Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutFile 1 of 2 - Holly Seacliff Specific Plan - Public Hearing S .. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION Date February 10, 10g2 Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrato4�__�//t_/_( s Prepared by: Michael Adams, Director of Community Development 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 R"a-4- 4 .33 � Consistent with Council Policy? 11Xyes [ ] New Policy or Exception > -,rk 6 33S' 44 a/.I Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• i On December 2, 1991, the City Council continued the proposed Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan to a special meeting on February 10, 1992 . The City Council directed staff to provide information regarding the school site negotiations between the Huntington Beach City School District and the developer, clarification of the affordable housing language and height definitions, traffic impacts if the cross-gap connector is not built and a review of the fiscal impact report which was prepared for the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION• Motion to: 1. "Accept as adequate the Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 by adopting Resolution No. 6334 and" 2 . "Approve General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 by adopting Resolution No. 6335 and" 3 . "Approve Zone Change No. 91-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 as amended by the staff and based on findings by adopting Ordinance No. 3128 . " 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 . PI O 5/85 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 report to City Council dated December 2, 1991 (see attachment 1) addresses a number of issues . The report provides staff ' s analysis of public participation, school district concerns, the deletion of a raised median in Gothard Street, building height, affordable housing, the Transportation Corridor, proposed development standards and the appeal submitted by Community Systems Associates on behalf of the School District. ANALYSIS' School Site In regard to the school site negotiations between the Huntington Beach City School District and the developer, staff has been informed that a tentative agreement has been reached and an agreement is being prepared for signature. The developer has indicated that the location is consistent with the City' s General Plan designation. The school district ' s consultant indicated on January 29, 1992, that an agreement on the site and financing is very close. An update will be provided at the February 10, 1992 City Council meeting. Traffic The City Council directed staff to provide a traffic impact study which analyzes a "no cross-gap connector" scenario. A traffic study has been prepared by LSA (see attachment 2) and has been reviewed by the City' s Traffic Engineer. The Traffic Engineer has determined that the findings in the study are acceptable. The traffic study by LSA indicates that "the redistribution of forecast traffic volumes due to the absence of the cross-gap connector creates no adverse impacts significant enough to warrant changes in the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan circulation network" . Fiscal Impact Study In order to provide a thorough analysis of the fiscal impacts of the Holly-Seacliff Project, the firm of Taussig and Associates has been hired to review the Williams-Kuebelbeck fiscal impact report which was prepared for the Holly-Seacliff Masterplan study in 1989 . RCA -2- (2170d) Using a comprehensive approach to analyze projected costs and potential revenues, Taussig has performed a preliminary run of their fiscal impact model and has concluded that there will be a positive ratio of revenues to cost during the build-out of the project and beyond. These conclusions validate the Williams-Kuebelbeck fiscal impact report and resolve the concern relating to whether the Holly-Seacliff Project will create a burden for existing residents in the City. A detailed executive summary is forthcoming and should be available for distribution prior to February 10, 1992 . Affordable Housing The City Council directed staff to discuss the affordable housing issue with the Planning Commission in order to clarify the recommendations of the Planning Commission. On January 22, 1992, the Planning Commission and staff discussed the language contained in the draft Specific Plan. The Planning Commission agreed with the language contained in the Specific Plan which requires 15% of all units in each development project to be affordable and to allow the affordable units to be provided either on-site or off-site. Only affordable housing for households below 80% of the median income will be eligible for financial assistance. The Commission also stated that their intention was to see some affordable housing on 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 . RCA -3- (2170d) r ,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 . Building Height The proposed Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan contains language which the Planning Commission approved on October 29, 1991. Staff feels that additional criteria needs to be added to the Specific Plan building height definition. Staff recommends the following language: Building height shall be defined as a vertical dimension measured from the top of the highest roof ridgeline to the top of the slab directly underneath. In addition, the following standards shall apply: a. Datum shall be set at the top-of-curb at the mid-point of the front property line. If no curb exists, datum shall be set at the center line of the street. b. The differential between top of slab and datum shall not exceed two (2) feet. C. Stem walls or footings shall not exceed two (2) feet in height. d. In the event that any slab is proposed greater than two feet above datum, or any stem wall or footing exceeds two (2) feet in height, the height in excess shall be deducted from the maximum allowable ridgeline height. Mixed Development Based on concerns voiced by the City Council and residents, staff recommends that additional language regarding orientation and setbacks be added to the mixed development provisions in order to minimize impacts to existing properties located on the west side of Goldenwest Street. Also, the Specific Plan requires that prior to actual development processing, a Masterplan for the entire mixed use area must be reviewed by the Planning Commission. Review of the Masterplan through public hearing will enable impacted residents an opportunity to provide comments on the orientation and design of future development. Coastal Status The approval of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan will result in an amendment to the City' s certified Local Coastal Program. The Specific Plan is consistent with the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment which was approved by the City Council on January 8, 1990 . RCA -4- (2170d) The General Plan Amendment and Specific Plan are consistent with the provisions of the California Coastal Act and the City' s goals and policies for development in the Coastal Zone. 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 February 18, 1992 City Council meeting. ATTACHMENTS. - 1. RCA dated December 2, 1991 ,r2 . Traffic Study dated January 6, 1992 3 . Resolution No. 6334 (GPA 91-2) 4 . Resolution No. 6335 (EIR 89-1 Addendum) 5 . Ordinance No. 3123 ✓6. Appeal letter dated November 8, 1991 from CSA 1,17 Letter from Cox, Castle & Nichelson dated November 20, 1991 -8 . Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan -9 . Draft Addendum to Final Environmental Impact Report 89-1 „10 . Planning Commission Staff Reports dated October 29, 1991 MTU:MA:RLF: lp RCA -5- (2170d) REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION December 2, 1991 Date Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator, 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 hft 0 63,3y Consistent with Council Policy? Yes [ ] New Policy or ExceptionANZ a 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 Environme tal Impact Report No. 89-1 by adopting Resolution No. _ and" 3 . "Approve General Pla Amendment No. 91-2 by adopting Resolution No. and" 4 . "Approve Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 9Q-10 with modifications proposed by staff based on findings by adopting Ordinance No. ? _. " FnO 5/85 5 l 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-Seacli€f 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) f f 1 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-Seaclif€ 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 12/2/91 -5- (1497d) 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 CEQA 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 contest 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: 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 Sipecific Plan does not comoly 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, Code 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. ALTERNATI 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. RCA 12/2/91 -9- (1497d) ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Resolution No . 633s (GPA 91-2) 2 . Resolution No . �_ (EIR 89-1 Addendum) 3 . Ordinance No. 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 8 . Draft Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan MTU:MA:RF: lp RCA 12/2/91 -10- (1497d) RESOLUTION NO.- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 91-2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach 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 refinement 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) shifting residential density near the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Main Street 3) relocating oil consolidation sites to the industrial areas between Goldenwest Street and Gothard Street; and The Planning Commission by approving Planning Commission I Resolution No . 1451 has recommended that General Plan Amendment No . 91-2 be adopted; and 1 ATTACHM EENT N0. A public hearing on adoption of General Plan Amendment No . _! 91-2 was held by the City Planning Commission on September 17, 1991, and by the City Council on in accordance with provisions of the State Government Code; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby approves said amendment to the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1991 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIA D D APPROVED: w City Administrator Director, ommunity Development 2 RESOLUTION NO. *53 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA, ACCEPTING AS ADEQUATE THE ADDENDUM TO FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1 WHEREAS, The 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 EIR 89-1; and All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given have been heard by the Planning Commission either in writing or at a public hearing on September 17, 1991, and such responses and comments were fully considered, and, All persons and agencies wishing to respond to notice duly given have been heard by the City Council either through written notice or during a public hearing on and such responses and comments were fully considered, NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that : SECTION 1 . The Addendum to Final EIR 89-1 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and all other state and local laws and guidelines relative thereto . SECTION 2 . The City Council further finds that through the implementation of the mitigation measures, contained in Final EIR 89-1 the negative impacts associated with General Plan Amendment No . - J ATTACHMENT NO. 1 91-2 will be reduced to a level of insignificance. l PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held on the day of 1991. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney ! `Ty REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIA ED A APPROVED: City Administrator Direct r, Community Development 2 ORDINANCE NO-3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE SECTIONS 9061 AND 9300 TO PROVIDE CHANGE OF ZONING FROM VARIOUS ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS TO HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN ON REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF ELLIS AVENUE, EAST OF EDWARDS BLUFF, NORTH OF SEACLIFF GOLF COURSE WEST OF GOTHARD AVENUE ZONE CHANGE 90-10 AND CODE AMENDMENT 90-10 . WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zone Change No . 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings , and after due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented, the City Council finds that the zone change and code amendment are proper and consistent with the General Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain: SECTION 1 . The following described real property generally located south of Ellis Avenue, east of Edwards Bluff , North of Seacliff Golf Course and west of Gothard Street, the legal description of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference, is hereby changed from the various current zoning classifications which are depicted on Exhibit ATTACHME 3 NO �- 1 B, also herein incorporated by this reference, to Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan, hereby adopted in its entirety, attached as Exhibit C and hereby incorporated into this ordinance, as if fully set forth herein. SECTION 2 . Section 9300 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code is amended to add subsection (g) as follows : (g) Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. SECTION 3 . The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to amend Section 9061 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, District Map 2 , 3 , 38 , 39 (Sectional District Map 2-6-11, 3-6-11, 34-5-11, 35-5-11) so as to reflect the change contained in j this ordinance and on the map attached hereto . The Director of 1 Community Development is further directed to file the amended map . A copy of such district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4 . This ordinance shall take effect thirty days i { 2 after its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California, at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 1991 . Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: L /, City Clerk vC_ ;tlj� City At�b ney a � q/ REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIA D AND PPROVED: City Administrator Director of Community Development I i 3 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 9300 Specific Plan. The following specific plans are on file in the office of the City Clerk and the Department of Development Services : (a) Seabridge Specific Plan. (b) Huntington Harbor Bay Club Specific Plan. (c) Downtown Specific Plan. ( 1) Areas 1, 7 and 8-A. (2) Areas 2 and 6 . (3) Areas 3 , 4 , 5, 8-B, 9 , 10 and 11 . (d) Seacliff Specific Plan No . 1 (e) Meadowlark Specific Plan. (f) Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. (g) Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. (ml-CD) (r REZONED) I CO 1 MI-co ` .•� - i?-� MI-0-CD ' r r+iol R2 x J ' RA-0 4 RA-0-CD r t M2-0 olq 1 ELUS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN Ml.o op RA-0 --=--- � a .--� co RA-01-CZ`= ---.__-- MI of m MI-0 M . MI-cl z OP OP ................. .....-- - ----- __ - m- v.n CC CZJ C-WA �, C�Z 1 �- 1 i 1 a�_. zZs R?,�i , �4_Q 1 CI-O RA01 C[�li FFMI ;`. O L.._.. ... l M R2': ' MI-A �2-01•.. »,4 . ROS-1, 11-..M1�,�yS�, „^h.. R2 'R2 I RA�� 2 V12-01 -CC Vi G. MI ; * ti J�SV'S� ty+ `h„�• RA I.r. - B2 1¢oM7 Ol , r— .'�ociEl �3r �• J. .o��^• �' Rn-{� -,,,. ._ c2 RI. O ��a ....._ v -`Ckry Av.rn» /A' RO - R �-- - A'� R2-0-PO of O R2 0 1~ /• 2 O < Rl moo•,t 4? j ' u .,M RI-�Cy ° RI i n-46. Y C2-D-CD a. » C2-0 �e• ki - r n R I 1' ROS 0 RI tt I. ft2 O PO (- RI ,/x I i 'i$ -T :.. - ,.n•,. 4-�-,.,nrr C "-•1RZ-0 F \vR. RI l I Op.q. _._.-.,c' •,.,.,---9 t 'P:°`- „iol 'uv.:'e _�o ROS 0 RI C2 O CD ' I, �• !!c Y Ili cr R4 " RI RI / b {•�o ,cam__ `-' \ -,�. `'f-ORl CF-C CF E-CD »1 R2-0-CO IT �FCF-E-CD CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING ZONING fl lvJl`�IL..,��"��11�c',/�'.�.,��_ �1-,I��C'�-, �"•1� ' �r-,���, �•.itli_;)(rii�.`ili��iii1 ,� �`>)I'� �'\I��� ApIIIIIIIII I I_ PLANNING" ' ZONING DIM 2 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 2- 6- II ADOPTED MARCH 7. 1960 NOTE CITY O F p�L D Eh5 N5 <RE N.EE. x r CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 75• Y 101E <0Y 1D < 15 1N'Cv:E: TO Ee TE C:D i^ T-�iC hrEN 'MENDED ZiI+E:<SE OR0 N0. 4M ND D ZOK CASE wo W. .E -^••r OF xPY 2060 )]3 )-r)-13 ]2-16(LI ,162 9-s-)z naJ Ins LEGEND 19 5-]J )3-21 �BB9 - 2�20 61 61T IO�C-13 1130 BT6 L—, -- :E l r eESrUE VTi<:CS-a:Ci A6:9 E,'r6.�'<reel9.eOBa) fi-<-15 T5-3B ... HUNTI TGTO�T BEACH 2 �-CE f"SIO AL D.ry_,,SrNiCi 9-8.6; 20:.Y} B6B B-<-T5 15-30 2002 CF- FAC1t IT'ES IE::CAr1 DAL-S-IC' r 6-E: 1.2 BT6 11.9-15 p5-3E 2003 rA 'S-)-61 N'. 900 9.2J-15 .P 71-2 200< G� C�--CE-RROFESSgNAL D6-+C' J-2�62 2<e gO3 <19)6 166 0< 20" _,MENDED ZONE CASE A NO. 6-<-f2 2a6 907 67-11 -0) 2051 'ES•0Evi4L P6RICULTU«. DSTR-CT 62 269 932 61-T6 ]6-•2 2065 {) 1 1/� FT1 V 1/� 1 T 1i 2 B-M-]9 c2<'9 2 9i2d2 9a0 6i'6 )6-15 2070 � 'vDUSri,<L D'5'••:- 1 i 1�' \ V' �, �' N L, 1 C i 1. 1_J J- �' 0 �l N I A r 6 BI f E 5 2a3� 2-a.�: yxi 9) 6:]-]E )6-r6 2Gd3 .M JI Sr ROE! ' _ - 950 6-2r)6 16 9 20]r �v.•.. - ,T j-n2 E 62<-63 976 ]-1916 n,5-B 209< C1 Bv5�NE55 ca ' 2 2595 E-2<-`] _- 9)B B16)6 ]6-�B 2101 I�a F2 6 1596 .< 102E 9 21-11 ]6-12 2121 5-a3 d? 9 - 6-E< •09C I6-2e 2�5J ---u- "0Err51Tr c ..h ,_015TR1C) 11J2 a2-6-16 ]6< 2L35 C�T� -:....00D COMMER'+F -6 6OLDTO'w4 t.2:)r u V_ -- 3 55 56 a 1256 5-6-]) 2•BO [T—. EN51TY RE6rOE xli<-;a]f ., 5 6-20-]) ) 22­2 �'E5 El Ms _i3B 69 69-- <T•1 M„6i <)5% 26052552 - LNE"• ..9.53 6Cb s3e2'2-•91• 6T-3+ 225C �- ..• C_4R0. .♦ 3-5- 1631 1-ra T9-2 22" I. �z- - '69, 919-71 77..< 222< - -L_55[ �_"efC15E'•-.".v DF STREET A, 16B c 9�.9-7r 2225 ., i._2C..•5 .n -:iwN SFEC11.1•,.h J (GARFIELD I— I I _-- --- _ �'`L _*c rAVE. jRA_0 R2 �- C CIFR - --1 A - R 2' S 2 "W " I I i EMI 1 MH f +c6�RASS '• 1_S: ml ✓ R2 . MIA C2 ---u, R2 i wt*aT:v_ I I o B RA-0 m E B_<5JD3 93>-a! • < I RA ooj R2 R2 YI A -E_ R R 2 /�/.�_ _ ,I R2 - R2• R2 {I C`t R2- -R2_ . : R 2 ZR 'I, R2 R .1. i(0)R2 R2 r5 r- M I ICLC Tnwl: SPECIFIC' I. Im \-\ --I�- �J R2 - ._ —J LP L 4NIpISTRICT I) I : zec1-- C2-0 CDC 4. a .__ I R3 I FJ i�� R3 :z I/ R2-0-PD a- o ..� x /R4 R2 R2 O: R2 0 lr- -,_ R2 hl . L— Imo_ •,_6., - - E• .9scl =. A-+E o- RAG RI i _s C2-0 CD DR I^ C2 C2-0 i'R20 PDRI - --- �~ 1 R2-01I _ �_ R2 JIi RI ACE W SL / z I --c� R21- R2 I R2 - 'J R2-0-CD - - OP-0'-CD R2-C PD CD, J R 2 I 33 E C2-0-CD Ift3 . cl 11 r I Ir IR2 C4 J I � J � F =% 2 R2 _ i 4 CF-E-CD I R2-0-CD J r RA jJ R2 1 C2 _CF E-CD I I� I' I� 1 co_J��� R2-0 R2 R2 - (RI I 6 OI_PP TqQ'`VN I I: CD 0 CF-E = SP IFI "T, N -CD'o I -CD-0 L _ i i I;I (DI RI TW O); O) _ _CD DiNol R4 it CD I I'I Ia =I -_-_---- - �Is � F. R2-0 LR2-0 -O i-O -0 %CD OL-! a "--J:-- I 55$q•o3.: / '' _ �F' I -CD-o •.;ku\'T_C A,E L R RI ( RI Rl I RI . RI R2 I I I , o or CD-D ? kFba I N N 01 4 , (^�RI0 ;•f'' I I -CD-D Tf CF1 iII+ ' R2 C 1 % SPRINGFIE LIP \ 1 _ I nI II ��•c _ 0 0 - I f�l NIIN O<�I EII `� ' ' ' :?"�t Q oa I -0 0 0I 0 DI DI I YI�� cu N I J _ fxr z RI RI RI IRI RI IR2\ -0 ROCHESTER o A'.E., Rao R3 a I I w Q z1 () D O 0 0 3 <Rr fo I (C a '1-0 Ii'�-I oIIR3-0 IR3-0 a L� RI F"O ADAMS j ; AVE RI i PLANNING ' ZONING DM 3 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 3-6-11 ?_ ADOPTED MARCH 7,1960 NOTE Ll pwt xi R)NS ARE Ix FEFT N+fOx( ADIOININ4 ART 41. OF w CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE N0 754 L ..ExoE0 O FVTw.D tO L c[x,[� _ D. Swtx DxT DL ONE ZONE LEGEND AMENDED 045E ORD. AMENDED �fE ORD-NO.� DUSTRIAL OISTRICT . I ME.OENSRr RE90E—aITIT 0-7-62 234 B99 2-5-79 78-4 2343 � ,•, Lon DE SIT'RES10LNr ALL'pSTRICTpST ' 12-3-62 281,282 938 1-]-60 RESN0.4828 `H/r�'+' . 0(NYTT RE90ENTIAL DISTRICT T 2-21-66 545 86 R-02 81-19 2536 Of FIC E.PROF ESSIONAL \JTNTINGTON BEACH 6-20-66 66-19 1216 9.6-63 83-8 2640 xE.OxBORNOOD COMMERCIAL 12-5-66 66_49 1271 7-2-84 84-7 2706 ® RECREATIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT 6-17-68 68-13 1419 1-17-83 CL[,op ZONE 2606 m 0E& TES PRECISE PLAN a STREET At.- 2.17-60 68-31 F972 105 87 87 1 2906 E� S ELw OSTRICT 11 I Imo\ T 1 1(�1 F{l T\ T l] 9-1988 88-9 2959 CDwBIxEO WITH OIL PRODUCTIDR IN AREA () It ;1 :\ (7 I A (A (f l �L �r (e :� 1, E 1'' \l l l 1, 1 i 1 6 2 C 69-34 1562 ® Ml"VEO BY PALM AYE ON NE,ODLDENwESt '0-'9-70 70-10 1606 3T.ON NV{OCEAN AVE.ON SW,B SEVERTN ST ON SE 5-3-71 71-1 1643 G TAL COHSERWTION DI STRICT `.GASTAL ZONE SLI- 1-3-]2 7:-37 1706 TIAL AGRCULiURAL mrRICT 5-15-72 72-13 t746 -02 COMBWED wITN OIL PRODI,CTN,11 7-7-72 72-1661 :761 -CG uv.'g5'RIC* -'5-73 72-35 813 -O c0w04AIq OIL 7-2-73 72-39 1855 Co' —&xE0 W%OIL PROOOCEaN 0:5-73 73-20 18]6FP FLOOOPLAIN DISTRICT 9''6-74 73-31 1943 '//. r.TxW P000 ZONE-FP2 - GA RFIEID 2-19-76 PPSA79-52024 AVENUE '- I I 66L7, _ I L-- CC-CZ R4-0-CZ RA-0I-CD ul R4-0 CI-0 r w J M 2-01 '✓! R 0 S-0 .Y ,T M2-01 -CD pol r S� n R4 OI:� ` d ,A ;E '_, :6" ,. -� = - Y I RI-C t{j ROSOR -- c s, /c ,�_. y7 �\ ti'v Ps+a A�q T - R.q-01 oI� 'A ,E iR RI RI '� RI I� ti N GR i Rt RI /\ RI CR RI RrI—ram z:,r I_ w \9fQL RI •R9 • , `I OP01Cd z 9r° FAO ROS-0 /a_' I —z R / RI �RI / o --. R4 01 E s2•E'i:: E i -a..f—R 4 is PD 0 t CZ''; \ t ,�f RY�t` RI 5� I I _ 4-OI oA •:R2-PD 0-CZ' ROS-O j;r•,. Q; { v,t / RI 0 ��R2-PD j R2-PD-0-CZ •^Y� :. :esn-c,i R4-01-CZf •°��'', "� R1 ", �= eT•.,3.,- ROS-O-CZ` • ,,R; �LR' Is R I Q . ' �- � _1 RI-0 �. RI1 � .f a? RI = w ;RI-0 it >a � ,y RA'r . r'.'( �,' `� oRNwc' �IOF Es`I���'�R i\Q•` �_�... 41cz}'�.+Nro-cl l �•4.` -F,J'' A�ckS .. I �� -%i A°o°�.., )•r��.��� $ .4f evE /p c• ��•y,Q/''aA :Sc�.._ .T^•, V, r hRI-0 M2-01-CZ d c, ,o_ 3 / "�./ �� ��O �R;� �9�L `c•� ry�� = I.��O- RI-0 - -.------Sfl' .._ `I /--�4```^�b --_-_ - __—__ -\__.____- ��, OFF//� /`�' • y II II, -, ,.�'• OC C� 10-0T SPEC.— A. qqA I � � e. r. �Y d �Y� PLANNING- ZONING DM 38 ( SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP m 34- 5-11 - p NOTE ADOPTED AUGUST 15, 960 .CC DIMENSIONS ARE IN ANY WAY CITY OF O NT _ ADJOINING A RIGHT OF n 15 WTENOE0 TO E%TCNOx To THE CENTER CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. 783 of Such RIGHT OF v,Ar ZZNJE �y[ LEGEND' AmENDEO DTSE O_R_D.NO AME NDE_�.7+SE ORD NO RESIDE-1-AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT 6-3-63 315 970 11- 2 �8•-3 :"0 E'3J C—NEO -"'.— PRJolcrlON 4-5-65 505 1132 I-:B-E2 81-�- 2531 ONBINCO WITH OIL PRI—T:w H IJ NTI��(1Z O NBEACH 2-5-66 66 49 1271 8=c 81 14 2536 OC,.vTr RESp[uTIAC DISTRICT 2-3-09 68 46 140' S-3-E2 622 2553 � LIGHT:HDUSTRIAI DISTRICT 6-26-70 70-8 1576 4-IS-:l 82 3 2551 [Z+ ,IIGH-RAr CONNERCiAL DISTRICT C-19-70 7010 1606 12.5.c383-4B2666 fGUBI.4D x,aCI OIL PRODUCTION /1 I) ,��,\ �s, (.a( 1 �' (_I-` �.T ���O �T T A '0 8-71 71-9 I659 7.2-:a 84]2]06 r5- if-D.s:Rlcr Ire[°I.x ECREanounE,Ulcr Rlcr 11 fi '_\ \ ` 1 ` , ` 1 I 1 A IO-IB-71 71 26 168, ;0-�4-t 95-ISIA12800 I 1-17-72 71-II 1-,7-E?'_JCCIZO,E2606 (" `°NNC'JE VELOPvcur 1709 r� UC-ll—SITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT 2-22-72 71-44 ;722 6 E-6E 97-12 2944 { L•'HIl[C- 10-,5-71 73-20 1876 6-26 z-)89-1 2998 C ye�L-[D-PE51FICAll- 4-7-74 74 22 1977 F^E' RECREt*Cwr uSPACC 9-I5-75 74-5 2010 `z •r Wi.,E55 DISTRICT _ 7-6-76 '4-22 2077 - - 7\ _21 7 71-I' 2220 111R4L Po //. i N iLC,,C ZONE-P -A.asTRc Ez t _ a:.rr`i2� r—RI-CD-CZ—,� I"0' R;.�Z .� �L OR Rn y �. Rl j / cz RI-CD-CZ Z RI i RI IRI l 11 RIRI \_ F. CZ 2tl V I U N Ia�la II-I Oa e j ti \ o � t�i0 ct / ? -1 a ao Rl-c C� z / CF-R C'_ C� `.SRI-CZ (PREZONED) RA-0-C:� - RI-CD (PREZONE--'r RI _ I ROS-O-CD = cF-R I- (PREZONED) O RA-0 II I ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN N 99.4I51'M RA-01 W RA-01-CZ I 3 Z W I O J j GARFIELD VE. _. 53 I:1LANNING DM 39 SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 35-5-1 I -- '--E NOTE:ALL DIMENSIONS ARE 11 FEET All 20.E ADOPTED MARCH 7, 1960 ADJOINING ANT RIGHT OF wAV IS INTENMO i0 07-D 1 CITY OF CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. `9 TO rrrE CCNrER OF 3UCN RK:Nr OF wA• A�•A[C`X FD vO �--- � ''ACC —4 Ou4�FIEDCLASSYKATgN _6 60 1C I' 195 6-r0 1J T!-S BSa 2 J-ia BC-16 Vj> p,<yr�EC DE VE—IENi 6-IB-i) 3-0853 -i]95 66.2 B ® DISTRICT GqIS-ll 11-y IBTa 9 d d+ 9±10 191J �� �ESgEI AL AS COLTU D•SIRC' 12-9.60'Sa,16 B08 19 T3 Tl::B IB TB 9-1 01 Pp5AB]11,:A _ 5.61 �4 -r 039 73-71I II12 dl B1 I — I MI] wMT.:AL pSTRKI Ht1NTINGTON BEACH 51d 1`'" )):1� B0'p RTI 2+21 Lw I .'rT IxOUPRUI DISTRICT I-" 99 015-]J 13-20 IS% ) CGuuJNITY BUSINESS DISTRICT -E2 1Y 900 IB-S-Ia 196 19aB LINE 0-E-62 2` 919 r2-9-]< Ta-:5 I Ow pENSITY RESMNTUL DISTRICT 19 61 <' 91] 6 ]a P']a-5 1951 ogCfESYOr.<L DAT41rT -14 Ic• gab I1.6 15 6-17 2001 I^_J .-_ a-59.6a <19 -56 2'1-]] l636B 21-1 1 ME i1.M DENSITY PESIDENT,AL p5TRC1 0R _1INGE COUNTY CAI,III0RNIA I - 65 s. :�J1 ]636C21S] a-� 1 '-EE - 121 l-1-1]PACCOMP 21Bpa LJ MEpy-IYLN OE.4YTY RESIDENTIAL PST�.C' ' f:Bi-E2 6-<` -O21 11'9 1;ITT 21 jj5i = n Al COMMERCIAL 6-:6-E9 .•• —6 i-]-TJ SDIS-IR 16 JG :i(_r]-� --TES MAN1]fACT:JAIIIG DISTRACT 90-1y 69 E-, .522 2.11.1E SPl)-: gya59O = 1 r FACILITIES iRECFF.Ar10--:D•S♦R.C' 56Clra6 '-1]PD 19-:0 2a 19 [ T� _ vIY FACILIIIES(CIVIC,015"=-:- 8- S, BO.9 2a04 —W4--1 M.V'LE FAMILY RES DENCE P,IST-Y a 1�9 -''5 02 pctaz 1 Ry 550a �. SC'• RESIDENTIAL DEVELCPMENI 1 •]6B J-15 P2 BI IJ <-a< CCu3-NED WrTN OIL PRO-1111 9 ]1J I.91 52:J 259a _ -:NEp w—OIL PROOUCTKA -.•� E 5-72 P 5 ]la '1 1.92 92-:9 3501 Cru:OISrFICT TALBE RT z E+i .ne 6-5-e; 5-� 11 -.va1 PREESE I•L<4 OF SINE ET A-111ENT J \ _ ;zC4 A,✓E --- E STREET ` \�_--- • J -� MI-CD !' "it Q<P)pF�_2--P—D �,. - V:, j� .4 wJ f MI AD 'II-- jI II om/. R4-SR _1 R2 SR C 4 L CF-R MI -A Ml-CD .—r � - i R4-SR -�R (MI-CD) RI I DR - - — ---- cF-R « RI C2 I z • L� 1 (RA-0-CD) MI-CD j M I MIS_ RI RI nl .•C 2 OAT- DR I' RI, RI I CF C EMI ��-R O�E-ECDR RI RIB g R3 -J } I I I RI RI =F 1 l F ji -� I AL 9E R TA OR o I C�-R _ I RIB RI I RI _ RI 2 R3 - fl (RA-0-CD) MI-CD + F a h . CF-R M I YVKON D; R4hKLIN R 1 G4 1 _. (MI CD) :.O P <i - C� �R_I-_D = `e I !D.-]� i < <. ual-CJ' s MI-CD I -- R3� RI RzT� _ - r✓` RI — L I a3 R� -- - -----..Y.- --,-- -. I - ---- MI-0-CD MI RZ= R2 ��.. .. I 'MI-ol C 2 C2 o ' -5 MI RA-0-CD; R2 'n e* - I .-. SC-.. OP 6D - R 3 COMMODORE CR M2_0 R3 - -- - - o P 29]S T ��RA-0 I y .,- .�o R '"3 • R2/:!R2 / - TWO)- _— I I• �i z9s.9D I •� A-O-CQ � MI-0 =I I (IDSTF:CTy 2: R2 :—L— op I , 320 ERNE51 E F 3307 MI-O-CDNMI T C: PACIFICA C MMUNITY PLAN- R3 I I MI-01 (DIS ICT ONE) M2-0I 9 - 1O5 2999D Z MIA-p-C ~ M I-0 -. :.�R� o7n"iA"P, w OP » 3 FFER o I MI-GI o o R 2 eQ "_.., I m 8 l9 W 111 TO( OP »I]O - a d - ft3 _! MISo 300 I o R2 R2' R2�' I--yF-� 1 DD- 1 OP h `J I, R2 oIY p — -R2 GARFIELD AVE - e-/4 '7r HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY BEING PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE I I WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, PARTLY IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS AND PARTLY IN THE RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AND PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 4, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND YORKTOWN AVENUE (SHOWN AS MANSION AVENUE ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 95, PAGE 20 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY); THENCE NORTH 89041'42" WEST 1350.19 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID YORKTOWN AVENUE TO THE CENTERLINE OF GOLDENWEST STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID LAST MENTIONED MAP; THENCE NORTH 41°37'25" EAST 11.92 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID GOLDENWEST STREET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF GOLDENWEST STREET, NORTH 00-16-53" EAST 1403.96 FEET TO ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7656, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 295, PAGES 28 THROUGH 31 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 09°38'08" WEST; THENCE WESTERLY 181.28 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7656 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12059'00", TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 22037'08" EAST; THENCE CONTINUING WESTERLY 880.58 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7656 AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7421, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 302, PAGES 20 THROUGH 23 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 40026'54" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 249.63 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7421 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17052'42" THENCE NORTH 00022'36" EAST 24.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44022'22" WEST 78.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48°52'36" WEST 27.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79052'36" WEST 248.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°22'36" WEST 5.90 VWDEN & HOLLY - SEACLIFF SOCIATES SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS—PLANNERS--LAND SURVEYORS 0844-273-3 12/18/90 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210 • IRVINE, CA 92714 WO.No. Date 714/660-0110 FAX:660-0418 En r. PER Chk, Sheet 1 Of 5 is i FEET; THENCE NORTH 89°37'24" WEST 72.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80°35'37" WEST 262.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°52'22" WEST 157.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36°35'30" WEST 109.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43°48'10" WEST 151.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02006'09" WEST 384.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22°47'17" WEST 236.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11043'51" EAST 123.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35°08'20" EAST 258.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27031'58 EAST 336.22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37012'45" EAST 170.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 57°19'50" EAST 67.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34°15'43" WEST 68.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47012'59" EAST 106.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52033'36" EAST 202.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°02'22" EAST 89.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85036'09" EAST 148.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42°33'44" EAST 151.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 260 13'49" WEST 112.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47037'07" WEST 178.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56031'48" WEST 90.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52026'55" WEST 109.64 FEET; TIIENCE SOUTH 53°3435" WEST 199.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53°21'07" WEST 144.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53°34'54" WEST 79.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78049'50" WEST 129.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82°26'29" WEST 132.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87053'06" WEST 142.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 88034'45" WEST 482.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79009'09" WEST 427.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78°11'24" WEST 320.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09007'55" EAST 186.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11003'24" EAST 248.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19001'22" EAST 142.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36°5738" EAST 41.06 FEET; THENCE NORTII 35024'38" EAST 689.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05°02'22" WEST 61.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85°46'51" WEST 28.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53058'25" WEST 49.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78051'01" WEST 62.70 FEET; TIIENCE NORTH 59032'35" WEST 112.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°28'27" WEST 109.58 FEET; TIIENCE NORTH 27044'02" EAST 108.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17°29'33" EAST 232.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09°47'41" EAST 224.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06°41'28" EAST 218.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12°50'02" EAST 125.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11°12'50" WEST 67.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76°16'19" WEST 54.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68056'58" WEST 44.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13°42'05" WEST 241.82 FEET; TIIENCE SOUTH 32053'58" WEST 74.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83°32'50" WEST 85.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84043'58" WEST 68.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53016'51" WEST 49.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06°04'10" EAST 55.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03°04'00" WEST 150.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45052'33" EAST 85.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15°45'53" EAST 122.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°48'17" WEST 98.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35004'20" WEST 62.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49°18'15" WEST 427.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70042'04" \`,'EST 751.89 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY PROJECTION OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 41°42'13" EAST 164.55 FEET" FOR A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SEAPOINT STREET (FORMERLY SEAVIEW AVENUE), 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 166, PAGES 10 AND 11 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 41042'13" WEST 243.13 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROJECTION TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID LAST MENTIONED MAP; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID MAP THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 48°17'47" WEST VWDEN & HOLLY - SEACLIFF SOCIATES SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS--LAND SURVEYORS 0844-273-3 12/18/90 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210 • IRVINE, CA 92714 WO.No. Date 714/660-0110 FAX:660.0418 En r. PER Chic. Sheet Of 5 100.00 FEET, SOUTH 41042'13" WEST 164.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY 14AVING A RADIUS OF 750.00 FEET AND SOUTHWESTERLY .259.51 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19049'31" TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN PARTIAL RECONVEYANCE RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82- 222367 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED MAP NORTH 42011'18" WEST 360.45 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARTIAL RECONVEYANCE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 92, PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 89°37'14" EAST 91.97 FEET, NORTH 00°15'23" EAST 328.98 FEET, SOUTH 89043'03" EAST 660.16 FEET, NORTI4 00019'15" EAST 328.84 FEET, NORTH 89041'36" WEST 231.59 FEEI', NORTH 26049'24" EAST 1107.66 FEET AND SOUTH 89041'05" EAST 726.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00017'53" EAST 1321.75 FEET ALONG SAID HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON TI4E MAP FILED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 89°32'59" EAST 329.05 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 TO THE SOUTHERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 000 14'01" EAST 658.39 FEET" FOR A PORTION OF THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 92, PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE-COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 000 13'17" EAST 658.39 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAME; THENCE SOUTH 89°40'41" EAST 660.07 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34, SAID LINE ALSO BEING ,THE CENTERLINE OF EDWARDS STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP FILED IN BOOK 92 PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID LAST MENTIONED CENTERLINE NORTH 00015'54" EAST 329.42 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE ALONG SAID NORTH LINE SOUTH 89042'06" EAST 2639.94 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST LINE OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE CENTERLINE OF GOLDENWEST STREET, 60.00 IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 87, PAGE 25 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID GOLDENWEST STREET SOUTH 000 16'18" WEST 660.00 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, SAID CORNER BEING THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF GOLDENWEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE; TI4ENCE SOUTH 89043'37" EAST 1982.30 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ELLIS AVENUE, SAID CENTERLINE ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35 1.0 THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF GOTHARD STREET; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH �3°43'37" EAST 33.82, MORE OR LESS, ALONG VWDEN & HOLLY - SEACLIFF SOCIATES SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS—PLANNERS--LAND SURVEYORS 0844-273-3 12/18/90 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210 • IRVINE, CA 92714 WO. No. Date 714/660-0110 FAX:660-0418 E" PER Chk. Sheet 3 Of 5 SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 339.26 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19026'18" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 19042'41" WEST; THENCE EASTERLY 320.08 FEET, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18020'21" TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND EASTERLY 20.00 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH 00°18'39" WEST 455.28 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY PROJECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 132, PAGES 35 AND 36 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89044'06" EAST 639.65 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY PROJECTION AND SAID SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL 1 TO THE CENTERLINE OF HUNTINGTON STREET AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 81-575, FILED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 00018'34" WEST 1326.13 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID HUNTINGTON STREET TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND SAID HUNTINGTON STREET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID HUNTINGTON STREET SOUTH 000 17'42" WEST 744.99 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF GARFIELD AVENUE AND SAID HUNTINGTON STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 81-575, FILED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAPS RECORDS OF SAID HUNTINGTON BEACH, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE NORTH 89042'04" WEST 659.89 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE, NORTH 89°4321" WEST 82.85 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND SAID GARFIELD AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 10511 RECORDED IN BOOK 455, PAGES 13 THROUGH 17 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 450 17'24" WEST 774.32 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID MAIN STREET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROJECTION OF THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 10511 DESCRIBED ABOVE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE EAST LINE OF HOLLY STREET, 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO. 10511; THENCE SOUTH 00°18'18" WEST 242.23 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 10511; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 89°40'56" EAST 280.19 FEET, SOUTH 00°17'57" WEST 410.35 FEET, SOUTH 89-42147" EAST 135.00 FEET AND SOUTH 00017'57" WEST 90.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF CLAY AVENUE, 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO. 10511; THENCE SOUTH 000 17'13" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CLAY AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89042'47" WEST 813.43 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF CLAY AVENUE AND MAIN STREET AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 100, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE VWDEN & HOLLY - SEACLIFF SOCIATES SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS—PLANNERS--LAND SURVEYORS 0844-273-3 12/18/90 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210 a IRVINE, CA 92714 W.O.No. Date 714/660-0110 FAX:660-0418 En r. PER Chk. Sheet_L Of 5 N �j COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MAIN STREET SOUTH 190 14'02" WEST 829.19 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAME; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MAIN STREET SOUTH 00018'10" WEST 545.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 778.84 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. VWDEN & HOLLY - SEACLIFF SOCIATES SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS—PLANNERS--LAND SURVEYORS 0844-273-3 12/18/90 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210 a IRVINE, CA 92714 WO.No. Date 714/66"110 FAX:660.0418 I En r. PER Chk. Sheet 5 Ot 5 R E C E I V E D LSA Associates,Inc. TRAFFIC ENGINEERING Environmental Assessment JA N — 7 1992 Transportation Engineering ResourLSA CominceAgPla nant Comn:unrty Planning NUNTIN�GTON BEACH, CA Environmental Restoration P r i n c i p a l s January 6, 1992 Rub Balen Les Card Jim Otterson Jim Culver Traffic Engineer George Kurilko City of Huntington Beach Carollyn Lobell 2000 Main Street Bill Alayrr Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ray Aloe Rob Scbmrholtz Malcolm Sproul Subject: Relationship of the Cross Gap Connector and the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Associates Michael Cale Dear Mr. Otterson: Lyn Calerdine Connie Calica This letter report has been prepared to address the question of whether the Gary Dow circulation improvements identified in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan would Kevin Fincber require modifications if the cross gap connector were not built. Daily and .Ste-veGranbolrn peak hour traffic forecasts are used to document the resultant levels of ser- Richard Grassetti vice in a forecast post-2010 development scenario, including the Holly Sea- Roger Harris Art HOnrri hausen cliff Specific Plan area, with and without the extension of Bolsa Chica Road Rnbert Hrubes to Garfield Avenue (known as the "cross gap connector'). In addition, a GinaJurick development scenario that considers 5,700 dwelling units for the Bolsa Chica Benson Lee Local Coastal Program (LCP) project area is also evaluated with and without RobhlcCann the "cross gap connector." .Sabrina Nicholls Beth Radon The results of this analysis indicate that the redistribution of forecast traffic H.; P rrigcnc c•rr� n Anrhorty ert,5 volumes due to the absence of the cross gap connector" creates no adverse AmyRudell impacts significant enough to warrant changes in the Holly Seacliff Specific Dean Williams Plan circulation network. Changes to the traffic forecasts for the local area Jill Wilson, are a result of a combination of influences, including the addition of the maximum threshold 5,700 dwelling unit Bolsa Chica LCP project and the deletion of the "cross gap connector." Traffic data for this evaluation are based on the current work effort for the Bolsa Chica I.CP project and the traffic forecasting undertaken as part of the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment (GPA) process. The post-2010 daily and peak hour traffic forecasts are based on the Huntington Beach/Orange County Transportation Analysis Model (I-IOCI'AM), as presented in the Traffic Analysis for Bolsa Chica Local Coastal Program, Basmaciyan-Darnell, Inc. (BDI), August, 1990, and supplements, August and October, 1991. Project related circulation system and traffic volume data are based on the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment Traffic and Circulation Analysis, LSA Associates, Inc., July, 1989. 