5-11 28L)j 27-5-II 2 5 11 25-, -II I�
/M 35 DM 34 �.�DM 33 D 32 M 31 DM 30 i
I
—n32-5\ 11 1 33-5-II ��• �3a -II 35-5-II 36-;5-I1 \
DM 36 i OM 37 mil- 391 DM 40
r�
r i S � PII
.� 5-6-11 -» - I-6-II 6-6-10 5-?6-10
DM4 `\ p 2 o- D 'I D 6 pM ,
9 6-II 0-6-II 11- -II 12-6-II 7-6-10 8-6-10
OM10 DM D 12 �DM13 DM7 DM8
14-6-I1 •„M'I3-6-II 18-6-10 17-6-10
AL Oc, ----
CITY OF F� --
MI e° 14 DM2o• DM19
HUNTINGTON BEACH -"; -
ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA
24-6-1 19- -10
DM 29 b22 f
JDMf[D YYDN fD.t[4 /
0.IMttMN[ _E [10N N[fO
qf1 tOUNCN-OIIp1YNC(W.R..R.\[� L\\
VICINITY MAP
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
VOLUME 1 REPORT NO. 89-1
HOLLY
GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
YA
HOLLY
;;Lp
GENERAL PLAN
AMENDMENT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
HOLLY-SEACLIFF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
EIR 89-1
VOLUME III
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Statement of Findings and Facts
B. Statement of Overriding Considerations
C. Final EIR Mitigation Measures
D. Comment Letters and Response to Comments (September 28, 1989)
E. Addendum to Final EIR 89-1
1
A. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS & FACTS
3
A. STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1
CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACTS
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF
THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED, FINDINGS WITH RESPECT TO
SAID EFFECTS, AND STATEMENT OF FACTS IN SUPPORT THEREOF, ALL
WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSED CERTIFICATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, FOR
THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA.
BACKGROUND
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines
(Guidelines) promulgated pursuant thereto provide:
"No public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an EIR has
been completed which identifies one or more significant environmental effects
of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for
each of those significant effects accompanied by a brief explanation of the
rationale for each finding."
The possible findings are:
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental
effect as identified in the Final EIR. Hereinafter referred to as Finding
1.
2. Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction
of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such
changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be
adopted by such other agency. Hereinafter referred to as Finding 2.
3. Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR
(Section 15091 of the Guidelines). Hereinafter referred to as Finding 3.
The City of Huntington Beach is considering approval of the development of the
Holly-Seacliff site. Because the proposed actions constitute a project under the
CEQA Guidelines, the City of Huntington Beach has prepared an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). This EIR has identified certain significant effects which may
occur as a result of the project, or on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other
past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. Further, the City desires to
approve this project and, after determining that the EIR is complete and has been
prepared in accordance with CEQA and the Guidelines, the findings are set forth
herein.
4
FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE PROJECT
EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE INSIGNIFICANT
INITIAL STUDY
The City of Huntington Beach prepared an Initial Study to identify effects of the
proposed project which are and are not potentially significant. Those topics
determined not to be significant are stated below:
Earth
o The project will not result in the creation of objectionable odors.
o The project will not result in any increase in wind or water erosion of soils,
either on or off the site.
Air Ouality
o The project will not result in the creation of objectionable odors.
o The project will not result in the alteration of air movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally.
Plant Life
o The project will not result in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare
or endangered species of plants.
Animal Life
o The project will not result in reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals.
o The project will not result in introduction of new species of animals into an
area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals.
o The project will not result in deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat.
Noise
o The project will not result in the exposure of people to severe noise levels.
Natural Resources
o The project will not result in substantial depletion of any non-renewable
natural resources.
Transportation
o The project will not result in an increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists or pedestrians.
5
Human Health
o The project will not result in the creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard.
Cultural Resources
o The project does not have the potential to cause physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
During preparation of the EIR it was determined the following effects were
insignif icant:
Land Use
o The project twill not result in land use compatibility impacts because roadways
and walls will act as buffers.
Population/Housing
o The project will not result in significant population increases.
Air Quality
o The project will not result in significant increases in long-term stationary
source emissions both on and off-site.
Light and Glare
o The project will not result in glare impacts related to vehicular traffic.
Energy Resources
o Construction of the project will not result in short-term energy consumption
impacts.
Public Services and Utilities
o The project will not result in impacts to hospital facilities.
6
EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE
LAND USE
Significant Effect
o Development of the project may result in impacts from oil service vehicles
driving through proposed residential tracts.
Findina
Finding 1.
Facts in Suouort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual tracts, the applicant should
demonstrate that service vehicle access to all remaining operating oil wells on-
site is monitored through the existing or proposed residential tracts.
2. All potential buyers and renters of on-site residences should be notified of the
effects resulting from on-site and off-site oil production activities. The
notification should state the frequency and locations of maintenance and
service operations. The notification should indicate that noise levels from oil
activities may also significantly increase during these times.
Significant Effect
o Development of the project adjacent to the golf course may result in landscape
incompatibilities.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to the approval of tentative tracts adjacent to the Seacliff Country Club
and golf course, preliminary landscape plans and development/open space edge
treatments should be submitted for City approval. These plans should provide
for the review of planting compatibility along the relevant south edge of the
development.
7
Significant Effect
Grading activities or development on-site could disrupt or destroy on-site natural
swales. This would be inconsistent with goals stated in the Open Space/Conservation
Element.
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Sutmort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. In order to retain the existing swale character, future Specific Plans should
incorporate policies which specify the grade of slope, permitted amount of cut
and fill, improvements for storm drainage and include a schematic design for
recreational and open space treatment within drainage swales.
2. Only limited grading activities or development should be allowed within areas
encompassing natural swales on-site. This should be limited to changes
required to install access roads, utility and storm drainage lines and
landscaping to enhance the natural condition of the swale areas.
3. Detailed grading plans for all development on-site should be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Such plans should show all natural swales on-site and the areas to be graded.
4. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Department of Fish and Game
should be notified of grading activities on-site that are scheduled to commence
in the swales, in order to preclude the possible elimination of wetland areas
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game, as further
specified in the Biological Resources section of this EIR.
AESTHETICS
Significant Effect
Grading activities may result in de-vegetation and potential impacts to drainage
swales.
Findinp.
Finding 1.
Facts in Sutroort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
8
, 9
1. Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of
slope, permitted amount of cut and fill, improvements for storm drainage and
include a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within
the ravines.
2. The topography of the natural ravines and their associated drainage courses
should be preserved in accordance with standards adopted with approval of
future Specific Plans.
Significant Effect
The project may result in visual impacts associated with overhead utility lines.
Findinit
Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. New utility lines including, but not limited to, electric (excludes SCE 66KV
Transimission Lines), telephone, street lighting and cable television should be
placed under ground.
Significant Effect
The project may result in visual impacts to homes on adjacent parcels and visual
impact associated with the removal of existing windrows.
Fin in
Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Landscaping of future projects should be designed to minimize visual impacts
on adjacent parcels. Special consideration should be given to orientation of the
project's residences (i.e. windows and decking) so as to respect the privacy of
adjacent and nearby homes.
2. Wherever feasible, oil production facilities on-site should be eliminated or
consolidated to reduce their total number. Facilities remaining on-site should
be painted, camouflaged, or otherwise screened by perimeter walls, plantings
or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future residents.
9
k ,
3. Wherever feasible, windrows should be preserved within park sites or replaced
to maintain the aesthetic benefits they contribute to the community. Further
studies should be completed to assess the health of these trees.
Significant Effect
The project may result in aesthetic impacts associated with the loss of open space
land where the railroad transportation corridor exists.
FindiLig
Finding 1.
Facts in Sutmort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. As future development occurs, the designated railroad transportation corridor
should be preserved for future use as trails or transit.
EARTH RESOURCES
Significant Effect
Development of the project may cause further degradation of groundwater in the
area and could increase erosion and siltation.
Fin i
Finding 1.
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Subdrains should be installed where necessary. Location and size of subdrains,
if any are required, should be determined after preliminary geotechnical and
grading information is made available.
Significant Effect
The project lies in a seismically active area.
10
44
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The design of structures should comply with the requirements of the City of
Huntington Beach Code and the standard practices of the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
2. A detailed geologic fault investigation should be undertaken to delineate any
additional active trace of the Newport/Inglewood Fault. A setback zone should
be established to prevent the construction of habitable structures within 50 feet
on either side of any active fault trace. Therefore, as is the case in the western
portion of the property, where the fault zone as exposed in the sand borrow pit
is 80 feet wide, the ultimate setback zone should have a total width of 180 feet.
Significant Effect
The project contains areas with relatively high amount of groundwater within the
alluvium that may contribute to some potential for liquefaction.
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to future development, additional information on particle size, density
and ground water levels should be obtained to accurately assess the potential
for liquefaction due to seismic shaking in the alluvial areas.
Significant Effect
The potential for subsidence to occur exists on the project site.
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
11
2. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the
region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are
declining with current water-injection methods being used at operating oil
production facilities.
3. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design
in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional
subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it will by
no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence
of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal.
Significant Effect
Portions of the project site are located within tsunami risk area.
Findinit
Finding 1.
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. At the time of future development, habitable structures will be located outside
of the tsunami risk zone.
Significant Effect
The occurrence of bluff erosion is a distinct possibility along the western portion of
the project site.
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Sunoort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. During and after project construction, adequate surface drainage should be
maintained by the applicant in order to eliminate bluff erosion. Surface water
should be carried quickly away from the top of the bluff and not allowed to
pond or run down the slope face.
12
HYDROLOGY
Significant Effect
The elimination of swales by development could potentially cause drainage impacts.
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Sunoort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to approval of future Specific Plans or grading permits, a detailed area-
wide flood control/hydrology/hydraulic study should be prepared by a licensed
civil engineer as required by the City and completed by the applicant (per the
current County of Orange Hydrology Requirements) to further quantify and
detail the combined drainage impacts of development within the watershed
area. These detailed studies may be used to adjust the suggested conduit sizes
proposed for the EIR and shown on Exhibit 14. A separate detailed study
should be completed for each tributary area. These studies shall be completed
prior to the approval of future Specific Plans or at the time of grading permit.
2. All future discretionary permits should be consistent in preserving area-wide
natural drainage patterns along with preserving and enhancing the goals,
objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation
Element. The permits should ensure that development provide for facilities
needed to accommodate runoff from a 100 year storm.
3. Individual projects should be required to construct or upgrade on-site and off-
site drainage facilities needed to drain the site according to City requirements.
This should include: limited improvements to existing earth swales to convey
nuisance flows as well as floodwater; required storm drain conduits; storm
drain crossings under Goldenwest Street, Ellis Avenue and other proposed
streets; and any other facilities determined as needed in the more detailed
hydrology studies.
4. An additional closed conduit system will be required in Garfield Avenue from
Crystal Street easterly to the connection with the existing storm drain line in
Delaware Street. This system will be required to accommodate flows generated
by development within the study area.
5. The City should be responsible for the construction of upgraded swales, closed
conduits and a desilting basin to transport the drainage runoff collected from
the northwest portion of the project site, from north of Ellis Avenue to
Huntington Central Park.
13
RECREATION
Significant Effect
The population generated by this project would place a demand for a total of 54
acres of parkland at a ratio of 5 acres per 1,000 persons.
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within
the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue.
2. The City shall enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate
designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning
Area.
3. The City should create a special assessment district(s) for the development and
maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in reduced LOS for traffic in the project
vicinity. The GPA will result in 60,470 ADT.
Finding
Finding 1.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Arterial links within the project study area shall be improved to their
ultimate width, consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the
General Plan Amendment request. A listing of the ultimate arterial
widths within the project study area is presented below:
14
Ellis Avenue
Edwards Street to Gothard Street primary 4 lane divided arterial
Gothard Street to project east boundary secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Garfield Avenue
Seapointe Street to Main Street major 6 lane divided arterial
Yorktown Avenue
Goldenwest Street to Main Street primary 4 lane divided arterial
Edwards Street
Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Goldenwest Street
Yorktown Avenue to Ellis Avenue major 6 lane divided arterial
Gothard Street
Ellis Avenue to Main Street secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Main Street
Huntington Street to Yorktown Avenue primary 4 lane divided arterial
These improvements should include all necessary curbs, gutters and median
requirements per the City of Huntington's standard plans. In addition, all
residential collectors, industrial collectors and residential streets should be
improved to their ultimate width consistent with the proposed Circulation
Element for the General Plan Amendment project.
2. Intersections within the study area should be constructed to the lane
geometries identified in Table 18.
3. Prior to the first Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, a fair share
funding program for the construction of the cross-gap connector from
Edwards to Bolsa Chica as a modified secondary arterial and the Sea-
pointe Avenue extension from Garfield to Coast Highway should be
determined. In the determination of this fair share funding program, a
credit should be given for the segment of the cross-gap connector and
Seapointe Avenue constructed within the project boundary.
4. The arterial and intersection improvements required to occur commen-
surate with Planning Area development are as follows:
Planning Area A
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
15
Construct the ultimate westerly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of
Edwards Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue.
Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from the project's western border to Edwards
Street.
Planning Area B
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Construct the ultimate easterly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of
Edwards Street from the project's northern border to Garfield
Avenue.
Construct the ultimate section (100 feet, 4 lanes) of Ellis Avenue
from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street.
Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street.
Planning Area C
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Vacate the existing Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield
Avenue and construct the realigned Gothard Street to the west from
Ellis Avenue to Clay Street. The realigned segment of Gothard
Street should be constructed to its ultimate four lane secondary
section from Ellis to Clay.
Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern
border.
Planning Area D
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
16
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from the project's western border to Goldenwest
Street.
Planning Area E
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern
border.
5. At the time of Specific Plan or Tract Map approval for a given Planning
Area or portion thereof, a traffic study shall be completed to determine
whether the incremental increase in traffic from the Specific Plan or
Tract Map area causes any of the intersections under investigation to
result in unacceptable levels of service. If unacceptable levels of service
result, this traffic analysis shall determine the portion of the ultimate
intersection improvements which are required, phasing of the
improvement and the funding source. If the project requires intersection
improvements which are greater than the project's fair share, a
reimbursable agreement shall be required of those subsequent develop-
ments which contribute to the need for said improvement.
Significant Effect
Development of the project may result in access impacts to major arterial streets.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to Tract Map approval, a signal warrant analysis shall be conducted for
any project access points to the major arterial street system.
Significant Effect
The project may result in impacts to designations for bus stop turnouts.
17
Finding,
Finding 1
Facts in Sunoort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to any Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, the Orange County Transit
District shall be consulted for the need to construct bus stops, turnouts and
shelters.
Significant Effect
The project may result in impacts to the future railroad transportation corridor.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The current Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) easement shall be preserved as a
transportation corridor for future use for mass transit and trails.
AIR QUALITY
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in short-term construction related impacts on
air quality.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. To minimize dust generation during grading operations, SCAQMD Rule 403
should be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving
operations. To further reduce the emissions, grading should not occur when
wind speeds exceed 20 mpg.
18
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in long-term increases in vehicular source
emissions.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunoort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. There should be support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin to
achieve regional air quality. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit
facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Energy
conservation measures are also included. Specific measures which may be
appropriate for the proposed project include:
o Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public
transit usage including the designation of the transportation corridor and
providing secure bicycle facilities.
o Provide public transit accommodations: such as bus turnout lanes, park
and ride areas and bus shelters.
o Provide energy conserving street lighting.
o Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible.
Significant Effect
Development of the project may expose residents to odors from oil leakage.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Because it only takes a small amount of material to generate odors, it is
important to maintain a very clean operation. Therefore, any oil spilled on the
ground should be quickly cleaned up. Well sumps should be pumped out after
pulling a well and periodically in the interim. Maintenance of seals and
gaskets on pumps and piping should be performed whenever leaks are evident.
General clean up of the site should result in significant improvements in the
level of odor found in the area.
19
2. Appropriately designed, vapor recovery systems which pull the gas off the well
casing should be employed, as well as vapor recovery systems for oil transport
trucks. A similar system could be employed for any remaining storage facilities
on-site.
NOISE
Significant Effect
Project development could result in potential traffic related noise that could
potentially increase outdoor and indoor noise levels in residential and commercial
land uses to unacceptable levels.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Measures should b4; designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not be
exceeded in residential outside living areas. Where residential buildings are to
be located within these 65 CNEL contours, mitigation measures should be
undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design
and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is
the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a
noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source
and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between
the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not
break the line-of-sight is not an affective barrier, while one which just
interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 db reduction in noise. The greater the
penetration the greater the noise reduction. Increasing building setbacks should
also be used to attenuate noise down to acceptable levels.
2. The City of Huntington Beach should require that the housing portion of this
project comply with the State of California Noise Insulation standards. The
code requires that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with window
closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45
dB in any habitable room." Any measures, such as window upgrades, can be
specified at the time of building permit application.
3. At the time of building permit application, the design should again be reviewed
to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design.
Significant Effect
Short- and long-term noise from oil operations, which include: drilling, oil well
pumping and pulling, redrilling and service drilling, and well consolidation, could
affect on-site residential uses.
20
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Noise levels generated by the oil operations should be mitigated to levels
consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, by locating
consolidation areas) at least 300 feet from the nearest residential or other
sensitive land uses (locating consolidation areas within industrial use areas
would be the most desirable from a noise standpoint). The oil wells could be
located closer to sensitive land uses if a perimeter wall with a minimum height
of 8.0 feet was utilized around the consolidation area(s). The following
mitigation measures assume a 100 foot distance to receptor and the mitigation
effects of an 8.0 foot sound wall. Additional analysis of the consolidation
area(s) will be necessary when phasing plans become available.
2. The results show that in order for the drilling operations to satisfy the
Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance outdoor standards, electric motors with
acoustic blankets must be used. Diesel motors even when shielded by acoustic
blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site
and off-site residences, and will not meet the daytime Noise Ordinance
standards at the on-site residences. If there are plans to conduct the drilling
operations during the nighttime hours, then according to the Oil Code, the
operations must be soundproofed. Acoustic blankets as well as a 8.0 foot high
masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to
below the Noise Ordinance standards.
3. The well pumps used in the consolidation area should be submerged. If other
types of well pumps such as ground level electric or diesel pumps may be
necessary. Specific mitigation measures should be presented in an additional
noise study.
4. Well pulling and drilling operations are confined to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10
p.m.) by the Oil Code. Any redrilling performed at night must provide
soundproofing to comply with the Noise Ordinance. The Oil Code prohibits the
pulling of wells during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Well
maintenance activities should also be conducted between the hours of 7 a.m.
and 10 p.m. only. Although high levels of noise may be generated by routine
well maintenance operations, these activities would occur inside the noise
barrier surrounding the consolidation area.
5. Service drilling for this project will be conducted during the daytime hours
only. Data on service drilling operations indicate that with a diesel powered
service rig and an 8 foot high noise barrier, the noise level at 100 feet will
likely be SS dBA which corresponds to the City's daytime Noise Ordinance
standard. All servicing of the wells must comply with the noise standards
contained in the Huntington Beach code.
SAnificant Effect
Trucks passing through residential areas to periodically empty on-site storage tanks,
could result in associated noise nuisances t i residents.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
I. Truck operations should be limited to daytime hours only (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
Significant Effect
Potentially significant noise from police heliport activities operations could occur.
Finding
Finding I
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtuc
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Residential development within the helicopter flight corridor should generally
be discouraged.
2. All residential buildings to be constructed within the helicopter activity
corridor should be designed to achieve a 25 dBA outdoor to indoor noise
reduction.
3. Helicopter noise impacts should be addressed in the acoustical assessments for
residential uses within the helicopter flight corridor. Any mitigation
requirements necessary to reduce helicopter noise impacts should be included in
the assessment.
4. A notice (and statement of acknowledgement) to prospective homeowners is
required stating that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of
helicopters associated with the police facility.
22
1
LIGHT AND GLARE
Sianificant Effect
The project will result in street, vehicular, and security related lighting which will be
visible to surrounding areas.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunoort of Findina
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. A phased landscaping program should be developed in conjunction with all
future Specific Plans to ensure landscaping commensurate with residential and
non-residential occupancy to adequately screen on-site light and glare impacts.
2. All outdoor lighting should be consistent with the standards established by
future Specific Plans to minimize off-site light intrusion.
3. All outdoor lighting should be hooded and directed downward to minimize
direct light and glare impacts on public rights-of-way and surrounding
properties.
4. Appropriate types and heights of street lights should be consistently established
in future Specific Plans. Street lighting should be standardized throughout the
project area.
5. Lighting associated with recreational uses, where applicable, should be designed
to minimize light intrusion onto surrounding property and right-of-ways
surrounding such uses.
Significant Effect
The amount of glare caused by reflective surfaces on buildings and by vehicles may
be visible and increase as a result of the project.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Non-residential building materials should be consistent with architectural
standards incorporated into future Specific Plans. These standards should
address the minimization of glare.
23
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
Development of proposed project will result in the destruction of potentially
significant archaeological resources.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. It is suggested that the research design be prepared by the Principal
Investigator selected to perform the work and that it be reviewed by a second
consulting archaeologist. This step will help insure the completeness and
viability of the research design prior to its implementation. The involvement
of a second professional is viewed as an inexpensive means of insuring that no
major elements are overlooked.
2. The archaeological deposits within the Holly-Seacliff study area should be
subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to
fully describe the sites. The following program is recommended:
A. Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society, Long Beach State University and any community college which
has such material. If the collections are properly provenienced and are
accompanied by adequate documentation, they should be brought together
during this phase and complete analysis performed. Of particular
importance during this phase is the recovery of survey data to be used to
determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts.
B. Prior to the beginning of any excavation effort, a burial strategy should
be developed by the archaeologist retained to accomplish the excavation,
members of the Native American community and appropriate City Staff.
The strategy should address details of the handling and processing of
human remains encountered during excavation, as well as the ultimate
disposition of such remains.
C. Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the
archaeological deposits. The information gained from the test excavation
will guide the following data recovery excavation. The excavations
should have two primary goals:
o Definition of site boundaries and depth.
o Determination of the significance of the site and its degree of
preservation.
D. A statistically valid sample of site material should be excavated. The
data recovery excavation should be conducted under the provisions of a
carefully developed research design. The research questions presented
earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design,
other important research questions should be developed from the test
24
excavation data included, and a statement of methodology to be observed
must be included.
E. A qualified observer appointed by the Principle Investigator/
Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites to
recover important material which might appear. The monitor will be
assigned by the Principal Investigator. This activity may require some
minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered.
The observer should be prepared to recover material as rapidly as is
consistent with good archaeological practice. Monitoring should be on a
full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological
deposit. However, the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit
has been entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed.
F. All excavation and ground disturbing observation projects should include
a Native American Observer. Burials are known to exist at some of the
sites, a circumstance which is extremely important to the Native
American community.
G. A detailed professional report should be prepared which fully describes
the site and its place in prehistory. Reports should receive sufficient
distribution which includes the City, the County and the UCLA
repository for archeology to insure their availability to future
researchers.
H. Arrangements should be made for proper curation of the collections. It is
expected that large quantities of material will be collected during the
excavation. Curation should be at an institution which has the proper
facilities for storage, display and use by interested scholars and the
general public.
3. The shell and lithic scatters should be subjected to test excavation to determinc
if they are or are not in situ archaeological deposits. If any of the scatters
prove to be in situ archaeological material, a site record should be prepared and
submitted to the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles,
and the site should be treated as in mitigation number one. If the sites are
shown to be not archaeological in nature or not in situ, then no further action
should be taken.
4. Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a
qualified observer assigned by the Principle Investigator/Archaeologist to
determine if significant historic deposits, (e.g. foundations, trash deposits, privy
pits and similar features) have been exposed. The monitoring should be on a
full time basis but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic
formations are exposed. If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should
be made, followed by analysis and report preparation. Historic material may
be encountered anywhere within the Holly-Seacliff property, but the area
around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the
balance of the project area. Historical material recovered at the archaeological
sites should be treated with those deposits.
5. The plaque commemorating oil well Huntington A-1 should be preserved. As
development in the area continues, it may be desirable to upgrade this feature.
25
Significant Effect
Grading and other earth moving activities will likely expose fossil remains and
potentially destroy them.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site
during grading or extensive trenching activities that cut into the San Pedro
Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units.
2. In areas where fossils are abundant, full-time monitoring and salvage efforts
will be necessary (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). In
areas where no fossils are being uncovered, the monitoring time can be less
than eight hours per day.
3. The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading
operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils.
4. Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will necessary
to salvage any microvertebrate remains. If a deposit of microvertebrates is
discovered, matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area to
allow for further screening without delaying the developmental work.
5. All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data should go to an institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the Orange County Natural
History Foundation.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The project may result in the loss of large trees which will reduce raptor nesting
sites.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Suunort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Through adoption of future Specific Plans large trees suitable for use by
raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk, should be preserved or replaced in
accordance with the tree species identified in the plant palette contained in
Appendix H.
26
Significant Effect
The project will result in the potential loss of brackish wetlands on the western
border.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Any grading or filling in the brackish wetlands in the western portion of the
project site will be mitigated by restoration of an equal area of coastal wetland
at a nearby location in the open space area.
