Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
File 1 of 4 - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Gene
Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Superior Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug.24, 1994,case A50479. PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) SS. COUNTY OF ORANGE ) I am the Citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid; I am over r the age of eighteen years, and not a party to or interested in the below entitled matter. OTYOFHUNDISTONBEACH . LEGAL NOTICE I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON AdaPRDINANCEed by <NffO. 74. c!I an BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of "AN ORDINANCMARRC HE H ii CIT01OF HUNTINGTON general circulation printed and published In BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAPS'1Z, 2Z; 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z,`25Z,.25Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31Z, the Cityof Huntington Beach, Count of 39Z AND 40Z OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH g Y ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR Orange, State of California, and the REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS:SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT attached Notice is a true and com p SYNO lete co pY SYNO ZONING MAP AMENDMENT N0:08-002" PSIS: as was printed and published on the GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002, ZON- ING TEXT AMENDMENT.NO. 08-002, AND ZON- following date(s): ING MAP AMENDMENT.:NO..08-002 WERE A CITY-INITIATED REQUEST TO ADOPT THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN 1W COMPASSING 459;'ACRES;.ALONG. PRIMARILY BEACH BOULEVARD,.AND .EDINGER AVENUE CORRIDORS,INCLUDING THE FIVE.POINTS AREA: STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BECAUSE IT WOULD ENCOURAGE AND FACILITATE DEVELOP- MENT,IN AN AREA IN A MANNER"THAT WOULD CARRY OUT THE.GOALS,POLICIES,.AND OBJEG TIVES OF THE GENERAL PLAN;AND AS DIRECT- ED BY CITY COUNCIL;:THE SPECIFIC PLAN WILL IMPLEMENT THE REVITALIZATION OF THE CITY'S March 25, 2010 TWO MAJOR'CORRIDORS INCORPORATING A HIGH QUALITY OF,AESTHETICS,.EFFICIENT-USE OF RESOURCES,.AND-IMPROVED LANDSCAPING, , WHILE MEETING THE-HOUSING NEEDS OF THE CITY. :. PASSED AND.ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held March:15, 2010 by the following roll call vote: declare under penalty of perjury that the AYES:Cardy, Co Greenerper,Bohr,Dwyer;Hansen , NOES:Hardy, i ABSTAIN:None foregoing Is true and correct. SENT:None E FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAIL LE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE. Nis ordinance Is effecilve 30 days after adoption CITY OF:HUNTINGTON BEACH . Executed on March 25, 2010 2000MAMSTREET HUNTINGTON BEACH,C 92648 at Costa Mesa, California r14-s36-s2s , JOAN L.FLYNN,CITY CLERK Published Huntington BeAh .Ihdependent March 25,2010:;r 1 .034-475 Signatur City ®f Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK ® JOAN L. FLYNN CITY CLERIC NOTICE OF ACTION BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN March 8, 2010 Planning Department City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 APPLICANT: Planning Department, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach CA 92648 REQUEST: To establish a new Specific Plan (SP 14) along a majority of Beach Boulevard and the easterly portion of Edinger Avenue to allow mixed-use and residential development in areas of the city that were not previously designated to permit such uses, as well as to continue to allow commercial uses. The request includes the following entitlements: GPA: To amend the proposed area's General Plan Land Use Designations from the current Commercial Regional, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General, Commercial Office, Mixed Use, Mixed Use Vertical, Mixed Use Horizontal and Residential Medium Density to M-sp-d (Mixed Use— specific plan-design overlay). The existing Floor Area Ratios and density limitations of the General Plan would no longer be in effect for the area, and the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger would be removed from the Land Use Map. The General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map would be amended to reflect the provisions of SP 14. ZTA: To amend the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance to establish the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan No. 14. SP 14 sets forth permitted uses and development standards for the area. It does not propose Floor Area Ratios or density factors. SP 14 was drafted to allow for development of up to 6,400 Dwelling Units, 738,400 sq. ft. of Retail Space, 350 Hotel Rooms, and 112,000 sq. ft. of Office Space. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the number of dwelling units would be reduced to 4,500. SP 14 proposes building height limits of two to six stories overall and up to 10 stories on one property adjacent to 1-405. Current height limits generally range from 45 ft. to 140 ft., though the typical existing limit is 50 ft. The proposed standards also call for reduced front yard setbacks, changes to the location of new parking lots, reduced parking requirements and new standards related to configuration and massing of buildings. ZIIMA: To amend the City's Zoning Map to reflect the SP-14 designation, thereby changing the existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area. SP 14 would supersede the Pacifica Community Plan, and commercial portion of Seabridge Specific Plan SP-3, which would no longer be in effect. Sister Cities: Anjo, Japan a Waitakere, New Zealand (Telephone: 714-536-5227) PROJECT PLANNER: Rosemary Medel A Public Hearing was held on March 1, 2010 to consider your request and the following action was taken by the Huntington Beach City Council: 1)Approved General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 by adopting City Council Resolution No. 2010-18, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 to Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Changing Land Use Designations.Located Within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Area to Mixed Use-Specific Plan-Design Overlay (M-SP-d);" and, 2) Approved as amended Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval by adopting City Council Resolution No. 2010-19, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 Establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14);" and, 3)Approved Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval and approved for introduction Ordinance No. 3874, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Maps 1 Z, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z, 25Z, 26Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31 Z, 39Z, and 40Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for Real Property Within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Project (SP14) Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002; and,4) Approved CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations -EIR 08-008. Enclosed are the Findings for Approval, pages 3 through 5 of the March 1, 2010 Action Agenda, and copies of the ordinance and resolutions. if there are any further questions, please contact Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner at (714) 374-1684. 4g4) tL.an Flynn, CMClerk JF:pe c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Attachments: Findings for Approval —ZMA 08-002 and ZTA 08-002 Action Agenda for 3-1-10, pages 3 through 5 Resolution Nos. 2010-18, 2010-19 and Ordinance No. 3874 NOA GPA 08-002 ZTA 08-002 ZMA 08-002-Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 amends the existing zoning designations within the 459 acre project area from Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Commercial Office (CO), General Industrial (IG), Residential Low Density(RL), Residential Medium Density(RM),Residential Medium High Density (RMH), Pacific Community Specific Plan(SP 2), the commercial portions of Seabridge Specific Plan (SP 3) to Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific.Plan(SP 14). The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan by combining the majority of permitted uses for the Commercial and Mixed Use categories as permitted uses within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will assist to revitalize business opportunities and strengthen the employee base of the City by allowing for and encouraging mixed-use development. The Specific Plan also identifies design/architectural standards, consistent with the intent of the goals and polices of the Community District and Subarea Schedule pertinent to the adoption of the Specific Plan and consistent with the Urban Design Element. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. The form based code development standards of the Specific Plan ensure that new construction will comply with the intent of the Specific Plan to achieve connectivity, increase the amount of public open space, introduce residential development into the City's two major commercial corridors and by allowing uses that support consumer needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. 2. In the case of general land use provisions,the Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendments are consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses identified in the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan SP No. 14 allow for continued commercial development in conjunction with mixed-use development consistent with the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed Specific Plan provides the standards and design guidelines necessary to develop a high quality of diverse land uses complementing and enhancing surrounding land uses. The continued expansion of the commercial base and incorporation of mixed use development provides the opportunity for the development of homes and jobs close to one another thereby reducing daily vehicle trips. The Specific Plan area has not flourished with the existing regulations. The Specific Plan is intended to stimulate investment in the area, while minimizing impacts to established neighborhoods, to maximize the benefit of new development to the community. The Specific NOA GPA 08-002 ZTA 08-002 ZMA 08-002-Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Plan will enhance the potential for superior urban design by the use of Form Based Code criteria in comparison with the current commercial development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Specific Plan will ensure a consistency in development standards, a high quality of architectural design, and landscape design requirements to achieve the desired compatibility with surrounding developments. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because the community workshops held for this project have revealed that the citizens and landowners recognize that without a clear vision the revitalization of the two corridors may not be achieved. The Specific Plan provides standards for future development that will transform the character of the project area in a beneficial way consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan. The Plan development standards work together to provide development that is compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding area and to development with in the Specific Plan itself. The proposed standards pertaining to height, setback and parking are not significantly different than existing code or what has been approved in the area in the recent past. The standards of the Specific Plan as they relate to building form and use allow for denser projects to be built that are attractive and enhance pedestrian activity, which minimizes impacts. NOA GPA 08-002 ZTA 08-002 ZMA 08-002-Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan RESOLUTION NO. 2010-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO MIXED USE-SPECIFIC PLAN-DESIGN OVERLAY(M-SP-d) WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Designations of the City's General Plan by changing the existing land use designations of the 459-acre project located in the Beach and Edinger Corridors area from Commercial Regional, Commercial General, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Office, Mixed Use, Mixed Use Horizontal, Mixed Use Vertical and Residential Medium Density to M-sp-d (Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay) as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan area. The amendment would remove the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger and would modify the Community District and Subarea Schedule of the General Plan as described in Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-0.02 and recommended approval of said amendment to the City Council; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-002;and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is proper and consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby resolves as follows: SECTION 1: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Plan Map-Exhibit B") extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street. The area is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, which amends the General Plan Land Use Element for the subject area to reflect the redesignation of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) area to M-sp-d and the modifications of the Community District 09-2348.00 t/42583 1 Resolution No.2010-18 and Subarea Schedule, is hereby approved. The Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map, Subarea Map and amended Land Use Element. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of March , 20 10 . a r REVIE APPROVED: INIT TED ND APPROVED: City strator Director of Planning and B16ilding COVED AS TO FORM: C Attorney del,V I- t R-i p ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B Specific Plan Map Exhibit C General Plan Changes 04-2348.001142583 2 Resolution No.2010-18 Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 1 2.1.10 Residential Transition Zone 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8692/842 OR 146-463-22 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 12.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8692/842 OR 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-131-04 TR 6181 LOT 286 N 150 FT W 150 FT 142-131-06 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 2 142-131-07 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 3 142-131-09 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 5 142-131-12 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 1 142-131-13 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 2 145-252-54 TR 4138 LOT A 145-252-61 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 LOT IN SE1/4 SE1/4 145-252-63 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-64 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-65 E 188 FT OF S 185 FT SEC 15 T 5 R 11 146-463-14 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 146-463-16 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-8538/684 OR 146-463-20 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-24 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 Map 1 j C_ t �L Freeland ®r ' 145-252-54 --- � 145 27 ! I i -AEI c I U- o ' I O I Z o / 145-252-64 0 Edinger A N ;' 146-463�14 M ch 21, 04 142-131-07 142=131-06' r 146-463 20 142 131.0 142-131 12 a h. 146.46 r� 4 31 4 to .. 2 1 10 142-131 11 ter. • N Bluesails Dr. 77771L J J O Nyanza Dr. i - - - rn c Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 12.1.3 Town Center-Core 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR SEC(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2(POR. PAR A OF LLA 0210954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074-05 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 LOT IN SE1/4 SW1/4 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR SEC(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 (POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074-06 PM 211-25 PAR 1 POR OF PAR 142-074-07 142-074-08 142-074-09 142-074-10 142-074-11 142-074-12 PM 211-25 PAR 1 POR OF PAR E2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-072-06 P BK 32 PG 48 PAR 1 142-072-08 P BK 44 PG 11 PAR 2 142-072-09 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4(P M 44-11 PAR 1) 142-321-13 TR 4064 LOT 8 POR OF LOT(P M 5-36 PAR 2) 142-321-10 142-321-01 N TR 4064 LOT 7 142-511-04 TR 4064 LOT 1 POR OF LOT 142-511-03 TR 4064 LOT 1 POR OF LOT 142-511-02 142-511-05 TR 4064 LOT 1 S 182 FT W 316.70 FT 142-321-02 N TR 4064 LOT 6 142-321-12 142-511-01 Railroad Resolution No.2010-18 cu---- ------ — Map 142-074-08 42 2 - -- 0 - - -- 142 074 06_ x x k W r r 'i Ski I vZ O 142,074-04 � ; o � 0 142-072 09. 142 074-05 ` er Ave. 142-511-04 142-511-03~ 142-321-01 142 32140` v ca - 0 r142=511 02. : .� 142-321 13 142-511-05 1427321-02 N 142=321=1.2 Resolution No.2010-18 ASAP 3 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 142-073-02 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 IRREG 3.05 AC M/L IN NE1/4 SW1/4 SEC 142-073-01 Railroad 142-073-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 2.14 Residential Required 142-073-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 Resolution No.2010-18 M 0 M . O d' J42co 073 01 o. 142 073-02 N L Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 4 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-111-18 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NE1/4 AS PER LEASE-1_5966/843 OR 142-111-27 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 W 126 FT E 340 FT N 630 FT NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 142-111-32 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-111-33 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-34 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-39 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 2 142-111-42 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 1 142-112-05 P BK 3 PG 50 PAR 1 142-112-08 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-09 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-10 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY Map 4 . Edinger Ave. 142 112,05' 1 111 �18 CD 142 1 1 33 42111142, 0 142-11'1 32 142 112'-09 14�;1114 z 142'-112,10 ° o i N 1424- 2 o .. .. i 00 .� 142=11�1 39 O Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 5 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-781-03 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 2 107-781-04 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 1 107-781-05 PM 61-2 PAR A POR OF PAR 107-781-06 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR B 107-781-07 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR C 107-782-08 PARCEL MAP 49-45 PARS 1 AND 2 142-081-01 TR 417 LOTS 1 TO 4 INC 142-081-02 TR 417 LOT 14 ALL-EX ST 142-081-03 TR 417 LOT 15 ALL-EX ST 142-081-06 TR 417 LOT 19 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 20 142-081-09 TR 417 LOT 24 N 60 FT ANDN 60 FT LOT 25 142-081-10 TR 417 LOT 24 ALL-EX N 60 FT-(AND ALL-EX N 60 FT-LOT 25 142-081-11 TR 417 LOTS 26&27 142-081-12 N TR 417 LOT 28 142-081-16 N TR 417 LOT 32 142-081-17 N TR 417 LOT 33 142-081-18 TR 417 LOTS 5,6&7 142-081-25 TR 417 LOT 8(AND LOTS 9&10 142-081-26 TR 417 LOT 11(AND LOT 12(AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 13 142-081-27 TR 417 LOT 16 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOTS 17, 18, 29, 30&31 142-081-28 TR 417 LOT 21 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL LOTS 22 &23-EX ST 142-082-02 TR 417 LOT 34 W 50 FT OF LOT AND W 50 FT OF LOT 35 142-082-22 TR 417 LOTS 42&43 142-082-26 TR 417 LOT 41 AND LOTS 38, 39&40 142-082-27 P BK 25 PG 44 PAR 1 142-082-35 TR 417 LOTS 36, 37 AND POR. OF LOTS 34, 35. 142-083-04 TR 417 LOTS 76&77 142-083-24 TR 417 LOT 71(AND LOTS 72TO 75 INC(AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 70 142-083-25 TR 417 LOT 78 AND LOTS 79-85 INC 142-091-09 TR 417 LOT 106 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 107 142-091-18 TR 417 LOT 119 AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 120 AND ALL-EXSTS- LOT 121 142-091-27 N TR 6234 LOT 1 142-091-32 TR 417 LOT 108 AND LOTS 109& 110 142-091-33 P BK 227 PG 3 PAR 1 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 5 -------------------- o 0 142-081-09 i w � N 107 781-06 1424 5VR 1 27 14 ,� 142-081 18 o r F s x y 142-081 25` o bN 107-781-05 142-081.26' Aldric r. --- - 1 10782 02 . 781-07 142-082 35 142-082 26 142;082-22 ---- Sta rk ®r. Stark Dr. , Q�--- 142=083 2477 ' CO 142-0$3,04 107-782 08: 142-083-25 - - -- ----- -Holt r. 1427001-09 142-091-32CO 142=091-27 142=091-33 N 142-091-18 _ Mac®o_n-al - Dr. Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 6 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-401-04 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 107-401-32 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 S 147.6 FT W 303 FT N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4-EX FREEWAY 107-401-33 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4SW1/4 AS PER DD-7231/388 OR 107-401-35 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 107-601-41 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR S1/2 NWl/4 SW1/4 AS PER LEASE-1-5912/547 OR 107-601-48 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 1 107-601-49 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 2 142-092-15 TR 417 LOT 142 AND LOTS 143-148 INC 142-101-14 TR 522 LOT 10 BLK A AND LOTS 11-15 INC BLK A 142-102-20 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK B AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 BLK B 142-102-47 TR 522 LOT 17 BLK B AND LOTS 18 THRU 20 ALL IN BLKB 142-102-48 N TR 522 BLK B LOT 30 142-102-49 TR 522 LOT 13 BLK B AND LOTS 14 THRU 16 ALL IN BLKB 142-103-17 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK C(AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 (AND ALL-EX ST-LOT 13(A ND ALL-EX ST-LOT 14 ALL IN BLK 142-173-01 SEC 23 T 5 R it POR SE1/4 142-173-02 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4SE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8355/779 OR 142-462-06 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 2 142-462-09 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 1 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 6 r ' 142-092 1� s � fY Y 142:�01�14 r. - 142 102 20 142 102 9 A 142 1q2 7 Ihambra Dr. 1421U- 17 ---.__- 142-173-02 Rhine Cir. 1Q7-401-Q4 cu - -.. 142 173-01 10 7-401 35 ' 107-4U1 32, Chrysler Cir. 07-601=4 -- 10M01-48 . `142-4s2-p6 > 1.07-601-41 .10 MAP 7 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-100-67 TR 528 LOT 1 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E--EX FREEWAY-(AND ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY AD 107-100-68 TR 528 LOT 2 BLK A ALL-EX ST& W 29 FT-(AND ALL-EX W 29 FT- LOTS 4/6 BLK A 107-100-70 TR 528 LOT 11 BLK A ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-1 NC E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W- LOT 12 BL 107-100-71 TR 528 LOT 7 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-IN C E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W- LOT 8(ANDEL 107-100-75 N TR 528 BLK A LOT 14 107-100-77 TR 528 BLK A POR ABAND ALLEY 107-100-79 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 1 107-100-80 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 2 107-691-20 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 LOT IN N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 107-691-22 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 (PM48-9 PAR 1 & 2) 142-191-01 TR 194 LOT 1 BLK A AND LOTS 2 TO 6 INC BLK A 142-191-12 TR 194 LOTS 101&102 BLK B 142-191-14 TR 194 LOT 118 BLK A(AND LOTS 143, 144& 169 BLK A(AND LOTS 119 TO 122 INC, & 143 TO 146 INC ALL IN 142-191-15 TR 194 LOT 117 BLK A& LOT 97 BLK B 142-191-23 TR 194 LOT 99 BLK B AND LOTS 100, 103, 114 TO 118 INC, 123 TO 127 INC, 138 TO 142 INC AND ALL LOTS 1 142-191-24 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 98 142-191-27 TR 194 LOT 21 BLK A AND LOTS 22-32 INC BLK A 142-191-33 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 106 142-191-34 TR 194 LOT 104 BLK B AND LOTS 105, 111 TO 113 INC,128 TO 130 INC, 135 TO 137 INC AND ALL LOTS 152 TO o 142-191-36 TR 194 BLK A LOT 110 AND BLK A LOTS 111, 112, 123,124 & 125 z 142-191-40 P BK 165 PG 38 PAR 1 142-191-42 TRACT NO 194 BLKA LOTS 119-122,139-142,145-148 AND165-168 0 142-191-43 TRACT NO 194 BLK A LOTS 113 TO 116 INC o, 142-191-44 P BK 159 PG 5 PAR 1 142-191-46 TR NO 194 BLK A LOTS 126 TO 129 AND LOTS 106 TO 109 AND POR OF LOTS 105 AND 130 142-191-47 TR 194 BLK A LOTS 41 TO 64 INC, LOTS 67 TO 90 INC& LOTS 93 TO 104 INC- EXSTR 14_// 448 1 iI P BK 83 PG 8 PAR 2 142-4,31-12 P BK 118 PG 16 PAR 2 Resolution No.2010-18 1 erry ■ 1VIap7 - - - 00 f 4 f t } Moonsha&w Cer A 27 � ------ a �79122 - 1 a 142481 1'I � Yc - _ - Da",,,as syi Dr. 142 191 01 IC�Ol.1X__�C� 142 19�1 27 I w -1 42 19:1-47 107-1 0 77 M N LO 107 100 75 Wood/eke Dr. a� a� 107 100 7Q 4 191 42 s 42 ' ,�°�� 1�42 1 4 19 - a 107 100 ,' O . to C 0), . t r O O ._ N CV V7 O O •d. N N:_ !� ., MAP 2.1.6 Neighborhood Center 165.364-03 TR 436 BLK A LOT 2 POR OFLOT AND BLK A POR OF LOT 3 165.364-04 P BK 100 PG 9 PAR 2 165.364-06 P BK 185 PG 17 PAR 2 165-364-11 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR A 165.364-12 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 1 165-364-13 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 2 165-364-14 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR B 165-364-15 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 7 165-364-16 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 6 165.364-17 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR D 165-364-18 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 5 165-364-19 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 8 165-364-20 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR C 165-364-21 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 3 165-364-22 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 4 165-364-24 P BK 260 PG 19 PAR 1 165-364-25 PARCEL MAP 260-19 PAR 2 AND PM 185-17 PAR 4 �2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-225-09 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT N 264 FT E 330 FT N1/2 SEl/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-225-10 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 N 132 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NES/4-EX HWY 165-283.04 TR 436 LOT 1 BLK F POR OFLOT 165-283-05 TR 436 LOT 2 BLK F ALL-EX W 170 FT 165-283-13 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F S1/2-EX W 150 FT 165-283-14 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F N1/2-EX W 150 FT 165-283-16 P BK 130 PG 35 PAR 1 165.283-17 TR 436 BLK F LOT 3 POR OFLOT 167-311-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4(PM 36-34 PAR 2) 167-324-01 N TR 298 LOT 23 0 167-324-04 N TR 298 LOT 17 Z 167-324-05 N TR 298 LOT 15 167-324-06 N TR 298 LOT 13 N O 167-324-07 N TR 298 LOT 11 O 167-324-09 N TR 298 LOT 5 167-324-10 TR 298 LOTS 1&3 Co 167-324-11 TR 298 LOT 2 POR OF LOT(AND POR OF LOTS 4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20 AND 22 167-324-12 N TR 298 LOT 9 167-324-13 N TR 298 LOT 7 167-324-14 TR 298 LOT 19 AND LOT 21 167-325-15 SEC 25 T 5 R 111 AC IN S1/2 NW3/4 NW3/4 167-32S-16 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 430 FT W 300 FT NW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-325-17 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR OF SEC AS DESC IN DD-6985/54SOR 167-325-18 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 230 FT W 300 FT N W 1/4 N W 1/4-EX POR TO ST TO STATE 16 -325-19 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NWl/4NW1/4 16?-325-20 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 130 FT W 205 FT NW 1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-825-21 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 IRREG LOTIN S1/2 NWl/4 NW1/4 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 8 u� ATSO D � 12 s7 y � s 165 3646 165 64-17 to ARM 0-1- 1f 5 364 13Ell «� 165364 1'9 S C�tYIOi"e Dr. 1fi5- 64 18 Y : . --- --- - MOM m_ 1s5-364 20 --- - - - - - It Ab� 1fi5-364-�2 7 324- r p 165 36421 ° AIN 1$67%, 165 364 E�3 165=364 04 ri 1fi5-364=24 16564 25 165 364-06 sm ", .t 167 3254- —_--_ 15 x, -- too 165 283=04= - h 167 325 16. a - s: F 1�65-28305" _ �67825174;., 165-283-17 _ 165 283-16 JC r -- -- - - 1:65-283 - 165-22541U . 