01/06/92(L:,.uwc ao2-•.TntnrrIc.Iiri) One Park Plaza,Suite 500 Telephone 714 553-0666 Irvine,California 92714 Facsimile714 553-8076 • LSA Associates,Inc. Figure 1 illustrates the I-IOC1'AM forecasts for the post-2010 development scenario with and without the "cross gap connector." The local circulation system includes the build out of the County Master Plan of Arterial Highways, with the following modifications: • Deletion of Edinger Avenue to Pacific Coast Highway; • MaIntenance of the current alignment of Pacific Coast Highway west of Bolsa Chica; and • Deletion of the Talbert Avenue connection to the "cross gap connec- tor." The traffic volume forecasts are based on the post-2010 build out condition without the Bolsa Chica LCP project. This build out scenario considers the development of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area. It is pointed out that without the development of the Bolsa Chica project, It is unlikely that the "cross gap connector" would be constructed. Based on Figure 1, the build out of the post-2010 scenario with the "cross gap connector" will result in the links of Garfield Avenue east of Goldenwest Street and Pacific Coast Highway northwest of Seapoint Street to exceed the City of Huntington Beach arterial level of service threshold LOS C, assuming the MPAH arterial capacities. Pacific Coast Highway northwest of Seapoint will exceed the LOS C criterion by approximately 5,400 average daily trips (ADT). It should be noted that the City of Huntington Beach Circulation Element and the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan provide for a six lane Major arterial section for Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Main Street. The BDI study analyzed this link as a Primary arterial. Therefore, with implemen- tation of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, the link along Garfield Avenue will operate at LOS C conditions or better. If the "cross gap connector" is not constructed, Pacific Coast Highway north- west of Seapoint Street will exceed the LOS C criterion. This section of Pacific Coast Highway will exhibit an increase of 1,200 ADT without the "cross gap connector", as compared to the scenario with the "cross gap connector." The LOS C criterion will be exceeded by approximately 5,600 ADT in this scenario without the roadway extension. According to the Holly Seacliff GPA work effort, the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan project's daily trip contribution to this link is approximately 2,200 ADT, or approximately four percent of the total forecast volume. The link of Pacific Coast Highway southeast of Goldenwest Street will also exceed the LOS C criterion in this scenario by less than 1,000 ADT. This additional 1,000 ADT is not consid- ered significant, as it represents less than two percent of the total capacity of the six lane Major arterial Pacific Coast Highway. Based on the trip assign- ment from the Holly Seacliff General Plan Amendment, approximately six percent of the total daily traffic along this link would be attributable to the GPA area. All arterial links within the Specific Plan area would operate at LOS C conditions or better. Peak hour intersection operations are also considered in this analysis, since peak hour intersection performance is considered the key determinant of capacity within the circulation system. Table A indicates the resulting peak 01/06/92(L: UWC102%TZAFFIC.RPT) 2 LSA Associates,Inc. hour intersection capacity utirkzation (ICU) values and levels of service for the post-2010 scenario with and without the "cross gap connector." These values are taken from the suppOemental Bolsa Chica LCP work effort conduct- ed by BDI in October, 1991. The intersection geometrics assumed in this analysis generally include three through lanes and dual left turn lanes on Major arterials, and two through lanes and single left turn lanes on Primary and Secondary arterials. It is pointed out that in some instances the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan provides for greater intersection approach capacity by providing dual left turn lanes or right turn lanes through intersections. As seen in Table A, all intersections studied in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan area will operate better than the 0.90 ICU threshold, or better than LOS D, with or without the "cross gap connector." The absence of this arterial link will not adversely impact the intersection performance in this development scenario. LSA's original Holly Seacliff GPA analysis provided a circulation system with adequate rapacity for a build out scenario that included development of the Bolsa Chica area. This original work effort has been updated by the analyses prepared with the City/County HOC7FAM forecasting tool. To document the worst case effects of the elimissation of the "cross gap connector," the maxi- mum intensity alternative for the Bolsa Chica LCP project is included in this analysis. Figure 2 illustrates the daily traffic forecasts for the post-2010 build out scenario with a 5,700 dwelling unit Bolsa Chica LCP project. With the "cross gap connector," Pacific Coast Highway northwest of Seapoint Street will exceed the LOS C arterial link criterion. Pacific Coast Highway southeast of Goldenwest Street will also exceed the LOS C criterion by approximately 600 ADT, a less than significant daily traffic volume. Without the "cross gap connector," Pacific Coast Highway between Warner Avenue and Seapoint Street is forecast to experience an increase in daily traffic of 2,600 ADT. This increase is a result of the redistribution of the traffic from the Bolsa Chica Street extension. Based on the Bolsa Chica LCP work effort, approximately 2,100 ADT of this increase is gcnerared by the proposed 5,700 dwelling unit Bolsa Chica project alternative: AU segments within the Specific Plan area operate with better than LOS C conditions. Intersection capacity utilization analysis results are also provided for this post-2010 plus 5,700 dwelling unit scenario with and without the "cross gap connector." With the "cross gap connector," all intersections evaluated will operate better than the 0.90 ICU threshold. The intersection of Main Street/Garfield Avenue was not included in this HOCTAM model forecast, but was analyzed as part of the H©lly Seacliff GPA. Mitigation measures for this location were recommended, and are incorporated into the Specific Plan. Without the "cross gap oonnector," two intersections are forecast to exceed the 0.90 ICU threshold and mill operate at LOS E in the PM peak hour: Edwards Street/Ellis Avenue an,d Goldenwest Street/Pacific Coast Highway. As 01/0"2(L%UWC 102•,TRLA4FFIc.RP'r) LSA Associates,Inc previously pointed out, however, the City Circulation Element and Holly Seacliff Specific Plan provide for greater intersection geometrics that will mitigate these forecast impacts. With the implementation of the Specific Plan geometrics and provision for signals at Edwards Street/Ellis Avenues, the two Intersections of Goldenwest Street/Pacific Coast Highway and Edwards Street/Ellis Avenue will operate better than the 0.90 threshold. The resulting ICU worksheet is provided as an attachment. Therefore, with the post-2010 build out plus maximum 5,700 dwelling unit Bolsa Chica LCP project scenar- io, all Holly Seacliff study area intersections will operate with acceptable levels of service without the "cross gap connector." Impacts to local streets, such as Clay Avenue, will be insignificant, since these streets are designed as,residential collectors, are not convenient for regional travel, and do not provide a direct, unimpeded route to local destinations. Alternatively, the major routes through the Specific Plan, such as Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street, are designed for regional traffic and will provide adequate capacity to accommodate regional destinations. Based on the results of this letter report, the "cross gap connector" is not required to accommodate future traffic volumes from the Holly Seacliff Spe- cific Plan in the post-2010 build out scenario. The implementation of the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan will provide for acceptable levels of service at arterial links and intersections within the Holly Seacliff study area with or without the "cross gap connector." Providing these circulation facilities consistent with the phasing of Holly Seacliff developments, as presented in the Holly Seacliff EIR circulation phasing plan, will ensure adequate levels of service. Sincerely, LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Anthony Pe os Associate cc: Bob Franklin, City of Huntington Beach Attachments: Figure 1 - Post-2010 Without Bolsa Chica Figure 2 - Post-2010 With 5,700 Dwelling Unit Bolsa Chica Table A - ICU Summary Table BDI ICU Analysis Worksheet LSA ICU Analysis Worksheet 1 This intersection exceeded the Caltrans warrant 1 for signalization in the Holly Seacliff GPA traffic and circulation analysis, July, 1989. 01/06/92(L:I.UWC102-,II FFIC.RPT) 4 B 38.8 37.0 37.0 13.7 12.7 28.3 1l.8 30.9 17.6 53.0 9.3 20.0. 19.3 12.8 15.9 ELAT4A 6-2 A17.1 11 2 30.3 18.7 b 1.2 JS btu 2.6 5.5 13.4 TALIIAT 0.8 6.1 `rS 1 TALMEAT 9 1.3 11.9 15.7 22.6 11.9 58-9 S�. 14.5 10.3 21.8 17.9 ILUS 5.3 28.3 7.1 r �' 383 16 9 16.4 +s• 24.8 303 aww.PELa 22, 25. 30.9 F35.4 z7.1 t 63 ' 31.3 7.1 Z 45.7 26.7 rowrtTavA •� 23.4 20.0 13.5 103 1 ~^ys? 23 h 14.3 103 14.3 40 6 AOA+.s titi `66sd �`' 82 4.4 a55 Nh' a' 8.1 8.3 �woiAr.ArouE J. +IE_5 1 071.7 WITH CROSS GAP CONNECTOR i 38.0 37.8 38A BJ 12.7 31.8 15.0 31.1 173 b8.1 12.3 20.4 19.8 12.7 17.0 1"Tom f 22 24.1 11.4 30j' 18.7 $1.3 / 02 2.5 5.9 13.4 TALlBAT 6.2 fAS,44wT +c' 0Z 19.8 2813 11.9 59.1 c 23.7 18.1 1 10.7 1 :2.2 18.1 ILLIE 11.4 9.5 31.7 7.1 + '� 3" JT 183 J 193 29 j 12.0 CAMM a • 15.0 I .8 24.9 Z9i 30.1 7.0�p4 46.1 26.7 27.1 .ows+ow.. •, 22.5 19.2 3.4 1103 _ r � y_ 2.3 Y.,3.9 153 a0S lb (4, _ 103 13.2 8.1 4.3 u.9 LEGEND Q�r �sJ 4 a 8.1 83 mmAm"Ous XX.X AVERAGE GAILY TRAFFIC ' ;r .'r5j---1 11't) (IN THOUSANDS) SOURCE: MOCTAM 1AOOEL WITHOUT CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 12/26/91(UWC102) Source: BDI, Inc. Figure 1 `i T- N LS- Post-2010 Without Bolsa Chica t 43.5 36.1 36.1 16.0 Z8 8 155 29.7 31.8 19.7 55.3 4 22.4 20.4 20.4 t 8.3 C'OMM[CTOR iSLArfR 8.3 8.6 19.9 110.0 29.7 20.8 51.5 >> b 5.7 •O 4i 4.7 2.7 5.9 13.3 ITAL[[RT 14.8 c s v -r 5.4 2.8 rwualtr 1.9 17, 272 15.2 58.4 9 ?O 1T.8' I 12.3 I 222 18.1 ELLIS !~%yy 11.3 ,y 10.4 21.8 t ry6 38.0 • Je r` J` CO 213 16.1 T,pA GARfI[LC �yh 24•4 32.0 302 26,7 31.8I3j35.7I ,0$+4�.Nt 30A ^� 52 ; 42.9 Jv0mjcT0vvm .� 263 20.6 738 1tA V 1 23 hb, 21.8 4.1 402 z b mob' Aowus ry y� NW s? ,^h 12.6 3.4 44.8 .6' ,ry• 7.9 8.2 1I INOIANAIOUS e v �`� ?d���e 5.0 15.4 I WITH CROSS GAP CONNECTOR 4 s yf[1 a3.1 36s 36s 27.4 1t3 33.9 16.6 31.01 17.7 661 133 ZZ.S 20.4 20.4 17.5 tutu CONN[CTOR 6.7 27.6 115 1305 18.8 52.1' 2.4 2 6 5.6 1 13.5 rAu[RT 6.5 s� A TAL99AT s '� 22 4 17.0 "A 13 26.5 29.0 20.7 11.8. 22.9 18.31[LLIs 11.6 6 s� 12.0 32.2 7.1 ri ryy 38.6 15.0 20.2. 30.0 18.9� 16.8 GM/11IL0 43 5 25 30.6 E35.3 N< � 30.5 28.77 1 45.7 I 27.1 I YORKTOWN .1 22.741 193 13.6 10.62 I o 2.4 o W 13.8 5 40.5' �>• ry� i 10.2 -13.7 AOAMS - v A s *`� '��O S9 �6' •4 3 14S.3 8.1 try O 8.1 83.1IMOIAMAIOUS LEGEND `v ?g9��1cf5r�11.1 I XX.X AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC IINTHOUSANDS) WITHOUT CROSS GAP CONNECTOR SOURCE: HOCTAM MODEL 12/26/91(UWC102) Source: BDI. Inc. Figure 2 r N Post-2010 With 5,700 L S- A Dwelling Unit Bolsa Chica MA Associates,Inc Table A-Post-2010 Huntington Beach/Orange County Transportation Analysis Model ICU Summary POST-2010 WITHOUT BOLSA CHICA POST-2010 WITH 5,700 DU BOLSA CHICA FULL MPAH NO CROSS GAP CONNECTOR FULL MPAH NO CROSS GAP CONNECTOR AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK AM PEAK PM PEAK INTERSECTION ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS ICU LOS Edwards Street/Ellis Avenue 0.51 A 0.67 B 0.70 B 0.89 D 0.48 A 0.57 A 0.76 C 0.97 E Edwards Street/Garfield Avenue 0.40 A 0.54 A 0.44 A 0.59 A 0.43 A 0.66 B 0.48 A 0.63 B Goldenwest Street/Ellis Avenue 0.47 A 0.69 B 0.57 A 0.76 C 0.48 A 0.55 A 0.58 A 0.84 D Goldenwest Street/Garfield Avenue 0.40 A 0.66 B 0.46 A 0.59 A 0.40 A 0.68 B 0.47 A 0.61 B Goldenwest Street/Yorktown Avenue 0. A 0.54 A 0.3 1 A 0.4 A 0. 4 A 0. 2 A 33 ., 9 3 5 0.32 A 0.49 A Pacific Coast Highway/Goldenwest Street 0.72 C 0.88 D 0.73 C 0.90 D 0.67 B 0.87 D 0.71 C 0.92 E Main Street/Garfield Avenue 0.72 C 0.90 D 0.72 C 0.87 D N/A N/A 0.72 C 0.88 D Note: Full MPAH considers the Master Plan of Arterial Highways circulation system as analyzed in the Bolsa Chica studies,which deletes Edinger to PCH,maintains the current alignment of PCH,and deletes the connection of Talbert to the cross gap connector. This arterial link network is consistent with previous Holly Seacliff analyses. 03-Jan-92((,WC102VCUSUMM.WQf) HOCTAM MODEL - 8OLSA CHICA i HOCTAM MODEL - BOLSA CHICA MORNING PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES (2 HOURS) I EVENIM PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES Q HOURS) I T APPROACH; LEFT APPROACHi I T APPROACH: LEFT APPROACH: Righti 582 Throughi 1244 I Right, 939 Throughi 6887 Taft: 542 Lefti 199 I Lefti 1174 Lefti 1266 1 RIGHT APPROACHi I RIGHT APPROACHi Throug 2845 ! Throug 4483 Right: 485 1 Righti 1144 I a■aaaaaaa::esLSLSLlw3F--.�--------=77ii3ali7aa�'wLL�a�7 1 szaslauae max anzaria amass a:ccums"Nezaaia sang iasBanc INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION WORKSHEET I INTERSECTION CANniiii uTILIiATIOM WORKSHEET FOR A 'T' INTERSECTION ! FOR A IT, INTERSECTION INTERSECT1ONt GOLDENWEST (E/W) AND PCH (NIS) I INTERSECTIONi GOLDENWEST (E/W) AND PCH (NIS) TIMEi AM PEAK HOUR ! TIMEt PM PEAK HOUR FILENAMEi GOLPCHI 570a a`-4 I FILENAME: SOLPCHI 574;)a Du HI/IC YEAR 2010 ! H1/1C YEAR 2010 NO BOLSA CHICA EXTENSION 1 ND BOLSA CHICA EXTENSION ------------------------ I ------------------------- No. Shared Pk.Hr. Shared AN Pk Crit, I No. Shared Pk.Hr. Shared AM Pk, Crit. Dir, Mvmt. Lanes lanes Cap. Vol. Vol. V/C Mvmt. 1 Dir. Mvmt. Lanes Lanes Cap. Vol. Vol. VIC MVmt. ----- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ----- ----- i ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ------ ----- West R 1 1700 320 0.19 1 1 West R 1 1700 329 0.19 1 L 2 3400 298 0.09 0 1 L 2 3400 411 0.12 0 North L NA NA NA 0 1 North L NA NA NA 0 R 1 0.00 1700 267 0 0.16 0 1 R 1 0,00 1700 400 0 0.24 0 T 2 0.00 3400 1565 0.46 1 ( T 2 0.00 3400 1569 0.46 i ----- ----- ----- ----- I ----- ----- ----- ----- Tot. 3 0.00 5100 1832 1 Tot, 3 0100 5100 1969 South L 1 0.00 1700 109 0.06 1 1 South L 1 0.00 1700 443 0.26 1 R NA NA 0 NA 0 I R NA NA 0 NA 0 T 2 0.00 3400 694 0.20 0 1 T 2 0.00 3400 2410 0.71 0 ----- ----- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- Tot. 3 0.00 NA 794 i Tot, 3 0.00 NA 2854 I I I NIB component 0.19 1 N/9 component 0.19 E/W component 0.52 1 E/W component 0.72 Rt.Tn. coup. 0.00 Rt.Tn. comp. 0.00 ICU 0.71 1 ICU 0.92 Critical movement identified by a 1. 1 Critical movement identified by a 1. Ten lanes for a right turn indicates free movement, i Ten lanes for a right turn indicates f►ee movement. NA - Not Applicable I NA - Not Applicah;e HOCTAM MODEL - BOLSA CHICA t HOCTAM MODEL - BOLSA CHICA MORNING PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES Q HOURS) 1 EVENING PEAK PERIOD VOLUMES 0 HOURS) T APPROACH: LEFT APPROACHt I T APPROACH: LEFT APPROACH: Righti 1104 Throught 766 ; Right: 2553 Throught 211E Lefts 45 Lefts 867 ; Letts 346 Lefts 1676 I RIGHT APPROACHt 1 RIGHT APPROACH: Throug 779 It Throug 988 Righti 207 1 Rightl 158 1 s■■■■■s,:seem=r:xzas_;7a:e::ca:zs;p::::ee:ss=nsnzes 1 ■saaseses::eDear:azzzs■e:see::eeeaa■a■■=■■esa■as■sea I INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIIATION NORKSHEET INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION MORKSHEET FOR A 'T' INTERSECTION I FOR A "T' INTERSECTION I INTERSEL'TIRv.- EDWARDS (HIS) AND ELLIS (E/H) 1 INTERSECTION: EDWARDS (N/S) AND ELLIS (E/W) TIME: AM PEAK HOUR 1 TIME: PM PEAK HOUR FILENAME:EDWELLi 5100 oL-A I FILENAME:EDNELLI S 7 0 o O LA HI/IC YEAR 2010 t H111C YEAR 2010 NO BOLSA CHICA EXTENSION I NO BOLSA CHICA EXTENSION ------- ---------------- I ......................... No. Shared Pk.Hr. Shared AM Pk Crit, 1 No. Shared Pk,Hr. Shared AM Pk. Crit, Dir. Mvmt, Lanes Lanes Cap, Vol. Vol. VIC Mvmt. 1 Dir, Mvmt, Lane• Lanes Cap, Vol. Vol. V/C Mvmt. _.--- ---- ----- ----- ---- ----- d---- ----- ----- i ----- ----- ----- ----- ---- ----- ----- ------ We>st R 1 1700 607 0.36 1 1 West R 1 1700 894 0.33 1 L t 1700 25 0.01 0 1 L 1 1700 121 0.07 0 t i North L NA NA NA 0 1 North L NA NA NA 0 R 1 0.00 1700 114 0 0.07 0 i R 1 0,00 1700 55 0 0.03 0 T 2 0.00 3400 428 0.13 1 1 T 2 0.00 3400 346 0.10 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- t ----- ----- ----- ----- Tot. 3 0.00 5100 542 ; Tot. 3 0.00 5100 401 1 South L 1 0,00 1700 477 0.28 1 1 South_ L 1 0.00 1700 587 0.35 1 R NA NA 0 NA 0 1 R NA NA 0 NA 0 T 2 0.00 3400 421 0.12 0 t T 2 0.00 3400 741 0.22 0 ----- ---- ----- ----- 1 ----- ----- ----- ----- Tot, 3 0.00 NA 898 I Tat. 3 0.00 NA 1320 1 I NIS component 0.36 ; NIS component 0.53 E/W component 0.41 E/N component 0.45 Rt.Tn, comp. 0.00 Rt,Tn, comp. 0.00 ICU 0.76 1 ICU 0.97 , Critical movement identified by a 1. 1 Critical movement identified by a 1. Ten lanes for a right turn indicates free movement, 1 Ten lines for a right turn indicates free movement. NA - Not Applicable 1 NA - Not Applicable • LSA Associates,Inc- CROSS GAP CONNECTOR SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS INTERSECTION CAPACITY UTILIZATION GOLDENWEST(N/S)/COAST HIGHWAY(E/W) MOVE- VOLUME V/C RATIO MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 • NBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBL 2 3,400 298 411 0.09 4 0.12 • SBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 SBR 2 3,400 320 329 0.00 0.00 EBL 2 3,400 109 443 0.03 0 0.13 EBT 2 3,400 684 2,410 0.20 0.71 • EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1,700 0 0 0.00 0.00 • WBT 2 3,400 1,565 1,569 0.46 • 0.46 WBR 1 1,700 267 400 0.00 0.00 N/S Critical Movements 0.09 0.12 E/W Critical Movements 0.49 0.71 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.58 0.83 LEVEL OF SERVICE A D EDWARDS STREET(N/S)/ELLIS AVENUE(E/W) MOVE- VOLUME V/C RATIO MENT LANE CAP AM PM AM PM NBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 NBT 2 3,400 428 346 o.16 • 0.12 • NBR 0 0 114 55 0.00 0.00 SBL 1 1,700 477 587 0.28 • 0.35 • SBT 2 3,400 421 741 0.12 0.22 SBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBL 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 EBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 • 0.00 • EBR 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBL 1 1,700 25 121 0.01 0.07 WBT 0 0 0 0 0.00 0.00 WBR 1 1,700 607 894 0.08 0 0.18 • N/S Critical Movements 0.44 0.46 E/W Critical Movements 0.08 0.18 Right Turn Critical Movement 0.00 0.00 ICU 0.52 0.64 LEVEL OF SERVICE A B A-LL I S 10),� Iz-T v � N tl 7;3 C I 26-Dec-91(OCTIo11EXISTICU.WQ!) A7�7 rlr t �( tcc�► trv� CA ot A borer _ 1_�o _�Z AAle. COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. November 8 , 1991 Ms . Connie Brockway City Clerk CERTIFIED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 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 for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is not applicable. " (emphasis added) "public/private project management, feasibility, and implementation" 1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 100 • ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92806 •TELEPHONE(714)978-8887 COM4Uµ tv MTE MS w5500 uTE5.HMO 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: 119880 Appeal by Applicant or 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 j 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; • CO.UMVNITY ME�SSOCUTES.INC \ I 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 Coas: 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 Huntington Beach City School District to the Planning Commiss_cn, as set forth in At- tachment "B. " It is the District ' s conclusion than the applications as proposed, the findings of the Staff Report, the contents of the Specific Plan as amended, and the contenzs of the Addendum, do not comply with EIR No . 89-1 , the Hol_-;-Seacliff Development Agreement, General Plan Amendment No. 8;-1, the CEQA Guidelines, or applicable provisions of the Governme:�z Code. It is also the District ' s opinion than the determination of satisfying the mitigation measures identified in Final EIR 89-1 , is inappropriately placed in the sole reSzonsibility of the City. There are no assurances that this deter-_-' nation will be made to the satisfaction of the District . In addition, there is no criteria relative to the develop=_=s 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 demonstr-ze 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 a-ddress 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 measure: set forth in EIR 89-1, which state: gc�­Nfry SK EMS ASS I.E4.iMG \ I 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. CpuuUN.TY SYSTEMS/SSWKES 1NC 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 =urther 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 re-ference 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 $200. 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, J,esidenta ITYASSOCIATES, INC. MBK: dl 4 : 41 cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District i i COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC.. 10821 11/91 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION! DECISIONS: Acceptance as Adequate the Addendum to Final EIR No. 59-1 by adoption of R. C. Resolution No. 1450 Approval of GPA No. 91-2 by adoption of P. C. Resolution 1451 Approval of Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 551-1 20ci, 00 COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. COMMUNITY BANK 10821 1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BLVD 1750 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BLVD-, SUITE 100 ANAHEIM,CA 92806 ANAHEIM,CA 92806 16.34711222 (714)978-8887 DATE AMOUNT *****200*DOLLARS*AND*00*CENTS***** 1 1/07/91 PAY TO THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDER CITY CLERK OF Allf II`OL0821II` I: 122203t, 70: 07 20 21I` • COMMUNITY SYSTEMS"SOC-ES-INC .� 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 c � COX. CASTLE & NICHOLSON PH-LL:P R N-CHOLSON' STEVEN A. JUNG A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS OF COUNSEL LAWREN CE TEPLIN SANORA C.STEWART GEORGE M. COX RONALD ' SILVERMAN ROGER C. GUENKE LJ\W 1 EM RIC HARD N. CASTLE STEPMEN G. SHAPIRO JILL JASPER ANDERSON LAWRENCE J.TRACY MARIO CAMARA ALISA J. FREUNDLICH 2O49 CENTURY PARK EAST JAMES E. BARNETT GEORGE D. CALKINS.II CAROL L MATSUNAGA HOWARD GOLDSTEIN JOHN M. KUML KENNETH WILLIAMS TWENTY-EIGHTH FLOOR SAMUEI H. GRUENBAVM PMILLIP E. MIMELSTEIN SUSAN J.JACKSONDYGERT ART.-;. 0 SPAULDING,JR. MICHAEL J. KAMINSKY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 EDWA.RO C. YRICH JEFFREY LAPOTA KATHRYN M LYDDAN /� KEON C. ATES 111 DAVID A. LEIPZIGER DAVID S. ROSENBERG TELEPHONE 1213) 277— 2�. y _ li D CLIFTONI�H B CATCS ..OMN S. MILLER,JR. CAROA K. RYHAL V BBB��� E KENNETH B. SLEY 'A ICHAEL L.TIDUS ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE ' 1 IRA J WALDMAN MATHEW A.WYMAN FACSIMILE 1213) 277-7899 �(� to MAuARTMUR BOULEVARD JOHN F NICHCLSON AMY W. BRAMMER NOV 1991 CHARLES E. NONEMAN PH ILIP J COLLIAS 'WILLIAM KAMER STATHI G. MARCOPUL05 SUITE BOO .ARLENE D- GOODFRIED H. MARK MERSEL n EVERT" 3 BEERS BARRY C SEATON L'�'.� Cf nC7M P',..,2'0 r�J,t IRVINE,CALIFORNIA 92715 BARRY P. JABLON LISA A.STERES L• H" V' `L""'I. �...Y..'�ri'_.. 1 (7141476-2111 JEFFREY D MASTERS JANE B.THOMASSEN ROBEOT D. INFELISE DIANE E.TIBEREND 1213)284-2187 EDWARD G.SHIRLEYV ANDREW E.ZOBLER BRADLEY D FRAZIER SCOTT D- BROOKS TAMAR C. STEIN JOHN C. CONDAS November 20, 1991 EDYTHE L. SPONSTON JEAN K. MURRELL CAROL M LIFLAND SHARON L. TAMIYA OUR FILE NO. DOUGLAS P SNYDER ROSS C. VI NCENTI JOHN R.CAUSLE,JR_ AMY H. WELLS SAP'A LUCK ROBERT L. SENUN 21200 LORA LEE MOORE MITCHELL 1. BURGER LEWIS G.FELDMAN LISA GUZMAN WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER PETER F. M.ANDREWS ADRIENNE TYMON KENTOR P JEROLD WALSH MARK A. REZAC MARK P. McCLANATHAN DONALD J. CHAVEZ 3 1 0/2 8 4-2 2 3 1 JOHN A. KINCANNON ADAM D. DUNCAN STANLEY W LAMPORT SHERRY M. DVPONT RANDALL W. BLACK JACKIE K. MILLER W. MCLIN LINES MONG-PHUOC P_ NGUYEN PERRY D. MOCCIARO JACOUELINE PH I LOPS-JACKSON JESS R. BRESSI JOEL H. ROTHSTEIN GREGORY J KARNS MYRON S.STEEVES D. SCOTT TURNER PAUL J. TITCHER HERB ERT J. KLEIN KERRY V WILKINSON DONNA J. CHRISTENSEN A PRCEESSIO-IL CORPOR-0- 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: 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 ATTACHMENT NO. Honorable Peter Green, Mayor November 20, 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. ,Ue 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 $ 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 Approvals 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, 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 Government Code 5 65451 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. 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 S 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 y. 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 1189103 Enclosure cc: Michael Uberuoga Gail Hutton Connie Brockway Michael Adams Howard Zelefsky Robert Adams Dwayne Dishno COX. CASTLE 8 NICHOLSON MILLI/R. NICMOLSOM STEVEN A JUNG A RARTNERSMIP -NCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS OF COUNSEL LAWRENCE T(PUN SANDRA C.STEWART RONALO I.SILVERMAI/ ROGER C GUENKE LAWYERS VY 1EJV OE r.COT STEPHEN c.SKAPIRO JILI JASPER ANDERSON RICNARD[RD w. CASTLE LAWRLNCE 1 TACY RACY ' .Am*CAMARA AUL11►REUMOUCM 20-49 CENTURY PARK EAST DECODE O.CALKINS.R CAROL L.MATSUMAGA JAMES It BARNCTT JOMN A.KUML KCMMCTM WILLIAMS TWENTY-EIGHTH /LOORI MOWARO GOLOSTEIN PHILLIP C.MIIICLSTCIN SUSAN A JAC1lSON SAMUEL M.DRU(NSAUr ARTHUR O.SPAULDING.in. MICHAEL A KAMINSKY LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90067 COWARD C.OVOCRT JEF/REP LAPOTA KATHRYN M.LYDOAM KEITH C.VOUCH DAVID A LEIPZIGER DAVID S. WMCNRCRD TELEPHONE M131 277-4222 CU►ION S.CAT">a' JOHN S. MILLER.JR. CAALA K. RTHAL KENNETH S. KEY MICHAEL L TIOUS IRA L WALDMAN MATMEW A WYMAN FACSIMILE 12131 277-7689 ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE JONN F.NICHOLSON AMY W.GRAMMER CHARLES C-MOMEMAN PHILIP 4 COLLIAS ��MrARTNUR SOULEVARO WILLIAM KAMER STAT41 D. MARCOPULOS SUITE SOD MARL(NC O.D000FRICD M. MARK M(RSCL CVGNTT D. SEERS LARRY C.SEATON IRVINC.CALIFORNIA 9Z71S SARRT P JASLOM USA A.STCRES OMI 476•8I/1 JEFFREY D. MASTERS JANE S.TMOMASSEN ROSERT 0.IMICUs( DIANE E.TISERENO 15131 204.9147 COWARD D.SHIRLEY ANDREW C.ZOSLCR •AMA*C.STEIN 1`" SCOTTJOHN C'CO 0AS June 26, 1991 COYTME L SRONSTON JEAN K.MURRELL CAROL M. FLANO SHARON L TAMIYA OUR FILE NO: DOUGLAS P.SNYDER ROSS 0.V114CCNTI JONN R.CAU"C.JR. ANY N.WELLS GARY A.OUCK ROSERT L SCHUN 21200 LORA LEE MOORE MITCHELL 1.BURGER LEWIS D FCLOMAN USA GUZMAN WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMSCR PETER f.McANOREWS ADRIENNE TYMOM KCHTOR P. JEROLD WALSM MARK A. RCZAC MARK P.M.CLANATHAN DONALD J CHAVEZ 213/2 8 4—2 2 3 1 JOHN A. KINCANNON AOAM D. OUNCAN STANLEY W. LAMPORT SHERRY M. O.FONT RANDALL W. SLACK JACKIE K. MILLER W -I UN LINES MONG•PHUOC P. NGUYEN PCRRY O.MOCCIARO JACOUCLINC PMILLIPS•JACKSON JOSS R- SRCSSI JO EL H. ROTHSTCIN GRCOORY A KARNS MYRON S- STECVES _ O SCOTT TURNER PAUL J.TITCM CR MCRtCRT J. KLEIN KCRRY V. WILKINSON DONNA J. CHRISTENSEN - ..KOInMOAAI Cow.O..no.. VIA TELECOPY Howard Zelefsky Planning Director City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Re: Environmental Assessment No. 's 90-44 , 90-45 and 90-46 : Proposed Draft Negative Declarations On Tentative Tract Map No's. 14007 . 14009 . and 14010 Dear Mr. Zelefsky: My client, Garfield Partners, the applicant for the above- entitled tentative maps, has asked me to respond to the letter dated June 13 , 1991, sent to you by Marshal B. Krupp on behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District. Although the letter is 15 pages long, the District makes only three points: First, that it should have received notice of the City's use of a mitigated negative declaration earlier; second, that a supple- j mental environmental impact report should be prepared; and third, that the school site being provided is inadequate._ : Howard Zelefsky June 26, 1991 Page 2 The remainder of this letter will demonstrate that the District is wrong on all three points. THE DISTRICT HAS PROVIDED THE CITY WITH ALL OF THE COMMENTS IT WISHES TO CEQA requires that notice of an intent to use a mitigated negative declaration be provided to interested parties in order to make sure that their input is received by the decision makers and available for their consideration. The District's letter sets out in detail why it believes that further environmental review is required. This information will therefore be available to the Planning Commission on July 2, 1991, and I have no doubt that it will be seriously considered by the Commission. THERE IS NO NEED FOR A SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT The District requests that the City prepare a supplemental environmental impact report, in place of the mitigated negative declaration which is now proposed, because of changed circum- stances. It supports its position by citing CEQA Guidelines g 15162, which states that a subsequent EIR is not required unless certain circumstances have occurred, and S 15064, which deals, not with subsequent or supplemental EIRs, but rather with the decision as to whether an EIR should be prepared in connec- tion with the initial approval of a project. The District's argument- fails for two reasons. First, the District neglects to mention that the courts of California have distinguished between the question of whether an EIR should be prepared in connection with the initial consider- ation of a project and whether a subsequent or supplemental EIR is needed at some later date. In every case, the courts have concluded that, whereas it is enough if a "fair argument" can be made that an initial EIR is required, a decision by a city not to prepare a subsequent or supplemental EIR will be upheld as long as there is substantial evidence in the record to support that determination. "Whereas section 21151 requires an EIR if the project 'may have a significant effect on the environment' , section 21166 provides that an agency may not require preparation of another EIR unless 'substantial changes' in the pro- Howard Zelefsky June 26, 1991 Page 3 - ject or its circumstances will require 'major revisions ' to the EIR. The two statutes serve quite different purposes and have cor- respondingly different effects. The question addressed by section 21151 is whether anv environmental review is warranted. CEQA procedures reflect a preference for resolving doubts in favor of such review. In the pre- sent case, however, section 21166 comes into play precisely because in-depth review has already occurred, the time for challenging the sufficiency of the original EIR has long expired, and the question is whether circum- stances have changed enough to justify re_ peating a substantial portion of the process. Thus, while section 21151 is intended to create a ' low threshold requirement for pre- paration of an EIR, ' section 21161 indicates a quite different intent, namely to restrict the powers of agencies 'by prohibiting [them) from requiring a subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report' unless the stat- ed conditions are met. " Bowman v. City of Petaluma, 185 Cal.App.3d 1065, 1073, 230 Cal.Rptr. 413 (1986) [emphasis in the origi- nal; citations omitted) . Nor does Bowman stand alone. The courts of appeal in Long Beach Savings & Loan Association v Long Beach Redevelopment Agency, 188 Cal.App.3d 249, 264-265, 232 Cal.Rptr. 772 (1986) , Fund for Environmental Defense v. County of Orange, 204 Cal.App. 3d 1538, 1543-1545, 252 Cal.Rptr. 79 (1988) , and Benton v. Board of Supervisors, 229 Cal.App.3d 1467, 1481, 277 Cal.Rptr. 481 (1991) , have all come to precisely the same conclusion. All of the conditions identified in Bowman have been met in the present case. EIRs were prepared for the Ellis-Golden West Specific Plan (EIR No. 88-2 adopted on May 1, 1989, by Resolution No. 6022) and for the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment (EIR No. 89-1 adopted on January 8, 1990, by Resolution No. 6097) . The only change cited by the District is the fact that the finan- cial position of schools have deteriorated since 1988. This is simply not the kind of substantial change in the circumstances under which the project is undertaken to allow (or even justify) the preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. It should also be noted that the District does not allege that the present mitigation conditions are inadequate or that the District will be unable to provide the facilities necessary to house the students Howard Zelefsky June 26, 1991 Page 4 who will come from the housing to be built on the tracts under consideration. Second, the environmental review has been carried out as part of the implementation of a residential development which is part of a recently adopted specific plan which was itself care- fully evaluated in a certified EIR. CEQA Guidelines S 15183, which deals with residential projects consistent with recently adopted plans, limits the preparation of an EIR to those situa- tions which are peculiar to a specific project. However, the District makes it clear that it is not the only school district suffering from this problem: "The change in conditions and circumstances is not unique to this project, but is being faced by all school districts in the State." (District's letter at 5.) No additional environmental review is required unless the impact under consideration is peculiar to the residential devel- opment. "An effect of a project on the environ- ment shall not be considered peculiar to the project or the parcel for the purposes of this section if uniformly applied development policies or standards have been previously adopted by the city or -county with a finding that the development policies or standards will substantially mitigate that environ- mental effect when applied to future pro- jects. " CEQA Guidelines $ 15183 (d) . In the present case, the Legislature has, through the adop- tion of Government Code §S 65995 (e) and 65996, limited the au- thority available to the City when it comes to the approval of a subdivision map. In particular, the only thing that the City can do in the way of imposing a mitigation measure on its subdivision map approval is the payment of the school fees permitted by Government Code § 53080. "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." Govern- ment Code § 65996. Howard Zelefsky June 26, 1991 Page 5 The District itself admits as much: "The District acknowledges the City does not have the authority to deny the Tentative Tract Maps on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities; . . ." (District's letter at 14 . ) Under these circumstances, there is no justification for the preparation of a supplemental EIR. TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NUMBER 14010 IS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE GENERAL PLAN The District contends that the provision of 8.316 acres net is insufficient because it submitted a comment with respect to EIR No. 89-1 which called for a 10 acre site. The general plan calls out a school site to be located at the northwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Saddleback Lane. It does not, however, call out the size of that parcel. The only land which Garfield Partners as an interest in on the northwest corner of Garfield Avenue and Saddleback Lane are proposed lots 63 through 94 and D through H, all of which are identified as a potential school site if the District wishes to acquire them. It is ludicrous to contend, as the District does, that its comment to the EIR as to the desired school site size, duly noted by the City, is somehow elevated to a binding requirement. Under these circumstances, there can be no question but that tentative tract map no. 14010 is in full compliance with the school location requirements of the general plan. CONCLUSION Inasmuch as none of the objections raised by the District have any -merit, Garfield Partners requests that the Planning Commission go forward on July 2, 1991, adopt the mitigated nega- tive declaration, and approve all three of the tentative subdivi- sion maps subject to reservation procedure set out- in Government Howard Zelefsky June 26, 1991 Page 6 Code § 66478 so that, if the District wishes to acquire the school site, it may do so within the 30 days allowed by law. Very truly yours, Ken eth B. Bley _ KBB/ks 109Z0640.WP0 cc: Marshal B. Krupp Dr. Gary Burgner Herbert Fauland Dr. Joel Kirchenstein Sarah Lazarus, Esq. COX. CASTLE £3 NICHOLSON OHILL:P q NICHOLSON* STEVEN A. JUNG A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS OF COUNSEL LAWRENCE TEPLIN SANDRA C. STEWART t ���//�/ p� GEORGE M.COX RONALD !.SILVERMAN LAW YE E• ROGER C. GLIENKE IV RICHARD N.CASTLE STEPHEN G. SHAPIRO JILL JASPER ANDERSON LAWRENCE J.TRACT MARIO CAMARA ALISA J. FREUNOLCH 2O49 CENTURY PARK EAST JAMES E. BARNETT GEORGE D. CALKINS.11 CAROL L MATSUNAGA JOHN H. KUHL KENNETH WILLIAMS TWENTY-EIGHTH FLOOR HOWARN GRUENe IN PHILLIP E. HIM ELSTEIN SUSAN J.JACKSON SAMUEL D C.DYGE T ARTHUR O.SPAULDING.JR. MICHAEL J. KAMINSKY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 LDEITH C. YRICH JEFFREY LAPOTA KATHRYN M LYODAN /.� �R KEI?M G. EYRICH OAVID A. LEIP2IGER DAVID S. ROSENBERG TELEPHONE (213) 277- 2�. {� _ M ' �P D CLIFTON B. CATfS)a ..OHN S. MILLER.JR. CARa K. RYHAL v KENNETH B SLLY MICHAEL L.TIOUS ORANGE COUNTY OFFICE IRA J WALDMAN MATHEW A.WYMAN FACSIMILE (213) 277-7689 JOHN F. NICHOLSON AMY W" BRAMMER N O V � 1 1991 19600 MA.ARTHUR BOULEVARD CHARLES E. NONEMAN PHILIP J. COLLIAS K W:LLIAM AMER STATHI G. MARCOPULOS SUITE 600 -ARLENE O. GOODFRIED H. MARK MERSEL EVERITT- G BEERS SARRY '. {{ IRVIN[,CALIFORNIA 92715 BARRY P JA8LON LISA A.STERESON Ce);}. Q ��^m, .,.11�,t�)."mo t (714)476.2111 JEFFRLY . MASTERS JANE B. THOMASSEN ROSERT D. 1N MUSE DIANE E.TIBEREND (213)264-2167 EDWARD G.SHIRLEY* ANDREW E.ZOBLER BRADLEY O FRAZIER SCOTT D. BROOKS TAMAR C.STEIN JOHN C. CONDAS November 20, 1991 EDYTHE L. BRONSTON Jr K. MURRELL CAROL M LIFLAND 514APON L. TAMIYA OUR FILE NO: OOUGL;S P SNYDER ROSS O. VINCENTI JOHN R. CAUBLE, JR. AMY H_WELLS GARY A GLICK ROBERT L BENUN 21200 LORA LEE MOORE MITCHELL I. :URGER LEWIS G. FELDMAN LISA GUZMAN WRITER'S DIRECT DIAL NUMBER PETER F. McANDREWS AD RI ENNE TYMON KENTOR P.JEROLD WALSH MARK A. REZAC MARK P. McCLANATHAN DONALD J. CHAVEZ JOHN A. KINCANNON ADAM 0. 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 D.MOCCIARO JACOUELINE PHILLIPS-JACKSON JESS R. BRESSI JOEL H. ROTHSTEIN GREGORY J KARNS MYRON S. STEEVES D. SCOTT TURNER PAUL J.TITC HER HERBERT J. KLEIN KERRY V. WILKINSON DONNA J. CHRISTENSEN A IIAOFESSIO•Al COIWO.ATIOK 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: 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 ATTACHMENT NO. Honorable Peter Green, Mayor November 20, 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 Quality 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. ,ggg 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 Approvals 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, 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 Government Code 9 65451 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. 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 y. 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 [189101 Enclosure cc: Michael Uberuoga Gail Hutton Connie Brockway Michael Adams Howard Zelefsky Robert Adams Dwayne Dishno _ T r ) � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HOLLY - SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN V O L U M E 1 O F 2 D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 1 T A B L E O F C O N T E N T S Section Description Page I . INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Intent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 B . Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-1 C. Project Area Description. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 D. Planning Background. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 II . DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT A. General Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-1 B . Land Use Categories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3 1. Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-3 2 . Mixed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 3 . Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 4 . Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 5 . Open Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-4 C. Circulation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5 D. Open Space/Recreation System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5 E. Grading Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-6 F. Public Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7 G. Community Theme Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-13 III. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Purpose and Intent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 B . Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 C. General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-1 D. Development Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10 1. Low Density Residential 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-10 2 . Low Density Residential 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-12 3 . Low Density Residential 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-15 4 . Medium Density Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-17 5 . Medium High Density Residential . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-20 6 . Mixed Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-22 7 . Commercial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-29 8 . Industrial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-30 9 . Open Space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-30 Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1337D November 1991 i Section Description Paae IV. ADMINISTRATION A. Development Phasing Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-1 B. Public Facilities Improvement Responsibilities . . . IV-1 _ C. Methods and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-3 D. Density Transfer Procedure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-4 E. Acreage/Boundary Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-6 V. LEGAL DESCRIPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V-1 VI. MITIGATION MEASURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-1 I HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN TECHNICAL APPENDIX (Separate Document) Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1337D November 1991 ii r � LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit No. Title Following Page 1 Vicinity Map. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 2 Existing Zoning. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 .3 General Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I-2 4 Planning Area I Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 5 Planning Area II Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . II-2 6 Planning Area III Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . II-2 7 Planning Area IV Development Plan. . . . . . . . . . . II-2 8 Circulation Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5 9 Open Space, Park and Trail Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . II-5 10 Infrastructure Schematic Plan - Drainage andSewer Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7 11 Infrastructure Schematic Plan - Water Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-7 12 Community Theme Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-13 13 Main Street Streetscape Section. . . . . . . . . . . . . II-15 14 Goldenwest Street Streetscape Section. . . . . . . II-15 15 Gothard Street Streetscape Section. . . . . . . . . . II-15 16 Overlay Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III-2 17 Recreation/Open Space Corridor Section. . . . . . III-5 18 Commercial/Industrial Separation. . . . . . . . . . . . III-5 19 Transportation/Trail Corridor Section. . . . . . . III-20 20 Biological Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . VI-12 Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1337D November 1991 iii r • LIST OF TABLES Table No. Title Page 1 Land Use Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . II-2 2 Development Phasing Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV-2 Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1337D November 1991 iv I. INTRODUCTION r I . INTRODUCTION A. Purpose and Intent The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan provides the development standards, design theme and administrative procedures necessary to implement the policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and the Holly-Seacliff Master Plan (General Plan Amendment 89-1) . The Specific Plan also provides for application of mitigation measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report 89-1 and implements the provisions of Development Agreement No . 90- 1 for the Holly-Seacliff area. B. Goals The purpose of the Specific Plan is to implement the goals of the Holly-Seacliff master plan, including : o Distribution of planned residential uses , definition of permitted housing types , and provision of a diversity of 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 of required public facilities to serve existing and proposed development . o Design and implementation of the community theme elements . This Specific Plan is regulatory in nature and serves as zoning for the Holly-Seacliff area . Subsequent development plans , vesting tentative tract maps , tentative tract maps , parcel maps and other entitlement requests for the project site must be consistent with both this Specific Plan, the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No . 89-1. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1338D November 1991 I-1 C. Project Area Description Location The Specific Plan covers 569 acres located in the central portion of the City of Huntington Beach as depicted in Exhibit 1 (Vicinity Map) . A legal description of properties included in the Specific Plan project area may be found in Section V. Present land uses surrounding the site include Huntington Central Park, Ocean View Mobile Estates and industrial uses to the north; residential and office uses to the east; the Huntington Beach Civic Center, Huntington Beach High School, Seacliff Country Club and residential uses to the south; and the Bolsa Chica lowlands to the west . The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan excludes properties contained in the previously adopted Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan. Exhibit 2 illustrates the existing zoning within the Specific Plan area . Regional access to the project site is provided from the San Diego Freeway ( I-405) directly from the Goldenwest interchange. Pacific Coast Highway (State Highway 1) provides access from coastal areas to the north and south. Local access is provided via Edwards, Goldenwest, Gothard and Main Streets and Ellis, Garfield and Yorktown Avenues . D. Planning Background There are a number of previous approvals related to land use regulations affecting the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Area . These previous approvals include: 1 . The Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan, approved by the Huntington Beach City Council through its adoption of Ordinance No . 2998 on June 26, 1989 . (Not a part of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. ) 2 . Final Environmental Impact Report No . 88-2 prepared for the Ellis- Goldenwest Specific Plan (adopted on May 1, 1989 , by Resolution No . 6022) . 3 . Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment No . 89-1 approved by the City Council through its adoption of Resolution No . 6098 on January 8, 1990 . 4 . Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 prepared for the Holly- Seacliff General Plan Amendment (adopted on January 8 , 1990 , by Resolution No . 6097) . 5 . Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement No . 90-1 (adopted on November 5 , 1990, by Ordinance No. 3080) . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1338D November 1991 I-2 r • v W OJ. W W Q W �w O �f SLATER AVENUE 2 � y TALBERT AVENUE CENTRAL W lq�e W PARK O �'9T c9 ELLIS AVENUE GARFIELD AVENUE 5� /ii: •�%r YORK7OWN AVENUE :; H.S. HIGH `CIVIC SCHOOL CE W,ER AVENUE S'cACLIFF ADAMS AVENUE COUNTRY CIUB ,o ,C///C W W_ r � N O m c J N cc m O Q1 m 1y EXHIBIT CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VICINITY MAP 1� �,D IuI-CDI �a MI fPRE 20NEDI� I MI-CD i MI-0-CD , ,• I �.-,.. ... I jl�_i• .•MIUI 'R2 1 y 1 RA-0 RA-0-CD r ,(( — ------ - — - r LM C M2-0 ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLANOP of t MI o �� •:i , r o, MPO-cD RA-0I-C2L�---- =_= MI of ;!�2 1 I •a cu 1 MI-0 MOP 1 J / OP OP --- — -- yam= CC-Cz �- FRW '> z :a� - i R2' U Cl-0 II RA-0 MI 4-0 i U MI-A �2-01 (� Ilk }y ROS M2.01•C "z y' H2� --- w. ...q '•�(�.� R2 — L •f ,p R•4s-� n, �R1R2-Oi 2 ,P Ic R. ei"a R: -I be v= =:^ •:ia }.✓. o ,« �' R4-0I yru..r.0 ,f r �� C2-O-(:d —. ��'J "& Av;; .. .d' RI •.f • r AvlMwr� ....I -- ---- y ,.Q. - A � SI - � ��r •� C. .�. � ROS-O ,�� R _:_- RI -.w -- i!'� �': R2.0•PO i �i��•o— •� R2 0 ae R4.01' a RI — y. • -� C2-0-CD G2-p �, , q'k`- ..a u. RI D ROS"0 �'�^ RI / RI T' Yui$Y Ijr ...bGi- 'rrny_ ou IR2 U PD ,• '_ R20 RI 1..{{�:�� l l ecIf vt,/ .. 7MT•E - If Iff. A V-� _ ]L _-IniD-[D q $. ;..� �, -- r_,�-- R2'U-PDC.IJI. S o 'v. p C2-0-CD OP ODD ROS O ie r RIp nc fit III 1 tf ...,7. _ R4-OLD - _ �, , �" 6Aug—or._ i V11 n,O.C. It ``� 'i. "`a+'•�.. �i, . .v •J." _.._ �t>`t� \.