2. Effects upon on-site wetlands within the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Fish and Game will require mitigation defined. by 1603 permits.
Significant Effect
Increased access and encroachment into the wetlands located to the west of the
project site may destroy habitat and disrupt breeding and foraging activities of
wildlife.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Development/use of the linear park (open space areas along the northern and
northwest project boundaries) will be limited to passive recreation such as
riding and hiking trails. Fencing and vegetative buffers shall be designed to
exclude humans and pets from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands areas. The bluffs and
other upland areas in the linear park shall be revegetated with native plants
which are adapted to coastal environments.
Significant Effect
The night lighting associated with the proposed project may disrupt wildlife activity.
27
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The effects of night lighting can be mitigated by the following measures: 1)
use of low intensity street lamps at the development edge; 2) use of low
elevation lighting poles; and 3) shielding by internal silvering of the globe or
internal opaque reflectors. The degree to which these measures are utilized
should be dependent upon the distance of the light source to the urban edge.
Use of private sources of illumination around homes should also be restricted
to prohibit area lighting on lots adjacent to open space areas.
OIL FACILITIES
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in the consolidation of oil wells adjacent to
new development.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Future Specific Plan(s) should include an area or areas for the consolidation of
oil well facilities.
Significant Effect
Development of the project within an oil district may result in operational and
locational impacts.
Fin in
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. All new development proposals should be accompanied by:
o A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned wells.
28
o The abandonment plans for existing wells.
o The operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities.
These plans must satisfy the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and
the Division of Oil and Gas.
2. The criteria for the approval of development plans within oil districts should
include:
(a) That enough open space has been reserved around the oil operation site to
allow existing and future equipment which could reasonably be expected
to be used on the site, including any setbacks from new development
required by the Fire Chief.
(b) That adequate access to all operation sites is provided for portable
equipment and emergency vehicles.
(c) That reasonable expansion of the existing facilities, if permitted in the
oil district, can be accomplished.
(d) That any proposed development includes all provisions for soundproofing
and fire protection required by the Fire Chief.
(e) That screening of oil facilities from any new development is included in
the plan.
(section 9680.4, Article 968 OIL DISTRICTS, City of Huntington Beach
Municipal Code).
Significant Effect
The withdrawal of oil may result in subsidence impacts to new development
structures.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the
region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are
declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil
production facilities.
2. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design
in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional
subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it will by
no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence
of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal.
Significant Effect
Development among operating oil wells can include hazards from oil field, surface
oil contamination, accumulation of methane gas, fire or blow out incidents, oil spills,
noise and air quality impacts.
29
Fin Sling
Finding 1
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. All other mitigation measures pertaining to oil contamination, methane gas
accumulation and other hazards are contained in other sections of this EIR, as
previously noted.
HUMAN HEALTH dt SAFETY
Significant Effect
Previous oil production activities cold result in areas of surface oil contamination on
the project site, requiring a site specific evaluation to direct cleanup operations on-
site.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sutmort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to grading and development, a site reconnaissance should be performed
including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate areas where
contamination of the surficial soils may have taken place. The environmental
assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to the site
and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on-site contamination.
Phase I should include:
a. Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site to evaluate
current and previous uses.
b. Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of surficial
soils may have taken place.
C. Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of near
surface contamination of soil.
d. Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps on-site. Testing
of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals.
e. Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the
existing on-site wells.
I
f. Testing of air samples for gas vapor, methane gas and sulfur compounds.
30
2. The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be developed
as part of a later phase. Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, a
Remedial Action Plan can be developed. This plan should address the
following items:
a. Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils. A possible solution to
this condition would be aeration of the contaminated soils to release the
volatile gases and then incorporation of the treated soils into the roadway
fills (subgrade).
b. Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on-site disposal of non-
contaminated drilling fluids or off-site disposal of contaminated fluids.
C. Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane gas.
Significant Effect
The potential exists for the project site to experience explosions due to methane gas
accumulations.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to development, a thorough site study for the presence of surface and
shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal findings
would require a Remedial Action Plan and further studies to assure sufficient
mitigation of the hazardous areas prior to building construction. All structures
should have a gas and vapor barrier installed underneath the slabs and
foundations. Gas collection and ventilation systems should be installed over
abandoned wells which are underneath or within ten (10) feet of any structure,
and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions of methane gas.
Additionally, following construction of structures, an organic vapor analysis
should be conducted and the results evaluated to assure that acceptable air
quality is maintained within buildings and residences.
2. The presence of methane gas on-site should be the subject of future studies that
include the following tasks:
a. Drilling of test wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits and
confirm or deny the presence of biogenic methane bearing strata near the
surface in the development area.
b. Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or assumed to be
potential drilling mud sumps;
C. Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on
the site and collection of soil vapor samples;
d. Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells;
31
C. Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil vapor
samples for gases.
Significant Effect
The operation of oil wells in proximity to residential development may result in
hazards related to blowouts, explosions, fires, ruptures and vandalism.
FindinsE
Finding 1
Facts in Sut)nort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Oil wells scheduled for abandonment should be completed in accordance with
the standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and the
California Division of Oil and Gas. Wells which have previously been
abandoned must be reabandoned to the most current requirements of the City
of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas.
2. Existing oil production lines are located throughout the site. Treatment of
these lines will depend on proposed land use and development. Utility lines
should be relocated and or removed with the trench being filled with
compacted fill.
Significant Effect
The storage and use of hazardous materials can be expected as part of operations in
industrial portions of the project site.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored by industries locating
within the project area should be maintained and recorded for use by the City
Fire Department. This inventory should include the location at which each
hazardous material is used.
2. The use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials should be enforced by
City of Huntington Beach to provide the greatest possible protection to the
public from accidental occurrences.
3. Active wells remaining on-site should be secured and screened as required by
the City of Huntington Beach.
32
4. Prior to development, a review of available public health records should be
performed to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the
subject site.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
Significant Effect
Development of the project will create the need for additional fire protection
services.
indinit
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Access roads to oil production areas should be provided where appropriate and
kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts on fire protection due to ongoing
oil production.
2. Measures to eliminate or reduce fire and safety risks from existing and
abandoned oil production facilities and disposal areas are discussed in the
Human Health and Safety section of this EIR.
3. The Huntington Beach Fire Department should review all developments within
the area for adequate emergency vehicle access and water pressure.
Significant Effect
Development within the project area will impact the level of police services presently
provided.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The City should budget for additional officers to correspond with phasing of
development in the project area.
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in the addition of new residents to the area
creating a need for expanded park facilities and library facilities.
33
in i
Finding 1
Facts in Sunnort of Findina
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The City should enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate
designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning
Area.
2. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within
the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue.
3. The City should create a special assessment district(s) for the development and
maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area.
Significant Effect
Development of the project will have an incremental impact on already overcrowded
conditions at the central Library and may additionally increase the use and demand
on the service of the Main Street Branch.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. With future development, the community enrichment fee should be paid to help
fund the library expansion program.
Significant Effect
Development of the project will impact elementary and high school facilities.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The GPA designates a site for a new elementary school to serve students
generated by residential development within the project area.
34
2. The school district and major landowner should enter into an agreement for
acquisition or lease of the site as part of implementation of this GPA.
3. Developers should pay school impact fees to finance construction of necessary
school facilities.
4. The Huntington Beach Union High School District should coordinate its
expansion plans with phasing of development within the project area and
surrounding areas.
Significant Effect
Development of the project could potentially impact waste disposal facilities and
services.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. To reduce the proposed projects impacts on waste disposal facilities, project
designs should develop a means of reducing the amount of waste generated
both during construction and when the project is in use. Potential ways of
reducing project waste loads include implementation of recycling programs,
and utilization of low water use landscaping.
2. The developer should contact the solid waste disposal firm during the design
stage to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal.
The design should include rubbish enclosures, projected travel areas, and
turnabouts where necessary. Provisions for recycling should be included in
future project designs.
Significant Effect
Development of the project could potentially impact gas conservation and planning
efforts.
Findinit
Finding 1
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards
set forth in Title 24 of the Californian Administrative Code.
35
2. It is strongly recommended that developers consult with the Southern
California Gas Company and the Southern California Edison Company for
further energy conservation measures.
3. Developers should submit to SCG and SCE planning divisions all tract maps
and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing and
sizing of needed mains and service lines can be designed.
Significant Effect
Development of the project could potentially impact service delivery and planning
efforts.
Findinit
Finding I
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Building construction should comply with the standards and specifications of
the General Telephone Company and Rogers Cable TV Company.
2. Developers should submit to GTE and Rogers Cable TV Company all tract maps
and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing, sizing
and material ordering for service lines can be made.
WATER FACILITIES
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in the need for water facility improvements
such as major transmission lines and a booster station.
Finding
Finding I
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Development of the proposed project should occur concurrently with
development of the City's water system improvements to allow for adequate
water service to the site.
2. All proposed development should comply with the phasing and design of water
facilities as shown on the water facilities map so as to provide adequate looped
systems to service the adjoining properties.
36
3. As future development occurs prior to the issuance of Use and Occupancy
permits, developers should construct the necessary water service lines to
individual residences and lots.
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in the need for increased storage capacity.
Finding
Finding 1
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be
issued until the Reservoir Hill booster pump station and the increase in storage
capacity are complete and operating to the satisfaction of the City Water
Division so as to provide adequate water service to each development.
SEWER FACILITIES
Significant Effect
Ultimate development project area will require four major trunk lines and one pump
station to collect and convey sewerage from the project area.
FindiniE
Finding 1
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as
required by the City so as to precisely calculate the required sewer main sizes.
These calculations may be used to adjust the suggested pipe sizes proposed for
the E.I.R. and should be completed for each tributary area prior to the approval
of Specific Plans.
2. All proposed development should comply with a phasing plan and the design of
sewer facilities as shown on the sewer facilities map. This would provide
adequate connections to service adjoining and upstream properties. All
required easements for sewer facilities should be in place prior to the issuance
of a building permit of the subject property.
3. New development should be phased corresponding to the curtailment of waste
water discharge from existing oil production as required for adequate pipe
capacity flows.
37
4. Development of the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station should
be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or until other
interim methods are approved.
5. All industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce the
load strength of their sewerage discharge.
6. Developers should pay the required connection fees to either O.C.S.D. No. 3 or
O.C.S.D. No. 11, whichever is higher at the time of connection to County Trunk
lines.
7. Each development should be responsible for the construction of sewer facilities
within their project and/or off-site facilities necessary to serve the
development. If it is required to oversize these facilities so as to serve other
future projects, the developer can enter into a reimbursement agreement with
the City so that future developers pay their fair share when they develop. This
reimbursement procedure is per the City Ordinance Code.
8. Discretionary permits should not be approved for development of an area until
adequate sewer service alignments and capacities are demonstrated.
SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF
THE PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED.
LAND USE
Significant Effect
Project will result in the conversion of 768 acres of land to urban uses that are at a
much greater degree of development than what is presently existing.
Findinia
Finding 3
Facts in Sunoort of Finding
Certain economic and social needs of the City preclude the feasibility of mitigation.
AESTHETICS
Significant Effect
The project will contribute to a cumulative loss of open space views.
Finding
Finding 3
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant impact cannot be lessened through mitigation as this impact is a
consequence of the urbanization process.
38
EARTH RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The project will alter existing topography and soils through the proposed grading and
construction activities on-site.
Finding
Findings 1 and 3
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Prior to preparing the final development plan for the property, a detailed
preliminary geologic and soils engineering investigation should be completed.
The purpose of this subsequent investigation should be to develop specific
grading and foundation recommendations for the proposed site development.
2. In order to retain the existing swale character, future Specific Plans should
incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of slope, permitted amounts
of cut and fill, permitted improvements for storm drainage and include a
schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within drainage
swales.
3. Prior to the issuance of future grading permits, internal collector streets should
be aligned around topographical features and avoid crossing the natural swales
where possible.
HYDROLOGY
Sjjznificant Effect
The project will increase downstream siltation and contribute to the degradation of
water quality.
Finding
Findings 1 and 3
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Developers will be required to design and construct all required improvements
(swales, conduits, overflow provisions, desiltation, by-pass system) required for
flows entering Sully-Miller Lake. Per City Ordinance, the developers may enter
into reimbursement agreements. The developer shall be responsible for on-site
generated run-off only.
39
2. It is recommended that final drainage and grading plans be designed to
minimize erosion and velocity of surface runoff through proper design of
surface drains, appropriate grading, and landscape programs, all to the
specification of the City's Department of Public Works.
3. All work should comply with the City of Huntington Beach Public Works
Standards and Specifications and any pertinent grading ordinances.
POPULATION/HOUSING
Significant Effect
Development of the project will impact the goals of the Housing Element by reducing
the housing stock by 25%.
Findiniz
Findings 1 and 3
Facts in Suonort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The applicant should strive to develop a variety of housing types and sizes at a
range of prices in order to comply with the General Plan Housing Element
policies for affordable housing as well as the needs identified in the RHNA.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION
Significant Effect
Development of the project will result in impacts to Garfield Avenue/Main Street
intersection from access locations along Garfield.
Fin in
Finding I and 3
Facts in Suouort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. As part of any subsequent Specific Plan or Tract Map that requires access along
Garfield Avenue, an operational analysis of said access shall be conducted and
submitted for review and approval of the City Traffic Engineer. The access on
Garfield Avenue shall be limited to right turn in and out, except one location,
mid-block between Edwards Street and Goldenwest Street. A signalized full
movement intersection shall be permitted at this location. The access design
shall be limited on Garfield Avenue and spread to other parallel arterials, such
as Ellis Avenue, Clay Avenue and Yorktown Avenue.
40
AIR QUALITY
Significant Effects
Development of the project will contribute to the degradation of regional air quality.
Find1ns
Finding 1 and 3
Facts in Sunuort of Finding
The cumulative significant impact cannot be lessened through mitigation as this
impact is a consequence of the urbanization process.
NOISE
Significant Effects
During construction, existing residential land uses situated adjacent to the project
site could be exposed to impacts from occasional single-event disturbances caused by
construction equipment.
Finding
Finding l and 3
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be
implemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday
working hours.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Significant Effect
The conversion of existing open areas into residential and commercial uses will result
in the removal of vegetation and the destruction or displacement of wildlife which
uses the on-site habitat.
Finding
Findings l and 3
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The setting aside of 92 acres of parks and other open space will partially
mitigate the loss of the existing open space and provide some wildlife habitat.
41
2. The Specific Plan should address revegetation on all graded areas where
structures or other improvements are not built. In public open space areas,
consideration should be given to the use of native or naturalized species which
require little irrigation and provide wildlife habitat, with a gradual transition
to more ornamental species along the development edge.
3. Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drainage swale,
i.e. utility lines, sewers, etc., this swale should remain as open space. Mitigation
for the loss of cattail marsh habitat (0.5 acres) and willow habitat (0.5 acres)
which are depicted on Exhibit 28, will take place such that a minimum of 1.0
acre of riparian vegetation is established in this drainage swale. The plants
utilized in the revegetated area will be chosen from the recommended plant
palette indicated in Appendix H.
NATURAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES
Significant Effect
Upon completion, project residences will generate an increased demand on natural
gas and electricity.
Fin in
Findings 1 and 3
Facts in Sunnort of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards
set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Energy
conservation features should include:
o Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet or
exceed State of California, Title 24 requirements.
o Insulation of hot water pipes and duct systems.
o Use of natural ventilation where possible.
o Use of natural gas for space heating and cooking.
o Installation of attic fans or other ventilation devices.
o Orientation to sunlight and use of overhangs.
o Landscaping with deciduous trees, to provide shade in the summer
months and allow sunlight through in the winter months.
2. It is recommended that the developer consult with both the Southern California
Gas Company and Southern California Edison during the building design phase
for further energy conservation measures.
42
WATER FACILITIES
Significant Effect
Development of the project will incrementally increase the demand for additional
water supplies.
Finding
Finding 1 and 3
Facts in Su000rt of Finding
The significant effect has been substantially lessened to the extent feasible by virtue
of the following mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and incorporated
into the project.
1. The following water conservation measures shall be implemented by developers
as required by state law and by the City Water Division:
a. Low-flush toilets.
b. Low-flow showers and faucets.
C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems.
d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate
plumbing code.
2. Irrigation systems which minimize water waste should be used to the greatest
extent possible. Such measures should involve such features as the following:
a. Raised planters and berming in conjunction with closely spaced low
volume low angle (22-1/2 degrees) sprinkler heads.
b. Drip irrigation.
C. Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during
early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses.
3. Developers and the City should provide information to occupants regarding
benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance for
domestic and irrigation water conservation procedures.
4. Landscaping should use only low water demand (drought-tolerant species) and
irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste. The use of mulch
extensively in all landscaped areas is strongly recommended.
5. Minimize use of lawns and utilize water season, drought tolerant grasses.
6. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff
and aid in groundwater recharge.
7. Control slopes and grades to discourage water waste through runoff.
8. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be
issued until additional water supplies as detailed in the 1988 Water Master Plan
are implemented by the City Water Division so as to provide adequate water
supplies to each development.
43
t
9. Developers should consult the City Water Division during design and
construction phases for further water conservation measures to review
irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use.
10. As development occurs, prior to approval of future building permits, complete
landscape and irrigation plans should be submitted to and approved by the
Water Division.
11. In order to connect to the Orange County Water District's "Green Acres" system
of reclaimed water (as described and detailed in the 1988 City of Huntington
Beach Water System Master Plan), the project developer should at this time
construct and utilize a reclaimed water system for on-site irrigated areas and
equestrian trails.
PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
The draft EIR evaluated alternatives for the proposed Holly-Seacliff General Plan
Amendment. The project had been refined during the course of the public review
through a series of actions including but not limited to those listed below.
1. The City staff analysis of the Plan.
2. Refinement of the land uses based upon meetings between the City staff and
Planning Commissioners and members of the community.
3. The responses to the comments on the Draft EIR.
FINDINGS
1. The above described plan had been prepared and analyzed in a manner so as to
provide for the greatest public involvement in the planning and CEQA process.
2. The planning process has developed a land use plan that is in conformance with
the plan under which the Notice of Preparation was issued and the draft EIR
as prepared.
3. The Mitigation Measures and Standard City Policies and Requirements have
been made a part of the land use plan.
4. The following provides a brief description of the project alternatives.
5. The alternatives were rejected in favor of the current project proposal.
6. The rationale for rejection of each alternative is provided below.
No Development Alternative
The No Development Alternative would retain the site in its existing condition.
Findings
Finding 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
project's No Development Alternative identified in the Final EIR and described
above in that:
1. The project would not provide housing opportunities to meet the local and
regional demands.
44
2. By not allowing the development of the project, development demands would
still exist. These demands would create impacts similar to those described in
the Final EIR.
3. The No Development Alternative would not provide roadway improvements to
the community.
4. The No Development Alternative would not meet the planning and design
objectives of the project proponent.
5. The No Development Alternative would not provide needed employment
centers.
6. The proposed project represents the best mix of use for the site, better than the
No Development Alternative, all factors considered.
Significant effects of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced against
facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and stated above, and
are more acceptable than those anticipated from the No Development Alternative.
No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes the existing City General Plan remains in place
and that development takes place with these designations and densities.
Findings:
Finding 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
project's No Project Alternative identified in the Final EIR and described above in
that:
1. The No Project Alternative would delay development of the site because these
designations are not consistent with the demands in the marketplace.
2. The No Project Alternative provides 40% less acreage for Open Space than the
proposed Land Use Plan and increases traffic (ADT) by 38%.
3. The No Project Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives
of the project proponent.
4. The proposed project represents the best mix of use for the site, better than the
No Project Alternative, all factors considered.
5. Significant effects of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced
against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and stated
above, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from the No Project
Alternative.
Industrial Alternative
The Industrial Alternative assumes higher intensity development with more acreage
for industrial use and similar residential development.
45
Findings:
Finding 3 - Specific economic, social or other considerations make infeasible the
project's industrial alternative identified in the Final EIR and described above in
that:
1. The Industrial Alternative would decrease employment opportunities within
central Huntington Beach impacting the job/housing balance.
2. This alternative has greater aesthetic, cultural, biological and natural resource
impacts than the proposed plan.
3. The Industrial Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives
of the project proponent.
4. The proposed project represents the best mix of use for the site, better than the
Industrial Alternative all factors considered.
5. Significant effects of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced
against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Consideration and stated
above, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from the Industrial
Alternative.
Residential Alternative
The Residential Alternative assumes 11% more residential development than the
proposed plan and eliminates industrial areas.
Findings:
Finding 3 - Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the
project's Residential Alternative identified in the Final EIR and described above in
that:
1. The Residential Alternative would not create an employment area in
Huntington Beach and generates 72% less employment opportunities than the
proposed plan.
2. The Residential Alternative has greater population, recreation and public
service impacts than the proposed plan.
3. The Residential Alternative would not meet the planning and design objectives
of the project proponent.
4. The proposed project represents the best mix of use for the site, better than the
Residential Alternative all factors considered.
5. Significant effects of the preferred project are acceptable when balanced
against facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations and stated
above, and are more acceptable than those anticipated from the Residential
Alternative.
46
B. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
47
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The California Environmental Quality Act requires a public agency to balance the
benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in
determining whether to approve the project. The City of Huntington Beach has
determined that the unavoidable risks of this project are acceptable when balanced
against the benefits of this project, giving greater weight to the unavoidable
environmental risks. In making this determination, the following factors and public
benefits were considered or decisions made:
1. The proposed project is consistent and compatible with other existing and
proposed uses in the vicinity of the project and community in general.
2. The proposed project will contribute to improvements to roadways.
3. Roadway improvements which the proposed project will be required to
contribute an equitable share will add roadway capacity and will thereby aid
in alleviating existing traffic congestion in the City.
4. The intensity of the project is appropriate for the location.
5. The project will provide additional housing within the community. This will
allow residents to move to the City of Huntington Beach rather than remain in
or move to other employment areas.
6. In view of all factors the project represents reasonable uses for the project area.
7. The majority of impacts associated with this project are regional in nature.
The project's cumulative and incremental contribution to those impacts is
considered minimal and acceptable from a regional perspective.
8. The project will be designed and landscaped to provide an aesthetically
pleasing environment compatible with surrounding land uses.
9. The overall planning of the project is comprehensive and interrelated, not
planned in a piecemeal fashion.
Implementation of the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment will provide for the
following:
Land Use
o Redistribute planned residential, commercial, industrial and open space
uses to more accurately reflect existing uses and development
opportunities, constraints and trends.
o Coordinate land use patterns with planned arterial highway alignments
and improvements.
o Designate 89 acres to be dedicated to and/or acquired by the City as
permanent public open space. This includes 40 acres adjacent to
Huntington Central Park, 36 acres for the Bolsa Chica Linear Park and 13
acres for neighborhood parks.
48
o Designate 561 acres for residential uses ranging from 3 du/ac to 20 du/ac
(versus the existing General Plan which has 465 acres in residential use
with 115 acres at 35 du/acre).
o Designate 54 acres for business and industrial uses.
o Focus industrial and business uses at the key intersection of Garfield and
Goldenwest providing for a consolidated business park which will be
highly visible.
o Provide 4,870 jobs for the community.
o Provide for a mixed use land use category in the area of the Seacliff
Village Shopping Center. This will provide for 20 acres of commercial
use along with 33 acres of medium density residential uses.
o Provide for a balanced range of land uses, responsive to market demands
which will facilitate the transition from oil production uses to new
development.
Circulation
o Provide road capacities to accommodate ultimate projected traffic from
both existing and proposed development in the region.
o Provide for coordinated access onto arterials from the interior of large
parcels.
o Provides for current and future Class II bicycle circulation.
o Incorporate policies and design features to encourage the use of public
transportation systems through the designation of a transportation
corridor along the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way.
o Decrease average daily trips when compared to the existing General Plan
by 36,900 trips for 38 percent.
Recreation And Open Space
o Provide a comprehensive and coordinated plan for the acquisition and
development of public and private open space and recreation areas,
including:
- Four new neighborhood parks.
- A linear park, including vista points along the west, facing the
bluffs of Huntington Mesa.
- Bicycle and pedestrian trails linking major open space features.
- Open space corridors and landscaped buffers in the ravine areas.
- Equestrian trails which link Central Park to the bluffs of
Huntington Mesa.
- Establishment of the upland boundary for the Bolsa Chica linear
park incorporating an agreement for the timely dedication of
parkland, tied to phasing of development in the study area.
- Increasing open space and park areas by 35 acres or 65 percent.
49
Community Infrastructure Facilities
o Evaluate existing and planned infrastructure facilities and capacities to
serve development in the study area.
o Provide a master plan of improvement for water and sewer service, storm
drainage, gas, electric and telephone service.
Community Theme
I
o Establish community and neighborhood identify through the use of:
- theme walls
- planting materials
- intersection emphasis
- community and neighborhood entry features
50
a
C. FINAL EIR MITIGATION MEASURES
51
• r
MITIGATION MEASURES
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 99-1
Land Use
On-Site Land Uses
1. Prior to issuance of building permits for individual tracts, the applicant should
demonstrate that service vehicle access to all remaining operating oil wells on-
site is monitored through the existing or proposed residential tracts.