1"67 311 02 N Kristin CAr° ULJ 165-225=;09 MAP 9 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 165-321-05 T 5 R 11 SEC 26 NE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4 POR OF SEC- EX STR 167-472-16 TRACT NO 405 LOTS 1 AND 2 �2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment W 165-225-06 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 20 FT N601 FT W 20 FT E 248 FT NE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 165-225-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 165-225-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT N 396 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-234-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 W 127.53 FT S 132 FT E1/4 S1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 165-234-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4-EX FREEWAY&W 127.53 FT 165-234-13 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 E1/4 S1/2SE1/4 NE1/4-EX S 528 FT 165-234-18 P BK 123 PG 22 PAR 1 165-321-06 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 1 165-321-07 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 2 167-311-03 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 2 167-311-04 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 1 167-312-01 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT W 265.37 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO HWY&ST 167-312-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 W 265.37 FT S 160 FT N 320 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-E X HWY c 167-312-03 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT S 340 FT W 265.37 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-E X FREEWAY& POR TO LOCKWOOD-6426 167-312-04 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4SW1/4 NW1/4 0 167-312-05 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4DESC AS PARCEL 1 IN DD-6834/340 OR c 167-312-06 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 S 180 FT W 265.37 FT-EX FREEWAY&POR TO DOAN-RUSSELL CO-6834/340 OR 167-472-03 TR 405 LOT 3 ALL-EX FREEWAY O0 167-472-04 TR 405 LOT 4 NLY 65 FT ELY 113 FT 167-472-05 TR 405 LOT 4 POR OF LOT 167-472-06 TR 405 LOT 4 POR OF LOT 167-472-07 TR 405 LOT 5 ALL-EX HWY Resolution No.2010-18 ---- Map 9 165-225-08 e 167-311-03 165-225=07 ®i 165-225-06 C'J 167-311-04 - - -- 165-234-13 ----- - - 167-312-01 Windy Sea Cir. cu---- - - - = 167-312-02 - 165-234-18 Windy Sands Cir. 167-312-03 - - 167 312-04 9 165-234-07 ;5 M 165-234-08 N(O 165-321-05 167-472-16 - 165-321-06 167-472-03 - -- - - -- 167-472-�4 167-472-06 - - - 167-472-05 165-321-07 - 167-472-07 MAP 10 12.1.6 Neighborhood Center 165-181-35 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 220 FT E 5 AC S1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4-EX HWY&ST 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-181-36 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 320 FT E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4SE1/4-EX HWY&ALLEY 165-181-37 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4-EX S 320 FT&N 220.05 FT&HWY&ALLEY 165-181-38 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 110 FT N 220.05 FT W 228 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4 165-181-39 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 165-181-40 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 FOR SE1/4 165-301-22 SEC 26 T 5 R it W 50 FT E220 FT N 214 FT SE1/4 SE1/4 165-301-23 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-7930/925 OR . 165-301-24 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 LOT IN N1/2 SE1/4 SEl/4 165-301-25 165-301-26 165-301-27 165-301-28 P M 125-10 PAR 1 FOR OF PAR 165-302-21 TR 3478 LOT 18 N 100 FT IN LOT-EX ST 165-302-22 TR 3478 LOT 18 ALL-EX N 100 FT 165-311-16 TR 411 LOT 1 FOR OF LOT AND POR OF LOT 2 165-311-17 TR 411 LOT 1 FOR IN LOT&S1/2 LOT 2 165-312-17 TR 411 LOT 19 N 93.3 FT IN LOT(AND POR N 93.3 FT W30 FT LOT 20 165-312-18 TR 411 LOT 19 N 140 FT INLOT-EX N 93.4 FT-(AND W 30 FT-EX S 140 FT&N 93.4 FT-LOT 20 165-312-19 TR 411 LOT 19 ALL-EX N 140 FT-AND POR S 140 FT W30 FT LOT 20 0 167-472-08 N TR 405 LOT 6 167-472-09 N TR 405 LOT 7 167-472-10 TR 405 LOT 8 N 74.66 FT o 167-472-11 TR 405 LOT 8 S 53.34 FT N 167-472-12 N 1/2 TR 405 LOT 9 167-472-13 TR 405 LOT 9 RECTANGULAR LOT IN LOT AND RECTANGULAR LOT IN LOT 10 167-472-14 TR 405 LOT 9 FOR OF LOT AS DESC IN DD-7658/624 OR-AND POR OF LOT 10 AS DESC IN DD-7658/624 OR O0 167-472-15 TR 405 LOT 10 POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DD-7624/483 OR 167-601-01 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 167-601-02 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 4 167-601-03 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 3 167-601-14 PM 244-48 PAR 1 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-15 PM 244-48 PAR 1 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-16 PM 244-48 PAR 5 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-17 PM 244-48 PAR 5 POR OF PAR 167-601-20 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 2 Resolution No.2010-18 -- - 167-,72 08 co -- -- { 165-311 r 16; U'. CTJ 167-472 09 -------------- � 165-311 17 : 10 0 N - -- - - 165 312 19 1§7-472-15 165 3-1-23 r , M 167 601=02 cu 0 165-�,3-1-24 Ky - cep - ---- 167 101 4 . ao 165 301 25 kL. 5 M 165 301 26 167-60 103 us �— 1S5-3D1 27 � 167-601 94 '165-302 21 " 167-601.20 165-302 22 --- .. -- - 165-181=40 _ 11057181-39, 465-181-38":` 165=181-37, 165-181-35 MAP 11 L2`1.4 Town Center Neighborhood 157-341-01 SEC 36 T 5 R it POR NW1/4 157-341-02 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 157-341-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 157-341-04 P BK 39 PG 2 PAR 1 157-341-05 P BK 24 PG 44 PAR 2 157-341-06 P BK 24 PG 44 PAR 1 157-341-07 P BK 39 PG 2 PAR 2 157-341-08 P BK 38 PG 16 PAR 1 157-352-05 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 159-031-08 SEC 35 T 3 R 11 S 99 FT N1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4-EXPOR TO STATE FOR ST 159-031-10 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 S 125 FT E 348.48 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX ST&FOR TO F REEWAY 159-031-16 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 159-031-17 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 1 159-031-18 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 2 159-031-22 T 5 R 11 SEC 35 POR NE1/4 159-031-23 159-031-24 P M 138-29 PAR 3 AND PAR 4 159-031-01 PM 14-8 PAR 1&2 12.1.10 Residential Transition Zone __ 159-031-01 PM 14-8 PAR 1&2 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center.._.. ..... ..... 157-481-01 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR 2 o' 157-481-02 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR 1 157-481-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N 53 FT S451.29 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 0 157-481-04 SEC 36 T 5 R it S 106 FT N 367.71 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4(AN D N 53 FT S 292.29 FT W 330 FT NW N 157-481-05 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 1 157-481-06 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 2 157-481-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 92.29 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 00 157-481-08 PM 317-35 PAR 1 THRU 4 159-141-66 TR 172 BLK C LOT 4 POR OFLOT AND BLK C POR OF LOT S 5,6,10,16,22,28,34,40,46,52,58,64,70 Neighborhood Blvd Segment _ 159-141-83 TR 172 BLK C LOT 83 AND BLK CLOTS 84,89,90,95,96,101,102,107,108,113,114,119,120,125,1 159-221-67 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 159-271-68 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 S1/2 N1/2SE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4-EX.HWY 159-27�7-6S SEC 35 T 5 R 11 N1/2 N1/2SE1/4 NE1/4 NEl/4-EX N 82.50 FT&HWY 159-27?-73 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 N 82.50 FT OF S3/4 NEl/4 NE1/4 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 11 ------ -- le'a 1 b f - y Cif.J 157 481-02 5 x 359 141 66 157 481-01 -- -- r Dr. 157-481-05 .s� 'S„ .� C' •'y l C 158141 83 # ` x y!4 F a 159 271 73 ---- Sterlin� Dr. - - U L�-- ca _ --- - - -- ?cu -- - 459 cu - - - � Kiner Dr. m a I r Dr. J cap 10r.Dr. U U _. 159 031-01' to R3 _ -- t6 O 157-352-05 ---- 159 03.1-24 - 157-341-01 - Bea ont Cu Forelfe Dr. --- 157 341-02 C J 159 03143 157-341-03 f: ... __ Q - fn .L... J 159-031-08' . c 4 Fox Cir. 159-031 La Palma Dr.` N - .. __j _ 159 031-17 c , 159-031-16 --- MAP 12 2.1.3 Town Center-Core 159-091-03 P BK 250 PG 9 PAR 1 159-091-04 TR 7 LOT 1 BLK D AND LOTS2,3&7 AND POR OF LOT 4 ALL IN BLK D SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTIC 159-091-05 TR 7 BLK D LOT 5 AND BLK D LOTS 6&8 159-101-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D POR OF LOT SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 2.1.4 Town Center Neighborhood 157-471-04 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N1/2 NW1/4 NWl/4 SW 1/4-EX FOR IN DD-7468/631 OR-&STS 157-471-05 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NW1/4 SW1/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-7468/6310R 157-471-06 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR S1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4 AS PER DD-7263/194 OR 159-092-03 N TR 7 BLK G LOTS 159-092-04 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK G 159-092-07 TR 7 BLK G LOT 3 AND BLK G LOT 4 159-101-01 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DD-7833/255 OR 159-102-01 P BK 184 PG 17 PAR 1 159-102-14 TR 7 LOT 19 BLK H S 75 FTN 145.2 FT W 216 FT IN LOT 159-102-18 N TR 598 LOT 17 159-102-19 N TR 598 LOT 16 159-102-20 N TR 598 LOT 15 159-102-21 N TR 598 LOT 14 159-102-29 N TR 598 LOT 6 159-102-30 N TR 598 LOT 5 159-102-35 TR 598 LOT 7 AND LOTS 8-13 INC(PM 126-21 PAR 1) 159-102-36 P BK 150 PG 1 PAR 1 159-102-43 TR 7 BLK H LOT 4 AND BLK H LOTS 5&6 AND POR OF LOT 3 AND TR 598 LOT 1 p 159-102-44 TR 598 LOT 2 AND LOTS 3&4 159-102-46 P BK 168 PG 44 PAR 1 159-121-02 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G N1/2 Z 159-121-03 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G S1/2 IJ 159-121-28 O 159-121-30 P M 175-07 PAR 2 FOR OF PAR O 159-121-31 PARCEL MAPS 175 PG 8 LOT 1 00 159-262-01 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK F 159-262-02 N TR 7 BLK F LOT 3 159-262-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF ALL-EX S 126.58 FT&ST 159-262-04 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF SLY 126.58 FT-EX ST 159-262-05 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 1 159-262-06 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 2 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 FOR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2-EXST MAP 12 [Residential Required(2.14) 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2-EXST 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 157-451-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4(P M 6-43 PAR 1) 157-451-08 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 157-451-09 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N 65 FT E243 FT W 331 FT N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4-EX ST 157-452-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 200 FT W 238 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4-EX STS 157-452-34 P BK 92 PG 26 PAR 2 157-452-35 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 3 157-452-36 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 1 157-452-37 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 2 157-452-38 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 4 157-471-30 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 157-471-31 T 5 R 11 SEC 36 POR SW1/4 159-102-06 TR 7 LOT 7 BLK H ALL-EX ST-(P.M. 30-44 PAR. 1 &2) ° 159-102-07 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H N 100 FTIN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST o 159-102-08 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H S 50 FT-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST-LOTS 9/10 BLK H Z 159-111-01 TR 7 LOT 11 BLK H N 37.5 FT IN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST ° N 159-111-04 TR 7 LOT 12 BLK H ALL-EXELY 14 FT FOR ST 0 159-111-05 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H N 125 FT E 170 FT IN LOT-EX PORTO STATE FOR ST �- 159-111-06 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H ALL-EXN 125 FT E 170 FT& POR TO STATE FOR ST-(AND ALL-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST-L 159-111-07 TR 7 LOT 15 BLK H N 50 FTIN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST 159-111-08 159-1.11-09 159-111,-10 I S 9-11,1-2 1 N TR 7 BLK H LOT 18 159-111=22 TRACT 7 BLK H LOT 11 S 112.50 FT IN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST Map 12 ) � r . c ' ` ` t59a�0,x03��' 157;471 06 I i 3 Brookwood Dr. , % f 15&102 01 �� 158 g91.04� j ° Rapids ' Or. 2 e x m Sill 158 Q91 Q5 ' J C L _ ...19 b �02 44 � -. U i x s 1� -159-102-!i3 - 0 157.47 C06 Whitewater Dr. N f I � __._ T est Dr. Amberleaf.:Clr. 159-09,oa g g 15 ` . 158 102.14 159 102 98 ml t I7. O a _ m1 r gQ 1 158 102 07 J .. 1 o l . f Gra adic FLI t • > 0 157-47140' '. o . - oT� �� 159 082 04 '158 Q92 03 Lindenwood I r - �159-102.0� ' Crestwootl Di g : 100 I��. ` tb9.282• 159-121.28 159-11.1-22 157-a5�-o6 U 15 �: 9.121 38 ' 157.45 - 159.262709 159.111-04 Constantine18 '� 158 262 02 Dr. 113 i�7 I s_ 159• 1 ' - — . � U d5928205,' j 1596102ca 15919,-05 157452-34 �! �^ 169-12130 N 159.262-01 159 111-08: Q` 158 262 06 Q 159121 03 E ` 1b9-111-07 �i 159 121 2a F81inCir. ,59„1_0 �i _J ,57-452-35 Shaffe Monte Cristo Ln, r Cir. M $ .j 159.111.09- 957 45$36 Q . Timber Cir. 157452-38, U, , i FE � ! 159.111.10 �R I pQ�Rt� f i 1� l � ' I ' cu I -21 is�:�ss.os -158=111 1 MAP 13 12.1.5 Neighborhood Center 159-161-24 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 1 159-161-25 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 2 159-161-26 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 3 159-161-27 P SK 97 PG 14 PAR 4 L2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-180-06 TR 837 LOT BLK C POR OFBLK 025-180-13 TR 837 LOT BLK C W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX N 70 FT&S 1SS FT 025-180-14 TR 837 LOT BLK C N 55 FT S 155 FT WLY 125 FT ELY14S FT 025-180-21 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2508 POR OF BLK 025-180-23 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2508.POR OF BLK AND POR OF BLK 2507 025-180-24 TR 837 LOT BLK C S 92 FT W 12S FT E 145 FT 025-180-25 TR 837 LOT BLK C S 100 FT W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX S 92 FT 025-181-36 TR 837 BLK A LOT 1 AND BLK A LOTS 2 THRU 7&LOT 26 025-182-22 TR 837 BLK B LOT 3 AND S 45 FT LOT 26 BLK B 025-182-32 P BK 238 PG 1 PAR 1 025-182-33 TRACT NO 837 BLK B LOTS 4TO 6 INC 153-041-13 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 54.76 FTS 1808.28 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-14 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 109.52 FT S 1753.52 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-15 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 82.20 FTS 1644 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-16 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 100 FT 51561.80 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST 153-041-17 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 328.8 FTS 1561.8 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX N 100 FT&ST 153-041-18 P BK 122 PG 1 PAR 2 0 153-041-28 P.M.122-1 PAR 4 AND POR PAR 3 r. 153-041-29 P.M.122-1 PAR 3 POR OF PAR 153-041-34 P BK 324 PG 40 PAR 1 153-051-08 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N,123.3 FTS 822 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST. 0 153-051-09 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 123.3 FTS 698.7 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST c 153-051-10 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 245.4 FTS 575.4 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST c 153-051-11 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 100 FT S330 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST .� 153-051-14 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 W 25 FT E 100 FT W 430 FT S 230 FT SWl/4 NW1/4 AND S 230 FT E 170 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 °O 153-051-15 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 50 FT S 230 FT W 200 FT SWl/4 OF NWl/4-EX ST 153-051-16 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 RECTANG LOT IN SW1/4 NW1/4 153-051-17 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 IRREG LOT IN NW1/4 153-051-18 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR 1 153-051-19 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR 2 153-051-24 T 6 R 11 SEC 1 POR NWl/4 152-051-25 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 POR OF NW1/4 OF SEC 1 159-161-04 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2908 ALL-EX ST 159-161-29 EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 3008 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 13 -- --- a i59 161 25• 153-041 34' 'm !s No�mad�CiT• d Surfline Dr. r � r 'C Islandview 2 earharbor r. c 75916126, __ m C3 (9 11---�i� � � 'i59-181 27 ' 153 041 29 Baymist Dr. �_ Lowt�de C r. i � s x 153-041 28'= zz -. .- - - - Wad_eb 4 ; 159161 29 - 153 041 13 -- 153 041-14 � ' J Da 153-041=16- L - M O -� 153-041-17 - - Fal Clay Ave. m __. ..-._- _ __ -_ 02518i.36 153051-24 Owen Dr. 153=051-25 _.. -- - L, 025 182 32, Q� _ � Jana Cif. 025 182 22` 153-051-18 153-051-19 0-- -- __ 163-051-08. L; -- - 01 Williams Dr. 153-051-09 25.1 080 025-180- 3 025-180- 4 153=051 A 0 i-+ 025-180-2 - ' --'� _..___... 257180- c' - --- cu 0257180-23 153-051-11 _. _. 1 -051-15 j 4 Lll ti° m N Wenlock Cir- - 153-051-14 M 15 051-17 MAP 14 E2 1.5 Neighborhood Center 153-091-19 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 1 153-091-20 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 2 153-091-21 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 3 153-091-22 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 4 153-091-23 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 5 153-091-25 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 7 153-091-26 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 8 153-091-27 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 9 153-091-28 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 10 153-091-31 P BK 201 PG 15 PAR 1 153-091-32 P BK 201 PG 15 PAR 2 ...... 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-191-03 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2308 025-191-32 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2108 POR OF BLK 025-191-42 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2108 POR OF BLK 025-191-43 P BK 43 PG 18 PAR 1 025-191-51 P BK 164 PG 18 PAR 1 71 025-191-53 PARCEL MAP 109-9 PAR 2 POR OF PAR AND ALL PAR 1 AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2408 FOR OF BLK o 025-191-54 P M 109-9 PAR 2 POR OF PAR AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2408 POR OF BLK 025-200-50 SLY 160 FT EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 1708 0 025-200-51 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 1708 POR.OF BLK Z 0 025-200-61 P BK 35 PG 47 PAR 1 c 025-200-62 P BK 35 PG 47 PAR 2 c 025-200-63 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2008 POR OF BLK 00 025-200-64 EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 2008 S 1/2 OF SAID BLK 025-200-68 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1808 POR OF LOT 025-200-69 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1707 POR OF LOT AND POR OF LOT 1708 025-200-72 EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT LOT 1908 POR OF LOT&POR OF LOT 1808&TRACT 1916 LOTS 8,9, 10,& POR OF LOT 153-091-05 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 IRREG 2.70AC M/L IN NW1/4 SW1/4 153-091-06 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 POR SW1/4 AS DESC IN DD-7376/379 OR 153-091-17 T 6 R 11 SEC 1 POR SW1/4 Resolution No.2010-18 •- - -- Ma 14 p 153-091-06. 191-53, i 153-091-17 � tl� t — --- ------ I � 025-191-51. -ay Cir;� 153 091-21 i 025=191, ---- ' 02r191;A.2 e o 153 091-19 025-200-62:: L+ occ -- 02 200 — 7 025 20Q�1 153-091.�" r s -- -- v 025-200�4, -- - --- 53-091-3. ' 025 2oa72 0 Altamar Dr. --- :- - 153-091-20 sh� --- - 200-68 153-001-27 ��ooh N -- a Cir. 0`1' 183-091-26 025 200-69 o° . oryyti MAP 15 �2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-143-10 SEC 11 T 6 R 11 POR N1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 AS DESCIN DD-7565/757 OR 151-282-03 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4NW1/4 AS PER LEASE-6734/643 OR 151-282-26 T 6 R 11 SEC 12 POR NW1/4 151-282-27 P BK 247 PG 36 PAR 2 151-282-28 P BK 247 PG 36 PAR 1 151-282-31 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 1 151-282-32 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 3 151-282-33 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 2 12.1.9 Residential Parkway Segment 025-171-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT A BLK 1008 S 150 FT N 270 FT E 10 FT-EX ST-(AND S 15OFT N 270 FT-EX STS- LOT 025-171-10 VISTA DEL MAR TR BLK 1008LOT A POR OF LOT AND BLK 1008 POR OF LOT B 025-172-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT A BLK 908 ALL-EX PORS IN STS-(AND ALL-INC POR ABAN ST ADJ--EX PORS IN STS- L 151-293-38 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 151-293-39 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 151-293-42 P.M. 35-26 PCLS 2 AND 3 0 o' z 0 N O O I , I H C� f � ill rest Cir.� Anna Ln ' 1 i Florida St...3 O, M CD, 1 �. Pacific ! Cove Ln � , .-« ` - -,o c C_ ir._ x B _ 1 I a kbay _ - I _. i. < Arrow Ln (D �= __ rs Shot crest Ln .* - - , t Georgia St �, - i 1 i 2 \V Lakeside L _ Y - SummOrview Ln. - n - e� I 025172-06 each E31vd. 7S, `ba r } Seven Seas rate u1 �t✓.10 Stone pr ���`' aid H ,. - ....- Bridges!de lea p gayfront Ln, oint Ln. t m Seal point Ln Somerville Ln. I..r cD I L a�� v Billingsgate Lm' I N „ I MAP 16 . .._ ...... ... ....... _..__w..... _.. �2.1.6 Neighborhood Center 148-021-12 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-14 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-15 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-17 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-18 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4(=PM BK 44 PG 40 PARS. 1 & 2) 148-021-19 P BK 25 PG 27 PAR 2 i2.1 9 Residential Parkway Segment 151-351-14 N TR 12820 LOT 1 151-351-43 N TR 15816 LOT B 0 G o' 0 z 0 N O O Resolution No.2010-18 o w m o Z Map 16 m Sunset Cir - - n. .� ----- -_ Kin�f Coral Ln. — C:— -. cu c6; — E Bluefin Ln. YB Sea CL Mermaid Ln. Stinson` Dr. - - __ _- Evel J Shell Cir. L O L U; c U L to _ M O: --- - N O U: U 5 Beachcomber Dr. - -. Cq_eta.Po�� om� 148-021418 Waterfall Cir. Wildwood Ciro 148-021:=17 -_. M Whitestone Dr. - i W . v, cE Pennington Dr. Seawall Cir. d 148 021 12 .. Y . N ` O - �C: -_ i D N � 3 CO N ID U W burn Dr. O ool _ 148-021-14= o Southwind Cir. - - — 148-021A5 Eastport Dr. N o Moonrnist CM `' Cir o U Deerfield Dr. --- — 77777 Resolution-No. ♦ a : CA- 6G 8A �. • s. -F fig �• _- y —88 _ 8B = -; d 4G 8B9D 4G .� 38 4G 8B 9D r-88 ,` 4G 1 ♦ -L 3 V - �-•4G Pam 8B 9F ='_- - 4G 88 4G 86 -- 4G 8B 8A 9D y ♦ ` -"_ice -_ - - � o _7G 7A 88 - -. 8B - _-_ _- 4G 9F • - - - - - - - ----- - 88 - -- --- - - _ - � ®•. r _ - - -_- _ _ R arc pc�ea" Resolution No.2010-18 _ yy • • ' zs alµl '�" Ii r� Sr a . 'i § {{.Lr nl��,, �•'{r'{I • � �� ,-,il�i`n ,vl;ssa Es°ry'� f y1' :I�S y ' a:`d` i-1, cE 'Igay-��i .7z£ R_ ,E 1 �p�• �• { r 1{I �=E E � j y.`. :II F ' i S x 1 ^Id�_f-e�E' =-=a g d {yiy�Y n.� na' - n nn ' " I•3. '"•� i}� :YY='i........... fi nrli s s1 � 'zt ss i E s t' c.E�'q u1a{ jzt�E z=I�5 z:'kR "x M. r':_ •. � i��,��if"��r �gg 5+5 x csl-i.�C{=1=I �Pq�r£ ii{{y' s'§{r{i •���. • � 6E a t g'Tr�i z 9�_ pp�� 1}°� L i�aE in�'�� a sE.e .. • r`Lx's 'fie '''a�a�', �_`�j;t d��E�� a"� `Hs. I'{£r§ate rr"y I.,I ���Tj �� + � �� ,�9 a� '3}d' � c 1 33 ray. ya.�` ,s!• —i• I g, r' ��� � `r��! aBII �:/a{i'I in{ � {� So - 4 r �J _.. s _ ,... •un.nn U nIn InnA11U1 II _ P rll r .r i xl •• _..■rr� YE'o511 a � �qt £Lg T\ ' � (.•►=911r7.ee. 'xt. e.!u as1 t r.•!a sY/r�.. F �." i'5 __ '•s'-;':::I.nru � a z- i +.,t.Z:.�--.'r un.nnr� E +'?i; L. t ;J (7� �+ I rn7'n_ - _ c- _ a ♦ a• i���r� c_Es �1 i s nli iai 5'Y� �,�t�j�. r 1 'f-• 7. � .'{Yr :•. +�I ;s 4!qs' ,v z£ _.a z ss' - � x =- -e- .t�:;< , ' L � � m {`� r I-t- I 1 {i�• I i{r6 r s� a x>;(a p n _:3a r` .1 '�.5i' x • �r=rlkt.... xR� ` i^ xx1 � i 1" 1 1 � git @91 t IIiM1, {" a r 7 { Y C{ °� � a �Ix r 1'!� .{r r� I{i.'xa�sE 'ir £`� _ � • • i Ir. aY= % "in Tg I�n�r, �: 1 I �s'3rr� na1�t'��s� '' I X� •z .� �i,�x i =i n ' � i!!r ti :.p �_ _."=E'e t �i T t _ 1 1 °ra E rS- - •»t. � F 1 1 CzM I1 uff�,^3 J{ . 1"1N u llru : _ -i= X 1' i I 1 S'r�.in= _. '_ I s •f ! $ ;, _ nu I 'o _:ems_�_._a) t. P.:: ii ,�! .�.... .. o e - 3 It■ i �� :Ir " i°� m, r=R r - IP -fi 3 P; n m ,I. I If if II t T Cy•=�=5 _ice •,,, __ '.�, Illa.=1'� iun ntx -EI _�_c. -�,fl P �� '. I I .� f ..�inm_ie ,-rITP� � 1- '7� .�:{.,.r nnl lr. `6 gg y 11111 �I/-FE LF 1 11111E F I ��: � i S"`? I III fa I� IIII i 1 nl Irl � f ^+ _{ir•.d 3 �II�III ! �t {{{1t,{= `� sSiitl..l 1 ! uil Iu�lol' li r%���ifi Sin ill al 7 r" .._J a I e_=xr asa T:rESI£?E m ;rn�i_•��Ir lu m 33_ 3 _ c �c, iii� 1 n m�i IU n im r r 11 nl m +` :r a a a `i�7"{:E EIC��'+y, , '('1; x�I�a��I�I ,� = it c 1: n nl @��,u� 1�nu rt■, a y�.ne1.11 '. .*■ s,- � I r �\. � Z\_. lum I I 11 I n l n a I.�1 R Ilia m 1,e l r - tf ■ � 11111111 �■ I I 111 I L-" �i,.� ! III Oii nlul Inml I llr Sul_ _ ■ �l lllllln��> - a d _><4�"J" 3r � flnA 11 f m ro �11 Ir 1 b V ' ■ r"ya��j"ir �� + � �� . :, � II��i.I'�°i I ru �i (lo HI �� �,'r: . r ��11 y��. '�•S 7:4 71' � -. II�I I`li fell i 11 7',. p`$ �ofifi�t +r T, at I n �j•' : alol r , 3 nw ' ml� e9ri�El�%r 3 �.fu�'!{,� � _ tt , � �v;?^~oi � ,�♦e� 11j � aiz Iz�as= °Siriiiuiii £�,{{{{ ,ir i I i.� r4t � s•l 4 1i � o♦♦ H ty' a I u ! .i P S• lii I lr n 1171 �7 i;'#f., 5.rin r�idw� 4 1 t 4r� H!i nrr 1. A ■ ■.unnn..rnm. i.. ._ 1 r z_n . .ans' r' I t$1'J,/'+ 3'+♦°.H ♦ a'�t ...■ uma u I ♦ g H H l �1,.��'= £� � 'aelA::o1': � E':'.":{:??Sii'n.E£:: :qE � �.:�?In I p.d{g. - 'i��=jllr�q+, l /��si q'.', H ,'H'•.:�bq♦;. � A �.. '- i :9:�f==� • I.�i:�: ��S{ .x1,r1 s = a-a'=.R:i � >.�Y.�,�.,d�7=1 S�■� �a�'�31 E.nra r:.yi `Q� _.:� / �J .,r♦e ,�../t'',;" '♦♦ W '7••" ::1::__• - - __� -sl�i7—nu�90 p i ii'7-a•' :a:-9'lal'.. - _�,r.,yyyy B 8.. {' . t•H ry ".z'a _ - der..E:pnL Eg-.9 s-3 �' aS�. •4\ 1J/�q, Lr,.. :1 71. te H . %W 1•!n�:d = .__cs�rin.. x a 'm'� m• la � �f � ."i��' *:IIC ,fi � _ -� cl{":I''�i:i� rt: r i Ile, .4 r I.xE ,9 : TviYrX. Exl iYr ii',a:C�iiE�:'s 9a - �':'iiii��V�lrf_,:....-_filli I '.'•a /'�X.,�iat' � y �.. : ". -::� - �:::E E: aI r.. iiir•��r..!t£, �.._.71�■ s /:I� _;1... /.,h I ,_II,r y c:•,.> i( ,v .H. .1 ..r.�d'i. 'y:' g e ai n• ti.ti.. 1.��. mr. i:' _ - _ •1:r'r�,i': iilEl 1 • .v..♦ � .....35. '' ,♦. iiC:rnrl ,9a .!I"'nr . x n{: - _.l =.�.vs . .I / X; :It vA ♦?. 4j', _�Y t aril£ '"1irirri.C,i},.,'�,,..iiiriurnoE Si"Yrr-E. r+-y=..•i'Y• `3 - --if0�ifClCi l"•i1 'llr+ nr., rrrr _ rr {{t j J 1 I .... � r = _.LrV 4g III :ni 'c? :"_° S Y.N_:£�xl n./1, {I'i'i'�`ai E 9 nr�r:i.n-.rr.. n.��r. ` e F+ rnrnrr.rrr: E•:::rn... ' E�-r-r-�= .E % �� - -. .S s ti e;,r' P t�e. ". 9 -i.• w:a :.y :`::ss:E_� -:. _ - E E asy:c;x�sa 3E 5E: - r.linn�'::'s"".d• y' I■ (IlEl�la s_h.s_ 1!urr .\ ♦3 "itY{Yr. b Ix? x- E:c __ aIsa nsPl.i 'I�r111!mr" 7 "u j •3�,.51, {f'�T■ '�.Laiiiu �1Tie.a'g i•Q�� •.�'' • ��' 7.a6.' H ♦ ';*y ye z — O IC 1 ........ P■�.%M1•nnr ....... '._.__ r _ , ruq S „1 uiV�\., .�, J,e•i ����M .I �� I.L. E%T,::S:::ati::..[_. 1•ii._Ra. _p_ ♦ x�Rin:n, EtEs`e to : }35f:a _c_, yl: �t la'SrS�. =nmr, � .'�A� .4.riJSy�i1 3oib �.y I�,'I l nnnr� (■.•. ...-..r:E �..J - _ �II "aI-.�...�•_ : T. . al 1r\ _\•r i� I.r.. .:-1--LWJ:S...L.A .r.'11::.::zi3c�i�i:{i '�+. _ i3.•::d.a.a_.'1 I3 I 7 a�. �:�' r4 Y'� '1tr �1G'1�,t��"' I=d sEiJ\.3a� . el.�'r---.7�EE -� �_ ' - ir.�e , _.{ �.oi. i6s=;r''' —'► �`=/�',o- •1i"' o, st _.1,Zd: cC .9• C:f._+ .sr'6,..... riSl:+6:E 3s a.C ltYr s�J{.,+ r�� `ri i."° �. '�a3.�0 y,��:r %s_ nrr.-5�ry c'� nn na?�• rr -_.�Iin:U.'q,`r+�l 1'�� S'��S r' �•I=/ x'✓�•':,f .p° `� Mi .rr.r...rrnrrrl e. 1 nln 1 .•E- I .._._b...�°__.i_.1.,1..E�■' ............... •"X�'X i�+i.�.nnri{� : I ..I.` i I .1..�_X j"i cxs%°a E r,9 c�,EIS �rl, Crrrnr. yr~n711Y111", ■„ .■ rim 1_�1ai in■ =r �,■r■,�i � 1= = a s nna .I..F�� 1p\ - i I , L Resolution No.2010-18 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 {font.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles uses, . Corridor the"CW'lands category. Denim Category; Design and C tegoi-... Special Design/« a,,, Development • Design and site development as a cohesive and i to ,tor _enter ..,:y. ..Y:" mob... stipulated by Policy i U 111 1 1G • Mitigate noise and .el.iculm impaets thatmayoccur- _mearesidential neighborhoods. ! hWleirlent extensive streetscape 4uprovements (1.,ndseape > n' lighting,ete.)along Edinger. 5D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") "Old World" Community-serving commercial uses, motel/bed and breakfast, restaurants, cultural facilities, and similar uses (as permitted by the "CG" land use category)and free-standing multi-family housing. Density/intensity Category: "-F2/45" • Motel: 12 units • Height: three(3)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development • New development shall be designed to be consistent with the style of existing buildings. • Provide pedestrian linkages to uses within the subarea and adjacent centers. "StudentSE PeFmitted Uses Category: Commer-eial General('GG" Eowmunity-se llal uses permitted by the "CG" land use Center" eateg8r�, T 7 Dens Categoryy. " Fl-" Design and Category: Special Design(" d!, Development _ Design and site development to achieve a unified"village • Locate buildings around common coutlyards and pedestrian areas- • Disc.,...age the development of office uses on the fkst floor. • Establish pedestFia l;..lEages to Golden West College and adjacent THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-5 7 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNFFY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 55F De.....:tted Uses f__`_at._ei Mixed T kse 11pertical L-Ae.r tion..f Housing CAW) Transit f`.,nun „;ty se ial . es e ffnitted by the !'e..mereial Gene. l Center 1"r�"1Tland u� tego���d tom-.nsit 1 ted cv ���cncc mni�rc-nxaccv-'u�iecs Design and ' peeQ1��' d!- Develmment ® Design to integrate...,,..mereial and t«..isitt,rimed uses and facilities. ® Cluster-budding.on cofmnon%ulleAuys, a spaces,and/e.-.,lazas • lncerpoFate unifying design elements{signage, street..cape ar-ehiteevaral design-,and ether} • Link T sit Center-with d; r 1 the Regional C aum--riixirsrccicrrwraveixt=P�ce=�iirusc xccgirni�'ax core. Designshuctmes to be compatible with adjacent residential'uses 6 Area wide Provide for the evolution of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Beach and Functional Role corridors into a series of distinct commercial, milted-use, and residential Edinger nedescenters and segments. Develop a high level of design identity for Boulevard each nedecenter and segment which improves the visual character of the Corridors Boulevardcorridors and establishes a unique "sense of place." Facilitate pedestrian activity within each to minimize the need for automobile travel among individual uses. Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Single uses containing commercial or residential uses and mixed uses pursuant to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(SP 14) Densi / Pursuant to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP Intensi14) Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development ® Require conformance with the SP 14 83ALC o Uses permiffed by the"CO"land use eete,.et, Beach and Warner Densit y4ntensity Category: " F3„ ue„T.t. tures Design and Category; Speeial Design an) Developme;rt a Design additional uses and s4metiffes to compkwaent existing stniclair-e-__ THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-58 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT Design and site struotwes to intain pedestFian activity. 