�// CF-E-CDoc ROS-O �fCF-E CD w CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING ZONING II k I)ll 11 ��r'I 1, .,I I! ;1� 11 "ll Ilk 'I' II II II \ I! ;l�! �i" ; Ili li \ �j �i �1NIIII11111 L 1 I"M\ r I • The Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement establishes the contractual development responsibilities between the City of Huntington Beach, Pacific Coast Homes and 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 all the Holly-Seacliff area . The Specific Plan is an integral component for the implementation of the Development Agreement . The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is divided into four Planning Areas (I through IV) and establishes the general provisions and procedures to implement development of the Holly-Seacliff area under General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1338D November 1991 I-3 ' r t� 1 E II. DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT r ■ II . DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT A. General Development Plan The development concept for the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan is designed in concert with the site ' s cultural and natural features to provide for a variety of compatible land uses : residential, commercial, mixed development, industrial, open space, parks and recreation areas . The Holly-Seacliff area will be a large master-planned community located within the central area of the City of Huntington Beach. Residential areas are planned at a range of densities to provide a variety of housing types , ranging from large detached single-family 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 for convenient access and exposure. Neighborhood and convenience commercial centers will be located along Garfield Avenue to serve the residents ' shopping and service needs . The Specific Plan also identifies public facilities including three neighborhood parks . The project is divided into four individual Planning Areas (I through IV) , as shown on Exhibit 3 , General Development Plan. A summary of land uses within each Planning Area can be found on Table 1, Land Use Table. The purpose of identifying individual Planning Areas is to allow development of individual distinct identities, focusing on the particular character of land uses within each of the specific areas . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-1 TABLE 1 HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE TABLE AVERAGE DEV. PLANNING PLANNING LAND USE GROSS TOTAL MAJ13AUM DENSITY 'STANDS. AREA UNIT CATEGORY ACRES UNITS DENSITY (GROSS) (PAGE) i I I-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 6 15 4 2.5 III-7 II I-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 26 90 4 3.5 III-7 I-3 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 1 16 55 4 3.4 I1I-7 II i I-4 OPEN SPACE 16 III-29 i SUBTOTAL 64 160 II II-1 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 3 62' 310 7 5.0 III-13 Ij II-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 40 415 15 10.3 111-16 I i II-3 RESIDENTLAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 34' 390 15 11.5 III-16 l I II-4 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 9 170 25 18.8 111-19 i II-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 15 25 18.8 III-19 I! i 11-6 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 4 75 25 18.8 111-19 II-7 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY 6 100 I 25 16.6 III-19 II-8 INDUSTRIAL 32 III-28 SUBTOTAL 191 1,535 III III-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 19 I 260 15 13.7 III-16 I III-2 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2 I 109 I 550 7 5.0 III-10 III-3 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY f 11 140 15 12.7 III-16 III-4 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM HIGH DENSITY 10 220 25 22.0 III-19 I 111-5 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 18 240 15 13.3 III-16 I11-6 COMMERCIAL 7 I 111-27 III-7 RESIDENTIAL-LOW DENSITY 2 I 12' 40 7 3.3 III-10 I11-8 OPEN SPACE 16 I11-29 SUBTOTAL 202 1,450 IV IV-1 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 16 155 15 9.7 III-16 IV-2 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 8 70 15 8.8 111-16 IV-3 RESIDENTIAL-MEDIUM DENSITY 9 85 15 9.4 III-16 IV-4 MIXED DEVELOPMENT 53 475 25 14.4 III-22 it IV-5 INDUSTRIAL 22 I1I-28 IV-6 COMMERCIAL 4 111-27 SUBTOTAL 112 785 TOTAL 569 31930 II I ' Includes 4-acre Neighborhood Park. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 450/02.000 December 1991 I1-2 LEGEND �J I11 � •'i l,i 1I 1 I ,Rc I[srR+eneelD�Nu.�l1L..1�"N�1�Yit'N!'C/vl�l/�C I •� uI� I PIa�LOW OEI/91TYPESIOENIIAI/L /41 A..nu���� I RL)y IOW UEN511Y PE 51DENIlA1� I _ � !1 • ou.t I � •f—••— Y I Ry I Yf 01UY DENSIry of SIOf NIIAt RYN I YEOPW IYUN Of NS1IY WEED DEVELUPYENI I /\ u l r/ 1 l l R112 M I i ' I•I i I C :1 COA RCIAI ,� ELLIS-OOLDENWES7 1 I I %• II A SPECIFIC PLAN JI c AREA I '•/ II I +II+j I..I,..I INUUSNVAL r1.. L� /• II J I I•I RM ''� I OS I OPEN SPACE �• ('(\ RMH 1 116 •' I. I IPI AIININf.•IIFA " yy \ \ OS -a a! i • �,' PI AN/PNG U1111 / ID• I�_ �� I I �� �� I RMH I'I I •iE I NEIGIIe Ofl11DD0 PARA. os ILL —_ . � - ..r..r.�A �.�.ter-AZt'i.T.ieKAaAASE�J.ere •) i I I I I i oilI c.rlua A..n.. RM w] w� we I . � RM RMH i C I Ills I RII v OS�f• I / RM I IIV (Ida ��..�• t2 fl� (IIRM r ei-A.�nW I ( % CIUI A..nw IIV 4 / Mu COA51 AI 111N1 •� + , EXHIBILt (CITY OF /HUNTI\NGTON BEACH /\ III \ a _ GENERAL DEVE QPMENT PLAN II II(( ))I� IlI 1\ll il! II��\1��:�I� )��li III I ��`l�iill� �iIIII I�r'`1�1 �I �iMlllllllll I I arcn�� ' � 1 i 1 - r 1 , i L 1 L- i 90 -- 1-4 ---- '� 16 AC 16 C 1. AYemue COASTAL ZCNE/ I� 3CU14OAFiY NOTE: See Exhibit 10 W Landscape Legend. EXHiBiT��- PLANNING AREA I CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN r • C Q:l.S Avenue - II-2 _ A • RM_ E . -310 OU 40 AC •c= 'INCLUDES 4 AC PARK ` �\ of 5 DU •� i' := 11-6 f j RMH 4AC 75 DU 11 3 = 17 3eo DU I 11-5 -INCLUDES 4 AC 9 rr ?ARK RMH 4 AC 75 OU � II.4 (� 32 AC RMH II-7 RMH 170 DU 6 AC t I' r - 100 OU Rig tip �lI GCrfietc Avenue uL-', a, NOTE: See Exhfbk 10 fw Landscape Legend. EXHIBIT/te�5 PLANNING AREA II CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN •r , COASTALZONE BOUNDARY j III B V.- •� �, •., ' CISI ' Garfield Avenue ' 16 AC jDGa► RM AAC RM RMH RM 1113 111-4 1 IIhS f IIh6 C ` " ^ 250DU 17AC 10AC 18AC 7AC 140 DU 220 DU 240 DU h r� 0S 1zdp ��, SCHOOL S TE �2AC' L—� ' / / •`..` \.. ✓j \�\\ -INCLUDES f' �\4 AC?ARK t�l . ,5 \ !. � f /f♦ f •/ NOTE: See Exhibit 10 for Landscape Layend. EXHIBIT,B'& PLANNING AREA III CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT PLAN _ y� 4. �--• - Gorneio Avenue IV-5 V 1 _J4aC � -=En Ac � ac - Du I ' IV-3 f IV-2 �---- �—RM RM 9AC t 8AC J 85 DU 70 OU J 1 Clay Avenue F ■V IV-4 z MD E `^ � 53 AC f ; r 475 OU c(t� VOfK town Avenue NOTE: See mien 10 for Landscape Lpsnd. EXHIBIT,d PLANNING AREA IV CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH _ _ DEVELOPMENT PLAN B. Land Use Categories The following sections describe the development concepts for each land use within the four Planning Areas . 1. Residential Land Uses The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan provides for a range of residential densities and a variety of housing types , consistent with residential densities permitted throughout the City of Huntington Beach. a . Low Density The Low Density categories are characterized by densities ranging from 4 to 7 dwelling units per acre. Lots located in Planning Area I (RL-1) will be oriented to maximize their relationship to the linear park and provide unobstructed coastal views from blufftop areas . Permitted uses include lot sale subdivisions and detached single-family home subdivisions . Low-density uses (RL-2) in Planning Area III are planned for areas abutting the private Seacliff Golf Course. Low-density (RL-3) uses in Planning Area II are planned as small lot detached single-family homes oriented in a traditional neighborhood setting . b. Medium Density The Medium Density (RM) category is planned to include densities ranging from 7 to 15 dwelling units per gross acre. Product types include single-family detached, single-family attached, and multi- family residential homes . Medium Density areas are planned within Planning Areas II , III and IV. The single-family attached products will be two-story townhomes or flats . The multi-family units will be two and three-story condominiums/stacked flats and apartments . C. Medium-High Density The Medium-High Density (RMH) category is characterized by densities ranging from 15-25 dwelling units per gross acre. Product types include multi-family uses such as condominium/stacked flats and apartments . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-3 Single-family attached units will be permitted, however this category will be primarily multi-family uses . Medium- High density areas are planned within Planning Areas II and III , along Garfield Avenue. 2. Mixed Development The Mixed Development category allows for the creative combination of commercial and residential uses in a compatible manner. Residential products are expected to include townhomes , condominiums , stacked flats and apartments . The location for this use is in Planning Area IV, directly across from the Civic Center. The proposed uses will be clustered around the existing Seacliff Village retail center providing a focal point for the entire project area. 3 . Commercial Land Uses Commercial land uses within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Area are planned along Garfield Avenue within Planning Areas III and IV. The uses for these sites are expected to be those characteristic of a neighborhood commercial center, designed mainly to meet the local community shopping needs and reduce trips outside of the project area . 4 . Industrial The Industrial area, which currently is the center of oil production and oil-related services and storage uses , is intended to be developed as light industrial .The Industrial land uses within Holly-Seacliff are located at the intersection of Garfield Avenue and Goldenwest Street, within Planning Areas II and IV. 5. Open Space Open Space areas are designated within Planning Areas I and III . These areas are planned to be incorporated into the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park which will feature trails and passive recreation uses . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-4 C. Circulation Plan The Circulation Plan, Exhibit 8, depicts the general alignments and classifications of arterial highways within the Specific Plan area . The Circulation Plan is in accordance with provisions contained in the Holly- Seacliff Development Agreement 90-1. The Development Agreement provides a phasing plan for street improvements to correspond to the phased development in the Specific Plan area and to comply with and satisfy mitigation measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1. Additionally, as stated in the Development Agreement, development projects within the Specific Plan area will be conditioned to participate in construction or fair-share funding associated with required infrastructure improvements needed to serve the Holly-Seacliff area . The overall circulation concept relies on a hierarchy of circulation features ranging from major arterials to local residential streets . The system is designed to accommodate City-generated through-traffic while discouraging intrusion into individual neighborhood areas . Orange County Transit District bus stops shall be provided at locations as shown on Exhibit 12 . Additional bus stops may be required at the time of development . A transportation corridor has been designated within Planning Area II . See Development Standards for Residential Medium and Medium High Densities for details . All streets shown on the Circulation Plan are public streets unless otherwise indicated. All public streets shall be developed to local street standards (as a minimum) as shown on the Standard Plans of the Public Works Department . All new traffic signals installed as part of development within the Specific Plan area shall be equipped with "Opticom" control devices . Detailed street plans and operational criteria can be found in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan Technical Appendix. D. Open Space/Recreation System The Specific Plan designates 44 acres of open space and park uses (see Exhibit 9) . Thirty-two (32) acres within Planning Areas I and III are to be dedicated per Development Agreement 90-1 to the City for the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park, which is planned to form a continuous open space corridor along the bluffs between Talbert Avenue and the Pacific Coast Highway for trails and passive recreation use. Three neighborhood park areas with a minimum of four acres each are designated per Development Agreement 90-1 within the residential neighborhoods in Planning Areas II and III . These neighborhood facilities will provide local open space and recreational amenities . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-5 LEGEND MAJOR All It MAL HIGHWAY A Ln• ava.d W oWll.a A...xr(F..I oI Goa....•MI �•� OeaW..n.l SI.«I lsown N G«II•I.I IW A— MOOIF1lOMA"M1GHVIAr •Lz-a.4Wd GW IINd A.—(E.•I N SAW.". W.M N Goa.n..•11 ON_a SI...I(H.nn N G.N.M. I MMAXY HIGHWAY L.- a.a.d 1N1.Ar.xr(W.w.I G.N-dI S..«I J- RM I I{ rp.... ..A.«.w O SECONOAAY MGHWAY ELLIS-GOLPENWEST . L SPECIFIC PLAN A.-4W.M.I S..pa.xl I ��l AREA \ SECONDARY NIGIIWAY a l.n• a.a.d RM �•� fMl.A..nw IE»I N Oeln..dl RMH co.w.d sl.»I ' \ NOIE. OS f. R I S«bcnoNM Ap Wi.Ow HEM oI.q l^ 1 IL MII I I .puM.m...1...d.0 1p4.p pbu.An aul OS RM I I C di RM RMH I C 1 RM OS df�` I RM RM RM / 24 CarAve—o "1 / } MO C(IASI At 1(xIC St IIINI)AIIY Y o.L lo.n ..nu• EXHIBIT,Y 8 CITY OF HI,UNTINGTON BEACH I� III ' �( . CIRCULATION PLAN I' ;/�\ 11,Illf'll l 1;i �)1( ",#\ 11 Ji,)11 /A 11111 �lYlllllllll l I i�wnti� �' �• 41NIPAVA.. L E G E N D - N,I CIA :. w�•�•.,.•.,.. CIASS W,... I� L....I SS,.1611.A11 •YYY.Y ' , S• "((I"//������I1 {(�,,'I I II W.1-1rYY�� .__-__-._-_-.,..--."..._.._-..__..-._-._.... ....... ; '.� • .«N•H««• ••M••wNY«••«Y•••Y•••HY•«Y«HHY«•««•«•«««H••« «Y•««Y«YY«•««• �•M••« •.YM• �� l - 1 � ,.. ,v,• , y .lC it Al10N APIA U111A.PA.. w-1 I N 61 sclwc c....... F-, RM i iF I_—I loft LOuIOO. 1"�"• 1 I ! ELLIS OOLOFNWEST I ��•, \ I * oIcaiA160" 11MINI In I "RE I SPECIFIC PLAN .* ( j AREA I -J; `\ NA(1 \ RM RMH OS i" II ��.• • MH � >..�.. .�• �"��� I I f RMH I I 1 RM I RM RMH i C i C • .,,/ RM 59 RM -- — -- / t I I� I ,jam RM 4 \ RM�, �'�+, 1 � //�-'-.�,.�11� I,I ��6y �w w�• �I � cwr A«nw ���� F Cry' CIGJ -• 1, % 1 �J�4.!n, �1I�1Ii1',I��,`I� III •.�^ � ° I M° � I COASI AI PAN InIIMIY 1 �G Rf� d ,� •__— -• ...J �...-, 1,7 T t EXHIBIT ` OPEN SPACE9 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PARKS, AND TRAILS PLAN (I JC )I111► �"ll,c>>I� ;M, �(1_,(I11, Ifl' / I;l i1: ,'/m .>>ii�'�� ;(� �1��11��<<_,� 1:11 'ZA101 ��Ilulllll I I 1tr�n Neighborhoods within the Specific Plan area will be linked to major open space/recreation facilities such as Huntington Central Park and the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park by bike lanes on all arterials . Private recreational facilities will typically be provided within the multi-family residential projects for the use of the residents within these developments, adding to the public recreational opportunities available within the Holly- Seacliff project. E. Grading Guidelines Grading will be required to construct streets, infrastructure and other site improvements and to create properly drained development areas . I Another grading objective will be to balance cut and fill within the project area . It is intended that borrow sites , stockpiling and normal grading operations and procedures will occur within each of the individual planning areas . The major grading constraint for the area is the elevation of existing public infrastructure facilities as they relate to the existing grades in the area . All reasonable efforts will be taken in the design of improvements and building pads to minimize the amount of grading required to accomplish workable and safe elevations through good engineering practices . All grading within the Specific Plan area will require a grading permit and will be governed by soils , foundation and other geotechnical reports prepared by registered professional civil and geotechnical engineers , building codes , established engineering practices and City ordinances . The maximum slope ratio, horizontal to vertical, will be 2 : 1 unless otherwise recommended by a geotechnical engineering report and approved by the City. Grading will occur in Planning Area I to lower grades near the intersection of Edwards Street and Garfield Avenue to meet safe highway design criteria, to increase useable areas within the linear park and to create and enhance coastal view opportunities . In Planning Area II , grading will be necessary for the construction of arterial and local street improvements and the installation of master-planned drainage and sewer improvements within unimproved ravines . The ravine areas will be incorporated into a neighborhood linear park feature with slopes no greater than 2 : 1, in accordance with the schematic cross section on Exhibit 17 . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-6 Within Planning Area III, grading will be required to create and stabilize development areas and to direct runoff to master-planned facilities . Within Planning Area IV, grading will occur primarily in the Mixed Development area, concurrent with the widening of Goldenwest Street and removal of the existing abandoned reservoir. The following guidelines are provided to enhance the visual form and character of manufactured slopes within the community: 1) Grading shall be consistent with City policies and incorporate safe grading techniques to provide for proper engineering practices and ensure adequate site drainage. 2) Blended and variable slopes shall be employed to restore a natural appearance within the framework of grading that is geologically safe. 3) There shall be a smooth transition where graded slopes meet existing grades . A transition at both the top and toe of slopes should also be provided. 4) Graded slopes shall be revegetated or landscaped per City approval . F. Public Facilities 1. Infrastructure Plan The Infrastructure Schematic Plan, Exhibits 10 and 11, identifies existing and proposed storm drain, sewer and water facility improvements to serve development within and surrounding the Specific Plan area . A specific analysis of infrastructure requirements and detailed design, construction and phasing plans can be found in the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Technical Appendix. The Technical Appendix also includes detailed arterial street sections, right-of-way requirements, traffic control systems and phasing plan. Developers within the Specific Plan area will be responsible for the construction of public facilities improvements on a fair-share basis , as described in Section IV, Administration. a . Storm Drains Existing storm drainage facilities are maintained by the City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department . The majority of the Holly Seacliff project area will drain via improved swales or proposed underground conduits into four primary runoff outlets . The first of these primary outlets consists of drainage collected from the northwest portion of the project draining Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-7 LEGEND o f i " / I � " WnWnn ua•.wcM. Y..a,tn Shun ... .. �....._.—.._—.....—...._. / \ .. llypNd.Ir YM...Vuc1,w. 1 / RM ••F[il GOI;OENWES7 ECIfC PLAN AREA ( / RM os RM. \( ..... RMHos . l ` ............._...._.._._.._....._.._... _... .I - I /✓ RM I RM RMH C I I I RM ... rRM RM I , / RM I C MD 1 f 3 �I I COASIAI M / \ f� EXHIBITS/0 Drainage and Sewer Systems CITY OF HUNTIN TON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN 1'n nbJ IMw Irx!ilalxxr Y- _._____ �1'r�ymauJ bmm�al Ilrcbrrox LEGEND P RE E +i rMlxln x eil, I 11 ail 1 S••1•chMcM Apprgl•Ip Nh••hhclW - i F•1•F• RM RL-2 j ELLIS-GOLDENWEST II �"' ! •\\ F 1I SPECIFIC PLAN AREA �1-------•------- RM RMH I ,/ . �``;{• � � L i Q /RMH I OS -------------- ------------° _ �, 1 RM � i I III --�C C RM RMH it I lil i / wsi.l n i 1 I I os i I — �` RM RM / RM RM I I ��_� 1 I � �1•wny SlNw•r .. ... �i� I = I MD 2/ C11A51 AI I(W f l —-— 6f111NIlAl1Y EXHIBIT Water Systems CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INFRASTRUCTURE SCHEMATIC PLAN ,IIII 1h /,^kll; -,.M, III; k"Il l/\Ir1l �,MIIIIIIIII I I ����,1, north. This runoff is either collected in a proposed storm drain system from Edwards Street northeasterly to the Ellis Avenue crossing, or drains in an improved swale north to the Ellis Avenue crossing . The second primary runoff area consists of flows collected from the northeast and central portion of the project . The existing swales in Planning Area II will be upgraded and improved to accommodate both sewer and underground storm drain facilities . Storm drain systems will be added in Goldenwest Street from Garfield Avenue to midway between Ellis and Garfield Avenues , and in the realigned Gothard Street from Ernest Avenue to midway between Ellis and Ernest Avenues . The third primary runoff area consists of flows collected in the most westerly and southwesterly portion of the area . All runoff from these areas drains to the south and through a detention basin at the downstream end of the Seacliff golf course. This basin has been designed to accommodate the future flows from development . The fourth drainage area consists of flows leaving the project area through the southeast portion of the site . Flows from this area will be transported off the site via an extended storm drain system in Garfield or through the developed areas of the Pacific Ranch project . Developers shall be responsible for the construction or funding of drainage facilities within their project and/or off-site facilities necessary to serve the development . If a developer is required to construct or to oversize these facilities beyond their fair-share to serve other projects, the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. Storm drain system improvement requirements and design criteria may be found in the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Technical Appendix. b. Sewer Facilities Existing sewer facilities for the project area are maintained by the City of Huntington Beach, Public Works Department and the Sanitation District of Orange County, District Nos . 3 and 11. The City' s Master Plan of Sewers indicates that four major trunk lines and one City pump station will be required to ultimately collect and convey sewerage from the project area . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-8 Generally, sewer lines 8-inches in diameter and smaller, required for interior streets and individual developments , will be the responsibility of developers on a project-by-project basis . Developers shall be responsible for the construction or funding of sewer facilities within their project and/or off-site facilities necessary to serve the development . If a developer is required to construct or to oversize these facilities beyond their fair-share to serve other projects, the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. Sewer system improvement requirements and design criteria may be found in the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Technical Appendix. C. Water Facilities The majority of the project area lies within the Reservoir Hill Assessment District, which operates as part of the City of Huntington Beach Water System. Although development throughout this district is currently minimal, main lines and transmission lines to service this entire area have been installed as part of this District . Because the existing booster station near Clay Avenue and Goldenwest Street is operating at capacity, plans have been made for the construction of a new booster pump station near Huntington Street and Garfield Avenue. To properly service the project site, some additional 12-inch water lines are required within the arterial highways . Other smaller water lines will also be necessary in local interior streets within the project to provide water service to internal lots . To mitigate project impacts on the City' s water system, a 9-million gallon reservoir, water well, booster pump and a major water transmission main will be constructed outside the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Area to provide adequate water service and storage capacity for the area . Developers shall be responsible for the construction or funding of water facilities within their project and/or off-site facilities necessary to serve the development . If a developer is required to construct or to oversize these facilities beyond their fair-share to serve other projects , the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-9 Water system improvement requirements and design criteria may be found in the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Technical Appendix. d. Fire and Emergency Medical/Police As mitigation of project-related impacts, a Public Safety Facility (Talbert Station) will be constructed, furnished and equipped with fire and medical apparatus . The facility will be constructed on land provided by the City outside of the Specific Plan Area . A police substation will also be constructed, furnished and equipped as part of the Public Safety Facility. The Specific Plan requires participation by developers in a fair-share funding program for these facilities . e. Reclaimed Water The City of Huntington Beach Water Master Plan proposes the use of reclaimed water for irrigation purposes . The City of Huntington Beach Public Works Department, Water Division, is currently coordinating with the Orange County Water District (OCWD) for a supply of reclaimed water to serve portions of the City. It is anticipated that the City will be served via inclusion in OCT,4D' s proposed Green Acres Reclamation Facilities Project (GAP) . The possible use of reclaimed water for some irrigated areas should decrease the future use of potable water throughout the developed Holly- Seacliff area . Should the City implement and connect to the Green Acres system of reclaimed water, such a system can be used to irrigate major open space features only, such as landscaped medians , parkways and parks, using County-provided water . Developers shall be responsible for the construction or funding of reclaimed water facilities necessary to serve the development . If a developer is required to construct or to oversize these facilities beyond their fair-share to serve other projects, the developer shall enter into a reimbursement agreement with the City. Reclaimed water system improvement requirements and design criteria may be found in the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Technical Appendix. i Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-10 f . Parks The proposed linear park areas in Planning Areas I and III will be dedicated; and neighborhood parks in Planning Areas II and III will be improved as provided for in the Holly-Seacliff Development Agreement . Properties not included in the Development Agreement will be subject to the City Park Acquisition and Development Fee Ordinance. g. Library Facilities Public library facilities are provided by the City of Huntington Beach approximately one-half mile north of the Specific Plan Area . All new development is assessed for library services through the payment of a cultural enrichment fee at the issuance of building permits . 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) . Schools shall be permitted in any Planning Area within the Specific Plan in order to accommodate elementary 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 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. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-11 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 tentative tract maps . 2 . Utilities There are several public utility service providers identified by the Holly- Seacliff Specific Plan. Although adequate facilities exist for the current service needs of the Holly-Seacliff area , additional facilities may be required as development occurs . a . Electricity Electrical service to the area is provided by the Southern California Edison Company. Existing transmission and distribution lines are adequate to service current and potential future needs . Developers may be required to relocate or underground existing facilities concurrent with project development . b. Natural Gas Natural gas service in the Specific Plan Area is provided by the Southern California Gas Company. Adequate facilities exist for current and projected future needs . Developers may be required to relocate existing facilities concurrent with project development . C . Telephone Telephone service in the Specific Plan Area is provided by General Telephone (GTE) . Developers should coordinate with GTE for the relocation of existing facilities and installation of new service . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-12 d. Cable Television Cable television service within Huntington Beach is provided by Paragon Cable. Developers should coordinate with Paragon Cable for the installation of new service. I e . Solid Waste Disposal Rainbow Disposal Company currently provides solid waste disposal services for the Holly-Seacliff area . Based on service projections and anticipated demand increase, an adequate level of service will be maintained. No solid waste disposal facilities are planned to be located in Specific Plan Area . G. Community Theme Guidelines The Community Theme Guidelines are intended to provide for the development of neighborhoods , open spaces , buildings and streetscapes having a distinctive visual identity to promote individual neighborhood identities and to promote interrelationships between complementary land uses and community open space features . The major elements of the Community Theme Plan include landscaping, walls , signage and monumentation, street furniture and open space/pedestrian linkage features as described below. Exhibit 12 illustrates the general location of required community landscaping and monumentation. All development proposals within the community theme guidelines and incorporation of appropriate community theme elements . Concurrent with the filing of the first tentative tract map in the Specific Plan area, Community Design Guidelines shall be submitted which will address pedestrian linkages between planning areas , design and function of the swales , type of street furniture and greater definition of neighborhoods . 1 . Landscaping Landscaping shall be provided as outlined below, subject to the following general criteria : Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-13 L EG EN D co com to-y OP w—4b tam er at.t"Qw coumum:vGAT wars Woh.. sh-1 C— I won..N hIAjORANTENSIEC110"S zwr-, U2 RM w.4 ow, 0..Yo Mighle M ...trot Lt ...dwa ELLIS GOLDENWEST G�d&%..I hY SPECIFIC PLAN pw,"..o AREA 018111$CAP12,61atcl 113 "Nil1 v Milk RM RMH . I .p..Wd (MM 4 w.Q 13 fw R. FED] os RM NJ] w4 111-6 MIJ c RM IV 5 V,6 I &I 1115 R m OS CO 3 IV 2 RMl ��� •l.b 14� (-/—P 71F— IV 4 MD COASIM M4\ EXHIBIT 19 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMUNITY THEME PLAN 1M, I;Ili 1: : 1 M, o Plant materials will consist of low-maintenance trees, shrubs and ground covers approved by the City of Huntington Beach. o In graded areas and public open space areas where structures or other improvements are not built, landscaping should consider the use of native or naturalized drought tolerant species which can provide wildlife habitat, with a gradual transition to more ornamental species along the development edge. o The landscaping of development within the plan should be designed to minimize visual impacts of adjacent parcels . Special consideration should be given to orientation of residences (particularly .windows and decks) to respect the privacy of adjacent residents to the extent feasible. o All landscaped medians located within arterial streets shall be maintained by the City of Huntington Beach, provided medians are designed and constructed per City standards and approval . All other landscaping improvements shall be maintained by a landscape maintenance district, community association, homeowners association or other method acceptable to the City. a. Arterial Highway Medians o Landscaped medians shall be provided along Goldenwest Street, Gothard Street, Main Street, Seapoint Street and Garfield Avenue where approved by the City. o Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) shall be planted in informal groupings in all medians throughout the specific plan area. o Flowering shrubs and ground cover will accent the palm groupings . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-14 o Main Street median planting will consist of the existing mix of Washingtonia robusta and Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) . b. Community Gateways o A minimum 25 foot landscape area (measured from curb face) shall be provided at community gateway locations identified on Exhibit 12 for appropriate landscaping and community monumentation. o Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) , Phoenix dactylifera (Date Palm) , Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) in clusters , Erythrina caffra (Coral Tree) , Chamaerops humilis (Mediterranean Fan Palm) or other City-approved tree, at varying heights . o Broadleaf evergreen understory planting . o Community identification monumentation accented with flowering ground cover. C . Major Intersections o A minimum 25 foot landscape area (measured from curb face) shall be provided at major intersections identified on Exhibit 12 for enhanced landscape treatment . o Phoenix canariensis (Canary Island Date Palm) , Phoenix dactylifera (Date Palm) , Washingtonia robusta (Mexican Fan Palm) in clusters, Erythrina caffra (Coral Tree) , Chamaerops humilis (Mediterranean Fan Palm) or other City-approved tree, at varying heights . o Broadleaf evergreen understory planting. d. Streetscape/Street Identity Trees o A minimum 15 foot landscape area shall be provided along all arterial highways within the specific plan area for appropriate parkway landscaping. Along Main Street, the 15 foot landscape area shall consist of 5 feet of public right-of-way and a 9 foot { private landscape easement . Typical landscaped street sections are found on Exhibits 13 , 14 and 15 . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-15 EXISTING PALM TREES ,9 MEDIAN 1 I 9' 12' 41' 7' 1' 1 41' 12' i 9' i Ro W. R.O.W. i3 EXHIBIT Jr MAIN STREET Looking North, between Huntington and Clay CITY OF HUN`f1NGTON BEACH 120' R.O.W. STREET SECTION HOLLY WEACCdOFF AREA SPEC UFOC PLAN I I I I I I 1 11 1 1 � 0 S 10 15 42' 7' 7' 42' 6' i 25' 55' 55' 15' R.O.W. R.O.W. EXHIBIT y1' --�--� GOLDEN STREET Looking North, betw6-orF-Ellie"-end Ernest CITY OF HUN 1INGTON BEACH 110' R.O.W. STREET SECTION HOLLY WEQC CUFF AREA S PECUFOC PLAN 111111 1 11 1 1 0 5 10 15 y I 15' 42' 42' 15' I RO.UJ. R.O.W. i i i �S EXHIBIT A3" GOTHA RD STREET Looking North, between Ellie and Ernest CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 84' R.O.W. STREET SECTION HOL LY SEAC LOFF AREA SPEC�ORC� P°�LAH II I I II I I I 111� 0 5 10 15 o The parkways for each street shall consist of informally- spaced groups of two tree varieties from the list below: Botanical Name Common Name Brachychiton acerifolius Flame Tree Casuarina cunninghamiana River She-Oak Cupaniopsis anacardiodes Carrotwood Eucalyptus ficifolia Red Flowering Gum Eucalyptus siderozylon rosea Red Iron Bark Gum Ficus rubiginosa Rusty Leaf Fig Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree Magnolia grandiflora Samuel Sommer "Samuel Sommer" Magnolia Melaleuca quinquenervia Cajeput Tree Pinus canariensis Canary Island Pine Pinus eldarica Mondel Pine Pinus sylvestris "Fastigiata" Erect Scotch Pine Pistacia atlantica Mt . Atlas Pistache Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine . Schinus molle California Pepper e. Neighborhood Entries o A minimum 20 foot � area landscape measured from curb face) shall be provided at each neighborhood entry. o The accent trees at each neighborhood entry are to be repeated throughout the neighborhood streetscape. o Neighborhood identification sign/wall . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-16 o Tree, shrub and ground cover species will be i consistent with neighborhood character and architectural theme, and will contrast with the adjacent arterial street tree. I 2 . Walls, Signage and Monumentation a . All single-family residential and industrial areas along an arterial highway shall be screened by a minimum six-foot high solid masonry wall . b. The design and materials of residential walls shall be consistent within each planning unit . C. Community walls will vary by neighborhood and reflect neighborhood theme and architecture, while utilizing the same materials in varied combinations of or a consistent community image. These materials may consist of stone, brick, decorative block or tubular steel in different combinations for each of the individual neighborhoods . d . The horizontal form of continuous solid walls shall be softened by the use of pilasters or landscape materials . e. Multiple-family residential areas may be screened by a combination of solid and open fencing materials . f . The location, design and materials for all walls facing an arterial highway within the Specific Plan area shall be subject to approval of the Director of Community Development . g . All proposed signs with the Specific Plan shall conform with the Sign Ordinance of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. h. A monument sign or other architectural feature shall be constructed within the landscaped setback area of all Community Gateway locations identified on Exhibit 12 . i . Neighborhood entry signs shall be located within the landscaped setback area for each neighborhood entry. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-17 j . Commercial, industrial and mixed-use project identification signs may be located within the landscaped setback area adjacent to an arterial highway. k. The location, design and materials for all proposed community gateway, neighborhood entry and project identification signs shall be subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development . 3 . Street Furniture a . Street lighting may be placed within arterial medians or within adjoining sidewalk and setback areas . b. Street lighting should be standardized throughout the Specific Plan area . Street lighting along arterials shall be of Marbelite Cobra Head type and 30 feet in height . Street lighting along local streets shall be of Marbelite Cobra Head type and 25 feet in height . Street lighting may have custom decorative features within Planning Areas if approved by the City. C . Bus stops and shelters shall be provided in the locations identified on Exhibit 12 . d . The design of any proposed bus shelters shall be reviewed by the Orange County Transit District and approved by the Director of Community Development . 4 . Open Space/Pedestrian Linkages The Specific Plan incorporates and is surrounded by numerous significant open space and recreational features, including Huntington Central Park, the Bolsa Chica Linear Regional Park and neighborhood parks . The following guidelines are intended to maximize the interrelationship of land uses within the Specific Plan area to both internal and external community amenities . a . Bicycle lanes shall be provided on all arterial highways within the Specific Plan area . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-18 b. Bicycle lanes shall be connected to recreational trails within public and private park and open space areas at locations deemed appropriate by the Director of Public Works . C. Sidewalks shall be provided adjacent to all arterial highways within the Specific Plan area. d. Sidewalks shall be connected to pedestrian trails located within public and private park and open space areas where feasible. e. Pedestrian access shall be provided to all neighborhood commercial areas from adjacent residential neighborhoods to discourage unnecessary automobile trips . f . Residential, commercial, industrial and mixed-use projects shall be designed to encourage pedestrian and bicycle access as well as automobile access . g . where feasible, pedestrian access should be provided between adjoining residential projects . h. Bus stops and shelters shall be provided as indicated on Exhibit 12 to facilitate public transportation within the Specific Plan area . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1339D November 1991 II-19 i I i i III. ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS III . ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS A. Purpose and Intent The purpose of this section is to provide the specific development and density standards and regulations that will be applied for each type of development permitted within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. Unless otherwise stated, the Specific Plan will be the zoning document for the Planning Areas identified in the Development Plan. This section contains the definitions, general provisions and development standards . The following Zoning and Development Standards apply to all properties within the Specific Plan area . All references to the "Huntington Beach Ordinance Code" mean the current Code, except for properties included in Development Agreement 90-1 which are subject to the Code in effect at the time of adoption of Development Agreement 90-1 . B. Definitions The following definitions shall apply to the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. Terms not defined herein shall have the same definitions as used in the City of Huntington Beach Ordinance Code in effect at the time of adoption of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. 1 . Building Height A vertical dimension measured from a datum established at top of slab to the highest point of any roof feature, including mechanical equipment screening . Roofs shall have a 5/12 pitch or greater . 2 . Planning Areas The four areas depicted on the Development Plan, bounded by major streets as shown, and labeled I , II , III and IV. 3 . Planning Unit A sub-area of a Planning Area numbered and identified on the Development Plan and Land Use Table. C. General Provisions All development activity within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Area will be subject to the following general conditions and requirements , as noted. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-1 1 . Permitted Uses a . Permitted Uses within the Specific Plan Area shall be defined in the Development Standards section for each district or subarea . b. All requests for residential density transfers shall comply with the procedures contained in Section IV-D, Density Transfer Procedure. C. In addition to Permitted Uses, Unclassified Uses shall be permitted in accordance with the regulations contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. d. Nonconforming Uses shall be permitted within the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the regulations contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. e. Oil and gas production shall be permitted within the Specific Plan Area in accordance with the regulations contained in the Development Standards section herein and the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The continued operation., redrilling and servicing of existing oil and gas wells shall be permitted throughout the Specific Plan Area, subject to applicable City regulations and compliance with the mitigation measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1, see Section VI . The drilling of new oil and gas wells and consolidation of existing operations shall be permitted only within Planning Units II-8 and IV-5, subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit and compliance with applicable City regulations and mitigation measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1. 2 . Overlay Areas Additional regulations to those stated in the Development Standards section herein are applicable in the following areas : a . Flood Plain Zone Overlay Development within the Flood Plain Zone Overlay, identified in Exhibit 16, shall comply with the regulations contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-2 b. Alquist-Priolo Zone Overlay All development projects within the Alquist-Priolo Zone Overlay identified in Exhibit 16 shall be required to submit a geotechnical investigation identifying any active traces of the Newport/Inglewood Fault and establishing any required building setback lines prior to issuance of a building permit. C. Coastal Zone Overlay All development projects located entirely or partially within the Coastal Zone boundary identified on Exhibit 16 shall require approval of a Coastal Development Permit in accordance with the regulations contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. d. Access Plan Overlay Exhibit 16 identifies parcels in Planning Areas II and IV where coordination of access on Garfield Avenue is necessary for safe and efficient traffic movement . All development applications within this overlay area shall require approval of an access plan by the Public Works Department . e. Windrow Trees and Swales Exhibit 16 shows areas in Planning Area II of existing "windrow" trees and swales . Wherever feasible, existing 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 . Where it is not feasible, as determined by the City of Huntington Beach, to preserve healthy, mature trees, trees may be replaced with 36" box trees at a 1: 1 ratio . Landscaping plans specifying the number and type of replacement trees shall be submitted for review and approval by the Huntington Beach Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit . The existing swales should be incorporated into a recreation/open space corridor including landscaping and a recreation trail per the typical cross section shown on Exhibit 17 . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-3 3 . Parking Parking shall be provided for all development projects in accordance with the regulations contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . 4 . Landscaping a . Landscaping shall be required as defined within the Development Standards in Section III for each district . I i b. All projects fronting on an arterial highway shall be responsible for installing landscaping consistent with the Community Theme Guidelines outlined in Section II-G . C . Residential and industrial/commercial uses shall be adequately separated. Since all such uses in the Specific Plan area are separated by streets , new development and redevelopment shall include a minimum of 15 foot landscape area with a 6 foot high solid masonry wall . Buildings shall be set back as required by the development standards . See Exhibit 18 . d . Developers shall consult with the Public Works Department regarding landscaping conservation measures and shall submit landscape and irrigation plans for approval . e . Wherever feasible, trees suitable for use by raptors should be preserved or replaced in accordance with Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 . 5 . Walls and Fences A plan showing the proposed location, size and materials of all proposed walls and fences shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a building permit . 6 . Signs and Outdoor Lighting A plan showing the proposed location, size and materials of all proposed signs and outdoor lighting shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of the building permit . All signs shall conform to the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-4 LEGEND g is 1j `i 6 +-,_ coAalAl sol+E SOUNOARY i1D00 A AM EOUNDARr AEOUSTPffi to 7000 --..--•—.Z� v ` 7 ,�I 1" AGCEEE RAM SWAtIAREA IV a i I•I I I ..— P�WPIDROW 7Rf E5 I ' (, < III �br i,.•oo: I ```� % C.WA.— I 1 COA51 Al IOML `�1 N /--Yodlo:n A.•nui"----' l/I I "O.OAMr' • /\J • 'L l / ,/'/•. Co .....