2. All potential buyers and renters of on-site residences should be notified of the
effects resulting from on-site and off-site oil production activities. The
notification should state the frequency and locations of maintenance and
service operations. The notification should indicate that noise levels from oil
activities may also significantly increase during these times.
Ownership
3. The City should adopt a redevelopment plan or other strategy to assemble
encyclopedia lots and other non-buildable parcels of land in Planning Areas B,
C & E.
Surrounding Land Uses
4. Prior to the approval of tentative tracts adjacent to the Seacliff Country Club
and golf course, preliminary landscape plans and development/open space edge
treatments should be submitted for City approval. These plans should provide
for the review of planting compatibility along the relevant south edge of the
development.
Land Use Policies
5. In order to retain the existing swale character, future Specific Plans should
incorporate policies which specify the grade of slope, permitted amount of cut
and fill, improvements for storm drainage and include a schematic design for
recreational and open space treatment within drainage swales.
6. Only limited grading activities or development should be allowed within areas
encompassing natural swales on-site. This should be limited to changes
required to install access roads, utility and storm drainage lines and
landscaping to enhance the natural condition of the swale areas.
7. Detailed grading plans for all development on-site should be submitted to and
approved by the Planning Department prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Such plans should show all natural swales on-site and the areas to be graded.
8. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the Department of Fish and Game
should be notified of grading activities on-site that are scheduled to commence
in the swales, in order to preclude the possible elimination of wetland areas
under the jurisdiction of the Department of Fish and Game, as further
specified in the Biological Resources section of this EIR.
52
Aesthetics
1. Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of
slope, permitted amount of cut and fill, improvements for storm drainage and a
schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within the ravines.
2. The topography of the natural ravines and their associated drainage courses
should be preserved in accordance with standards adopted with approval of
future Specific Plans.
3. As required in the Public Services and Utilities section of this EIR, new utility
lines including, but not limited to, electric (excludes SCE 66KV transmission
lines), telephone, street lighting and cable television should be placed
underground. The applicant should be responsible for complying with this
requirement and should make the necessary arrangements with the utility
companies for the installation of such facilities.
4. Landscaping of future projects should be designed to minimize visual impacts
on adjacent parcels. Special consideration should be given to orientation of the
project's residences (i.e. windows and decking) so as to respect the privacy of
adjacent and nearby homes.
5. Wherever feasible, oil production facilities on-site should be eliminated or
consolidated to reduce their total number. Facilities remaining on-site should
be painted, camouflaged, or otherwise screened by perimeter walls, plantings
or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future residents.
6. Wherever feasible, windrows should be preserved within park sites or replaced
to maintain the aesthetic benefits they contribute to the community. Further
studies should be completed to assess the health of these trees.
7. As future development occurs, the designated railroad transportation corridor
should be preserved for future use as trails or transit.
Earth Resources
Groundwater
1. Subdrains should be installed where necessary. Location and size of subdrains,
if any are required, should be determined after preliminary geotechnical and
grading information is made available.
Seismicity
2. The design of structures should comply with the requirements of the City of
Huntington Beach Code and the standard practices of the Structural Engineers
Association of California.
3. A detailed geologic fault investigation should be undertaken to delineate any
additional active trace of the Newport/Inglewood fault. A setback zone should
be established to prevent the construction of habitable structures within 50 feet
on either side of any active fault trace. Therefore, as is the case in the western
portion of the property, where the fault zone as exposed in the sand borrow pit
is 80 feet wide, the ultimate setback zone should have a total width of 180 feet.
53
• r
Liquefaction
4. Prior to future development, additional information on particle size, density,
and ground water levels should be obtained to accurately assess the potential
for liquefaction due to seismic shaking in the alluvial areas.
Subsidence
5. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the
region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are
declining with current water-injection methods being used at operating oil
production facilities.
6. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design
in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional
subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it will by
no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence
of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal.
Tsunamis
7. At the time of future development, habitable structures will be located outside
of the tsunami risk zone.
Other Hazards
8 . During and after project construction, adequate surface drainage should be
maintained by the applicant, in order to eliminate bluff erosion. Surface water
should be carried quickly away from the top of the bluff and not allowed to
pond or run down the slope face.
Hydrology
By implementing the following mitigation measures, the significant impacts to both
the environment and the City storm-drain facilities due to runoff can be
significantly reduced.
On-Site
1. Prior to approval of future Specific Plans or grading permits, a detailed area-
wide flood control/hydrology/hydraulic study should be prepared by a licensed
civil engineer as required by the City and completed by the applicant (per the
current County of Orange Hydrology Requirements) to further quantify and
detail the combined drainage impacts of development within the watershed
area. These detailed studies may be used to adjust the suggested conduit sizes
proposed for the EIR and shown on Exhibit 14. A separate detailed study
should be completed for each tributary area. These studies shall be completed
prior to the approval of future Specific Plans or at the time of grading permit.
2. All future discretionary permits should be consistent in preserving area-wide
natural drainage patterns along with preserving and enhancing the goals,
objectives and policies of the General Plan Open Space and Conservation
Element. The permits should ensure that development provide for facilities
needed to accommodate runoff from a 100 year storm.
54
3. Individual projects should be required to construct or upgrade on-site and off-
site drainage facilities needed to drain the site according to City requirements.
This should include: limited improvements to existing earth swales so as to
convey nuisance flows as well as floodwater; required storm drain conduits;
storm drain crossings under Goldenwest Street, Ellis Avenue and other proposed
streets; and any other facilities determined as needed in the more detailed
hydrology studies.
4. An additional closed conduit system will be required in Garfield Avenue from
Crystal Street easterly to the connection with the existing storm drain line in
Delaware Street. This system will be required to accommodate flows generated
by development within the study area.
5. The City should be responsible for the construction of upgraded swales, closed
conduits and a desilting basin to transport the drainage runoff collected from
the northwest portion of the project site, from north of Ellis Avenue to
Huntington Central Park.
Population and Housing
1. The applicant should strive to develop a variety of housing types and sizes at a
range of prices in order to comply with the General Plan Housing Element
policies for affordable housing as well as the needs identified in the RHNA.
Recreation
1. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within
the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue.
2. The City shall enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate
designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning
Area.
3. The City should create a special assessment district(s) for the development and
maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project are
Transportation
The following measures are recommended to ameliorate the potential circulation
impacts arising from the development of the proposed Holly Seacliff General Plan
Amendment.
1. Arterial links within the project study area shall be improved to their
ultimate width, consistent with the proposed Circulation Element for the
General Plan Amendment request. A listing of the ultimate arterial
widths within the project study area is presented below:
Ellis Avenue
Edwards Street to Gothard Street primary 4 lane divided arterial
Gothard Street to project cast boundary secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Garfield Avenue
Seapointe Street to Main Street major 6 lane divided arterial
Yorktown Avenue
Goldenwest Street to Main Street primary 4 lane divided arterial
55
Edwards Street
Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Goldenwest Street
Yorktown Avenue to Ellis Avenue major 6 lane divided arterial
Gothard Street
Ellis Avenue to Main Street secondary 4 lane undivided arterial
Main Street
Huntington Street to Yorktown Avenue primary 4 lane divided arterial
These improvements should include all necessary curbs, gutters, and
median requirements per the City of Huntington's standard plans. In
addition, all residential collectors, industrial collectors and residential
streets should be improved to their ultimate width consistent with the
proposed Circulation Element for the General Plan Amendment project.
2. Intersections within the study area should be constructed to the lane
geometrics identified in Table 18.
3. Prior to the first Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, a fair share
funding program for the construction of the cross-gap connector from
Edwards to Bolsa Chica as a modified secondary arterial and the Sea-
pointe Avenue extension from Garfield to Coast Highway should be
determined. In the determination of this fair share funding program, a
credit should be given for the segment of the cross-gap connector and
Seapointe Avenue constructed within the project boundary.
4. The arterial and intersection improvements required to occur commen-
surate with Planning Area development are as follows:
Planning Area A
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Construct the ultimate westerly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of
Edwards Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield Avenue.
Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from the project's western border to Edwards
Street.
Planning Area B
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
56
Construct the ultimate easterly half section (40 feet, 2 lanes) of
Edwards Street from the project's northern border to Garfield
Avenue.
Construct the ultimate section (100 feet, 4 lanes) of Ellis Avenue
from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street.
Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street.
Planning Area C
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Vacate the existing Gothard Street from Ellis Avenue to Garfield
Avenue and construct the realigned Gothard Street to the west from
Ellis Avenue to Clay Street. The realigned segment of Gothard
Street should be constructed to its ultimate four lane secondary
section from Ellis to Clay.
Construct the ultimate northerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern
border.
Planning Area D
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from the project's western border to Goldenwcst
Street.
Planning Area E
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all
necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation
measures for the proposed project.
Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the
cross-gap connector.
Construct the ultimate southerly half section (60 feet, 3 lanes) of
Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern
border.
57
5. At.the time of Specific Plan or Tract Map approval for a given Planning
Area or portion thereof, a traffic study shall be completed to determine
whether the incremental increase in traffic from the Specific Plan or
Tract Map area causes any of the intersections under investigation to
result in unacceptable levels of service. If unacceptable levels of service
result, this traffic analysis shall determine the portion of the ultimate
intersection improvements which are required, the phasing of the
improvement and the funding source. If the project requires intersection
improvements which are greater than the project's fair share, a
reimbursable agreement shall be required of those subsequent develop-
ments which contribute to the need for said improvement.
6. Prior to Tract Map approval, a signal warrant analysis shall be conducted
for any project access points to the major arterial street system.
7. As part of any subsequent Specific Plan or Tract Map that requires access
along Garfield Avenue, an operational analysis of said access shall be
conducted and submitted for review and approval of the City Traffic
Engineer. The access on Garfield Avenue shall be limited to right turn in
and out, except one location, mid-block between Edwards Street and
Goldenwest Street. A signalized full movement intersection shall be
permitted at this location. The access design shall be limited on Garfield
Avenue and spread to other parallel arterials, such as Ellis Avenue, Clay
Avenue and Yorktown Avenue.
8. Prior to any Specific Plan or Tract Map approval, the Orange County
Transit District shall be consulted for the need to construct bus stops,
turnouts and shelters.
9. The current Southern Pacific Railroad (SPRR) easement shall be pre-
served as a transportation corridor for future use for mass transit and
trails.
Air Quality
Short-term Impacts
1. To minimize dust generation during grading operations, SCAQMD Rule 403
should be adhered to which will require watering during earth moving
operations. To further reduce the emissions, grading should not occur when
wind speeds exceed 20 mpg.
Long-term Impacts
2. There should be support and compliance with the AQMP for the basin to
achieve regional air quality. The AQMP includes improvement of mass transit
facilities and implementation of vehicular usage reduction programs. Energy
conservation measures are also included. Specific measures which may be
appropriate for the proposed project include:
o Encourage the use of alternate transportation modes by promoting public
transit usage including the designation of the transportation corridor and
providing secure bicycle facilities.
o Provide public transit accommodations: such as bus turnout lanes, park
and ride areas, and bus shelters.
58
o Provide energy conserving street lighting.
o Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible.
Odor Control
3. Because it only takes a small amount of material to generate odors, it is
important to maintain a very clean operation. Therefore, any oil spilled on the
ground should be quickly cleaned up. Well sumps should be pumped out after
pulling a well, and periodically in the interim. Maintenance of seals and
gaskets on pumps and piping should be performed whenever leaks are evident.
General clean up of the site should result in significant improvements in the
level of odor found in the area.
4. Appropriately designed, vapor recovery systems which pull the gas off the well
casing should be employed, as well as vapor recovery systems for oil transport
trucks. A similar system could be employed for any remaining storage facilities
on-site.
Noise
Roadway Noise
The following mitigation measures are recommended to minimize any potential noise
impacts associated with traffic noise on surrounding roadways.
1. Enforcement of the City of Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance should be
implemented which limits the hours of construction to normal weekday
working hours.
2. Measures should be designed to satisfy the requirement that 65 CNEL not be
exceeded in residential outside living areas. Where residential buildings are to
be located within these 65 CNEL contours, mitigation measures should be
undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design
and construction of a noise barrier (wall, berm, or combination wall/berm) is
the most common way of alleviating traffic noise impacts. The effect of a
noise barrier is critically dependent on the geometry between the noise source
and the receiver. A noise barrier effect occurs when the "line of sight" between
the source and receiver is penetrated by the barrier. A barrier which does not
break the line-of-sight is not an affective barrier, while one which just
interrupts the line-of-sight achieves a 5 db reduction in noise. The greater the
penetration the greater the noise reduction. Increasing building setbacks should
also be used to attenuate noise down to acceptable levels.
3. The City of Huntington Beach should require that the housing portion of this
project comply with the State of California Noise Insulation standards. The
code requires that "interior community noise levels (CNEL) with window
closed, attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed an annual CNEL of 45
dB in any habitable room." Any measures, such as window upgrades, can be
specified at the time of building permit application.
4. At the time of building permit application, the design should again be reviewed
to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design.
59
Oil Well Operations
5. Noise levels generated by the oil operations should be mitigated to levels
consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, by locating
consolidation areas) at least 300 feet from the nearest residential or other
sensitive land uses (locating consolidation areas within industrial use areas
would be the most desirable from a noise standpoint). The oil wells could be
located closer to sensitive land uses if a perimeter wall with a minimum height
of 8.0 feet was utilized around the consolidation area(s). The following
mitigation measures assume a 100 foot distance to receptor and the mitigation
effects of an 8.0 foot sound wall. Additional analysis of the consolidation
area(s) will be necessary when phasing plans become available.
Oil Well Drilling Operations
6. The results show that in order for the drilling operations to satisfy the
Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance outdoor standards, electric motors with
acoustic blankets must be used. Diesel motors even when shielded by acoustic
blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site
and off-site residences, and will not meet the daytime Noise Ordinance
standards at the on-site residences. If there are plans to conduct the drilling
operations during the nighttime hours, then according to the Oil Code, the
operations must be soundproofed. Acoustic blankets as well as a 8.0 foot high
masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to
below the Noise Ordinance standards.
Oil Well Pumping
7. The well pumps used in the consolidation area should be submerged. If other
types of well pumps such as ground level electric or diesel pumps may be
necessary. Specific mitigation measures should be presented in an additional
noise study.
Well Pulling, Redrilling, and Service Drilling Operations
8. Well pulling and drilling operations are confined to daytime hours (7 a.m. to 10
p.m.) by the Oil Code. Any redrilling performed at night must provide
soundproofing to comply with the Noise Ordinance. The Oil Code prohibits the
pulling of wells during the nighttime hours (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.). Well
maintenance activities should also be conducted between the hours of 7 a.m.
and 10 p.m. only. Although high levels of noise may be generated by routine
well maintenance operations, these activities would occur inside the noise
barrier surrounding the consolidation area.
9. Service drilling for this project will be conducted during the daytime hours
only. Data on service drilling operations indicate that with a diesel powered
service rig and an 8 foot high noise barrier, the noise level at 100 feet will
likely be 55 dBA which corresponds to the City's daytime Noise Ordinance
standard. All servicing of the wells must comply with the noise standards
contained in the Huntington Beach code.
Truck Operations
10. Truck operations should be limited to daytime hours only (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.)
60
Helicopter Operations
11. Residential development within the helicopter flight corridor should generally
be discouraged.
12. All residential buildings to be constructed within the helicopter activity
corridor should be designed to achieve a 25 dBA outdoor to indoor noise
reduction.
13. Helicopter noise impacts should be addressed in the acoustical assessments for
residential uses within the helicopter flight corridor. Any mitigation
requirements necessary to reduce helicopter noise impacts should be included in
the assessment.
14. A notice (and statement of acknowledgement) to prospective homeowners is
required stating that the property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of
helicopters associated with the police facility.
Liaht and Glare
1. A phased landscaping program should be developed in conjunction with all
future Specific Plans to ensure landscaping commensurate with residential and
non-residential occupancy to adequately screen on-site light and glare impacts.
2. All outdoor lighting should be consistent with the standards established by
future Specific Plans to minimize off-site light intrusion.
3. All outdoor lighting should be hooded and directed downward to minimize
direct light and glare impacts on public rights-of-way and surrounding
properties.
4. Appropriate types and heights of street lights should be consistently established
in future Specific Plans. Street lighting should be standardized throughout the
project area.
5. Lighting associated with recreational uses, where applicable, should be designed
to minimize light intrusion onto surrounding property and right-of-ways
surrounding such uses.
6. Non-residential building materials should be consistent with architectural
standards incorporated into future Specific Plans. These standards should
address the minimization of glare.
Cultural Resources
Archaeology
1) It is suggested that the research design be prepared by the Principal
Investigator selected to perform the work and that it be reviewed by a second
consulting archaeologist. This step will help insure the completeness and
viability of the research design prior to its implementation. The involvement
of a second professional is viewed as an inexpensive means of insuring that no
major elements are overlooked.
2) The archaeological deposits within the Holly-Seacliff study area should be
subjected to a program of excavation designed to recover sufficient data to
fully describe the sites. The following program is recommended:
61
A. Analysis of the collections made by the Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society, Long Beach State University and any community college which
has such material. If the collections are properly provenienced and are
accompanied by adequate documentation, they should be brought together
during this phase and complete analysis performed. Of particular
importance during this phase is the recovery of survey data to be used to
determine the exact locations of previous excavation efforts.
B. Prior to the beginning of any excavation effort, a burial strategy should
be developed by the archaeologist retained to accomplish the excavation,
members of the Native American community and appropriate City Staff.
The strategy should address details of the handling and processing of
human remains encountered during excavation, as well as the ultimate
disposition of such remains.
C. Completion of test excavations should be made at each of the
archaeological deposits. The information gained from the test excavation
will guide the following data recovery excavation. The excavations
should have two primary goals:
o Definition of site boundaries and depth.
o Determination of the significance of the site and its degree of
preservation.
D. A statistically valid sample of site material should be excavated. The
data recovery excavation should be conducted under the provisions of a
carefully developed research design. The research questions presented
earlier in this report should be incorporated into the research design,
other important research questions should be developed from the test
excavation data included, and a statement of methodology to be observed
must be included.
E. A qualified observer appointed by the Principle Investigator/
Archaeologist should monitor grading of the archaeological sites to
recover important material which might appear. The monitor will be
assigned by the Principal Investigator. This activity may require some
minor delay or redirecting of grading while material is being recovered.
The observer should be prepared to recover material as rapidly as is
consistent with good archaeological practice. Monitoring should be on a
full time basis when grading is taking place on or near an archaeological
deposit. However, the grading should terminate when the cultural deposit
has been entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposed.
F. All excavation and ground disturbing observation projects should include
a Native American Observer. Burials are known to exist at some of the
sites, a circumstance which is extremely important to the Native
American community.
G. A detailed professional report should be prepared which fully describes
the site and its place in prehistory. Reports should receive sufficient
distribution which includes the City, the County and the UCLA
repository for archeology to insure their availability to future
researchers.
62
H. Arrangements should be made for proper Curation of the collections. It is
expected that large quantities of material will be collected during the
excavation. Curation should be at an institution which has the proper
facilities for storage, display and use by interested scholars and the
general public.
3) The shell and lithic scatters should be subjected to test excavation to determine
if they are or are not in situ archaeological deposits. If any of the scatters
prove to be in situ archaeological material, a site record should be prepared and
submitted to the Archaeological Survey, University of California, Los Angeles,
and the site should be treated as in mitigation number one. If the sites are
shown to be not archaeological in nature or not in situ, then no further action
should be taken.
4) Ground disturbing activity within the study area should be monitored by a
qualified observer assigned by the Principle Investigator/Archaeologist to
determine if significant historic deposits, (e.g. foundations, trash deposits, privy
pits and similar features) have been exposed. The monitoring should be on a
full time basis but can be terminated when clearly undisturbed geologic
formations are exposed. If such exposures occur, appropriate collections should
be made, followed by analysis and report preparation. Historic material may
be encountered anywhere within the Holly-Seacliff property, but the area
around the old Holly Sugar Refinery is probably more sensitive than the
balance of the project area. Historical material recovered at the archaeological
sites should be treated with those deposits.
5) The plaque commemorating oil well Huntington A-1 should be preserved. As
development in the area continues, it may be desirable to upgrade this feature.
Paleontology
6) A qualified paleontologist should be retained to periodically monitor the site
during grading or extensive trenching activities that cut into the San Pedro
Sand or the Quaternary marine terrace units.
7) In areas where fossils are abundant, full-time monitoring and salvage efforts
will be necessary (8 hours per day during grading or trenching activities). In
areas where no fossils are being uncovered, the monitoring time can be less
than eight hours per day.
8) The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct grading
operations to facilitate assessment and salvaging of exposed fossils.
9) Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will necessary
to salvage any microvertebrate remains. If a deposit of microvertebrates is
discovered, matrix material can be moved off to one side of the grading area to
allow for further screening without delaying the developmental work.
10) All fossils and their contextual stratigraphic data should go to an institution
with a research interest in the materials, such as the Orange County Natural
History Foundation.
63
Biolortical Resources
Several mitigation measures can be implemented which will reduce the significant
impacts to levels of insignificance and further reduce the insignificant impacts.
Since many project development details have not been proposed, these mitigation
measures are discussed on a general level.
1. The setting aside of 92 acres of parks and other open space will partially
mitigate the loss of the existing open space and provide some wildlife habitat.
2. The Specific Plan should address revegetation on all graded areas where
structures or other improvements are not built. In public open space areas,
consideration should be given to the use of native or naturalized species which
require little irrigation and provide wildlife habitat, with a gradual transition
to more ornamental species along the development edge.
3. Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drainage swale,
i.e. utility lines, sewers, etc., this swale should remain as open space. Mitigation
for the loss of cattail marsh habitat (0.5 acres) and willow habitat (0.5 acres)
which are depicted on Exhibit 28, will take place such that a minimum of 1.0
acre of riparian vegetation is established in this drainage swale. The plants
utilized in the revegetated area will be chosen from the recommended plant
palette indicated in Appendix H.
4. Through adoption of future Specific Plans large trees suitable for use by
raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk, should be preserved or replaced in
accordance with the tree species identified in the plant palette contained in
Appendix H.
5. Any grading or filling in the brackish wetlands in the western portion of the
project site will be mitigated by restoration of an equal area of coastal wetland
at a nearby location in the open space area.
6. Effects upon on-site wetlands within the jurisdiction of the California
Department of Fish and Game will require mitigation defined by 1603 permits.
7. Development/use of the linear park (open space areas along the northern and
northwest project boundaries) will be limited to passive recreation such as
riding and hiking trails. Fencing and vegetative buffers shall be designed to
exclude humans and pets from the Bolsa Chica Wetlands areas. The bluffs and
other upland areas in the linear park shall be revegetated with native plants
which are adapted to coastal environments.
8. The effects of night lighting can be mitigated by the following measures:
1) use of low intensity street lamps at the development edge; 2) use of low
elevation lighting poles; and 3) shielding by internal silvering of the globe or
internal opaque reflectors. The degree to which these measures are utilized
should be dependent upon the distance of the light source to the urban edge.
Use of private sources of illumination around homes should also be restricted
to prohibit area lighting on lots adjacent to open space areas.
Natural Resources
1. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards
set forth in Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Energy
conservation features should include:
64
o Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which meet or
exceed State of California, Title 24 requirements.
o Insulation of hot water pipes and duct systems.
o Use of natural ventilation where possible.
o Use of natural gas for space heating and cooking.
o Installation of attic fans or other ventilation devices.
o Orientation to sunlight and use of overhangs.
o Landscaping with deciduous trees, to provide shade in the summer
months and allow sunlight through in the winter months.
2. It is recommended that the developer consult with both the Southern California
Gas Company and Southern California Edison during the building design phase
for further energy conservation measures.
Oil Facilities
1. Future Specific Plan(s) should include an area or areas for the consolidation of
oil well facilities.
2. All new development proposals should be accompanied by:
o A plan which addresses the requirements for abandoned wells.
o The abandonment plans for existing wells.
o The operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities.
These plans must satisfy the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and
the Division of Oil and Gas.
3. The criteria for the approval of development plans within oil districts should
include:
(a) That enough open space has been reserved around the oil operation site to
allow existing and future equipment which could reasonably be expected
to be used on the site, including any setbacks from new development
required by the Fire Chief.
(b) That adequate access to all operation sites is provided for portable
equipment and emergency vehicles.
(c) That reasonable expansion of the existing facilities, if permitted in the
oil district, can be accomplished.
(d) That.any proposed development includes all provisions for soundproofing
and fire protection required by the Fire Chief.
(e) That screening of oil facilities from any new development is included in
the plan.
(section 9680.4, Article 968 OIL DISTRICTS, City of Huntington Beach
Municipal Code).
65
4. As future development occurs, continued subsidence rate monitoring for the
region of the subject site is necessary to determine if subsidence rates are
declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil
production facilities.
5. The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the foundation design
in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor regional
subsidence. Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slab, it will by
no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence
of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal.
6. All other mitigation measures pertaining to oil contamination, methane gas
accumulation and other hazards are contained in other sections of this EIR, as
previously noted.
Human Health and Safety
Surface Oil Contamination
1. Prior to grading and development, a site reconnaissance should be performed
including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate areas where
contamination of the surficial soils may have taken place. The environmental
assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to the site
and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on-site contamination.