4asit➢e4 THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU-59 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 6B Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG");and Mixed Use-Vertical Integration Beach of Housing("NW') Warner area Commercial and community-serving commercial uses permitted by the Commercial General("CG")land use category. Density/Intensity Category: "-F 13";and"-178" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d"),Automobile District("-a") Development 0 Establish a unified"village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses, and siting buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. • Locate buildings along the Beach and Warner street frontages and incorporate a visual landmark at the intersection (signage, landscape, architectural element,etc.). • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Limit access to and from Beach Boulevard, clustering driveways and entrances as feasible for multiple businesses. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas. • Encourage the creation of an automobile district. Five Points GenvmmW uses pemiitted by the"GG"land use category- D Catege " 12,211 uei&t• dwee(3)stoF es- Development • Establish -- _unified"village" ,.h., -..te. using consistent arch:te..t,,,-e a,_,� highl., .,,-t;,,,,l.,ted f roa es and h,,;l,ing masses, .l sting buildings ® WegFate new development to he oonsistent withexisting stmetwes • Achieve ., high level of.teyel.......ent quality „r.t.,,,..e with Policy i l l W 2 � ra:rc. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-60 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT FABLE LU-4(Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 6D Permitted Uses Category! Mixed Use �%V) Five D..^t.. Medical facilities,professional offlees,and supporting retail conuner-cial uses Medical p :rte l I the C el ("CW) h-md use ,togeFy, coofigFegate Center fa ilities, , . Category; F340'-' He:..ht• four(4)stories Design and Eategery—Speeifie Plan f' sp') Development w the tion f .i d 1 t ..f,rw, th Rqkiie—u�"'—Pr^cp?a'ucroar-^vr-'aiaa--zceTa-tv^pincix��^ cn-s SpeGifW OF master plan. ® Integrate new development...:thexisting to ensure eompatibility. frontages,except Altai Street Establish pedestrian litikages to suffounding neighborhoods and distriets, ...here F asible �ncrc-xc-cr�m� 6E Permitted Uses Category; !`.......,ef.ei l Office Office ode Uses permitted by the"CO"land, e.,tegef, . (Adams CIE t8Nfl) Density intensity Eategoimy.:"-P51 Design and • Design to he consistent: sea le and ar-ch:te..t..r.,l char-a.ter withexisting Development struetwes. - Require yert:...,1 rethay*..f elevations above the s and st..r., e Limit t ., s to and fto Beach Battle.,. d elusteFing dfiye. ays and entFaffees as feasible for-ffmltiple businesses, arcNewlandCenter- Densit)4ntensity EategoFy. " lil" e Height.• t..,o(2)stories Design {td Categoty; c. .,l Design C' dL) Development Design struetwes to maintain the seale and character-of the adjacent Her' PaFIE: THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-61 Res. No. 2010-18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 1, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Coerper, Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen NOES: Hardy, Green ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None f CiV Clerk and ex-officidQlerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California RESOLUTION NO. 2010-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.08-002 ESTABLISHING THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN(SP-14) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and After due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan, and other applicable policies and is compatible with surrounding development. SECTION 2: The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan enhances the potential for superior urban design through Form Based Code development criteria in comparison with the development standards under the base district provisions that would apply if the Plan were not approved. SECTION 3: The deviations from the base district provisions that otherwise would apply are justified by the compensating benefits of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. SECTION 4: The Specific Plan includes adequate provisions for utilities, services and emergency vehicle access and public service demands and pursuant to the EIR mitigation measures will not exceed the capacity of existing and planned systems. SECTION 5: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution(hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Plan Boundary-Exhibit B") extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 09-2348.002/42578 1 Resolution No.2010-19 SECTION 6: Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, attached hereto as E;dibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as thoroughly set forth herein, is hereby adopted and. approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the Ist dayof March 20 10 v,Mav6r—) REVIE ND APPROVED: 1NITI TED ND APPROVED: k�!, —C4 — City 'strator Director of Planning and 111tilding APPROVED AS T��OnnFORM: 111 CtA� ty Atto ey W 1 _10 --- ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Specific Plan No. 14- Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Exhibit B: Project Area Map and Legal 09-2348.002142578 2 Resolution No.2010-19 Resolution No.2010-19 EX1-1I11IT A DRAFT SPECIFIC PLANT NO. 14 COPIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY CLERICS OFFICE, CENTRAL LIBRARY AND THE CITY WEBSITE A"I' www.surfeity-hb.org/government/departments/planning Resolution No.2010-19 J• \ ' �'1MoHN-111H ✓ .,. ---- —---------- kill .. ........ x d�blmiiii�i=%� ri'• �'�t.; c I. _ —F 'Ic*` , ■ _ 1• ......t -t ^_ j_ tier• �a L �. r . ME fib•'•-;F a i /h, /r,�7•q l c h....�0\.13._ bo• p lrr� :. .I �a '1n�um1o�1u1 1.ea •'� 1. e =',' r =-_ `{�{ -.e=_ ... .I 1 �- ..Ijd: s: yam•� pl = y�uP='C.,..•�� `ai - _ _:C.rrr. .:iSu� n.gcy' _ _x- ....unr.i.{u::::.5 . °� ..-1. cAr.4r., a:l ')Y_ ♦..�..1_ _ rG{:u e:° _ ?I_.,ra�:" - -ee���."-'_."": : _ h:a= :1�;• ai - ,1•r_ '�1r•:':1•.. .•s yr 2-- z'c• _ - _ - y a,' u�: u►.trr.rw •tp.yL .rlrnnj.-` a -. I •:.30° E?- :•'•?jcs: 1 c..■c. _ n f.•, Y„o _nIP. .�'.�... -,J:=":•■n°1 t j is iic=�G7e' .�.1\. �:�i�.igr.p�r�.�i_� I.IAm��I�:f•rUnl - _ ,.. .:I...r .:> ���i�t��� L• ion... __ _a �','1v.+.• ,,:- ,.- - -..AI 1..Ir1 I- .,.rr.nlrl.�.,n __ 1 Lt_cr- _■■. ♦:.•.. .,i^. ''. .,.., �"„ s:n 51,••1 . .mil"%,•31= . .�^^.... - !-:Q� - �IA�IIIOuI C^Crl•r .• .I-�1-: a ..:_rpr,rr r. ..,,�?:,�r-a ]5'Tr:? ' .lo, r,.S �\.._}y - Il,,;!= Ip�y.r�Clrl. _ :(fir..,•,,,.,,',, i��;7i1-. „�� v �.� ,1.5E /, a, _ _.•/,A•,.w .rl , ��. ~5�....:.•r._• :::I I' "....'..: .. .,,. S�� -.. ;�., o pl\G-..,yqul��r„_:�u1', ' �•u _ .,, t c. - � 'fr.'�:=':::r•':::":"-1.^.:.". .� .,e; .i: � :" a)i �:: '•;� �� . d i I 1 ..- ..��•r 1_ i -i 2 °. Y I _ u,�e�' � �1 N �• � a �,, ;ra?,,%;rn tr.+n9J�°G� �.�� �_� •v Ec^ _..- f � f I ... •.♦• �� ter. P+. •♦ do/T.a - �'Oi= :a_:e•r_ ..� � :::::::..:• _I'�• ':< {-. _1ul�_„ �-\\1.wIE L..: .aF-x - .nl:- ■ 1... 11 -- _1 • \� S'>� ..},n E CE� �Ir1�P.0 I� P!: }: � 'ra,.• ♦ -T• �-�� ,r'a / 1 • y...,(�.Y' ;'_x_..■;.=(2',' J'.1•• r-r;�.s_� Ix:�s a? I �. x = !-*I 1111 11111 ♦ S .-• �'0•.Ifle.rj•Iu.•1 +ilili'►`� r■niA• ,� N ■ �� :_ G ��:',,�1 ...■1■■• .'♦ >^��1;''err--ILa.,.:y w :w{�1�=mite �1 Y ` 1= 1 I ` f } 1 •' ri'1 1 . 7., .:I� < `•.t,:�k,l �,'• u� 'Ir 11�'�.- Ile ) , r::�; , {� �. ..• „\,,,- nalll,ll• . _ �e=e 1,=nleee � 111'T=E � 1 Ilil 1111.1111111111111111111111,� _ _ �_I� ��_ - ",11 - .y,.. � � \\a\p\� a�\\�ua m•nnnmm nwgmn I I lu - . b .;"� ;-1,:;���n,'v.\\\oyo \\t \ol Ia/o:.y1;Aa= n uum nniulo:�nmm It ..,. •�. �'` � `\`?'. i� 10{:2 [...° 1:��.11Aw1� I■■� t_- ■ .� -• \1p1/ s=' _._11111111 IIIIIIIIII■2111111111111nllllllllr. -' � � �� - ' +r..:. \`I fill:�1111111.(a\\\\\/ �_ ^-III IYI II I 11111111 III111111 r� �. � 1- �J r �: 1 r 't 11I1 ,' �1 I ■ -� �■ �I r.uuul um nn°Ir 1 Iwo—IN 0 o �_i— 11\■e �1� �Ir111■1111;II ■�[w:i111111111 ■■ �4 CCC i E'6S - ■ r� ' r _ n c lr n:III :11101111-:I :u urnm Ill.un all Y .ice � �i nl' ( ■ 11 11 ■ ■■lu.l 1 1 1 �n � _.._ / 1 �■ - �_■ _ r� 1 _I 1 I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIw .� ■ � � 4'._. 1 III�,II,�1�1.1111-Q�11� _ - �■■�/Ilt 1111 Z :a I. 1 I r m ul 1 IZitii nZlu i"i n, unuml a ,: + r irnm ■ /Ynnl[I AIIII 'r!b \r mmwniUuuuntur..o... . ►H: -t _ u1• c.-:: ....:� -`r^� ;'7 1�T1 \i 4 l} �o s r 1..I,�� �° s;.L,:.rrrrrl:{i^.i_c 3c _t 1 171 nu■1='= _:fin+i:r lrvi l �w_n .unrml,:.unnr.�nw uyrnu nu I "�a�llll_ s� � �?1? � J"� 'j ����laj _=5 _ a_!_ •-Y I .Lr 1•• - m 1- • ! � a_:.:a,:c cela?'?6,c��-r_x N Illa ',Ir:"I•A Il•III I;11 1'J 11111 II II 1 ilia 11111._,,1 r 1aaII Illin I�IIry=I I t 'I,;_' 1 li� . r!:? a _ � ■ �,�!,!1�!, 1 �. I---__�___ 1( Irl r II:II,1 I111"III 1 Irll III IIIII 11111-: Ifll I(II:1 1111,1_Illle ulll I - .�� _ � , ....■� ,IIIIIIAII III II 1-i•'�.'--__:i S?33 C` -j-- 1 � •'E€ �: ice.�.__-?a. •••/ 'YYlrrlll � �iC•t?::a:..•1,�.a1Pi1:.-_L-_.-.�.: - I�•-I�{r l r:Al un. nY.s r I r is■ m-xl r1u l i m1�� elms. 1 c 11 i`k� !_t--� 1� � I�IIQ�M�� * m1ii7 1'`Innnm o ?}}}n.. .nn. v _ I Iu'u4 Iw - t 1 IIIII z:ul I _ • ' - 1,�/111inI�A���ec ' �Illllllhnllj�lll A=11i c� o,,� =^_■ �' r 111.1 Fill- ,¢y..:..-_�^'11r1 1 1-11 IuIu u 1u1u1 ���r'--I_I/uiil lI l �`,I1 II u�C1.Li1I 1':•"I'i ilIu4W mTUF z_1_1 IiIi1I III Ili1'a1 rmI NI I{1 U�I�N17�.+ ._� ''-+• 1 �. .1x E ,'�,�'•�{i__=___- �u �,I .II_.,.....: , \"• :3a A unl• ,�\� --_ v_ _niliY. 111-:glll ; _'���tl �'„-1 Y 1 m � iil} •• 11 1 1-r rn ul■nnuu - -• '-�_=- nlnmiw - _ 1 _ I I rrr ! �' •••�• ' a-•T / ! Itl�O'a f Illruni' r ° 11111111111111 i �rrr I Ic' - I ,.rrr....rr rlrr.. � � I�.r:::::.:�—� r .r.lr 1 rllrll.. — r• I _ e 1 I' ' .1 I :4:�1�: ��_ :.:_; r,�-.rrYr �r.rr.rr ���a �-irr-?t -dh'--',: I .1•LP._ r —�=3 -= r , •;�; _ srl....1- ::�, •,nr!L..a.3 :._ 1/n, 0 ;... a. A�Iwry I;1, 11I Yiilnl- p An Ci y _ _ l IYn' ,� rr•.i..t �dl I.I .� x�-.. 'f'r a �.-:il?:= is_ a l u■7 • c . •■ udrr.r.r nm •r_:.�Lr.rr�rw n.ayum ::r_�:_I�9�� ..rin:_,-_ .., p is t_tc!Ex� ......ai� .� __I .� - ••�-;m: - .r..r..rwr..d.xr::a:_.;a=..,•,r..� l cr.,rrr.. _3_ ;d= _ h:S.a. r uur r: .�.:_ ,: -.� _'__.___. ._. L.r,e�. ., _Jss a=1a1 nr m u•I �;•,ArY _ �,j �:�'r.'3��=_,I _ j..,� r.rrn... ...�YY� --:s^vnr.':..o..•w....-°______:.._..nnnnn,lullu_ _ _ 3_?__�' e.e_,. �i'�.n;-+• _ r .1.._ r 1 .t I 1;J a .r•ro{uru•3:--::x:•:-._Ir__r. rnln:p•nY..l.;c,}r::7::!_"o.. E�1:::I",- "'+I • - ,..rrrrlrrrr — -t.. wrrll.rrrr r.r- ...rrrrrrr:.r... _, •L ..rl.r.r.r�Irr r.. rrrr:ry G.rl..1► L 44,Q - } ' .a r• _■� 1 pY .C:vwovnurr_::°p:'xx�veLlrlOnnnnnr?:. mm�n,.??.nnnnu«.,.lunnngl Ilnu�`�::•:.Uu IIIIUrU�•! r• - i ��.- "•� •__:__ ••:•::-::::s x:°:c:::-•..._ :.:_I---'..'.1'.r. _ :I:a ... . m ' ?1 ::°_•- a....... ........ ..s::c::::c a-"--a::=-..o•:��c -a: : ,-;,,,/:n :un%'Iiri•? -r� •) J:S ti. .�ec:_,::m _ - ..+_; a:::?::{:::{:.__ ::�_r -'_(n._e:.'---s-a: ..------=" -??k___ I.m...unllmin►;�)'1:nus%.. ..;<, iyl..rii - runnmr y=�1�._�,.,:..-: ■i�ni r=.r• ..all:nn..n..n:i,.a_._._..::.:. "a:1::1::/::: . . .,:..5._•uulo as$T... ,,::� n%'Ym��:uuw:r�- 11['�11[I6:rrm 'c-.�_�'__-.ur.... -- I!rrrr':T rr.r.m u, - •.n.on a=_+1 31 t 1 - 9 x 3# ": ! ,ra ii J r.1i ° E MIT 5°F,?5?g �l.J°�y+�s :1/iv�4-r,j I,Ty^,,,_rl • �.v csl I rr _rr..rr pp T _ � :• �. _�r•�:°j st1is 1I' ;�_ - � �� � ' r. ap _ �a `=I (l �1 sICCG �I•.�Is'j'} _n��u� ..,i °t �� , �C ��,p� ? FE: �,Rlri� «_15a..1_ '1_'• I x r n.rr � r .• � - 1� Will ]��f---TTTYYYiif�-- ii .urr.,_+, r.■ °r _R ..�i r.3 - _ I.r_r rrrr,, .rrr•. •..• .r r11Y .rr...Ir. .... ; ga Ez5l.-� °(su "��Jtl I'c ...... :: �.uu{ r . :l5 1' - ° ..E+s..�i ?�'-■ _ :3 :.rlrra t 1 rrr.. .�. , ": cc r T L'-I-^ ' , s @I s 1M = 5a1°I 2 ri°sL 1,F5 ? �'prl •:c5I�52°� sr1�Sg n•• _ as ��• y S �;�II S� {'{{{ih A' iu r {{ Ch ;•1 c i 1 .Ic..i'tl - • � lieu as-. 22 "'-l�• ,�°��rlYr }a �r 3 L /;;yx�p-sip a .iSL�.1..•�p3: Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 1 2.1.10 Residential Transition Zone 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8692/842 OR 146-463-22 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC 1N DD-8692/842 OR 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-131-04 TR 6181 LOT 286 N 150 FT W 150 FT 142-131-06 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 2 142-131-07 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 3 142-131-09 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 5 142-131-12 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 1 142-131-13 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 2 145-252-54 TR 4138 LOT A 145-252-61 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 LOT IN SE1/4 SE1/4 145-252-63 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-64 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-65 E 188 FT OF S 185 FT SEC 15 T 5 R 11 146-463-14 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 146-463-16 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-8538/684 OR 146-463-20 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-24 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 n m Resoltaieft Ne.;Wig 19 r (n Map I annon Dr. 01 c) Retherford Dr. -F-I are-e—la ft d Dr. 0 145-252-54 E LL. 145-252-CA Edinger ;11112 111 Bill 11 111 Bluesails Dr. Nvanza Dr. cn 2 Stonewood Dr. • 4- —Ui;��lh ws—t-br." - U) Candlelic I Bouquet Dr iht CirDr: N C: Dr. • ht _0 Cir. 0 Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 2 2.1.3 Town Center-Core 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR SEC(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T S R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 (POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074=05 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 LOT 1N SE1/4 SW1/4 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR SEC(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074-06 PM 211-25 PAR 1 POR OF PAR 142-074-07 142-074-08 142-074-09 142-074-10 142-074-11 142-074-12 PM 211-25 PAR 1 POR OF PAR 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-072-06 P BK 32 PG 48 PAR 1 142-072-08 P BK 44 PG 11 PAR 2 142-072-09 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4(P M 44-11 PAR 1) 142-321-13 TR 4064 LOT 8 POR OF LOT(P M 5-36 PAR 2) 142-321-10 142-321-01 N TR 4064 LOT 7 142-511-04 TR 4064 LOT 1 POR OF LOT 142-511-03 TR 4064 LOT 1 POR OF LOT 142-511-02 142-511-05 TR 4064 LOT 1 S 182 FT W 316.70 FT 142-321-02 N TR 4064 LOT 6 142-321-12 142-511-01 Railroad �k u ��l�r"'•Y sv'„"� {,�,x�w'h9.�tu�r��'� N?"y+Tk'� Sy�l ?�z �'''�'��'+����„+Y�•'ta{�,'��, jk h.�j� ! Yc� ♦' h a� I Ta ff 331. .f�. (�� ,f�b E i1t I t ;::V v 1 f( (�r �`I t.u+t i f,' 'IX`i•4 r f t*:' I r i ;i i n ,� rry �I t; ''.47 ' MC1` 1 .. , 43A xyr { �$ 2j f't{ d i �.{I L S. ) J!r 4 � 1 J t 13 �'.tisr �✓ '�- ��X+� N�}>•+s r4 41+p I- r S N g pd�y,z ��`� Ysw,�g�y y,��<£4��r� Jvi + I a tt 4 f Z t t + y\n y'`I ) F�j `rt ' ya.4 r'y zJ5 I fr77`tu+,uJfi+�rry "y zrr}ifi.�+1 w:i° s r y .I I e k 1" � i Z6 d.. { t yk,• ,r �4 �t 1 ' siqto IS '• � 4 t I '1I �� �`ty�{ i z? '�I �f<x�"4,�k t t��. I• �. 7 ;+ S �t � „}. t + { 7 '.t la AI�}any;.y4 n'tla:�. mrt��{"�s�;l I L{ c� !�� �'I} x�! �'� ,r �'GRi 4 ,! + 1 r 1 a '+t I �II j 1 Y }:.5 Ja(bft� tJ k kf '`._ 1 ', .5,�i � #-• fs t Y t'''#\tY.��''' -\1'.� - 4y t iii 4. :��f;�.t\y Pt}.Yi ✓ m if �isrS riw S� n'�'d ,. ,_..z _, .:,_;1 . ... � , :.: _,- r.. ,.a. , ,,,k.y. �.��duaie`'� xr,: „r�,�..r.,tf:,.;•, iv.1.u...�:._,4a��+,.r,µ���. �i°�*^I'F��, s4i RV 4 ,- `��p IIr i '.t y a }H + t 1 y ! �y �" k,y� >a^ r4 ✓ � t �i liSi° s �{ �'i X # i Y a Rr� n NW1,�%t 1I All l i I r. . {ptp' r t 4RY'3 s r S 3� v+i:>a Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 3 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 142-073-02 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 IRREG 3.05 AC M/L IN NE1/4 SW1/4 SEC 142-073-01 Railroad 142-073-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 2.14 Residential Required 142-073-03 T S R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 Resolution No. 19 2U IV- Map 3 f MAM 9 . :e..,'..--_- _ _. _ .................... ........... 'n. •sue—z`��y-Wit' _ - _ ___ - _ _ - __ _ - 4� N 4<: - Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 4 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-111-18 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NE1/4 AS PER LEASE-1_5966/843 OR 142-111-27 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 W 126 FT E 340 FT N 630 FT NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 142-111-32 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-111-33 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-34 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-39 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 2 142-111-42 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 1 142-112-05 P BK 3 PG 50 PAR 1 142-112-08 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-09 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-10 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY to t r e [£ �r • Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 5 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-781-03 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 2 107-781-04 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 1 107-781-05 PM 61-2 PAR A POR OF PAR 107-781-06 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR B 107-781-07 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR C 107-782-08 PARCEL MAP 49-45 PARS 1 AND 2 142-081-01 TR 417 LOTS 1 TO 41NC 142-081-02 TR 417 LOT 14 ALL-EX ST 142-081-03 TR 417 LOT 15 ALL-EX ST 142-081-06 TR 417 LOT 19 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 20 142-081-09 TR 417 LOT 24 N 60 FT ANDN 60 FT LOT 25 142-081-10 TR 417 LOT 24 ALL-EX N 60 FT-(AND ALL-EX N 60 FT- LOT 25 142-081-11 TR 417 LOTS 26&27 142-081-12 N TR 417 LOT 28 142-081-16 N TR 417 LOT 32 142-081-17 N TR 417 LOT 33 142-081-18 TR 417 LOTS 5,6&7 142-081-25 TR 417 LOT 8(AND LOTS 9&10 142-081-26 TR 417 LOT 11(AND LOT 12(AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 13 142-081-27 TR 417 LOT 16 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST-LOTS 17, 18, 29, 30&31 142-081-28 TR 417 LOT 21 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL LOTS 22&23 -EX ST 142-082-02 TR 417 LOT 34 W 50 FT OF LOT AND W 50 FT OF LOT 35 142-082-22 TR 417 LOTS 42&43 142-082-26 TR 417 LOT 41 AND LOTS 38, 39&40 142-082-27 P BK 25 PG 44 PAR 1 142-082-35 TR 417 LOTS 36, 37 AND POR.OF LOTS 34, 35. 142-083-04 TR 417 LOTS 76&77 142-083-24 TR 417 LOT 71(AND LOTS 72TO 75 INC(AND ALL-EX ST-LOT 70 142-083-25 TR 417 LOT 78 AND LOTS 79-85 INC 142-091-09 TR 417 LOT 106 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 107 142-091-18 TR 417 LOT 119 AND ALL-EX ST-LOT 120 AND ALL-EXSTS-LOT 121 142-091-27 N TR 6234 LOT 1 142-091-32 TR 417 LOT 108 AND LOTS 109& 110 142-091-33 P BK 227 PG 3 PAR 1 a � f a Y < { h' ti j fl c r s y F� rhR 1 i< } - i 1.h { c l ��lt Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 6 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment _. 107-401-04 SEC 24 T 5 R it POR N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 107-401-32 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 S 147.6 FT W 303 FT N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4-EX FREEWAY 107-401-33 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4SW1/4 AS PER DD-7231/388 OR 107-401-35 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 107-601-41 SEC 24 T 5 R it POR S1/2 NWS/4 SW1/4 AS PER LEASE-1.5912/547 OR 107-601-48 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 1 107-601-49 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 2 142-092-15 TR 417 LOT 142 AND LOTS 143-148 INC 142-101-14 TR 522 LOT 10 BLK A AND LOTS 11-15 INC BLK A 142-102-20 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK 8 AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 BLK B 142-102-47 TR 522 LOT 17 BLK B AND LOTS 18 THRU 20 ALL IN BLKB 142-102-48 N TR 522 BLK B LOT 30 142-102-49 TR 522 LOT 13 BLK B AND LOTS 14 THRU 16 ALL IN BLKB 142-103-17 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK C(AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 (AND ALL-EX ST-LOT 13(A ND ALL-EX ST-LOT 14 ALL IN BLK 142-173-01 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 142-173-02 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4SE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8355/779 OR 142-462-06 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 2 142-462-09 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 1 w t hV� It r z S- - �IIII IIII z F - - s ............. Ali, sy' r 32.2 O r � ME Ft na 'ems •. � a � ;Y _ ! a ;.1 Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 7 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-100-67 TR 528 LOT 1 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E--EX FREEWAY-(AND ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY AD 107-100-68 TR 528 LOT 2 BLK A ALL-EX ST&W 29 FT-(AND ALL-EX W 29 FT-LOTS 4/6 BLK A 107-100-70 TR 528 LOT 11 BLK A ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-1 NC E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W-LOT 12 BL 107-100-71 TR 528 LOT 7 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC WI/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-IN C E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W-LOT 8(ANDEL 107-100-75 N TR 528 BLK A LOT 14 107-100-77 TR 528 BLK A POR ABAND ALLEY 107-100-79 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 1 107-100-80 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 2 107-691-20 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 LOT IN N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 107-691-22 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR NI/2 SWl/4 SW1/4(PM48-9 PAR 1&2) 142-191-01 TR 194 LOT 1 BLK A AND LOTS 2 TO 6 INC BLK A 142-191-12 TR 194 LOTS 101&102 BLK B 142-191-14 TR 194 LOT 118 BLK A(AND LOTS 143,144&169 BLK A(AND LOTS 119 TO 122 INC,&143 TO 146 INC ALL IN 142-191-15 TR 194 LOT 117 BLK A&LOT 97 BLK B 142-191-23 TR 194 LOT 99 BLK B AND LOTS 100,103,114 TO 118 INC,123 TO 127 INC,138 TO 142 INC AND ALL LOTS 1 142-191-24 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 98 142-191-27 TR 194 LOT 21 BLK A AND LOTS 22-32 INC BLK A 142-191-33 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 106 142-191-34 TR 194 LOT 104 BLK B AND LOTS 105,111 TO 113 INC,128 TO 1301NC,135 TO 137 INC AND ALL LOTS 152 TO 142-191-36 TR 194 BLK A LOT 110 AND BLK A LOTS 111,112,123,124&125 142-191-40 P BK 165 PG 38 PAR 1 142-191-42 TRACT NO 194 BLKA LOTS 119-122,139-142,145-148 AND165-168 142-191-43 TRACT NO 194 BLK A LOTS 113 TO 116 INC 142-191-44 P BK 159 PG 5 PAR 1 142-191-46 TR NO 194 BLK A LOTS 126 TO 129 AND LOTS 106 TO 109 AND POR OF LOTS 105 AND 130 142-191-47 TR 194 BLK A LOTS 41 TO 641NC,LOTS 67 TO 90 INC&LOTS 93 TO 104 INC-EXSTR 142-481-11 P BK 83 PG 8 PAR 2 142-481-12 P BK 118 PG 16 PAR 2 r y x i — 7 r - r ti� 3 I t f y 3 1^ t � 4 aa77 rr f � � y r. � a�'�; ram^ �• �+ Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 165-364-03 TR 436 BLK A LOT 2 POR OFLOT AND BLK A POR OF LOT 3 165-364-04 P BK 100 PG 9 PAR 2 165-364-06 P BK 185 PG 17 PAR 2 165-364-11 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR A 165-364-12 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 1 165-364-13 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 2 165-364-14 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR B 165-364-15 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 7 165-364-16 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 6 165-364-17 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR D 165-364-18 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 5 165-364-19 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 8 165-364-20 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR C 165-364-21 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 3 165-364-22 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 4 165-364-24 P BK 260 PG 19 PAR 1 165-364-25 PARCEL MAP 260-19 PAR 2 AND PM 185-17 PAR 4 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-225-09 SEC 26 T 5 R 115 132 FT N 264 FT E 330 FT N1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-225-10 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 N 132 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-283-04 TR 436 LOT 1 BLK F POR OFLOT 165-283-05 TR 436 LOT 2 BLK F ALL-EX W 170 FT 165-283-13 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F S1/2-EX W 150 FT 165-283-14 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F N1/2-EX W 150 FT 165-283-16 P BK 130 PG 35 PAR 1 165-283-17 TR 436 BLK F LOT 3 POR OFLOT 167-311-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4(PM 36-34 PAR 2) 167-324-01 N TR 298 LOT 23 167-324-04 N TR 298 LOT 17 167-324-05 N TR 298 LOT 15 167-324-06 N TR 298 LOT 13 167-324-07 N TR 298 LOT 11 167-324-09 N TR 298 LOT 5 167-324-10 TR 298 LOTS 1&3 167-324-11 TR 298 LOT 2 POR OF LOT(AND POR OF LOTS 4,6,8,10,12,14,16,1 8,20 AND 22 167-324-12 N TR 298 LOT 9 167-324-13 N TR 298 LOT 7 167-324-14 TR 298 LOT 19 AND LOT 21 167-325-15 SEC 25 T 5 R 111 AC 1N S1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 167-325-16 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 430 FT W 300 FT NW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-325-17 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR OF SEC AS DESC IN DD-6985/545OR 167-325-18 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 230 FT W 300 FT NW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO ST TO STATE 167-325-19 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NW1/4 167-325-20 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 130 FT W 205 FT NWl/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-325-21 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 1RREG LOTIN S1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 ..� &Wm SWOON, AWAS . i s Ow wwwomw ARM v Got cow Aft t 5� „✓ t O • 't z � �3 • fi I �+• 1 „ • ^v { F ', OW Y. � r 3 m b � R7 S � r ow C'k `T .d fi Z is a> Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 9 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 165-321-05 T 5 R 11 SEC 26 NE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4 POR OF SEC-EX STR 167-472-16 TRACT NO 405 LOTS 1 AND 2 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-225-06 SEC 26 T 5 R 115 20 FT N601 FT W 20 FT E 248 FT NE1/4 SE1/4 NEl/4 165-225-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR NEl/4 165-225-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT N 396 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165=234-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 W 127.53 FT S 132 FT E1/4 S1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 165-234-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT E1/2 SEl/4 SE1/4 NE1/4-EX FREEWAY&W 127.53 FT 165-234-13 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 E1/4 S1/2SE1/4 NE1/4-EX S 528 FT 165-234-18 P BK 123 PG 22 PAR 1 165-321-06 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 1 165-321-07 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 2 167-311-03 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 2 167-311-04 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 1 167-312-01 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT W 265.37 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO HWY&ST 167-312-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 W 265.37 FT S 160 FT N 320 FT SW1/4 SWl/4 NW1/4-E X HWY 167-312-03 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT S 340 FT W 265.37 FT SWl/4 SWl/4 NW1/4-E X FREEWAY&POR TO LOCKWOOD-6426 167-312-04 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR SWl/45W1/4 NW1/4 167-312-05 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4DESC AS PARCEL 1 IN DD-6834/340 OR 167-312-06 SEC 25 T 5 R 115 180 FT W 265.37 FT-EX FREEWAY&POR TO DOAN-RUSSELL CO-6834/340 OR 167-472-03 TR 405 LOT 3 ALL-EX FREEWAY 167-472-04 TR 405 LOT 4 NLY 65 FT ELY 113 FT 167-472-05 TR 405 LOT 4 POR OF LOT 167-472-06 TR 405 LOT 4 POR OF LOT 167-472-07 TR 405 LOT 5 ALL-EX HWY yv L - x v 5 X � f d 2S E - • .�y. •, -->: F t I � •j i llll;-. -------------- iR al � r� fi. Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 10 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center -��- 165-181-35 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 220 FT E 5 AC S112 SE1/4 SE1/4-EX HWY&ST 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-181-36 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 320 FT E112 SE1/4 SEl/4SE1/4-EX HWY&ALLEY 165-181-37 SEC 26 T 5 R it E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SEl/4-EX S 320 FT&N 220.05 FT&HWY&ALLEY 165-181-38 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 110 FT N 220.05 FT W 228 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4 165-181-39 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 165-181-40 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR SEl/4 165-301-22 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 W 50 FT E220 FT N 214 FT SE1/4 SE1/4 165-301-23 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 SEl/4 SEl/4 AS DESC IN DD-7930/925 OR 165-301-24 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 LOT IN N1/2 SE1/4 SEl/4 165-301-25 165-301-26 165-301-27 165-301-28 P M 125-10 PAR 1 POR OF PAR 165-302-21 TR 3478 LOT 18 N 100 FT IN LOT-EX ST 165-302-22 TR 3478 LOT 18 ALL-EX N 100 FT 165-311-16 TR 411 LOT 1 POR OF LOT AND POR OF LOT 2 165-311-17 TR 411 LOT 1 POR IN LOT&Si/2 LOT 2 165-312-17 TR 411 LOT 19 N 93.3 FT IN LOT(AND POR N 93.3 FT W30 FT LOT 20 165-312-18 TR 411 LOT 19 N 140 FT INLOT-EX N 93.4 FT-(AND W 30 FT-EX S 140 FT&N 93.4 FT-LOT 20 165-312-19 TR 411 LOT 19 ALL-EX N 140 FT-AND POR S 140 FT W30 FT LOT 20 167-472-08 N TR 405 LOT 6 167-472-09 N TR 405 LOT 7 167-472-10 TR 405 LOT 8 N 74.66 FT 167-472-11 TR 405 LOT 8 S 53.34 FT 167-472-12 N 1/2 TR 405 LOT 9 167-472-13 TR 405 LOT 9 RECTANGULAR LOT IN LOT AND RECTANGULAR LOT IN LOT 10 167-472-14 TR 405 LOT 9 POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DD-7658/624 OR-AND POR OF LOT 10 AS DESC IN DD-7658/624 OR 167-472-15 TR 405 LOT 10 POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DD-7624/483 OR 167-601-01 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 167-601-02 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 4 167-601-03 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 3 167-601-14 PM 244-48 PAR 1 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-15 PM 244-48 PAR 1 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-16 PM 244-48 PAR 5 FOR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-17 PM 244-48 PAR 5 POR OF PAR 167-601-20 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 2 � y •- � Y . ` • 1 t it F a f�Y4 i - _ W ,s z .s -." az:i ^' .