•._.._.._...lool• EXHIBITZ 4 _ CITY OF /HUNTINGTON BEACH OVERLAY III (( 60' MINIMUM c MAX j 2:1 SLOPE 8' �► HIKING/ MIN 10' BIKING TRAIL 17 EXHIBIT RECREATION/OPEN SPACE CORRIDOR CITY OF HUMINGTON BEACH TYPICAL CROSS SECTION HOLLY SEQC LOFF AREA SPEC UFOC PLAN 111111 I I 1 1 K� 0 5 t0 20 IT, INDUSTRIAL/COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL VARIES 15' VARIES 15' VARIES DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STANDARDS EXHIBITC,6) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AND RESIDENTIAL- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TYPICAL SEPARATION FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT- HOLLY SEACLUFF AREA SPECOFUC PLAN IIIIII 111 1 1 IDi�V11 0 5 10 15 . 1 regulations contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to provide adequate illumination of on-site areas without intruding upon surrounding properties or sensitive uses . 7 . Public Facilities and Infrastructure All- development projects shall construct or fund required public facilities and infrastructure per a Holly-Seacliff Public Facilities Development Fee Ordinance in conformance with the Public Facilities Plan (Section II-F) and the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Technical Appendix. Developers shall consult with the Orange County Transit District regarding locations for bus stops , turnouts and shelters prior to the approval of a tentative tract map or issuance of a building permit . 8 . Utilities All development projects shall be required to install adequate utility services necessary to serve the development . All utilities shall be placed underground and identified in easements , excluding street lights and electrical transmission lines of 66 kV or greater . Utility systems shall be designed to conserve the use of electrical energy and natural resources . Developers shall coordinate with the gas , electricity, telephone and cable TV companies regarding energy conservation and proper planning, phasing and sizing of lines . 9 . Fire Protection and Emergency Vehicle Access All development projects shall comply with the regulations contained in Chapter 17 . 56 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (Fire Code) . A plan showing the location of fire hydrants and emergency vehicle access shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit . All projects involving the closure of public streets shall be reviewed by the Fire Department for adequate emergency apparatus access . 10 . Environmental Requirements Development within the Specific Plan Area shall implement the mitigation measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 (see Section VI) . General mitigation measures are identified within the Specific Plan. Other mitigation measures are triggered by specific permits or entitlement requests and must be Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-5 addressed at that time. In addition, each development project shall include an environmental mitigation monitoring program prior to approval . In compliance with the mitigation measures contained in Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1 , the following studies or plans may be required as a condition of project approval prior to the issuance of grading and/or building permits , final inspection, or certificate of occupancy as indicated: a . Geotechnical Investigation A geotechnical investigation addressing potential hazards due to seismic activity, erosion, tsunami , liquefaction and subsidence including recommendations for grading and the placement and design of structures , shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit . b. Soils Report A soils report containing recommendations regarding the placement of fill , design of slopes , slabs , footings and foundations shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit . In areas containing active, idle or abandoned oil and gas wells or storage tanks , a report indicating the location and status of all facilities and any contaminated soils and methane, together with recommended mitigation measures , shall be submitted to the Fire Department prior to the issuance of a building permit . Mitigation from Final Environmental Impact Report 89-1 has been attached (see Section VI) . The methane zone can include areas that do not contain oil wells . A study should be required for all areas within the methane zone . C . Hydrology Report A hydrology report identifying the design of all proposed drainage and flood control facilities required to accommodate projected runoff shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit . i Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-6 d . Cultural Resources Report _ For development projects in areas identified as archaeological or paleontological sites in Section 4 . 11 of Final Environmental Impact Report No . 89-1, the mitigation measures listed in the Final Environmental Impact Report shall apply. These mitigation measures are included in Section VI of this document . A report containing the results of any test excavations and data/materials recovered and conclusions shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to the issuance of a grading permit . e. Noise Report A noise report will be required for development projects abutting an arterial highway or within a helicopter flight corridor to identify recommended design features prior to issuance of a building permit . 11 . Maintenance Mechanisms For development projects which include privately-owned streets , parking, recreation, open space, landscaped areas , or community buildings or facilities , the developer shall submit a legal instrument or instruments setting forth a plan or manner of permanent care and maintenance of such areas and facilities . No such instrument shall be acceptable until approved by the City Attorney as to legal form and effect, and by the Director of Community Development as to suitability for the proposed use of said areas and facilities . If the common areas are to be conveyed to a homeowners ' association, the developer shall file a Declaration of Covenants to be submitted with the application for approval , that will govern the association. These covenants shall include : a . The homeowners ' association shall be established prior to the sale of the last dwelling unit . b. Membership shall be mandatory for each buyer and any successive buyer. C . The open space restrictions shall be permanent . d. Provisions to prohibit parking upon other than approved and developed parking spaces shall be written into the covenants , conditions and restrictions for each project . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-7 e. If the development is constructed in increments or phases which require one or more final maps , reciprocal covenants, conditions , or restrictions, reciprocal management and maintenance agreements shall be established which will cause a merging of increments as they are completed, and embody one homeowners ' association with common areas for the total development . 12 . AFFORDABLE HOUSING All developers of residential projects shall be required to submit an affordable housing plan for households earning less than 120% of the Orange County Median Income (as defined by H.U.D. ) and in accordance with the City' s adopted Housing Element . An affordable housing plan shall provide for on-site and/or off-site affordable housing within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. The contents of the plan shall include the following : a . Fifteen (15) percent of the total number of units proposed shall be for households earning less than 120% of the Orange County Median Income. b. A description of the type and size of unit being built . C. The estimated applicable sales price or rental level of the units . d. A detailed description and pro forma of financial assistance needed for units targeted to households below 80% of median income. On-Site Affordable Housing It is the intent of the Specific Plan to provide on-site affordable housing within Holly-Seacliff . a . Households earning less than 80% of the Orange County Median Income shall identify, if any, which of the following are being requested: 1 . Direct financial assistance; 2 . Reduction in fees in exactions ; 3 . Deviations from the development standards of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. b. Households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County Median Income shall only be developed as for sale units . These units shall not be eligible to receive a benefit from the City. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-8 a . Off-Site Affordable Housing Developers of residential projects may choose to provide some of the affordable units at an off-site location. Applications for off-site development shall be submitted concurrently with application materials for the primary project. a . All off-site units shall be constructed prior to or concurrent with the primary project and final approval of the project shall be contingent on completion and final approval of the affordable units . b. Off-site affordable units should not result in an over-concentration of low and moderate housing in any one specific neighborhood. C. Households earning less than 80% of the Orange County Median Income shall identify, if any, which of the following are being requested: 1 . Direct financial assistance; 2 . Reduction in fees in exactions; 3 . Deviations from the development standards of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. d. Households earning between 80-120% of the Orange County Median Income shall only be developed as for sale units . These units shall not be eligible to receive a benefit from the City. 13 . Parks The final design of neighborhood parks, as well as any requests for private recreation facilities parks credit, shall be reviewed by the Community Services Commission. 14 . Lot Consolidation The City should consider adoption of a redevelopment plan or other strategy to assemble encyclopedia lots and other non-buildable parcels in Planning Areas II and IV. 15 . Air Ouality 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 an traffic signal synchronization, where feasible. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-9 16 . Non-Residential Building Materials Non-residential building materials should be compatible with nearby residential structures and should minimize - glare. 17 . Department of Fish and Game Notification Upon to City approval of any grading or development plans within streambed areas under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game, the Developer shall be required to notify and obtain appropriate permits from the Department of Fish and Game. D. Development Standards 1. Low Density Residential (RL-1) a . Purpose The Low Density Residential District is intended to provide for single-family detached dwellings at the lowest density. b. Permitted Uses 1) Lot sale subdivisions, subject to approval of a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map . 2) Single-family home subdivisions, subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map. 3)' Single-family detached dwelling units and associated accessory buildings, subject to issuance of a building permit . C. Minimum Parcel Size/Frontage A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall submit calculations showing lot width, depth and area for any new parcel . 1) The minimum lot size shall be seven thousand (7, 000) square feet. 2) The minimum lot frontage shall be sixty (60) feet . The minimum required lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be forty-five (45) feet; however, if one additional off-street parking space is included, the minimum shall be thirty (30) feet . I Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-10 d . Maximum Density/Intensity The maximum density shall not exceed one (1) dwelling unit per lot . Exception: A second unit may be added to an existing single-family residence upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with standards contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. e . Maximum Building Height The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet and a maximum of two (2) stories . f . Maximum Site Coverage Maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent . The maximum site coverage shall be fifty-five (55) percent for all lots abutting a park, recreation area or public utility right-of-way which is a minimum of 100-feet in clear width . g . Setback (Front Yard) The minimum setback from the front property lines for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows : Dwellings : Fifteen ( 15) feet . Front entry garages or carports : Twenty (20) feet . Side entry garages : Ten ( 10) feet . h . Setback (Side Yard) The minimum setback from the side property lines shall be as follows : 1) Interior Side Yard Dwellings , garages and accessory buildings : Minimum of five ( 5) feet . Eaves : Eighteen (18) inches . 2) Exterior Side Yard Dwellings and accessory buildings : Minimum of ten ( 10) feet . Side entry garages or carports : Ten ( 10) feet . Eaves : Eighteen (18) inches . i . Setback (Rear Yard) The minimum setback from the rear property lines shall be as follows : Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-11 Dwellings : Twenty (20) feet . Garages or accessory buildings : Minimum of five (5) feet . j . Buildina Separation The minimum building separation shall be ten ( 10) feet . k. Open Space Open space shall be provided on the lot by the required minimum setback areas . 1 . Parking Parking shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . M. Miscellaneous Requirements Accessory buildings may be permitted on a lot with a permitted main building . The minimum distance between an accessory building and any other building on the same lot shall be ten ( 10 ) feet . Setback requirements are as previously specified . n. Parkway Landscaoina One ( 1) 36-inch box tree per lot . If a parkway is not provided, the required street tree shall be planted within the front setback prior to final inspection. 2 . Low Density Residential 2 (RL-2) a . Purpose The Low Density Residential 2 district is intended to provide for single-family detached dwelling units at low densities in Planning Area III . b. Permitted Uses 1) Single-family detached dwelling units ( including zero lot line and patio homes) and their associated accessory buildings , subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map . 2) Golf Course maintenance facility, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-12 C . Minimum Parcel Size/Frontage A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall submit calculations showing lot width, depth and area for any new parcel . 1) The minimum lot size shall be five thousand (5 , 000) square feet on one-half of the total number of lots and a minimum six thousand ( 6 , 000) square foot lots for the balance. 2) The minimum lot frontage shall be fifty (50) feet . The minimum required lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be forty-five (45) feet ; however if one additional off-street parking space is included, the minimum shall be thirty (30) feet . d . Maximum Density/Intensity The maximum density shall not exceed one ( 1) dwelling unit per lot . Second units are not permitted . e . Maximum Building Height The maximum building height shall be Thirty-five (35) feet and a maximum of two (2) stories . f . Maximum Site Coverage Maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent . The maximum site coverage shall be fifty-five ( 55) percent for all lots abutting a park, recreation area, or public utility right-of-way which is a minimum of 100-feet in clear width . g . Setback (Front Yard) The minimum setback from the front property lines for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows : Dwellings : Fifteen ( 15) feet . Front entry garages or carports : Twenty (20) feet . Side entry garages : Ten ( 10) feet . h. Setback (Side Yard) The minimum setback from the side property lines shall be as follows : Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-13 1) Interior Side Yard Dwellings , garages and accessory buildings : Minimum of five (5) feet . Eaves : Eighteen ( 18) inches . 2) Exterior Side Yard Dwellings and accessory buildings : Minimum of ten ( 10) feet . Side entry garages or carports : Ten ( 10) feet . Eaves : Eighteen ( 18) inches . 3) Exception for Zero Lot Line A zero side yard setback or a zero rear yard setback shall be permitted as long as the following requirements are met : o The lot adjacent to the zero setback side or rear yard shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application and the setback for the adjacent lot shall be either zero or a minimum of ten ( 10) feet . o No portion of the dwelling or any architectural features shall project over the property line, except rooftop eaves no greater than 24-inches . o The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. o Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Building Division . i . Setback (Rear Yard) The minimum setback from the rear property lines shall be as follows : Dwellings : Twenty (20) feet . Garages or accessory buildings : Five (5) feet . j . Building Separation The minimum building separation shall be ten ( 10) feet . k. Open Space Open space shall be provided on the lot by the required minimum setback areas . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-14 1 . Parking Parking shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . M. Miscellaneous Requirements Accessory buildings may be permitted on a lot with a permitted main building . The minimum distance between an accessory building and any other building on the same lot shall be six ( 6) feet . Setback requirements are as previously specified . Prior to the approval of a tentative tract map adjacent to the Seacliff Golf Course, preliminary landscape plans and development/open space edge treatments plans should be submitted for City approval . These plans should provide for the review of planting compatibility along the relevant edge of the development . n. Parkway Landscaping One ( 1) 36-inch box tree per lot . If a parkway is not provided, the required street tree shall be planted within the front setback prior to final inspection . 3 . Low Density Residential 3 (RL-3) a . Purpose The Low Density Residential 3 District is intended to provide for single-family detached or attached dwelling units at low densities in Planning Area II . b. Permitted Uses Single-family detached or attached dwelling units ( including zero lot line and patio homes) and their associated accessory buildings , subject to approval of a conditional use permit and tentative tract map. C . Minimum Parcel Size/Frontage A licensed land surveyor or civil engineer shall submit calculations showing lot width, depth and area for any new parcel . 1) The minimum lot size shall be three thousand-three hundred (3 , 300) square feet . 2) The minimum lot frontage shall be thirty (30) feet ; however, the minimum required lot frontage for cul-de-sac and knuckle lots shall be twenty (20) feet . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-15 d. Maximum Density/Intensity The maximum density shall not exceed one ( 1) dwelling unit per lot . Second unit are not permitted. e . Maximum Building Height The maximum building height shall be thirty-five (35) feet and a maximum of two (2) stories . f . Maximum Site Coverage Maximum site coverage shall be sixty ( 60) percent . g . Setback (Front Yard) The minimum setback from the front property lines for all structures exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows : Dwellings : Fifteen ( 15) feet . Front entry garages or carports : Eighteen ( 18) feet . Side entry garages : Ten ( 10) feet . Eaves , fireplaces and balconies : Six ( 6) feet . h. Setback (Side Yard) The minimum setback from the side property lines shall be as follows : 1) Interior Side Yard Dwellings , garages and accessory buildings : Minimum of three (3) feet . Eaves : Eighteen (18) inches . 2) Exterior Side Yard Dwellings and accessory buildings : Minimum of six ( 6) feet . Side entry garage or carports : Sig ( 6) feet . Eaves : Eighteen (18) inches . 3) Exception for Zero Lot Line A zero side yard setback or a zero rear yard setback shall be permitted as long as the following requirements are met : o The lot adjacent to the zero setback side or rear yard shall be held under the same ownership at the time of application and the setback for the adjacent lot shall be either zero or a minimum of six ( 6) feet . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-16 o No portion of the dwelling or any architectural features shall project over the property line, except rooftop eaves no greater than 24-inches o The zero setback shall not be adjacent to a public or private right-of-way. o Exposure protection between structures shall be provided as specified by the Fire Department and the Community Development Department . i . Setback (Rear Yard) The minimum setback from the rear property lines shall be as follows : Dwellings : Fifteen ( 15) feet . Garages or accessory buildings : Five (5) feet . j . Building Separation The minimum building separation shall be six ( 6) feet . k. Open Space Open space shall be provided on the lot by the required minimum setback areas . 1 . Parking Parking shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . M. Miscellaneous Requirements Accessory buildings may be permitted on a lot with a permitted main building . The minimum distance between an accessory building and any other building on the same lot shall be six ( 6) feet . Setback requirements are as previously specified . All streets within Planning Unit II-1 shall be privately maintained but permit public access . The site plan shall be designed as an inward-oriented planned community. n. Parkway Landscaping One ( 1) 36-inch box tree per forty-five (45) feet of street frontage or fraction thereof . If a parkway is not provided, the required street tree shall be planted within the front setback of each lot prior to final inspection. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-17 4 . Medium Density Residential (RM) a . Purpose The Medium Density Residential district is intended to provide for single family attached, condominiums , townhomes and multi-family residential developments at medium densities . b . Permitted Uses Single-family attached condominiums , townhouses , stacked flats and multi-family dwelling units (including apartments) , and customary accessory uses and structures permanently located on a parcel , subject to approval of a conditional use permit and a tentative parcel map or tentative tract map . C . Maximum Density/Intensity The maximum density shall not exceed fifteen ( 15) units/gross acre . I d . Maximum Building Height Maximum building height shall be : Dwellings : Forty (40) feet and a maximum of three (3) stories . Accessory Buildings : Thirty-five (35) feet . Vertical identification elements for non-habitable common area structures may be twenty-five (25) feet higher than the maximum building height . e . Maximum Site Coverage Maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent . The maximum site coverage shall be fifty-five (55) percent for all lots abutting a park, recreation area or public utility right-of-way which is a minimum of 100-feet in clear width. f . Setback (Front Yard) The minimum setback from the front property lines for all structures , except stairways , exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows : Dwellings : fifteen (15) feet . Front entry garages or carports : Twenty (20) foot minimum, or five ( 5) foot minimum without driveway parking . Side entry garages : Ten ( 10) feet . Eaves , fireplaces , open space easements and balconies : Five ( 5) feet . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-18 g . Setback (Side Yard) The minimum setback from the side property lines shall be as follows : 1) Interior Side Yard Dwellings , garages and accessory buildings : Fifteen ( 15) foot minimum building structure separation for one (1) and two (2) story buildings . Twenty (20) foot minimum building structure separation for three (3) story buildings . Eaves : Eighteen ( 18) inches . 2) Exterior Side Yard Dwellings , garages and accessory buildings : Minimum of ten ( 10) feet . Side entry garages or carports : Ten (10) feet . Eaves : Eighteen. ( 18) inches . h. Setback (Rear Yard) The minimum setback from the rear property lines shall be as follows : Dwellings and open, unroofed stairways and balconies : Five (5) feet . Garages/accessory buildings : Five (5) feet . i . Oaen Space A minimum of 75 square feet per dwelling unit shall be provided in private open space . In addition, the following minimum common open space per dwelling unit shall be provided: 250 square feet ( 1 bedroom unit) ; 300 square feet (2 bedroom unit) ; 350 square feet (3 bedroom unit) . j . Parking Parking shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . k. Miscellaneous Requirements 1) Building Offset : Structures having dwellings attached side-by-side shall be composed of not more than six ( 6) dwelling units unless such structures provide an offset on the front of the building a minimum of two (2) feet for every two dwelling units in the structure. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-19 2) Landscaping : All setback areas visible from an adjacent public street and all common open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner with permanent automatic irrigation facilities provided. Trees shall be provided at a rate of one (1) 36-inch box tree per sixty (60) feet of street frontage or fraction thereof . 3) A transportation corridor in Planning Area II shall be set aside and maintained in accordance with Development Agreement 90-1 and as illustrated in Exhibit 19 . Habitable floor area shall be set back a minimum of ten (10) feet from the southerly five hundred (500) feet on both sides of the corridor. The corridor shall also be landscaped to the extent legal access is available to the developer. 5. Medium-High Density Residential (RMH) .a. Purpose The Medium-High Density Residential district is intended to provide for single family attached, condominiums, townhomes and multi-family residential developments at medium-high densities . b. Permitted Uses 1) Single-family attached condominiums, townhouses , stacked flats and multi-family dwelling units (including apartments) , and customary accessory uses and structures . 2) Plan Review: Conditional Use Permit . C . Maximum Density/Intensity The maximum density shall not exceed density twenty-five (25) unit/gross acres . d. Maximum Building Height Maximum building height shall be: Dwellings : Forty-five (45) feet and three (3) stories . Accessory buildings : Thirty-five (35) feet . Vertical identification elements for non-habitable common area structures may be twenty-five (25) feet higher than the maximum building height . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-20 r 16' HIKING/f31KING I TRAIL 65' PROPERTY PROPERTY LINE LINE EXHIBITc� TYPICAL CROSS SECTION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH TRANSPORTATION/TRAIL CORRIDOR HOLLY GEACLUFF MEA SPECUFUC PLAIM 11111111 1 ,1 KMVK e. Maximum Site Coveraae Maximum site coverage shall be fifty (50) percent . The maximum site coverage shall be fifty-five (55) percent for all lots abutting a park, recreation area or public utility right-of-way which is a minimum of 100-feet in clear width. f . Setback (Front Yard) The minimum setback from the front property lines for all structures, except stairways, exceeding forty-two (42) inches in height shall be as follows : Dwellings : fifteen (15) feet. Front entry garages or carports : Twenty (20) foot minimum, or five (5) foot minimum without driveway parking . Side entry garages : Ten (10) feet . Eaves, fireplaces, open/unroofed building stairways and balconies : Five (5) feet . Accessory buildings : Ten (10) feet. g . Setback (Side Yard) The minimum setback from the side property lines shall be as follows : 1) Interior Side Yard Dwellings, garages and accessory buildings : Fifteen (15) foot minimum building structure separation for one (1) and two (2) story buildings . Twenty (20) foot minimum building structure separation for three (3) story buildings . Eaves : Eighteen (18) inches . 2) Exterior Side Yard Dwellings and accessory buildings : Ten ( 10) feet . Side entry garages or carports : Ten (10) feet . Eaves : Eighteen (18) inches . h. Setback (Rear Yard) The minimum setback from the rear property lines shall be as follows : Dwellings , open/unroofed building stairways and balconies : Five (5) feet . Garages/accessory buildings : Three (3) feet . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-21 i . Qpen Space A minimum of 75 square feet per dwelling unit shall be provided in private open space . In addition, the following minimum common open space per dwelling unit shall be provided: 250 square feet ( 1 bedroom unit) ; 300 square feet (2 bedroom unit) ; 300 square feet (2 bedroom unit) ; 350 square feet (3/ bedroom unit) . j . parking Parking shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . k. Miscellaneous Reauirements 1) Building Offset : Structures having dwellings attached side-by-side shall be composed of not more than six ( 6) dwelling units unless such structures provide an offset on the front of the building a minimum of two (2) feet for every two dwelling units in the structure . 2) Landscaping: All setback areas visible from an adjacent public street and all common open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner with permanent automatic irrigation facilities provided . Trees shall be provided at a rate of one ( 1) 36-inch box tree per forty-five (45) feet of street frontage or fraction thereof . 3 ) A transportation corridor in Planning Area II shall be set aside and maintained in accordance with Development Agreement 90-1 and as illustrated in Exhibit 19 . Habitable floor area shall be set back a minimum of ten ( 10) feet from the southerly five hundred ( 500) feet on both sides of the corridor . The corridor shall also be landscaped to the extent legal access is available to the developer . 6 . Mixed Development (MD) a . Purpose The purpose of these standards is to regulate the design and development of the Mixed Development district . A variety of local commercial uses , facilities supporting the surrounding community, and the opportunity for multifamily residential uses combine to make this a unique mixed-use development area . Local commercial uses may include retail sales , local services , and professional and administrative office uses . Such uses shall be sensitively assigned in relation to each other and the surrounding area . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-22 . , The development of this centrally located Planning Area may combine multifamily residential and commercial uses in either of two ways : 1) vertically -- where the ground level is reserved for commercial uses and the upper floor (or floors) contains multifamily dwellings ; and/or 2) horizontally -- where multifamily residential uses are developed in conjunction with commercial uses as an integrated development , either in attached or in separate building complexes . A comprehensive site plan for the entire district will be required prior to any major new development to ensure compatibility between surrounding uses , proposed uses and activities in this area . b . Permitted Uses The following principal uses and structures shall be permitted, subject to approval of a conditional use permit : 1) Residential Use -- All residential uses including single-family and multi-family housing , apartments , condominiums and stock cooperatives . 2) Office Use -- Professional , general business and medical offices . 3) Commercial Use -- Commercial uses such as retail shops , restaurants , hotels , automobile service stations and theaters . C . Accessory Uses and Structures Accessory uses and structures are permitted when customarily associated with and subordinate to a principal permitted use on the same building site . Accessory uses and structures shall include : 1) Garages , parking structures , and carports . 2) Accessory structures such as gazebos , cabanas , and storage buildings . 3) Swimming pools , therapy baths , water fountains , and related equipment . 4) Covered patios and decks . 5) Fences and walls . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-23 6) Tennis courts, parks, trails, walkways , greenbelts, and common landscape areas . 7) Signs . 8) Campanili (vertical identification elements) subject to Planning Commission approval . 9) Accessory uses and structures which the Director of Community Development finds to be consistent with the purpose and intent of this land use category. d. Prohibited Uses 1) Wholesale sale of building material with any exterior storage yards . 2) Major automobile repair, tire retreading, fender and body repair, paint shops and auto sales . 3) Automobile wrecking, junk and salvage yards . 4) Bottling plants . 5) Rental and sales agencies for agricultural, industrial; and construction equipment . 6) Warehouses , contractor storage and equipment yard, work and/or fabricating areas . 7) Welding shops . 8) Sanitariums, mental and health. 9) Lodge and union halls . 10) Industrial and manufacturing facilities . 11) Wholesale business operations . 12) Ice production. 13) Wholesale bakeries . 14) Game arcades or parlors where five (5) or more machines are located, except in conjunction with a movie theater, motel, hotel or restaurant of more than ten (10) seats . 15) Hospitals; other than walk-in clinics or emergency centers . x Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-24 16) Mortuaries . 17) Mini-storage facilities . e. Site Development Standards The following standards shall apply to all development within this land use category: 1) Building site area: No minimum. The maximum is the net usable site area. 2) Building site width and depth: No minimum. 3) Building height limit : Fifty-five (55) feet maximum for commercial or residential uses in separate structures . Sixty-five (65) feet maximum for commercial/residential mixed uses in the same building . Campanili may exceed the maximum building height subject to approval of Use Permit by the Planning Commission. 4) Building Setbacks : a . Front setbacks : 1) Ten (10) feet minimum from the ultimate street right-of- way line if building is under twenty-five (25) feet in height . 2) Fifteen (15) feet minimum from the ultimate street right- of-way line if building is between twenty-five (25) and thirty-five (35) feet in height. 3) Twenty (20) feet minimum from the ultimate street right- of-way line if building is over thirty-five (35) feet in height . 4) Twenty (20) percent of the building facade shall step back an average of ten (10) feet from the minimum setback line along arterials . b. Side Setbacks: 1) No minimum required if building is under twenty-five (25) feet in height . 2) Five (5) foot minimum from the side property line if building is between twenty-five (25) and thirty-five (35) feet in height. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-25 3) Ten (10) foot minimum from the side property line if building is over thirty-five (35) feet in height . C. Rear Setbacks : The minimum rear yard setback shall be three (3) feet. Structures may be cantilevered to the rear property line. There will be a ten (10) foot minimum setback where the property abuts a residential use. d. Projections into required setbacks : Eaves, cornices, chimneys, outside staircases, balconies and similar architectural features may project six (6) feet, the projection shall not exceed sixty (60) percent of the required setback area,; 5) Parking: Parking shall comply with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 6) Lighting: All lighting, exterior and interior, shall be designated and located to confine direct rays to the site. 7) Commercial Loading and Unloading : All commercial loading and unloading shall be performed on the site; loading platforms and areas shall be screened from view from adjacent streets , highways , adjacent Residential Planning Areas, and on-site residential uses . Truck loading, dock facilities , and the doors for such facilities shall not face a residential area or be located within twenty (20) feet of property zoned or general-planned for residential use. Adequate on-site truck maneuvering space shall be provided to minimize conflicts on adjacent streets . 8) Trash and Storage Areas : All storage, including cartons, containers or trash, shall be located within a building or an area enclosed by a wall of not less than six (6) feet in height . an overhead enclosure shall be required if visible from a residential area . 9) Screening: a . Streets and intersections : Screening along shall have a height of not less than thirty (30) inches nor more than forty-two (42) inches within twenty (20) feet of the point of intersection of : 1 . A vehicular accessway or driveway and a street . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-26 i 2 . A vehicular accessway or driveway and a sidewalk. 3 . Two or more vehicular accessways , driveways or streets . b. Parking areas abutting highways : A screen shall be installed along all parking areas abutting highways . Except as otherwise provided below, the screening shall have a total height of not less than thirty (30) inches and not more than forty-two (42) inches . C. Notwithstanding the requirements listed above, where the finished elevation of the property at the boundary line, or within five (5) feet inside the boundary line, is higher or lower than an abutting property elevation, such change in elevation may be used in lieu of, or in combination with additional screening to satisfy the screening requirements of this section. d. A screen shall consist of one or any combination of the following: 1 . Wall, including retaining walls : A wall shall consist of concrete, stone, brick, tile or similar type of solid masonry material a minimum of six ( 6) inches thick. 2 . Berms : A berm shall be constructed of earthen materials and shall be landscaped. 3 . Solid Fences : A solid fence shall be constructed of wood or other materials a minimum nominal thickness of two (2) inches and it shall form a solid screen. A screen fence (non-solid) may be allowed, subject to Site Plan approval . 4 . Landscape: Vegetation, consisting of evergreen or deciduous trees or shrubs . e. Mechanical equipment such as, but not limited to, air conditioning, heating, ventilating ducts and exhausts placed on any roof shall be screened from view from any abutting street or highway. 10) Landscaping : Shall consist of a combination of evergreen or deciduous trees, shrubs, groundcover, or hardscape shall be installed and maintained subject to the following standards : Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-27 a . Boundary landscaping abutting arterial highways is required to an average depth of fifteen (15) feet with a minimum depth of five (5) feet . b . Boundary landscaping abutting public streets, other than arterial highways , is required to an average depth of ten ( 10) feet with a minimum depth of five (5) feet . C . An additional amount of landscaping area, equal to at least five (5) percent of the net usable area of the project is required . d . Any landscaped area shall be separated from an adjacent vehicular area by a wall or curb at least four (4) inches higher than the adjacent vehicular area or shall in some manner be protected from vehicular damage . e . Permanent irrigation for establishment of planting shall be provided for all landscaped areas . f . All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat, clean and healthy condition. This shall include pruning, mowing, weeding , removing litter , fertilizing, replacing plants when necessary, and watering all planting . g . where the side or rear yard of a Mixed development property abuts property zoned or general-planned for residential uses or community facilities , a landscaped buffer along the property lien shall be provided a minimum of five ( 5) feet in width . This buffer shall contain a minimum of one ( 1) 15-gallon tree per forty (40) linear feet . A landscaping plan shall be subject to review and approval . h . Trees shall be provided at a minimum rate of one ( 1) 36-inch box tree per forty-five (45) feet of street frontage or fraction thereof . 11) Mixed development shall comply with the following requirements : a . Any application for a conditional use permit shall be accompanied by a conceptual site plan for development of the entire Mixed Development area . This requirement does not apply to a minor expansion of existing retail commercial uses not exceeding ten (10) percent of the total floor area . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-28 b. A Planned Sign Program shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Community Development . 1 C . The project ' s design must be consistent with quality development, offering a well-planned traffic circulation system and aesthetically pleasing landscape features . d. A comprehensive, permanent set of covenants , conditions and restrictions covering limitation of the mixed development entitlement , including a list of permitted uses and any conditions of approval for the project, and all development , performance and management standards shall be submitted prior to issuance of any building permits . A recorded copy shall be submitted to the Community Development Department prior to occupancy of any building . Approval for content shall be the responsibility of the Community Development department and approval as to form by the City Attorney. Any modifications to the approved covenants , conditions and restrictions must be submitted to the City of approval . e . A person or agency shall be designated as a permanent liaison to the City under the covenants , conditions and restrictions of the Mixed development project for the purpose of processing occupancy requests , resolving land use enforcement problems , and any other matters in which the City and property owner are involved. 7. Commercial (C) a . Purpose The Commercial district is intended to provide retail , commercial and service uses in a neighborhood setting . Permitted uses , development standards , parking , landscaping and procedures will be regulated through the General Commercial District of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code . b . Additional Permitted Uses Existing, oil and gas production facilities and consolidation of existing facilities, and drilling of new wells are permitted within commercial areas in accordance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, subject to approval of a conditional use permit . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-29 C. Landscaping All setback areas visible from an adjacent public street and all common open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner with permanent automatic irrigation facilities provided. Trees shall be provided at a rate of one (1) 36-inch box tree per forty-five (45) feet of street frontage or fraction thereof . 8. Industrial (I) a . Purpose The Industrial district is intended to allow general industrial uses . Such uses shall be sensitively designed in relation to each other and the surrounding area. Permitted uses, development standards, parking, landscaping and procedures will be regulated through the General Industrial District of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. b. Additional Permitted Uses Existing oil and gas production facilities, consolidation of existing facilities and drilling of new wells are permitted within industrial areas in accordance with the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code, subject to approval of a conditional use permit . c) Landscaping All setback areas visible from an adjacent public street and all common open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner with permanent automatic irrigation facilities provided. Trees shall be provided at a rate of one (1) 36-inch box tree per forty-five (45) feet of street frontage or fraction thereof . 9 . Open Space (OS) a . Purpose The Open Space district is designated as areas to be provided as permanent public recreational open space. b. Permitted Uses Permitted uses and other regulations for this district are in accordance with the Recreational Open Space (ROS) provisions in of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1340D November 1991 III-30 IV. ADMINISTRATION IV. ADMINISTRATION A. Development Phasing Plan The Holly-Seacliff study area is anticipated to be built out over a period of approximately 10 years, with a target completion date of 2001. Actual construction starts and occupancy will be dictated by market forces, the removal of oil operations and interim uses, and the requirements of individual property owners and developers . The Development Phasing Plan shown on Table 2 is a program of the relative timing of development within each of the individual planning areas . The Phasing Plan also provides a guideline for the construction of adequate community infrastructure within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area . 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 development projects to be served by the master public facilities improvements shall be conditioned to construct facilities 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 . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1341D November 1991 IV-1 Table 2 Development Phasing Plan LANNI LNG ACRES USE TOTAL EXISTLNG PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III DWELLLNG DWELLLNG AREA UNITS UNITS 1990-1993 1994-1997 1998-2001 I 48 RESIDEMMAL 160 20 90 50 16 OPEN SPACE I I II 159 RESIDENTIAL 1535 300 985 250 I 32 I N'D USTRLAL. i i III 179 RESIDENTIAL 1 ,50 150 750 55.0 I 7 CONLM RCIAL I i i 16 OPEN SPACE Y I I IV 33 RESIDE:tiTIAL 785 j 65 100 100 i 53 .14I.XED USE i 22 I NDUSTRL4L • I 4 COM'NtERCIAL I TOTAL 569 3930 65 570 2125 1170 * LNDICATES TLMING OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. Holly-Seadiff Specific Plan 450/02.000 December 1991 IV-2 Development Agreement No . 90-1 describes certain public facilities improvements to be constructed by Pacific Coast Homes and Garfield Partners . C. Methods and Procedures The methods and procedures for implementation and administration of the Development Standards , as well as the policies, guidelines and other conditions of this Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan, are prescribed as follows : 1 . Implementation The Specific Plan shall be implemented through the processing of site plans in conjunction with conditional use permits , tentative tract maps and tentative parcel maps . The site plans may be prepared concurrently in sufficient detail to determine conformance with the Specific Plan. 2 . Tentative Tract Maps For projects requiring a tentative tract or parcel map(s) , the provisions and procedures contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall apply. 3 . Vesting Tentative Maps For residential projects entailing a vesting tentative tract map, the provisions and procedures in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall apply. 4 . Conditional Use Permits For projects , uses and operations requiring a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of this Specific Plan, the procedures specified in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code shall apply. 5 . Special Permits/Variances For projects or operations requiring a variance or modification to the Development Standards contained herein, deviations up to ten percent ( 10%) may be approved via a special permit . Deviations greater than ten percent ( 10%) may be approved via a conditional exception. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1341D November 1991 IV-3 6 . Specific Plan Amendments A Specific Plan amendment shall be required for the following: a) Changes to planning unit boundaries which exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the approved acreage on Table 1. b) Changes to the Development Standards in the Specific Plan. c) Substantial variations from infrastructure plans, as determined by the Director of Public Works . Specific Plan Amendments shall be processed in accordance with either the zone change or code amendment procedures, as appropriate, contained in the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 7. Coastal Development Permits The south western portion of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Area falls within the coastal zone. All development projects proposed in this area require a Coastal Development Permit . D. Density Transfer Procedure The Land Use Element of the Holly-Seacliff General Plan Amendment allows dwelling units to be transferred from a Planning Unit or Units within the same Planning Area, so long as the maximum number of dwelling units allowed by the General Plan for each Planning Unit is not exceeded, and so long as the total number of dwelling units allocated for that Planning Area is not exceeded. As indicated on Table 1 of the Specific Plan, the "average gross density" of each Planning Unit is less than the General Plan maximum density. Since the General Plan and the Development S-tandards permit development up to the General Plan maximum density, the following procedures are necessary to allow and monitor density transfers within the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Area. 1 . Transfers Within A Planning Unit Dwelling units may be transferred within a Planning Unit as long as the total number of units for the Planning Unit as shown on Table 1 remains the same. If a property owner submits an entitlement application for development of a Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1341D November 1991 IV-4 portion of a Planning Unit for a density which is greater or less than the average gross density for the Planning Unit, then a transfer of density within a Planning Unit is involved, as long as the assigned total of units (as shown on Table 1) remains the same. The subject application must include: 1) a plan showing both the approved and proposed allocations of dwelling units within the Planning Unit, and 2) the written concurrence of all property owners affected by the proposed transfer . Density may not be transferred from a completed project unless the transfer was approved at the time said project was approved. 2 . Transfers Between Planning Units Dwelling units may be transferred between Planning Units within the same Planning Area . If a property owner submits an entitlement application for a Planning Unit for a density which is greater or less than the average gross density for the Planning Unit, then a transfer of density between Planning Units will be necessary. The subject application must include: 1) a plan showing both the existing and proposed allocation of dwelling units within all Planning Units affected by the transfer, and 2) the written concurrence of all property owners affected by the proposed transfer . Density may not be transferred from a completed project unless the transfer was approved at the time said project was approved. 3 . Entitlement applications involving a density transfer will require the following : a. An Infrastructure Analysis documenting that the transfer does not exceed proposed infrastructure capacity. If capacity will be exceeded based on the required analysis, recommendations for additional infrastructure improvements must also be submitted. Required infrastructure Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1341D November 1991 IV-5 modifications shall be the responsibility of the party requesting the transfer, and shall be placed as conditions of approval on the appropriate development entitlement. b. An Environmental Analysis in the form of the City' s Initial Study documentation that the proposed density transfer of planning units will not affect the conclusions of the environmental analysis contained in the Certified EIR 89-1 for GPA 89-1. C. A policy analysis documenting that the density transfers within a planning unit or between planning unit are consistent with the goals, policies , and programs of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan and this Specific Plan. E. Acreage/Boundary Changes Acreage figures shown on the Land Use Table (Table 1) are indicated to the nearest acre based upon planimeter readings . Modifications, not to exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the acreage and boundaries shown, may result from more detailed planning and technical refinements in the tentative tract map or site plan processes, and shall not require an amendment to this Specific Plan. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1341D November 1991 IV-6 V. LEGAL DESCRIPTION r , HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY BEING PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 34 AND 35, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, PARTLY IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS AND PARTLY IN THE RANCHO LA BOLSA CHICA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 13 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS AND PORTIONS OF SECTIONS 2, 3 AND 4, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 11 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN IN THE RANCHO LAS BOLSAS, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 51, PAGE 14 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND YORKTOWN AVENUE (SHOWN AS MANSION AVENUE ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 95, PAGE 20 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY); THENCE NORTH 89041'42" WEST 1350.19 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID YORKTOWN AVENUE TO THE CENTERLI.NE OF GOLDENWEST STREET AS SHOWN ON SAID LAST MENTIONED MAP; THENCE NORTH 41°37'25"EAST 11.92 FEET ALONG THE CENNTERLINE OF SAID GOLDENWEST STREET TO AN ANGLE POINT THEREIN; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF GOLDENWEST STREET, NORTH 00016'53" EAST 1403.96 FEET TO ITS POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7656, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 295, PAGES 28 THROUGH 31 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, SAID POINT BEING THE BEGINNING OF A NON-TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 09°38'08" WEST; THENCE WESTERLY 181.28 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7656 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 12059'00", TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 22037'08" EAST; THENCE CONTINUING WESTERLY 880.58 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7656 AND ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7421, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 302, PAGES 20 THROUGH 23 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY, TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 800.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS NORTH 40°26'54" EAST; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY 249.63 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE AND SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF TRACT NO. 7421 THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 17°5242" THENCE VWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS-PLANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS Y�O No. 0844-273-3 Oat* 1/30/91 18012 COWAN,SUITE 210 • IRVINE. CA 92714 714/6"110 FAX:666441• En r. PER Cht. Shoot-L Of NORTH 00022'36"EAST 24.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°22'22"WEST 78.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 48°52'36" WEST 27.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79°52'36" WEST 248.95 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00°22'36" WEST 5.90 FEET; THENCE NORTH W37'24" WEST 72.36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 80°35'37" WEST 262.07 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°52'22" WEST 157.58 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 36°35'30" WEST 109.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 43°48'10" WEST 151.41 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 02006'09" WEST 384.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 22°47'17" WEST 236.88 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 11'43'51" EAST 123.87 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 35*08'20" EAST 238.90 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 27°31'58 EAST 336.22 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37'12'45" EAST 170.83 FEET; THENCE NORTH 57°19'50" EAST 67.67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 34°15'43" WEST 68.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH 47°12'59" EAST 106.40 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52°3336" EAST 202.68 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°02'22" EAST 89.12 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 85°36'09" EAST 148.27 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 42033'44" FAST 151.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 26°13'49" WEST 112.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 47'37'07" WEST 178.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 56°3l'48" WEST 90.34 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52°26'55" WEST 109.64 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53°34'35" WEST 199.31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53021'07" WEST 144.84 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53034'54" WEST 79.68 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78049'50" WEST 129.11 FEET; THENCE NORTH 82°26'29" WEST 132.50 FEET; THENCE NORTH 87°53'06" WEST 142.58 .ET; THENCE NORTH 88°3445" WEST 482.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79°09'09" WEST 427.24 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 78011'24" WEST 320.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09°07'55" EAST 186.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11"03'24" EAST 248.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19*01'22" FAST 142.80 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36°57'38" EAST 41.06 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35°24'38" EAST 689.02 FEET; THENCE NORTH 05°02'22" WEST 61.09 FEET; THENCE NORTH 85046'51" WEST 28.56 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53°58'25" WEST 49.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 78°51'01" WEST 62.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 59°32'35" WEST 112.08 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70°28'27" WEST 109.58 FEET; THENCE NORTH 27044'02" EAST 108.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 17°29'33" EAST 232.75 FEET; THENCE NORTH 09 47 41 EAST 224.74 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06°41'28" EAST 218.10 FEET; THENCE NORTH 12050'02" EAST 125.61 FEET; THENCE NORTH 11°12'50" WEST 67.15 FEET; THENCE NORTH 76016'19" WEST 54.17 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 68°56'58" WEST 44.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 13'42'05" WEST 241.82 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 32°53'58" WEST 74.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 83°32'50" WEST 85.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 84043'58" WEST 68.77 FEET; THENCE NORTH 53'16'51" WEST 49.91 FEET; THENCE NORTH 06004'10" EAST 55.63 FEET; THENCE NORTH 03°04'00" WEST 150.41 FEET; THENCE NORTH 45052'33" EAST 85.70 FEET; THENCE NORTH 15°45'53" EAST 122.97 FEET; THENCE NORTH 44°48'17" WEST 98.42 FEET; THENCE NORTH 35°04'20" WEST 62.07 FEET; THENCE NORTH 49°18'15" WEST 427.57 FEET; THENCE NORTH 70942'04" WEST 751.89 FEET; TO A POINT ON THE NORTHEASTERLY PROJECTION OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE DESCRIBED AS "NORTH 41042'13" EAST 164.55 FEET" FOR A PORTION OF THE kSDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SO HOLLY-SEACLIFF CIATES SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS-►LANNERS-LAND SURVEYORS 0844-273-3 1/30191 12012 COWAN,SUITE 210 • IRVINE-CA 92714 W0.No. ():to 71416604110 FAX.660.041A En r. 'ER Chk. S ��t= 0� SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SEAPOINT STREET (FORMERLY SEAVIEW AVENUE), 100.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 166, PAGES 10 AND 11 OF PARCEL MAPS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 41°42'13" WEST 243.13 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY PROJECTION TO THE MOST NORTHERLY CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON SAID LAST MENTIONED MAP; THENCE ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID MAP THE FOLLOWING COURSES: NORTH 48°17'47" WEST 100.00 FEET, SOUTH 41°42'13" WEST 164.55 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE,CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 750.00 FEET AND SOUTHWESTERLY 259.51 FEET ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19049'31" TO THE MOST NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE LAND DESCRIBED IN THAT CERTAIN PARTIAL. RECONVEYANCE RECORDED AS INSTRUMENT NO. 82-222367 OF OFFICI.AL RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAST MENTIONED MAP NORTH 42011'18" WEST 360.45 FEET ALONG SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED PARTIAL RECONVEYANCE TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY LINE OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY, AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 92, PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID BOUNDARY LINE THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 89037'14" EAST 91.97 FEET, NORTH 00°15'23" EAST 328.98 FEET, SOUTH 89043'03" EAST 660.16 FEET, NORTH 00°19'15" EAST 328.84 FEET, NORTH 89041'36" WEST 231.59 FEET, NORTH 26°49'24" EAST 1107.66 FEET AND SOUTH 89041'05" EAST 726.01 FEET; THENCE NORTH 00°17'53" EAST 1321.75 FEET ALONG SAID HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY LIMIT BOUNDARY TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 1 AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 42, PAGE 25 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 89032'59" EAST 988.61 FEET ALONG THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 1 AND ITS EASTERLY PROJECTION TO A POINT ON THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34, SAID LINE BEING THE CENTERLINE OF EDWARDS STREET; THENCE SOUTH 00°16'06" WEST 2310.30 FEET ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF EDWARDS STREET TO THE CENTERLINE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID EDWARDS STREET AND GARFIELD AVENUE AS SHOWN ON SAID AFOREMENTIONED MAP FILED IN BOOK 92, PAGES 19 THROUGH 28 OF RECORD OF SURVEYS OF SAID COUNTY SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE SOUTH 89042'05 EAST 2639.70 FEET ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 34 AND SAID CENTERLINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE TO THE CENTERLINE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF SAID GARFIELD AVENUE AND GOLDENWEST STREET, (SHOWN AS WESTMINSTER AVENUE ON THE MAP OF GARFIELD STREET ADDITION TO HUNTINGTON BEACH, FILED IN BOOK 7, PAGES 27 AND 28 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS OF SAID COUNTY), SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34; THENCE NORTH JWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS—PLANNERS—LAND SURVEYORS 0$44-2j3-3 1/30/91 18012 COWAN.SUITE 210 • IRVINE, CA 92714 Wa.No. Data 7141660.0110 FAX:660-UII Eno?. ?ER Cht. Shoot 3 01 5 j 000 16'18" EAST 2639.61 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 34 AND THE CENTERLINE OF SAID GOLDENWEST STREET TO THE EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 34, SAID CORNER BEING THE CENTERLINE POINT OF INTERSECTION OF GOLDENWEST STREET AND ELLIS AVENUE; THENCE SOUTH 89°43'37"EAST 1982.30 FEET ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID ELLIS AVENUE, SAID CENTERLINE ALSO BEING THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35 TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF GOTHARD STREET; THENCE CONTINUING SOUTH 89043'37" EAST 33.82, MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY 339.26 FEET,MORE OR LESS,ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19026'18" TO THE BEGINNING OF A REVERSE CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY HAVING A RADIUS OF 1000.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE TO SAID CURVE BEARS SOUTH 19°42'41" WEST; THENCE EASTERLY 320.08 FEET, ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 18°20'21" TO AN INTERSECTION WITH A LINE PARALLEL WITH AND EASTERLY 20.00 FEET FROM THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE SOUTH 00018'39" WEST 455.28 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG SAID PARALLEL LINE TO A POINT ON THE WESTERLY PROJECTION OF THE SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL 1 OF THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 132, PAGES 35 AND 36 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 89044'06" EAST 639.65 FEET ALONG SAID WESTERLY PROJECTION AND SAID SOUTH LINE OF PARCEL 1 TO THE CENTERLINE OF HUNTINGTON STREET AS SHOWN ON PARCEL MAP NO. 81-575, FILED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE SOUTH 00°18'34" WEST 1326.13 FEE, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID HUNTINGTON STRUT TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND SAID HUNTINGTON STREET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID HUNTINGTON STREET SOUTH 00°17'42" WEST 744,99 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF GARFIELD AVENUE AND SAID HUNTINGTON STREET, AS SHOWN ON SAID PARCEL MAP NO. 81-575, FILED IN BOOK 172, PAGES 3 AND 4 OF PARCEL MAPS RECORDS OF SAID HUNTINGTON BEACH, THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE NORTH 89042'04" WEST 659.89 FEET TO THE SOUTH QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 35; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF GARFIELD AVENUE, NORTH 89043'21" WEST 82.85 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF MAIN STREET AND SAID GARFIELD AVENUE AS SHOWN ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO. 10511 RECORDED IN BOOK 455, PAGES 13 THROUGH 17 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY;THENCE SOUTH 45°17'24" WEST 774.32 FEET, MORE OR LESS, ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF SAID MAIN STREET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHERLY PROJECTION OF THE MOST WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 10511 r VKDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS—PLANNERS—LAMD SURVEYORS �O Mo 0844-273-3 Date 1/30/91 I8012 COWAN.SUITE 210 • IR VINE. CA 9V14 N 714/660OI10 FAX:6604+I8 E>+ r• °rR Cl,t. Shoot= Of I DESCRIBED ABOVE, SAID LINE ALSO BEING THE EAST LINE OF HOLLY STREET, 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO. 10511; THENCE SOUTH 000 18'18" WEST 242.23 FEET ALONG SAID LINE TO AN ANGLE POINT TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 10511; THENCE ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT THE FOLLOWING COURSES: SOUTH 89°40'56" EAST 280.19 FEET, SOUTH 00°17'57" WEST 410.35 FEET, SOUTH 89°42'47"EAST 13 5.00 FEET AND SOUTH 00017'57" WEST 90.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY LINE OF CLAY AVENUE, 30.00 FEET IN WIDTH, AS SHOWN ON SAID MAP OF TRACT NO. 10511; THENCE SOUTH 00°17'13" WEST 30.00 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF SAID CLAY AVENUE; THENCE NORTH 89°4247" WEST 813.43 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE INTERSECTION OF, CLAY AVENUE AND MAIN STREET AS SHOWN ON THE MAP FILED IN BOOK 100, PAGES 46 AND 47 OF PARCEL MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID ORANGE COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MAIN STREET SOUTH 19014'02" WEST 829.19 FEET TO AN ANGLE POINT IN SAME; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG SAID CENTERLINE OF MAIN STREET SOUTH 00018'10" WEST 545.95 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 568.90 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. VWDEN & LEGAL DESCRIPTION SOCIATES HOLLY-SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN( BOUNDARY CIVIL ENGINEERS—PLANNERS—LAND SURVEYORS 0844-273-3 1/30/91 18012 COWAN.SUITE 210 - IRVINE.CA 92714 viO•No. Date 714/6604110 FAX:660.041S En r. PEA CAk. SMet 5 Ot 5 VI. MITIGATION MEASURES VI . MITIGATION MEASURES FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 89-1 These mitigation measures are required of the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan pursuant to Final Environmental Impact Report 89-1 and should be imposed on future projects in the Specific Plan area . 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 affects 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 . Air Quality 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 . 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. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-1 N is 1 . Noise levels generated by the oil operations should be mitigated to levels consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance, by locating consolidation area(s) 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 feet- was utilized around the consolidation area(s) . The following mitigation measures assume a 100 foot distance to the receptor and the mitigation affects of an 8 foot sound wall . Additional analysis of the consolidation area(s) will be necessary when phasing plans become available. Oil Well Drilling Operations 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 an 8 foot high masonry wall along the site perimeter will likely reduce the noise levels to below the Noise Ordinance standards . Oil Well Pumping 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. Well Pulling, Redrilling and Service Drilling Operations 4 . Well pulling and drilling operations are confined to daytime hours (7: 00 a .m. to 10 : 00 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 : 00 to 7: 00 a .m. ) . Well maintenance activities should also be conducted between the hours Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-2 ; , or 7: 00 a .m. and 10 : 00 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 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 6 . Truck operations should be limited to daytime hours only (7 a .m. to 10 p .m. ) Helicopter Operations 7 . 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. 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: Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-3 (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 sound-proofing 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. ) 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 be no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal . 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 Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-4 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 date 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 Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-5 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 Principal 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 pre-history. 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 materials 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. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-6 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 detained 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 effort 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 . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-7 9 . Collection and processing of matrix samples through fine screens will be 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. 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 solid 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 . f . Testing of air samples for gas vapor, methane gas and sulfur compounds . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-8 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 solid 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 . i Methane Gas 1 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; Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-9 f k. C. Vapor monitoring of shallow vapor probes placed at strategic location 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 1 . 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 . 2 . Active wells remaining on-site should be secured and screened as required by the City of Huntington Beach. 3 . 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. 4 . 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. Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-10 i 4_/ Aesthetics 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 deck) 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 . Land-Use Policies 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. Biological 1. Following construction of necessary infrastructure in the main drainage swale, i .e. , utility lies , 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 enclosed from the recommended plant palette indicated in Appendix H. 2 . Through adoption of future Specific Plans large trees suitable for use by raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk, should preserved or replaced in accordance with the tree species identified in the plant palette contained in Appendix L. 3 . Any grading or filling in the brackish wetlands in the western portion of the project site sill be mitigated by restoration of an equal area of coastal wetland at a nearby location in the open space area . 4 . Effects upon on-site wetlands within the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game will require mitigation defined by 1603 permits . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-11 Public Services and Utilities Schools 1 The General Plan Amendment 89-1 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 General Plan Amendment . 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 . Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-12 ,a LEGEND DEV DEVELOPED AREA Pdl ' PD / ` I 1 NNW NON•NAIIVE WOODLAND ' 4--- --� NAY 4 °Nt. rwc f° �_ '� LRAG RUDERAI ANNUAL GRASSLAND 16 DNvC=p ►.bN �'f y'rb PrOS PAIUSTRINE,SNRUI,DECID000S,SAEII( ►prW� - •►..,,, NNW ` oN NAG ►.oN av v-}yy' _Pb PAIUSTRINE, UNCONSOLIDATED POTIOM _ 1 . T • ►4 RAG'' f p AG P ?D PPAIUSTRINE, EMERGENT, PERSISTENT, DISTICHLIS o.v PYPS PALUSTRINE, EMERGFNI, PERSISTENT, C� SAIICORNIA NAY r . . oL fl. I*v ' ►Y►I PAIUSTRINE, EMERGFNI, PERSISTENt, IYPNA AG F Pu PAIUSTRINE, UNCONSOLIDATED SNORE °Nv"J r "'MJ� aV NAGPP ' PuVC PAIUSTRINE. UNCONSOLIDATED SHORE, �,"'..,•< 'a ,'' VEGETATED.CONVIA NAG TIIY;'f NII ' '. , of V.,',f 4•, NAY ( }f ` '' DIV V. N!v �• 1,w' ,./ :/. ��:} NAY,,' '. :1 ,• .NAY `• •..�Crr0f' A. S7'1!.' r• �} �, i::.-- '' IN to, Ir �.> ``� jv� c.1 ,11,', 1w •� 1�..�`• t' r,�..;L, 20 le CITY OF EXHIBIT 8 HUNTINGTON BEACH BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Lt1A A890GATE8,NC PLANT PALETTE -- APPENDIX L Scientific Name Common Name Trees Alnus rhombifolia White Alder Juglans californica California Walnut Platanus racemosa Sycamore Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak S. laevigata Red Willow S . lasiandra Golden Willow S. hindsiana Sandbar Willow Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow Umbellylaria californica California Bay Tall Shrubs Baccharis pilularis var. consanquinea Coyote Brush Heteromeles arbutifolia Toyon R. ovata Sugarbush Rhus laurina Laurel sumac Sambucus meaicana Elderberry Low Shrubs and Vines Diplacus longiflorus Bush Monkeyflower R. viburnifolium Catalina Currant R. aureum Golden Currant Ribes speciosum Fuschia-flowered Gooseberry Rosa californica California Rose Rubus ursinus California Blackberry Toxicodendron diversilobum Poison Oak Vitis californica California Grape Herbaceous Plants and Grasses Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Elymus condensatus Giant Wild Rye Scirpus spp. Tule Typha spp. Cattail Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan 1342D November 1991 VI-13 1 O ' R qF ' ADDENDUM To Final Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 for The Holly-Seacliff MASTER PLAN i Dept. o Prepared for: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street ' Huntington Beach, CA 92648 t Prepared b : P Y ' 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 2. Air 1 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 ' 1 . Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 15. Utilities . 3 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 1 July 31, 1991 i i iEXHIBITS ' 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 ' 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: ' 0 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; ' 0 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). ' h -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-Seaclif f EIR Addendum 450/04.000 July 31, 1991 1 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. i6) 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 ' 2.0 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. 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 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 1 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. 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 ' 0 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 Ellis-Goldenwest 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 environmental impacts associated with General Plan Amendment No. 89-1 for 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 ' 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 t Holly-Seacliff EIR Addendum 450/04.000 ' July 31, 1991 6 ' 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ' 3.1 Geographical Location ' 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-Seacliff EIR Addendum 450/04.000 ' July 31, 1991 7 00 SLATER \AVENUE Lu Lu of TALBERT AVENUE N W •�. 3 ELLIS AVENUE GA RFI ELD AVE NUE E :.:.:.....:.... .:.:::................ .. S �s AVENUE ADAMS AVENUE Lu 1 � > z > Q m Lu W GC N H N _ DC ' U ca O y�G p m z -9y � rEXHIBIT 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH VICINITY MAP HMLY-WACUFF AREA En [ORM1 � 1 d aENEE _ !".. W B4 _ 1 OS f 3 DL = PLANNING !LAND-USE I ACRES DWELLING UNITS ■ ,t 40 AC I C a AREA UNIT' I.—PLAN G.P.IMX. A m a5 Ellis Avenue ,\ _ -e L1....i u...:s�`'� �> Fz�"!' _ %'�',,,t�.. aF,„>3„+ `m,• TOTAL PLANNING AREA ACRFAOE/ . ALLOWABLE UNRS ■•ntr✓ °' i B2 a E�« PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES I DWELLING UNITS ---10 A 1 A— NR L.U.PLAN G P EEAx. zs , .• 46AC I, __ ---- _ T , e2 r _ Cl � r =e. o DwAc I p{P L ci_ •7 ■ �^ I I L+ 'I 60 AC — I■ TOTAL PUNIEING AREA/ACEEA"I• , ,_ i,, I C2 C_ •I ALLOWABLE UM„S 11` I I I iC �t M {.INCLUDES 4 ACRE PARK 'Ai.Nf PARK ,a 29 AC o_ i ?' ■ I I, 1 I p., 40 UV 6s I�I j C PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES !DWELLING UNITS U,A.:i DAC V II , P C3 IID AREA UN VL R yI IU. AN GP.Q. s w I A2 ` 7 AC ■ , II ,/' II !!+ 1E l)01) M 26 AC C JoSs■■•TBTBTBI■■�B,■ 11 4, jjjpj \ aaTor � /% f �� — IOTALPLA NING ARFA/AG@AGE/ ! 't, • A4 I (r L # t C4 / f`L^,CJE / '( *INCLUDES 4 ACRE PARK B.3 I M PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES i DWELLING UNITS V r a; 0 A - L U PLAN i G P NA OS E C7 20 AC 29AC — / AREA uNR U • i :CO DU f 23 AC \ Bl j 54 AC Ik a i o DurAc I J n !P 444 A3 E A 32 ac / D9 Fes, 16 AC 56 AC + I = C6 uu-AC'13 ACd 6MH ,BE AC Es. T."/ '...A �` '.u.".ue•:..y.u'+-¢^— ',S." . —¢-.x... . -rm -^�—^ —�:^< , e, ... 'ESE � _ \ AOU.-ANF LINIRAREA ACREAGE/ DU AC ■ �� '; D1 ( ': *INCLUDES 4 ACRE PARK ■ ■• j j pg 1 E6 Garheid`Avenue art C �+'' 1'�'C" 7 A`. 2 M C �{/D�6 t i,i 1 MD 4 AC��/ 3 REAPLANNING LAND;USE..,I ACRES I DWELLING UNITS L;L I�/ \\ ! 13 A .I E� I l U PLAN G P MAX DIJ 4 / 22 AC c IS LIL, �t:,Du I , , r.r ' , I 1 ` • D2 ' - — D4 f. 1 '• \ ,'g� �• 101AL PLANNING AREA ACREAGE/ E. L \ \ \ / a !F /w ALLOWABLE UNITSLLE 2150 0OU I 13 AC \\ D7 E3 E2 GRAND TOTAL • f A;?K • �\ 14 AC u'I 9 AC L ' /� 8 AC 'he number of dwelling units as Irakated on the Land Use Plan D.Jshall Serve as a guide for development. C �.., ■■� Dwelling units l • �` .— h may be ng Areal.netl from a planning unit or units ��i�•—•�'• M •• within the Same Planning allowd long as the maximum t;r number of dwelling units allowed by General Plan for each S D / GpY Avenue k j v� ' e. Clay Avenue Plonning unit is not.-Eeded and so long as the total number T, e- edne nits allocated for that Planning Area I5 not 4 ee ■ NP 'E E4 rT r STATISTICAL SUMMARY •• ' a€ MD a / • ti� 53 AC ( E .� D3 • 0f '3 MHI 63 AC 1 37C DU F 9 DU.AC f` • / f• ` /�—York Tovm Averiue / !•i''J �V #1'Pal.r,UDI All.rnal.L-1—F.,C.—I—I L]P.—T.l School 5.1. to ",,led WUhln ine 7.OUnly OI Orange IL-ocro, • ® of the etl USES arP..F11he Ien1 W Uh s.Plan 89.t • e of the HTrd Chlra Cehs: Land Use Plan. �.• ■•�•'�••r' 2 EXHIBIT 2 ADOPTED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT HQ'0'L LV- 3EACM FF 0 u Ill lI l „G•„9so ' 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: • 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. ' 0 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 Iunified 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; ' 0 The relocation of seven acres of commercially designated use in Master Plan Area D from the southeast corner of Garfield Avenue and Edwards 1 Holly-Seacliff EIR Addendum 450/04.000 ' July 31, 1991 10 Area of Proposed Changes v W B4 ` ti �••�••�■ OS 3 TJ o PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES I DWELLING UNITS ■ 40 AC _ .REA uer lu nee cr MAX W L - r o ;A i = Ellis Avenue {' s IWAL ANA-All ,s .o APlE erns r •• I I `fir '' PLANNING 1 LAND-USE ACRES I DWELLING UNITS ' B2 1 1 AREA uwr lv Hole GP MAX 46 AC 1 1 iIi, a o.; C1 / 1 B M. i 62 AC I I C2 1 — ____—I 'I� ror�rus■rrEC AREA A4eWAau °.../. r Au r` / M 2 �� d *INCLUDES A ACRE PARK v{` ♦ 40 AC o - ■ I I■I C PLANNING I LAND-USE ACRES I DWELLING UNITS ♦ c= 1.I m AREA uNe :L u P Arr G r NAx 26 AC _ C ` // = MH 1 'I /c C3 \ i oru rtA»..R NM L ••—••_o _ �yAC I I .... aIErYAne wn M 1 34 AC *INCLUDES• ACRE ►ARK • A4 B3 • O S �= — E C8 \`� PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS � AREA urr, 'I lU 1lAe I C r sEAa • 23 AC Ells4 AC 1 C5 v A3 E 32 AC 1 C4 MH 4 AC DB ,��, t AC 56 AC 9UAC r., _ MH DOS OS OS M 1 16 AC 1 ���_ AtwvrArE Illnf INCLUDES•ACRE PAN i 1 RRE-------RX--!. T12AC -- -- r.ERE---- E1 �. Es Garfield Avenue - - 1 19 AC M 1 E5 4 AC DWELLING UNITS I 16 AC t,W 11 AC M5 DC 1 M Pf�NNINTUNrr G L —urtu, cr uAx AND-USE ACRES�-- `f•r 18AC 7AC 122 AC 1 c � ., RE E RE \ 10TAL ANA AcnAui _ . —- E3 E2 ..A..rain c ♦ �. .. M Is ♦%••� i y AC 8 AC ■ one nk m of warp wn os scared M the Lmd use Plan / •• Shan serve as a guide fa devebOrnenr ■ ``� / •• ` � �� I owek+g urYK rnW�h�eeed froma then urns • "' ...._-_-__� •• within the same Area.So Kng as nse�atOXnMm `••�••� ' ee—e•��e• number of d,veing trYls ok—cl by Genera Plan la each � D �/a • CFO; Avenue I CIaY Avenue F'KnnshgUrw a nol exceeded and w Kng m we Iola nVnber Area of Proposed Changes •�•• pxceeaed. �a�edfa�aPa..g,�aenar /' 1 ceeaed. ��/ ■ AMENDED • y E4 STATISTICAL SUMMARY MD • t" 63 AC 1 LKI : � M ♦ 0 ♦ D2 ` MN v w L • cu ( c • qc i •i fir• •�•• •.._a.; VorKtown Avenue Y 'PY � Y O /••' G b P■letllm Steea S■e I • � LRTamtl valtn S're Currb d Q'•P P••dr♦Rn ' • a rr�BRN■v•G,rla�•E.a....ttEn Arrwl.ryn,so-, �..�••�00 •�.. a«�.a EXHIBIT 3 PROPOSED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT 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. • 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 LEGM Ellis Avenue _ Ellis Avenue MI cowry of owrip - ,— — ' of►ropowd chor .. C2 c= I C2 °= i M s � ,m M °= d B g:g. "..•w.. 29 AC c I'° aO AC o_ it w ° 1: °' Cu °= •� Wl- � aw _ g � 1 C3 \ �� Menc I M o.♦ E C4 CS �,1:'/ 34 AC I•� « zo ac ze nc `y i00cs ncnF.PARK MH M MH 9 Ac Ac r C7 II ' i I 000Cu ac _ 6AC ICI Garfield Avenue L/ Garfie u ld Avene t ADOPTED PROPOSED KEY MAP (Planning Area C) (Planning Area C) 10S 6 AC 13 L.. D1 D3 / D`1� 1 M c M D4 D5 D6 M _ 2f D8 D5 D6 �Ae:.• unc 11 AC 0AC M C ��� •ao nu .ro uu 118 AC\ 18 AC `+ M MH •�z +-uu.Ac _:ou AC J aoCu 7AC 7AC 24 ArC I 13JAC DU IDS �• I D7 L AC 4c. • ..__.—i \_.—_, ___.— :J oulAC 5e 12 AC ;ACHE 23 AC ` it 14 AC ' IDI 'A '• ` Y Avenue • ClpY Avenue • i /-'7 m a d V a :.L c0 0 O L 109AC .` c Cu 63 A i :..°u nc vo uU % 5 9!lU:AC (fir /•. �••�♦ 1• e: ADOPTED PROPOSED r (Planning Area D) (Planning Area D) EXHIBIT 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT COMPARISON 1 i LAND USE ELEMENT ' STATISTICAL COMPARISON Adopted Proposed Land Use Element Land Use Element January, 1990 July, 1991 PUNNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWEWNG UNITS AMA UNIT LLL PLAN 1 G.P.MAX AREA UNIT LU.PLAN G.P.MAX 1 E 10 25 26 ' A 2 E 26 90 104 A 2 E 26 W 104 3 E 16 55 M 3 E 16 RE 64 4 OS 23 4 OS 23 TOTAL PLANNING AMA ACREAGE/ 76 170 TOTAL PLANNING AREA ACREAGE/ 75 170 ' ALLOWALE LNN ALLOWALE UNM PLANNI UNIT ►LANNING LAND-USE DVWIEWNG UNITS AEA UNIT LU.RAN I G.P.MAX AREA UNIT LU.PLAN G.P.MAX 2 E M4, 14D ` 14D B 2 E 46 140 M' B 3 E 165 165 3 E SB' 165 166 4 OS 4 0S 40 TOTAL PLANNING AMA ACREAGE/ M0 470 TOTAL PLANNING AMA ACREAGE/ 87D 470 ALLOWABLE LINT$ ALLOWANA URA i IIQUOES4 ACE PARK INQUOE24 ACE PAN PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWE NG UNITS PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS AREA WIT L.I.I.PLAN G.P.MAX AMA UNR LLL PLAN G.P.MAX 1 L 62' 310 434 29 " n'2• 2 M 40 415 600 3 M 7 60 MIS ;':;::<• 3 M 14• 390 510 -�•' ,x' 4 W4 9 170 2M 4 MH 2D � MCI :;:} 4:.: 5 M 33' 425 495 : ; %' 6 MH 4 75 IOD 6 M14 6 1M ISO 6 MH 4 75 100 :> 7 I 32 7 PM 6 KID I50 TOTAL PLANNING AREA ACREAGE/ 191 I 1535 ..:.. ALLOWAME WA TOTAL PLANNING ANAACMACE/ 191 151E NCUOES4 ACE►AIR ALLOWANE UNITS ' NQUOES4 ACM PAR( PLANNING N ACRES DWE NG UNITS AMA LOW L.U.PUN G.P.MAX PLANNING I.AND-USEACRES DMWNF, UNITS 1 M I8 226 270 AMA UNIT Lk PLAN I G.P.MAX 2 L 23 ISO 161 1 M 19 260 266 3 L 63 I 370 441 .'•.'•3 2 L 109 560 763 4 L I T ! 100 119 3 M 11 140 166 S M 22 M 3W i 4 MH 10 220 250 6 MH 13 260 325 •.•."�{: 5 M IN 240 270 7 L 14 85 9E :. 6 C 7 8 C 7 7 L 12 84 9 OS 13 8 OS ' •.TOTAL PLANNING AMA ACMAGE/ 190 I&W TOTAL PLANING AMA ACRIAGE7 ALLOWABLE WRTS ALLOWAW UNITS 7D2 1459 I ' INQUDES 4 ACM PAR ' NCLOES4 ACM PAN PLANNING LAND-USE ACRES ! DWELLING UNITS PLANNINGLAND-USE ACRES DWELLING UNITS AMA UNIT i LU.PLAN G.P.MAIL AEA UNIT I LU.PLAN I G.P.MAX I M 16 I55 240 1 M 16 156 24D 2 M 8 70 120 2 M 8 70 120 3 M 9 85 135 3 M 9 M 135 E 4 MD 53 475 500 E 4 MD 53 475 IOC 5 1 i? 5 I 22 6 C 4 6 C 4 TOTAL PLANNING AREA ACREAGE/ 112 j 785 TOTAL PLANING AEA ACREAGE/ 112 786 ALLOWABLL URA ALLOWAgE WNI1R GRATA TOTAL 768 4410 GLAND TOTAL 780 4410 HollY-Seacliff EIR Addendum 450/104.000 July 1991 EXHIBIT 5 i • 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 restablished 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. i i r r 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 by environmental topic, consistent 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-Seaclif f 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: Short-term: Development of the project area will result in short-term P P J 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 CityCouncil certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the 8 8 8 ' anticipated short-term and long-term air quality impacts resulting from the Holly-Seacliff 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 I 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 p pa ' 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 P P g recommended by EIR No. 89-1 to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effect as identified. ' Holly-Seacliff 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. S. 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 CityCouncil certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the g g g ' 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. Noise 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. Miti Finding s/ S ation 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 insignificance included: i - 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. I 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 r revent 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. 1 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 rof Overriding Considerations. r7. Licht 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 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. rFindings/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: r ' Holly-Seacliff EIR Addendum 450/04.000 July 31, 1991 25 1 ' - 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 1 incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR No. 89-1, no significant light and glare impacts are anticipated. ' S. Land Use Analysis: ' 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. i 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. 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 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 CityCouncil certified EIR No. 89-1 and made four Findings regarding the g g g ' 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: 1 As the HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures recommended by EIR No. p g 89-1, no significant oil- and methane-related impacts are anticipated. Holly-Seacliff EIR Addendum 450/04.000 ' July 31, 1991 29 i 11. Population/Housing ' 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-Seacliff 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 CityCouncil certified EIR No. 89-1 and made five Findings regarding the g g 8 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 ' Conclusion: ' The traffic/circulation-related impacts associated with the development of the HSSP are substantially similar to those analyzed in previously approved EIR No. 1 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: J Development of the project area under the proposed HSSP will result in impacts p p 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-Seacliff 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 1 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. Enerev 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. Conclusion: 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; ' 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 450104.000 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 p P J p P Y ' 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. 19. Recreation 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 (1/08/90). 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 1 1 6.0 APPENDICES 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Holly-Seacliff EIR Addendum 450/04.000 ' July 31, 1991 41 i 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 con.iunction with a code amendment request to add the Holly—Seacliff Specific Plan (HSSP) to the Huntington Beach Zoning Code. The proiect 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 89-1 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? _ _ X 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) y Yes Maybe No 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) Ak Yes Maybe No C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either 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? _ _ X 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 anticipated 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 No idrain into Sully-Miller Lake. Furthermore, the HSSP and GPA are consistent with the residenrtial 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 statewent 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 th.e 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 the 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 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 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 the school site to HSSP Area III and to allow for oil resource production in HSSP Area IV-5. It does not involre any activities which were not covered in EIR 89-1 and will result in the removal of vegetation or loss of any wildlife habitat. As such, it is not anticipated to result in any additional or different plant or anrimal impacts from those identified in EIR 89-1. The HSSP has incorporated all mitigation measures r*commemded 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. i ' Environmental Checklist -5- (9692d) (J Yes Maybe No 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 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 Area 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 1 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* 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) + ` Yes Maybe No presently existing. Land use impacts associated with implementation of a substantially similar land use 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) f- Ak I. Yes Maybe No 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-ll. 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 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 and 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 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) i. , 1 (. (; Yes Maybe No ' 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* I ' 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) Yes Maybe No 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? T _ 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: 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) Yes MaybeNq 1 ), 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 — 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* 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) 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 1 Environmental Checklist —12— (9692d) 1 1 F ZONING INDEX MAP 105-II DM II19-6-IO-SECLEGEND 16[S.IIM 15-5 II 14 5�11 TION-TOWNSHIP-RANGE ' t — DM 22-DISTRICT MAP 22 DM 8 DM17 �DM'15 1 1 24-5-12 I 19-5-II x20 5 II 21-5-II 22-5-II 2 -5-II 24�iI DM 261 ! DM 21 Dtvl23 DM24 D 25 D 26 DMi27 I I ?1 I I \ FF 1 -- i 30-5-11 Y! 29-5-II -�- 28s 5�„)I 27 5-II 2 5 II 25 II AM 35 I DM34 %%DDM33 - DM132 M31 DM30 �c-132 5\`II 33-5-II /� -II 35-5-11 36-I5-II DM 36 DM 37 �l 39^ ` DM 40 F` i - 5-6-II `6 I1�- - -il 246-II 1-6-II 6-6-10 5-16-10 DM4 c, � D 2 �D I D 6 DMly , 9-6-11 0-6-11 il- -II 12-6-II 7-6-10 8-6-10 1 DM 10 DM D 12 DM 13 DM 7 OM8 e ' AL14-6-11, •,,Y,13-6-II 16-6-10 -, ! 17-6-10 ------ CITY OF c1 14 DM2o•+ DM19 HUNTINGTON BEACH - i ORANGE COUNTY CALIFORNIA 24-6-1 19- -10 DM 29 22/ ' 1 T[0 YYICY fO.M, IIYMq COYWYOY 11[[OWIgY CRT CWMCK-p11pMY1fL M0.[!a VICINITY MAP F�� SLATER AVENUE N 3 TALBERT AVENUE 3 CENTRAL W W PARK o O O ELLIS AVENUE LINEAR :i>iJv'ri PARK ' �'•<.r..}}}}. GARFIELD AVENUE N.rik ji vr;:\Si:;.;:;!t:::.yf'•}}ii:ii^}}:iiy}::•::::tiit:;:;ii:}}'�iiii:4}Lii YORKTOWN 'a;;}'•'"'%} � AVENUE H.B. HIGH CIVIC SCHOOL CENTER AVENUE SEACLIFF ADAMS AVENUE COUNTRY CLUB 9C� O ftl z _ U Q cc m ENVIRONMENTAL. ASSESSMENT' NO, Rl "(A HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION LEGEND RE ESTATE RESIDENTIAL g Rl-I LOW DENSTTYRESIDENTIAL I .T MAC 4 FXh Ar.mNr Rl-2 LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 ..ours MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL �1 MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RE RESIDVENTIAI rK I RL-2 r •• S MD MIXED DEVELOPMENT RM I I I COMMERCIAL ELLIS-OOLDENWEST �� SPECIFIC PLAN - .. RE AREAIN--.AL r..