Phase I should include:
a. Review of available documents pertinent to the subject site to evaluate
current and previous uses.
b. Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of surficial
soils may have taken place.
C. Excavation and testing of oil samples to determine presence of near
surface contamination of soil.
d. Subsurface exploration to determine presence of sumps on-site. Testing
of possible drilling fluids for heavy metals.
C. Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the
existing on-site wells.
f. Testing of air samples for gas vapor, methane gas and sulfur compounds.
2. The actual site characterization and remedial action plan would be developed
as part of a later phase. Upon completion of the Environmental Assessment, a
Remedial Action Plan can be developed. This plan should address the
following items:
a. Treatment of possible crude oil contaminated soils. A possible solution to
this condition would be aeration of the contaminated soils to release the
volatile gases and then incorporation of the treated soils into the roadway
fills (subgrade).
b. Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on-site disposal of non-
contaminated drilling fluids or off-site disposal of contaminated fluids.
66
C. Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane gas.
Methane Gas
3. Prior to development, a thorough site study for the presence of surface and
shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal findings
would require a Remedial Action Plan and further studies to assure sufficient
mitigation of the hazardous areas prior to building construction. All structures
should have a gas and vapor barrier installed underneath the slabs and
foundations. Gas collection and ventilation systems should be installed over
abandoned wells which are underneath or within ten (10) feet of any structure,
and over wells which show evidence of surface emissions of methane gas.
Additionally, following construction of structures, an organic vapor analysis
should be conducted and the results evaluated to assure that acceptable air
quality is maintained within buildings and residences.
4. The presence of methane gas on-site should be the subject of future studies that
include the following tasks:
a. Drilling of test wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits and
confirm or deny the presence of biogenic methane bearing strata near the
surface in the development area.
b. Shallow excavation and sampling in areas either known or assumed to be
potential drilling mud sumps;
C. Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic locations on
the site and collection of soil vapor samples;
d. Vapor survey areas adjacent to known abandoned oil wells;
e. Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil vapor
samples for gases.
Other Oil Production Related Hazards
5. Oil wells scheduled for abandonment should be completed in accordance with
the standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and the
California Division of Oil and Gas. Wells which have previously been
abandoned must be reabandoned to the most current requirements of the City
of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas.
6. Existing oil production lines are located throughout the site. Treatment of
these lines will depend on proposed land use and development. Utility lines
should be relocated and or removed with the trench being filled with
compacted fill.
Hazardous Materials
7. An inventory of all hazardous materials used and stored by industries locating
within the project area should be maintained and recorded for use by the City
Fire Department. This inventory should include the location at which each
hazardous material is used.
67
8. The use, storage and disposal of hazardous materials should be enforced by
City of Huntington Beach to provide the greatest possible protection to the
public from accidental occurrences.
9. Active wells remaining on-site should be secured and screened as required by
the City of Huntington Beach.
10. Prior to development, a review of available public health records should be
performed to evaluate possible public health risk sites in the vicinity of the
subject site.
Public Services and Utilities
Fire Protection
1. Access roads to oil production areas should be provided where appropriate and
kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts on fire protection due to ongoing
oil production.
2. Measures to eliminate or reduce fire and safety risks from existing and
abandoned oil production facilities and disposal areas are discussed in the
Human Health and Safety section of this EIR.
3. The Huntington Beach Fire Department should review all developments within
the area for adequate emergency vehicle access and water pressure.
Police Services
4. The City should budget for additional officers to correspond with phasing of
development in the project area.
Community Services
5. The City should enter into an agreement with major landowners to dedicate
designated parklands prior to or concurrent with development in each Planning
Area.
6. The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within
the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue.
7. The City should create a special assessment diStrict(S) for the development and
maintenance of public trails and parklands within the project area.
Library
8. With future development, the community enrichment fee should be paid to help
fund the library expansion program.
Schools
9. The GPA designates a site for a new elementary school to serve students
generated by residential development within the project area.
68
10. The school district and major landowner should enter into an agreement for
acquisition or lease of the site as part of implementation of this GPA.
11. Developers should pay school impact fees to finance construction of necessary
school facilities.
12. The Huntington Beach Union High School District should coordinate its
expansion plans with phasing of development within the project area and
surrounding areas.
Solid Waste Disposal
13. To reduce the proposed projects impacts on waste disposal facilities, project
designs should develop a means of reducing the amount of waste generated
both during construction and when the project is in use. Potential ways of
reducing project waste loads include implementation of recycling programs,
and utilization of low water use landscaping.
14. The developer should contact the solid waste disposal firm during the design
stage to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal.
The design should include rubbish enclosures, projected travel areas, and
turnabouts where necessary. Provisions for recycling should be included in
future project designs.
Gas and Electricity
15. Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Standards
set forth in Title 24 of the Californian Administrative Code.
16. It is strongly recommended that developers consult with the Southern
California Gas Company and the Southern California Edison Company for
further energy conservation measures.
17. Developers should submit to SCG and SCE planning divisions all tract maps
and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing and
sizing of needed mains and service lines can be designed.
Telephone and Cable TV
18. Building construction should comply with the standards and specifications of
the General Telephone Company and Rogers Cable TV Company.
19. Developers should submit to GTE and Rogers Cable TV Company all tract maps
and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning, phasing, sizing
and material ordering for service lines can be made.
Water Facilities
With the implementation of the following mitigation measures, the major impacts to
the City's water system can be reduced significantly.
69
1. Development of the proposed project should occur concurrently with
development of the City's water system improvements to allow for adequate
water service to the site.
2. All proposed development should comply with the phasing and design of water
facilities as shown on the water facilities map so as to provide adequate looped
systems to service the adjoining properties.
3. As future development occurs prior to the issuance of Use and Occupancy
permits, developers should construct the necessary water service lines to
individual residences and lots.
4. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be
issued until the Reservoir Hill booster pump station and the increase in storage
capacity are complete and operating to the satisfaction of the City Water
Division so as to provide adequate water service to each development.
S. The following water conservation measures shall be implemented by developers
as required by state law and by the City Water Division:
a. Low-flush toilets.
b. Low-flow showers and faucets.
C. Insulation of hot water lines in water recirculating systems.
d. Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate
plumbing code.
6. Irrigation systems which minimize water waste should be used to the greatest
extent possible. Such measures should involve such features as the following:
a. Raised planters and berming in conjunction with closely spaced low
volume low angle (22-1/2 degrees) sprinkler heads.
b. Drip irrigation.
C. Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during
early morning or evening hours to reduce evaporation losses.
I
7. Developers and the City should provide information to occupants regarding
benefits of low water use landscaping and sources of additional assistance for
domestic and irrigation water conservation procedures.
8. Landscaping should use only low water demand (drought-tolerant species) and
irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste. The use of mulch
extensively in all landscaped areas is strongly recommended.
9. Minimize use of lawns and utilize water season, drought tolerant grasses.
10. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water runoff
and aid in groundwater recharge.
11. Control slopes and grades to discourage water waste through runoff.
12. As future development occurs, no permits for Use and Occupancy should be
issued until additional water supplies as detailed in the 1988 Water Master Plan
are implemented by the City Water Division so as to provide adequate water
supplies to each development.
70
13. Developers should consult the City Water Division during design and
construction phases for further water conservation measures to review
irrigation designs and drought tolerant plant use.
14. As development occurs, prior to approval of future building permits, complete
landscape and irrigation plans should be submitted to and approved by the
Water Division.
15. In order to connect to the Orange County Water District's "Green Acres" system
of reclaimed water (as described and detailed in the 1988 City of Huntington
Beach Water System Master Plan), the project developer should at this time
construct and utilize a reclaimed water system for on-site irrigated areas and
equestrian trails.
Sewer Facilities
The following measures are suggested to mitigate the impacts to the City and County
sewer systems.
1. Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as
required by the City so as to precisely calculate the required sewer main sizes.
These calculations may be used to adjust the suggested pipe sizes proposed for
the E.I.R. and should be completed for each tributary area prior to the approval
of Specific Plans.
2. All proposed development should comply with a phasing plan and the design of
sewer facilities as shown on the sewer facilities map. This would provide
adequate connections to service adjoining and upstream properties. All
required easements for sewer facilities should be in place prior to the issuance
of a building permit of the subject property.
3. New development should be phased corresponding to the curtailment of waste
water discharge from existing oil production as required for adequate pipe
capacity flows.
4. Development of the areas tributary to the Slater Avenue Pump Station should
be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or until other
interim methods are approved.
5. All industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce the
load strength of their sewerage discharge.
6. Developers should pay the required connection fees to either O.C.S.D. No. 3 or
O.C.S.D. No. 11, whichever is higher at the time of connection to County Trunk
lines.
7. Each development should be responsible for the construction of sewer facilities
within their project and/or off-site facilities necessary to serve the
development. If it is required to oversize these facilities so as to serve other
future projects, the developer can enter into a reimbursement agreement with
the City so that future developers pay their fair share when they develop. This
reimbursement procedure is per the City Ordinance Code.
71
8. Discretionary permits should not be approved for development of an area until
adequate sewer service alignments and capacities are demonstrated.
72
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
DRAFT EIR 89-1
HOLLY-SEACLIFF GPA
September 28, 1989
Prepared for:
The City of Huntington Beach
Prepared by:
FORMA
3100 Bristol St., Suite 100
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
D. COMMENT LETTERS AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
73
F ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR_ 89-I
74
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
SECTION 2: COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this document is to transmit all comments received related to the
Draft Environmental Impact Report prepared for EIR 89-1, State Clearinghouse
Number 89-01-04-12. This EIR addresses potential environmental impacts associated
with the development of a 768-acre site under the proposed Holly-Seacliff General
Plan Amendment. It further responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088
of the CEQA Guidelines.
Public Review Period
The Draft Environmental Report for the project was distributed to various public
agencies, responsible agencies, citizens groups, and interested individuals. The report
was made available for public review and comment for a period of 45 days. The
public review period for the Draft EIR established by the State Clearinghouse
commenced on July 26, 1989 and expired on September 8, 1989.
Public Comment
The City of Huntington Beach has utilized several methods to solicit input on the
Draft EIR. These methods included the preparation and distribution of a Notice of
Preparation distribution of the Draft EIR, noticing for and conducting Public
Workshops on the project and its environmental consequences, and preparation and
distribution of the Notice of Completion.
Notice of Completion
A Notice of Completion was filed on July 26, 1989 with the State of California
Office of Planning and Research.
1
SECTION 2: COMMENTS
Copies of all comments received as of September 21, 1989 are contained in the
comments section of this report. Comments have been numbered and responses have
been correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which
raised a significant environmental issues.
2
i
COMMENTS
COMMENTORS
1. Letter - August 30, 1989
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
2. Letter - August 18,1989
Department of Water Resources
3. Letter - August 2, 1989
Huntington Beach City School District
4. Letter - September 7, 1989
Norma Vandermolen
5. Letter - September 7, 1989
Huntington Beach Tomarrow
6. Letter - August 28, 1989
John Fisher/Debbie Cook
7. Letter - August 21, 1989
Jerry J. Galich
8. Letter - September 14, 1989
Department of Transportation
9. Letter - September 8,1989
Gerald L. Chapman D.D.S.
10. Letter - September 8, 1989
Office of Planning and Research
11. Letter - September 8, 1989
Huntington Beach Environmental Board
12. Letter - September 13, 1989
California Waste Management Board
3
STATE OF CAUFORMA J OEORGE�EWCMt.NAN.Cow►wn►
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SANTA ANA REGION
6809 INDIANA AVENUE,SUITE 200 RIVERSIDE.CAUFORNIA 92506PHONE:(7141782-4130 RECEIVE16,
August 30, 1989 SEP 0 11989
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Hal Simmons, Senior Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
f
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) FOR THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, SCH #89010412
Dear Mr. Simmons:
we have reviewed the above--referenced report and have the following
comments.
If soil contamination by hazardous substances associated with oil
field and/or other activities is found to exist at the project
site, the proponent ahould contact the Orange County Health Care
Agency, Hazardous waste Section, for assistance in mitigation
activities. This office should also be contacted if there are
potential water quality impacts.
In addition, either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for any discharge of wastes to surface water
or a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) permit for any discharge
of wastes to land is required from this Regional Board. These
discharges of wastes can be those associated with, but not limited
to, construction dewatering, dredging activities, or storm water
runoff from industrial areas which store hazardous materials.
We look forward to reviewing any future CEQA and/or environmental
documents related to this project.
If you should have any questions, please call me.
Sincerely, .
X
Gary ueger, En2ronmental Specialist II
Regulations Section
cc: Garrett Ashley, State Clearinghouse w/SCH form
GLK/2904hsgp.eir
Suite the Resounm ARenq
Memorandum
Dom t AUG 18 1969
To 1. Gordon F. Snow, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary for Resources
2. City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92M
Attention: Hal Simmons
From Poportmont of Watw Resewre"
Los Angeles, CA 90055
5"b ' Holly-Seacliff O.P.A. , dated July 1989, Report 89-1. SCH $901043.2
Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of Water Resources
staff. Recommendations, as they relate to water conservation and flood damagq
prevention. are attached.
After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that you further
consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reolaiaed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses
requiring high quality water supplies.
For further information, you may wish to contact John Pariewski at
(213) 620-3951. Thank you for the opport=U7 to review and comment on this
report.
Sincerely,
Charles RlWhite, Chief
Planning Branch
Southern District
Attachments
• re•e-,,_.... . . ,
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES RECOMMENDATIONS
FOR WATER CONSERVATION AND WATER RECLAMATION I�
To reduce water demand, implement the water conservation measures. described
1
here.
Requirod
The following'State laws require water-efficient plumbing fixtures. in
structures:
o Health and Safety Code Section 27221.3 requires low-flush toilets and
urinals is virtually *.0 buildings as follows:
"After January 1. 1983. all new buildings constructed in this state
the'I use water closets and'associated flushometer valves, •If any. which
are water-conservation water closets as defined by American National
Standards Institute-Standard A112.19.2, and urinals and associated
flushometer valves, if any. that use less than an average of 1-1/2
galloons per flush. Blowout water closets and associated flushometer
valves are exempt from the requirements of this section."
o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section* IMM`(Aggliance
Efficiency Stand„arLsl establishes efficiency standards that give the
saZximum flow rate of all new showerheads. lavatory faucets. and sink
faucets, as specified In the standard approved by the American National '
Standards Institute on Noveaber 16. 1979, and known as AN31
AM-18.its-1979-
o Title 20, California Administrative Code Section 1606tb) (Appliance
ftficiency Standards) prohibits the sale of fixtures that do not comply
with regulations. No new appliance may be sold or offered for sale in
• California that is not certified ty its manufacturer to. be in compliance
with t6e provisions of the regulations establishing applicable
efficiency ataLudards. ,
o ]atl* 24 of the California Administrative Code Section 2-
Calirarnia Energy Conservation Standarda_for New Building) prohibits
the installation of Fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to
the CDC compliance with the flow rate-standards.
o UeI_24. California Administrative Code Section¢ 2-5152(i) .and (i)
• ..�.... ...y...
address pipe insulation requirements. which can reduce water used before
hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. These requirements apply. to
• steam and steam-condensate return piping and recirculating hot water
piping in attics. garages, crawl spaces. or unheated spaces other than
between floors or in interior walls. Insulation of water-heating
systeas Is also required.
o Health and Safety_ Code Section 4047 prohibits installation of
residential water softening or conditioning appliances unless certain
conditions are satisfied. Included is the requirement that, in most
Instances. the installation of .the appliance must be accompanied by
water conservation devices on fixtures using softened or conditioned
water.
o Government Code Section 7800 specifies that lavatories in all public
facilities constructed after January 1. 1985, be equipped with
.solf-closing faucets that limit flow of hot water.
To be Implemented whore applicable
Interior:
1. Supply line pressure: Water pressure greater then 50 pounds per square
• inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less by means of a pressure-reducing
valve.
2. Drinking, fountains: Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing
valves.
3. Hotel rooms: Conservation reminders be posted in rooms and restrooms."
Thermostatically. controlled mixing valve be installed for bath/shower:
• 4. Laundry facilities: Water-conserving models of washers be used.
5 Restaurants: Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used or spray
emitters that have been retrofitted for reduced flow. Drinking water be
• served upon request only.'
. .• 6. Ultra-low-flush toilets: 1-1/2-gallon per flush toilets be installed in
all new construction.
Exterior,-* .
1. Landscape with low water-using plants wherever feasible.
2. Minimize use of lawn by limiting it to lawn-dependent uses. such as
playing fields. When lawn is used, require warm season grasses.
3.• Group plants of similar water use to reduce overirrigation of
low-water-using plants.
4. Provide information to occupants regarding benefits of low-water-using-
landscaping and sources of additional assistance.
•The Department of Water Resources or local water district may aid in
developing these materials or providing other information. .
1
5. •Use mulch extensively in all landscaped areas. Mulch applied* on top of
soil will improve the water-holding capacity of the soil by reducing
evaporation and soil comAection.
6. Preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Established-plants are
• often adapted to low-water-using conditions and their use saves water
needed to establish replacement vegetation.
• 7. Install efficient irrigation systems that minimize runoff and
evaporation and maximize the water that will reach the plant roots.
Drip irrigation, soil moisture sensors, and automatic irrigation systems
are a few methods of increasing irrigation efficiency.
8. Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water
runoff and to aid in ground water recharge.
9. Grade slopes so that runoff of surface water is minimized.
10. Investigate the feasibility of using reclaimed waste water, stored
rainwater, or grey water for irrigation.
11. Encourage cluster development. which can reduce the amount of land being
converted to urban use. This will reduce the amount of impervious -
paving created and thereby aid in ground water recharge.
12. Preserve existing natural drainage areas and encourage the incorporation
of natural drainage systems in new developments. This aids ground water
-recharge.
• 13. To aid in ground water recharge, preserve flood plains and aquifer
recharge areas as open space.
• FLOOO DA41AGE PREVENTION
In flood-prone areas. flood damage prevention measures required to protect a
proposed development should be based on the following guidelines;
1. It is the State's policy to conserve water; any potential loss to ground
water should be mitigated.
2. All building structures should be protected against a. 100-year flood.
3. In those areas not covered by a Flood Insurance Rate Map or Flood
Boundary and Floodway Map, issued by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, the 100-year flood elevation and boundary should be shown in the
Environmental Impact Report.,
4. At least one route of ingress and egress to the development should be
available during a 100-year flood.
5. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially for hillside
developments.
6. Revegetation of &Lsturbed or newly constructed slopes should be done as
soon as possible (utilizing native or low-water-using plant material) ;
7. The potential damage to the proposed development by mudrlow should be
assessed and mitigated as required.
8. Grading should be limited to dry months to minimize problems associated
•, with sediment transport during construction.
o
• J L
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
20451 Cmltvw Lane • P.O.Box 71 MuMtlrptott Beech,CalNomle 92640 (714)95441M
a
BOARD OF TRUSTEES August 2, 1989
Sherry Barlow
President
Pat Cohen
Cl'* Mr. Hal Simmons, Senior Planner
City of Huntington Beach
Robert Mann,Ed.D.Member 2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Gary
Men*rDDS Re: Holly Seacliff EIR Workshop
Karen O'Bric Dear Mr. Simmons:
Member
The proposed Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment will
have a significant impact on the school district. It may
ADMINISTRATION generate approximately 600 K-5 students from the proposed
new housing. Additional students of middle school age
from this project may also impact Dwyer Middle School.
oaiii�Peters
pe:ri'n�cedcM
In order to mitigate the impact on K-5 students, a
Ronald Brown ten-acre site and approximately 24 classrooms are needed.
Aaittant superintendent g Y As of this date, Huntington Beach City School District is
Personal negotiating with the Huntington Beach Company with regard
Gary a ryn«.Ed.D. to an elementary school (land and building) in the
Aaitand proposed General Plan Amendment area, with both groups
S an=S�es working cooperatively toward a resolution.
Rab•cea J.Turrentine We would appreciate these factors being considered prior
Arintendd ent g stant
S erinte to final action being
taken.
Su
Edudtional Services
Sincerely, (p�
GARY A. BURGNER, Ed.D.
Assistant Superintendent
Business Services
RESPONSE TO STAFF FROM NORMA VANDERMOLEN REGARDING
HOLLY-SEACLIFF EIR DRAFT:
ACCORDING TO THE NUMBERS SHOWN IN THE EIR PERTAINING TO
PROJECTED SCHOOL ENROLLMENT FROM THE HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA,
PERRY AND DWYER SCHOOLS WILL BOTH BE PLACED OVER CAPACITY.
WHEN A SCHOOL IS AT OVER CAPACITY A SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS
SEVERAL CHOICES:
1 . BUILD A NEW SCHOOL (HARDLY REASONABLE WHEN THE HBCSD HAS
SEVERAL SCHOOLS CLOSED IN OTHER AREAS - $$$ FACTOR) .
2. REDISTRICT -- REDRAW THE BOUNDARY. THIS WILL DISRUPT
PRESENT STUDENTS - NOT AT ALL SATISFACTORY.
3. BUS THE NEW STUDENTS (HOLLY-SEACLFF NEW RESIDENTS) TO
OTHER SCHOOLS THAT HAVE LOWER ENROLLMENT -THIS TAKES AWAY
FROM NEIGHBORHOOD SCHOOLS.
4. GIVE PARENTS TOTAL CHOICE OF SCHOOL:
A. ADDED BUSING AND/OR PARENT TRAFFIC
B. CONTINUED OVERCROWDING (DEPENDING UPON THEIR CHOICE).
S. HIGH SCHOOL - PARKING WILL BE A REAL PROBLEM.
A. PARK IN THE NEARBY PARK AREA - NOT ACCEPTABLE.
B . NEIGHBORS HAVE ALREADY COMPLAINED ABOUT THE STREET
PARKING BEFORE OVERCROWDING.
C. WHERE DO YOU SUGGEST?
0. TRAFFIC WILL BE INCREASED WITH THE ADDED STUDENT
DRIVERS (LARGE NUMBERS OF HIGH SCHOOL. STUDENTS DRIVE
THEMSELVES TO SCHOOL AND HOME AS WELL AS OFF CAMPUS FOR
LUNCH).
6. WILL INTERMEDIATE STUDENTS (GRADES 6.7.6) BE CROWDED IN AT
DWYER OR BUSED TO SOWERS? THIS GROUP OF STUDENTS IS NOT
MENTIONED IN THE EIR THAT I CAN FIND. WHAT IS SOWERS
CAPACITY?
WILL YOU REDISTRICT? THAT SEEMS THE MOST VIABLE ANSWER.
DISTRICTS WILL WELCOME THE INCREASED ENROLLMENT BECAUSE IT
WILL MEAN INCREASED ALLOCATIONS FOR MUCH NEEDED MONEY - BUT
IT WILL NOT BE A POPULAR MOVE WITH EXISTING STUDENTS.
IN EVERY CASE WHERE EXISTING STUDENTS, PROPERTY OWNERS,
RESIDENTS , BUSINESSES,ETC . ARE IMPACTED THEY ARE THE ONES TO
SUFFER. WHAT WILL YOU DO TO ALLEVIATE THE PROJECTED
OVERCROWDING WHILE PROTECTING THE LIVES OF CURRENT STUDENTS? -
I DON'T SEE THIS ADDRESSED.
THANK YOU ,
f 1�c va4,14 /0AA-01
ng
NO A VANDER MOLEN
AS SUBMITTED TO HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW - FOR PIE
PRINTING. RECOVED
BY JO CHRISTIAN-CRAIG
HBT SECRETARY ..
SEP 0 7 1989
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT `
PLA1041W,OWWON
r HOLLY-SEACLIFF EIR DRAFT QUESTIONS:
1 . REFERENCE 4:11:14 - WHAT PROTECTIVE MEASURES ARE GOING
TO BE TAKEN TO OVERSEE ARCHEOLOGICAL TREASURES ATOP EDWARDS
HILL? WILL THIS NATIVE AMERICAN OBSERVER BE PRESENT DURING
ALL DIGGING.
2. REFERENCE: 4:16%12 - WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH THE
1217 NEW STUDENTS WITHOUT DISRUPTING THE LIVES OF PRESENT
STUDENTS AND MINIMIZING PARKING, TRAFFIC, AIR POLLUTION?
WHAT PROVISIONS ARE TO BE MADE FOR GRADES 6,7,8?
i
3. REFERENCE: 4:5:10 - WHAT PROVISIONS ARE BEING MADE TO
PROVIDE FOR VERY AFFORDABLE HOUSING? DENSITY BONUS IS
REFERENCED, AS USUAL, BUT WITH NO ANSWER WITHIN THIS VERY
LARGE DEVELOPMENT AREA. THE ANSWER APPEARS TO BE - LOOK TO
OTHER AREAS FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WHERE?