�.?L .._.t.�..a...:..r .,r�dxn� .sz-- ,4"' - ., ,.axr.,s..ris,.. :s,.`,•' y.emxc,:..e. r ..�...' _ 5 I i I Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 11 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 157-341-01 SEC 36 T 5 R it POR NWl/4 157-341-02 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NWl/4 157-341-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 157-341-04 P-BK 39 PG 2 PAR 1 157-341-05 P BK 24 PG 44 PAR 2 157-341-06 P BK 24 PG 44 PAR 1 157-341-07 P BK 39 PG 2 PAR 2 157-341-08 P BK 38 PG 16 PAR 1 157-352-05 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 159-031-08 SEC 35 T 3 R 115 99 FT NI/2 SEl/4 SEl/4 NE1/4-EXPOR TO STATE FOR ST 159-031-10 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 S 125 FT E 348.48 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX ST&POR TO F REEWAY 159-031-16 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 159-031-17 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 1 159-031-18 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 2 159-031-22 T 5 R 11 SEC 35 POR NE1/4 159-031-23 159-031-24 P M 138-29 PAR 3 AND PAR 4 159-031-01 PM 14-8 PAR 1&2 2.9.10 Residential Transition Zone �r 159-031-01 PM 14-8 PAR 1&2 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 157-481-01 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR 2 157-481-02 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR 1 157-481-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N 53 FT S451.29 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NWl/4 157-481-04 SEC 36 T 5 R 115 106 FT N 367.71 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4(AN D N 53 FT S 292.29 FT W 330 FT NW 157-481-05 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 1 157-481-06 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 2 157-481-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 92.29 FT W 330 FT NWl/4 NWl/4 NWl/4 157-481-08 PM 317-35 PAR 1 THRU 4 159-141-66 TR 172 BLK C LOT 4 POR OFLOT AND BLK C POR OF LOT S 5,6,10,16,22,28,34,40,46,52,58,64,70 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment _ 159-141-83 TR 172 BLK C LOT 83 AND BLK C LOTS 84,89,90,95,96,101,102,107,108,113, 114,119,120,125,1 159-271-67 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 POR NEl/4 159-271-68 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 Sl/2 N1/2SE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 159-271-69 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 NI/2 N1/25E1/4 NEl/4 NE1/4-EX N 82.50 FT&HWY 159-271-73 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 N 82.50 FT OF S1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 resolution No.L L JMap 11 Tait Dr. 0 Sterling Dr. 0 > M > CID Kiner Dr. cn ay* Dr. CUT _J lor Ur. E 0 0 -�----------- ------------ Bea Forelle i Q- 1 CUT f?X a La Palm Dr.;- 01 T 1 (DI V Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 12 2.1.3 Town Center-Core 159-091-03 P BK 250 PG 9 PAR 1 159-091-04 TR 7 LOT 1 BLK D AND LOTS2,3&7 AND POR OF LOT 4 ALL IN BLK D SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTIC 159-091-05 TR 7 BLK D LOTS AND BLK D LOTS 6&8 159-101-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D POR OF LOT SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 157-471-04 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N1/2 NW1/4 NW 1/4 SW 1/4-EX POR IN DD-7468/631 OR-&STS 157-471-05 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NW1/4 SW1/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-7468/631 OR 157-471-06 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR S1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4 AS PER DD-7263/194 OR 159-092-03 N TR 7 BLK G LOTS 159-092-04 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK G 159-092-07 TR 7 BLK G LOT 3 AND BLK G LOT 4 159-101-01 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DO-7833/25S OR 159-102-01 P BK 194 PG 17 PAR 1 159-102-14 TR 7 LOT 19 BLK H S 75 FTN 145.2 FT W 216 FT IN LOT 159-102-18 N TR 598 LOT 17 159-102-19 N TR 598 LOT 16 159-102-20 N TR 598 LOT 15 159-102-21 N TR 598 LOT 14 159-102-29 N TR 598 LOT 6 159-102-30 N TR 598 LOT 5 159-102-35 TR 598 LOT 7 AND LOTS 8-13 INC(PM 126-21 PAR 1) 159-102-36 P BK 150 PG 1 PAR 1 159-102-43 TR 7 BLK H LOT 4 AND BLK H LOTS 5&6 AND POR OF LOT 3 AND TR 598 LOT 1 159-102-44 TR 598 LOT 2 AND LOTS 3&4 159-102-46 P BK 168 PG 44 PAR 1 159-121-02 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G N1/2 159-121-03 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G S1/2 159-121-28 159-121-30 P M 175-07 PAR 2 POR OF PAR 1S9-121-31 PARCEL MAPS 175 PG 8 LOT 1 159-262-01 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK F 159-262-02 N TR 7 BLK F LOT 3 159-262-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF ALL-EX S 126.S8 FT&ST 159-262-04 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF SLY 126.58 FT-EX ST 159-262-05 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 1 159-262-06 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 2 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2-EXST Added Parcels 159-111-19 TR 7 LOT 21 BLK H AND S1/2 OF LOT 20 BLK H 159-102-45 TR 7 BLK H LOT 20 POR OF LOT MAP 12 Residential Required(2.14) �� 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2-EXST 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 157-451-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4(P M 6-43 PAR 1) 157-451-08 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SWl/4 157-451-09 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N 65 FT E243 FT W 331 FT N1/2 NWi/4 SWl/4 SW1/4-EX ST 157-452-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 200 FT W 238 FT SWl/4 SW1/4 SW1/4-EX STS 157-452-34 P BK 92 PG 26 PAR 2 157-452-35 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 3 157-452-36 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 1 157-452-37 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 2 157-452-38 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 4 157-471-30 SEC 36 T S R 11 POR SW1/4 157-471-31 T 5 R 11 SEC 36 POR SW1/4 159-102-06 TR 7 LOT 7 BLK H ALL-EX ST-(P.M.30-44 PAR_1&2) 159-102-07 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H N 100 FTIN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 159-102-08 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H S 50 FT-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST-LOTS 9/10 BLK H 159-111-01 TR 7 LOT 11 BLK H N 37.5 FT IN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 159-111-04 TR 7 LOT 12 BLK H ALL-EXELY 14 FT FOR ST 159-111-05 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H N 125 FT E 170 FT IN LOT-EX PORTO STATE FOR ST 159-111-06 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H ALL-EXN 125 FT E 170 FT&POR TO STATE FOR ST-(AND ALL-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST-L 159-111-07 TR 7 LOT 15 BLK H N 50 FTIN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST 159-ill-08 159-111-09 159-111-10 159-111-21 N TR 7 BLK H LOT 18 159-111-22 TRACT 7 BLK H LOT 11 S 112.50 FT IN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST t9n S1 ,n St. Hunting- Jilili I hi -Creek Ln Huntin jjn 0 Kithira N Gir. J > I Milos Cir,71. CrOG b WOW Ln. m CD (D m (n CD �3 cr C><D < ----- L E qebrook Ln. Delaware St. Delaware St. ---------- Safelharbo n, I- 0-- Rod a St. -0 x Steep Ln, )NI10- 111;15 A A Beach Blvd. attem Beachcrest Ln, mokewood cir. Vatipy.-G� (S- MAP 13 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 159-161-24 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 1 159-161-25 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 2 159-161-26 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 3 159-161-27 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 4 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-180-06 TR 837 LOT ELK C POR OFBLK 025-180-13 TR 837 LOT ELK C W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX N 70 FT&S 155 FT 025-180-14 TR 837 LOT ELK C N 55 FT S 155 FT WLY 125 FT ELY145 FT 025-180-21 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT ELK 2508 POR OF ELK 025-180-23 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT ELK 2508 POR OF ELK AND POR OF ELK 2507 025-180-24 TR 837 LOT ELK C S 92 FT W 125 FT E 145 FT 025-180-25 TR 837 LOT ELK C S 100 FT W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX S 92 FT 025-181-36 TR 837 ELK A LOT 1 AND ELK A LOTS 2 THRU 7&LOT 26 025-182-22 TR 837 ELK B LOT 3 AND S 45 FT LOT 26 ELK B 025-182-32 P BK 238 PG 1 PAR 1 025-182-33 TRACT NO 837 ELK B LOTS 4TO 6 INC 153-041-13 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 54.76 FTS 1808.28 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST 153-041-14 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 109.52 FT S 1753.52 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST 153-041-15 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 82.20 FTS 1644 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-16 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 100 FT S1561.80 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-17 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 328.8 FTS 1561.8 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX N 100 FT&ST 153-041-18 P BK 122 PG 1 PAR 2 153-041-28 P.M.122-1 PAR 4 AND POR PAR 3 153-041-29 P.M.122-1 PAR 3 POR OF PAR 153-041-34 P BK 324 PG 40 PAR 1 153-051-08 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 123.3 FTS 822 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST 153-051-09 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 123.3 FTS 698.7 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-10 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 245.4 FTS 575A FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-11 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 100 FT S330 FT W 530 FT N W 1/4-EX ST 153-051-14 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 W 25 FT E 100 FT W 430 FT S 230 FT SWl/4 NW1/4 AND S 230 FT E 170 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 153-051-15 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 50 FT S 230 FT W 200 FT SW1/4 OF NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-16 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 RECTANG LOT IN SW1/4 NWl/4 153-051-17 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 IRREG LOT IN NW1/4 153-051-18 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR 1 153-051-19 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR 2 153-051-24 T 6 R 11 SEC 1 POR NWl/4 153-051-25 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 POR OF NW1/4 OF SEC 1 159-161-04 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT ELK 2908 ALL-EX ST 159-161-29 EAST SIDE VILLA TR ELK 3008 eso u>on No.ZU I U- Map 13 o Nom Surfline Dr_ x� cu YN to C J lslandview 0 CL earharbor7 r. 1 1 U N co ra a Baymist Dr. I 1 I `L_sY'D�� h•j _ Wade.brl. co VJ ��— .......... ClayAve. J Fal _ Owen Dr. -� ' 153�051 25 -- IL ---, Jana Cir. 153-0 ------- -- ----� Williams Dr. 153 . —---- ----"- -- - I 1 3 t----- - -F------- ._ 0�5-180-25 153 051-10 c: ---- . ---i-------; i� 153-057-11 ---�W' —j }------- ---- 1V Wenlock Cir. --- - -----+ ----- -- 153-051-14 5 051-17 Ak Resolution No-2010-19 MAP 14 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 153-091-19 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 1 153-091-20 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 2 153-091-21 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 3 153-091-22 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 4 153-091-23 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 5 153-091-25 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 7 153-091-26 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 8 153-091-27 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 9 153-091-28 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 10 153-091-31 P BK 201 PG 15 PAR 1 153-091-32 P BK 201 PG 15 PAR 2 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-191-03 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2308 025-191-32 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2108 POR OF BLK 025-191-42 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2108 POR OF BLK 025-191-43 P BK 43 PG 18 PAR 1 025-191-51 P BK 164 PG 18 PAR 1 025-191-53 PARCEL MAP 109-9 PAR 2 POR OF PAR AND ALL PAR 1 AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2408 POR OF BLK 025-191-54 P M 109-9 PAR 2 POR OF PAR AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2408 POR OF BLK 025-200-50 SLY 160 FT EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 1708 025-200-51 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 1708 POR OF BLK 025-200-61 P BK 35 PG 47 PAR 1 025-200-62 P BK 35 PG 47 PAR 2 025-200-63 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2008 POR OF BLK 025-200-64 EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 2008 S 1/2 OF SAID BLK 025-200-68 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1808 POR OF LOT 025-200-69 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1707 POR OF LOT AND POR OF LOT 1708 025-200-72 EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT LOT 1908 POR OF LOT&POR OF LOT 1808&TRACT 1916 LOTS 8,9,10,&POR OF LOT 153-091-05 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 IRREG 2.70AC M/L IN NW1/4 SWl/4 153-091-06 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 POR SW1/4 AS DESC IN DD-7376/379 OR 153-091-17 T 6 R 11 SEC 1 POR SW1/4 Map 14 Ag .�xv.3f•-5-.i��-�r_«�.._� 1 e { �k { I J— t i i —� I tica cu LU )I Altamar Dr. iI - - - - -- - - 153-091=27 a Cir_ F "rss o91-28 Resolution No.2010-19 ASAP 15 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-143-10 SEC 11 T 6 R 11 POR N1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4 NEl/4 AS DESCIN DD-7565/757 OR 151-282-03 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 POR NWl/4NW1/4 AS PER LEASE-6734/643 OR 151-282-26 T 6 R 11 SEC 12 POR NW1/4 151-282-27 P BK 247 PG 36 PAR 2 151-282-28 P BK 247 PG 36 PAR 1 151-282-31 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 1 151-282-32 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 3 151-282-33 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 2 2.1.9 Residential Parkway Segment -- - 025-171-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT A ELK 1008 S 150 FT N 270 FT E 10 FT-EX ST-(AND S 15OFT N 270 FT-EX STS-LOT 025-171-10 VISTA DEL MAR TR ELK 1008LOT A POR OF LOT AND ELK 1008 POR OF LOT E 025-172-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT A ELK 908 ALL-EX PORS IN STS-(AND ALL ANC POR ABAN ST AD3--EX PORS IN STS-L 151-293-38 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 POR NWl/4 151-293-39 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 POR NWl/4 151-293-42 P.M.35-26 PCLS 2 AND 3 EF-1:1� �dl Anna Ln. Hillcrest Cir. �- -- �� m m Florida St. r,- w 7 Cr > CD L Pacific Cove Ln. 'BackbayC > < Ir. Arrow' Ln.CD CD11 GeorgAi St S F6 crest Ln. _: --- _T�-.1__ (D Lakeside Ln. Su mm6 r vie L n Beach Blvd. —AL'alln" C� P CC 0 -Lfilejo J!O --------- ---------- Lron)I t Ln. Ln.._ Somerville Ln. Billingsgate Ln 4 (D Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 96 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 148-021-12 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-14 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-15 SEC.13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-17 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-18 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4(=PM BK 44 PG 40 PARS. 1&2) 148-021-19 P BK 25 PG 27 PAR 2 2.1.9 Residential Parkway Segment 151-351-14 N TR 12820 LOT 1 151-351-43 N TR 15816 LOT B Poolside-tn: - - __. ._. .___ — _ er Cir. Cove Dr. u7 leaiwpd Caci Ln �.Y1.. �.�..�..I CD Neptu 0 G -.� 00 - r Neptune Dr. C 2 G CD cD co O 0 _r -- ° C _ .1 Q. n � v- Shellfish Ln.0 ID � I--ILIA Breakers Dr. Brea Seacoast Cir. - - - I-- -I--�-I ETE Driftwo Beach BIv 148-021-24 ..� CA -- ' � __.._.._Cabrillo Ln. T [ _._._ __.. n � Monarch Ln. - ----'--------------- �- Chesterbrook Ln. �- - --------- --------� -------- --_... CD -.,_l -�C esterbrook Ln. ------ -� ��- --:- a--- 1-..--- I rn _ L =r I -- ao ' E o ---� N[- -- �CD __ _ Catamaran Ln. J _ —� Ashburton Ln. Ashburt -- `- --- �d _ r - -- o _-- SurFwood Ln ,• -' L 1 { r Res. No. 2010-19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) 1, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 1, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Coerper, Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen NOES: Hardy, Green ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Clerk and ex-offici Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ORDINANCE NO. 3874 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAPS IZ, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z,25Z,26Z,27Z, 30Z,31Z, 39Z,AND 40Z OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT(SP 14)ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002, which establishes the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(SP 14); and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council has determined that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby ordains as follows: I. That the real property that is the subject of this ordinance is generally known as the Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard corridors, and is more particularly described in the snap attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. That the Zoning Map of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 (establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan SP 14) adopted by separate Resolution, and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08- 002 as described herein. The Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file amended maps for District Maps IZ, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z, 25Z, 26Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31 Z, 39Z, and 40Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 20 — — Mayor --- ---- ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Planning and Bu ding— RE-VIE D APPROVED: APP"VED AS TO FORM: City ui, trator -- y Attorney ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Map 04-2348/42377 Ordinance No. 3874 all 1` -T rt I V.:r � o`�F``., s I.- __ _ I ,••1� *' 'r\ l- g �r�I •■�,�••1 it ,`.Nrri'f� �•"'-': E •cz - '.�� �°)• �T'-r-r_.T`l•.. r _Lj. �._ A� i=jt r• 'I • „�, ■' . �f !�" 11G= • ` ■ '�-,c•"I••• -•^r`I'^':1:,.:_-1__--_ G, �'"" �`IC� y'•S t r �7 C � �r . ,�13;�Yr«:,y_�w�' � C - 1� 1 i 1 . - __ _ ✓1 ' - X ! NOW, � w ri,rp ia�'r°'r ryN1'✓i t L d:`T x� F 7. j1�''T'1'-^` - ` • ��L ♦�y3AtiN1 L z� ! ij nJco,�ii.``� y�5',it ..f3^C uri., $ sXhr• Izi1 a5 1.t`,, ''-. -:z -.. 1 a _ �.t'sy'.•.,w., nr�.:�':"�'". ,:n,1` la Z'♦? �:.. _ - t��-+(N Ss ::E'E __ __..1_-_ __ /'y .r�`�4..'�.C1. .�:r a, i H.i nl C'� f��n t _ Gt. �'t:Y�� sL s 'Ei ,�y� 'il llt ♦:"-E'- �„4 �. � �Y�._,y- 1� 1r •-c: war-. i + t?i a' i sr 1p -a v�? ... 63•--a "1'yb :� R. r rrrw..��llr'1ai:uy ..,.,. �. �T'� t E ■u y e.::'+Ir, �..M 'i•Imi-r I.`cAr.ME 1g111 II '+ I L ¢� L_ sr _t i.1 _r.._ ■? ♦y '• •, y 2,. .+ ♦ . ' W'f1TA�m,llllnl lir ■ �1 ~ !1 q/�B�•''•-'r ... . _...1�y -J-- ` ♦ .'' �" ,�4 b •nt. IIN'}�i%• .iriii r T xlr i.• _ V �E ((__,� ••. nu c i:h:-"y'r',�.'_,«�4 «:,r.',C r3 r T_^_ � ,, ■...::R,.: y' � .'� a�0.+ .,�y �•c nll✓, nn l� rr 1 eF�Ie�� _:,. III ``f�.�M,d .. (1 _ .n.? ;^,C ... E�,�r..,.'.���_cc.i,N�;cc r_.,,.+Ar,,...�-., ... 1t '• •„+„ ..,, nnl Sul ■ __ �' -- - ��::~ n.,. •.. .♦ ,, ..... ft;.�,. ., a. n:nm .. t ....(_ � .'�. __s: t_ '�:r:a, nn✓ loo, 7��"'•at- '..o '., ♦, ,.,., _•..t). `_n,",'R c:f.;NM: O�a� \41-�� ?^its=4.--- - -� _ -- � r:' � � ,a• l..._;_rJ�; ��� .t I_1 tI � ,a. y .:.a�,�". '�„ .,i., .B =s n1► ! li •_,+ta °3z -.- ,ni�,���. 1 .� � ,y,�� • ♦: A. a '.� jr^ :a•. > xi.-�cRr i� M 1 ■ t�r....,:�.-., 'Mao ' � � ilt - L - - A,f A3 a��. �1• .,'ltin .rvt r �i r} ..:� - �_-Nu nln Ilnn=[!aN z � NS •.•,...wc k o,'� 1��V a ' __ ?sy. ,�I�,MI�IIIII,L�1 .. { �_nw/ � f a �c 9 iy T r of m, MMA .nm'phr ��71111 trL ._. r ' • c 1 . a t 1 ! �. x m I uY .; •i;. `� m x m' �^ a ne 1 Y!y - �..53 �yl_, - n � .,,�1=:;:Y :r� cz 1 • s. I n / :3::21:umf __3- I_•..' {�x -UHYUr rnr ac I ulna 1 ' u 1 Y S Ip !AI �'! �'•( .''. �e I a i- 61, SFm nand.:d�b 1 1 '. •� ,' j Iutli a�� V•� .1( --��_9 Lii'f'+'' ��1�4-Ifjll_I v4 ,,•'^~{...._c y.v 'wu}Im n �,y, I , mr r:arA+ra iri;•? un n ! a r.:l �n_P.,...dd '.._. null.'. r-1`-' 1 '-_s'c ArYt+!•i =3_ill t,,': a =_ ! ■•o ,j, .- _ 1 I I nnun "�, , l J. f .L ..`1 I ..r 3/_• • _••'!•�-r - , a._ ::' Y N«. t , ,uU1tAn,'i l�nwjiuilnllmn i3u1l1r�m1. 'c.'_�r'�r S"• YI'li ,1�lin.1 r�m� ° ;�nlmnl 1 IIYn n m' 1� G ` r 1 I « j'.:L'. 1i, �+g - ::- = s c,t 1 I u u urlt ,•;� x� :.:u"uiufi r. r_'-3�3"a 5iiw: •�r /� a° „i •. � F ., rN ��� , Srn • r �� li'. ,1 3: zc: :c 1 r. xsal t.!, �+V, c ,�! ,... 5 �...4Si+rri 5g 1• � E z 4 �� r 3'I15,• Ate Eh c :R'i � °x Hid_ c• - 11 I r s xz,JL7T' 1'. • -3ccr ,i ru :P,L rT_ t.'�. rt:: y. �L. c :� s.c•1 wr.,.. N�� t 1'r c �. s_- �N.p r '� ,.c •u r 1f a'sx ia'o:.zr.n = 3. 'NY S'nr" - '3s^ , I�r,' ry -;:-,.^i �a t ■ n , 1• - �..�r1(��-•INn E . �', 7'F ,n.N:. ��`4�3 _ic s:.- E„�.cl. Y•'a �1 II t�1. � . s. r ..� r;,. I,+.x �1 NyiwiA s � �I• ' ` t ""'"'i..:.13N r-.4 tt •_ i t�III� i cl'�1 • '• 9 1M T C» Y111 N�1r.y1 r Y f iz AD j u _ 'gim zil- N t • : :,,sc .Fz � ..t�' c_, � 7 .:.CF• ~ «..,..::�r-fir•,' �, �� - � �� .•_1 . l,w,• u C1 a, •w s w. - F the Brown (Open Meeting) Act, the City Council may not enter into discussion regarding items not on the City Council agenda. Members of the public who wish to speak to a member of the Council on an item not on the agenda may consider setting up an individual appointment by contacting the Council's Administrative Assistant at 714-536-5553. The City Council strives to treat members of the public with respect. Comments or concerns provided by the public shall be done in a civil and respectful manner. 5 Speakers COUNCIL COMMITTEE / APPOINTMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS AND ALL AB 1234 DISCLOSURE REPORTING Councilmembers Coerper, Hardy reported CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT 1. (City Council) Review and accept the Finance Update for February 2010. Recommended Action: Accept the monthly Finance Update Report for February 2010. No report. PUBLIC HEARING 2. (City Council) Public hearing to consider a City-initiated request to adopt the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan encompassing 49 acres by approving General Plan Amendment (GPA) No. 08-002 and adopting Resolution No. 2010-18; Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 08-002 and approving for introduction Ordinance No. 3874; and, Zoning Map Amendment (ZMA) No. 08-002 and adopting Resolution No. 2010-19. Staff Recommended Action: a) Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 and adopt Resolution No. 2010-18, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 to Amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Changing Land Use Designations Located Within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan to Mixed Use-Specific Plan-Design Overlay (M-sp-d): and, b) Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval and approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3874, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Maps 1Z, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z, 25Z, 26Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31Z, 39Z, and 40Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for Real Property Within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Project (SP14) Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002;" and. c) Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval and adopt Resolution No. 2010-19, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting Zoning Text Amendment No. 08- 002 Establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14); and, -3- d) Approve CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations - EIR No. 08-008. City Clerk Joan L. Flynn announced six Late Communications 19 Speakers Approved as amended by late communication from the Planning and Building Department modifying Section 2.0.1 Applicability(pg. 9), Section 2.5.1 Improvements to existing streets (pg. 47); adding new language "Expansion of the OCTA transit center to adjacent properties, such as the Southern California Edison right-of-way and the Redevelopment Agency-owned parcel, should be evaluated," to pg. 108 and direct staff to evaluate other locations that can be used to satisfy the Redevelopment Agency's housing production obligation and the City's General Plan Housing Element for the purpose of facilitating the expansion of the OCTA transit center; modify Development Standards Charts Legend on pg. 20 - (C14) up to 14 stories; and, add the following language to the end of page 7, and as new item 5 on page 105: "Connection between Town Center Neighborhood and Bella Terra - As a supplement to an on-site pedestrian walkway system, potential future pedestrian and bicycle access such as an at-grade crossing or an above-ground crossing shall be pursued across the existing rail line between the former Levitz and Montgomery Ward(Village at Bella Terra) sites. Funding mechanisms, including a fair share analysis for the Edinger Corridor, shall be pursued by the City of Huntington Beach in conjunction with affected property owners. 5-2 (Hardy, Green No) a) Approve GeneFal Plan Amendment Nc). 08 002 and adept Reselutien Planning Commission ReGommended Action; „ A Resolutien ef the City GewnGil of the City of HuntiRgtGR BeaGh Approving GeReral Plan Amendment Ne. 09 002 to Amend the 1 and Use GlemeRtt of the f eneFal Plan and GhaRginn Land EPlan to Mixed Use SpeGifiG RaR Design Overlay (M sp d)-, 1� , A7 n An Q�iin;;AGe of the City Gf Beach Ame^,�,oiRg Dn;st ir-Al 1AapS 1Z, 2Z,1-2Z,-13Z, 9 4Z 11 Fi vc, 1 Z, 25Z, 26Z, 2 f-t, 3OZ,, 31Z, 39Z, and 4 0Z of the Huntington , c-) s n the Git _t Zoning Text Amend meRt-No-48- -4- aflE�; CONSENT CALENDAR 3. (City Council) Adopt Resolution No. 2010-17 finding and declaring weeds and rubbish on specific properties to be a public nuisance and fixing the City Council meeting of May 3, 2010 as the Administrative Public Hearing date for protests and objections to the abatement thereof. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2010-17, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Finding and Declaring That Certain Weeds Growing in the City, and Rubbish and Refuse Deposited on Public Ways and Private Property are a Public Nuisance; and Fixing the Time for Hearing Protests and Objections to the Abatement Thereof." Approved 7-0 4. (City Council) Approve the appointments of Elizabeth Alex and Mary Baretich and the reappointment of Steve Gullage to the Mobile Home Advisory Board, each serving a full four-year term until August 5, 2013. Recommended Action: Approve the appointment of Elizabeth Alex as a Resident-at-Large Representative, approve the appointment of Mary Baretich as Mobile Home Resident Representative, and approve the reappointment of Steve Gullage, as Mobile Home Resident Representative to the Mobile Horne Advisory Board, each serving a full four-year term until August 5, 2013. Approved 7-0 5. (Redevelopment Agency) Approve and authorize the Chairperson and Agency Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Professional Services Contract with PBS&J for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Beach Boulevard/Edinger Avenue Corridor Study, in the amount of$149, 706 for a new total contract amount of$666,45; authorize a budget transfer of$40,000 from the dater Enterprise Fund account to the Redevelopment Agency professional services account; and, authorize a budget transfer of$10,000 from Sewer Enterprise Fund to the Redevelopment Agency professional services account. Redevelopment Agency Recommended Action: a) Agency to approve "Amendment No. 1 to Agreement Between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and PBS&J for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for the Beach Boulevard/Edinger Corridor Study;" and, authorize the Chairman and Agency Clerk to execute the agreement; and, Approved 7-0 -5- i QS Sr'li9�rY✓i7L7� III O}J• G' +R. Council/Agency Meeting Held: o d Deferred/Continued to: 101�` p ov d ❑ Conditio II rov Deni d City C 's i atre Council Meeting Date: 3/01/2010 Department ID Number: PL10-05 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION &KY SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUN L MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: FRED A. WILSON, CITY ADMINISTR PREPARED BY: SCOTT HESS, DIRECTOR OF PLAN NG AND BUIL STANLEY SMALEWITZ, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT: APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO.08-002 (BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN) Statement of Issue, Funding Source, Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis, Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002, and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 a City-initiated request to adopt the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan encompassing 459 acres along primarily Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors, including the Five Points area. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the request (Recommendation A) with modifications to the Specific Plan. Staff also recommends approval including the majority of the modifications proposed by the Planning Commission (Recommendation-B). Funding Source: Not applicable. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 and adopt Resolution No. 2010-18 , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Changing Land Use Designations located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan to Mixed Use-Specific Plan-Design Overlay (M-sp-d) (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." 2. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. 3874 , An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Maps 1 Z, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z, 25Z, 26Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31 Z, 39Z, and 40Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for Real Property within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project (SP14) Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 (ATTACHMENT NO.3)." 3. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Resolution No. 2010-19 , A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopting Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) (ATTACHMENT NO. 5)." 4. "Approve CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations — EIR No. 08-008 (ATTACHMENT NO. 6)." Planning Commission Action, January 12, 2010 MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 BY APPROVING DRAFT RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SPEAKER, MANTINI, FARLEY, SHIER-BURNETT, SCANDURA, LIVENGOOD, DELGLEIZE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY MANTINI, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL BY APPROVING DRAFT RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SPEAKER, MANTINI, FARLEY, SHIER-BURNETT, SCANDURA, LIVENGOOD, DELGLEIZE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -2- 2/19/2010 10:28 AM 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 THE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE TO APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL AND FORWARD THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TO CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SPEAKER, MANTINI, FARLEY, SHIER-BURNETT, SCANDURA, LIVENGOOD, DELGLEIZE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE THE MOTION MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY MANTINI TO APPROVE CEQA FINDINGS OF FACT AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SPEAKER, MANTINI, FARLEY, SHIER-BURNETT, SCANDURA, LIVENGOOD, DELGLEIZE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTIONS PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 and adopt Resolution No. 2010-18 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Changing Land Use Designations located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan to Mixed Use-Specific Plan-Design Overlay (M-sp-d) (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." 2. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. 3874 , An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Maps 1Z, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z, 25Z, 26Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31Z, 39Z, and 40Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for Real Property within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project (SP14) Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." 3. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Resolution No. 2010-19, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopting Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) (ATTACHMENT NO. 4)." 4. "Approve CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations — EIR No. 08- 008 (ATTACHMENT NO. 7)." G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -3- 2/19/2010 10:28 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMEER:PL10-05 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 and direct staff accordingly." 2. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002, and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for denial." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 (GPA), Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 (ZTA) and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 (ZMA) represent a City-initiated proposal to adopt the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is intended to implement a clear and comprehensive vision for growth and change along primarily Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors, including Five Points, Pacific Community Specific Plan (SP- 2) and commercial portions of the Seabridge Specific Plan (SP-3). The total acreage of the Specific Plan is approximately 459 acres. The Specific Plan allows mixed use development focusing on how population and employment growth can be strategically accommodated in a manner that is responsive to market demand while complementing existing commercial uses. The specifics of the entitlements are as follows: General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to amend the proposed Specific Plan area's General Plan Land Use Designations from the current Commercial Regional, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General, Commercial Office, Mixed Use, Mixed Use Vertical, Mixed Use Horizontal and Residential Medium Density to Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay (M-sp-d). The existing Floor Area Ratios and density limitations of the General Plan would no longer be in effect for the area, and the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger would be removed from the Land Use Map. The General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map would be amended to reflect the provisions of SP 14 (Attachment No. 2). Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to establish the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) pursuant to Chapter 215 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). SP 14 is a form based code that sets forth permitted uses, development standards, development regulations including architecture and sign regulations, and processing procedures to regulate property in the proposed Specific Plan area. Form based codes create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form, with a lesser focus on land use. The Specific Plan consists of three primary sections, or "Books"; Book I: Community Intent, Book II: Development Code, and Book III: Public Improvements (Attachment No. 4). G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -4- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMEER:PL10-05 The development plan envisioned by the Specific Plan anticipates new infill replacement development along the Beach and Edinger Corridors and environs. New construction will start to connect developments that encourage pedestrian activity. In the future, Goldenwest College (outside of the Specific Plan), the residential neighborhood development, the shopping and entertainment cores and the transit center will create the mixed use developments that will revitalize the two core districts of the Specific Plan: Five Points and Edinger Town Center. The remaining areas identified in the Specific Plan will begin the transformation from commercial strip to a pattern of centers and segments, each with development specifications and criteria to achieve differentiation between and along Beach Blvd. and Edinger Corridor. A brief description of the primary centers and segments, moving south to north is provided below: ➢ Residential Parkway: In the most southern portion of the Specific Plan, this area is located along Beach Blvd from Adams Avenue to the southern Specific Plan boundary, near Atlanta. Infill and replacement development in this area will be directed to primarily replicate and improve upon the best features of the existing pattern. The general planning approach to this particular area is preservation, as the majority of development along this segment is composed of existing residential uses. ➢ Neighborhood Parkway: Transitioning north, this segment is located between Adams and Five Points. Development will take advantage of existing and new residential development. In addition to residential development, office, lodging, and neighborhood-serving retail would also be permitted. Existing vehicle sales operations (auto dealers) would be allowed to expand operations, but no new dealerships would be allowed in this segment. The existing pet cemetery would also be allowed to remain in this segment and comply with the provisions for improvement or expansion. ➢ Five Points District: This area encompasses the existing Five Points Shopping Center, the Pacifica Community Plan area and immediate vicinity. The District relies on the development standards for the Town Center Core and the Town Center Neighborhood in the proposed Specific Plan. Envisioned development in this area is expected to intensify existing development and create an even more thriving mixed use area to insure emergence of a vital urban district. The standards are developed to create the most urban districts of the Specific Plan by increased heights and regulating structure placement. ➢ Neighborhood Boulevard: This segment along Beach Blvd is generally located between Five Points and Warner Ave. In this neighborhood there are two major attractors to investment: Walmart and the Huntington Beach Hospital. Another factor to support new commercial development in this district is its proximity to residential development. The strategy for this area is to encourage the development of neighborhood-serving and hospital-serving retail and services. Additionally, the inclusion of residential development throughout the segment will revitalize the district. New vehicle sales operations and expansion of existing will also be permitted in this segment. G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -5- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PE10-05 ➢ Town Center Boulevard: The Town Center Blvd segment encompasses uses along Beach Blvd from Warner to Edinger Ave, and along Edinger from Beach east to Goldenwest. This area is envisioned for gradual transition to more pedestrian oriented and distinctive building types but would allow for almost all commercial uses, as well as for mixed-use development to encourage the emergence of more efficient land uses. A wide range of City-oriented retail and service uses would be supported in this segment, including expansion of existing and new vehicle sales operations. ➢ Town Center Core/Town Center Neighborhood-Edinger Avenue: This area encompasses the Levitz site, the Red Oak/Amstar (formerly The Ripcurl) site, and property immediately north of Center Ave. It uses the same development standards as referenced for Five Points District above. This area is intended to build on the momentum of the Bella Terra Mall to the east and serve as a focal neighborhood, with some commercial development. The Specific Plan also contains standards for existing Neighborhood Centers, such as those located at major intersections along Beach Boulevard, and for Residential Transition areas, where existing low density residential development backs to commercial development. As analyzed in the Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report and presented to the Planning Commission, buildout of the Specific Plan (estimated at 2030) could potentially result in the addition of 6,400 new units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms and 112,000 sf of office uses. However, based on Planning Commission action, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that the maximum number of new residential units be reduced to 4,500. Not all of the development would be considered net growth. In many cases existing structures would be replaced or redeveloped with the new uses. In order to accommodate the proposed development, it is estimated that approximately 1.4 million sf of existing commercial development within the Specific Plan area or 22 percent of existing development could be demolished over the 20 year life of the Plan. The Draft Specific Plan was released for public comment in October 2008. Staff made suggested changes to that document based on comments from the public and the Planning Commission. A revised Specific Plan, dated December 2009 was acted on by the Planning Commission on January 12, 2010, as discussed in Section C of this report. Based on various comments received over the course of public review, staff has moved many of the illustrations and photos as well as some of the previous appendices that were in the October 2008 Draft into a new Beach and Edinger Corridor Reference Volume. The Reference Volume does not contain any new information and is not proposed for adoption, but serves as useful guidance and background information. The Reference Volume was made available concurrently with the Final Draft Specific Plan in December. Zoninq Map Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to amend the City's Zoning Map to reflect the SP 14 designation, thereby changing the existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area, pursuant to Chapter 247 of the HBZSO. SP 14 would supersede the Pacifica Community Plan, which would no longer be in effect (Attachment No. 3). G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -6- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 The City Council initiated the proposed project in response to the issues facing the corridors, in an effort to position the area and the City such that it would remain competitive and attractive to businesses as well as result in improvement of the existing visual character and quality of the Corridors. The General Plan states that uses along Edinger Avenue have little physical or visual connection and that the corridors lack an overall identity and strong physical anchors. Over the years the City's major commercial corridors, Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave., have increasingly become more vulnerable to change because large anchored centers located at major intersections have created an adverse impact on the smaller unanchored commercial centers found throughout these two corridors. The General Plan and Zoning Code designate the majority of land within the proposed specific plan area as commercial use. The overabundance of commercially designated land has limited the ability to adjust to market trends for the development of the highest and best land uses. This has resulted in the creation of vulnerable vacant land and buildings, poorly maintained buildings, and underutilized land with low value businesses or structures that could solicit higher rates of return but fail to respond to market needs. B. BACKGROUND In 1999, the City Council added the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (ECSP) and Economic Development Action Plan to their priority list of projects. In 2000, a consulting firm was hired to prepare the ECSP. The ECSP was initiated by City Council because various special studies concluded that as a primary entrance to the City of Huntington Beach Edinger Avenue was not taking advantage of its location next to the Mall or as a potential commercial regional destination. Special studies explored a variety of development options within and surrounding the project area. During 2000-2001, a total of three community workshops were conducted to solicit comments and participation from the community. In March 2005, an update of the ECSP was presented to the City Council. By the end of 2005, the draft ECSP was completed. A draft was made available to the public on January 6, 2006 for review and comments. The draft ECSP was presented to the City Council at a study session on January 17, 2006 and two study sessions were held with the Planning Commission. On February 28, 2006, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission for consideration of the draft Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. Upon discussion and significant comments by the public, including property owners, the Planning Commission voted to continue the Specific Plan and outlined a list of issues to improve the document. Staff agreed with the Planning Commission's concern and recommended that the City re-examine the Specific Plan. City Council concurred. The revitalization of Beach Boulevard was under discussion during this timeframe, and a Corridor Workshop had been held in September 2005. After a review of the Planning Commission's concerns, staff concluded that it would be in the best interest of the City to combine both corridors in a comprehensive Specific Plan. In 2006, City Council directed staff to proceed with the drafting of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Contracts with consultants were then executed. G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -7- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 The proposed Specific Plan project began in 2007 with a series of workshops to solicit public comments and receive input prior to the drafting of the Specific Plan document. Overall, there have been six workshops, three City Council Study Sessions and numerous Planning Commission Study Sessions and meetings, as listed in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 8). C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 12, 2010 to consider the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. A total of twelve people spoke. The majority were in favor of the project with certain modifications to the Specific Plan regarding maximum allowable heights per district, public and private open space, live work units on Warner Avenue, and development thresholds that trigger compliances with the Specific Plan standards (see draft Planning Commission minutes, Attachment No. 9). Discussion ensued with a thorough review of the Specific Plan document by the Planning Commission. The following table represents the recommended changes to the Specific Plan by the Planning Commission. Recommended Changes to Draft Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan SP Planning Commission Staff Recommendation Reference Recommended Action to City Council 1. Pg. 10 Change the thresholds and approving body for Agree with 10% but deviations to standards as follows: Director 20 %10% Variances to Zoning or less, Planning Commission greater than 2404 10% Administrator with Variance 2. Pg. 12 Reduce the maximum number of dwelling units Agree allowed as follows: Edinger 2,7-00 1,745 Beach 3�-780 2,755 Total: 61400 4,500 3. Pg. 13 & Remove the "Residential Requirement" Yellow Disagree 16 dashed line from the RDA owned property north of Center Ave. and mark the RDA and SCE property north of Center Ave. for transit expansion 4. Pg. 18 Add (1-9) to 6 aft and modify L9 to reference ground Agree floor which allows residential units along Ash and Clean-up proposed by Cypress staff 5. Pg. 20 Add (1-11) allowing Live Work units on ground floor Agree on Warner. This affects the southwest property at This is a property owner Beach &Warner only request. 6. Pg. 20 (C14) Up to 4-0 6 stories if property is within 500 ft. of Disagree. Keep to 10 1-405. This property affects the southeast corner of stories but require CUP Beach/Edinger to PC 7. Pg. 31 Changes Stadiums (not including professional sports Agree teams) from a permitted use to permitted with CUP to PC G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -8- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 Recommended Changes to Draft Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (cont'd) SP Planning Commission Staff Recommendation Reference Recommended Action to City Council 8. Pg. 59 & Add provision: Except properties with a special public Agree 116 open space requirement, public open space may not be used to satisfy Chapter 230 & 254 park requirements. This allows only the Levitz site (and possibly a site in Pacifica area) to use the '/2 acre public open space towards both the "public open space" per the SP standards and ZSO park dedication/in-lieu fee requirements 9. Pg. 76 Requires that sustainable or "green" building Agree practices shall be required into all projects proposing new structures and/or site improvements, rather than encouraging this. Also, adds to the list of suggestions as to "green" practices that could be incorporated. The Planning Commission took straw votes (Attachment No. 9) on the various changes and unanimously approved the proposed General Plan Amendment, Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment and Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The primary factors to consider when analyzing the proposed project are the type and amount of development that would be permitted with the General Plan Amendment and the creation of the new Specific Plan in terms of standards and proposed area. The following is a detailed discussion of these issues. General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the existing General Plan land use designations in the proposed SP area to M-sp-d (Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay). Because the Specific Plan has detailed design regulations the design overlay designation is appropriate. The existing Floor Area Ratios and density limitations of the General Plan would no longer be in effect for the area, and the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger would be removed from the Land Use Map. The General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map would be amended to reflect the provisions of SP 14. A discussion of the proposed Mixed Use land use designation and the amount of development, which is also included in the Specific Plan, is presented below. Mixed Use Development The existing General Plan land use designations for the Specific Plan area include a variety of commercial categories as well as mixed use and residential designations. The proposed G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -9- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/0112010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 project would ultimately allow mixed use development and stand-alone residential and commercial development throughout the Specific Plan area, in areas of the City that it is currently not allowed. The City's Mixed Use land use designation is best suited to accomplish the goals for the proposed Specific Plan. The growing trend towards mixed land use development in Southern California is part of the larger shift in thinking about managing future growth. It is designed to create livable cities, promote economic development, minimize dependence on auto transportation, reduce air pollution, and make infrastructure investments more efficient. The following are smart growth principles: • mix land uses • take advantage of compact building design • create a range of housing opportunities and choices ® create walkable neighborhoods ® foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place ® preserve open space, natural beauty and critical environmental areas ® strengthen and direct development towards existing communities • provide a variety of transportation choices ® make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective • encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions The integration of mixed use into communities is a critical component in achieving smart growth and specifically for assisting Huntington Beach to respond to the ever changing market forces for the following reasons: • Mixed land uses provide a more diverse and sizable population and commercial base for supporting viable alternatives to driving such as walking, biking, and public transportation where it is available or may be provided in the future. ® Allowing residential uses, whether solely or as part of a mixed use development, improves demand for the City's existing commercial businesses. • As an almost built-out city, there are limited opportunities to accommodate new residential development. Integrating that development into key areas, such as Five Points and near Bella Terra, maximizes the use of the city's land area while at the same time benefits nearby commercial operations. The City of Huntington Beach has long recognized the importance of mixed use as a land use tool to manage growth and stimulate economic activity within specified areas for the purpose of achieving certain goals. Some of the specific plan areas that have a General Plan designation of Mixed Use are: Downtown Specific Plan, Holly Seacliff Specific Plan, Pacifica Community Plan, Palm Goldenwest Specific Plan and more recently Bella Terra II. Moreover, the City of Huntington Beach General Plan currently contains three Mixed Use land use designations, which apply to numerous areas throughout the city, as well as many objectives and policies that are fulfilled by and foster mixed use development. The General G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -10- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMEER:PL10-05 Plan encourages the incorporation of mixed use development for a variety of reasons but most importantly because of the flexibility it provides to meet the changing needs of a city to meet future housing needs and development opportunities. Such development allows some combination of residential, commercial, and office use in the same neighborhood or building. Mixed use development helps residents live closer to business and employers, as well as to essential services and shopping areas. It gives businesses a ready source of nearby customers. This helps reduce traffic, leading to transportation and environmental benefits. The proposal to develop the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the overall goals of the General Plan. The market analysis completed at the onset of the Specific Plan project demonstrates that retail space is generally fully built out and oversupplied in the Specific Plan area. In regards to office demand, the analysis found that office rents are too low to support new speculative development. There are possible opportunities for smaller owner-occupied buildings, "build- to-suit," pre-leased or pre-sale buildings because of the reduced market risk. The analysis indicates potential demand for limited lodging. The analysis concludes that the demand for residential development would be strong in the project area and would provide the economic engine for new investment. Residential development could occur alone or as part of a mixed use development. Despite the recent downturn in the economy, based on input from the City's economist and input from developers, staff believes that allowing mixed use development within the Specific Plan area remains a viable, sound and logical decision. The City needs to be positioned to accommodate development when the financing markets are more stable, given that it can take multiple years to have plans in place. There are a number of property owners/developers who are currently in the design phase now, understanding the length of time it can take to complete a project. In addition, the City's action to allow for mixed use in the Specific Plan area is wholly consistent with recent and ongoing State and regional actions. Beach Boulevard, a State highway, and Edinger Avenue, both with freeway access, close proximity to an OCTA transit center and a rail line, are the best opportunity the City has for furthering alternative transportation modes. Recent State legislation with the goal of reducing passenger vehicle trips provides incentives for mixed use projects. In compliance with State mandates, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is working on a region-wide land use plan to make that goal a reality. In staff's meetings with SCAG staff, they indicated strong support for what the City was contemplating. The concept of allowing mixed use development along Beach Boulevard is not new. There have been unsuccessful attempts as far back as the 1960s and as most recent as the 1996 General Plan update. What has changed, however, are the demands of the marketplace and growing awareness that the development patterns of the last 50 years are not sustainable and do not result in places that people want to spend their time. Moreover, the City of Huntington Beach has matured significantly — even in the last 10 years. Staff believes the City can position two of its primary commercial corridors for revitalization for the G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -11- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 next one to two decades by allowing mixed use development, with specific standards as set forth in the Specific Plan. The amendment to the General Plan land use map also includes removing the auto overlay from those properties fronting Beach Blvd. between Warner and Edinger Ave. The General Plan states that the auto overlay "permits the development of an automobile district in addition to the underlying land uses." Although this auto overlay has been in effect since the update of the General Plan in 1996, an automobile district has never been created, but rather auto uses have often located notably south of Warner Ave. Therefore, staff does not believe it is necessary to keep this overlay on the Land Use Map for the proposed area. In addition, the Specific Plan would not preclude the formation of an auto district between Warner and Edinger, or even almost to Ellis Avenue, given that new vehicle sales are permitted along this entire stretch of Beach Boulevard per the proposed development standards. Amount of Development The proposed Specific Plan limits the amount of new growth with the Specific Plan area. EIR No. 08-008 analyzed buildout of the Specific Plan (estimated at 2030) with the addition of 6,400 new units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms and 112,000 sf of office uses. As indicated, the Planning Commission voted to decrease the maximum number of residential units to 