�••�•J 'I I ---- -- -- -- RM OS OPEN SPACE RMH ® 'OTENn AL SCHOOL SITES OS R , MH A RE RMH OS RMH L•� AV.n RM C com.w w RM RMH C � RM OSf RM IV •`. \ RM RM III ,/ •CbT A-- MD 1 L 1 CITY OF. HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN H0LlV OCQCL�IFIF 0E5� 0F FjC7 Lz%H, t huntington beach department of community development GAFF EP 4R 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 INFORMA'iION: 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. " 1 A-F M-23C f_ r r � 3 . O DISCUSSION: The following is a discussion of major topics of concern relating to 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) s r � 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) e s Y Y 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:R'LF: kj l Staff Report - 10/29/91 -4- (1236d) r t Mv COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIAT[.S,INC � �•t'''�� October 23 , 1991 Mr. Mike Adams Community Development Director. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street ! .I Post Office Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 C, ,_ 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 92808•TELEPHONE(714)978-8887 ATTACHMENT NO. -� f t C.OM u rtv S'TE45 wssocwES we 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 9� ASSOCIATES, INC. siden� 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 CS J, I! IlTi ,i 13 1 r COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIa7ES, INC. 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 requested in our telephone conversation of October 16 , 1991 , relative to the impact of t1he Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and the relate- impacts of GPA No . 39- 1 . Enclosed also are the two letters which 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 . HoT.4ever, if you need to discuss these materials with me , please contact my secretary and she will a--.ise 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 -.aterials . Sincerely, Js - NITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. hall Krupp ident mbk:mmg enclosures wp/dl : 33 cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District is "public/private project management, feasibility, and implementation" 1717 SOUTH STATE COLLEGE BOULEVARD • SUITE 100 • ANAHEIM,CALIFORNIA 92806 • TELEPHONE(7141 978-8887 T � 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 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 300 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 r Y 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 j+) 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 $121984 I 3 1 { 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 , 3441000 $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 I f L � 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 Capaciiy 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 6-f0 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 Kettter 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 f T The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity: School Acreage Capacity LeBard School 10.8(+) 5-�J 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.9(+) 6S0 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(+) 27.0 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 16.3(+) S 0 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 r r 1 Y 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 F , II = !I= i� t lilt. IIII?II ■ COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES. INC October 3 , 1991 I 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 f 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 desicnation of a school site and the financing of facilities as preciously 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-fer is "hotter 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 northwest 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 • TELEPHO:` ;: (7,:)978-8887 r ir �U Mr. Tom Zanic October 3 , 1991 Page 2 Garfield/Saddleback Lane Site - $720, 000 per acre or $6 , 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 yacquire 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 Hones/Urban West Communities within the llis - 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) t:dditional Development Fees - The District has calcu- lated a deficit of $1 . 5 million against projected costs of $10 . 9 million. The District seeks an a�'­diticnal fee increase or property purchase price reduction, er co-- � bination thereof equal to $1 . 5 million . The proposed i development fee would be 1 . 40% of the statuto r: fees , and the property price reduction would be $250 , 000 per acre on the Garfield/Crystal (Gothard Extension) site ; or $174 , 419 per acre assuring 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. C'r_. ASISUS♦SSM-13 K s^�� Mr. Tom Zanic October 3 , 1991 Page 3 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 i.-crovement Cost S 5,553,552 S 5,553.552 S 5,553,552 Sub-Total 511,795,552 511,579,552 S 9,983,552 6-3 Retocatables S 9G0,0GO S 900,OG0 S 9G0,000 Total Cost 512,695,552 512,479,552 S10,a..a3,552 Ceveloanent Fees y 1.20'% (Est.) S 9,391,267 S 9,391,267 S 9,391,267 Total Cost Less Development Fees S 3,3C4,285 S 3,304,285 S 1,492,285 Additional Developer Contributions 5 .1,500,000 S 1,500,000 S 1,492,285 Additional District Contributions S 1,804,285 S 1,588,385 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% ; Mr. Tom Zanic October 3 , 1991 k'a(g0 `_ 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 Stu- dent yields frc-i 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 ; I 5) Eliminating a present value inflation factor on im- provement costs ; and I i 6) Agreeing to a Joint use facility thenreby ena'c?ing the developer to gain dual use of the property reducing your financial obligation jointly wit:: the C].-Ly and the District. I Seeking an additional $1 . 5 million, contribution has an impact on the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan area of $2 , 636 per acre. Based upon the development of new dwelling units for the entire area, f the additional financial impact is $353 (r) per unit. J The District does not believe that its requests are unreasonable considering a) the concessions made by the District tc date; b) i the financial magnitude cf the development; and c) the level of public facilities and infrastructure 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 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. cc-—.s.s+e s�soc.ss.VAC Mr. Tom Zanic October 3 , 1991 Page 5 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. Sincerely, COMM `,UNITY S7TEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 3 ershal Kruppp President f mbk:mmg b:1.18 cc: Dr. Duane Dishno Huntington Beach City School District i Dr. Gary Burgner Huntington Beach City School District Dr. Joel Kirschenstein The Sage Institute Mr. William D. Holman Pacific Coast Homes I HUNTINGTON BEACH CITE' SCHOOL DISTRICT 2v.31 c:a,mer '-an• • P.O. Cox r i 646:n, Ceiircrnia 026.t3 li:4)564-628-% O BOARD OF TRUSTecS October 15, 1991 A.obert Mann, S_. D. ?roc ident brier. Gar'and CIVK Mr. Tom Z, nic Shirley carcy Urban West Communities Mamber 520 Broadway, Suite 100 Gary Nal:On, D.O.S. Santa Monica, California 90401 htam^er Karen O' Lr!c RE: Hollv"Seacllfi Mamber ' Deve).oper/Districi Continued Negotiation ADM_ lN!STRAT!0_N_ Dear Mr. Zanic: G:.end A. Qi5hrio. C4. O. Sp�rint9ndant On Octobe. 8, 1991, the City or Huntin ton Beach l is .:,:ng Cornmissicn continued Yeirivu5 items relating to tre 1'l�lil��-�eac!i f Gar', A.6ur3nar, `_C. D, b l aoty su.^arinte^.giant Specific I!,I , to a special meeting of Octo � er 29 19y . u„vness sar.:cas � O A1.n The Con m: Sior. su rested Strongly that t:iE' " ci,: i As:lstan! .arsoonaiSar�:cez chcNcl Disirlct and Urban j est COIilIllunities/hacific CO' t 110:? continue to attempt to reach an understanding relative to ;he school issues. As of this date, the District has not received your response to our proposal of October or any further inquiries from you, and we have nw re;;rivec'_• any indication of your desire to Meet agail: On behalf of the Board of Trustees of the District, we wijSh to again ind.cate our Willingness to continue the discus-sion-s, and to rnalke every effort to reach an agreement that atta ns our comnnnon goals. With the October 29, 1991 Planning Commission meeting jest around the corner, it would apptedr that every effort must be �r.z. r �_e to r,e er Lt the earliest lossible date. Wz certainly loot: forward to any further suggestions or alternatives which you believe will address the ,:Litigation which will be necessary to address the impacts on the District fronn the imp lernentation of the Holly-Seacl:ff Specific Plan and OP A 89-1. N-Ir. Tom Zanic October 1 1991 page two I look forward to hearincy from you io schedule a meeting date, Sincerely, Duane Dishno, Ed.D. Superintendent cc: Mr. Marsnail B. Krupp Community Systems Associates, Inc. Mr. Bill Holman Pacific Coast Homes 'Nir. Ki:k Kirkland, Chairman City of Huntington Beach Pl?nn Commission Honorable Peter Green Nfayo., City of Huntington 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 F' , 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 0 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 DeveloQment Fees The Developer's Mitigation Fees Collection Projection estimates present development fees, as follows for the 4 , 410 proposed units: 7-4 t 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/B(dg. 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 $1.41 S194.63 9.0 S 6,480,000 S183.05 S1.41 S184.46 8.5 S 6,120,000 S172.88 S1.41 S174.29 8.0 S 5,760,000 $162.71 $1.41 S164.12 7.5 S 5,400,000 $152.54 $1.41 $153.95 7.0 S 5,040,000 $142.37 $1.41 $143.79 6.5 S 4,680,000 $132.20 S1.41 $133.62 6.0 S 4,320,000 S122.03 $1.41 $123.45 5.5 S 3,960,000 $111.86 $1.41 S113.28 5.0 S 3,600,000 S101.56 S1.41 $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 S176.33 8.3 S 5,976,000 $168.81 $1.41 $170.23 21.0 S15,120,000 S252.00 $0.83 S252.83 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 S206.21 $1.41 $207.63 9.5 $ 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 S 5,475,000 S154.66 $1.41 S156.07 7.0 S 5,110,000 S144.35 $1.41 S145.76 6.5 S 4,745,000 S134.04 $1.41 $135.45 6.0 S 4,380,000 $123.73 $1.41 S125.14 5.5 S 4,015,000 $113.42 $1.41 S114.83 5.0 S 3,650,000 S103.11 $1.41 S104.52 4.5 S 3,285,000 S 92.80 $1.41 $ 94.21 8.6 $ 6,278,000 $177.34 S1.41 S178.76 8.3 S 6,059,000 $171.16 $1.41 S172.57 21.0 $15,330,000 S255.50 S0.83 $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/B(dg. 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 S234.46 9.5 S 7,837,500 $221.40 $1.41 S222.81 9.0 S 7,425,000 $209.75 $1.41 $211.16 8.5 S 7,012,000 $198.09 $1.41 $199.51 8.0 S 6,600,000 $186.44 S1.41 S187.85 7.5 S 6,187,500 $174.79 $1.41 S176.20 7.0 S 5,775,000 $163.14 $1.41 $164.55 6.5 S 5,362,500 $151.48 $1.41 $152.90 6.0 S 4,950,000 $139.83 $1.41 $141.24 5.5 S 4,537,500 S128.18 $1.41 S129.59 5.0 S 4,125,000 $116.53 $1.41 S117.94 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 $1.41 $194.84• 21.0 S17,325,000 S288.75 $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 (and) $5,553,700 $4,107,480 Cost/Sq. Ft. of Building $ 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. 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 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 $121984 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 $ 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 $ 74, 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 8 S720,000 2 S825,000 a S730,000 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 S 20,400 S 20,160 1 S 23,100 S 20,400 S 20,160 K-5 460 S 6,327,791 S 5,599,290 S 5,522,436 699 S 9,613,271 $ 8,506,522 S 8,389,764 6 75 S 1,032,116 S 913,292 S 900,756 120 $ 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 S 4.040,880 TOTAL 706 S11,299,890 S 9,992,046 S 9,861,722 1,059 S16,808,256 S14,863,428 S14,699,024 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 a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 0 $825,000 a $730,000 a 5720,000 Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre K-6 1 S 13,750 S 12,167 $ 12,000 1 S 13,750 $ 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-5 498 $ 6,851,082 $ 6,062,336 $ 5,979,126 757 $10,408,262 $ 9,209,987 $ 9,083,574 6 81 $ 1,117,469 $ 988,818 S 975,246 130 $ 1,784,441 $ 1,579,003 $ 1,557,330 7-8 185 $ 4,265,808 $ 3,767,207 $ 3,722,887 260 S 6,005,550 $ 5,303,602 $ 5,241,207 TOTAL 764 $12,234,359 $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 a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 a $825,000 a $730,000 @ $720,000 Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre K-6 1 $ 13,750 $ 12,167 $ 12,000 1 S 13,750 $ 12,167 $ 12,000 7-8 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160 K-5 516 $ 7,100,651 $ 6,283,173 $ 6,196,932 785 $10,787,411 $ 9,545,486 S 9,414,468 6 84 $ 1,158,176 $ 1,024,839 $ 1,010,772 135 $ 1,849,444 S 1,636,522 $ 1,614,060 7-8 191 $ 4,421,201 $ 3,904,438 $ 3,858,503 269 $ 6,224.318 S 5,496.800 $ 5,432.132 TOTAL 792 512,680,029 $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 a) 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 a S720,000 a $825,000 a S730,000 a $720,000 Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre K-5 S 6,327,791 S 5,599,290 S 5,522,436 $ 9,613,271 S 8,506,522 S 8,389,764 6 $ 1,032,116 S 913,292 $ 900,756 $ 1,648,144 $ 1,458,397 S 1,438,380 7 S 3,939,982 S 3,479,465 S 3,438,530 S 5,546,841 $ 4,898,509 S 4,840,880 SUB-TOTAL LAND $11,299,890 S 9,992,046 S 9,861,722 S16,808,256 $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 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 $ 3,117,757 S 3,117.757 SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 7,168,999 S 7,168,999 S 7,168,999 $10,698,532 S10,698,532 $10,698,532 TOTAL $18,468,889 $17,161,045 $17,030,721 $27,506,799 $25,561,960 S25,367,556 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT FEES S.0964 S 7,228,496 $ 7,228,496 S 7,228,496 $ 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) ($20,278,292) (S18,333,464) (S18,139,060) 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 S720,000 a $825,000 a $730,000 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 1,557,330 7 S 4,265,808 S 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 S18,198,252 S16,092,592 $15,882,111 K-5 $ 4,611,899 S 4,611,899 S 4,611,899 S 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 S 1,201,221 S 1,201,221 7 S 2,397,716 S 2,297,716 S 2,397,716 S 3,375,587 $ 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 S19,996,214 S18,580,216 $18,439,114 $29,781,523 S27,675,863 S27,465,382 PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT FEES S.0964 S 7,826,273 S 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 S 7,826,273 S 7,826,273 REVENUE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($12,169,942) (S10,753,943) (S10,612,841) (S21,955,250) ($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 5825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 a 5825,000 a 5730,000 a 5720,000 Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre K-5 S 7,100,651 S 6,283,173 S 6,196,932 510,787,411 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 S 1,614,060 7-8 S 4,421,201 S 3,904,438 S 3,858,503 $ 6,224,318 S 5,496,800 $ 5,432,132 SUB-TOTAL LAND $12,680,029 $11,212,449 $11,066,207 $18,861,173 516,678,809 $16,460,660 K-5 S 4,779,900 S 4,779,900 $ 4,779,900 S 7,261,693 $ 7,261,693 $ 7,261,693 6 $ 779,642 $ 779,642 S 779,642 S 1,244,978 S 1,244,978 $ 1,244,978 7-8 $ 2,485,060 S 2,485,060 S 2,485,060 $ 3,498,552 S 3,498,552 S 3,498,552 SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 8,044,602 S 8,044,602 S 8,044,602 $12,005,223 $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 5.0964 S 8,111,366 S 8,111,366 S 8,111,366 S 8,111,366 $ 8,222,366 S 8,111,366 REVENUE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($12,613,265) ($11,145,685) ($10,999,443) ($22,755,030) ($20,572,666) ($20,354,517) 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 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. I 7-16 ! A 8 C 0 E F G H I J K L M N 0 P 0 1 TABLE 1-1 08-Oct-91 3 01:47:41 PM 4 HUNTINGTON PEACH CITY SCHOOL DWS'C! 5 COST ESTIMATES PER SQ. FT. OF 9U!L_!tiG AREA 6 HOLLY-SEACLTFF / ELLIS-GOLOENWES' -:ClF!C PLANS 7 8 1991 DISIRICf COSIS 1991 DMI OPEk CUSIS 9 10 11 K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACIUR 12 PER SO. FT, COSTS PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS CUSIS PER SQ. FT. COMPARISONS 13 IS 15 ACRES 10 10 21 10 16 LAND SQ. F1 435,600 435,600 914.760 43S,600 17 STUDENTS boo 600 750 600 18 NET SQ. FT. PER STUDE14T 59 59 80 59 19 GROSS SQ. FT. PER STUDENT 62 61 83 62 20 NET BUILDING SQ, FT. 35,400 35,400 60.000 35.400 21 GROSS BUILDING 50. FT. 37,200 37,200 62,250 37,200 22 FACIC,'S 23 24 BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 $92.91 25 GENERAL SIZE c ? i OF BUILDING COSTS $7.27 MI.344 S1.27 $7.49 $225,000 $6.36 5.84% 26 GENERAL SITE $15,000 PER ACRE $4.24 1150,000 fd.?: $5.25 $0 $0.00 2.1 SERVICE SITE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482.520 $13.63 $14.04 $90,000 $2.54 2.74% 28 UTILITIES 2,501 OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 S80,420 S?.27 $2.34 $38,000 $1.07 1.16% 29 OFF S!!E !XPROVEYENTS t ^F Bll!;^!!IG ^51 $13 b3 1482.5?0 $13.63 114.04 f33,000 $0.93 1.00% 30 31 HARD COST SUB-IOIAL $131.91 $4.669,601 $131.91 $136.77 $3,674,980 $103.81 32 33 ARCH./ENG. FEES B ?5i OF HARD COSTS $7.50 S?65,386 f?.:C 57.1? $268,000 $7.57 7.29% 34 INSPEC110N/TESTS 2,50% OF HARD COSTS $2.21 180,420 $2.27 $2.34 $39.500 $1.12 1.01% 35 PLAN CHECK FEES 0.752 OF HARD COSTS 10.68 S2d,126 10.68 $0,70 $25,000 10.71 0.68% 36 37 SOFT COST SUBTOTAL $10.45 $369,932 S10.45 $10.77 1332,5u0 19.39 38 39 FURNITURE & EOUIPMENI (FF&E) $7.00 PER BLDG. 50. FT. $7.00 $247,800 $7.00 17.00 SO $0.00 $0 40 dl HARD/SOFT 6 FfdE COST SUB-(DIAL $149.36 S5,287,333 $149.36 5154.54 f4,001,480 f113.21 42 43 STATE CONTINGENCY 1.501 OF SUB-TOTAL f2.24 $79,310 S?.24 $2.32 $100,000 $2.82 2.50% 44 STATE CONTINGENCY 12,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 52,000 $0.06 $0.03 SU $0.00 SO 45 DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $5.23 $185,057 $5.23 $5.41 10 $0.00 0,00% 46 47 own CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL $7.52 $266,367 $7.52 $7.76 $100,000 $2.82 48 sonq 49 HARD/SOff, FF&E, 6 CONTINGENCY COS! 5LI6-TOTAL $156.89 f5.553,700 $156.88 116?,30 $4,107,480 $116.03 50 51 LAND fA?5,^00 PER Ana 10 (! ArNfs f?]l.(15 $6,?50,000 3.'17 05 f?NH li $8,250,000 $233.05 52 APPRAISAL S CLOSING COSTS f50.s00 PER SIZE 11,41 $5o,000 11.41 11! 93 1')0,000 $1.41 53 54 LAND SU9-TOTAL $234.46 $8,300,000 S234.46 $189.`..8 $8,300,000 $234.46 55 56 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO. F!. 1391.35 $13,B53.700 f391.3S $451.B$ 1111).407,480 $350.49 57 58 SVPPOkI FACILITIES SD.uO PER BLDG SO I;. f11.UU fu $0.00 $0 uu $U $0.00 59 INU RIF FACILITIES K-6 fC 00 PFR 9LDG. 50. F1. $0.00 10 ill.UO $0.09 $11 $0.00 60 A 8 C 0 E F G N I J K L M N 0 P n TABLE 1-1 208-Oct-91 3 HUNIINGION BEACH CITY SCHOOL DIS1klC1 01:47:41 PM 1 LOST ESTIMATES PER SQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 5 5 HOLLY-5EACU FF / ELL15-30LDENWEST SPECIFIC PLANS 7 8 1991 0151RICT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9 10 11 K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 8-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12 PER SO. FT. COSTS PER SQ, FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ. FT. COMPARISONS 13 14 IS ACRES 10 10 21 10 16 LAND SQ. FT 435.600 435.600 914,760 435,600 17 STUDENTS 600 600 750 600 18 NET SQ. FT. PER S?GCa 59 59 80 59 19 GROSS SO. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20 NET BUILDING SQ. FT. 35,400 35,400 60,000 35.400 21 GROSS BUILDING 50. F7. 37,200 37,200 62,250 37,200 22 FACTORS 23 14 BUILDING COSTS FIXED 190.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 f7,208,980 f92.91 15 GENERAL SIIE 8.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $7.21 $257,344 11.27 17.49 $225,000 $6.36 6.84% 26 GENERAL SITE $15,000 PER ACRE $4.24 $150,000 $4.24 $5.25 10 f0.00 27 SERVICE SITE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482,520 $13.63 $14.04 $90.000 $2.54 2.74% 28 UTILITIES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 180,420 $2.27 $2.34 $38,000 $1.07 1.16% 29 OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 1482.520 $13.63 $14.04 133,000 $0.93 1.00% 30 31 HARO COST SUB-TOTAL $131.91 $4,669,601 $131.91 $135.77 $3,574,980 $103.81 32 33 ARCH./ENG. FEES 8.25% OF HARD COSTS $7.50 $265.386 $7.50 $7.72 $268,000 $7.57 1.19% 34 INSPECTION/TESTS 2.SO% OF HARD COSTS 12.21 $80.420 $2.27 $2.34 $39,500 $1.12 1.07% 35 PLAN CHECK FEES 0.75% OF HARD COSTS $0.68 124,126 $0.68 $0.70 $25,000 $0.71 0.68% 36 37 SOFT COST SUBTOTAL 110.45 $369,932 110.45 $10.71 1332,500 $9.39 38 39 FURNITURE 6 EQUIPMENT (FF6E) $7.00 PER BLDG. 50. FT. $7.00 $247,800 $7.00 $7.00 f0 $0.00 $0 40 41 HARD/SOFT 6 ME COST SUB-TOTAL $149.36 $5,297,333 $149.36 $154.54 f1,001,480 1113.21 12 43 STATE CONTINGENCY 1.501 OF SUB-fOlAl $2.24 $79,310 f2.24 $2.32 $100,000 $2.62 2.502 14 STATE CONTINGENCY $2,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 $2,000 $0.06 $0.03 10 $0.00 $0 45 DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUO-TOTAL 15.23 f185,057 $5.13 $5.41 10 $0.00 0.00% 46 /7 CONTINGENCY SUB-10TAi 11.51 f266,367 f7.52 17.7E 1100,000 12.82 48 49 HARD/SOFT, FF6E, 6 CONTINGENCY COS` SUB-TOTAL 1156.88 15,553,7UU $1,16.88 f162.30 $4,107,480 $116.03 50 51 LAND $825,000 PER ACRE 10.0 ACRES 1233.05 16,250,000 $233.05 $288.75 $8,250,000 $233.05 S2 APPRAISAL 6 CLOSING COSTS $50,000 PER SITE $1.41 $50,000 11.4? $0.83 $50.000 $1.41 53 54 LAND SU8-TOTAL 1234.46 18,300,0011 1234.46 1289.58 $3,300,000 $234.46 55 56 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO. Fl. $391.35 113,853,700 $391.35 $451.88 112,407,480 $350.49 51 58 SUPPORT FACIL! $0.00 PER BLDG. ST1. FT. 10.00 $0 10.00 $0.00 fU $0.00 59 urcul4 cAT a I 6 10.00 PER BLDG. SQ. ET. 10.00 10 �0.9U $0.00 $0 $0.00 60 A B C D E F H I J K L M N 0 p Q TABLE 1-? 08-Oct-91 3 01:52:54 PM 4 NU!711NGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 .'USf ESTIMAIES PER EQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 6 h!OLLY-SEACLIFF / ELL1S-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLANS 1 - 8 1991 DISTRICT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9 10 II K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12 PER 50. FT. COSTS PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ. FT. COMPARISONS 13 14 15 ACRES 10 10 21 10 16 LAND SQ. FT 435.600 435,600 914,760 435.500 1 1 STUDENTS 60C 600 750 600 18 NEI SO. FT. PER STUDENT 59 59 60 59 19 GROSS SQ, FI, PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20 NE BUILDING SQ. F1. 35.400 35.400 60,000 35,400 21 GROSS BUILDING S0. FT. 37,200 31,200 62,?50 37,200 22 FACTORS 13 24 BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.87 $3,215,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 $92.91 25 Gt:rERAL SIZE 6.00% OF BUILO W C.5i5 f1.27 f157,344 $7.27 $7.49 $225,000 $6.36 6.84% 26 GENERAL SITE $15,000 PER ACRE 54.24 $150,000 $4.24 $5.25 $0 $0.00 21 SERVICE Sl1E 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 1482.520 $13.63 $14.04 $90.000 $2.54 2.74% 28 UTIL MES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 $80,420 $2.27 $2.3/ $38,000 $1.07 1.16% 29 OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 1482.520 f13,63 S1a.U4 $13.000 $0.93 1.00% 30 31 HARD COST SUB-IOTA: $131.91 $4,669.601 f131.91 106.11 $3,674,980 f103.81 32 33 ARCH./ENG. FEES B.25% OF HARD COSTS S7.50 $265,386 $7.50 $7.72 $268,000 $1.57 7.191 34 INSPECIION/TESTS 1.501 OF HARD COSTS $2.27 $80'4"0 $2.27 $2.34 $39,500 $1.12 1.07% 35 PLAN CHECK FEES 0.75% OF HARD COSTS $0.69 $24,116 50.68 $0.70 $25,000 10.71 0.68% 36 31 SO'T COST 500-10TAL $10.45 $369,932 $10.45 $!0.17 $332,500 19.39 38 39 FURNITUkE 6 EQUIPMFNT (FF&E) $7.00 PER BLDG. SO. FI, $7.00 f247,000 f1.011 $7,(!0 $0 0.00 10 40 Al HARD/SOFT 6 FFSE COST SUB-TOTAL $149.36 S5,207,333 $149.36 $154.54 $4,007,480 $113.21 42 43 STATE CONTINGENCY 1.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $2.?4 $79,310 $2.24 $2.32 $100,000 $2.92 2.50% 44 STATE CONTINGENCY $2,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 $1,000 $0.06 $0.03 $0 $0.00 $0 45 DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $5.23 $185,057 $5.23 $5.41 $0 $0.00 0.00% 46 47 CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL $7.52 $266,367 $7.52 $7.76 $100,000 $2.82 48 49 HARD/SOFT, FF&E, 6 CONTINGENCY COST SLI8-10TAL f156,88 $5.553,100 $156.88 1162.30 $4.107,480 $116.03 50 51 LAND $7,10,000 PER ACRE 8.3 ACRES 1168.81 $5,976,000 f?03.39 $252.00 $5,976,000 $168.81 52 APPRAISAL 6 CLOSING COSTS $50,000 PER SITE $1.41 S50.000 $1.41 $0.83 $50.000 $1.41 53 54 LAND Sl1B-TOTAL S170.23 $5,026.000 $204.80 $252.83 $6,026,000 S170.23 55 56 TOTAL 1MPROVEMENI/LAND COST PER SO. FT. $3217.11 $11,579.700 f361.69 $415.13 $10,133.480 $286.26 57 58 SUPPORT FACILITIES $0.00 PER BLDG. SO. 11. $0.0U $O 10.00 10,00 $0 $0.00 59 -"✓ ri 10.OU $U 10.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 60 A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 V 0 2 TABLE 1-2 08-Oct-91 3 01!52:54 PM 4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 OUST ESIIMAIES PER SQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 6 HOLLY-SEACLIFF / ELLIS-GOLDENWE57 SPECIFIC PLANS 1 8 1991 DISTRICT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9 10 II K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12 PER SQ. F1. COSTS PER 50, ff. PER SQ, FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ. FT. COMPARISONS 13 14 15 ACRES lu 10 21 10 16 LAND 50. FT 435.600 435,600 9)4,760 435.600 11 SI(IDE1115 600 600 750 600 T8 NEI SO. FT. PER STUDENT 59 59 80 59 19 GROSS SO. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20 NET BUILDING SQ. -1. 35,400 35.400 60.000 35,400 21 GROSS BUILDING SC. FT. 31,200 37,200 62,25D 37,200 22 FACTORS 13 24 BUILDING COSTS FIXED 190.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 $92.91 25 (t);:ERAL 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.n 10 $0.00 27 SERVICE SITE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482.520 $13.63 $14.04 130,000 $2.54 2.74% 28 UTILITIES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 $80,420 $2.27 12.34 $38,000 $1.07 1.161 29 OFF SIIE IMPROVEMENTS 15.00% OF BUILDING, COSTS $13.63 $482,520 113.63 $14.04 $33,000 $0.93 1.00► 30 31 HARD COST SUB-TOTAL $131.91 $4.669,501 $131.91 1135.77 $3,674,980 1103.81 32 33 ARCH./tNG. FEES 8.251 OF HART) CO(i1S $7.50 $265,386 $7.50 $7.72 $268,000 $7.57 7.29% 34 INSPECIION/1ES15 2.50% T)F HART) COSTS $2.:7 180.420 12.27 $2.34 139.500 $1.12 1.01% 35 PLAN CHECK FEES 0.75% OF HARD COSTS $0.68 124,126 $0.60 $0,70 $25,000 $0.71 0.68% 36 37 SOFT COST SUB-TOTAL $10.45 $369,932 110.45 110.77 $332,500 $9.39 38 39 FURNITURE 6 EQUIPMFNT (FF6E) $7.00 PER BLDG. SO. FT. $7.00 $247,800 $7.00 $7.00 10 10.00 $0 40 41 HARO/SOFT 6 ME COST SUB-TOTAL $149.36 $5,287.333 $149,36 1154.54 $4,007,480 $113.21 42 43 STATE CONTINGENCY 1.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $2.14 $79,310 12.24 12.32 $100,000 $2.82 2.50% 44 STATE CONTINGENCY $2,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 $2,000 10,05 $0.03 10 $0.00 $0 45 DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL 15.23 $185,057 15.23 $5.41 10 $0.00 0.00% 46 47 CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL 1T.S2 1266,367 17,52 17.76 1100,000 $2.02 48 49 HARD/50FT, FF6E, 6 CONTINGENCY COST SUB-TOTAL SISe.88 15,553,700 1156.66 $162.30 $4,107,480 $116.03 50 51 LAND $720,000 PER ACRE 3.3 ACRES $168.81 $5,976,000 1203.39 1252.00 $5,976,000 1168.81 52 APPRAISAL 6 CLOSING COSTS $50.000 PER SITE $1.41 $50.000 $1.41 $0.83 $50.000 $1.41 53 54 LANO SUB-TOTAL $170.23 16.026,000 1204.80 $252.83 $6.026,000 $170.23 55 56 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SO. F1. $327.11 $11,579.700 $351.69 $415.13 $Iu,133,480 $286.26 57 58 +�' SUPPORT F4CIL1 10.00 PER I1LOl. 50. I'. 1u.uu 11I so.on D0 10 0.00 59 U lu - .OU 50,0 $ 0 SO U.UU � e0 r 'i 'S Yj. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HOLLY-SEACLIFF AREA SCHOOL FACILITIES IMPACT ANALYSIS AND STUDENT HOUSING MITIGATION PLAN s HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Prepared For: 3 Garfield Partners r rjjf}} I 7 y fi y ;i Prepared By: SAGE INSTITUTE, INC. Revised: October, 1991 r: Sli Sage Institute Incorporated 29800 Agoura Road, Suite #220 Agoura Hills, California 91301 1' lic 1'olicv Master Planning Mnance 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 are.L The overall area covered by this School Mitigation Plan is the area of the Holly-Scilcliff General Plan Amendment 89-1 ("Plan" or "Plan area"), which consists ot, the approved Ellis-Goldenwest Specific Plan and the pending 1 lolly-Seacliff Specitic Pkin. Therefore, the data presented in this School Mitigation Plan is intended for information and discussion purposes, and is being provided at the present tilde 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-,8557/(818)991-0646 fax (818)991-0754 School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan II. PROJECT OVERVIEW & LAND 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 feet 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 with 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 Appro)dmately 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 Bark areas which are designated within the residential neighborhoods and will provide 10C,11 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 111. 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 approximately 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 F SFD SFA MFR (low & med.density) (med.& high density) (high density) .1117 .1117 .1117 6-8 .0622 .0622 .0622 2. School Facility Cnpncities 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 r School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan Table 3 FACILITIES CAPACITIES AND ENROLLMENTS SCHOOL TYPE ••I'I'.RM. FAC. ••1991-1992 OVER <IJNDER> CAPACITIES ENROLLMENTS ENROLLED T- K-5 • Smith 700+ 700+ 0 Fader 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 Sowers ••• 9940 "• 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 WA handicapped-9 classrooms Burke -5 500+ 50% leased <500+> Gisler6-8 600+ Vacant <600+> L.eBard -5 N/A Dist.Office N/A Tot.Seats Avail.K-5 <1100+> Tot.Seats Avai1.6-8 <600+> GRAND TOTAL K-If <1700+> ' Closest pradmity to Project area. " Note: The above data are updates for the 1991-92 school year and are in the process of being refined. Capacities are based on a ma)dmum load?-g standard of 32 per regular classroom. •" Update pending. School Facilities Analysis & Student Housing Mitigation Plan C. SCHOOL, FACII,ITY IMI'Arr . 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 e 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 Y 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 Housing 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: I Designated Sitel 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 9 Cost Per Relocatable $100,000 $100,000 $1U0,000 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 $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.) 51,660,005 (des.) $0.18 Requiring Housing * 6-8 $0 265 0 $900,000 $0 alt. $1,552,140 (alt.) $0.16 K-5 (des.) $8,039,164 C. Build New Facilities 476 alt. $6,898,192 $0 (des.) $9,939,164 (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 r 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 tile: 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 Exh* DEVELOPMENT PHASING - Holly Seacliff Area (Total) PLANNING PRODUCT AVERAGE 70TALI EXISTING PHASE I I PHASE II PHASE III NEW AREA TYPES SQ.FT. UNITS UNITS 19W 1991 1992 1993 1994 i 1995 1996 1 1997 1998 1999 1 2000 2001 UNITS Estate 3,50C 17 -- -----_-20 30 20- — 20---20 — 30 30 17 LOW i 3, _. -- — ------ A Law 2 2, -„ ft — Medium 1 Med-High 1, Estate 3 47C 90 100 100 30 20 20 20 301 20 20 20 Low 1 3,00C WOW B Low 2 ZW Medium 1, 1 Med-H' h 1, , Estate 3, Law 1 3,2A 0 NMI C Low 2 2, 31 50 75 75 60 50 31 Medium 1 50 75 100 125 125 125 100 60 45 80 Med-High 1, 4 50 75 75 75 100 45 4 Estate 3, LOW 1 3 59C 20 50 65 65 65 55 70 70 70 60 59 D Low 2 2, Medium 1 20 60 75 75 75 75 70 70 60 60 Med-HIgh 1,000 22C 50 50 50 50 20 2 Estate 3, Low, 3, 1 E Low 2 2, — Medium 1,50C 31 85 251 301 301 301 30 40 30 30 2451 Med-High 1, 47 75 45 45 451 451 551 55 55 55 47 TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS 4.41C 155 0 01 240 &301 575 -%51 5551 5201 4601 335 2801 1951 4.25 STUDENT GENERATION PROJECTIONS TOTAL EXISTING PHASE I PHASE II PHASE III NEW FOR NEW UNITS UNITS UNrrs 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 UNITS TOTAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS 4,41C 155 0 0 240 530 575 565 555 520 460 335 280 195 4,255 YI E D _5 momUb STUDENTS jAnnual WA 0 0 27 59 64 63 62 58 51 37 31 22 47 GENERATED ICumulaNe WA 0 01 27 86 150 213 2751 333 3851 422 454 475 47 YIELD-RATE0622 ' 1r ': ma STUDENTS Annual NIA 0 0 15 33 36 35 35 32 29 21 17 12 GENERATED Ctmtula-Ne WA 0 0 15 TALa 48 84 119 153 186 214 235 253 265 ' KI• ! t n ?�E. . ►ti.��NyiAW E y 'y �'y,I O / u: 7: X: 1 p% 42. '.4 .�,' Jlx':frl. SY .'rc'!'.Sw . w�iYN STUDENTS Annual WA 0 0 42 92 100 98 97 90 80 58 49 34 7 GENERATED CumulatNe NIA 0 0 42 134 234 332 429 519 599 657 706 740 7 SOURCE: SAGE INSTITUTE,INC. tl Date: 07I09/91 studgen.xis huntington beach department of community development srAFF 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. " WOOL q A-FM-23C r 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 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: 0 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 i 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. Land 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 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. -1- r 5. 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 study has been completed and is included in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan 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 IV.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- 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 U- 16, Section II.GA.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 U-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 I1I.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 II-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.1.f 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— i This mitigation measure is addressed in Section II.E, Grading Guidelines, on page II-6 and II-7, and in Section H.G.1 on page II-12. I 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 11.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. 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 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- r - huntington beach department of community development srAFF 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. " ARX f5 r A- -23C •f 1 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) 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 Mitigatibn 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) 6 ( •�os e iAO AC o ^ uc r.»o•Yu wuu ow�,ura wnn . A — — :Y`' �.. i E • • •.w»».aw :IA»0•Yfl ACtff io.nlU»O Y»Uf AC -- •-1 ��` Cl C2 iI 20 AC 1 I IMO 6 C nA-6 r IAMO.Ysf ACM U"YYna i .�owAt i k BUZI l i A2 I ,MC tip - 26 AC tov,. _ - -; - . C I�c .... , f A4 B3 I C4 / CS III, adnYoaf.Acw rA.. O$ I 20 AC M n+»»r»o aw»o Yu Auu ownuw wnn t9 AC ••\ i.1 AC 54 C I7 Owwt ' a•ctaw .� w \ A3 , E ._ }?AC .Aare oA:a OS �� `r I! MH '3 ACd . 6 AC ..--- ----'- sIwlc •.auwf.Acw.... t \ DI D6 , - — -.� Et M C E6 G-fi.Wd A.A.N.. r C �C D6 M MH 16 7 ES 4 A + nA»»r»c A»o.uu ACM owau»o Y»ro .° AC r2Ae sfou i I, ••` is is rs�c _ 07 — E3 E2 ...d. v. f.: •.s:... •�.• L M AC 9 AC 6AAC + wv.ww er e.�p.•wd•«eac enN urowAo. `. a i �4y. .d•ww�d epbbYV•wnT+• p % ._... by A,.nN CbY A~— bwp V+.^a a•oYA4e ognnnYd�•saMM' /�. �K..o.n•.docd..broab.-ow,•..a ia E4 6 / n.rnncAr mwwwn % r ci 33 AC 03 jnA m I u f CUAC ate. .. . .._ fAw•(no t.wMla.Uw:r r •'•�••�....� = EXHIBIT 2 ADOPTED CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LAND USE ELEMENT Area of Proposed Changes ` z OS i v n.»».»o •»o-rn,•cm oruu»a uwm ,0 AC Q w 0 Ems AwMN •A 82 ` `�I n•w».wo uwe•rn,•uu.eauwaAu�u E 46 AC CI aiAC m 40 AC is ; •o" 1!:C n•wNwe ,.we.r„ •urs oNI NwH B Al .6 AC � 5 1 r •. _ MM - 1 C3 A a AC i now, — — — • • a A` 1 *M Ml.ACN r 03 O S E •-. •\ n.wrrc ,•»oru,.uo:ersu,w°uwn A9 B1 AC.4 AC '.' G Mcs H .i E 1 MH ,Ac �' c �'17 Do I, E •� �6 AC A AC b 1 ... wl. --7 1------- - -- YLa1W• .A>r.w 01 ---..— .i ---0�--- ------— ---------- ------t EI C Ed Gwa o A.— ' AMC M Djl DS 06 j ES riiC aA = •wousi�.un_�erhp�wo u.rnl If AC 22 AC Ac 05 D7 - 12 A ' E7 E2 .. .. ' •`` , --- ` .hie AMC *...•e..A..eo •�.A�A•/••' ••� ....e:ao.+o.»`•-eiw a.ewg.wws."�•'�wss ��� '•per' Cbr AvMw no.v+p u•rAns wcwNeew rPoe wwro..-'e• 4rea of Proposed Changes ;j '"'"' :°-�°�^° 'e�•~~•-°�°• 51 AC ,MAC ; .».. . oil ..�•.- AAAAA�y� EXHIBIT 3 PROPOSED �1C�.fI�T��Y(j O�VFJ HUNTTI�NpGTON (B�E�ACH LAND USE ELEMENT u ua n u�Ml RJFF � �l�"�,1 Q plplll I I I I ioR�ti� 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 Perlod 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 i 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. Resoonse 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. Response The comment is noted and included in the record for review by the appropriate decision makers. COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. Qomment 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-I I 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- • o 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-I 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- ,1 cm t. CALIFORNIACITY HALL 211 EIGHTH STREET SEAL BEACH, / 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 CSB-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, Page 2 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, 1,7�11 � l J L e Whittenberg / Director of Development Services City of Seal Beach cc: City Council Planning Commission City Manager Environmental Quality Control Board SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA gas COMPANY ORANGE COUNTY DIVISION • P O BOX 3334 ANAHEIM. CALIFORNIA %18W..134 August 6, 1991 -J 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. 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 (714)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, Y R. B. Aarvig Technical Supervisor AT.-du attachment _ n COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. M +� August 16, 1991 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL f�j'J 1 1.1 Mr. Robert Franklin Associate Planner Dept.of i : .^. 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 (c 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- ment activity, should be identified and a calculation of development fees should be provided; �1 1 co-,,STfYf.Aux ff K _ Mr. Robert Franklin August 16, 1991 Page 3 2) The phasing of the Plan' s development should be ( CSA-2 identified; 3) The location of school sites, school bus stops, student I 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 USA-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; � r co.r..r.mnrf.1$=-as.¢ 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, CSA-11 operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources; and personnel, operational, and main- tenance costs; 12) Appropriate and legal impiementational 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 C�wf SYSIIYS MSOC4T(SS _ Me 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, CO NITY TEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. arshal B. Krupp Presic Wr MBK:mmg 16/86 cc: Dr. Duane Dishno Huntington Beach City School District Dr. Gary Burgner Huntington Beach City School District i Mr. Tom Zanic Urban West Communities 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 Amcndment (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 Ouality • 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- 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. Eloise • 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. 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- EFFECTS DETERMINED TO BE MITIGABLE TO A LEVEL OF INSIGNIFICANCE AND SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE rROJECT 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. Fin in 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 Sunnort 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 arc 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- � szds ,-..>.,.yYr..y. •.,.- ��a*> y..�,.:. ,y, ..wwz., 'a^ "x �s, .<z,,. ..aVa,...r., rz s Y .�.,:i. >a„kir��.9�: ,a;p+z.,;,:,s i ss� 8: s r .AR75F ,F',: :3 rm`.3�"'. 3X n..�;' � .z�`ad >a`ar� ,k `"� a ."�,� N%'•:::zt.s.': ,E, v���" : r a�r� .,x r o>z8 „� '�'v `°Mit at�or ; aritgriri and�Re[}orti g Giecklist � a � �� �5 �s e°. �, �' � •F �� �` � .x � ,��� Yak ���: R R �a/s i��'�J ray r� ♦ n � i�, �G�b N,�li�r���Cigt �k3e��tr.< '�i` '�.,is ��>< >:.o`�,a'�rt y ,w �^.`��✓J 3�5...:,i� �`�YFa'"�.s„#Ao. . ,>. ,. . ... ...... :. ,. ,� �x�'�.�;M'.^,<...a.:a.•<o!�tc<F.e., 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 budding permits for individual tracts,to applicant Prior to Issuance of Buildvg Permits Fire Department should demonstrate that service vehicle access to all remaining operating oil walls 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 significantly increase during these limes. Land Uso 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 8,C&E. Land Use a Prior to the approval of tentative tracts adjacent to the Seaclill Country Club Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Community and golf course,preliminary lanoscape plans and developmenVopen space Development/Department edge treatments should be submined 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 S In order b retain the existing Swale character,future Specific Plans should Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community incorporate policies which specify the grade of slope,permitted amount of Development/Department cut and fill.improvements for storm drainage and include a schematic of Public Works design lot remaoonal and open space treatment within drainage swales. Land Use 6 Only limited gracing activities or 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 required to install access roads,utility and storm drainage Ines and landscaping to enhance the natural condition of the swale areas. Land Use 7 petaled grading plans for all development on-site should be submitted to Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Community and approved by the Planting Department prior to the issuance of grading DevelopmenVDepartment permits. Such plans should show all natural swales on-site and the areas to of Public Works be graded. Land Use 8 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!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. Source Reference: Final EIR e9-1 Adoptod 1/8N0.Huntington Beach City Council Rosolution No 6097 - rtlgation�tll�p ,ollyS cll Ge e s � r s Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Aesthetics t Specific Plans should incorporate policies which specify maximum grade of Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community slope,pormilt rd amount of cut and at.improvements for storm drainage Development and a schematic design for recreational and open space treatment within the ravines. Ass"tics 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 Pubic Services end Utilities section of this EIR,new utility Prior to Final Inspection Department of Public Works lines including,but not limited to,electric lexciudes SCE 66KV transmission insist,telephone.strew fighting 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. Aesthetics s Landscaping of future projects should be designed to minimize visual Prior(a Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community impacts on adacent parcels. Special consideration should be given to DevelopmentrDepartment of orientation of B»project's residences(i.e.windows and decking)so as to Public Works respect the privacy of adjacent and nearby homes. Aesthetics 5 Wherevwr feasible,oil production Wities on-site should be eliminated or Prior to Final Inspection Fire DepartmenK)epartmeni consolidated to reduce then otal number. Facilities remaining on-site of Community Development should be painted,amoulaged,or otherwise screened by perimeter walls, plantings or like treatments to reduce their unsightliness to future residents. Aesthetics 6 V*wvver feasible,windrows should be preserved within park sites or Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community replaced lo maintain the aesthetic benefits they contribute to the community. Approval DevobpmenVDepanmeni of Further studios should be completed to assess the health of"se trees. Public Works Aesthetics 7 As krwre development occurs,the designated railroad transportation Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community corridor should be preserved for future use as trails or transit. Development Earth Resources t Subdrains should be installed where necessary. Location and size of Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Pubic Works subdrains,if any are required,should be determined after preliminary geotechnial and grading information is made available. Earth Resources 2 The design of structures should comply with to requrements 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. . • r y.<,. sect 0.yt .v30,'� s ya>♦^ ,.aeS'. n. 7 i a S,�L"i:'e ' !a,ix < Kt Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval 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 acove trace of the Newport/Inglewood tauff. A setback zone should be established to prevent the construction of habitable structures within 50 feel on either side o1 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 selbadk zone should have a total width of 180 feet Earth Resources 4 Prior to future development,additional information on particle size.density. Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Public Works and ground water levels should be obtained to Accurately assess the potential for liquefaction 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 declining with current water-injection methods being used at operating oil production facilities Earth Resources b 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 distress to structures and slabs from minor Development regional subsidence Although this measure will provide lor a more rigid slab,it wig by no means ekminste 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 Pnor 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 tamed quickly away from the lop of the bluff and not allowed to pond or rim down the slope lace Hydrology t Prior to approval of future Specific Plans or grading permits,a detailed area- Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Public Works wide flood convoy hydrologyrhydraulic 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 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 for 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 or at the time of grading permit. �f��;.� �,� yA��y�?e:nhr�° >E�'��� 1��{V �✓ �s:.>�kd & '"'�° X �'k",.9m �s: ;'1'�, ,,s�..4 f ,��. g R "%.•a : ','sue ;.£ :0�' � a ' ��� �.: �a3. .t�i>'' '0•"i '"sYb.^�'a'ti'r- x'�5 CYfu y .