4. REFERENCE: 4:1:21 - WITH THE REQUESTED DELETION OF 142
ACRES OF VARIOUS BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL USES WHAT PROVISIONS
WILL BE MADE FOR LOCAL JOB OPPORTUNITIES IN ORDER TO MAKE A
COMMUNITY OF THIS SIZE MORE SELF-SUPPORTIVE? IF NONE OF THIS
WERE TO REMAIN IN THIS AREA, THEN WHERE IS. THE
BUSINESS/INDUSTRIAL USE TO BE LOCATED? SIMILARLY, IF LACK OF
FREEWAY ACESS, IN THE OPINION OF STAFF MAKES HUNTINGTON BEACH j
AN UNDESIRABLE LOCATION FOR INDUSTRY, INVERSELY, LACK OF
FREWAY ACESS AND LACK OF LOCAL JOB OPPORTUNTIES WOULD SEEM TO
MAKE IT UNDESIRABLE TO LOCATE HOUSING WITHOUT FREEWAY ACESS
TO OTHER JOB OPPORTUNITIES .
S. REFERENCE: LAND USE MAP: WHY NOT PLACE COMMERCIAL AREA
ON SW CORNER OF GOLDENWEST AT GARFIELD - A MORE COMMERCIALLY
VIABLE CORNER THAN EDWARDS?
6. REFERENCE: 4: 1:21: WHY CONVERT MARGINAL INDUSTRIAL LAND
TO RESIDENTIAL TO INCREASE LAND VALUE FOR H8 CO. AT THE LOSS
OF NEEDED INDUSTRIAL FOR THE GOOD OF THE CITY OF HS?
7 . REFERENCE: 4:5:6 & 4:5:6: WHAT IS THE REAL NET INCREASE
OR DECREASE IN RESIOENTIAL #'S? ' 4 IS ALREADY SET IN MASTER
PLAN AS LISTED ON EIR SHOWING DECREASE NOT A CHANGE TO LOWER
DENSITY BY HB CO. OTHER PREVIOUSLY - INDUSTRIAL AREA IS GOING
TO HIGHER RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. IS THIS NOT IN ACTUALITY
INCREASING THE OVERALL PROJECT DENSITY?
e: WHERE ARE THE REFERENCED EQUESTRIAN TRAILS? CANNOT
LOCATE ON THE POOR QUALITY REPRODUCTION OF THE LEGENDS - OR
IS IT BECAUSE IT IS ON THE CLIFF?
9. IS FULL CREDIT GIVEN FOR THE SLOPED HILLSIDE LAND IN
LINEAR PARK? THE QUIMBYACT DOES NOT ALLOW FULL CREDIT FOR
t
SLOPES. IS THIS LAND USE THEN CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIMBY
ACT?
10. REFERENCE: 4:1:19: DISPLACEMENT OF CURRENT INDUSTRIAL
OWNERS? IS THIS ANOTHER WAY OF SAYING EMINENT DOMAIN? DOES
THIS MEAN EMINENT DOMAIN IS STILL 70 BE USED IN HB?
11 . HAS THE IMPACT OF THE IMMEDIATELY NEARBY BOLSA CHICA
DEVELOPMENT BEEN CONSIDERED WHEN ALL ASPECTS OF THIS EIR IS
ADDRESSED? THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED PROJECT BUT ONE PROJECT
AMONG MANY OTHERS WITHIN OUR CITY. LET US NOT AGAIN MAKE THE
MISTAKE OF PIECEMEAL IMPACT STUDIES! !
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW
BY HBT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
LORETTA WOLFE, PRESIDENT
l
RECEIVED.
SEP o 7 1989'
CEPARTMENT QF
aommuNtTY DLVEIAPImm
P�ANNINB OIWSI4N
August 28, 1989
John Fisher/Debbie Cook
6692 Shetland Circle
Huntington Beach,CA 92648 RECEIVED
AUG 3 0 1989
Mike Adams DEPART DEVELOpM
MENT U�
City of Huntington Beach C "NNING DIVISIONENT
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach,CA 92648
The following questions are addressed to the Holly-Seacliff E.LR
I. Land Use
1. Open Space/Park land north of Ellis is under review as a result of Council direction.
The EIR leads one to believe no plannin has been done at all. The E.I.R should state
precisely what the Council has directed Community Services to investigate and the status
of all action as of end of August 1989.
As part of the'Motel deal"on P.C.H.,the Driftwood trailer park residents were given
pmanses by the City. Any limitations that exist on the land north of Ellis should be
stated as part of die certification process.
Written response addressing land use for the area north of Ellis will be incomplete if that
response only states that the actual use will be detttmined by later hearing. Because
plans have already been selected by Community Services and previous agreements made
by Council,it is prejudicial to omit the exact status of this specific community asset.
2. E.I.R.does not address the dollar roquirzments nooessary to fund the parks planned in
the entire plan. If developer fees must be increased to develop these parks,that amount
should be part of the E.I.R. Council must have more facts on financing of the needed
parks.
3. Possible oil well consolidation sites must be identified. Any future consolidation must
be limited to those sites. Future well consolidation locations must be deleted from open
space consideration.
4. Consolidation of encyclopedia lots will cost dollars. Rather than simply stating that
some method of consolidation be passed by the Council,it is important that dollar values
be determined on a site-by-site basis so that Council understands the dollars involved
with consolidation. We can't ask Council to approve a blank check. .
5. Linter Park extends beyond the Holly-Seacliff confines. Since that portion outside the
boundaries will be affcctcd by the plan,it makes sense to include any conceptual
boundary in the E.LR. Expand the Holly-Seacliff area to include all of Linear Park.
6. Equestrian trails(as part of open space)need to be shown south of the Garfield/cross-
gap connector into extended Linear Park boundaries. Trail crossings need to be shown to
provide a more complete picture of the recreational opportunities of all open space areas. "
1 NV
State of California limitations of equine trails in wetlands must be expressed and
acknowledged so planning will not preclude any options.
7. A dollar estimate or acreage estimate for the amount of total private land that will be
surrendered in connection with equestrian trails,/areas would quantify the amount of open
space some homeowners will be paying for yet donating(through easements to the city)
for open spaces. Please state approximate acreage as part of B.I.R.
8. Existing wetlands arc not identified and need to be. .Mitigation measures to preserve
and enhance those areas need identification.
9. The affect of fertilizers that will run off into the Central Park lake systems needs
addressing and mitigation me ures identified. Runoff from rain and lawn sprinklers has
proven very significant in the Ellis-Goldenwest area.
11. Commercial/Industrial areas
1. No commercial development on Edwards Street extends south of the Edinger
intersection. The location of 7 acres at the southern end of Edwards is incompatible with
existing slid future homeowners. What criteria is used to even consider a commercial
area at that specific intersection. '
2. Ras"shotgun" zoning designated as"multiple use cotmmercial" been approved
elsewhere in the city? The consultants have suggested that food stores,fght clubs,
movie theaters might or could be placed in that location. It sums the existing center
could be remodeled and expanded to remove all comet cial development from Garfield
west of Goldenwest.
3. Tiic plan does not indicate the creation of equine stables as an alternative in any non-
commercial zone. Under what giiidelines will new stables be approved and in what
arcas7
4. 'i'lic Edison sub-station on some maps is shown as residential. Wouldn't a commercial
or industrial indication be more accurate. Under what criteria would the sub-station be
allowed to move?or forced to move? If the location is permanent,the zoning should
reflect that reality.
5. Are any land aces in Holly-Seacliff owned by the City. If so,are any proposed as
commercial or industrial? A complete ownership map as of f/1/89 would be very
important to Council.
6. Existing oil wells in trolly-Seacliff are numerous. Approval of this plan does not force
these wells (or the tank farms)out of the area,do they?
Ili. Residential Uses
1. In Ellis-Goldenwest most streets are private. In Holly-Seacliff will the same
requirements for private struts be required? Please identify those areas.
2. State the procedure for school site selection,review,and approvals. Do any steps for
school sites need approval by any City Department or are they outside the Holly-Seacliff
area of authority. ]lease state contacts for school site information if this subject is not
subject to review by this E.I.R.
2
3. By Iocating massive densities on Goldenwest and Garfield's southwest corner, the
location of commercial development at Edwards and Garfield will create a traffic tress.
Six lanes of an extremely busy street will need to be crossed. At any half-mile section of
street in H.B.does a similar traffic situation exist--and what do police reports suggest as
the accident rate at such a seemingly hazardous section of road.
4. Does Seapointe connect through to P.C.H.? Has that additional traffic been factored —(
into residential streets? _I
5. Water supply has been a concern of Fire Department officials. Is the use of fire-
retardant shingles been recommended for all residential units in the Plan? All structures
over 5,000 square feet require sprinkler systems. Some communities are requiring
sprinklers in apartment buildings and high density dwelling units. Will the plan make
any such recommendations in connection with waver pressure problems?
6. Comparison of residential units is made to existing General Plan zoning.Ellis-
Goldenwest has been passed by Council. How many residential units does the Plan
represent with Ellis-Goldenwest in place?
1V. Traffic
1. Recent serious accidents involving bicycles in the Ellis-Goldenwest area indicate a need —1
for bike lanes off the street. School busing is not provided for students past grade 5 in
some areas and grade 8 in others. It makes sense to provide safe and sane routes for
students to travel along high speed and heavily trafficked roads.
2. How will additional student parking at the Huntington Beach High School impact the
Civic Center'am& Increased populations will also affect the already inadequate parking at
the shopping center on Sundays.
3. The proposed school site in the Ellis-Goldenwest quartersection is incompatible with the
equestrian theme. School traffic will restrict equestrians along the Garfield trails and all
trails within the area from students walking to school. Most streets in the quaitersection
are private and parking is not permitted on these private streets. How will overflow from
parent meetings,soccer matches,etc.affect homeowners and liability. Existing
homeowners in the quartersection arc planning on a gate at Ellis and Quarterhorse,how i
would this affect school site location? What criteria is used to decide on location and
need for school site? —i
4. Was the traffic model based on Seapointe alone connecting to Pacific Coast Highway or
was the model based on all three connectors--Seapointe,Garfield,and Cross-gap. What
if any one of these is not completed? --�
5. Has the effect of gating private streets in the Ellis-Goldenwest quarts section been
incorporated in the traffic models?
6. Where does Ellis go that will carry so much traffic to be designated a primary 4-lane
divided arterial?
7. Why is Edwards a secondary and Ellis a primary street?
3
V. Water Use
1. Water use for the proposed 105 acre golf course if comparable to other area courses will
require 300 acre feet o water per year. How will this impact water planning and
estimated water useage? Will any proposed golf course have to submit a separate E.I.R
2. Are any City or privately owned water wells located in the Holly-Seacliff boundaries
and what steps are necessary to preserve water quality? Do any of those locations
interfere with any proposed development?
3. Is the future reservoir hill location within the boundaries of the Plan? If so please
indicate on maps and acreage required for the site.
Our final questions is who is paying for this E.I.R.,the City or developer interests?
Sincere ,
n Fisher
Debbie Cook
4
Jerry J. Galich
9 - BethStreet !V ED
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RECE-
August (714) 960-3978 21, 1989 At IG 51989
Mr. Hal Simmons, Project Manager pEPARTMENT O:
Holly Seacliff Project COMMUNITY OEVELOPMENY
PLANNING UIV1S10N
Dear Hal:
I am the property owner of the developed property at the
northwest corner of Garfield and Crystal Streets and have
attended all of the workshop meetings an the Holly Seacliff
Project. I am happy to now something finally happening . in this
part of our city.
I have owned the property at this address since 1971 but couldn't
build on it until 1979 because of the planning moratorium in the
area. In 1979 the Planning Commission and the City Council
approved PRECISE PLAN OF, STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 79-1 (attached).
Based on thin plan I decided to formulate construction plans.
My main concern at this time is the alignment of Crystal Street
with Gothard. An you will note in 79-1 the dedication for street
widening was to be from the . east .side only and justifiably no
because of the lands gained on the east aide due to the abandon-
ment of the existing Gothard Street.
I hope you will also consider at this time the need to create
some type of a buffer zone between the planned residential units
and the existing businesses in the Business Park zone. Something
very special is needed to reconcile the planned high quality
residential units with the business park.
I hope you vial support the premise of 79-1 regarding the street
widening dedication and place further conditions on this project
relative to the establishment of an environmentally attractive
buffer zone.
I have talked with all of the property owners on the west aide of
Crystal Street (five owners) and their concerns are the same as
mine. We don't object to the medium density requested by the
Huntington Beach Co. on the a*st side but...:Ve .do unanimously agree
that the dedication and buffer zone should come from the newly
developed east side.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours truly, .
err J. Galich
copies: Roger Work, Huntington Beach Co.
huntington bead,*oning departanent
staff
� q
T0: Planning Commission
FROM: Planning Department
DATE: March 20, 1979
SUBJECT: PRECISE PLAN OF STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 79-1
1.0 SUGGESTED ACTION:
Adopt Resolution No. 1245 recommending to the City Council approval
of Precise Plan of Street Alignment No. 79-1.
2.0 BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed realignment of
Gothard Street between Ellis and Garfield Avenues at a number of
study sessions in 1977 and at a subsequent public hearing on
May 3, 1977. This realignment was studied as a portion of Precise
Plan of Street Alignment 76-6 which proposed a number Of precise
plans to alleviate some of the circulation problems in- the vicinity
of the Civic Center. However, at the May 3, 1977 meeting the staff
recommended that PPSA 76-6C, that portion of the precise plan
which addressed the realignment of Gothard between Ellis and Garfield ,
be continued to be reviewed in conjunction with a possible change
on the intersection at the southerly portion of the realignment.
where it was to intersect Main Street, to allowladditional informa-
tion to be generated. -- -.---- _
The precise plan had been delayed in the 'hope ihat* the Traffic Model
could be used on the intersection design of- Crystal and Main
Streets and the total alignment on Gothard taken into consideration.
However, the Department of Public Works has recently informed us
that loss of funding for the project is imminent and unless some-
thing happens prior to July 1, 1979, they will be required to
refile on this project.
3.0 ANALYSIS:
As stated previously the staff had originally.proposed that the tote
. alignment between Ellis and Yorktown Avenues be. considered as one
precise plan of street alignment. However, if the- City Council at
its March 19, 1979 meeting concurs with the Commission's recomendat' n
for the deletion of the Lake Street extension between Yorktown and
Garfield and the redesignation of Main Street between Clay and
Garfield Avenues on the Circulation Element, a possible redesign
rin; the intersection of Crystal and Main will be necessary.
Because of the urgency in getting the portion between -Garfield and
Ellis precise planned, the staff has elected to again pursue only
•FROM:DDIST 12 PLANNING TO:95364693 SEP 14 19M 1:49PM P.02
STATE• UUF01tNIA-4=WSS AND T1tANS/0R1At*N AOINCY GEORGE 94UKMIJIAR Qow wor
DEP• RTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DI9TRIOT 18
?G01 PULLMAN STREET
SANTA ANA, CA 92705
September 14, 1989 -
Mr. Hal Simmons
Planning Department
2000 Main street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Pilot IGR/CEQA
DRIR for Holly-Seacliff
General Plan Amendment
BCH# 8901012
Dear Mr. Simmonst
Caltrans has reviewed the DEIR for the Holly-Seacliff General
Plan Amendment, Volumes 1 and 2. The subject area covers 768 acres
of undeveloped land and is located in the central portion of the
city bounded by Central Park/Ellis Avenue on the north, auntington
and Main Streets on the east, Yorktown amd Clay Avenues on the
south and the Orange County boundary ling along the Bolsa Chica
wetlands area to, the west. The proposed land uses include
residential, with densities ranging from three to twenty five units
per acre, Comparcial, industrial uses and open space designated
across five planning areas in the projeot •area.
Caltrans will *be a responsible agency at various times over
the development phase of this area. Evaluation Of the traffic and
circulation impacts generated from the development of this area
suggests that certain road improvements effecting State facilities
will be necessary. We agree with the mitigation measures in the
DEIR which require certain types of improvementa,i.e. , fair shake
fees for new roads, road widening and increased turning lanes at
certain Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard intersections. The costs
of these improvements should be the responsibility of others and
not the State. Also, we agree with the general plan policies that
the railroad ROW should be retained and considered for trail or
future transit use and the alignment and preservation of ROW for
new arterials consistent with the countyls and city's Master Plan
of Arterial Highways be part of the future planning.
The section on traffic/ciroulation is comprehensive, providing
an indepth analysis of the impstcts on the local and regional
arterials that are adjacent to or associated with the proposed land
uses. However, we feel the DEYR should mention Caltrans Route
Concept Reports for Coast Highway (Rte 1) and Beach Boulevard (Rte
39) .
- ..iyyy1cw.a.
fROM:DDIST 12 PLAWIlea T0=953S4693 SEP 14t 19M 11SOPM
t
Page 2
The routo concept reports express the Department's judgement an
what the characteristics of these routes should be to respond to
the projected travel demand over the 20 year planning period.
They contain the goals for the development of the routes in tests
of level of service and broadly identify the nature and extent of
improvements needed to reach these goals. The 20 year concept for
Rte 1 is six lanes and for Rte 39 is eight lanes# in addition, the
traffic report area should be increased to include the following
intersections: Coast Highway at Warner, Beach Boulevard at Talbert,
Yorktown and Coast Highway.
In conclusion, we suggest a couple of minor revisions to the
text of the DEIR. On page 3.0--16 Vol 1, change Caltrans District
7 to District 121 and in Vol 21 there is conflicting information
concerning the intersections of Coast Highway and Goldenwest and
at Beach Boulevard and Garfield between the reCaasmnded
improvements on page 46 and Table M.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIR and wish
to continue coordination throughout the planning of the Cit 8e
General Plan Amendment. Should you have any questions regarding
these comments, please Contact Robert F. Joseph of my staff at
(714) 724-2235.
Sincerely,
•• a
a Xichalak', Chief
AQvance Planning Branch
SMIRFJI
CCi Robert Litton, Traffic Operations
Dorothy Uvyehara, Transportation Planning
George smith, HQTR8 Planning
Garrett Ashley, OPR State Clearinghouse
w J
GERALD L. CHAPMAN, D.O.S. �.� 4 I V ED,
A Professional Corporation
Medical Center Professional Building �Fp1 > 1989
19800 Main Street Suite 202
Huntington Beach, CA 92848 t)tpAHTMENr u;
714 648-2278
COMMUNITY gE4U0''MEkT
PLANNING DIVISION
September 8, 1989
Uepartment of Community Affairs
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92646
Re: Holly-Seaclitf Dratt Environmental impact Report
User Sirs:
The Huntington Beach Company is proposing the removal of
Office-Professional zoning on 16 acres near Main and Garfield
streets.
With final buildout of the Holly-Seacliff area, there will be
an increased need for health Care services in the area. The
present Office-Protessional zoning is the only open space
left in the city that can economically support the strict
parking requirements for health care facilities. the
preferred location for health care professionals is near a
hospital . Pacifica Hospital is located in the present
Office-Professional zoning.
The draft E1R states that the Corner of Beach and Warner
would be an ideal location for office-protess :onai buildings.
I could not disagree more. Office-Professional zoning will
make an ideal buffer between Main Street and the proposed
residential zoning, will be located near a hospital and
will be an the border of the proposed residential area.
I would like to know where - you propose to put the increased
need for health care facilities if the Office-Professional
zoning is eliminated?
Sincerely,
000,
Gerald L. Chapman, D`.D.S.
STATE OP`CA"P9A--OFAC1 Of THE OOMNOA CaOm 0euWaRAN, 09"row
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
14W TENTH 3TRW RUM MN BEKM
SACRAMENTO, CA 95614 IMIAPMENT SERVICES
SO 111989
Hal Simmons
September 8, 1.989
City of Huntington Beach 1�.0. MX 1so
2000 Main Street HWtiltt"Mad%CA 82845
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Subject: Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment/ SCH# 89010412
Dear Mr. Simmons:
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is
closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are)' enclosed.
Also, on the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked
which agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to
ensure that your comment package is complete. * If the package is not in
order, please notify the State Clearinghouse im ediatsly. Remember to refer
to the project's eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may reply
promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code
requires that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make
substantive comments regarding those activities involved in a
project which are within an area of expertise of the agency or which
are required to be carried out or approved by the agency."
'Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their
c omrients with specific documatation. .
These ccamaents are forwarded for your use in preparing' your final EIR. If
you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact
the commenting agency at your earliest convenience.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Garrett Ashley at
916/445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review
process.
Sincerely,
David C. Nunenkamp
Chief
Office of Permit assistance
cc: Resources Agency
• MW to, ~A Qom.U"!w Shre@%ram Ul.MMMU0M a-ruu—OLV445-013 M,wm Mlwr
atioa or aoaaws,an exon r wMeem,aa L_ 890104 t 2 1 ,
• t. "*Wt awe Noll -Seacliff Cenral Plan A n o"
�. W#,Nos a. on"et w,w• Rai Sis000a��
2000 win Street - y..w &mph
bu~ ��"� (714) S36-S46S
>•,efrMll Oiahle._ � �.�- e�RLp iR New,
Draw 4. =�"
y,dle/ee�aed Nuntinacon leech
ANINZANONOM�.arneu'e PKw s, - -..��
• w e...owlEllis/Ldvards. ltl: Sliis/tluntie8tonw �..,� MIA —
Sts�rktoun/win awe Southern ter.
a. e1,Ma a " `ago w Ie� heliport -a,e„e Pacific N A
4410
INA
�....: a.__J= el._Jm�sx ee. esy� awe��—i•�+.. i
et.fir•oar w...r.J o� es.�IwMiM aue a,m,a•� MM..
--pMhe am d.X�AY�tl� ag.g% 337_59f1_
el.ARers on a• tall
�---- ea_Awwo 3e2e ewe—bieftsialb al.P.
a. sews.■s..4_ 8Sa
ea--JI11w,adr•+a 0.Aimee momfidem,- _automobile -
soft e/.. Ya�1 MMsi Ail/•es —
so.-.■Jos ....Jea �. ahssln
scent electric...■1rw 25:768,4
Ia.�Js� 33.�� M►lia,sal.eee.l ee-.9YY.Jww1+ '4w------�,�. i
ds U.��ramie a.-LA MM eNemme, '� sever
o+. . ...dleees e.e..,e U.—aswe a}t use 39._woe iambs
. U.�yd memo 336 end as sewew■ .a.'?� ---- Cave� 2,0631
iM�� RA yi,M,- M 96■ 4070
- a.. Lsm"Naoft"a a. U. Lasew aver~ el. -Pow squor
es.Jod"W"Gerd 1 se. - •37.--4011d - a..Linaww
w..Zrs w.ur aa.. Mae•Y.sdwiw >�_r,et on" U.2,mw
it Jos X a mmu ».1L Jrsu cave. sf.�L�m a selsUss
IL .-SWFAL ems 3s.Y.JMee � 21:.i�+Nwe4,s, s'•�UM+e
ar._fin smwe se.JLJMM+s -
la. �logo"0110"a area• Gee t•
34. Estate Residential, Medium Dessicy, Planned Comsa,ity, Coma], Comworeia
Office Profeesiaaal. Caneral ladustrial, Keeoorce Production, Open Space (as indicated in
Oe Draft Elk)•
As indicated in the Draft SIR, the proposed land uses include residential of.varyine
prodect typos at dehsities reninS from three to twenty. . uuiti'Mr acre, Ceeae 14L
sod laduatrial uses and open epsce. Resldential land uses Include Estate, Lou Daneity,
Medium Density, Mediue-HiSh Dessity and Nixed Devalcpeent. The project proposes '
561 acres of sesidentlai and 4,410 dxallina units.
QaARtI OMAM CAMWff A$IM W/C N/C M/C B/C
111d-�S-0elE rew. _✓• iRtgQfS
STAT& RMLM 8[ M: �dtltr„naM�
•Cw,socvaLton
Heft a Gem _
Ueff It811 TO AGEWV: —
.l
43ENUN REV TO XX:
/atr
901 C1 UPLIAN= �UN_10714 1VC
- _ eig'e ai krm
Qn/�APO. Ell DAte:
p i ��1,
x
-- —-
i AM
H-J
> Environmental Board
`� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
IWW�tli Pasl Office Box 190 . Huntington Beadi, California 9?648
September 8, 1989
Mr. Hai Simmons
Department of Community Development
P. 0. Box 190
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Subject : Response to DEIR No. 89-1
Holly-Seacliff General Amendment
The subcommittee composed of five members our Environmental
Board has completed the review of the subject report
(Volumes I and II , plus the condensed version dated August
1989) . The committee's review and recommendations are
detailed in the following seven page report.
It is our Judgement that their will be a severe
environmental impact both short and long term that has not
adequately answered in the subject report . Many of the '
mitigation measures stated are inadequate, unclear or
omitted entirely. Those environmental impacts requiring a
more satisfactory or better defined mitigation response are
Indicated In the Board's report .
We recommend strongly that a more comprehensive study be
given to the short and long term effects of this project and
that our concerns be answered satisfactorily before approval
Is considered.
Roy H. Richardson
Environmental Board
DEIR 89-1 Committee
Charles A. Montero
Kay Seraphine
E. Clarke Stephans
Roy H. Richardson
Corinne Welch
Page 1 of 8
The- following lists the Environmental Board's concerns regarding the DER
Environmental Check list, Attachment 4, pages 1 - ?; Volume 2 of the General Plan
Amendment .
In general , It is the opinion that an acceptable response to any environmental
question should be answered 'Yea" or BNo" .
The response of "Maybe" indicates a lack of judgement.