4,500. Staff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation based on the analysis in the Environmental Impact Report. The EIR discussed three Alternatives for the purpose of evaluating ways to reduce or avoid significant environmental impacts. The selection of the reduced number of units associated with Alternative 2 would still meet the City's primary objectives and achieve the desired population clusters needed to support commercial development while reducing infrastructure demands. The City's General Plan envisions an additional 18,500 additional residential units above those existing in 1990. Since 1990, less than 6,000 units have been built, not adjusting for units lost to demolition. Allowance of additional residential development in the Specific Plan area represents a redistribution of growth that is already allowed by the General Plan but would still provide for ample development opportunity elsewhere in the city. In comparing the commercial square footage that is allowed by the current General Plan designations with the development limits that are proposed for the Specific Plan, the proposed commercial square footage limit for the Specific Plan is approximately one-third of that allowed by existing land use regulations. Staff believes that the proposed Specific Plan numbers would better achieve the goals of improving the Corridors, while at the same time helping to reduce traffic and associated air quality. Zoning Text Amendment The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would adopt the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is intended to implement a clear and comprehensive vision G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -12- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PE10-05 for growth and change along Beach Blvd and Edinger Avenue. The Specific Plan contains the proposed zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area and would supercede the existing zoning. The discussion below reviews the concept of form based codes and analyzes the proposed Specific Plan. Form Based Code The proposed Specific Plan uses Form Based Code as a method of regulating development to achieve specific urban form. Form based codes create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form with a lesser focus on land use: addressing the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and sometimes uncoordinated parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, setbacks, parking ratios, etc.) to the neglect of the integrated built form. Whereas conventional zoning tends to be proscriptive, stating what is prohibited; form based codes are prescriptive, stating what the community desires in the physical environment. To achieve a sense of place, form based codes establish rules for building height and bulk, building setbacks, site layout, the configuration of public open space, parking location, and streetscape design. The standards are particular, often dictating maximums as well as the minimums that are typically employed in conventional zoning (e.g. front setbacks). Because of precise development criteria, these codes are often accompanied with standards that are illustrated through the use of extensive graphics. Although form based codes control the physical environment, they tend to allow a variety of uses within a structural form or area. The ability to mix uses more readily encourages creating higher-density, walkable, pedestrian-friendly communities. Because there is more flexibility for uses, the resulting development can better respond to changing markets. Although a new concept for the City of Huntington Beach, the roots of form based codes lie in traditional development patterns, which are generally described as those patterns that existed prior to World War II. Prior to the widespread use of privately-owned motor vehicles, development patterns were more constrained by transportation options such as walking, bicycling, and the availability of transit. This determined how far people lived relative to their place of employment. Subsequently, cities were more compact, more-dense and housing was developed close to one another and to the desired services such as grocers and other commercial needs. The automobile has transformed the way society operates facilitating the movement of people much quicker than anyone could have imagined and increasing accessibility. While by itself not necessarily a negative outcome, the resulting development pattern, known as urban sprawl, has had negative side effects. The change in travel options, coupled with zoning standards focused on segregating uses, created cities that lack a sense of place and diversity. Form based codes have increasingly been at the forefront of Planning discussions G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -13- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING ®ATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT I® NUMBER:PL10-05 and are being used in a wide variety of communities and situations to counteract these trends of the last 50+ years. Within the State of California, form based codes are being used for specific areas, similar to the City's approach with the proposed Specific Plan, as well as for an entire city. Form based codes are also used throughout the United States. Based on the challenges facing the City of Huntington Beach's two main corridors and their existing characteristics, staff believes that a form based specific plan is the right tool to guide future development. By more precisely identifying the City's goals for the Specific Plan area, through refined development standards and targeted architectural regulations, the City can more readily achieve visual and economic transformation for Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. The City's existing citywide zoning regulations have not been able to accomplish this. Specific Plan The purpose of the Specific Plan is to orchestrate individual public and private investment along the City's two major corridors: Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The Specific Plan addresses the efforts and standards that will be required to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of the Corridors. As mentioned in the Project Proposal section of this report, the Specific Plan document is divided into three books. The analysis below is provided by book. However, the first discussion pertains to the proposed boundary for the Specific Plan. Specific Plan Boundary The proposed Specific Plan boundary was initially informed by input from the public, Planning Commission and City Council in 2005-2006 when comments were made to go beyond just looking at Edinger Avenue, which was then under study, to include Beach Boulevard. At the onset of the current effort, the City's consultant reviewed the existing conditions of Edinger and Beach, documented in the Beach Edinger Corridor Reference Volume. Based on various factors, including objectives for the area, the desire to minimize perceived disruption to the established neighborhoods and likely opportunities for reinvestment, staff and the consultants developed the currently proposed boundaries. Notably, the only substantial existing residential development included in the boundary is that near Five Points, in the Pacifica Community Plan area. This existing specific plan area has been included in the proposed SP 14 boundary for two reasons. First, this area provides great opportunity for new housing to support existing commercial operations in the area. There are limited choices for accommodating new medium to high density housing in the city, as discussed in the recent Housing Element update, and the Pacifica area was specifically identified in the Housing Element as an area targeted for a zone change to address this need. Second, the Pacifica area has suffered from a lack of disinvestment for some time. Various meetings with potential developers have led staff to conclude that the existing limitations of the Pacifica Community Plan, including requiring senior housing, will continue this trend. While staff recognizes the importance of promoting housing for the G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -14- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PE10-05 elderly, one of the goals of the Community Plan, it is clear that no new housing will result under the existing regulations. Therefore, staff believes that the area should be included in SP 14. This would render the Community Plan's regulations no longer in effect. The boundaries in the southern reach of the Specific Plan area were drawn to capture the shopping center at Beach and Atlanta and a few other much smaller commercial properties. While this portion of the Specific Plan area is not seen as key to the transformation of Beach Boulevard, due to its small size, location and stable land use pattern, staff believes that the standards of the Specific Plan will produce compatible, attractive and better designed projects than otherwise would result with existing zoning. Similarly, another small commercial area included in the southern reach of the Specific Plan is the commercial development of the Seabridge Specific Plan, at the southeast corner of Beach and Adams. Upon adoption of SP 14, the City could then process a change to that Specific Plan to reflect the change in boundary. The remainder of the Specific Plan area, north of Adams, contains more opportunities for meaningful change along the Corridors. Staff believes that the proposed boundaries will allow for the most effective implementation of the Specific Plan goals. Book I: Community Intent Book I provides the development concept and revitalization strategy for the Specific Plan. As previously mentioned in the Background section of this report, the City has recognized the need to revitalize the primary commercial corridors of the city in order to compete at a regional level with the successful commercial districts of the surrounding cities. The City recognizes that corridors reflect the values of a city and desires to address the uniqueness of the Huntington Beach Corridors in an effort to stimulate economic investment. The Specific Plan Community Objectives (short excerpt below-see specific plan for entire list) were reviewed with the City Council in early 2008 and provide the launching point for the standards and regulations in Book II: ® Begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north-south thoroughfare. ® Instigate the development of a network of pedestrian-oriented streets, promenades and other public open spaces that encourage walking, and ultimately, walking in combination with transit ridership. ® Enhance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections between Golden West College, Bella Terra, Golden West Transportation Center, and development along Edinger Avenue. ® Insure that new buildings and landscaping contribute to the emergence of an increasingly visible and memorable visual identity appropriate to the unique history and character of the City. G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -15- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 To harness market demand the City must realign development policies and planned public investments to capitalize on primary market trends. The Revitalization Strategy identifies a number of actions, including the sample below: • Make the most of value already in place which is restructuring, transition and preservation. • Promote the addition of new housing in a wide variety of formats and densities to support corridor retail and services. • Along Edinger Avenue in particular, promote the development of dense and high quality housing formats. • Support the continued presence and expansion of Auto Dealerships along Beach Boulevard. ® Enhance Corridors Identity by promoting varied visual structures. Finally, Book I provides a narrative of the Development Concept envisioned for the Specific Plan area. This was summarized in the Project Proposal section of this report, which described the primary centers and segments of the Specific Plan. The Development Concept is further described, along with concept illustrations, in the Beach Edinger Corridors Reference Volume. Book II: Development Code Book II contains the development standards and regulations that will govern Specific Plan development. The analysis below discusses the maximum amount of development, allowed uses, processing requirements, and standards and regulations of the Specific Plan. Maximum of Amount of New Development (MAND) Section 2.1.1 of the Specific Plan sets forth the Maximum Amount of New Development (MAND), which establishes the maximum amount of new residential and commercial development permitted in the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. These totals were analyzed above in the General Plan Amendment section of this report. Based on comments from property owners, the Final Draft Specific Plan does allow for transfer of building types between Corridors. For example, a point may be reached when all 206,000 square feet of retail space that is allocated to Edinger has been developed. Assuming not all of the retail space that is allocated to Beach has been built, a request to transfer some of that square footage to Edinger could be made. The process for a transfer request is set forth in Section 2.0.5 and would require an infrastructure, environmental and policy analysis. The approving body, either the Planning and Building Director or Planning Commission, is dependent on the size of the transfer. The concept of transfers is currently used in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan; there were a number of density transfers that occurred in that plan area. As proposed, a transfer request would not trigger a Zoning Text Amendment application/process, however, any request to exceed a MAND total would. In other words, if the total cap of 738,400 square feet of retail space is reached, a Zoning Text Amendment G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -16- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 application/process would be required to change that cap, along with associated environmental analysis. Staff does not propose that a transfer between development types, e.g. between retail and office, be allowed with the more simplified process. The proposed MAND caps were established based on market analysis and desired outcomes for the Corridors. Staff believes that a change in those caps is a more significant request that should warrant a Zoning Text Amendment. Allowed Uses The allowed uses are presented in the Development Standards charts on pp. 14-29 of the Specific Plan, and the use types are defined on pp. 30-31. The Zoning Compliance section of the Planning Commission staff report provides a comparison table of the allowed uses by center/segment in comparison with what is currently allowed by the current code. The Specific Plan allows for the same variety of uses as the current code; however, unlike the current code it does not allow them in all centers and segments. The Residential Parkway and Neighborhood Parkway are intended for less commercially intense development to promote the residential character of these areas. The remaining centers/segments are envisioned for a greater variety of commercial uses coupled with residential/mixed use development. Some areas are appropriate for entertainment uses while other areas should be developed with more neighborhood serving uses. To further ensure that the goals of the Specific Plan are achieved, there are maximum square footages allowed and certain retail configurations that are required for some uses. Currently, the only residential type use permitted in the Commercial General district is Single Room Occupancy (SRO). SROs, while residential in nature, are considered a commercial use. The Pacifica Community Plan is designated for Mixed Use Vertical and Mixed Use Horizontal permitting commercial, office and residential development at a range of heights. Therefore, both the proposed Specific Plan and the Community Plan are similar in the allowance of mixed use development. However, as previously discussed, the only residential development permitted in Pacifica is Senior Housing and ancillary apartments or condominiums as part of an integrated development. The Specific Plan will allow for mixed use development (includes residential) throughout but the type of residential development is more flexible allowing for multiple-family and live work units, as well as single family developments in some instances. In response to the Housing Element Update process, there are two areas within the Specific Plan that require residential development. These include the Redevelopment Agency-owned parcel in the Town Center Neighborhood district north of Center Avenue and, as noted previously, a portion of the Pacifica Community Plan area both denoted in yellow in the Specific Plan (page 16). The Planning Commission recommends that the residential only requirement be removed from the RDA parcel along Center and that this area be marked for Transit Expansion. While staff agrees that transit use can be part of the future mix, and transit is already a permitted use in the Specific Plan, staff does not support the removal of the residential requirement because of the commitment made by the City's Housing Element to rezone sufficient land G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -17- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 for the future development of housing to comply with the City's Regional House Needs Assessment and because the Redevelopment Agency's Implementation Plan also identifies this parcel as a means to meet the Agency's housing production obligation. In regards to the rights of existing uses, Section 2.0.1 addresses the applicability of the Specific Plan and states that policies in the Specific Plan shall apply to new construction as well as significant additions greater than 15 percent of an existing building's floor area or exterior renovations to an existing structure. The Specific Plan also states that existing uses have the right of continued use. Changing property ownership or tenants of existing uses would not trigger Specific Plan compliance for the buildings or structures. Existing uses not permitted in the Specific Plan such as the Pet Cemetery will be permitted to continue their current operations. A representative from the Michael's Center on Edinger spoke at the January 12th Planning Commission meeting and expressed concern regarding the thresholds for additional square footage and tenant improvements that would require compliance with the Specific Plan development standards. As indicated, exterior improvements to existing buildings would trigger the need for compliance with the Plan's architectural guidelines but would not trigger the need for street improvements. Questions have been raised about vehicle sales uses and their role in the Specific Plan. As stated in the Revitalization Strategy of Book I, the City desires to support the continued presence and expansion of Auto Dealerships along Beach Boulevard. New vehicle sales are permitted along Beach from just north of Ellis Ave. to Edinger Ave. in the Neighborhood Boulevard and Town Center Boulevard segments. The Final Draft Specific Plan also shows a recommendation to change the segment designation of one property currently occupied by an auto dealer from Town Center Neighborhood to Neighborhood Boulevard (pg. 12). Additionally, the Neighborhood Parkway allows for the expansion of existing vehicle sales uses. Combined, the Neighborhood Parkway, Neighborhood Boulevard and Town Center Boulevard segments comprise the majority of Beach Boulevard and all allow vehicle sales in some manner. Although somewhat more restrictive in location, the Specific Plan is more permissive in that it will not require a conditional use permit to expand or establish a new dealership as the ZSO does now. ® Processing Requirements A streamlining aspect of the proposed Specific Plan is that it simplifies the approval process for projects. The premise for this is that the development standards and regulations are much more specific and provide clearer guidance such that the resulting projects will be attractive, compatible and consistent with City requirements. The development standards charts indicate whether or not a use is permitted/allowed and the Building Use Regulations in Section 2.2 indicate whether a permitted use is permitted by right or if it requires a conditional use permit. If a use is permitted by right, it still will require approval of a Site Plan Review at the staff level. If a use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), it would be heard by the Planning Commission. Per the Specific Plan, a Site Plan Review application needs to be G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -18- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 accompanied with an environmental assessment and mitigation monitoring matrix to demonstrate compliance with the certified EIR and findings need to be made in order to grant its approval. This is the same approval process required in the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan and the Bella Terra Specific Plan. The Specific Plan includes provisions for deviations from the Development Standards of the Specific Plan, which may be granted at the time of Site Plan Review for special circumstances and/or unique architectural features such as public open space, greater setbacks, unique or improved design and potential energy efficiency. The Specific Plan submitted to the Planning Commission allowed for staff approval of a deviation that is up to 20 percent of any single standard, and for those deviation requests greater than 20, an applicant was required to apply for a Variance to be considered by the Zoning Administrator. The Planning Commission is recommending that the threshold be reduced to 10 percent for staff review and that requests for larger deviations be heard by the Planning Commission. Staff supports the reduced lower threshold but recommends Variance approval by the Zoning Administrator. This recommendation is discussed further in the section regarding Planning Commission proposed changes. Development Standards and Regulations The analysis below focuses on those development standards that have garnered comment or that are new to the City as a result of the form based code approach of the Specific Plan. Building Height The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance generally permits heights from 45 ft. to 140 ft. in the Specific Plan area, though the typical limit is 50 ft. (The 140 ft. limit is in the Pacifica Community Plan area.) The HBZSO restricts development height when adjacent to residential development. The Specific Plan generally allows for a range of development height from one to six stories. (The existing 50 ft. limit is the equivalent of four to five stories.) The SP also considers the visual impacts of development adjacent to single family residential development by including a provision for a Transitional District. The Transitional District is designed to consider the transition from residential development to commercial or mixed use development only permitting a maximum height of three stories. Consideration of building scale is vital to the development of pedestrian scale development. The maximum height for the majority of Beach Boulevard is four stories, which is equivalent to or less than the current ZSO. The proposed height of six stories for the Five Points area and the Town Center Core-Edinger area is in recognition of their role as the more urban nuclei of the Specific Plan, in which greater density is desired to create vibrant mixed use areas. Discussions with various property owners in the Specific Plan area have resulted in three changes to the building height standards since the original draft. First, as presented in the Final Draft and recommended by the Planning Commission, an increase in height up to six G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -19- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 stories would be allowed for the Warner/Beach Neighborhood Center with approval of a conditional use permit to allow for better transition in building scale and architectural design given the taller structures that already exist on that site. Second, the southeast corner of Beach and Edinger property can benefit from an increase in height given the size of the parcel and development potential. Its proximity to the 1-405 provides some challenges and opportunities to enhance the City entrance. The property owner has asked for consideration of up to 14 stories at this site. The Final Draft Specific Plan, as recommended by staff, includes an allowance for up to 10 stories for properties within 500 feet of the 1-405, which limits it to the southeast property, with a CUP. This height limit is consistent with that approved with the recent changes to the Bella Terra Specific Plan. Finally, as recommended by staff and the Planning Commission, the Town Center Boulevard District maximum height has been increased to five stories; however, within the front 65 feet of a lot the maximum would be four stories. The proposed height standards are summarized below. Specific Plan Segment Min.Height Max. Height* Residential Parkway n/a 4 stories Neighborhood Parkway n/a 4 stories Five Points Town Center Core 3 stories; (A): 1 story 6 stories Town Center Neighborhood 2 stories 6 stories Neighborhood Boulevard 1 story 4 stories Town Center Boulevard Beach and Edinger Avenues(majority of the corridors in this segment) 1 story stores** Town Center Core(edge along Edinger Ave, south of Gothard) 3 stories; (A): 1 story 6 stories Town Center Neighborhood (north of Town Center Core) 2 stories 6 stories (A) Exceptions apply to anchor stores *Special Building Height Limits also apply,which further restrict heights along certain street frontages in some segments. **Up to 10 stories for property within 500 feet of 1-405 with a CUP. Parking The proposed parking standards are designed to reinforce the desired character within each district of the Specific Plan. In contrast, the City's current parking standards are one size fits all and permit parking to face the corridors. When developed in this manner, structures are placed further to the rear of a parcel creating a longer distance for pedestrians to walk from the sidewalk to the entrance of a building. This discourages pedestrian activity. The intent of the Specific Plan is to encourage pedestrian activity, improve the pedestrian experience G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -20- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ,ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 and reduce vehicular trips. In terms of parking standards, the Specific Plan addresses this in three ways: 1) Requires new development to reorient parking areas, such that parking lots may not be allowed in the front of a building. Some side parking lot configurations would be allowed. The types of surface parking will vary depending on the segment/center of the Specific Plan. 2) Specifies the maximum number of parking spaces that may be located in surface parking lots. The intent is to encourage a more efficient use of land and reduce the "sea of parking" effect that comes from large surface parking lots. 3) Requires that parking be within a certain distance of the use, with a range of 200 to 500 feet. Although the Specific Plan does not permit parking in the front of a lot, it does offer two compensating benefits. First, it includes reduced front setbacks that will bring buildings closer to the street and improve their visibility. Second, net new on-street parking that is created along new streets would be able to count as required parking. Thus, along Edinger the parking that is created in conjunction with the access drive (frontage road) would be able to count toward required parking, as well as serve parking in the front of businesses. Parking regulations continue to be a challenge to promote new development. The Specific Plan generally requires less parking than the current code as part of the overall mixed use development concept because demands for parking vary for different uses throughout the day. A comparison of the proposed and existing parking standards for the most common uses is provided below. The Town Center Boulevard standards are used in the comparison as that designation comprises the largest part of the Specific Plan. Standard Minimum Parking Requirements Use Proposed Existing Town Center HBZSO Boulevard Retail 1 space/250 sq. ft. 1 space/200 sq. ft. Eating and Drinking 1/83 sq. ft. 1 space/200 sq. ft. if less than 12 seats 1 space/60 sq. ft. when on a site with 3 or more uses Office— 1 space/286 sq. ft. 1 space/250 sq. ft. for less than 250,000 sq. ft. Professional 1 space/300 sq. ft. for 250,000 sq. ft. or more Office — Medical 1 space/222 sq. ft. 1 space/175 sq. ft. Lodging 1 space/room 1.1 space/room, min. of 2 stalls for passenger transport vehicle, 2 spaces for employees Residential Studios 1 space 1 space 1 Bdrm. 1 space 1 space 2 Bdrms. + 1.5 spaces 2 spaces for 2 Bdrms./2.5 spaces for 3+ Bdrms. Guest spaces 2 spaces/10 units 5 spaces/1 0 units G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -21- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PI_10-05 The Specific Plan also includes provisions for reduced parking standards per Section 2.7.1 as follows: 1) Mixed use developments may request consideration of reduced parking standards when it can be demonstrated that shared parking facilities will meet parking demand. 