��¢�x yy.y. jsa�'�nh r�'9s,ar"�a, *'9s ro '�: t c t x `ia$ d 4 z�'�m Y "� `,•u err,�,�* Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary _ Milestone. Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Hydrology 2 All future discretionary permits should be consistent in preserving area wide Prior to Tontaovo Tract Map Approval Department of Public Works natural drainage patterns along with preserving and enhancing the goals, objeobves 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-sits drainage facilities needed to drain the site according to City requirements. This should include. limited improvements to existing earth swells so as Io 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 Me more detailed hydrology studies Hydrology a An additional dosed conduit system wit 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 flows 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 desilong bun to transport the drainage runoff oolleclod from the nardnvest portion of the project site,from north of Ellis Avenue to Huntington Central Park, Population and I The applicant should strive to develop a variety of housing types and sizes Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community Housing at a tarp*of prices in order to comply with the General Plan Housing Development Element policies for affordable housing as wed as the needs identified in the RHNA. Recreation t The City should adopt a plan for acquisition and development of land within Prior to Development Within That Area Department of Administration the Central Park expansion area north of Ellis Avenue Recreation 2 The City shall enter into on 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 development Prior to Development of Said Trails Department of Administration and maintenance of pubic wails and parklands within the project area and Parklands r� ,ate ` " Monitor �ndtHepgttmg Gheckiist I ens:a Pl �m ntlment 19,1991 Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary' Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Transportation 1 Arterial links within the project study area shah be improved to their 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 protect study area is presented below Elks Avenue Edwards Street to Gothard Street pnmary 4 lane divided anenal Gotthard Street to protect east boundary secondary 4 lane undivided anenal Garfield Avenue Se"rite Street to Main Street major 6lane divided arterial Yorktown Avenue Gddenwesl Street to Main Street primary 4 lane divided anenal Edwards Street Elks Avenue to Garfield Avenue secondary 4 lane undivided arterial Goldernvest Street Yorktown Avenue to Ellis Avenue major 6 lane divided anenal Gothard 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 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 Transportation 2 Intersections within the study area should be constructed to the lane Prior to Issuance of Budding Permits Department of Pubic Works geometncs identified in Table 18. Transportation 3 Prior to the first Specific Plan or Tract Map approval,a fair share funding Prior to Specific Plan or Tentative Traci Department of Pubbc Works program for the construction of the cross-gap connector from Edwards to Map Approval Solna Chica as a modified secondary anenal and the Seapointe Avenue extension from Garfield to Coast Highway should be determined In the determination of this for 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.E9-1 Adopted 118/90,Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No 6D97 r �Miti titian M tari.n �a. d:Re ;a �n Ghisl�kll�t�, �., , .�f i7 v;3,. s•: �� ?��°. � :*, ¢ ap;:�r�xg:��...�� .�. r r z .3 �, � v k 3Y 8� �. Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Transportation 4 The artarial and intersection improvements required to occur commensurate Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public Works with Planning Area development are as follows: Mannino 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 nor**riy half section(60 feet,3 lanes)of Garfield Avenue from the protect western border to Edwards Street Plamno Area 8 Contribute on a fair share basis towards the implementation of all necessary intersection improvements;identified as mitigation measures for the proposed profect. Contribute on a fair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector Construct the ultimate easterly hall section(40 fool,2 lanes)of Edwards Street from the project's northern border to Garfield Avenue Cons"the ultimate section(100 tool,4 lanes)of Elks Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street.*Construct the ultimate northerly half section(60loot,3 lanes)of Garfield Avenue from Edwards Street to Goldenwest Street. Planrrna Area Contribute on a fan share basis towards the rnplementation of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. ( I • ,. .3a'i: T:..F C'... .. �� '°@+�' .. •. ,,. .: . :.can '�� :vG';,a �., g�,Qy;;. t4. � �:. q'.;xx ,�. 7 .T� 3'.x`` �z s�1nk .r a ';:�f�s+ ��• `�" u`� '����":x��B P x::; ' �' 3{� : r eR'. ..8',W . .• .�.� >Jxv...:d.� :, ..: ':, .,, .;... ,'�;. >,9 e'..Ro.^`..:'tP..3,...'.vh.3. Section Mitigation 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 as ultimate lout lane secondary section from Ellis to Clay Construct the ultimate northerly half section(60 feet.3lanes)of Garfield Avenue from Goklenwest Street to the project's eastern border PJeOm�CCl12 Contribute on a lair share basis towards the implementation of at necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. Contribute on a lair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector Construct the ultimate southerly hall section(60 feet,3 lanes)of Garfield Avenue from the project's western border to Goldenwest Street. Plannhm Area Contribute on a lair share basis towards the hmptementathon of all necessary intersection improvements identified as mitigation measures for the proposed project. Contribute on a lair share basis towards the construction of the cross-gap connector. Construct the ultimate southerly hall section(60 feet.3 lanes)of Garfield Avenue from Goldenwest Street to the project's eastern border Transportation 5 At the time of Specific Plan or Traci Map approval for a given Planning Area Prior to Tentative Traci Map Approval Department of Public Works 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, It unacceptable levels of service result,this traffic analysis shoe determine the portion of the ultimate intersection improvements which are required•the phasing of the improvement and the funding source „x,.Y '�h R�>Z`s a.'.��o o�y. .a'x,.k:� „S s',� a al:•<,„)., k`� ^ s � yy c ! >• 1:. � y � ;w , �'`e k R �. �"• � '�M � 5 � a Y ,'��: EL $ ^Y _ ?� � C � :t� �:t ,yhY,t a '�a'? »>�r�'�% s „ � r JULY9 1f �: ��Y, �3'+•< �'Y k f Y 2` Y � xY A y:. h��”� F O��G �Y�}'Y :..>... :: .. :awao: :..,.. '• '. ..,,ir'.Y!t ...::.. .`' s.. ;rya3.: :.>�x'1 "L:v..:,. x :..I 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 tmprovements which are greater than the (continued) project's fair share,a renmbursable agreement shag be required of those subsequent developments which contribute to the need for said improvement. Transportation 6 Prior to Tract Map approval,a signal warrant analysis shall be conducted for Prior to Tentative Traci Map or CUP Department of Public Works any project access points 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 Gaffteld Avenue,an operational analysis of said access shall be Approval conducted and submined 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 GokMnwest Street. A signalized fug movement intersection shall be pa pilled at this location. The access design shall be Invited on Garfield Avenue and spread to other parallel artenafs,such as Ellis Avenue.Clay Avenue and Yorktown Avenue Transportation 8 Prior to any Specific Plan or Traci Map approval,the Oran Court Transit Prior to 9e ry Specific Plan Approval Department of Public Works District shell be consulted for the need to construct bus slops,tumouls and shelters. Transportation 9 The current Southern Pacific Railroad(SPRR)easement shag be preserved Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community as a transportation corridor for future use for mass transit and trails Development Air Ouslity I 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 walemg dump earth moving operations. To kwl w reduce the emissions,grading should not occur when wind speeds exceed 20 mph Air Ouaity, 2 There should be support and compkanon with the AOMP for ilia hm ern lu Prior to laauanr o ul ft klarp Pmn.na Dupnrlrnunt ul 1'ubht.Works achieve regional as quality The AOMP includes improvement of mass transit laidkties 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 pudic transit usage including the designation of the transportation condor and providing secure bicycle facilities. Provide pubic transit accommodations.such as bus turnout tares,park and ride areas,and bus shelters. j in end Re' rt�n', Check fit. x F. �� >< >""'. yb'p„ s. � <> F; ':.t„. � f• t},:a � Y <.,.;exi oar' ,.�*,Y` %"� ; � �' R '�.� „S: doll�vj�Se�cF1. Gene a Rlan Amen�ry ent f � �> y k : 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 fighting Provide traffic signal synchronization where feasible Air Ouahty 3 Because it only takes a small amount of material to generate odors,it is Ongoing Fire Department important to maintain a very dean operation Therefore,any oil spilled on the ground should be quickly cleaned up Well sumps should be pumped out&her pulling a well,and periodically in the interim Maintenance of seats and gaslets 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 Air Ouahry t Appropriately designed,vapor recovery systems which pull the gas off the Ongoing Fire Department well casing should be employed,as well as vapor recovery systems for oil transport woks A similar system could be employed for any remaining storage facilities on site Noise I 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 esoeeded in residential ouissde living areas Where residential buildings Development are to be boated within these 65 CNEL contours.mitgation measures should be undertaken to reduce noise to acceptable levels. Mitigation through the design and construction of a noise barrier(wall,berm,o• combination wallUrm)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 noose barrier effect occurs when the line of sight'between the source and receiver is penetrated by the bamer. A barrier which does not break the line-ol-sight is not an affective barrier, while one which just interrupts the fine-of-sight achieve%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 • a Nliti at 'an Ma �torir� �nd A, tt,n Checki�st N y Noll{(5,ea�IlffGiener , Jancrtentlment " �.. 211Y 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 Budding Permits Department of Community project comply with this 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 CNEL 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 Pnor to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community reviewed to ensure that sound mitigation is included in the design Development Norse 5 Noise levels generated by the oil operations should be mitigated to levels Pnor to CUP Approval lot Consolidated Department of Community consistent with the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinance,by beating Well Site Development consolidation area(s)at least 300 feet from the nearest residential or other sensitive land uses(locating consolidation areas within industrial use areas would be Cre most desirable from a noise standpoint) The oil wells could be located closer to sensitive lard 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 loot 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. 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 acoustic blankets must be used. Diesel motors even when shielded by acoustic blankets will not meet the nighttime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-silo and off-site residences,and will not most the daytime Noise Ordinance standards at the on-site residences. 11 there are plans to conduct the drilling operations during the nighttime hours,then according to the OR 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 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 love(electric or diesel pumps may DevelopmenVDepartment be necessary. Specific mitigation measures should be presented in an of Public Works additional raise study Noise 8 Well pulling and drilling operations are confined to daytime tours(7 a m to Ongoing Department of Community 10 p.m)by Cho Orl Code Any redrillirg performed at night must provide Development 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 i j ,r;:9f': ... .. '. .,'�.a.)i.""•,. �.wn';"k"r3 .�xg;� {��i/:1}..�y,.o> .�. �� 'r♦:' � �' ty .. a ' �■jj� s:: � s. '. hCjlli�.Kil,>•� � z' s ^s Ms 3's^ �r,�x3, :`; ,s,{ x' H ;.v` `)#' ..�.�,u �.:pff} �`•�� ax, a�. �;•ykf x� aY ,� � ir.. 's,�sw,;, Xt,��. " .x � .��� ✓tA v7�, ti, �2:,w,y�e�z�,yry�3� :4, vu �'^f'L����`, `�.Z.3 9 .'� :.. Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments mainlanance 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 wall maintenance operations.these actinides 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 drifting operations indicate that with a diesel powered Development service rip and an 8 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 oonta'mad in the Huntington Beach code Noise 10 Truck operations should be limited to daytime hours only(7 a.m to 10 p m) Ongoing Department of Community Development Noise 11 Residential development within the helicopter flight corridor should generally Prior to Tentative Tract 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 HelicopW noise impacts should be addressed in the acoustical Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community assessments for residential uses within the helicopter flight corridor Any Development mitigation requirements necessary to reduce helicopter noise impacts should be included in the assessment. Noise 1e A notice(and statement of acknowledgement)to prospective homeowners Prior to Final Inspection Department of Community is required stating that the property is subject 10 overflight,sight and sound Development of helicopters associated with Ole police facility Light and Glare 1 A phased landscaping program should be developed in conjunction with as Pno to Specific 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 fighting should be consistent with the standards established by Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community krture Specific Plans to minimize off-site fight intrusion Development ..�`.a k n •H3 3 �;,F ,'x "3 k �. 'xxs, t`� ;�slri .s &shy?' ,?,„ t hr,+ H i u r��s,." ":;�. ;� s s yw,N ;kuo-r�.'�.:��r✓ � '3n'�✓ a'.r.�y.. ,pa 11 a t�� x�'a,,A,; F &•: ,St#a' rt�.'„ <.ay ✓t { s u �4 �t,.�sa ail.a '� `.s�"`a�; ..ct`�i � " ec;utt."y �a;`:' «��"� a..l.' d, :>. .. 'pox„ ...: .;.. .... ,tYawe.". .. w o :,, ... ..... ., ., ;. .. ..... .. ... ....... Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments 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 pudic 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 to project area. Light and glare S Lighting associated with recreational uses.where applicable,should be Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community designed to minimize light intrusion ono surrounding property and rightol- Approval Development ways surrounding such uses Light and Glare 6 Non-residenbel 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 1 It is suggested That the research design be prepared by the Principal Prior to Issuance of Grading Permits Department of Pubic Works/ Resources Investigator selected to perform the work and that it be reviewed by a Department of Community secerd consulting archaeologist. This step will help insure the Development completeness and viability of the research design prior to its implementation. The nvolvemem 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 Pubic Works) Resources subjected to 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. 11 the collections are property 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 K 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 handing and processing of human remains encountered during excavation,as well as the ullmate disposition of such remains. �:. 's.r``,o�%/�, a � s a 3 ; x� x�w Lr, Y A h� k y �. :.F.• ,al oF6+` �{. � s= ;� :_� S�i.,'!, x�"W'y� 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 lost 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. 0.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 soles 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 K being recovered. The observer should be prepared to recover material as rapidly as is consistent with good archaeological practice Wr itoring should be on a full time basis when grading is lakuhg pfacn on or near an archaeologicar deposit Howemr, the Vladmg slwuld lnrnhi—th wlwn thin udlw et depostl t..I—, entirely removed and clearly sterile deposits exposod F.All excavation and ground dsturb ing observation prclects 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 fufly 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. a H �'�AltigatiorMonri g.,ftd' +�pptting Checklist rq y Holt Seaallf:GeePlan endtnent q �'s a w^�Mn 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 curation 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 lithm 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 scaoers 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 Cuftural t 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 an a lull 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-Seadift property,but the area round 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 Cultural 5 The plaque commemorating oil well Huntington A-t 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 cut into the San Pedro Development Sand or the Ouatrnary marine terrace units Cultural 7 In areas where fossils are abundant,full-time monitoring and salvage efforts Ongoing Department of Community Resources will be necessary(6 hours per day during grading or trenching activities) In Development areas whom no fossils are being uncovered,the monitoring time can be less than eight hours per day. l c sy r�' Y. � �.•�� �, �. �: .x ,r7 .t Q, ,a::r:. �. ':: 'c .a '. ,,.,r ' s: ':«°tt. y,..+'/ ::�' ;.g w. .' Hex.:,,�,..s.•w� '`i' s Via. ��" a, wg '3^"'+' >e'l ,.s:• ,k.,>,.x•.x5.,':r: '>•.« `�:C: � t :s: .;". D W r`3. ,a. zaE`� ,✓ s ':sips i' :�5 ;'x r:hs»'s�;:'..�,,. �•.g� s•� i< .j, 3 +F,'�,, r, WA ��'..� '� �s ,.,k�, .' �2,:R � r�2.�Csx: ..f .�"�< 4a*r .,k� �"•A s •;vk&. .�.,. ••�.¢x..,s x. 'aS•:. .;,.:s,'.. Z'. • .,,o. ah x�,.aao�*.e:,.ri:.m�;.•,.x,. :.,.,. �:. .Rr.raa>X..,.,.:..,o..,,J.�,...a,.:.. , ..,... ..... z%::.r,..�, � . .. ....,s.�kk"?6.:i..'#:fir.,..,..,r..... ...;;�::r`t.•ro».:'Y�.�?°":.:».,:..... .,,�2.,..., ....Tw'^>.t vS,..'z�. Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Cultural 8 The paleontologist should be allowed to temporarily divert or direct gracing Ongoing Department of Community Resources operations 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 microvertebrate remains. It a deposit of Development . microhrenebrates 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 stratigraphic data should go to an institution Prior to Final Inspection Department of Community Resources with a research interest in the materials,such as to Orange County Natural Development History Foundation Biological 1 The setting 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 revegetation on all graded areas where Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community Resources structures or other improvements are not built In public open space areas, Development consideration should be given to to 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. Biological ] Following construction of necessary infrastructure to the main drainage Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Community Resources swele,i.e.utility lines,sewers,etc.,this swate should remain as open Development space. Mitigation for the loss of cattail marsh habitat(0.5 acres)and willow habitat(0.5 acres)which are depicted on Exhibit 28.wit take piece 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 horn 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 raptors such as the red-shouldered hawk,should be preserved or replaced Development in accordance with the free 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 will be mitigated by restoration of an equal area of coastal Development wetland at a nearby location in the open space area z�>,. a .t .. gip":wr •s...,.'£ �" Z^ c;.> .,.,r s. ¢xtf?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 win require mitigation defined by 1603 Development permits Biological 7 Developmentfuse of the linear park(open space areas along the northern Prior to Developmenf 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 buffers shall be designed to exclude humans and pets from the Bolsa Chia Wetlands areas. The bluffs and other upland areas in the knew park shall be revegetated with native plants which are adapted to coastal environments. Biological g The effects of night fighting an be mitigated by the following measures 1) Prior to Development of Linear Park Department of Community Resources use of low intensity street tamps at M dowfopment edge; 2) use of low Development elevation fighting poles;and 3) shielding by informal silvering of the globe or ntarnal opaque reflectors. The dsgre•to which these measures are utilized should be dependent upon the distance of the tight source to the urban edge. Use of private sources of illumination wound homes should also be restricted to prohibit area fighting on lots adjacent to open space areas No" 1 Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Prior to Tentative Tract Map Approval Department of Community Resources Standards sat forth in Title 24 of the Caktornis Administrative Code. Energy Development conservation features should include: Installation of thermal insulation in walls and ceilings which most or exceed State of California,Title 24 requirements. Insulation of hot water popes and duct systems. Use of natural ventilation where possible. Use of neural gas for space healing and cooking. •Installation of atic 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 further energy conservation measures. s c � �"z S JULY 1k9,,1f19i 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 Plan(s)should include an area or areas for the consolidation Prior to Specific Plan Approval Fire DepartmenvDepartment of oil well facilities of Community Development Oil Facilities 2 Ail new development proposals should be accompanied by Prior 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 existing wells. •The operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities These pans must satisfy the requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Oil and Gas. Oil Facilities 3 The criteria for the approval of development plans within ox 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 avow 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 lot portable equipment and emergency vehicles (c)That reasonable expansion of the existing facilities,if permitted in the oil district,can be accomplished. jd)That any proposed development includes all provisions for soundproofing and fire protection required by eie Fire Chief. (e)That screening of oil facilities from any new development is included in the plan(section 96W 4.Article 968 Olt DISTRICTS, City of Huntington Beady 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 wale(in*bon methods being used at operating oA production facilities. Source Reference Final EIR No,89.1 Adopted 11&90.Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No 6097 .. ......:..,..........:...:......,. .,...,....M..,..,�,-.�.,,....�;,.„r.......,.,�«.�...,..-t--'-ram'»._.,.-�.-.-:_.. ... �Ill�t� � [on M"�'"` �qr•°>uE�and a rtinAM>Checkli�lt � � ��<«,� ;� �& ;�i"„` ."': ,fa."' 1'.; r '.,.' ` �`a�??b:s� x, s t ''i, rs'e.,� ✓s �^�' r,�a� s .��' .��cll: .fin.�t'� me,.ndment ;:��•,r'?�ahx, '� z x 's � ,6„� YLE E /y'✓FY' d.�y ya :w .., �c •,{r a .� "•� ? �' x,r� ..kY ,sa. o��. ,�s � �u �n r r s y "x i+�:�;,: �'�'#�" t � .y�`o. � � r:,'�»?�;.,�'�.,:vv3rr'�'�.'' �� Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Oi Facilities 5 The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in the loundstion Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs hom minor DRvefopment regional subsidence Although this measure will provide for a more rigid slob•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 oil contamination.methane gas Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Fire Departmeni accum n ulatio 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 of Grading Permits Department of Public Woks and Saltily performed including a phased Environments!Site Assessment to evaluate areas where oomaminafion of the surficial sails may have taken place The environmental assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to One 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 surlipal 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. a.Completion of sal gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the existing on-site wells f.Testing of air samples for gas vapor,methane gas and sufhn compounds. x � s�"� ��� � � °ate c£t :� t�s x s `� eSiti �., `Y ',� K g'mY t�Fsa '"+1°•�,s7t v .�.�; x �a .eE`c+'tr �{ l < �: 'k #.P :b Jt 'gS. �«3-•. Y:;^+0n „ hh S :L{ Y .9 ,'� ,,h, ) 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 Plan(s)should include an area or areas for the consolidation Prior to Specific Plan Approval Fire Dopartment/Departmeni of oil well lacilities 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 operational plans for any remaining wells and facilities These pans must satisfy me requirements of the City of Huntington Beach 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 specie 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,it permined in The oil distinct can be accomplished (d)That any proposed development includes all provisions for soundproofing and fire protection required by fie Fire Chief. (e)That screening of oil facilities from any new development is included in he plan(section 9680 4,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 it subsidence rates are declining with current water injection methods being used at operating oil production facilities Source Reference. Final EIR No.89-1 Adopted 1/8/90,Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No 6097 y,. ,�^>;� v z;Y,:u;.g': '. a�3,s?;<..: ��a; :,a ,,..: „.: i� •�.s� ,x � hs�r £',.��, w y s �R f atior►:.. torl`�`�r�: �� rtm ,g:yG� ecklf�t�.�� �� ;, a �,. �� �;::�' �•.. S;v :>�� 'x� ,� F^�us.,, .,� .,. � Ss s °s, 'E"`Y3 � � � l�'£:�' 1S3 3'� ,�'�` � �'yv � + x M ; R"';& S C�Y ex s Sa T,xhf K r`,a Y ,��,�fe fi..4 }sFc.:�• �',a,3rz,'3k�tia '.'�.`Qt"",�U , ��� � � • F�Y� a 3 s. Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Olt Facilities S The use of post-tensioned slabs should be considered in Orb toundatrun Prior to Issuance of Buildup Permits Department of Community design in order to eliminate distress to structures and slabs from minor Development regional subsidence. Although this measure wig provide for a more rigid slob.O will by no means eliminate distress to foundations resulting from the rapid subsidence of the land from continued oil and gas withdrawal Olt Facilities 6 All other mitigation measures pertaining to oil contamination,methane gas Pnor 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 of Grading Permits Department of Public Works and Safety performed indu6ng a phased Environmental Site Assessment to evaluate apes whom contamination of the surfieial soils may have taken place. The environmental assessment should evaluate existing available information pertinent to One site and also undertake a limited investigation of possible on- site contamination Phase I should include a.Revrwv of available documents pertinent to the subject site to evaluate current and previous uses. b.Site reconnaissance to evaluate areas where contamination of suAidal soils may have taken place c.Excavation and losing 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 quids for heavy metals. e Completion of soil gas vapor detection excavations located adjacent to the existing on%do wells f.Testing of air samples for gas vapor,methane gas and sulfur compounds. 1 rC�:'�Qri°Y:"Y:�'gA?.�1rF 5 R:�:.'.'Si:,'F�"�A' .: oC •e��9,`r Y.'';y,: ��'yYs .... :..:�s �I x.,' L .2'.'./y` Y S' 3$ yf ... .x- aa. x:+,:ac.. " ..::..:.... . 'f:n2?dYr .�"�. q.;.a•.� .� ...;•x _o.., ':` ':'° ;�'::°. .:.,..,..�.. :;�`,?9�'.m•. .�.. �'5�:.., ..%',�:.v�'�'� '.°�-� kH .... .. ... }S 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 of 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 Mite roadway fills(subgrade) b.Treatment of possible drilling sumps by either on-site disposal of non-contaminated drilling fluids or off-site disposal of conuminnaterd fluids, c.Treatment of the possibility of the accumulation of methane gas Human Health 3 Prior b development.a thorough site study for the presence of surface and Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department and Safety shallow subsurface methane gas should be performed. Any abnormal findings would require a Remedial Action Plan and bother 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 steles and ioudalions. 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 m•ta ne gas. Additionally,following construction of structures.an organic vapor analysis should be cornductad and the results evaluated to assure That acceptable at quality,is maintained within buildings and residences. Human Health 4 The presence of mefharne 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 lost wells to monitor for subsurface methane deposits and confirm or deny the presence of biogenic methane bearing strata near Mite 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. 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. 9 Laboratory analysis of selected soil samples for metals and soil vapor samples for gases. Suntan Health 5 ON wells schecktiod for abandonment should be completed in accordance Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department and Safety with to standards and specifications of the City of Huntington Beach and ft CAINorria,Division of Oil and Gas. Wells which have previously been abandoned nnm be resbandDned to the most current requirements of the City of Huntington Beach and the Division of Of and Gas Hunan Health 6 Existing oil production Ines are located throughout the vie Treatment of Prior to issuance of Grading Permits Department of Public Works and Safety Ilhose Krars wit depend an proposed land use and development. utility lines should be relocated and or removed with the trench being filled with compacted fit. Human Health 7 An invenlory of off hazardous materials used and stored by industries Ongoing Fire Department and Safety locating wiMm the protect area should be maintained and recorded for use by go City Fro Department. This inventory should include the location&I which each hazardous material is used H~Health a The use,storage and disposal of hazardous motorists should be enforced Ongoing Fire Department and So" by Coy of Huntington Beach to provide Me greatest possible protection to the pubfic from accidental ocicumemos. Human Hum) 9 Aclive wells refraining on-sim should be secured and screened as required Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Deportment of Community and Safety by the City of Hun"wri Beach Development Human Health 10 Prior 00 development,a 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 silos in the vicinity of the Development subject she. Public Services I Avon$roods to of production areas should be provided where appropriate Prior to Grading Pormils/ongoing Department of Public Works and uAties and kept unobstructed to prevent adverse impacts an Are protection due to ongtoiry ad Production. Public Services 2 Measures to eliminate at reduce two and safety risks from existing and Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department and Utilities abandoned of production I -"-' s and disposal woos are discussed in the H~Hoolith and Safety soclion of this EIR. ale oaf r s x� MI5 art y 6 w .. ..,>�k��o. k ,��Ma '',... s ., x.°. >s.,.. •: xxS . >, rx y ! Sedan Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Pudic Services 3 The Huntington Beach Fire Department should review all developments Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Fire Department and Upities within the arse for adequate emergency vehicle access and water pressure. Pudic Services 4 The City should budget for additional officers to correspond with phasing of Ongoing Fire Department and Utilities development in the protect area. Pubic 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 parkands 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 dstrictfs)for the development Prior to Development Within That Area Department of Administration and Utilities and maintenance of pubic trails and parklands within the project area, Public Services B 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 new elementary school to sorvo sludonts Prior to General Plan Amendment Department of Community and Utilities generated by residential development within to protect area Approval Development Public Services 10 The school district and major landowner should enter into an agreement for Ongoing Department of Community and Utilities acquisition or lease of the site as pan of implementation of this GPA Development Public 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 U!'ities expansion plane 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 Buikding Permits Department of Community and Utilitee 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 tow water use landscaping. Pudic Services 14 The developer should cancan the solid waste disposal firm during the Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Community artd llhwdes design stage to ensure the most eMiiderd 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 141190.Huntington Beach City Council Resolution No 6097 +�( x r ,.oar��,t � �sr �s ��•x�'?� xo- "'3! i'�2t! � 3: s ate �.s £>< ,x•d' T tee r k � Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Public Services is Building construction should comply with the Energy Conservation Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community and UjiYfies Standards set forth in Tide 24 of the Californian Administrative Code Development Public Services 16 It is strongly recommended that developers consult with the Southern Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Departrnent of Community and Utilities Caifomia Gas Company and the Southern California Edson Company for Approval Development further energy conservation measures Public Services 17 Developers should submit to SCG and SCE planning divisions all tract maps Prior to Tenuib a Tract Map or CUP Department of Community and Ufities and improvement plans for the project so that proper planning,phasing and Approval Development sizing of needed mains and service lines can be designed Public Services 16 Building construction should comply with the standards and specifications of Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community and Uties the General Telephone Company and Rogers Cable TV Company Development Public Services 19 Developers should submit to GTE and Rogers Cade TV Company an 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 material ordering for service lines can be made. Want Facilities 1 Development of the proposed project should occur concurrently with Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works dwelopmenl of the Ciy's water system improvements to allow for adequate Approval water service to to site Walter Facilities; 2 AN peposod 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 On adjoining properties. Water Facilles 3 As future development occurs prior iD the issuance of Use and Occupancy Prior to Final Inspection Department of Pubic Works pemMs•developers should oonstruct 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 until the Reservoir HAI 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. e h ,�.'+ A iYs a+;,w�/Pi.- h ````trtr♦ y .` s ;:f:, £y '%ir .: Q 4. 11 V 6.ax.Yf�`u 2.`' :, i 3 yxs' +,ry.,� s ¢. x:r:s pz �' D. ON w. ;. ..,:?"`w,... .. o..... :. Section Mitigation Mitigation Measure Monitoring Agency Approval Verification of Completion Reference Measure No. Requirement Summary Milestone Responsible Party Complete Date Comments Water Facilities 6 The following water conservation measures shall 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 Irtigtion systems which minimize water waste should be used to the Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Community greatest aslant possible, Such measures should involve such features as DevelopmentDeponment the following. of Public Works a.Raised planters and bermng in conyunction with closely spaced low volume low angle(22-12 degrees)sprinkler heads. b.Drip irrigation c.Irrigation systems controlled automatically to ensure watering during early morning 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 Pubic Works beneits of low wooer use landscaping and sources of additional assistance ter domestic and irrigation water conservation procedures Water Facilities a Landscaping should use only low water demand(drought-tolerant species) Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Pubic Works end irrigation systems designed to minimize water waste. The use of mulch etttensively 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 10 Use pervious paving material whenever feasible to reduce surface water Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Pubic Works runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. Water Facilities 11 control slopes and grades to discourage water waste through runoff. Prior to Grading Permits Department of Pubic Works "'i<P?S'�x'C:::a3is'?. .,q,ti wy�3�;R".�.y .i.5n%;, a. �.;+.' :`>�";r,F�.. � ��` x�Cr <'Y s.rx E,. s , .rY�,r. .E":'r�%",:•ify: ,:.� a iN: c d.. n 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 lor 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 &dowels water supplies to each development Water Fah3ties 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 Facaities 14 As development occurs.prior 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 is 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 1 Detailed sewer studies should be prepared by a licensed civil engineer as Prior to Specific Plan Approval Department of Pubic Works required by M Ciy so as to precisely calculate the required sewer main sizes. These calculations may be used to a4uust M suggested pipe sizes proposed for M E.I.R.and should be completed for each tributary area prior No the approval of Specific Plans Sewer Faciiities 2 AN proposed development should comply with a phasing plan and the Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Pubic Works design of"war facilities as shown on Me senor l cilities map This would provide adequate connections to set ica adjoining end 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 oft production as required for adequate pipe capacity lows. Sewer Facilities 4 Development of to areas tributary to to Slater Avenue Pump Station Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Pubic Works should be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or until oMr interim methods are approved Sewer Facilities S AN industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce Ongoing Department of Pubic Works M bad strength of Mm sewerage discharge. i •.�,r. rs,gs,�jA;uyrf yHG Y %'° `A`' .%°bi sc, .y:m/< . .£:,� ..;•,ems. ;rr s <c.,•'ys 9ra£;✓l:�Gi' <;+, s .'...",'. :6•''.y, i. z .,,p;..:¢�: ,r•�..•. .r, �^ M,s: . .. .aoaa. 'der& o !n :5. x .. N'� 3 >.,. �t ., p�.: H. Q<;.:`w�. s,.... c`�. .,. _c .,..•.... ... �. n.,... .;�s. ...,. .. .... ..,.. „ ,,., . ' r ' 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 for Use and Oocupancy should Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Public 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. hlor Facilities 13 Developers should consult the City Water Division during design and Prior to Tentative Tract Map or CUP Department of Public Works constntetion phases for 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 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 constrict and utilize a redsimed water system lot on-site irrigated areas and equestrian trails. Sewer Facilities 1 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 sewer main sizes. These calculations may be used to adjust the suggested pipe sizes proposed lot 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. Ale 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 of production as required for adequate pipe Capacity'lows. Sewer Facilities < Development of the areas tributary to the Stater Avenue Pump Station Prior to Issuance of Building Permits Department of Pubic Works should be postponed until the pump station improvements are completed or until other interim methods are approved. Sewer Facilities S All industrial and commercial users should take on-site measures to reduce Ongoing Department of Pubic Works the load strength of their sewerage discharge. i A%'H�.9' t%H'f'R.N ::L'z"'�S'. Y': .%s, p 5': lit, jb♦ y `� a''wASe :A'Z£ w e y,8. V£ i4 3 ,yF'a' . :. ,�y t.�atiart;Maln ty'Au'rin�,, nd, .e artin� h >< F :; a � r �' .&: /:y %�:'/k' f tA:,:�v'^y r4 'A' 3 �� ✓ ,: 5k `:fx 31. F 13'�. 3 ^J f' fi: enerat Pl n mendm t ; 6 h �w r•�e`t3 7`'A .,'; `� ,s,v �' to / srk,• n Y F t,Yax`>s' s ` 'a. y4yi° '�� >r", ? ' �...0 wYCe': 'y, 6...�' •:Lu: .Ji��fG.'f''".r.•., ,.',..f . ... a .. .�. , .. ... 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 tees 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 andror olf-site facilities necessary to serve the development. It it is required to oversize these lacihties 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. 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 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. r 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 . 4 A PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntingt-on Beach, California, on the 17th day of September, 1991. Director of Community Chairman of the Development Planning Commission t � huntington beach department of community development srAFF REPORT 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 . A-FM-23C 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 "01" 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 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 . 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) r � Y r 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) . r ti 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) � 1 Affordable Housing 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 0 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) 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 N0, 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 r Staff Report - 10/29/91 -7- (1243d) t COX. CASTLE IS N ICHOLSON p VIC- -N iTE`EN A - . A PAR"NERSHIP INCLUDING PROFE5S.0NA, CORPORATIONS .. ;,'JUNSE._ k`�LGL"E CE TEPL-'. 'iANORA Z-EWART ' e iEDRDE M COX L/EMAN ROGER �;ENKEL�W 1 L ICJ RICHARD N CAST_E N G GwgP•gO 'll. �ASPE4 ANDERSON LAWRENCE J igACY ARA ALISA i FREUNDLICH 2O49 CENTURY PARK EAST 1 O CALKINS. II CAROL L MAT S ONAGA C—P E OLDSTET wOv:APO GOLOSTEIN .OHN H !HI. KENNETH WILLIAMS TWENTY-EIGHTH FLOOR uwlll P f.KI IMEL5'EIN SUSAN _A_KSON iA Ci A H GRO-GEAVM .\al • •R H _ ,4 MIL.H4EL KAMINSKY LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90067 ECWARD C DiER' S,A _ING. KATHRYN M _YDDAN W_Z5N ATES _ _EiP�UE4 DAV•D S RO SENBERG 'E LE PHGNE i213) 277-4222 __""GN B CATES AL KFNNE:H B'RLE-' CHAEI "•DOS •_aAN rE _OUN" n rE H 1ALDMAN MAT,E`h = MAN FACSIMILE (213) 277-76a9 N IIHOL'C! �c A..MER _9B_^ M.,ART=IUR q,�__vARC'. AH-E5 L . NEMAN .=n.�.P M NAMER ='A'HI YgRC OP•__^5 .."E 5C.n MAa ENE !` =FRIE: - MA Rv ..c�S EL p r N vRNIA y c LVf BEERS BARR' - -ON gARP. .AeI.'�N' _CA a 476-2. AS-E-S -AN B MASSEN a.`9EPTV n NE__S OIANE E "_EREND 23 204.2-?" -._WARD 3 5HI R'_EY ANDREW E Z�BLER S RAiLEY D FR AZ'ER SCOT 9ROOKS _M44 "E HN -_1:'A5 October 21, 1991 _AN v " o E_L n M ARON _ AM r :. P _Ep .EN. a 013E4 BENUN 20371 -..:a :- M^.KOPr .nlfC-�E__ _•.;FSER FN"5 "-`FELDM Ar; _'SA 3...M.. WRITERS 'DIRECT ."i _ N'�MPE4 P M._ANCRE'NS ADRIENNE - ON KEh'CH PF:E •ROLD WA_5 MARK A REZAC MARK P ♦I�'L—ATHAN DONALD , '-A'JEZ 2 1 3/2 8 4-2 2 3 1 �OHN A .1 NCAN171 ADAM D __N�_AN STANLEY W. LAMPORT SHERRY PONT . RANCALL 'N BLA'_N ACK!E K _"ER /� v. N .IN LINES w•)NGP.• - .�G.;.EN K • •I PE RQ1 D MOf-PRO !ACOL`_\E PH,.LIPS ,A.'-KSON ,E55 R 8 RE551 JOEL H "-STEIN C REGORY I KA 4NS MYRON S _ EEVES I� -. ter T11— P PALL _ --EP •._J `. "E aBFRT K._ KE4PY .H _'ENSEN 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: i 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 iUnder state law and the specific terms of the Development Agreement, the City is limited as to the land use regulations APACHMENT NO:14ml, 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 $ 658641 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 f ) 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 S 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 6S864.The Ltgislawre finds and declares that: (a)The lack of certainty in the approval of developmentpro*ts 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 ressouroes 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 developrnent. (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 Stars. 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•Monterey Park,California 91754-7605 P y (213)780-6900 REAL ESTATE IN RE PLEASE REFER TO Huntingt--a Beach - Team Track - SR#2473 October 8, 1991 Mr. Robert Franklin Associate Planner 1 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street l Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan Mr. Franklin: Per our conversation this afternoon, Southern Pc--- Lc Transportation Co--pany would recommend the following changes regarding impact the realign- ment of Gothard Street and the planned collector =:reets will have or. S:' owned property at the northeast corner of GotharC _nd Mai: . Southern Pacific must be guaranteed perpetual ac:�-ss for truck traffic from Main Street to the existing team track area. T}:__ access should cons:-t of a right-in/right-out curb cut to be no less that: =arty (40' ) feet in r lth. The access point should be located approximately =_ghty (80' ) feet nort`.,- east of the existing Gothard alignment , with the -=nterline of the drive being, no closer than sixty (60' ) feet to the exi=_ ng Gothard. At such time when Gothard is realigned Southern =_cific will lose approximately four hundred (400' ) feet of frontage and any acc_ s from this street. The proposed new access from this direction will be :_-im the diagonal- collector running northwest to southeast from the realigns- Gothard to Main. In the event that this diagonal collector is not in pl&_ c at the time Gothard is realigned, interim access , equivalent to the exi=_ing access , will be provided by the Developer. This interim access must be p- sided via a paved street or road built to the standards set by the City of H---.tington Beach for heavy truck traffic. Additionally, any crossing improvements necessit=:_z�d 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 a. roval process for the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan and during the plan-._ng process for an-j devel- opments in the vicinity of the team track. AT-i AGHfvlEN I I�'j. 2` r t t 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, 9/KI�I 'Jl� j- i�� Charles E. Gamble, II Sales Manager (213) 780-6906 cc : R. L. Stacy Il. D. Cali w( 11 Urban Vest Communities 520 hro�jdw<<Y, SL11 tC 100 C lifori-ii it 90401 , ( 213 ) 3 4 - 3 3 October 7, 1991 Kirk Kirkland, Chairman Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: DOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN - ITEM B-5 r As you arc 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. Ilse 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 111-7 of the Specific Plan to implement the City's housing policies and goals in this area. Sincerely, Tom panic Vice President cc: Members of the Planning Commission Sara Lazarus, Deputy City Attorney Michael Adams, Director of Community Development Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director Robert Franklin, Associate Planner ATTACHMENT NO. p.I11-7 12. Aff or a i - Housing 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. Zhe development standards applicable to the affordable units. d. City approvals Fcquircd 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 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 III. 