1 . Earth. Will the proposal result In:
e. Any Increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? YES
The development will cause water/soil erosion along bluffs and in the
Sully-Miller lake runoff areas. Areas where swells are filled will alter run off
courses causing further soil erosion.
g. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mud slides, ground fallure, or similar hazards? - YES.
Page 4.3-9, Volume I states that there is an active fault along southern
portion of project and this should not be overlooked.
2
Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantlal air emissions or deterioration of amb-lent air quality? - YES
Air quality will deteriorate due to Increased vehicle trips per day resulting
solely from this project. The pollutants will rise approximately 1% as compared to
the total County. To determine that there Is a ' lack of an adverse effect' by
measuring Impacts ratios at the county levels rather then the City level would
obviously avoid such issues that may be considered individually acceptable but are
in fact collectively harmful .
Overall air quality should take into consideration increased S.C. Edison emissions
caused by the Increased demands due housing and commercial Increases. The use of
alternate transportation modes - public transportation should be increased.
We are not concerned about the entire county of Orange, but definitely the immediate
area effected by the project which Includes Huntington Beach.
b. The creation of objectionable odors. - YES.
Oil wells will emit odors and the consolidation of oil wells should be done
prior to the beginning of construction. The need for vapor recovery systems should
be investigated and determined at that time.
3. Water, will the proposal result in:
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? - YES.
The absorption rates are affected by the adding of paved roads, sidewalks,
houses, and Industry buildings. Drainage patterns are affected the same way as will
the amount of surface water due to landscaping by the home owner, commercial
building occupants and the open space maintenanee(parks).
Page 2 of 8
e. Discharge into surface water, or in any alterations of surface water quality
Including but limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? YES
The use of fertilizers and Insect sprays, etc., by the homeowners percolating
Into more confined soli areas. This to a particular concern for project homes built
along the bluffs as well as the landscaping areas along the linear park.
There will also be an Increase in street runoffs of oils, diesel fuels and other
automotive fluids resulting from Increased vehicular traffic using the new streets
added by the project streets added.
h. Substantial reduction In the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies? YES.
The addition of 4410 residences, plus light Industrial and commercial buildings
will definitely require water withdrawals. There is currently Insufficient water
supply to compensate for the additional usage anticipated for this project..
Adequate water supplies should.be secured before the project commences.
4. Plant life. will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? YES.
The potential toss of the eucalyptus windrows, raptor sites, etc. The proposed
plan acknowledges the removal of a substantial amount of mature trees with only
marginal replacements
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases In existing noise levels? Yes
Light Industrial projects are Included near a helicopter port and a public
firing range. Light Industrial areas will Increase flow truck traffic In Immediate
area.
The noise is mitigated by walls (sound barriers) and set backs In the residential
areas. The walls must be taller than line of sight to be effective. The noise
caused by the heliport cannot be adequately mitigated. Some noise relief measures
should be added by the builders' use of double pane windows, six Inch block walls
and adequate use of large trees and shrubs both residential and commercial
landscaping.
Consolidation of the oil well pumps should lower noise levels once
consolidation is complete, but noise mitigation measures to be incorporated should
be listed as to how they will be done, what type soundproofing will be Incorporated
and who wiII assume the responsibility. It should be determined whether or not
truck traffic servicing an oil consolidation project and/or oil well drilling In the
consolidation areas will be on a 24 hour basis or limited
to 7AM - IOPM. If a 24 hour schedule is set the mitigation measures should be
determined prior to project approval .
Oil well consolidation sites must be Identified early and potential residential
buyers should be forewarned of the possible noise/traffic impacts.
The noise from the public shooting range will most probably be drowned out by
the Increased traffic flows In the ssirroundIng areas and no Ionger be noticed.
Page 3of8
b, Exposure of people to severe noise levels? No.
'No" is acceptable if the Industrial complexes are finished and occupied before
surrounding residential areas are started. If the reverse is scheduled, then the
response should be "Yes' .
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES
The Industrial complexes and surrounding residential areas both will add light
and glare to the surrounding community.
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal Involve:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to oil , pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions? YES
Areas of the project site were used for oil waste dump sites In the early
1920's and 301s. When first drilled, Bolsa Chica ill and other early oil wells were
allowed to spill olI onto the land before being capped. Soli samples should be
taken to determine if the soil contamination has leached out over the years.
The Holly property was a cattle feed lot at on time; further north was an
Alpha Beta packing company. Both properties were used for cattle grazing.
Considering the problems with crumbling foundations which occurred under similar
circumstances in the city of La Palma, soll studies should be required prior to
building.
There is the definite possibility that underground methane gas exists with the
area that could be disturbed during excavation and/or Increase 'slant drilling
during relocation of selected oil well sites*
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? YES
The residential area project does not allow for any affordable housing
projects. No mitigation measures are included In the proposal .
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result ins
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? YES.
The estimated 65000 vehicular trips per day should not be considered
"insignificant'!
D. Effects on existing parking facilities, or the demand for new parking? YES
Due to the Increase In light Industrial build-up and the increase of an
estimated 8000 cars belonging to new residents within the city limits. the existing
parking facilities which are Immediate to the proposed project and include the
Central Park and recreational area and Central Library, become totally Inadequate
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation system? YES.
Four Intersections will operate below the City required level of Service D
regardless of which alternative Is chosen. The matrix below Is a comparison of
Tables I. K, and mitigation recommendations on Page 46 for the Land Use Concept
Plan:
page 4 of 8
S f
r__________________I-------------------I__--------___-_____I
I Goldenwest/Palm 1 Goldenwest/PCH I t
I I AM PM 1 AM PM I
I ( I I
I Table 1 t .86 1.02 1 1.40 1.33 1
I Existing + LUCP I D F I F F i
I 1 I f
I Table K 1 .74 .68 1 1.39 1.31 1
I After widening ofl C D I F F t
I Goldenwest I I I
t ! I
i After mitigation 1 1 .89 .84 1
1 recommended I t D D t
1 measures - p. 46 1 _{ 1
I f t !
I i !
I I Main/Garfield !
1 t AM PM
1 I 1
I Table 1 ( 1.04 1.43
I Existing + LUCP I F F I
I I t
1 t !
I Table K I 1.08 1.69 1
1 After Gothard/ I F F !
I Crustal Alignment! I
i i t
1 f I
I After mitigation 1 .72 1.06 1
1 recommen. - p.46 I C F t
1 1 �
I t I
1 I Beach/Garfield I
I I AM PM I
t f !
I Table 1 1 .89 1.41 1
t Existing + LUCP I D F
t I I
1 t I
I Table K 1 .98 1 .42 I
1 Beach Blvd. Superl E F I
I Street project I I
I I 1
1 t f
1 After mitigation 1 .59 .83 1
1 recommen. - p.46 I A D I
! t I
Table F assumes road Improvements described in the project proposal . The widening
of Goidenwest street Is planned for the near future. This Holly-Seacliff project
will realign Gothard with Crystal and eliminate the five legged intersection at Main
and Garfield. The Super Street project Is more of a question mark. It Is obvious
that without all of these improvements these four intersections will operate below
required city standards of LOS D. As aeon by the charts, even with all the lane
Improvements, Beach and Garfield will operate at LOS F during the peak evening
hours. There should be an assurance that these street Improvements will be improved
before the housing occupancy is allowed.
` The current City Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows Garfield Avenue being
constructed as a primary arterial east of Golden West Street. The Draft EIR 89-1
tp.35> states 'Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street is forecast to operate over
capacity assuming a primary arterial section.`
The Environmental Board recommends that Garfield Avenue be constructed as a major
arterial only to Edwards Street and that Seapointe Avenue and the cross-gap
connector both be constructed as secondary arterials. We see no advantage to
having a primary arterial running along the boundary of the linear park.
Constructing these streets as secondary arterial would be less damaging to both the
linear park and the Bolea Chica Wetlands.
Circulation Element 83-1 which realigned Gothard with Crystal Street recognizes that
this makes a direct link with 17th Street. Since this project will cause that
realignment to become a reality, 17th Street should be Included In the traffic and
circulation analysis. Residential areas of 17th and Bain Streets south of Utica
need to be protected, particularly from truck traffic looking for an alternate route
to PCH.
Circulation Element 83-1 states that if 'Gothard-Crystal is precisely planned to
connect to Main Street at Clay Avenue, then Clay Avenue should probably be abandoned
between Gothard-Crystal and Goldenwest Streets." Draft EIR 89-1 assumes that Clay
will be available to handle partial access that has been limited along Garfield
Avenue and the maps show It as existing westward to Goldenwest Street. This portion
of Clay should be reopened.
Figures i.b.8,10,11 and 13 through 17 show Talbert Avenue as existing through
Central Park between Goldenwest Street and Edwards. These figures should be
corrected or removed from the DEIR. Palm Avenue as a major arterial on either side
of Goldenwest Street should be removed from figures 1.6,8. and 13 through 17. All
maps should be corrected to show the approved Gothard-Crystal alignment of Figure
10.
The Traffic study should also indicate how Edwards Avenue north of Ellis will be
designed to connect with the proposed four lane secondary south of Ellis and the
existing four lane highway north of Talbert/Inlet Drive.
f . Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. YES.
There is the projection of an additional 8000 cars generating an additional
circulation of 66000 daily trips on already crowded local streets. The widening of
streets from 4 to six lanes or from 2 to 4 lanes which is necessitated by this
Increased traffic flow Increases the potential for traffic hazards, particularly for
bicyclists. Special Bicycle lanes should be separated from any major arterial
streets by a "divider strip` - not Just a 'painted white line'.
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result In a need for
new or altered governmental services In any of the following areas:
c. Schools? YES
There is a new school addition planned within the project.
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? YES.
The city ordinance requires a specified amount of open space and park acreage
dedicated within the proposed project. It can not be determined from the Draft LIR
39-1 that the city requirement will actually be met. It is recommended that the
open space and park requirements required by the city be reviewed in depth to
determine if such open space can actually be used by the general public (not the
side of a cliff! private [gated) property, or equestrian trails, etc.).
The Linear Park should be left as wild as possible to provide a natural habitat for
displaced animal life, and to require as little water maintenance, fertilizer and
pesticide use as possible. Areas left unimproved should be replanted with plant
species known to support displaced animal. life.
i
All eucalvotug,and other Captor trees should be left on site,Removal of mature
trees and replacement with two 24 inch boxed treeg is not suffletent mitl_cati op for
any loss of full argUn mature trees. Any digcretten alyen to the developer to
e t
yeaCtation.
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
The definition of Substantial' needs to be properly defined in order to
determine whether the increase of approximately 6% In the city's population, or the
addition of 65000 automobile trips per day, is considered •substantial" .
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the
development of new sources of energy?
The definition of "Substantial* needs proper defining In order to determine
whether the Increase of approximately 6% in the city's population, or the addition
of 65000 automobile trips per day, is considered "substantial".
16. UtlIItles. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
c. Water? YES
d. Sewer or septic tanks? YES
e. Storm water drainage? YES
f. Solid waste and disposal? YES
The minimum city service standards set recommended In the City's Master Plan
(June 1988) and reiterated by the City's Ad hoc Committee report of December 1988
should dictate the limits of all future development proposals. Where minimums are
projected to go below standard, additional facilities should be Incorporated or
existing facilities expanded before new proposals are approved.
The City's water Department has stated that inadequate water supplies exist and
that any water shortage would be accelerated by this or other large scale housing
project.
The County Sanitation District Director has stated that "The district cannot
service the Holly-Seacliff portion which will draln to Slater Avenue Pump Station
until such time as that station is rebuilt" The Board of Directors has adopted a
new master plan which calls for the construction of a new pump station at Slater
Avenue and other drainage facilities. "These are absolutely necessary to serve the
holly-Seacliff General Plan development.' Funds should be obtained and definite
plans for the Sanitation District's projects should be in place before this project
should be considered.
Page 7 of 8
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result In the obstruction of any scenic
vista or view open to the public. or will the proposal result In the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view. YES.
The development of the linear park and the development of the area immediately
adjacent to the park require further investigation as does the area adjoining
Central Park to insure proper mitigation has been acc amp lished. The dedicating of
the smaller required open space and park areas resulting from this project should be
considered as a possibility of enlarging the size of the Linear Park by adding the
acreage to the linear park boundaries.
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impaction upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES.
The addition of over 10,000 new city residents and the projects proximity will
definitely impact crowded parking conditions and the facilities available at the
Central Library. The approval of the Phase I of the library requires the use of
$3.8 million of existing city assets. The recommended increase of $0.05 to's0.10
per square foot to the current 'Community Enrichment fee would snake available
slightly more than $1 ,000,000 for the Library's expansion either toward Phase II or
offset part of the cost of Phase I. (This fee Is imposed upon the builder(s) at
the time of permit filing and therefore is usually passed on to the new residential
and commercial occupants)
21 . 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 of restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory? YES.
C. Does the project have Impacts which are Individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? YES.
This Is the. "tragedy of the commons".
d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or Indirectly? YES.
The definition of 'Substantial' is again missing. Fewer local Jobs are expected in
the amendment then in the original proposal , requiring more driving to *reach work" .
Fewer low Income housing Is available, more pollution, more noise, more traffic,
more non renewable energy usage, etc.
resulting solely from this project.
Environmental Board DEIR 89-1 Committee
Charles A. Hontero
Kay Seraphine
E. Clarke Stephens
Roy H. Richardson
Corinne Welch
Page 8 of 8
state of California Environmental Affairs Agency
Memorandum
To : Mr. Garrett Ashley Date : SEp 131989
State Clearinghouse
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, California 95814
Mr. Hal Simmons
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main street
Huntington Beach, California 92648 ��o <-
... ' CY
From •
rge H. Larson, Manager
R urce . Conservation and Local Planning Divisions
CALIFORNIA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Subject : SCH # $9010412 - Negative Declaration for the Holly-
Seacliff General P1an, Amendment, Orange County.
The Holly-Seacliff project proposes to build 4 ,410 residential
units on 561 acres of land, industrial and shopping/commercial
development on 65 acres of land in the city of Huntington Beach.
New residential and commercial developments increase the amount
of waste being sent to' local landfills, and these landfills are
rapidly running out of space. In order to preserve remaining
disposal capacity, Board staff encourage that every effort be
made to minimize the amount of solid waste going to landfills by
maximizing recycling and waste reduction efforts. These
considerations should be investigated thoroughly before the
projects are initiated.
Board staff suggest that the following measures be considered in
order to maximize recycling, reduce waste, and to promote
consumption of recycled materials.
* A curbside recycling program could be incorporated into
the Holly-Seacliff project.
* Information could be provided to homeowners and
businesses about the recycling services in the ,
development area.
* : -1;1tilation and other products made of recycled
:.3rials may be used in the construction of
covalopment structures.
* Suggest to homeowners and businesses that they utilize
recycled materials, such as paper, glass, and metals,
to the maximum extent possible.
If you have any questions regarding these comments, please
contact Jeannie Blakeslee of the California Waste Management
Board's Local Planning Division at (916) 327-0454. If you would
like information about waste reduction or recycling measures
which would be appropriate for your development.project please
contact Carole Brow at (916) 324-6946.
.j
SECTION 3: RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
The following section responds to all comments related to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the
EIR or raise significant environmental issues. A substantive response to such
comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental
Quality Act. Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged"
reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate
decision makers for their review and consideration.
4
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY BOARD
Comment
1. If soil contamination by hazardous substances associated with oil field and /or
other activities is found to exist at the project site, the proponent should
contact the Orange County Health Care Agency, Hazardous Waste Section, for
assistance in mitigation activities. This office should also be contacted if there
are potential water quality impacts.
Response
The Draft EIR states in section 4.14, Oil Facilities, potential impacts from soil
contamination and also addresses mitigation measures to offset these impacts.
Additionally, the Draft EIR contains a discussion on potential surface oil
contamination on page 4.15-4, within the Human Health and Safety section.
The mitigation measures require that "prior to grading, a site reconnaissance
should be performed including a phased Environmental Site Assessment to
evaluate areas where contamination of the surf icial soils may have taken
place."
Comment
2. In addition, either a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for any discharge of wastes to surface water or a Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDR) permit for any discharge of wastes to land is required
from this Regional Board. These discharges of wastes can be those associated
with, but not limited to, construction dewatering, dredging activities, or storm
water runoff from industrial areas which store hazardous materials.
Response
Comment acknowledged. The hydrology section 4.4, mitigation measure no.2
addresses requirements of future discretionary permits.
5
DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Comment
1. Your subject document has been reviewed by our Department of Water
Resources staff. Recommendations as they relate to water conservation and
flood damage prevention are attached.
Response
Water Conservation:
Measure 5 of the mitigation measures for water facilities addresses the first 5
water conservation recommendations as described by the Department of Water
Resources. (See letter in Section 2) In order to include the 6th and 7th
recommendations, measure 5.d. in the draft EIR Volume I, has been revised to
read as follows:
5.d. "Compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate
plumbing code, Health and Safety Code and the Government Code."
To include the next 6 recommendations from the Department of Water
Resources for public interior water conservation, measure 16 has been added to
the list of mitigation measures as follows:
16. The following Public Interior water conservation measures shall be
implemented by developers where applicable:
a. Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per square inch (psi) be
reduced to 50 psi or less by means of pressure-reducing valve.
b. Drinking fountains be equipped with self-closing valves.
C. Conservation reminders be posted in hotel rooms and rest rooms.
Thermostatically controlled mixing valve be installed for
bath/shower in hotels.
d. Water-conserving models of laundry washers be used.
e. Water-conserving models of dishwashers be used and drinking water
be served only upon request in restaurants.
f. Ultra-low-flush toilets be installed in all new construction.
The next 13 recommendations from the Department of Water Resources have
already been addressed in measures 4 through 9 of the mitigation measures for
Water Facilities.
Flood Damage Prevention:
Comments 1, 2, 6 and 8 have already been addressed in the EIR for the Holly
Seacliff General Plan Amendment.
6
In response to Item 3; the entire Holly-Seacliff project boundary is covered in
the Federal Emergency Management Agency Map #065034 0001-0010. The
majority of the Holly-Seacliff project lies within Zone C which indicates areas
of minimal flooding. A small portion of the west limits of the project lies
within Zone B which indicates areas between limits of the 100 year flood and
500 year flood. Adequate flood protection is to be provided as noted in
measure 2 of the mitigation measures for Hydrology in the EIR.
In response to Items 4, 5 and 7, the following measures have been added to the
mitigation measures in the EIR as measures 9, 10 and 11 respectively.
9. At least one route of ingress and egress to development should be
available during a 100-year flood.
10. The slope and foundation designs for all structures should be based on
detailed soils and engineering studies, especially, for hillside
developments.
11. The potential damage to proposed development by mudflow should be
assessed and mitigated as required on each phase of development as it
occurs.
Comment
2. After reviewing your report, we also would like to recommend that you further
consider implementing a comprehensive program to use reclaimed water for
irrigation purposes in order to free fresh water supplies for beneficial uses
requiring high quality water supplies.
Response
As noted in measure 15 of the mitigation measures for Water Facilities, the
Water System Master Plan for the City of Huntington Beach describes and
details the Orange County Water District's "Green Acres" system reclaimed
water. Measure 15 continues to note that at the time the City of Huntington
Beach connects to the "Green Acres" system, "project developers shall at that
time construct and utilize a reclaimed water system for on-site irrigation areas
and equestrian trails."
7
HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT
Comment
I. The proposed Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment will have a significant
impact on the school district. It may generate approximately 600 K-S students
from the proposed new housing. Additional students of middle school age from
this project may also impact Dwyer Middle School.
Response
Comment acknowledged. The General Plan Amendment designates a site for a
new elementary school to serve students generated by the residential
development. Impacts to Dwyer middle school are not anticipated to require the
provision of a middle school.
Comment
2. In order to mitigate the impact on K-S students, a ten-acre site and
approximately 24 classrooms are needed. As of this date, Huntington Beach
City School District is negotiating with the Huntington Beach Company with
regard to an elementary school (land and building) in the proposed General
Plan Amendment area, with both groups working cooperatively toward a
resolution.
Response
The comment is not related to the adequacy of the EIR. The comment is noted
and included in the record for review by the appropriate decision makers.
Comment
3. We would appreciate these factors being considered prior to final action being
taken.
Response
Comment acknowledged.
8
NORMA VANDERMOLEN
Comment
1. According to the numbers shown in the EIR pertaining to projected school
enrollment from the Holly Seacliff area, Perry and Dwyer schools will both be
placed over capacity. When a school is at over capacity, a school district has
several choices:
I. Build a new school (hardly reasonable when the HBCSD has several
schools closed in other areas- $$$ factor).
2. Redistrict - redraw the boundary. This will disrupt present students -
not at all satisfactory.
3. Bus the new students (Holly-Seacliff new residents ) to other schools
that have lower enrollment- this takes away from neighborhood schools.
4. Give parents total choice of school:
A. Added busing and/or parent traffic
B. Continued overcrowding (depending upon their choice).
Response
Comment acknowledged. An elementary school site has been designated within
the Holly-Seacliff area to accommodate students generated by the new
residential development. The school district will determine which of the above
options is the most feasible. In addition, all new construction within the
district is subject to the payment of impact fees to provide for school facilities.
Comment
2. High School-parking will be a real problem.
A. Park in the nearby park area -not acceptable.
B. Neighbors have already complained about the street parking before
overcrowding.
C. Where do you suggest?
Response
The projected enrollment increase in the Union High School District may
require the re-drawing of school boundaries to shift enrollment to less crowded
campuses. This may alleviate potential parking problems associated with
overcapacity. The project will not require a new high school site, but may
require upgrading of existing facilities to accommodate additional students.
The high school district also collects fees from all new construction to provide
for such improvements.
Comment
3. Traffic will be increased with the added student drivers (large numbers of high
school students drive themselves to school and home as well as off campus for
lunch).
9
Response
Comment acknowledged. Like other traffic-generating land uses, high schools
should encourage ride-sharing.
Comment
4. Will intermediate students (Grades 6,7,8) be crowded in at Dwyer or
bused to Sowers? This group of students is not mentioned in the EIR that
I can find. What is Sowers capacity?
Response
The addition of intermediate students has been included in the projected school
student generation. The project will generate approximately 678 elementary
and intermediate students. Sowers is currently operating at capacity, therefore
students from Dwyer will not be bused there. To accommodate the
intermediate students, Dwyer will require the addition of portable classrooms.
Comment
5. Will you redistrict? That seems the most viable answer. Districts will welcome
the increased enrollment because it will mean increased allocations for much
needed money- but it will not be a popular move with existing students.
Response
Please refer to response no. 2 .
Comment
6. In every case where existing students, property owners, residents, businesses,
etc. are impacted they are the ones to suffer. What will you do to alleviate the
projected overcrowding while protecting the lives of current students?
Response
Please refer to response no. 1 and 2. The proposed General Plan Amendment
incorporates a development phasing plan, which is intended to provide better
coordination between developers and the various public service agencies and
special districts.
10
HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW
Comment
1. Reference: 4:11:14 - What protective measures are going to be taken to oversee
archeological treasures atop Edwards Hill? Will this Native American Observer
be present during all digging?
Response
Archaeological resources within the Holly Seacliff area are addressed in
Section 4.11 of the DEIR. Mitigation measures, including observation by
Native American observers, are detailed in Section 4.11.
Comment
2. Reference: 4:16:12 - What are you going to do with the 1217 new students
without disrupting the lives of present students and minimizing parking,
traffic, air pollution? What provisions are to be made for grades 6,7,8?
Response
Please refer to response nos. 4 and 6 from Norma Vandermolen's letter (page
10).
Comment
3. Reference: 4:5:10 - What provisions are being made to provide for very
affordable housing? Density bonus is referenced, as usual, but with no answer
within this very large development area. The answer appears to be - look to
other areas for affordable housing. Where?
Response
The Housing/Population section, pages 4.5-10 and 4.5-11, in the Draft EIR
contains a discussion of housing affordability. The project proposes a range of
densities to accommodate different market needs. Of the 4,410 maximum units
planned, 1235 (28%) are proposed at medium high densities to allow for
moderately priced new housing. It is not within the scope of the EIR to discuss
opportunities for affordable housing outside of the study area.
Comment
4. Reference: 4:1:21 - With the requested deletion of 142 acres of various
business/industrial uses what provisions will be made for local job
opportunities in order to make a community of this size more self-supportive?
If none of this were to remain in this area, then where is the
business/industrial use to be located? Similarly, if lack of freeway access, in
the opinion of staff makes Huntington Beach an undesirable location for
11
industry, inversely, lack of freeway access and lack of local job opportunities
would seem to make it undesirable to locate housing without freeway access to
other job opportunities.
Response
The industrial acreage has been reduced in response to market studies which
indicate low demand for major, high quality industrial uses within the project
site, considering the sites poor access to freeways and major transportation
routes. In response to concerns about local job opportunities, please refer to
Table 9 on page 4.5-11 in the Draft EIR which estimates that the proposed
project will provide land uses with opportunities for 4,870 employees. In
comparison to the existing General Plan, the project represents only a nine
percent decrease in employment potential within the project area which is not
considered significant.
The market studies conducted for this project revealed a very high demand for
housing within this coastal location. Housing located too close to freeways can
be considered undesirable in the same way as housing without close freeway
access. A 5,4-acre business park will be provided in the plan to provide
immediate employment opportunities.