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 tC Cnrn"!etinn of thn t r^ce t'-* r;nnnPrtnr Clarfielri AVenue extonsinn1, No I'nnrP than Phase I of ihf?. ..._ _.___ _ _ (_-_. . . 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 A-ITACHMENT NO. �J / huntington beach department of community development srAf f -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 RE E 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 . 1040111,11- 3 --- 5 A-F -4IQ A i�'ACHMENT NO. - 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 "O1" 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) 5 1 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) W I I C2-0 I F (MI-c01 MI •46 I CD •' 'k (PREZONED) _ - i MI-CO ✓ 2 -CD _ _ t ----- --- — -- — — — — - fMl-ol R2 - ro / M2-0 y... \\ ELLIS-GOLDENWEST SPECIFIC PLAN j MI° " I� 'I RA-OI I I7C1, opr- 0,RA-01-CZ =--_- MI-0M OP OP i or+s t P ' OP R2 OP CC_Cz__ll, A-0. I Av �x�:/ (-�4-0 CI-0 jl RAOI CDC i 2-01 o q RfVO MI 2 Rfl MI-A i ',"� .\.rt. M2-o 1-M. R2 T R2� ;� 1sF`;•_ «�� R4 ' I • o>Rz-a ?Re -0I M ICLAY a " ,.,'��o�i �A• 4-0I Rly • A C2-0 • i�Glap w•iw•.:.r.....' x•...m'..at" RI / = R2-0-PO Y,. $ ;AL 4�A( ➢. , R4-a d `RI RI —_ J z •a �' R2 0 3` s b. �\oF.r.a.w }..•, •ti•%4,k�j. .erp RI a C2-0-CD C2-0 vo a , ,,;.,;., , Y ,; ,• ,I •'yam - RI RI q 1 �x ....•,.. .°s•, q. o<u �RZ•O Ro$-O -PD, R2.0 r/.0 Cs •S_ F V..'.,ef . •� ""�.,'•. ^+.. RI i q RI �� — w �✓v ,,•xyac,uw..I., --A ROS-0 ��'� RI C2-0-CD R2 o Po- j d R4-01 ,•• • ra...�' ,( \ RI R¢`I R4 01 ^ u tR4-0 ib � } o j R 1 (> ; •,;y ,R4-ol,r CF-E-CD C F-C R2 0-CD ?fR2pp0{Z 6CF-E-CD 6aI 11 I II ! coo w r CITY g&UNTINGTON BEACH EXISTING ZING - , �ti Qp1l l'I 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 45% 50% 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 (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 ' I 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 s (0790d-3 ) t °i 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% l 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 I (0790d-4 ) Southern Pacific Transportation Company 1200 Corporate Center Drive•Suite 100•Monterey Park,California 91754-7605•(213)760-6900 REAL ESTATE IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO Huntington Beach Team Track - SR# 2473 September 20 , 1991 �� I E Mr. Jim Otterson Spa 3o1991 Traffic Engineer DEPARTMENT of City of Huntington Beach COMMUNITY DEVELOPMERT, 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 a le II 4 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 1 WEAVER & MOLA 19061 CRYSTAL STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 TELEPHONE 714 536-8223 714 84 8-009 7 E L V D October 1, 1991 OCT 0 '; I Michael C. Adams Dept. of 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 1 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 r ration Michael K. Ryan G tafson Brothers' Jon Gust sQnJ' -- �' c : Howard Zeles y, Planning Director Robert Frankli , Associate Planner Dick Harlow, arlow & Associates Frank Mola, Weaver & Mola Carl Weaver, Weaver & Mola a � y HOMES OCT o 1991 Dept.of Comm. Development 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 J. Shally Vice President Vice President, Legal Attachments cc: Mike Adams Robert Franklin OWNERSHIP PACIFIC COAST HOMES 0000000 WEAVER & MOLA 0000000 0 0 0 0 La U_ ZI C.ARnV AVENUE _ - — O O 1 O O / 00 000 O 1 00000000 000000000 / ,/z V// O O O O { 00000000 00000000 000 0000000 00 �0,0 0 v v v v ou 0 000 0000 000000000 0000 v 0000000 00000000 000020000 -4 ` 4 YORKTOYM AVENUE �-- i LEASED TO WEAVER OR WEAVER & MOLA " +I I I CARFlf+LD AVENUE T �TT I �v , I I 'w I II I any I — —�— — — — . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I � / -4 I SCAM ,'_4W I I YORKTOWN AVENUE , EXISTING ZONING ___1 IGARFIELD ) I I eo RA-0 S CI N 299.96226, 3 R 2 530/ - J M I W � c.� `�. 0 0 RA - 0 Q Q RA 09 co ti- R2 Q2 ----� 193$4 �J Q O L R - 8 J MR2-01 R2 N V O I 3' n Y G I CLAY C2-0- 1». fFcES R�/OiR) .�~ C2—a b k. M C2-0;�CD 30 C2-0 , S e9*59 56 E !7 r°o C2 OFF H if . W Z e w I W O i C2- 0 -CD. i N � 1 YORKTOWVN I STAf f huntington beach department of community development 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 RE_0_UEST: 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 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 . 5 A-F M-23C 1 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 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 rentgl 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 ArQa 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. 0 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-Seacliff 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 j Coastal Act by implementing coastal policies and requiring coastal development permits in the Coastal Zone. 10 .0 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: *The Planning Commission may modify 9 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:�R(LFF: kj l Staff Report - 9/17/91 -7- (0728d) ELUS ® rL, Mr I I I I ` U N W I Z -_ C W o GARFIELD 0, / W :� � I I CF-C CF-E r-- HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN ZC 91-10/CA 90-10 HUNTINGTON{EACH HUNTWGTON 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 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 2 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 j Carl M. Weaver cc: Hal Simmons, Senior Planner Michael K. Ryan, Mola Development Corporation 1 t COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. =W �y p September 3 , 1991 ` E C L�^ 1 V E DCP•`• Of Cam... 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, partic-u].arly 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 92806 •TELEPHONE(714)9784M7 ca..nn.s.n�rs.socwEa.c 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. c: :v.rr ararew.atawu rc 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. CO. Tl SMMS ASSMWIa nc 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 coniunction with appropriate General Plan amendments. " CO W TY 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 coNW YS EYS,3SMWES MC 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 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 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. " M ii carver.,.N... wcun�.¢ Mr. Howard Zelefsky September 3 , 1991 Page 7 6) Page IV-1 should be revised to read as follows:- "B. 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 Co.11 Tv"TIM$A.Z. (I MC Mr. Howard Zelefsky September 3 , 1991 Page 8 the Developer and the Huntington Beach City School District. Building permits shall be issued only in conjunction 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, Ph NITY SYS MS ASSOCIATES, INC. all 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 -- fa � 03 "T 1� AuWk- lilia COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, 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� �i ItiUi±��'ellf "Mewe 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 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 project: Mr. Howard Zelefski CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH April 1, 1991 Page 3 1.. The Specific Plan designates a site for a K-5 4 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. IT11 J110.4 4;zm i Cbw.,"t.9 44fOC-I&K Mr. Howard Zelefski CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH April 1, 1991 Page 4 Bicycle routes and lanes shall be established, sinned 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 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 owners in proportion to the benefits received by each user. 1 Mr. Howard Zelefski CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH April 1, 1991 Page 5 r 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- 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. } Sincerely, CO ITY Sllu MS ASSOCIATES, INC. a sha 1 B pp President MBK:dl 3 : 129 cc: Dr. Gary Burgner Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Tom Zanic Urban West Communities, Inc. ! Dr. Joel Kirschenstein Sage Institute, Inc. i J o6 -'lull t .I: �i vAll;a�m_i l 1 COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES,INC. ,y Y_�� June 11, 1991 r-� 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 includinct 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 COuuvrw•f+tf of .1fOC W[f.K r—��� - � ,emir 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 protect: 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. Mr. Howard Zelefsky June 11, 1991 Page 4 5) Page III-6 should be revised to include the follo+aing: 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, free and efficient routes to parks and and efficient routes toparks and schools. Route locations shall be coordinated with the Huntington Beach City School District. 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 9C— � . lTsi�`dl:�-'ins"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 Reimbursement Agreement between the Developer and the Huntington Beach City School Dis- trict. Building_permits shall be issued only in con- junction 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. V 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- �sv 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 ��1 L 1.,�-2+�.� 1 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 7-8 182 247 Total 782 1 , 041 CO..uu+rr S+S*!uS♦SSOC wSS+{ _'� 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 Tota( 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 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 ca.w4•fmw.ffocwfs.c Ma %Mr 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 i tailor its final answers as it wishes and, as necessary, to meet conditions which are unusual or exceptional. i 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. �i Sln Dili i I[n=. CM., n 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: "1. 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 �t C p...yrr t.SVStl f 4ffOCW(S.0 -� 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 Site Analysis and Development Guide is attached. Mr. Howard Zelefsky June 111 1991 Page 12 Thank you for your assistance and consideration. We look forward to this revised draft. Sincerely, CO UNITY SY S ASSOCIATES, INC. shail/I. 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 AMENDMENT 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% 3.85e 3.54% B B-1 56 165 168 28.05 28.56 8-2 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% 10.66% 8.54% 10.66; 8.54% C C-1 64 310 448 52.70 75.16 C-2 29 240 435 40.80 73.95 C-3 7 60 105 10.20 17.85 C-4 20 400 S00 68.00 85.00 C-5 33 425 495 72.25 84.15 C-6 6 100 150 17.00 25.50 C-1 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 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 0-2 23 150 161 25.50 27.37 D-3 63 370 441 62.90 74.97 D-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 0-9 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 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% 100.0016 100.00% 100.00% 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 4.26 1-2 26 90 104 15.99 18.48 1-3 16 55 64 9.77 11.37 1-4 16 0 0 0.00 0.00 SUE-TOTAL 64 160 192 28.43 34.12 OF TOTAL 8.32% 3.64% 2.99% 3.64% 2.99% 8 8-1 56 165 168 29.32 29.85 8-2 45 140 140 24.88 24.88 8-3 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% 1I II-1 62 310 434 55.09 77.12 11-2 40 415 600 73.75 106.62 II-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 75 100 13.33 17.77 II-7 6 100 150 17.77 26.66 I1-8 32 0 0 0.00 0.00 SU8-TOTAL 191 1,535 2,119 272.77 376.55 % OF TOTAL 24.84% 34.99% 33.00% 34.89% 33.00% NORTH OF GARFIELD 455 2,165 2,784 384.72 494.72 % OF TOTAL 59.17% 49.20% 43.36% 49.20% 43.36% I11 111-1 19 250 285 46.20 50.64 _ 111-2 109 550 763 97.74 135.59 111-3 11 140 165 24.88 29.32 111-4 10 220 250 39.09 44.43 I11-5 18 240 270 42.65 47.98 111-6 7 0 0 0.00 0.00 11I-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 IV-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 1V-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 SU8-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% SUB-TOTAL 112 785 1,820 139.49 323.41 % OF TOTAL 14.56% 11.84% 28.34% 17.84% 28.34% SOUTH OF GARFIELO 314 2.235 3,637 397.16 646.29 1 OF TOTAL 40.93% $0.80% 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% • 'i s "TINGTON BEA DISTRICT HOLLY-SEACLIFF -GDLDFNME5T AREA SPECIFIC PLAITS AREA SUB-AREA ACRES UNITS UNITS STUDENTS STUDENTS L.U. PLAN G.P. MAX L.U. PLAN G.P. NAX 0.1777 0.1777 1 1-1 6 IS 24 2.67 4.26 1-2 26 90 104 15.99 18.48 1-3 16 55 64 9.77 11.37 1-4 16 0 0 0.00 0.00 SUB-TOTAL 64 160 192 28.43 34.12 t OF TOTAL 8.32% 3.64% 2.99% 3.54% 2.99% 8 B-I 56 165 168 29.32 29.85 B-2 46 140 140 24.88 24.88 8-3 58 155 165 29.32 29.32 8-4 40 0 0 0.00 0.00 SUB-TOTAL 200 410 473 83.52 04.05 % Of TOTAL 25.01% 10.68% 7.37% 10.58% 7.37% If 11-1 62 310 434 55.09 77.12 11-2 40 415 600 73.75 105.62 11-3 34 390 510 69.30 90.53 I1-4 9 170 225 30.21 39.98 11-5 4 75 100 13.33 17.77 11-6 4 75 IGO 13.33 17.77 11-7 6 100 ISO 17.77 26.66 11-8 32 0 0 0.00 0.00 SUB-TOTAL 191 1,535 2,119 272.77 316.55 % Of TOTAL 24.84% 34.89% 33.00% 34.89% 33.00% WORTH OF GARFIELD 455 2,165 2,784 384.72 494.72 % OF TOTAL 59.17% 49.20% 43.36% 49.20% 43.36% 111 [11-1 19 260 285 46.20 50.64 111-2 109 550 763 97.74 135.59 111-3 11 140 165 24.88 29.32 111-4 10 220 250 39.09 44.43 111-5 18 240 270 42.65 47.98 I11-6 7 0 0 0.00 0.00 111-7 12 40 84 1.11 14.93 111-8 16 0 0 0.00 0.00 SUB-TOTAL 202 1,450 1,817 257.67 322.88 2 Of TOTAL 26.21% 32.95% 28.30% 32.95% 28.30% IV IV-1 16 155 240 27.54 42.55 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 112 785 995 133.45 169.15 i OF TOTAL 14.58% 17.80% 17.96% 17.80% 17.96% SOUTH OF GARFIELD 302 2,235 2.739 379.95 465.63 i OF TOTAL 39.32% 50.68% 49.43% 50.68% 49.43% TOTAL 760 4,410 5.541 749.70 941.97 i OF TOTAL 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% r ' / HUNTINVON KjlbpOL DISTRICT , HOLLY-SEACLIf -60LDEWESI AREA GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AREA SU8-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-70TAL 75 170 196 20.90 33.32 i Of TOTAL 9.71% 3.05% 3.54% 3.85% 3.54% 8 B-1 56 165 168 28.05 28.56 8-2 46 140 140 23.80 I3.80 B-3 58 165 165 28.05 28.05 8-4 40 0 0 0.00 0.00 J SUB-TOTAL 200 470 473 79.90 80.41 % 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 S00 68.00 85.00 C-5 33 425 495 72.25 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 2,133 250.95 362.61 % 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 9-1 18 225 270 38.25 45.90 D-2 23 150 161 25.50 27.37 D-3 63 370 441 62.90 74.97 D-4 11 100 119 17.00 10.23 0-5 22 266 330 45.05 $6.10 0-6 13 260 325 44.20 55.25 0-1 14 80 98 13.60 16.66 D-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% 31.41% E E-1 16 155 240 26.35 40.80 E-1 8 70 120 11.90 20.40 E-3 9 85 135 14.45 22.95 E-4 53 475 500 8D.75 85.00 E-5 4 0 0 0.00 0.00 E-6 22 0 0 0.00 0.00 s,� � •ar WEAVER & MOLA 19061 CRYSTAL STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648 TELEPHONE 714 536-8223 714 848-0097 C; September 12, 1991 Dept. o!r 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: -s 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. f � 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, Weaver & Mola i, By rl We er By: )V4 ra o Gustafson Brothers By; J n Gustafs It cc: Robert Franklin, Associate Planner Howard Zelesky, Planning Director Dick Harlow, Harlow & Associates Co�vm�SVVEWS ASSOCWES mC _=C CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ' PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 29, 1991 TESTIMONY OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT i i 1 ' Addendum to Environmental Impact Report No. 89-1 General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 Zone Change No. 90-10/Code Amendment No. 90-10 1 1 ' Prepared and Introduced by: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT i 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 963-9565 1 Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 1717 South State College Boulevard, Suite 100 Anaheim, California 92806 (714) 978-8887 1 ' -----77 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 co.... SISIEMS�SCXIOES 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 I 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. i� L C01MUM V SISTEYS�WCi ES.nK _=� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 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. 1 fi IA'A i4;xV.1 C.^.wuUM1iv 31'SIE44 ASSOC'TE S.uC _�� 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, COMMITY SYS- MS ASSOCIATES, INC. 77 1/, ar4sha- 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 cc., T•MiE S aS50C:.rES•MC �� 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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9-1 ' ATTACHMENTS i CC4uw:iV SV$iEuS.KSOC:iES � ' 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-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 following summarizes the District ' s objections to the approval of the stated applications, and sets forth their opposition. ' 1-1 till_lu ili�[L.9L� ' Ec :,VuuVNrtr SrgrE.S♦SSOC uiE3.iNC 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-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. 2-1 1\ _ C,11 µTY SKMuS wSL.MES I.0 -� 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 accepted. There must be stood 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 �VSIEMS � i ��s°aid`. li-,Zlrt CO+� kSSOCI.TES.m: �c ' 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 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. " (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 E CCYYVMiTv$v5'TEYS w55VCYTES wC 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 I 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 Li CCMMMIUTY SYSTEMS uS5 X.-ES..Mc �c \ I (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 agency must 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 g q � Y 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 r2E= rVIIAVAJ-1 4-9 Id co—.—SMEuS�ScclaES owl (a) Sharing expertise; (b) Disclosing Agency analyses; ' (c) Checking for accuracy; (d) Detecting omissions; (e) Discovering public concerns; and (f) Soliciting counter proposals. " r 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 'CO�/�EMS�SSOC:�. 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 ' cowuu..ry srsr¢rs wsSOGur¢s.mC �� � I ' 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 effects 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 to 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 V .�-- ' CEE COS NITY SYSTEMS.ISSOCi E&INC 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 61% 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 Colony; ' 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 CGY/MUMiiv SVSiEUS ASSOC-ES. I ' 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 w ' _C-UMiiv SKTEMS"SOLUTES.mC Zr!n 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 CEOA 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 1 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 ' U sc CGuuUuJTv SrgiEuS♦SSOCuiE S.iMC \ I ' (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 protect. 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 ' the 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, 1 2-12 ' �CGIJUUNITVSGC-ES INC ' (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 protect if any of the conditions described in Section 15162 would recruire preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. " (emphasis added) 1 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 significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a 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 ' -a—UNITY SSTE4S ASwc..ES.'K ' (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful ' Judcrment 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 body 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 t 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 i.` CCMwutiv 5r5TEu5�SSOCUtE S.AMC �� ' effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the _project 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 project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors: ' (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a prof ect, the Lead Agency ' shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant 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 Agency shall treat the effect as significant 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 CCuwUwIT'I SKErS-SSW--ES.-wC 2N \�I 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 1 COMMUNITV SYSTEMS MSOCUTES I If) 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 can 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 with 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 of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal.App. 3d 1612, were correctly decided. Both Mira and William S. Hart Union S. Hart Union High School District District also held that 2-17 COMMUNITY SYSTEMS/SSOCMTES ING =� 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 r �COMWUNOTY ST EMS♦SSOGUTES 1� �c \�I "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 -.SIJ CvuY-Tr STSiE w5.1550CuiE5 \M 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. 1 2-20 r tr 5r5tEu5 tiS50C'.IES..0 �� \�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 1 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 . Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects 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 __U-. sir TSiE�S ASSOC4550C�.tES ' The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies, in part: ' " . . . . 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, innrovements , and maintenance in all areas of the City. " (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: I. Providing 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: ' " . . . . 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 Li C^MI-Tr p Eu5 ASSOCIME5. C �� t113 .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 I 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 adequate communitv facilities ' within the Citv of Huntington 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. i4 . 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 phasing 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 -------------- ru�x T.S'STEuS♦9SM-TES lM \�I ' school-aaed children will be generated 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 phasing 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 . Reauire developers to provide improvements on a fair- share basis. 3 . 2 Require participation in fundina programs for construction and/or expansion of such facilities as schools and the library. ' 3 . 3 Require necessary agreements for the accruisition and development of the school site designated 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 1 developer shall provide for the fair share of water necessary to service the development. ' 3-4 1 _ .�- CrIu—rt•5vi'rEui aSSOCurEi�FG \�I ' 3 .7 Develonment shall be contingent upon the adoption of a public facilities improvement and phasing plan to ensure adequate 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, 1 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. 1 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 1 compliance with the City's General Plan. Based upon State statutes, and the impact analysis set forth 1 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. 1 1 1 1 1 3-5 u.it•SKEuS ASSOC:.iES.K�'� ' DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NON-COMPLIANCE The Staff Report states, as follows: r "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" : "4 . Designation of a portion of the property for a future school site. . . . " rPursuant 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 to neaotiate 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 Propertv. 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 terms and ' conditions set forth in this Agreement. " t 4-1 Srr EuS,SSpt:urES.,� \�I ' Existing Land Use Regulations is defined in the Agreement, as follows: r "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 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. " 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 i•SrSiF uS SSAC.iES iMC -p �+I 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 "F" and "G" , and street rights-of-way. We have been advised by the City that Lots "F" and "G" are a requirement of the City 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 met 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 on the District 4-3 cec-m-msvvEus ^TESS ' 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 $31333 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 ' District. 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 �r`-�, �,�'9i!6J'7�i=Ufa=.9f1 1CO-1- \ - r--- CGuu 1-5VEUS♦SSCCW.iES iNC Va� ' 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. 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 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 cf 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 serve students generated by residential development within the project area. ' 5-1 ' CGu.i Sv5iE u3 SSCG:.iE3:��� 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 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. ' 5-2 ' CC-M"SK EMS h SOCIATES.-MC \ I ' 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. I 1 ' 5-3 L Vie 5I5iE�5+SSOC'.�ES'�C 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 support 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 grogram of implementation measures including ' reaulations , programs , public works nrolects , and financing measures necessary to carry out naraara-ohs (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) ' notes that the Specific Plan doe The District n p s 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 1 - ' CCuuwin 5'TSlu51550CuTEi iMC �� \�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. i t ' 6-2 '!Li �- CC.... v VSTEMS ti5 C`C!.ES NC�= 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; r2) 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 1 and subsequent costs. ' 7-1 i 5YSiEU5.1550C:MTES CMG -� 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 $800, 000 . ' It is the District' s opinion that the proposed purchase price offer of the land has been arbitrarily set at a value higher than comparable parcels, far in excess of the land basis held by the Developer partnership. In so doing, the Developer is ' receiving an unreasonable profit margin which is resulting in the need for the District and community to provide funding in excess of development fee requirements. 7-2 COMuuM,T SKTES AS$pCTES n+C �� � I 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 COUYUuir S'SiE.uS ASSCG.TFS.vK w' �� 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 41255 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 (+Z 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 EQ. uwTv STSTEwS�SSOC uTE4�r{ 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 ' CCMMUMiTEE�S 0C-ES 1MC Raw-- ' 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. Sc. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. SQ.FL. 10.0 $ 7,200,000 $203.39 $1.41 $204.80 ' 9.5 S 6,840,000 $193.22 $1.41 $194.63 9.0 S 6,480,000 $183.05 $1.41 $184.46 8.5 $ 6,120,000 $172.88 $1.41 $174.29 8.0 $ 5,760,000 $162.71 $1.41 $164.12 ' 7.5 S 5,400,000 $152.54 $1.41 $153.95 7.0 S 5,040,000 $142.37 $1.41 $143.79 6.5 S 4,680,000 $132.20 $1.41 $133.62 6.0 $ 4,320,000 $122.03 $1.41 $123.45 5.5 $ 3,960,000 $111.86 $1.41 $113.28 5.0 $ 3,600,000 $101.56 $1.41 $103.11 4.5 $ 3,240,000 $ 91.53 $1.41 $ 92.94 ' 8.6 S 6,192,000 $174,92 $1.41 $176.33 8.3 $ 5,976,000 $168.81 $1.41 $170.23 21.0 $15,120,000 $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. Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Sa. Ft. Sa. Ft. ' 10.0 $ 7,300,000 $206.21 $1.41 $207.63 9.5 $ 6,935,000 $195.90 $1.41 $197.32 9.0 $ 6,570,000 $185.59 $1.41 $187.01 8.5 $ 6,205,000 $175.28 $1.41 $176.69 8.0 S 5,840,000 $164.97 $1.41 $166.38 7.5 $ 5,475,000 $154.66 $1.41 $156.07 7.0 $ 5,110,000 $144.35 $1.41 $145.76 6.5 $ 4,745,000 $134.04 $1.41 $135.45 ' 6.0 $ 4,380,000 $123.73 $1.41 $125.14 5.5 $ 4,015,000 $113.42 $1.41 $114.83 5.0 $ 3,650,000 $103.11 $1.41 $104.52 4.5 $ 3,285,000 $ 92.80 $1.41 $ 94.21 8.6 $ 6,278,000 $177.34 $1.41 $178.76 8.3 $ 6,059,000 $171.16 $1.41 $172.57 21.0 $15,330,000 $255.50 $0.83 $256.33 I 7-6 COIIUI v S EIS A SOC: ES.:HC c) $825, 000 Purchase Price Acre Land Closing Total Land Closing Total K-6 K-6 K-6 7-8 7-8 7-8 I 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 $ 7,837,500 $221.40 $1.41 $222.81 ' 9.0 $ 7,425,000 $209.75 $1.41 $211.16 8.5 $ 7,012,000 $198.09 $1.41 $199.51 8.0 $ 6,600,000 $186.44 $1.41 $187.85 7.5 $ 6,187,500 $174.79 $1.41 $176.20 ' 7.0 $ 5,775,000 $163.14 $1.41 $164.55 6.5 $ 5,362,500 $151.48 $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 $ 4,125,000 $116.53 $1.41 $117.94 4.5 $ 3,712,500 $104.87 $1.41 $106.29 8.6 $ 7,095,000 $200.42 $1.41 $201.84 ' 8.3 $ 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 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 lJ `- CGu..uwiiv 5v51Eu5 ti550C-ES:MC 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 "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 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 di7.1 k' .i'x-A_-:1d �co -� -MaV, 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 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, 471, 305 ' 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 $10, 698 , 532 Based upon the Developer proposed units of 4 , 255, the projected impact cost would be as follows: 7 9 CGMMu-$v5iEM5 ASSOC..%� ' 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 $ 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 a $720,000 51 $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 ' Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre K-6 1 $ 13,750 $ 12,167 $ 12,000 1 $ 13,750 $ 12,167 $ 12,000 7-8 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160 7-10 ' CCMMU-Y SYSTEMS wSMXWES.�K mp- K-5 460 $ 6,327,791 $ 5,599,290 S 5,522,436 699 $ 9,613,271 $ 8,506,522 $ 8,389,764 ' 6 75 $ 1,032,116 $ 913,292 $ 900,756 120 $ 1,648,144 $ 1,458,397 $ 1,438,380 7-8 171 S 3,939,982 S 3,479,465 S 3,438,530 240 $ 5,546,841 S 4,898,509 S 4,840,880 TOTAL 706 $11,299,89O $ 9,992,046 $ 9,861,722 1,059 $16,808,256 $14,863,428 $14,699,024 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 $825,00O @ $730,O00 a $720,000 a $825,O0O a $73O,00O a $72O,000 ' Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre K-6 1 $ 13,750 $ 12,167 S 12,000 1 $ 13,750 $ 12,167 $ 12,000 7-8 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 S 20,160 ' K-5 498 $ 6,851,082 $ 6,062,336 $ 5,979,126 757 $1O,4O8,262 $ 9,209,987 S 9,083,574 6 81 $ 1,117,469 $ 988,818 $ 975,246 130 $ 1,784,441 $ 1,579,003 $ 1,557,330 7-8 185 $ 4,265,808 $ 3,767,207 $ 3,722.887 260 $ 6,005,550 $ 5,303,602 $ 5,241,207 ' TOTAL 764 $12,234,359 $1O,818,36O $10,677,259 1,147 $18,198,252 $16,O92,592 $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 of $825,OOO a $730,000 a $72O,0OO @ $825,0OO a $73O,OOO @ $720,O0O Students Acre Acre Acre Students Acre Acre Acre ' K-6 1 $ 13,750 $ 12,167 $ 12,000 1 $ 13,750 $ 12,167 S 12,000 7-8 1 $ 23,100 S 20,400 $ 20,160 1 $ 23,100 $ 20,400 $ 20,160 K-5 516 $ 7,100,651 $ 6,283,173 $ 6,196,932 785 $1O,787,411 $ 9,545,486 $ 9,414,468 ' 6 84 $ 1,158,176 S 1,024,839 $ 1,010,772 135 $ 1,849,444 S 1,636,522 $ 1,614,060 7-8 191 S 4,421,201 $ 3,904,438 S 3,858,503 269 $ 6,224,318 $ 5,496,800 S 5,432,132 TOTAL 792 $12,68O,O29 $11,212,449 $11,O66,2O7 1,188 $18,861,173 $16,678,809 $16,46O,66O ' 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 Aaflezim CI-11�'SKVEWS ISS-..ATES�V_�_� 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 ' is $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre K-5 $ 6,327,791 $ 5,599,290 $ 5,522,436 $ 9,613,271 $ 8,506,522 $ 8,389,764 ' 6 $ 1,032,116 $ 913,292 $ 900,756 $ 1,648,144 $ 1,458,397 S 1,438,380 7 $ 3,939,982 $ 3,479,465 $ 3,438,530 S 5,546,841 S 4,898,509 $ 4,840,880 SUB-TOTAL LAND $11,299,890 $ 9,992,046 $ 9,861,722 $16,808,256 $14,863,428 $14,669,024 ' K-5 $ 4,259,639 $ 4,259,046 $ 4,259,639 $ 6,471,305 $ 6,471,305 $ 6,471,305 6 S 694,783 $ 694,783 S 694,783 $ 1,109,470 $ 1,109,470 $ 1,109,470 7 $ 2,214,577 $ 2,214,577 S 2,214,577 S 3,117,757 S 3,117,757 $ 3,117,757 ' SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 7,168,999 S 7,168,999 $ 7,168,999 $10,698,532 $10,698,532 $10,698,532 TOTAL $18,468,889 $17,161,045 $17,030,721 $27,506,799 $25,561,960 $25,367,556 ' PROJECTED DEVELOPMENT FEES $.0964 $ 7,228,496 $ 7,228,496 S 7,228,496 $ 7,228,496 $ 7,228,496 S 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 Lard Cost Land Cost Land Cost a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 a $825,000 a $730,000 a $720,000 Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre ' K-5 $ 6,851,082 $ 6,062,336 S 5,979,126 $10,408,262 S 9,209,987 $ 9,083,574 6 $ 1,117,469 $ 988,818 $ 975,246 $ 1,784,441 S 1,579,003 $ 1,557,330 7 $ 4,265,808 $ 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 $16,092,592 $15,882,111 K-5 $ 4,611,899 $ 4,611,899 S 4,611,899 $ 7,006,463 S 7,006,463 $ 7,006,463 6 $ 752,240 $ 752,240 $ 752,240 $ 1,201,221 S 1,201,221 $ 1,201,221 7 $ 2,397,716 S 2,297,716 $ 2,397,716 $ 3,375,587 $ 3,375,587 $ 3,375,587 ' SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 7,761,855 $ 7,761,855 $ 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 $.0964 S 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 $ 7,826,273 REVENUE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (S12,169,942) (S10,753,943) ($10,612,841) ($21,955,250) ($19,849,590) ($19,639,109) t 7-12 CCwuMrtr S'SiE uS w55CCuiE S.iHC �� \�I ' 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 a $730,000 a $720,000 a $825,000 @ $730,000 a $720,000 Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre Acre K-5 S 7,100,651 $ 6,283,173 S 6,196,932 $10,787,411 $ 9,545,486 $ 9,414,468 6 $ 1,158,176 $ 1,024,839 $ 1,010,772 $ 1,849,444 $ 1,636,522 $ 1,614,060 7-8 $ 4,421,201 $ 3,904,438 $ 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 $16,678,809 $16,460,660 K-5 S 4,779,900 $ 4,779,900 $ 4,779,900 $ 7,261,693 $ 7,261,693 $ 7,261,693 6 $ 779,642 $ 779,642 $ 779,642 S 1,244,978 $ 1,244,978 S 1,244,978 7-8 $ 2,485,060 $ 2,485,060 S 2,485,060 S 3,498,552 $ 3,498,552 S 3,498,552 SUB-TOTAL IMPROVEMENTS $ 8,044,602 $ 8,044,602 $ 8,044,602 $12,005,223 $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 $.0964 $ 8,111,366 $ 8,111,366 $ 8,111,366 $ 8,111,366 $ 8,222,366 $ 8,111,366 REVENUE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) ($12,613,265) ($11,145,685) (510,999,443) (522,755,030) (520,572,666) (520,354,517) 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 ' CC u-v SV V E S A SOC-ES. \�I 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: 1991 ' Enrollment Enrollment Available Classrooms Capacity % 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% 1 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach Eader School (K-5) 13.0(±) 725 725 23 1 24 690 30 720 1.0069% ' 9291 Banning Avenue j Huntington Beach I 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 1 Huntington Beach Total 5,559 5,681 166 21 187 4,980 630 5,610 1.0127% ' 7-14 .!jA AA-6-If;x yr,1 ' C01-h TY Sig EMS��WES INC -� \�I ' 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 Li ' cc—NIn S Eus♦9Socw..sac r 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 cc...... MTF.S♦SSocufss IMP ACT MITIGATION NEGOTIATIONS `Mp' 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 $6 , 192 , 000 (8 . 6 acres) ; ' Garfield/Saddleback Lane Site - $720, 000 per acre or s $5 , 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; r 8-1 CC-1 SVVE.3 ASSOGUTES 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 to 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 $ 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 $11,795,552 $11,579,552 $ 9,983,552 6-8 Relocatables S 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 I Total Cost $12,695,552 $12,479,552 $10,883,552 Development Fees a 1.20% (Est.) S 9,391,267 S 9,391,267 S 9,391,267 Total Cost Less 1 Development Fees S 3,304,285 S 3,304,285 S 1,492,285 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 $ -0- 8-2 CGuuuwrtr Sr5iEu5 aS50CuiE5 iwC ' 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 C.-.-M Tv��SOCWES. 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 IJCsJa'�i ���=.�9r1 CC-UN-SS�ENS♦SSXWES INC -� 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 convevance of the school site to the District as part of the implementation of this Specific Plan; and I3 . Payment of school impact fees and provisions for other revenues to finance construction of the ' necessary school facilities. " 9-2 CCwwwtiiry 5',S,EwS♦SSOC.TES��7�C ' 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 Planning 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, without the approval of the District. 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: 1115. Air Ouality 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 JL C.^iyuUM­5yS{Eu3 hS50C uiE5.iHC Se ' 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 City School District. Building permits shall be issued only in conjunction with the terms and conditions of that Agreement. " 9-4 ".011 9r1 CO.-.1 \ I ' 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 ' appropriate 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 City ' 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 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. " 9-5 ' CCUW MTV SYVEUS.SSOOOES. � I ' 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 Imnact 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 maps, subdivision maps, parcel maps , building permits, etc. shall be issued by the City prior to the approval of the terms and conditions of the ' Agreement(s) by the District. " ' 9-6 �S�E.S �;st�'a�1:—r:s_4r1 ' �C�L­l ES�.0 \�I ' 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 1 . 7C--.--SKTE.3 ASSOCWES IMC 1 ATTACHMENTS 1 1 1 r � 1 1 1 r 1 1 r F r r r r r rr A B C 0 E F G N 1 J K L M N 0 P 0 2 TABLE 1-1 08-Oct-91 3 , 01:41:41 PM 4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 COST ESTIMATES PER SQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 6 HOLLY-SEACLIFF / ELLIS-GOLOENWEST SPECIFIC PLANS 7 8 1991 DISTRICT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9 10 II K-5 TOTAL 6 1-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-8 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12 PER SQ. FT. COSTS PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS COSTS PER SQ. FT. COMPARISONS 13 14 is ACRES 10 10 21 10 16 LAND SQ. FT 435,600 435,600 914,760 435,600 11 STUDENTS ti00 600 750 600 18 NET SQ. FT. PER STUDENT 59 59 80 59 19 GROSS SO. FT. PER STUDENT 62 62 83 62 20 NET BUILDING SQ. FT. 35.400 35,400 60,000 35,400 21 GROSS BUILDING 50, FT. 37,200 37,200 62,250 37,200 22 FACTORS 23 24 BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 $91.9i 25 GENERAL SITE 8.00% Of BUILDING COSTS $7.21 $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 $5.25 $0 $0.00 27 SERVICE SITE 15.00% OF BUILDING COSTS $13.63 $482,520 $13.63 $14.04 $90.000 $2.54 2.74% 28 UTILITIES 2.50% OF BUILDING COSTS $2.27 $80,420 $2.27 $2.34 $38,000 $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 1131.91 $4,669,601 1131.91 $136.77 $3,674,980 $103.81 32 33 ARCH./ENG. FEES 8.25% OF HARD COSTS 17.50 $265,386 17.50 $7.72 $268,000 $7.57 7.29% 34 INSPECTION/TESTS 2.501 OF HARD COSTS $2.27 $80,420 12.27 $2.34 $39,500 $1.12 1.07% 35 PLAN CHECK FEES 0.75t OF HARD COSTS $0.68 $24,126 $0.69 10.70 $25,000 10.71 0.68% 36 31 SOFT COST SUB-TOTAL $10.45 $369,932 $10.45 $10.77 $332,500 $9.39 38 39 FURNITURE & EOUIPMENT (FF&E) $7.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. $7.00 $247,800 17.00 $7.00 $0 $0.00 $0 40 41 HARD/SOFT & FF&E COST SUB-TOTAL $149.36 $5,287,333 $149.36 $i54.54 14,007,480 $10.21 42 43 STATE CONTINGENCY 1.50Y OF SUB-TOTAL $2.24 $79,310 $2.24 $2.32 $100,000 $2.82 2.501 44 STATE CONTINGENCY 12,000 PER SCHOOL $0.06 $2,000 $0.06 $0.03 $0 $0.00 $0 45 DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% Of SUB-TOTAL $5.23 $185,057 $5.23 15.41 $0 $0.00 0.00% 46 47 CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL 17.52 $266,367 $7.S2 $7.76 $100,000 $2.82 48 49 HARD/SOFT, FF&E, & CONTINGENCY COST SUB-TOTAL $156.88 15,553,700 $156.88 $162.30 14,107,480 $116.03 50 51 LAND $825,000 PER ACRE 10.0 ACRES $233.05 $8,250,000 $233.05 $288.75 $8,250,000 1233.05 52 APPRAISAL & CLOSING COSTS $50,000 PER SITE $1.41 $50,000 $1.41 $0.83 $50,000 $1.41 53 54 LAND SU8-TOTAL $234.46 $8,300,000 $234.46 $289.58 $8,300,000 $234.46 55 56 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SQ. FT. $391.35 $13,853,700 $391.35 $451.88 $12,407,460 $350.49 51 58 r•�,• •��^ cr IT $11.00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 59 �- ••� to nn in 1n.n0 6n INTERIM FACILITIES 1-8 $0.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. 10.00 $0 $0.00 10.00 10 $0.00 61 62 SUB-TOTAL OTHER FACILITIES PER SQ. FT. $0.00 10 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 63 64 GRAND TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND/OTHER FACILITIES COST PER SQ. FT. $391.35 $13,853.700 $391.35 $451.88 $12,407,480 $350.49 65 66 TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $23,089 $23,089 $36,150 $20,679 67 TOTAL COST PER SCHOOL 03,853,700 $13,853.700 $27,112,844 $40,966,543 $54,820,242.82 $12,407,480 68 69 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR 0.1171 0.0191 0.0434 0.0625 0.1796 0.1171 70 TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD $2,704 $441 $1,569 $2,010 $4,714 $2,422 71 % COST SPLIT PER HOUSEHOLD 57.36% 9.36% 33,28% 42.64% 100.00% 72 TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD SQ. FT. 1).42 10.23 $0.82 $1.05 $2.47 $1.27 73 74 TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD $2,704 $441 11,569 $2,010 14,714 $2,422 15 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT FEES 1,900 SQ. HT./HOUSEHOLD $1.58 61.00% $1,055 $172 $612 $784 $1,839 $1.839 76 77 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) PER HOUSEHOLD (11,649) (1269) (1951) (11,226) (12,874) (1582) 78 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) PER HOUSEHOLD SQ. FT. (10.86) ($0.14) (10.50) (10.64) (11.51) (10.31) 79 80 SOURCE: COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 81 r �r it �r �r it r� r r� rr r �r r� r rr rr rr rr �r A IT C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P 0 2 TABLE 1-2 08-Oct-91 3 01:52:54 PM 4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 5 COST ESTIMATES PER SQ. FT. OF BUILDING AREA 6 HOLLY-SEACLIFF / ELLIS-GOLOF.NNEST SPECIFIC PLANS 7 8 1991 DISTRICT COSTS 1991 DEVELOPER COSTS 9 10 II K-5 TOTAL 6 7-8 TOTAL 6-8 TOTAL K-6 K-5 K-5 FACTOR 12 PER SQ. FT. COSTS PER SQ. FT. PER SQ. FT. COSTS COSTS C051S 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 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 35,400 60,000 35.400 21 GROSS BUILDING SQ. FT. 37,200 37,200 62,250 37.200 22 FACTORS ?3 24 BUILDING COSTS FIXED $90.87 $3,216,798 $90.87 $93.61 $3,288,980 192.91 25 GENERAL 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 $5.25 10 $0.00 27 SERVICE SITE 15.00E OF BUILDING COSTS $13,63 $482,520 $13.63 $14.04 190,000 12.54 2.74% 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 $33,000 $0.93 1.00% 30 31 HARD COST SUB-TOTAL $131.91 $4,669,601 $131.91 $136.77 13,674,980 $103.61 32 33 ARCH./ENG, FEES 8.25% OF HARD COSTS $7.50 $255,386 $7.50 11.72 $269,000 $7.57 7.29% 34 INSPECTION/TESTS 2.50% OF HARD COSTS $2.27 $80.420 $2.27 $2.34 $39,500 11.12 1.07% 35 PLAN CHECK FEES 0.75; OF HARD COSTS 10.58 $24,126 $0.68 $0.70 $25,000 $0.71 0.68% 36 37 SOFT COST 5118-TOTAL $10.45 $369,932 $10.45 $10.77 $332,500 $9.39 38 39 FURNITURE & EQUIPMENT (FF&E) $7.00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. 17,00 $247,800 $7.00 $7.00 10 $0.00 10 40 41 HARD/SOFT & FF&E COST SUB-TOTAL 1149,36 $5,207,333 $149.36 $154.54 $4,007,480 $113.21 42 43 STATE CONTINGENCY 1.50% OF SUB-TOTAL 12.24 $79,310 12.24 $2.32 1100,000 $2.82 2.50% 44 STATE CONTINGENCY $2,000 PER SCHOOL $0.05 $2,000 $0.06 $0.03 10 $0.00 10 45 DISTRICT CONTINGENCY 3.50% OF SUB-TOTAL $5.13 $185,057 $5.23 $5.41 10 $0.00 0.00% 46 47 CONTINGENCY SUB-TOTAL $7.52 1266,367 $7.52 $7.76 $100,000 12.82 48 49 HARD/SOFT, FF&E, & CONTINGENCY COST SUB-TOTAL $156.68 $5,553,700 $156.88 1162.30 $4,107,480 $116.03 50 51 LAND $720,000 PER ACRE 8.3 ACRES $168,81 $5,976,000 $203.39 $252.00 $5,976,000 11&8.81 52 APPRAISAL & CLOSING COSTS $50,000 PER SITE $1.41 $50,000 11.41 $0.83 $50,000 $1.41 53 54 LAND STIR-TOTAL $170.23 $6,026,000 $204.80 $252.83 $6,026,000 1170.23 55 56 TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND COST PER SQ. FT. 1327,11 111.579,700 $361.69 $415.13 110,133,480 $286.26 57 58 <r rr 40 $0.00 $0.00 10 $0.00 59 INTERIM FACILITIES 7-8 $0,00 PER BLDG. SQ. FT. T0.00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 61 62 SUB-TOTAL O111ER FACILITIES PER SQ. FT. $0.00 $0 $0.00 $0.00 $0 $0.00 63 64 GRAND TOTAL IMPROVEMENT/LAND/OTHER FACILITIES COST PER SQ. FT. $327.11 $11,579,700 $361.69 $415.13 $10,133,480 $286.26 65 66 TOTAL COST PER STUDENT $19,299 $21,339 $33,210 $16,889 67 TOTAL COST PER SCHOOL $11,579,700 512,803,700 $24,901,844 137,711,543 $49,291,242,82 $10,133,480 68 69 STUDENT GENERATION FACTOR 0.1171 0.0191 0.0434 0.0625 0.1796 0.1171 70 TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD $2,260 $408 $1,441 $1,849 $4,109 $1,918 11 % COST SPLIT PER HOUSEHOLD 55.00% 9.92% 35.08% 45.00% 100.00% 72 TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD SQ. FT. $1.18 $0.21 $0.76 $0.97 $2.15 $1.04 13 14 TOTAL COST PER HOUSEHOLD $2,260 $408 $1,441 $1,849 $4,109 $1.978 75 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT FEES 1,908 SQ. HT./HOUSEHOLD $1.58 61.00% $1,012 $182 $645 $828 $1,839 $1.839 '16 71 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) PER HOUSEHOLD ($1,240) ($225) ($796) ($1,021) ($2,270) (7138) 78 SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) PER HOUSEHOLD SQ. FT. ($0.65) ($0.12) ($0.42) ($0.54) ($1.19) (T0.01) 79 80 SOURCE; COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. 81