Comment
5. Reference: Land Use Map: Why not place commercial area on SW corner of
Goldenwest at Garfield- a more commercially viable corner than Edwards?
Response
The intent of placing a 7-acre commercial site on the corner of Edwards and
Garfield was to provide these services to the immediate residents in the study
area. The corner of Goldenwest and Garfield may be an appropriate alternate
location for retail uses, however, it would add to the disruption of traffic flow
at this major intersection. Further refinement of the location, size and
orientation of the commercial site will be addressed during preparation of the
Specific Plan for Planning Area D.
Comment
6. Reference: 4:1:21 : Why convert marginal industrial land to residential to
increase land value for the HBCO at the loss of needed industrial for the good
of the City of HB?
Response
Please refer to response no.4. The City, its residents and property owners all
benefit from higher land and development values. Marginal industrial land is
of little value to the City. Industrial development is only "good" for the City
when property and sales taxes exceed the economic and environmental costs of
serving industrial users. Given the property's location, high end residential
development generally results in higher property tax values per acre than low
end industrial development, as well as providing residents who will make the
majority of their purchases at local commercial outlets, increasing local sales
tax revenues.
12
Comment
7. Reference: 4:5:6 & 4:5:8 : What is the real net increase or decrease in
residential #'s? # is already set in master plan as listed on EIR showing
decrease not a change to lower density by HBCO. Other previously industrial
area is going to higher residential density. Is this not in actuality increasing
the overall project density?
Response
The adopted General Plan for the area permits a maximum of 5,845 residential
units. The proposed amendment would reduce the maximum to 4,410 (25%
decrease). The proposed project increases the overall acreage of low density
residential. The densities across the site are illustrated on the Land Use Plan
exhibit. For a discussion regarding proposed changes to other land use
categories, please refer to the Draft EIR, Table 3, page 4.1-21.
Comment
8. Where are the referenced equestrian trails? Cannot locate on the poor quality
reproduction of the legends- or is it because it is on the cliff?
Response
The proposed equestrian trails are depicted clearly on Exhibit 9, Open Space.
Trails within the Linear Park are determined through the County's park
planning process. Trail alignments for Ellis-Goldenwest are specified in the
Specific Plan.
Comment
9. Is full credit given for the sloped hillside land in Linear Park? The Quimby
Act does not allow full credit for slopes. Is this land use then consistent with
the Quimby Act?
Response
The Quimby Act allows the City to require dedication of land for park and
recreational purposes when land is subdivided. The City has full authority to
determine the amount and type of open space to be dedicated, fees charged in
lieu of dedication, and the uses to which land and fees may be put. The Linear
Park may include slopes, flat areas, trails, and other uses as determined by the
City and County.
Comment
10. Reference: 4:1:19: Displacement of current industrial owners? Is this another
way of saying eminent domain? Does this mean eminent domain is still to be
used in HB?
13
I
Response
Existing industrial uses will be allowed to remain as nonconforming uses and
existing permits will remain valid. The use of eminent domain is not proposed
with this GPA.
Comment
11. Has the impact of the immediately nearby Bolsa Chica Development been
addressed? This is not an isolated project but one project among many others
within our City. Let us not again make the mistake of piecemeal impact studies.
Response
The Draft EIR contains a discussion of all related projects which may have
effects on the proposed project, including the Bolsa Chica Development ( page
3.0-18). The discussion of cumulative impacts within the EIR included
consideration of such projects into the impact analysis to ensure a
comprehensive analysis.
14
JOHN FISHER/DEBBIE COOK
Comment
1. Open Space/Park land north of Ellis is under review as a result of Council
direction. The EIR leads one to believe no planning has been done at all. The
EIR should state precisely what the Council has directed Community Services
to investigate and status of all action as of end of August 1989.
Response
The City of Huntington Beach is conducting planning studies for this area
separate from this General Plan Amendment. As part of Central Park planning,
this site is proposed to be a golf course and an EIR will be prepared by the City
for this site.
Comment
2. As part of the "Hotel deal" on P.C.H., the Driftwood trailer park residents were
given promises by the City. Any limitations that exist on the land north of
Ellis should be stated as part of the certification process.
Response
Please refer to response no. 1 from this letter.
Comment
3. Written response addressing land use for the area north of Ellis will be
incomplete if that response only states that the actual use will be determined
by later hearing. Because plans have already been selected by Community
Services and previous agreements made by Council, it is prejudicial to omit the
exact status of this specific community asset.
Response
Please refer to response no. 1 from this letter.
Comment
4. EIR does not address the dollar requirements necessary to fund the parks
planned in the entire plan. If developer fees must be increased to develop these
parks, that amount should be part of the EIR. Council must have more facts on
financing of the needed parks.
Response
It is not within the scope of the EIR to address detailed funding requirements
for parks.
15
Comment
S. Possible oil well consolidation sites must be identified. Any future
consolidation must be limited to those sites. Future well consolidation locations
must be deleted from open space consideration.
Response
No consolidation sites are proposed at this time. Oil well consolidation sites
will be identified in future Specific Plans within the study area.
Comment
6. Consolidation of encyclopedia lots will cost dollars. Rather than simply stating
that some method of consolidation be passed by the Council, it is important
that dollar values be determined on a site - site basis so that Council
understands the dollars involved with consolidation. We can't ask Council to
approve a blank check.
Response
The consolidation of lots is only a general policy recommendation at this time.
Analysis of individual sites should be addressed as part of preparation of
specific plans for specific areas.
Comment
7. Linear Park extends beyond the Holly Seacliff confines. Since that portion
outside the boundaries will be affected by the plan, it makes sense to include
any conceptual boundary in the EIR. Expand the Holly-Seacliff area to
include all of the Linear Park.
Response
The acreage and configuration of Linear Park open space depicted on the
proposed Land Use Plan and Open Space Plans are consistent with the 113-acre
park boundary as reviewed by the City Council and recommended by the
Planning Commission.
Park areas outside the study area are included in the County's Bolsa Chica
Land Use Plan. Separate documents will be prepared (Linear Park General
Development Plan and Environmental Impact Report) for the County of Orange
and will be subject to public review and approval in the coming months.
Comment
8. Equestrian trails (as part of open space) need to be shown south of the
Garfield/crossgap connector into extended Linear Park boundaries. Trail
crossings need to be shown to provide a more complete picture of the
recreational opportunities of all open space areas. State of California
limitations of equine trails in wetlands must be expressed and acknowledged so
planning will not preclude any options.
16
Response
Equestrian trails are depicted within the Draft EIR on the Open Space Plan.
Proposed trail locations for the Linear Park are currently being prepared and
evaluated by the Harbors, Beaches and Parks Division of the County of Orange
Environmental Management Agency. Final trail alignments will be adopted as
part of the General Development Plan for the Linear Park.
Comment
9. A dollar estimate or acreage estimate for the amount of total private land that
will be surrendered in connection with equestrian trails/areas would quantify
the amount of open space some homeowners will be paying for yet donating
(through easements to the City) for open spaces. Please state approximate
acreage as part of EIR.
Response
The Open Space Plan designates general trail locations in park areas and as
adopted in the Ell is-Golden west Specific Plan. Within the Ell is-Golden west
Specific Plan, approximately 4 miles of equestrian trails are to be provided,
covering about 10-acres total.
Comment
10. Existing wetlands are not identified and need to be. Mitigation measures to
preserve and enhance those areas need identification.
Response
The Draft EIR Biological Resources section identifies two types of existing
wetlands on the site which include saltwater wetlands and freshwater wetlands.
Their locations are indicated on the Biological Resources exhibit.
Implementation of mitigation measures 5,6 and 7 listed on pages 4.12-9 and
4.12-10 will reduce potential wetland impacts to a level of insignificance.
Comment
11. The affect of fertilizers that will run off into the Central Park lake systems
needs addressing and mitigation measures identified. Runoff from rain and
lawn sprinklers has proven very significant in the Ellis-Goldenwest area.
Response
The effect of fertilizers is included in the anticipated surface runoff generated
by the project. The hydrology section in the Draft EIR discusses impacts to the
Sully Miller lake from runoff and proposes mitigation measures, both on-site
and off-site to lessen this potential impact.
17
i a
Comment
12. No commercial development on Edwards Street extends south of the
Edinger intersection. The location of 7 acres at the southern end of
Edwards is incompatible with existing and future homeowners. What
criteria is used to even consider a commercial area at that specific
intersection?
Response
Please refer to response No. 5 on page 12 from Huntington Beach Tomorrow
letter.
Comment
13. Has "shotgun" zoning designated as "multiple use commercial" been approved
elsewhere in the City? The consultants have suggested that food stores, night
clubs, movie theatres might or could be placed in that location. It seems the
existing center could be remodeled and expanded to remove all commercial
development from Garfield west of Goldenwest.
Response
The mixed-development land use category allows for the creative combination
of commercial and residential uses in a compatible manner. This will allow
renovation of the existing commercial center while adding new commercial
development. As stated previously, the 7-acre commercial area at Garfield and
Edwards will serve the immediate residents within the vicinity and reduce
external trips. Existing zoning categories will be utilized to implement this
concept.
Other areas in the City with the mixed development classification include the
Pacifica Community Plan area (Five Point's area) North Huntington Center and
the area near Magnolia and Warner.
Comment
14. The plan does not indicate the creation of equine stables as an alternative in
any non-commercial zone. Under what guidelines will new stables be approved
and in what areas?
Response
Stables are permitted within the Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan Area (Planning
Area B).
Comment
15. The Edison sub-station on some maps is shown as residential. Wouldn't a
commercial or industrial indication be more accurate. Under what criteria
would the substation be allowed to move? or forced to move? If the location is
permanent, the zoning should reflect that reality.
18
Response
Under the current general plan and proposed amendment, the substation has an
underlying residential land use designation and zoning, similar to other
substation sites throughout the City. A less restrictive commercial or industrial
designation would not be appropriate for this site. The substation could be
relocated, however, the costs would be prohibitive. There are no plans to
relocate the substation at this time.
Comment
16. Are any land areas in Holly-Seacliff owned by the City. If so, are any
proposed commercial or industrial? A complete ownership map as of 6/1/89
would be very important to Council.
Response
The City of Huntington Beach owns a very minimal amount of land within the
study area. City owned land includes encyclopedia lots within Planning Area
B, the central park area north of Ellis. An ownership map will not aid City
Council.
Comment
17. Existing oil wells in Holly-Seacliff are numerous. Approval of this plan does
not force these wells (or the tank farms) out of the area, do they?
Response
Existing oil wells will not be forced out of the area. As development occurs in
phases, existing oil well sites may be removed or consolidated. The actual
location of any remaining production/drilling sites will be determined in
future Specific Plans. It is also the objective of the plan to encourage
consolidation of wells rather than allow scattering of oil uses.
Comment
18. In Ellis-Goldenwest, most streets are private. In Holly Seacliff will the same
requirements for private streets be required? Please identify those areas.
Response
Internal street designations within the Holly Seacliff area, private or public,
are not appropriate at a General Plan level analysis. Street designations for
residential streets will be subject of Specific Plan or Tentative Tract Map
review and approval, and should be consistent with current City standards for
roadway sections and designations.
19
Comment
19. State the procedure for school site selection, review, and approvals. Do any
steps for school sites need approval by any City Department or are they outside
the Holly-Seacliff area of authority. Please state contacts for school site
information if this subject is not subject to review by this EIR.
Response
The intent of the school district is to establish boundaries, projections and
school needs. The city will review the school site designated as part of the CUP
process. The comment is not related to the adequacy of the EIR. Information
regarding the procedure for site selection may be obtained from Huntington
Beach City School District (HBCSD) contact Dr. Gary Burgner.
Comment
20. By locating massive densities on Goldenwest and Garfield's southwest corner,
the location of commercial development at Edwards and Garfield will create a
traffic mess. Six lanes of an extremely busy street will need to be crossed. At
any half-mile section of street in H.B. does a similar traffic situation exist- and
what do police reports suggest as the accident rate at such a seemingly
hazardous section of road.
Response
The construction of Medium/High density residential units at the southwest
corner of Goldenwest/Garfield and its relationship to the proposed commercial
development on Edwards/Garfield is not forecast to create an unacceptable
level of service. Both intersections of Goldenwest/Garfield and Ed-
wards/Garfield are forecast to operate acceptably in the future with the
recommended mitigation measures. In addition, the segment of Garfield
between Edwards and Goldenwest is planned as a limited access Major Arterial
to improve traffic flow at this location. As would be required of subsequent
approvals, regardless of the location of proposed uses, detailed access analysis
shall be performed to assure adequacy of local circulation. The level of service
(LOS) for the project is shown on pages 4.17-16 and 4.17-26 in the Draft EIR.
Comment
21. Does Seapointe connect through to P.C.H.? Has that additional traffic been
factored into residential streets?
Response
Seapointe Street is assumed to connect with Coast Highway south of the Holly
Seacliff area as depicted on the City's Master Plan of Arterial Highways and
was included in the traffic model. The traffic model assumes logical travel
corridors and minimum time paths for the assignment of project traffic
volumes.
20
Comment
22. Water supply has been a concern of Fire Department officials. Is the use of
fire retardant shingles been recommended for all residential units in the Plan?
All structures over 5,000 square feet require sprinkler systems. Some
communities are requiring sprinklers in apartment buildings and high density
dwelling units. Will the plan make any such recommendations in connection
with water pressure problems?
Response
It is not within the scope of this General Plan Amendment to address fire
safety design standards. This will be discussed in future Specific Plans and/or
conditional use permits.
Comment
23. Comparison of residential units is made to existing General Plan zoning. Ellis-
Goldenwest has been passed by Council. How many residential units does the
Plan represent with Ellis-Goldenwest in place?
Response
The General Plan Amendment proposes a maximum of 470 dwelling units
within the quartersection subject, of course, to additional limitations imposed
by the Ellis-Golden west Specific Plan. The existing General Plan allows up to
600 units, therefore, the GPA is in conformance with the allowable density as
approved in the Specific Plan.
Comment
24. Recent serious accidents involving bicycles in the Ell is-Golden west area
indicate a need for bike lanes off the street. School busing is not provided for
students past grade 5 in some areas and grade 8 in others. It makes sense to
provide safe and sane routes for students to travel along high speed and heavily
trafficked roads.
Response
It should be pointed out that many of the street segments in the Ellis-
Goldenwest area have not been constructed to their ultimate section and may be
considered substandard for existing bicycle travel. In addition, the most recent
data available from the City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department
indicates that the incidence of bicycle accidents has actually decreased
citywide. With the development of the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment
project arterials in the project vicinity are to be constructed to their ultimate
sections, including bicycle lanes.
Comment
25. How will additional student parking at the Huntington Beach High School
impact the Civic Center area. Increased populations will also affect the
already inadequate parking at the shopping center on Sundays.
21
Response
The demand of student parking at Huntington Beach High School and its effect
on parking demand at the Civic Center is not a subject of this General Plan
Amendment traffic and circulation analysis. As proposed site plans are
submitted for commercial centers within the Holly Seacliff area, parking
studies will be undertaken and adequate parking will be supplied in accordance
with City parking ordinance.
Comment
26. The proposed school site in the Ell is-Goldenwest quartersection is incompatible
with the equestrian theme. School traffic will restrict equestrians along the
Garfield trails and all trails within the area from students walking to school.
Most streets in the quartersection are private and parking is not permitted on
these private streets. How will overflow from parent meetings,soccer matches,
etc. affect homeowners and liability. Existing homeowners in the
quartersection are planning on a gate at Ellis and Quarterhorse, how would this
affect school site location? What criteria is used to decide on location and need
for school site?
Response
A detailed analysis of the interaction of equestrian and pedestrian
transportation near Ellis-Goldenwest cannot be addressed in this macro level
General Plan analysis. However, as pedestrian school activity is limited to
distinct morning and afternoon peak hours, the possibility of any conflict
would be limited, if the school paths and equestrian trails crossed. Parking
supply and demand for the proposed school site will be the subject of the
detailed analysis for the school development. Questions of liability for parking
overflow arc premature as the parking supply for the school is unknown at this
time.
Comment
27. Was the traffic model based on Scapointe alone connecting to Pacific Coast
Highway or was the model based on all three connectors-Seapointe, Garfield,
and Cross-gap. What if any one of these is not completed?
Response
The traffic analysis documented existing street improvements and conditions in
the area, and then forecast project-related and cumulative traffic volumes on
the existing and planned road work. For purposes of the build out of the Holly
Seacliff area, the cross-gap connector and Seapointe Street, as well as other
committed circulation improvements, were assumed in the traffic analysis. The
provision of these circulation improvements is also included in the mitigation
measures section of the traffic study.
Comment
28. Has the effect of gating private streets in the Ell is-Gol den west quartersection
been incorporated in the traffic models?
22
Response
The effect of gating streets is the need for an off-street reservoir for vehicles
waiting to enter the specific project site. An analysis of this potential impact,
if required, should be a part of the specific project proposal on-site circulation
study.
Comment
29. Where does Ellis go that will carry so much traffic to be designed a primary 4-
lane divided arterial?
Response
According to the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element, Ellis Avenue
between Edwards and Goldenwest is designated as a Primary Arterial, while
Edwards Street is designated as a Secondary Arterial. All future arterial
designations within the City of Huntington Beach used in this study are based
on the City's Circulation Element as well as needs identified through this
Traffic study.
Comment
30. Why is Edwards a secondary and Ellis a primary street?
Response
See response to Comment 29.
Comment
31. Water use for the proposed 105 acre golf course if comparable to other area
courses will require 300 acre feet of water per year. How will this impact
water planning and estimated water usage? Will any proposed golf course have
to submit a separate EIR?
Response
At the present time, no golf course of any size is proposed as part of the Holly-
Seacliff GPA. The City is currently conducting separate planning studies and
an EIR for a golf course. The project's planned open space park and recreation
areas were included when determining the proposed project land use estimated
water usage demand. The Water Facilities report identifies that
"Approximately 1,250 gallons per minute (GPM) will be utilized by the proposed
completed project." This GPM demand includes the open space areas.
Comment
32. Are any City or privately owned water wells located in the Holly-Seacliff
boundaries and what steps are necessary to preserve water quality? Do any of
those locations interfere with any proposed development?
23
Response
Currently, there are no privately or City owned water wells operating within
the Holly-Seacliff project boundary.
Comment
33. Is the future reservoir hill location within the boundaries of the Plan? If so
please indicate on maps and acreage required for the site.
Response
The old reservoir is located within the plan, however this reservoir is not part
of City's water system. The future booster station which will serve the
Reservoir Hill Assessment District is planned to be located next to the City's
Water District Building near the intersection of Garfield Avenue and
Huntington Street. This location is not within the Holly-Seacliff project
boundary.
Comment
34. Our final questions is who is paying for this EIR, the City or developer
interests?
Response
The comment is not related to the adequacy of the EIR. The HBCO filed an
application on their land and the City expanded it to include other properties.
The preparation of the EIR was directed by City and will be reimbursed by the
HBCO and other property owners.
24
JERRY J. GALICH
Comment .
1. 1 am the property owner of the developed property at the northwest corner of
Garfield and Crystal Streets and have attended all of the workshop meetings on
the Holly Seacliff Project. I am happy to see something finally happening in
this part of our city.
I have owned the property at this address since 1971 but couldn't build on it
until 1979 because of the planning moratorium in the area. In 1979 the
Planning Commission and the City Council approved PRECISE PLAN OF
STREET ALIGNMENT NO. 79-1 (attached). Based on this plan I decided to
formulate construction plans.
My main concern at this time is the alignment of Crystal Street with Gothard.
As you will note in 79-1 the dedication for street widening was to be from the
east side only and justifiably so because of the lands gained on the east side
due to the abandonment of the existing Gothard Street.
I hope you will also consider at this time the need to create some type of a
buffer zone between the planned residential units and the existing businesses in
the Business Park zone. Something very special is needed to reconcile the
planned high quality residential units with the business park.
I hope you will support the premise of 79-1 regarding the street widening
dedication and place further conditions on this project relative to the
establishment of an environmentally attractive buffer zone.
I have talked with all of the property owners on the wet side of Crystal Street
(five owners) and their concerns are the same as mine. We don't object to the
medium density requested by the Huntington Beach Co. on the cast side but we
do unanimously agree that the dedication and buffer zone should come from
the newly developed east side.
Response
The precise alignment of Gothard Street cannot be determined at the General
Plan Amendment (GPA) analysis level. The precise alignment will be
determined with the submittal of site plans and Tract maps for the adjacent
properties. It is noted, however, that the City's previous action was the
dedication of street widening from the east side of Gothard Street. Current
planning activity within the Holly Seacliff GPA area recognizes the desire of
area land owners to have the street widened on the east side only, and
alternatives are being analyzed to determine the potential land use and
circulation impacts of the Gothard Street realignment on both the north and
south sides of Garfield Avenue. In addition, design treatments are being
evaluated to create a buffer between the business park and residential uses.
These design features include, but are not limited to, median treatments,
parkway landscaping and wallscape signing alternatives.r
I Response provided by Tony Petros, LSA
25
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
(CALTRANS)
Comment
1. Caltrans has reviewed the DEIR for the Holly-Seacliff General Plan
Amendment, Volumes I and 2. The subject area covers 768 acres of
undeveloped land and is located in the central portion of the city bounded by
Central Park/Ellis Avenue on the north, Huntington and Main Streets on the
east, Yorktown and Clay Avenues on the south and the Orange County
boundary line along the Bolsa Chica wetlands area to the west. The proposed
land uses include residential, with densities ranging from three to twenty five
units per acre, commercial, industrial uses and open space designated across
five planning areas in the project area.
Caltrans will be a responsible agency at various times over the development
phase of this area. Evaluation of the traffic and circulation impacts generated
from the development of this area suggests that certain road improvements
effecting State facilities will be necessary. We agree with the mitigation
measures in the DEIR which require certain types of improvements, i.e., fair
share fees for new roads, road widening and increased turning lanes at certain
Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard intersections. The costs of these
improvements should be the responsibility of others and not the State. Also, we
agree with the general plan policies that the railroad ROW should be retained
and considered for trail or future transit use and the alignment and
preservation of ROW for new arterials consistent with the county's and city's
Master Plan of Arterial Highways be part of the future planning.
The section on traffic/circulation is comprehensive, providing an indepth
analysis of the impacts on the local and regional arterials that are adjacent to
or associated with the proposed land uses. However, we feel the DEIR should
mention Caltrans Route Concept Reports for Coast Highway (Rte. 1) and Beach
Boulevard (Rte 39).
The route concept reports express the Department's judgement on what the
characteristics of these routes should be to respond to the projected travel
demand over the 20 year planning period.
They contain the goals for the development of the routes in terms of level of
service and broadly identify the nature and extent of improvements needed to
reach these goals. The 20 year concept for Rte 1 is six lanes and for Rte 39 is
eight lanes. In addition, the traffic report area should be increased to include
the following intersections: Coast Highway at Warner, Beach Boulevard at
Talbert, Yorktown and Coast Highway.
In conclusion, we suggest a couple of minor revisions to the text of the DEIR.
On page 3.0-16 Vol I, change Caltrans District 7 to District 12; and in Vol 2,
there is conflicting information concerning the intersections of Coast Highway
and Goldenwest and at Beach Boulevard and Garfield between the
recommended improvements on page 46 and Table M.
26
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this DEIR and wish to continue
coordination throughout the planning of the City's General Plan Amendment.
Response
The forecast General Plan build out scenarios included in the Holly Seacliff
GPA traffic study are consistent with the general concepts for Coast Highway
and Beach Boulevard. For purposes of this analysis, a six lane Pacific Coast
Highway is considered in the future year analysis, as is the implementation of
the Beach Boulevard Super Streets project, which would provide for eight
travel lanes.
The revisions suggested by Caltrans are duly noted. The Final EIR will include
the revisions to Vol. 1, page 3.0-16 and in Vol. 2 Table M. It should be pointed
out, however, that the mitigations recommended at Goldenwest Street and Coast
Highway are consistent with the geometrics illustrated in Table Ni
2 Response provided by Tony Petros, Traffic Engineer, LSA.
27
GERALD L. CHAPMAN D.D.S
Comment
1. The Huntington Beach Company is proposing the removal of Office-
Professional zoning on 16 acres near Main and Garfield streets.
With final buildout of the Holly-Seacliff area, there will be an increased need
for health care services in the area. The present Office-Professional zoning is
the only open space left in the city that can economically support the strict
parking requirements for health care facilities. The preferred location for
health care professionals is near a hospital. Pacifica Hospital is located in the
present Office-Professional zoning.
Response
Both Pacifica Hospital and Humana Hospital will provide health care services
to residents in the study area with no impacts anticipated to their level of
service.
Comment
2. The draft EIR states that the corner of Beach and Warner would be an ideal
location for Office-Professional buildings. I could not disagree more. Office-
Professional zoning will make an ideal buffer between Main Street and the
proposed residential zoning, will be located near a hospital and will be on the
border of the proposed residential area.
I would like to know where you propose to put the increased need for health
care facilities if the Office-Professional zoning is eliminated?
Response
It is possible that health-care facilities (private practices) may be
accommodated within the mixed use commercial center.
28
DAVID C. NUNEKAMP
OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH
Comment
I. The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named draft Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) to selected state agencies for review. The review period is
closed and the comments of the individual agency(ies) is(are) enclosed. Also, on
the enclosed Notice of Completion, the Clearinghouse has checked which
agencies have commented. Please review the Notice of Completion to ensure
that your comment package is complete. If the package is not in order, please
notify the State Clearinghouse immediately. Remember to refer to the project's
eight-digit State Clearinghouse number so that we may reply promptly.
Please note that Section 21104 of the California Public Resources Code requires
that:
"a responsible agency or other public agency shall only make substantive
comments regarding those activities involved in a project which are
within an area of expertise of the agency or which are required to
carried out or approved by the agency."
Commenting agencies are also required by this section to support their
comments with specific documentation.
These comments are forwarded for your use in preparing your final EIR. If
you need more information or clarification, we recommend that you contact the
commenting agency at your earliest convenience.
This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documents, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act. Please contact Garrett Ashley at
316/455-0613 if you have any questions regarding the environmental review
process.
Response
Comment acknowledged.
29
r .
ENVIRONMENTAL BOARD - HUNTINGTON BEACH
ROY RICHARDSON
Comment
1. The subcommittee composed of five members our Environmental Board has
completed the review of the subject report (Volumes I and II, plus the
condensed version dated August, 1989). The committee's review and
recommendations are detailed in the following seven page report.
It is our judgement that their will be a severe environmental impact both short
and long term that has not adequately answered in the subject report. Many of
the mitigation measures stated are inadequate, unclear or omitted entirely.
Those environmental impacts requiring a more satisfactory or better defined
mitigation response are indicated in the Board's report.
We recommend strongly that a more comprehensive study be given to the short
and long term effects of this project and that our concerns be answered
satisfactorily before approval is considered.
Response
This Draft EIR is the product of a series of citizen public workshops and City
planning and consultant staff review sessions to ensure it adequately addresses
all concerns. The impact mitigation assessment meets the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act. Short and long term effects are
discussed within the EIR where appropriate (i.e. Air Quality and Noise).
Comment
2. The following lists the Environmental Board's concerns regarding the DEIR
Environmental Check list, Attachment 4, pages 1 - 7; Volume 2 of the General
Plan Amendment.
In general, it is the opinion that an acceptable response to any environmental
question should be answered "Yes" or "No".
The response of "Maybe" indicates a lack of judgement.
Response
Comments pertaining to an initial study should be submitted during the NOP
review period. The 30 day NOP review period expired on January 23, 1989. At
this time, the initial study cannot be revised, however those items checked
"maybe" were addressed in the Draft EIR adequately in the same manner as if
they had been checked "yes". Therefore we see no conflict that relates to the
issues discussed in the Draft EIR.
30
Comment
3. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? YES.
The Development will cause water/soil erosion along bluffs and in the Sully-
Miller lake runoff areas. Areas where swells are filled will alter run off
courses causing further soil erosion.
Response
Comment acknowledged. Please refer to the Draft EIR Hydrology section,
pages 4.4-5 through 4.4-10.
Comment
4. Exposure of people or property to geological hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? - YES
Page 4.3-9, Volume I states that there is an active fault along southern portion
of project and this should not be overlooked.
Response
Comment acknowledged.
Comment
5. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? - Yes.
Air Quality will deteriorate due to increased vehicle trips per day
resulting solely from this project. The pollutants will rise approximately
1% as compared to the total County. To determine that there is a "lack of
an adverse effect" by measuring impacts ratios at the county levels rather
than the city level would obviously avoid such issues that may be
considered individually acceptable but are in fact collectively harmful.
Overall air quality should take into consideration increased S.C. Edison
emissions caused by the increased demands due housing and commercial
increases. The use of alternate transportation should be increased.
We are not concerned about the entire county of Orange, but definitely
the immediate area effected by the project which includes Huntington
Beach.
Response
The Draft EIR, section 4.8, Air Quality, contains a comprehensive discussion of
both short and long term air emissions. The projects cumulative contribution to
regional air quality is stated in the Draft EIR as an "unavoidable adverse
impact."
31
Project emissions generated by electrical usage are included in the air quality
assessment.
Comment
6. The creation of objectionable odors. - Yes.
Oil wells will emit odors and the consolidation of oil wells should be done prior
to the beginning of construction. The need for vapor recovery systems should
be investigated and determined at that time.
Response
Odors associated with oil wells are discussed in Human Health and Safety,
Section 4.15 as well as mitigation for vapor recovery systems.
Comment
7. Water, will be the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patters, or the rate and amount of
surface runoff? - Yes.
The absorption rates are affected by the adding of paved roads, sidewalks,
houses, and industry buildings. Drainage patterns are affected the same way as
will the amount of surface water due to landscaping by the home owner,
commercial building occupants and the open space maintenance (parks).
Response
Comment acknowledged. Drainage is discussed in Section 4.4 Hydrology.
Comment
8. Discharge into surface water, or in any alterations of surface water quality
including but limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? - YES.
The use of fertilizers and insect sprays, etc., by the homeowners percolating
into more confined soil areas. This is a particular concern for project homes
built along the bluffs as well as the landscaping areas along the linear park.
There will also be an increase in street runoffs of oils, diesel fuels and other
automotive fluids resulting from increased vehicular traffic using the new
streets added by the project streets added.
Response
Comment acknowledged. The Draft EIR discusses impacts from runoff on page
4.4-9.
32
Comment
9. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public
water supplies? - YES.
The addition of 4,410 residences, plus light industrial and commercial buildings
will definitely require water withdrawals. There is currently insufficient
water supply to compensate for the additional usage anticipated for this
project. Adequate water supplies should be secured before the project
commences.
Response
Comment acknowledged. Please refer to the Water Facilities, Section 4.17 in the
Draft EIR.
Comment
10. Plant life. Will the proposal result in:
Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants? YES.
The potential loss of the eucalyptus windrows, raptor sites, etc. The proposed
plan acknowledges the removal of a substantial amount of mature trees with
only marginal replacements.
Response
Please refer to mitigation Measure 4 within the Biological Resources section
(4.12) which states preservation or replacement of large trees suitable for use by
raptors.
Comment
11. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
Increase in existing noise levels? YES.
Light industrial projects are included near a helicopter port and a public firing
range. Light industrial areas will increase flow truck traffic in immediate
area.
The noise is mitigated by walls (sound barriers) and set backs in the residential
areas. The walls must be taller than line of sight to be effective. The noise
caused by the heliport cannot be adequately mitigated. Some noise relief
measures should be added by the builders use of double pane windows, six inch
block walls and adequate use of large trees and shrubs both residential and
commercial landscaping.
Consolidation of the oil well pumps should lower noise levels once
consolidation is complete, but noise mitigation measures to be incorporated
should be listed as to how they will be done, what type soundproofing will be
33
incorporated and she will assume the responsibility. It should be determined
whether or not truck traffic servicing an oil consolidation project an/or oil
well drilling in the consolidation areas will be on a 24 hour basis or limited to 7
a.m. - 10 p.m. If a 24 hour schedule is set the mitigation measures should be
determined prior to project approval.
Oil well consolidation sites must be identified early and potential residential
buyers should be forwarded of the possible noise/traffic impacts.
The noise from the public shooting range will most probably be drowned out by
the increased traffic flows in the surrounding areas and no longer be noticed.
Response
Section 4.9 in the Draft EIR discusses noise associated with oil production
operations and the public shooting range. Future specific plans will address
special noise relief measures as those mentioned above.
Comment
12. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? NO.
"No" is acceptable if the industrial complexes are finished and occupied before
surrounding residential areas are started. If the reverse is scheduled, then the
response should be "Yes."
Response
Comment acknowledged.
Comment
13. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? YES
The industrial complexes and surrounding residential areas both will add light
and glare to the surrounding community.
Response
Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Section 4.10, Light and Glare.
Comment
14. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but
not limited to oil, pesticides, chemical or radiation) in the event of an accident
or upset conditions? YES.
Areas of the project site were used for oil waste dump sites in the early 1920's
and 30's. When first drilled, Bolsa Chica #1 and other early oil wells were
allowed to spill oil onto the land before being capped. Soil samples should be
taken to determine if the soil contamination has leached out over the years.
34
i
The Holly property was a cattle feed lot at one time; further north was an
Alpha Beta packing company. Both properties were used for cattle grazing.
Considering the problems with crumbling foundations which occurred under
similar circumstances in the City of La Palma, soil studies should be required
prior to building.
there is the definite possibility that underground methane gas exists with the
area that could be disturbed during excavation and/or increase "slant drilling
during relocation of selected oil well sites."
Response
Comment acknowledged. Potential impacts to humans from oil operations and
soil contamination are discussed in Section 4.15, Human Health and Safety.
Comment
15. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing? YES.
The residential area project does not allow for any affordable housing projects.
No mitigation measures are included in the proposal.
Response
The Housing Element contains policies for affordable housing. The Draft EIR
acknowledges these policies and on page 4.5-10 lists the housing affordability
of the proposed plan. Additionally, mitigation is provided on page 4.15-12.
35
Comment
16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in:
Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? YES.
The estimated 65000 vehicular trips per day should not be considered
"insignificant"!
Response
The proposed Land Use Concept Plan is forecast to generate approximately
60,370 average daily trips (ADT), not 65,000 ADT. In comparison to the
existing General Plan land use designations for the Holly Seacliff area, which
will generate approximately 97,280 ADT, the proposed Land Use Concept Plan
will generate fewer daily trips.
Comment
17. Effects on existing parking facilities, or the demand for new parking? YES.
Due to the increase in light industrial build-up and the increase of an estimated
8000 cars belonging to new residents within the city limits, the existing parking
facilities which are immediate to the proposed project and include the Central
Park and recreational area and Central Library, become totally inadequate.
Response
The proposed General Plan Amendment project will generate fewer trips, hence
less of a demand for parking than the existing General Plan land uses.
Therefore, the proposed GPA project will have less of an impact to City
facilities (i.e., Central Library and Civic Center). The City will be examining
the expansion of the Civic Center including parking supply and demand. Park
dedication requirements will be adhered to which will benefit both the Holly
Seacliff area and the City at large and will potentially offset the Central Park
demand.
Comment
18. Substantial impact upon existing transportation system? YES.
Four intersections will operate below the City required level of Service D
regardless of which alternative is chosen. The matrix below is a comparison of
Tables I, K and mitigation recommendations on Page 46 for the Land Use
Concept Plan.
Table F assumes road improvements described in the project proposal. The
widening of Goldenwest Street is planned for the near future. This Holly-
Seacliff project will realign Gothard with Crystal and eliminate the five legged
intersection at Main and Garfield. The Super Street project is more of a
question mark. It is obvious that without all of these improvement these four
intersections will operate below required City standards of LOS D. As seen by
36
the charts, even with all the lane improvements, Beach and Garfield will
operate at LOS F during the peak evening hours. There should be an assurance
that these street improvements will be improved before the housing occupancy
is allowed.
Response
This GPA analysis examines the potential impacts associated with the build out
condition, not incremental developments added to the existing condition. With
the implementation of the recommended circulation mitigation measures for
the build out condition, all but one intersection will operate with acceptable
levels of service in the General Plan build out scenario. The impacted
intersection identified in the traffic study is Main/Garfield. In order to
address the issue of incremental growth, a mitigation measure is included in the
traffic study for the preparation of a traffic study to determine whether the
incremental increase in traffic from the specific plan or tract map area causes
any of the intersections under investigation to result in unacceptable levels of
service. If unacceptable levels of service result, this traffic analysis shall
determine the portion of the ultimate intersection improvements which are
required, the phasing of the improvement and the funding source.
Comment
19. The current City Master Plan of Arterial Highways shows Garfield Avenue
being constructed as a primary arterial east of Goldenwest Street. The Draft
EIR 89-1 (p.35) states "Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street is forecast to
operate over capacity assuming a primary arterial section."
Response
The traffic volumes forecast in the Holly Seacliff GPA indicate that Garfield
Avenue should be designated as a Major Arterial and widened to six lanes east
of Goldenwest Street.
Comment
20. The Environmental Board recommends that Garfield Avenue be constructed as
a major arterial only to Edwards Street and that Seapointe Avenue and the
cross-gap connector both be constructed as secondary arterials. We see no
advantage to having a primary arterial running along the boundary of the
linear park. Constructing these streets as secondary arterial would be less
damaging to both the linear park and the Bolsa Chica Wetlands.
Response
Based on the forecast traffic volumes and traffic engineering design, the
transition from a six lane Major Garfield to a four lane secondary Garfield is
best accommodated between Edwards Street and Seapointe Street. Final
engineering plans for this segment of Garfield will be completed when the
roadway is planned for construction and should include designs to mitigate any
conflicts with the adjacent land uses.
37
Comment
21. Circulation Element 83-1 which realigned Gothard with Crystal Street
recognizes that this makes a direct link with 17th Street. Since this project will
cause that realignment to become a reality, 17th Street should be included in
the traffic and circulation analysis. Residential areas of 17th and Main Streets
south of Utica need to be protected, particularly from truck traffic looking for
an alternate route to PCH.
Response
The current General Plan Amendment proposal calls for the realignment of
Gothard Street to connect to Clay Avenue to the east. A connection of Gothard
Street to 17th Street is not considered as part of this project. Arterials and
intersections studied as part of the traffic analysis were selected by LSA and
approved by the City of Huntington Beach based on the potential for the
occurrence of circulation impacts. In addition, LSA met with the citizens'
advisory committee to include their recommendations to the traffic study. This
group also approved of the study area boundaries.
Comment
22. Circulation Element 83-1 states that if "Gothard-Crystal is precisely planned to
connect to Main Street at Clay Avenue, then Clay Avenue should probably be
abandoned between Gothard-Crystal and Goldenwest Streets." Draft EIR 89-1
assumes that Clay will be available to handle partial access that has been
limited along Garfield Avenue and the maps show it as existing westward to
Goldenwest Street. This portion of Clay should be reopened.
Response
Clay Avenue between Gothard-Crystal and Goldenwest Streets is not assumed
in the GPA DEIR traffic analysis, and could be assumed abandoned except for
possible local access. In addition, the City's preliminary concept plans for the
widening of Goldenwest do not assume this segment of Clay Avenue. With the
provision of adjacent internal roadways to provide east/west travel, this
segment of Clay is not warranted.
Comment
23. Figures 1,6,8,10,11 and 13 through 17 show Talbert Avenue as existing through
Central Park between Goldenwest Street and Edwards. These figures should be
corrected or removed from the DEIR. Palm Avenue as a major arterial on
either side of Goldenwest Street should be removed from figures 1,6,8, and 13
through 17. All maps should be corrected to show the approved Gothard-
Crystal alignment of Figure 10.
The Traffic study should also indicate how Edwards Avenue north of Ellis will
be designed to connect with the proposed four lane secondary south of Ellis and
the existing four lane highway north of Talbert/Inlet Drive.
38
Response
The alignment of Talbert Avenue illustrates the County Master Plan of Arterial
Highways connection to the cross-gap connector, while Ellis Avenue terminates
at the linear park site. As the forecast traffic volumes along both Talbert and
Ellis are low (both future arterials will exhibit volume to capacity ratios under
0.50) the actual alignment of Talbert and Ellis west of the project site will not
have an impact on the flow of traffic. The selection of a preferred route
between Talbert and Ellis is not a part of this GPA analysis. The graphics that
illustrate Palm Avenue as a Major Arterial is in error and has been corrected.
Palm Avenue is indicated as a Secondary Arterial by both the City and County.
The precise street design of all arterials in the study area is beyond the scope
of a GPA analysis. However, the proposed segment of Edwards within the
Holly Seacliff project area can be transitioned to the existing Edwards Street
section north of the project through channelization and median design. The
precise alignment should be addressed with the Tentative Map submittal for the
parcels adjacent to Edwards Street in this area.
Comment
24. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians. YES.
There is the projection of an additional 8000 cars generating an additional
circulation of 65000 daily trips on already crowded local streets. The widening
of streets from 4 to six lanes or from 2 to 4 lanes which is necessitated by this
increased traffic flow increases the potential for traffic hazards, particularly
for bicyclists. Special Bicycle lanes should be separated from any major
arterial streets by a "divider strip" - not just a "painted white line".
Response
Regarding the proposed GPA project trip generation, please see response 17 of
this letter. Class II bicycle lanes have been indicated in the DEIR traffic study
in Figure 7 and will be provided for in accordance with the City's design
standards for such facilities.
Comment
25. Public Services. Will the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for
new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas:
Schools? YES.
There is a new school addition planned with the project.
Parks or other recreational facilities? YES.
The City ordinance requires a specified amount of open space and park acreage
dedicated within the proposed project. It cannot be determined from the Draft
EIR 89-1 that the City requirement will actually be met. It is recommended
that the open space and park requirements required by the City be reviewed in
39
� L
depth to determine if such open space can actually be used by the general
public (not the side of a cliff! private [gated] property, or equestrian trails,
etc.).
The Linear Park should be left as wild as possible to provide a natural habitat
for displaced animal life, and to require as little water maintenance, fertilizer
and pesticide use as possible. Areas left unimproved should be replanted with
plant species known to support displaced animal life.
All eucalyptus and other raptor trees should be left on-site. Removal of mature
trees and replacement with two 24 inch boxed trees is not sufficient mitigation
for any loss of full grown mature trees. Any discretion given to the developer
to decide which trees to remove has in the oast resulted in complete removal of
all vegetation.
Response
Comment acknowledged. Page 4.6-6 of the Draft EIR states the City's park goal
of 5 acres per 1000 population. As stated on page 4.6-8, the City's park
requirement for this project is 54 acres and the GPA proposes a total of 89
acres which exceeds the projected demand by 35 acres.
The planning goals for the Linear Regional Park are listed on page 4.6-3 of the
Draft EIR.
Comment
. 26. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
The definition of "Substantial" needs to be properly defined in order to
determine whether the increase of approximately 6% in the City's
population, or the addition of 65000 automobile trips per day, is
considered "substantial".
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or
require the development of new sources of energy?
The definition of "Substantial" needs proper defining in order to
determine whether the increase of approximately 6% in the City's
population, or the addition of 65000 automobile trips per day, is
considered "substantial".
Response
Comment acknowledged. Please refer to Section 4.13, Natural Resources.
40
Comment
27. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following utilities:
C. Water? YES
d. Sewer or septic tanks? YES
C. Storm water drainage? YES
f. Solid waste and disposal? YES
The minimum city service standards set recommended in the City's Master Plan
(June 1988) and reiterated by the City's Ad hoc Committee report of December
1988 should dictate the limits of all future development proposals. Where
minimums are projected to go below standard, additional facilities should be
incorporated or existing facilities expanded before new proposals are approved.
The City's Water Department has stated that inadequate water supplies exist
and that any water shortage would be accelerated by this or other large scale
housing project.
Response
Comment acknowledged. Potential water shortages generated by the project
have been addressed and water conservation mitigation measures listed in the
Draft EIR Water Facilities Section 4.17.
Comment
28. The County Sanitation District Director has stated that "The district cannot
service the Holly-Seacliff portion which will drain to Slater Avenue Pump
Station until such time as that station is rebuilt." The Board of Directors has
adopted a new master plan which calls for the construction of a new pump
station at Slater Avenue and other drainage facilities. "These are absolutely
necessary to serve the Holly-Seacliff General Plan development." Funds should
be obtained and definite plans for the Sanitation District's projects should be
in place before this project should be considered.
Response
Comment acknowledged. The Sewer Facilities Section 4.18 addresses these
concerns. Additionally, mitigation measure 8 on page 4.18-9 will ensure that
permits for development of an area will not be approved until adequate sewer
service alignments and capacities are demonstrated.
Comment
29. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or
view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an
aesthetically offensive site open to public view. YES.
41
The development of the linear park and the development of the area
immediately adjacent to the park require further investigation as does the area
adjoining Central Park to insure proper mitigation has been accomplished. The
dedication of the smaller required open space and park areas resulting from
this project should be considered as a possibility of enlarging the size of the
Linear Park by adding the acreage to the linear park boundaries.
Response
Comment acknowledged. The development of the Linear Park is the subject of
studies currently being prepared and evaluated by the Harbors, Beaches and
Parks Division of the County of Orange EMA. The GPA will provide the basis
for an area - wide balance of private development and dedicated public open
spaces.
Comment
30. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impaction upon the quality or
quantity of existing recreational opportunities? YES.
The addition of over 10,000 new city residents and the projects proximity will
definitely impact crowded parking conditions and the facilities available at the
Central Library. The approval of the Phase I of the library requires the use of
$3.8 million of existing city assets. The recommended increase of $0.05 to
$0.10 per square foot to the current Community Enrichment fee would make
available slightly more than $1,000,000 for the Library's expansion either
toward Phase II or offset part of the cost of Phase I. (This fee is imposed upon
the builder(s) at the time of permit filing and therefore is usually passed on to
the new residential and commercial occupants).
Response
Please refer to the Public Services and Utilities Section page 4.16-17.
Comment
31. Mandatory Findings of Significance.
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 of restrict the range of a rare
or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory? YES.
Response
Comment acknowledged. However, mitigation is provided in the Draft EIR to
lessen the significance of these biological impacts.
42
Comment
32. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? YES.
This is the "tragedy of the commons."
Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES.
The definition of "Substantial" is again missing. Fewer local jobs are expected
in the amendment then in the original proposal, requiring more driving to
"reach work." Fewer low income housing is available, more pollution, more
noise, more traffic, more non renewable energy usage, etc., resulting solely from
this project.
Response
Comment acknowledged. The above issues are discussed within the context of
the Draft EIR.
43
CALIFORNIA WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD
Comment
I. The Holly-Seacliff project proposes to build 4,410 residential units on 561 acres
of land, industrial and shopping/commercial development on 65 acres of land
in the City of Huntington Beach.
New residential and commercial developments increase the amount of waste ,
being sent to local landfills, and these landfills are rapidly running out of
space. In order to preserve remaining disposal capacity, Board staff encourage
that every effort be made to minimize the amount of solid waste going to
landfills by maximizing recycling and waste reduction efforts. These
considerations should be investigated thoroughly before the projects are
initiated.
Response
Comment acknowledged. Measures to reduce the generation of solid waste are
listed in the Draft EIR on page 4.16-18.
Comment
2. Board staff suggest that the following measures be considered in order to
maximize recycling, reduce waste, and to promote consumption of recycled
materials.
* A curbside recycling program could be incorporated into the Holly-
Seacliff project.
* Information could be provided to homeowners and businesses about the
recycling services in the development area.
* Insulation and other products made of recycled materials may be used in
the construction of development structures.
* Suggest to homeowners and businesses that they utilize recycled materials,
such as paper, glass, and metals, to the maximum extent possible.
Response
Comment acknowledged. Mitigation measure 14 on page 4.16 - 18 states "The
developer should contact the solid waste disposal firm during the design stage
to ensure the most efficient and economical means for rubbish removal."
Provisions for recycling will be determined in future project designs and
specific plans.
44
r A
ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR 89-1
(SUMMARY OF CHANGES)
The following changes to the Draft EIR are as noted below. The changes do not
effect the overall conclusion of the Draft EIR.
Comment/Reference
HB Environmental Board o Figures 1, 6, 8, and 13 through 17 that illustrate
Palm Avenue as a major arterial on either side of
Goldenwest has been revised to indicate it as a
Secondary arterial.
Caltrans o Draft EIR Volume I page 3.0-16 Caltrans District
7 has been changed to Caltrans District 12.
o Draft EIR Volume I page 4.7-30 and Volume II
page 46 has been revised to read:
Beach Boulevard/Garfield Avenue - Construct the
intersection to include two left turn lanes, four
through lanes and one right turn lane for the
northbound and southbound approaches, and two
left turn lanes, three through lanes and one right
turn lane for the westbound approach, and two
left turn lanes, two through lanes and one right
turn lane for the eastbound approach. These
improvements will reduce the Land Use Concept
Plan scenario ICU values to 0.59 in the AM and
0.83 in the PM peak hours.
Department of Water
Resources o Mitigation measure 5d., page 4.17-5 in the Water
Facilities section has been revised to read:
Compliance with water conservation provisions of
the appropriate plumbing code, Health and Safety
code and the Government code.
o Mitigation measure 16 has been added to the
water facilities section:
The following Public Interior water conservation
measures shall be implemented by developers
where applicable:
a. Water pressure greater than 50 pounds per
square inch (psi) be reduced to 50 psi or less
by means of pressure-reducing valve.
b. Drinking fountains be equipped with self-
closing valves.
C. Conservation reminders be posted in hotel
rooms and rest rooms. Thermostatically
controlled mixing valve be installed for
bath/shower in hotels.
d. Water-conserving models of laundry washers
be used.
e. Water-conserving models of dishwashers be
used and drinking water be served only
upon request in restaurants.
f. Ultra-low-flush toilets be installed in all
new construction.
o Mitigation measures 9, 10, and 11 have been added
to the Hydrology section:
9. At least one route of ingress and egress to
development should be available during a
100-year flood.
10. The slope and foundation designs for all
structures should be based on detailed soils
and engineering studies, especially, for
hillside developments.
11. The potential damage to proposed
development by mudflow should be assessed
and mitigated as required on each phase of
development as it occurs.