2) For physically constrained properties, the number of parking spaces required may be reduced by the amount of public open space provided over and above the required minimum at 200 square feet per space with a maximum reduction for non- residential development of 10 parking spaces and a maximum reduction for residential development of five parking spaces. The HBZSO permits reduced parking for: 1) joint use parking (the mixed use concept of the Specific Plan), 2) up to a five space reduction for a change in use on a site with two or more uses and a minimum of 50 spaces, and 3) by a variance. Open Space The Specific Plan requires the extensive use of public open space as a primary tool to encourage pedestrian activity. Open space in the Specific Plan is identified as public or private. Commercial and residential developments are required to provide a certain amount of public open space pursuant to the type of development, and residential development is required to also provide private open space. New development would also have to comply with the City's park requirements for dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees. The Final Draft Specific Plan incorporates a recommended decrease in the amount of public open space for lodging, live-work and residential uses based on recent action on the Downtown Specific Plan. Staff believes these changes will still provide for effective public open space areas. Public open spaces are outdoor spaces that are accessible to the public and include seating, lighting and landscaping but do not have to necessarily be sheltered from the elements. The Specific Plan provides for varying design configurations as listed in Section 2.6.4, providing flexibility for new development to meet the public open space requirement. The Specific Plan currently calls for one special public open space. This area would be located in the Town Center Neighborhood at Edinger (Levitz Site) and be a minimum of half an acre. The plan specifies that the primary public open space be centrally located within the Town Center Neighborhood and approved prior to development. As part of the Book III Parks discussion, staff has also suggested that a minimum half acre public open space area be located in the Pacifica area, as that is intended to be the Town Center Neighborhood for the Five Points area. Given the various parcel configurations and property owners, staff is not recommending a specific location at this time but would work with the developers that bring proposals forward to have the open space incorporated into a project(s). G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -22- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 New Standards The City's Form Based Code incorporates precise development standards such as Build-to- Corner criteria, building volume, building length, building massing and reduced setbacks in order to ensure the desired physical environment. The new standards are not new concepts for the City, as many of them are suggested in the City's adopted Urban Design Guidelines. The Specific Plan requires the following new development criteria be implemented in the design of a new project: Section 2.3 Building Scale Regulations ® Building Length: Limits the maximum length based on location a Building Massing: Regulates the proportion of building volume in relationship to location. Section 2.4 Frontage & Building Placement Regulations ® Building Orientation: Goal is to have entrances face public streets or open space. • Build-to-Corner: Implemented at intersections Another important design factor resulting from the Form Based Code criteria is the regulation of Block Length. The intent of regulating block length is to visually and physically shorten the walking experience. The Specific Plan requires a range of block lengths depending on center/segment. When a development cannot meet the block length criteria, then the provision of New Streets is required pursuant to Section 2.5.2 of the Specific Plan. As noted, the City's Urban Design Guidelines include many of these concepts. The recommendation for General Commercial development is that buildings be placed and designed to the corner or mid-block to establish a strong tie to the street frontage. The Guidelines state that when commercial development does not consider this the result is often developments that lack a defined street edge that discourages pedestrian access and creates a primary view of the parking area rather than a view of the structure. The Urban Design Guidelines suggest ways to improve this aspect of the built environment via the following: ® Define street edge to create more desirable pedestrian environments o Internal parking reduces negative impact from street. o Encourage site plans that create connectivity between developments via internal streets to entice use by adjacent residents. ® Avoid expansive parking lots which discourage pedestrian access across a site. Other Regulations The Specific Plan includes regulations for Architectural treatment, materials, volume and massing to guide the physical and aesthetic impacts of new development including the impact of the public and private realm. Signage regulations and the inclusion of graphics provide the regulations and guidance that business identification signage needs to enhance architecture. The Specific Plan incorporates the City's inclusionary standards and requires G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -23- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING ®ATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT I® NUMEER:PL10-05 that all affordable units be located within the project area. Street improvements and design configurations contribute to the enhancement of the Specific Plan area by creating visual transitions from one district to the next. The Planning Commission recommended no changes to these regulations, which are further discussed in the attached Planning Commission report. The Specific Plan includes Green Building regulations, which were originally encouraged in the Specific Plan area. The Planning Commission voted to require green building practices in new development. Staff is in agreement with this recommendation. Planning Commission Recommended Changes The Planning Commission reviewed and discussed the contents of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan on January 12t" and voted on the recommended changes to the Specific Plan. As stated at the beginning of this report, staff agrees with most of the recommended changes proposed by the Planning Commission. The differences are addressed in this section. The numbering corresponds to the table summarizing the Planning Commission's Recommended Actions (Pages 8-9 of this report). 1) Staff agrees with the recommended change to decrease the percentage of allowable deviation that may be acted on at the staff level from 20 to 10 percent. However, staff recommends that the Variance requests remain at Zoning Administrator level to streamline the review process and because a greater deviation of any standard typically should not warrant Planning Commission review. A Variance to the Planning Commission is a four to six month process, while to the Zoning Administrator the processing is two to three months. In addition, the application fee is reduced from $3,453.00 (PC) to $2,444.00 (ZA). Finally, the required findings for a Variance are imposed irrespective of the hearing body, and the ZA action can still be appealed to the Planning Commission. 3) Staff does not support the recommendation to remove the "Residential Requirement" yellow-dash on the Redevelopment Agency property and designate it for Transit Expansion because this site is identified in the City's Housing Element as one of the properties that would be rezoned to exclusively residential land use in order to meet the State mandate of rezoning sufficient property to accommodate 352 units. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency Implementation Plan identifies this site as a means to implement their housing production goal. Pursuant to the Planning Commission's action and recommendation, the City would need to rezone other property(ies) that could potentially yield 175 units to exclusively residential use. The Housing Element did identify three other candidate sites, all of which are in the Specific Plan area; however, because the Redevelopment Agency owns the subject property, and the other properties were already developed with other uses, staff thought it more reasonable to rezone the Agency property. The Housing Element was approved by the City Council in 2008 and subsequently approved by the State. While staff agrees that future use of the Agency's property for transit makes sense from a land use perspective, and the Specific Plan currently allows transit uses as permitted in G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -24- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 this area of the Specific Plan, the City and Redevelopment Agency would need to find other property in which to satisfy the housing requirements. Staff recommends that the City Council not amend this aspect of the Specific Plan at this time given the uncertainty associated with any expansion of the existing transit center and the need for the City and Agency's plans to remain consistent with State mandates. However, the City Council may wish to direct staff to pursue other site alternatives by which the City and Agency could satisfy housing production goals. The City Council could also direct staff to begin conversations with the Orange County Transportation Authority regarding a mixed use transit-oriented center. At such time as another property(ies) is located, the Specific Plan could then be amended. 6) Staff does not support the reduction in the proposed number of stories for parcels within 500 feet of the 1-405. The intersection of Beach and Edinger serves as one of the primary entry nodes to the City. Development at this intersection is faced with challenges and opportunities given the proximately to the 1-405. The property owner for the Huntington Executive Park (southeast corner) requested an increase in height to 14 stories. While staff was not in agreement with 14 stories, staff did see the merit of an increase in height given the property's location. The Montgomery Ward site portion of Bella Terra was recently approved for 10 stories. The City also has two 14-story buildings (Beach/Warner and Wycliffe Gardens on Florida), the 12 story former Pacifica Hospital and two 8-story buildings (Boeing and a hotel on Center), in addition to five and six-story buildings. Upon consideration, staff proposed 10 stories within the final Specific Plan document for property within 500 feet of the 1-405. Based on this reasoning, staff does not support the Planning Commission's recommendation to reduce the maximum height to six stories for properties with 500 feet of 1-405 because the opportunity to create a significant development to enhance the entrance to Huntington Beach will be lost. After hearing the concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the review process, staff is recommending that up to 10 stories be allowed but is now recommending that a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission be required. Book III: Public Improvements Book III has been completed in the Final Draft Specific Plan with the information from the Certified EIR. In addition to the Circulation Plan, that was in the original draft, Book III now includes information on wastewater, water, sewer, parks and dry utilities. Staff has also added a section on transit. The street network improvements section has been updated pursuant to the EIR as well. A significant contribution to the transformation of the Corridors will be in the form of three distinct streetscapes: Classic Boulevard, Palm Tree Boulevard, and Parkway. The Public Facilities plans identify proposed infrastructure improvements needed to serve development within the Specific Plan project area. Every new development project will use the EIR as baseline analysis to determine if additional environmental analysis is necessary. The Specific Plan identifies facilities needed based on available information regarding water, sewer and storm drain information. Individual projects are required to comply with standard code requirements and comply with the adopted mitigation measures, which may also G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -25- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 necessitate further studies. Developers will be responsible for the construction or funding of facilities necessary to serve their projects. The revitalization of the Corridors will be supported by public and private investment. Because of the magnitude of the Corridors, the implementation approach will be in phases based on the availability of resources and as private development is proposed. In addition, improvements along Beach Boulevard will need to be coordinated with Caltrans as part of the design and development process. Zoning Map Amendment The City's Zoning Map would be changed to reflect the Specific Plan zoning designation for the 459 acres in the proposed Specific Plan boundary. The amendment to the Zoning Map will provide consistency with the proposed General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use and the Subarea Map. E. SUMMARY Staff believes that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of architecture, design criteria, public open space and access, and other development standards. Staff recommends approval of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002) because it would encourage and facilitate development in an area in a manner that would carry out the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and as directed by City Council. The Specific Plan will implement the revitalization of the City's two major corridors incorporating a high quality of aesthetics, efficient use of resources, improved landscaping while meeting the housing needs of the City. Staff recommends the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 based upon the following.- - Consistent with the General Plan policies and development framework related to Mixed Use development. - Facilitates new development in the area by proposing development standards that provide greater flexibility for land uses, which will maintain and expand economic and business opportunities. - Facilitates development that produces an environment that is both attractive and sustainable by increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use of land resources. - Includes development standards that will result in compatible, attractive and adequately served land uses and buildings - Consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of smart growth and sustainable development. G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -26- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 - Accommodates some of the City's already projected growth in areas that are currently and in the future served by transit, thereby efficiently using land and improving opportunities for transit growth while maintaining the remainder of the City's environmental resources and scale of character. - Serves affordable housing needs of the community by providing for affordable housing units through the City's Inclusionary Housing requirement. Strategic Plan Goal: Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance economic development, establish the vision and create a land use plan for reuse of critical parcels so that the next phase of the community investment and improvement can begin. The proposed project will be consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of smart growth and sustainable development in a manner that will stimulate and encourage the revitalization of the City's two major corridors. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), EIR No. 08-008 was prepared by PBS&J to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project as well as identify appropriate mitigation measures. The Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission for review at the start of the 45- day public comment period on August 28, 2009. The Final Draft EIR, including the Response to Comments and all text changes, was distributed to the Planning Commission and posted on the City's website on November 11, 2009. On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report 08-008 as adequate and complete with mitigation measures and amendment to Mitigation Measure MM4.15-3 to include language referencing recycled building materials. The adopted mitigation measures are included as Appendix A to the Specific Plan. The environmental impact report discussed the potential adverse impacts associated with the project. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal were addressed, as were the impacts of project alternatives. Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the City Council may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the project as modified by the Planning Commission outweigh the adverse impact to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. The adverse impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation is available or the mitigation that could be implemented, such as 1-405 improvement, is outside the purview of the City. G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05(Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -27- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 Approval of the Specific Plan and associated GPA and ZMA would allow for improved opportunities for future development in the proposed Specific Plan area. With the adoption of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, multiple sustainable development principles are achieved, resulting in the improved social and economic well-being of the Corridors. More specifically, the project would have the following benefits: 1. The project would be the catalyst for transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from an "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. 2. The project emphasizes compatibility and sensitivity to the existing uses surrounding the site and would recommend a variety of sustainable features, including requiring green building practices in new development. 3. The project would expand residential opportunities in both the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors to provide a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector along these corridors. 4. The project will provide affordable housing, consistent with City requirements. 5. The project would enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality, state-of-the-art development, consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan. 6. The project would promote residential and commercial buildings that convey a high quality visual image and character, as well as provide for the development of mixed- use projects that integrate residential and commercial uses and ensure compatibility of these uses. 7. The project would maximize land use opportunities by allowing for mixed use in a well-integrated urban environment. 8. The project would establish zoning standards and implementation mechanisms applicable to mixed-use developments consistent with the policies and development framework of the City's General Plan to maximize land use opportunities. 9. The project would enhance alternative modes of transportation, to include enhancement of the pedestrian experience as well as the movement of residents via bicycle and transit. 10.The project would foster walkability and reduced vehicle trips by promoting development close to established transit routes, a transit center, college and shopping and other services. On January 12, 2010 the Planning Commission approved the CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). The only difference between staff and the G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -28- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/01/2010 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER:PL10-05 Planning Commission's recommended Findings and SOC is the difference in height at the southeast corner of Beach and Edinger, as shown on page 4-5 of both Attachment Nos. 6 and 7. Attachment(s): crip, ion 1. Suggested Findings for Approval (Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation) 2. Resolution No.2010-18 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach approving General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 to amend the Land Use Element of the General Plan and Changing Land Use Designations located within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan to Mixed Use-Specific Plan-Design Overlay (M-sp-d) (Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation) 3. Ordinance No. 3874 An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending District Maps 1 Z, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z, 25Z, 26Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31, 39Z, and 40Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance for Real Property within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project (SP14) Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 (Staff and Planning Commission Recommendation) 4. Resolution No. 2010-19 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopting Zoning Text Amendment No. 08- 002 establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) (Staff Recommendation) 5. Resolution No. 2010-19 A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopting Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) (Planning Commission Recommendation) 6. CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations-EIR No. 08-008 (Planning Commission Recommendation) 7. CEQA Statement of Findings of Fact with Statement of Overriding Considerations-EIR No. 08-008 (Staff Recommendation) 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 12, 2010 9. Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 12, 2010, 10. Power Point G:\RCAs\2010\PL10-05 (Beach and Edinger SP Final).doc -29- 2/12/2010 9:30 AM f ATTACHMENT # 1 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 amends the existing zoning designations within the 459 acre project area from Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Commercial Office (CO), General Industrial (IG), Residential Low Density (RL), Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Medium High Density (RMH), Pacific Community Specific Plan (SP 2), the commercial portions of Seabridge Specific Plan (SP 3) to Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14). The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan by combining the majority of permitted uses for the Commercial and Mixed Use categories as permitted uses within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will assist to revitalize business opportunities and strengthen the employee base of the City by allowing for and encouraging mixed-use development. The Specific Plan also identifies design/architectural standards, consistent with the intent of the goals and polices of the Community District and Subarea Schedule pertinent to the adoption of the Specific Plan and consistent with the Urban Design Element. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. The form based code development standards of the Specific Plan ensure that new construction will comply with the intent of the Specific Plan to achieve connectivity, increase the amount of public open space, add more residential development into the City's two major commercial corridors and by allowing uses that support consumer needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. 2. In the case of general land use provisions, the Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendments are consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses identified in the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan SP No. 14 allow for continued commercial development in conjunction with mixed-use development consistent with the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed Specific Plan provides the standards and design guidelines necessary to develop a high quality of diverse land uses complementing and enhancing surrounding land uses. The continued expansion of the commercial base and incorporation of mixed use development provides the opportunity for the development of homes and jobs close to one another thereby reducing daily vehicle trips. The Specific Plan area has not flourished with the existing regulations. The Specific Plan is intended to stimulate investment in the area, while minimizing impacts to established neighborhoods, to maximize the benefit of new development to the community. The Specific Plan will enhance the potential for superior urban design by the use of Form Based Code criteria in comparison with the current commercial development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Specific Plan will ensure a consistency in development standards, a high quality of architectural design, and landscape design requirements to achieve the desired compatibility with surrounding developments. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because the community workshops held for this project have revealed that the citizens and landowners recognize that without a clear vision the revitalization of the two corridors may not be achieved. The Specific Plan provides standards for future development that will transform the character of the project area in a beneficial way consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan. The Plan development standards work together to provide development that is compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding area and to development within the Specific Plan itself. The proposed standards pertaining to height, setback and parking are not significantly different than existing code or what has been approved in the area in the recent past. The standards of the Specific Plan as they relate to building form and use allow for denser projects to be built that are attractive and enhance pedestrian activity, which minimizes impacts. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 2 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) ATTACHMENT #2 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.08-002 TO AMEND THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATIONS LOCATED WITHIN THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN AREA TO MIXED USE-SPECIFIC PLAN-DESIGN OVERLAY (M-SP-d) WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 proposes to amend the General Plan Land Use Designations of the City's General Plan by changing the existing land use designations of the 459-acre project located in the Beach and Edinger Corridors area from Commercial Regional, Commercial General, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Office, Mixed Use, Mixed Use Horizontal, Mixed Use Vertical and Residential Medium Density to M-sp-d (Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay) as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan area. The amendment would remove the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger and would modify the Community District and Subarea Schedule of the General Plan as described in Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 and recommended approval of said amendment to the City Council; and Pursuant to California Government Code, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a public hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 08-002; and The City Council finds that said General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly development of the community, is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan, and is proper and consistent with other elements of the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby resolves as follows: SECTION l: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Plan Map-Exhibit B") extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street. The area is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B," respectively, and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 2: That General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, which amends the General Plan Land Use Element for the subject area to reflect the redesignation of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) area to M-sp-d and the modifications of the Community District 09-2348.001/42583 1 Resolution No.2010-18 and Subarea Schedule, is hereby approved. The Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended Land Use Map, Subarea Map and amended Land Use Element. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of March ,20 10 . a r REVIE D APPROVED: INIT TED ND APPROVED: City strator Director of Planning and ELilding IT r— - OVED AS TO FORM: " Yw(�'� C Attorney k,v, - q_tO ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A Legal Description Exhibit B Specific Plan Map Exhibit C General Plan Changes 09-2348.001/42583 2 Resolution No.2010-18 Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 1 2.1.10 Residential Transition 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8692/842 OR 146-463-22 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 L2.1. Town Center Blvd Segment 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8692/842 OR 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-131-04 TR 6181 LOT 286 N 150 FT W 150 FT 142-131-06 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 2 142-131-07 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 3 142-131-09 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 5 142-131-12 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 1 142-131-13 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 2 145-252-54 TR 4138 LOT A 145-252-61 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 LOT IN SE1/4 SE1/4 145-252-63 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-64 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-65 E 188 FT OF S 185 FT SEC 15 T 5 R 11 146-463-14 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 146-463-16 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-8538/684 OR 146-463-20 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-24 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 Map I Breeland-Or. 145-252-54 m E (D! u 145-252-64 Edinger A 1 463-14 "c" -142-131=04 142=1 31-07 142-131-06 1 12 142-13 - 146463-20 142=131-05 6 4, 142A31A0 142-131-11 140-463'18 N Bluesails Dr. 0 Nvanza Dr. Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 2 12.1.3 Town Center-Core 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 FOR SEC(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 (POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074-05 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 LOT IN SE1/4 SW1/4 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR SEC(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 FOR S1/2 (POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074-06 PM 211-25 PAR 1 POR OF PAR 142-074-07 142-074-08 142-074-09 142-074-10 142-074-11 142-074-12 PM 211-25 PAR 1 POR OF PAR '2.1.6 Towm Center Blvd Segment 142-072-06 P BK 32 PG 48 PAR 1 142-072-08 P BK 44 PG 11 PAR 2 142-072-09 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4(P M 44-11 PAR 1) 142-321-13 TR 4064 LOT 8 POR OF LOT(P M 5-36 PAR 2) 142-321-10 142-321-01 N TR 4064 LOT 7 142-511-04 TR 4064 LOT 1 POR OF LOT 142-511-03 TR 4064 LOT 1 POR OF LOT 142-511-02 142-511-05 TR 4064 LOT 1 S 182 FT W 316.70 FT 142-321-02 N TR 4064 LOT 6 142-321-12 142-511-01 Railroad Resolution No.2010-18 ----— cu 142-074-08 42 4-Qg - 4-a p 424074-07 t r 142-074 06' 1:42 074-12 c 142-074-04 142-072-08_ •- n ; .142-072706 . 142-072-09" 142-074-05 er Ave a 0 142-511-04 �ry 142-321-01 142-511-03 142-321-10 o . 142-511-022 12-321-13. _ 142-511-05 _ 142-321-02 N 142-321-12 . Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood d--- ---- - 142-073-02 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 IRREG 3.05 AC M/L IN NE1/4 SW1/4 SEC 142-073-01 Railroad 142-073-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 12.14 Residential Required 142-073-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 Resolution No.2010-18 M C> M C) CN d' 142-073-01 z3 ca 0 = c 142=073-02 N Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 4 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-111-18 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NE1/4 AS PER LEASE-1_5966/843 OR 142-111-27 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 W 126 FT E 340 FT N 630 FT NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 142-111-32 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-111-33 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-34 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-39 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 2 142-111-42 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 1 142-112-05 P BK 3 PG 50 PAR 1 142-112-08 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-09 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-10 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY Map 4 Edinger Ave. 142 112-05 1 111 18 142 '1 1 33` 142-1y11-42 142�€111 32 N 142 112=M9 142�+1114 o 142::112-08 c i 4> j '142-`Y 11 39.r N i I Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 5 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-781-03 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 2 107-781-04 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 1 107-781-05 PM 61-2 PAR A POR OF PAR 107-781-06 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR B 107-781-07 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR C 107-782-08 PARCEL MAP 49-45 PARS 1 AND 2 142-081-01 TR 417 LOTS 1 TO 4 INC 142-081-02 TR 417 LOT 14 ALL-EX ST 142-081-03 TR 417 LOT 15 ALL-EX ST 142-081-06 TR 417 LOT 19 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 20 142-081-09 TR 417 LOT 24 N 60 FT ANDN 60 FT LOT 25 142-081-10 TR 417 LOT 24 ALL-EX N 60 FT-(AND ALL-EX N 60 FT- LOT 25 142-081-11 TR 417 LOTS 26&27 142-081-12 N TR 417 LOT 28 142-081-16 N TR 417 LOT 32 142-081-17 N TR 417 LOT 33 142-081-18 TR 417 LOTS 5,6&7 142-081-25 TR 417 LOT 8(AND LOTS 9&10 142-081-26 TR 417 LOT 11(AND LOT 12(AND ALL-EX ST-LOT 13 142-081-27 TR 417 LOT 16 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST-LOTS 17, 18, 29, 30&31 142-081-28 TR 417 LOT 21 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL LOTS 22 & 23-EX ST 142-082-02 TR 417 LOT 34 W 50 FT OF LOT AND W 50 FT OF LOT 35 142-082-22 TR 417 LOTS 42&43 142-082-26 TR 417 LOT 41 AND LOTS 38, 39&40 142-082-27 P BK 25 PG 44 PAR 1 142-082-35 TR 417 LOTS 36, 37 AND POR. OF LOTS 34, 35. 142-083-04 TR 417 LOTS 76&77 142-083-24 TR 417 LOT 71(AND LOTS 72TO 75 INC(AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 70 142-083-25 TR 417 LOT 78 AND LOTS 79-85 INC 142-091-09 TR 417 LOT 106 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 107 142-091-18 TR 417 LOT 119 AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 120 AND ALL-EXSTS-LOT 121 142-091-27 N TR 6234 LOT 1 142-091-32 TR 417 LOT 108 AND LOTS 109 & 110 142-091-33 P BK 227 PG 3 PAR 1 Resolution No.2010-18 IVIap 5 0 �o 1421)81 01 ter' N 107=7$1O6 142-Q81 27 142-fl81 18 1481 N 142 081 26` 107 781 05 - - -- -Aldrid r. -- -Al" ,1_ 07 78T'07 142-082 36 -- _ 107-781-03 142=082=26 1427082 27.:":: 107-7$1-Q4 - - -- - Stark- Dr- - -- Stark Dr. 142-0$3-24. - 142=083-04 107-782'-08- 142-083-25 rn ®lt Dr. - 142-091-09 142-091-32 (� -"- 142-091-27 142-091-33 j� 142-091-18 ac ®nal - r. Resolution No.2010-18 MAP 6 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-401-04 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 NWl/4 SW1/4 107-401-32 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 S 147.6 FT W 303 FT N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4-EX FREEWAY 107-401-33 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4SW1/4 AS PER DD-7231/388 OR 107-401-35 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 107-601-41 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR S1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 AS PER LEASE-1-5912/547 OR 107-601-48 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 1 107-601-49 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 2 142-092-15 TR 417 LOT 142 AND LOTS 143-148 INC 142-101-14 TR 522 LOT 10 BLK A AND LOTS 11-15 INC BLK A 142-102-20 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK B AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 BLK B 142-102-47 TR 522 LOT 17 BLK B AND LOTS 18 THRU 20 ALL IN BLKB 142-102-48 N TR 522 BLK B LOT 30 142-102-49 TR 522 LOT 13 BLK B AND LOTS 14 THRU 16 ALL IN BLKB 142-103-17 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK C(AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 (AND ALL-EX ST-LOT 13(A ND ALL-EX ST-LOT 14 ALL IN BLK 142-173-01 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 142-173-02 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4SE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8355/779 OR 142-462-06 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 2 142-462-09 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 1 Resolution No.2010-18 r. 1y42-,102 20 —4 40i 49 ➢lb 142-102. 7 9hambra ®r. 142=103 17 -- - -- 142-173-02 Rhine - Cir. - � �1 cu ?l42173-01. - 107-40135 107-401732 -' Chrysler Cir. - 07-601 9 142-462-09 -� 107;601"-48CL - - 142-462-06 JM 107-601-41 MAP 7 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-100-67 TR 528 LOT 1 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E--EX FREEWAY-(AND ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY AD 107-100-68 TR 528 LOT 2 BLK A ALL-EX ST& W 29 FT-(AND ALL-EX W 29 FT- LOTS 4/6 BLK A 107-100-70 TR 528 LOT 11 BLK A ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-1 NC E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W- LOT 12 BL 107-100-71 TR 528 LOT 7 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-IN C E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W- LOT 8(ANDEL 107-100-75 N TR 528 BLK A LOT 14 107-100-77 TR 528 BLK A POR ABAND ALLEY 107-100-79 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 1 107-100-80 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 2 107-691-20 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 LOT IN N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 107-691-22 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 (PM48-9 PAR 1 &2) 142-191-01 TR 194 LOT 1 BLK A AND LOTS 2 TO 6 INC BLK A 142-191-12 TR 194 LOTS 101&102 BLK B 142-191-14 TR 194 LOT 118 BLK A(AND LOTS 143, 144 & 169 BLK A(AND LOTS 119 TO 122 INC, & 143 TO 146 INC ALL IN 142-191-15 TR 194 LOT 117 BLK A& LOT 97 BLK B 142-191-23 TR 194 LOT 99 BLK B AND LOTS 100, 103, 114 TO 118 INC, 123 TO 127 INC, 138 TO 142 INC AND ALL LOTS 1 142-191-24 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 98 142-191-27 TR 194 LOT 21 BLK A AND LOTS 22-32 INC BLK A 142-191-33 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 106 0 142-191-34 TR 194 LOT 104 BLK B AND LOTS 105, 111 TO 113 INC,128 TO 130 INC, 135 TO 137 INC AND ALL LOTS 152 TO o 142-191-36 TR 194 BLK A LOT 110 AND BLK A LOTS 111, 112, 123,124 & 125 Z 142-191-40 P BK 165 PG 38 PAR 1 N 142-191-42 TRACT NO 194 BLKA LOTS 119-122,139-142,145-148 AND165-168 0 0 142-191-43 TRACT NO 194 BLK A LOTS 113 TO 116 INC 00 142-191-44 P BK 159 PG 5 PAR 1 142-191-46 TR NO 194 BLK A LOTS 126 TO 129 AND LOTS 106 TO 109 AND POR OF LOTS 105 AND 130 142-191-47 TR 194 BLK A LOTS 41 TO 64 INC, LOTS 67 TO 90 INC & LOTS 93 TO 104 INC- EXSTR 142-481-11 P BK 83 PG 8 PAR 2 142-481-12 P BK 118 PG 16 PAR 2 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 7 --- ---, — - r. cu 7777) - 07 20= Mo®nshadow Corr:- -4 IA 1, 6 22 �42�81 11 e uamask r. ------------ Dr. 142 191„01 edoux_ _ DT.__ 12 191 27- ; r 1'07 1 Q0 79 c � a cU - w 142-191-47 107-1 0-77 - d- Un 107'�100-75 0) Wood/ake Dr. am m 107-100-70 t- ` 42 191-4 142-191-4 107-100-71 i _ �t N �` r 4 - 0 CgCD -4 LV �- MAP 8 2.1.6 Neighborhood Center 165-364-03 TR 436 BLK A LOT 2 POR OFLOT AND BLK A POR OF LOT 3 165-364-04 P BK 100 PG 9 PAR 2 165-364-06 P BK 185 PG 17 PAR 2 165-364-11 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR A 165-364-12 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 1 165-364-13 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 2 165-364-14 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR B 165-364-IS P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 7 165-364.16 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 6 165-364-17 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR D 165-364-18 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 5 165-364-19 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 8 165-364-20 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR C 165.364-21 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 3 165-364-22 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 4 165-364-24 P BK 260 PG 19 PAR 1 165-364-25 PARCEL MAP 260-19 PAR 2 AND PM 185-17 PAR 4 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-225-09 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT N 264 FT E 330 FT N1/2 SE1/4 NEl/4-EX HWY 165-225-10 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 N 132 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NEl/4-EX HWY 165-283-04 TR 436 LOT 1 BLK F FOR OFLOT 165-283-05 TR 436 LOT 2 BLK F ALL-EX W 170 FT 165-283-13 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F S1/2-EX W 150 FT 165-283.14 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F N1/2-EX W 150 FT po 165-283-16 P BK 130 PG 35 PAR 1 165-283-17 TR 436 BLK F LOT 3 POR OFLOT O 167-311-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4(PM 36-34 PAR 2) 167-324-01 N TR 298 LOT 23 O 167-924-04 N TR 298 LOT 17 z 167-324-05 N TR 298 LOT 15 167-324-06 N TR 298 LOT 13 N O 167-324-07 N TR 298 LOT it O 167-324-09 N TR 298 LOT 5 ' 167-324-10 TR 298 LOTS 1&3 00 167-324-11 TR 298 LOT 2 POR OF LOT(AND POR OF LOTS 4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18,20 AND 22 167-324-12 N TR 298 LOT 9 167-324-13 N TR 298 LOT 7 167-324-14 TR 298 LOT 19 AND LOT 21 167-325-15 SEC 25 T 5 R 111 AC IN S1/2 NWl/4 NW1/4 167-325-16 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 430 FT W 300 FT NW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-325-17 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR OF SEC AS DESC IN DD-6985/54SOR 167-325-18 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 230 FT W 300 FT N W 1/4 NW 1/4-EX POR TO ST TO STATE 167-325-19 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 FOR NW1/4NW1/4 167.325-20 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 130 FT W 205 FT NWi/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-325-21 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 IRREG LOTIN S1/2 NWi/4 NWl/4 Resolution No.2010-18 Nlap 8 15-364;:'i t74 y 1f�5 364 12 CD s72 1 1 6&364r 15, 1 5 16 ns7 324-i4 5 364 165.364 17 ° 1sx 65 364-13 77Z xv 165-364 19 &7 Sycamore Dr. - -— 1C��324 m 166=364-20 167 324- --- --- 165 364-22 fz7, 2 -fl9 r -- 155 364.=21 m ° 167`V324�1� -- - - - - . 165 3fi4 0 , 165=384=04 �' 16.5-364-24; 165 364-25 16364=08lys -- " 1Fi7 3�5-�5 r_ s s Dra 165 -83,04 _- 165-283=05 - - - 167- 25 1- 165=283-17 - 165=283 16 165 283-13 - 167.3�5 2T 165-225-10 CO 1C7-31�-02, N Kristen Cir. 165-225-09 MAP 2.1 5 Neighborhood Center 165-321-05 T 5 R 11 SEC 26 NE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4 POR OF SEC- EX STR 167-472-16 TRACT NO 405 LOTS 1 AND 2 1.2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd___...._..W.._.._._..__........ ... .... Segment 165-225-06 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 20 FT N601 FT W 20 FT E 248 FT NE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 165-225-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 165-225-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT N 396 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-234-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 W 127.53 FT S 132 FT E1/4 S1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 165-234-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4-EX FREEWAY&W 127.53 FT 165-234-13 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 E1/4 S1/2SE1/4 NE1/4-EX S 528 FT 165-234-18 P BK 123 PG 22 PAR 1 165-321-06 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 1 165-321-07 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 2 167-311-03 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 2 167-311-04 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 1 167-312-01 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT W 265.37 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO HWY&ST 167-312-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 W 265.37 FT S 160 FT N 320 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-E X HWY 167-312-03 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT S 340 FT W 265.37 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-E X FREEWAY& POR TO LOCKWOOD-6426 167-312-04 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4SW1/4 NW1/4 0 167-312-05 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4DESC AS PARCEL 1 IN DD -6834/340 OR No 167-312-06 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 S 180 FT W 265.37 FT-EX FREEWAY&POR TO DOAN-RUSSELL CO-6834/340 OR o 167-472-03 TR 405 LOT 3 ALL-EX FREEWAY 00 167-472-04 TR 405 LOT 4 NLY 65 FT ELY 113 FT 167-472-05 TR 405 LOT 4 POR OF LOT 167-472-06 TR 405 LOT 4 POR OF LOT 167-472-07 TR 405 LOT 5 ALL-EX HWY Resolution No.2010-18 165-225-08 167-311-03 165-225-07 (� 165-225-06 E� 167-311-04 - - 165-234-13 167-312-01 J - Windy Sea Cir. ----___ 167-312-02 CO 165-234-18 Windy Sands Cir. H312-04 -312-03 - - - 167 --- - - - L N 165-234-07165-234-08 165-321-05 167-472-16 - 165-321-06 167-472-03 - 167-472-�4 167-472-06 N 1167-472-05 165-321-07 167-472-07 S— Q) MAP 10 | --------------- --'-------------------------------------'--------- /��11.5�Neighborhood Center 165-181-35 SEC 26T5R1l522OFTE5A[51/2 SEI/4 SE1/4-EX HwY&5T / �o1.7lueig'borhomdglvd Segment 165 181-36 SEC 26T5 V 11 N zOV FT 320 FT El/2 3E1/4 SE1/4Q[1/4'sX HWY&ALLEY 165-181-37 SEC 28T5Rz1El/2 SE1/4 SEI/4SE1/4-EX S32UFr&wZ2O.V5FT&HWY&ALLEY 165-181-38 SEC 26T5Kzz311UFrw2ZU.OSPTVv228FTE33OFTSEI/4SE1/4SE1/4 165-181-39 SEC Z6TSRzzPOR5E1/4 165'181-40 SEC 26T5nzz FOR S[I/4 165'301-22 SEC 2oT581zVv5OpTs22OFTm2z4FTSE1/4 SEI/4 165'301'23 SEC 26T5Rz1POKNz/ZSEI/4 SEI/4^SDESC|NDo'7930925OR 165'301'24 SEC Z6T5n1z LOT|Nwz/2SE1/4SE1/4 165-3V1'zS 165-3Oz-26 165-3O1-Z7 165-301-28 pmzZS'z0 PAR zpOKOFPAR 165'302-21 Tn3478 LOT zDN1UOFT|w LOT-EX SJ 165-302'22 TK3478 LOT 18 ALL-EX NzUOFr 165'311-16 Tx4z1 LOT zPOnOp LOT AND P0KVp LOT 2 165-311-17 TK41z LOT zPVx|w LOT&S1/2 LOT a 165-31I'17 TK41z LOT 19w933FT|mLOTK\wo FOR N933FTvv3oFT LOT ZD 165'312'18 TK4zz LOT z9mz4OFT|NLOT-EX m93.4FF<xNDw]DFT-EX Sz4VFT&N93.4 FT-LOT 2O 165'312'19 rn411 LOT 19 ALL-EX Nzu0 FT-AND p0nSz4OFTVv3OpT LOT 2O 167'472'08 wTK4V5 LOT G � 167'472'09 wrn405 LOT � 167-472-10 Tn4os LOT 8w746G�T �� � � 167-472-11 rK406 LOT 85B.34Fr 167'472'12 Nz/cTx4V6 LOT 8 167-472-13 Tn4n5 LOT 9 RECTANGULAR LOT|N LOT AND RECTANGULAR LOT|N LOT zU 9~ 167'472'14 Tx4O6 LOT 9P0nOF LOT ASmE6C|N DID'7658/8l4 OR-AND pOn0F LOT zOASDB[|NDo'7658/G24On *v 167-472'15 Tn4US LOT 1UPon0F LOT ASDE5C|woo'7624/4x3On 167'601'01 SEC 25T5R11p0nSvVI/4 167'601-02 pBx244pG48 PAR 4 167'601-03 peKZ44PG48 PAR 3 167'601-14 pm244-48 PAR zPUnOp PAR SURFACE AND S8UFr SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601'15 pxxau4'4o PAR zpOnnF PAR SURFACE AND sOUFT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601'15 pw2«4-48 PAR 6pOxOp PAR SURFACE AND 5DOpT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-17 PMZ44-48 PAR 5POnVFPAR 167'501'I0 P8x2o4PG48 PAR 2 Resolution No.2O|0'|8 MAP 11 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 157-341-01 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NWI/4 157-341-02 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 FOR NW1/4 157-341-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NWI/4 I57-341-04 P BK 39 PG 2 PAR 1 157-341-05 P 8K 24 PG 44 PAR 2 157-341-06 P BK 24 PG 44 PAR 1 157-341-07 P BK 39 PG 2 PAR 2 157-341-08 P BK 38 PG 16 PAR 1 157-352-05 SEC 36 T S R 11 POR NWI/4 159-031-08 SEC 35 T 3 R 11 S 99 FT N1/2 SE1/4 SEI/4 NE1/4-EXPOR TO STATE FOR ST 159-031-10 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 S 125 FT E 348.48 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX ST&FOR TO F REEWAY 159-031-16 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 FOR NE1/4 159-031-17 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 1 159-031-18 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 2 159-031-22 T 5 R 11 SEC 35 POR NEI/4 159-031-23 159-031-24 P M 138-29 PAR 3 AND PAR 4 159-031.01 PM 14-8 PAR 1&2 12 .10 Residential Transition Zone 159-031-01 PM 14-8 PAR I&2 2.1,6 Neighborhood.Center. 157-481-01 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR 2 157-481-02 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR I 157-481-03 SEC 36 T S R 11 N 53 FT S4S1.29 FT W 330 FT NWI/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 157-481-04 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 106 FT N 367.71 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NWI/4(AN D N 53 FT S 292.29 FT W 330 FT NW bi 157481-05 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 1 p 157-481-06 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 2 Ip 157-481-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 92.29 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 00 157-481-08 PM 317-35 PAR I THRU 4 159-141-66 TR 172 BLK C LOT 4 POR OFLOT AND BLK C FOR OF LOT S 5,6,10,16,22,28,34,40,46,52,58,64,70 i2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 159-141-83 TR 172 BLK C LOT 83AND BLK C LOTS 84,89,90,95,96,101,102,107,108,113,114,119,120,125,1 159-271-67 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 159-271-68 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 SI/2 N1/2SEI/4 NE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 155-271-69 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 N1/2 NI/2SEI/4 NE1/4 NEI/4-EX N 82.50 FT&HWY 159-271-73 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 N 82.50 FT OF S1/4 NEI/4 NE1/4 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 11 1 ------__—_ ®falb a57 A81-02 � � 1 SA 131 6fi l 157-481-09 . ,y_ 157-481-03 � 7 A57-481 U$ Dr, 17 a�a os t57 4$1 O6' - :. 159 271 73 Sterling Dr. 0 --- -- - - - C _I . ca N ass 27a sco 7 , V' - - - - - - Kiner Dr. ayI r Dr. CU - - J, ^- L Ta for Dr_ - 159 fl39-07 - - - - - - — - cu _ Q 15�-352-05 ---- - 5�031-24, - _ 1 57-341'01 - - - Bea pin#Cir Forel1e afi8-031-22. - Dr. _. 157-341-02 J 159-031-23' 157-341-03 O - -- N 159 03_'108 N Q. Foxcir. ,5s-03I 1-8" La Palma Dr. — — N -� _ _- ki 1 0) V (n �o h� MAP 12 i 2.,l,.-3—Town-Center-Core 159-091-03 P BK 250 PG 9 PAR 1 159-091-04 TR 7 LOT 1 BLK D AND LOTS2,3&7 AND POR OF LOT 4 ALL IN BLK 0 SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTIC 159-091-05 TR 7 BLK D LOT 5 AND BLK D LOTS 6&8 159-101-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D POR OF LOT SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 157-471-04 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N1/2 NWI/4 NW1/4 SW1/4-EX POR IN DD-7468/631 OR-&STS 157-471-05 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NW1/4 SWI/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-7468/631 OR 157-471-06 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR S1/2 NW1/4 NWI/4 SW1/4 AS PER DD-7263/194 OR 159-092-03 N TR 7 BLK G LOT 5 I59-092-04 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK G 159-092-07 TR 7 BLK G LOT 3 AND BLK G LOT 4 159-101-01 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DO-7833/25S OR 159-10M1 P BK 184 PG 17 PAR 1 159-102-14 TR 7 LOT 19 BLK H S 75 FTN 145.2 FT W 216 FT IN LOT 159-102-18 N TR 598 LOT 17 159-102-19 N TR 598 LOT 16 159-102-20 N TR 598 LOT 15 159-102-21 N TR 598 LOT 14 159-102-29 N TR 598 LOT 6 159-102-30 N TR 598 LOT 5 159-102-35 TR 598 LOT 7 AND LOTS 8-13 INC(PM 126-21 PAR 1) 159-102-36 P BK 150 PG I PAR 1 159-102-43 TR 7 BLK H LOT 4 AND BLK H LOTS 5&6 AND POR OF LOT 3 AND TR 598 LOT 1 (A 159-102-44 TR 598 LOT 2 AND LOTS 3&4 159-102-46 P BK 168 PG 44 PAR 1 0 159-121-02 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G N1/2 z 159-121-03 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G S1/2 159-121-28 0 159-121-30 P M 175-07 PAR 2 POR OF PAR 159-121-31 PARCEL MAPS 175 PG 8 LOT 1 00 159-262-01 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK F 159-262-02 N TR 7 BLK F LOT 3 159-262-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF ALL-EX S 126,58 FT&ST 159-262-04 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF SLY 126.58 FT-EX ST 159-262-05 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 1 159-262-06 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 2 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-1-21-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2-EXST MAP 12 l__ ..Residential Required(2.14) 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2 -EXST 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 157-451-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4(P M 6-43 PAR 1) 157-451-08 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 157-451-09 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N 65 FT E243 FT W 331 FT N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4-EX ST 157-452-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 200 FT W 238 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4-EX STS 157-452-34 P BK 92 PG 26 PAR 2 157-452-35 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 3 157-452-36 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 1 157-452-37 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 2 157-452-38 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 4 157-471-30 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 157-471-31 T 5 R 11 SEC 36 POR SW1/4 159-102-06 TR 7 LOT 7 BLK H ALL-EX ST- (P.M. 30-44 PAR. 1 & 2) 159-102-07 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H N 100 FTIN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST o 159-102-08 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H S 50 FT-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST-LOTS 9/10 BLK H Z 159-111-01 TR 7 LOT 11 BLK H N 37.5 FT IN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST ° N 159-111-04 TR 7 LOT 12 BLK H ALL-EXELY 14 FT FOR ST o 159-111-05 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H N 125 FT E 170 FT IN LOT-EX PORTO STATE FOR ST 0:-• 00 159-111-06 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H ALL-EXN 125 FT E 170 FT& POR TO STATE FOR ST-(AND ALL-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST- L 159-111-07 TR 7 LOT 15 BLK H N 50 FTIN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST 159-111-08 159-111-09 159-111-10 159-111-21 N TR 7 BLK H LOT 18 159-111-22 TRACT 7 BLK H LOT 11 S 112.50 FT IN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST 17 Map 12 - - - - 15&101 Oa 157 471 05 Brookwood Dr. ; .15&102.01 158+091 Oq 157-471-04: � I J� Rapids U 158.102w43 15Z-471 Ob i J fs 1 Whiiewater Dr, 11 1ss 1oz ss p; est I 159491'03 I =i Amberleaf Cir. i ".169 102 36, 157 471.31 Z3, 159 102 14 O 158 092 07 0.{ ... $a9ew0;d D 159 102 07 D 9 < , �'ab9 102 48.. Gai�ad► Dr. r B r. a I m 15747140 � r092 04 15&D82-03 159 f 02 Ob' U Lindenw,00d Dr., 157-461-09 w' Prss��oq Dr. L �159-111-01' M 157 451=08 � 159 121 28 �. � C j:- `• (58 282 159-111-22 .- Sllkwood,C c �( 169121 38 157 45107,'V =' O ,5928202 Constantine Dr. R LL 1 1 3 15&111A5 �. -02 o CIO 157-452 84 3". a� 158 8�Ot , 169-721 3Q- i. 159111 06-' 0 i !IS&2�2 O6; 15Q 121eQ3 I �1 - 159 121 28 i .Pelin CIL. :�159 111 08' 157 452=35 . �1 - 1` Monte Cristo Ln; - - Shaffer Cir. 157r452 38 - �t 1 I "Timber Cir. i � N 157-452-38, V i ,)0l, _ n P_Qlnt Dri W i L'l11-21 E15i452-03 q MAP 13 12.1.6 Neighborhood Center 159-161-24 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 1 159-161-25 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 2 159-161-26 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 3 159-161-27 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 4 2,11.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-180-06 TR 837 LOT BLK C POR OFBLK 025-180-13 TR 837 LOT BLK C W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX N 70 FT&S 155 FT 025-180-14 TR 837 LOT BLK C N 55 FT S 155 FT WLY 125 FT ELY145 FT 025-180-21 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT ELK 2508 POR OF BLK 025-180-23 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2508 POR OF BLK AND POR OF BLK 2507 025-180-24 TR 837 LOT BLK C 5 92 FT W 125 FT E 145 FT 025-180-25 TR 837 LOT BLK C S 100 FT W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX S 92 FT 025-181-36 TR 837 BLK A LOT I AND BLK A LOTS 2 THRU 7&LOT 26 025-182-22 TR 837 BLK B LOT 3 AND S 45 FT LOT 26 BLK B 025-182-32 P BK 238 PG I PAR 1 025-182-33 TRACT NO 837 BLK B LOTS 4TO 6 INC 153-041-13 SEC I T 6 R 11 N 54.76 FTS 1808.28 FT W S30 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-14 SEC I T 6 R 11 N 109.52 FT S 1753.52 FT W 530 FT NWI/4-EX ST 153-041-15 SEC I T 6 R 11 N 82.20 FTS 1644 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-16 SEC I T 6 R 11 N 100 FT SIS61.80 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-17 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 328.8 FTS 1561.8 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX N 100 FT&ST 153-041-18 P BK 122 PG I PAR 2 153-041-28 P.M.122-1 PAR 4 AND POR PAR 3 153-041-29 P.M.122-1 PAR 3 POR OF PAR 153-041-34 P BK 324 PG 40 PAR 1 IS3-OSI-08 SEC I T 6 R 11 N 123.3 FTS 822 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-09 SEC I T 6 R 11 N 123.3 FTS 698.7 FT W 530 FT NWI/4-EX ST 153-051-10 SEC I T 6 R 11 N 245.4 FTS 575.4 FT W 530 FT NWI/4-EX ST 153-051-11 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 100 FT 5330 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-14 SEC I T 6 R 11 W 25 FT E 100 FT W 430 FT S 230 FT SW1/4 NW1/4 AND S 230 FT E 170 FT W 330 FT NWI/4 00 153-051-15 SEC I T 6 R 11 N SO FT S 230 FT W 200 FT SW1/4 OF NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-16 SEC I T 6 R 11 RECTANG LOT IN SW1/4 NW1/4 153-051-17 SEC I T 6 R 11 IRREG LOT IN NWI/4 153-OS1-18 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR I 153-OSI-19 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR 2 153-051-24 T 6 R 11 SEC 1 POR NW1/4 153-051-25 SEC I T 6 R 11 POR OF NW1/4 OF SEC 1 159-161-04 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2908 ALL-EX ST I59-161-29 EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 3008 Resolution No.2010-18 Map 13 777 N- - -- - - - 159161 2�5' 153_-041 64 - o Nomad Cir. Surfline Dr. tjl 158,161 24 t, — 153.041-18, c C J Islandview a earharbor Dr. E;a�Rbow_Cir L m 159 161 26: m t3 + - 159 161 27 — — Baymist Dr. - - - Wadebri 159-161-29 - " 153-041-13 - 153-041-14 �J:• U)= -- 153-041-15 ^ (� C 159-161-04 _ 70 a > 153-041-16 - - - - 153-041-17 Clad Ave. Fal - - - - - - 025-181-36 153-051-24 -"-- ___ _Terrac�-Cir. - - - Owen Dr. 153-051-25 J - - 025-182-32 - J ana ---_ _ 025-182-22 153-051-18 153-051-19 Ir. 153-051-08 i Oryh O ' ---- -- ' - - Williams Dr. � - - - -_ - _ 153-051-09 025-180- 025-180 3 4j 025-180-25 025-180- 4 153-051-10 -U) 025-180-24 - - --- (u 025-180-23 153-051-11 - C 1 E 3-051-15 ,yo N Wenlock Cir. - .�9z 153-051-14 Oyh C _ u> 15 051-17 MAPi4 12.1.5 Neighborhood Center ---����������`�����...�. �������`������������������ 153-091,19 PBK158PG4] PAR 1 153'091'30 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 2 153-091-21 P8K168PG43 PAR 3 153'091'22 P8K15DPG43 PAR 4 153'091'23 PBK158PG43 PAR S 153-091-I5 PBK1S8PG43 PAR 7 153-091'26 PBK1S8pG43 PAR 8 153'091-27 PBK15OPG43 PAR 9 153-091'28 P8K1S8PG43 PAR 1O 153'091-31 PBK20lPG15 PAR 1 153-091-32 PBK201PG1S PAR Z ! --- ---------------'-------'----'- ---------- -----------------------------------' ��.i. Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025'101-03 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 8LKZ388 825'191-32 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK21ODP0ROFGLK 025-181-4I EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 8LK21D8POROFBLK 025-191'43 P BK 43 PG 18 PAR 1 025-191'51 P8Kl64PG18 PAR 1 025-191-53 PARCEL MAP 109-9 PAR 2 POR OF PAR AND ALL PAR I AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2408 FOR OF BLK 025-191'54 PK41O9-9 PAR 2 FOR OF PAR AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK240DPOROFBLK 025-200'50 SLY 168FT EAST SIDE VILLA TRBLK1708 � 025-200-51 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK1708POROF8LK z 9 025'200'61 PBK]SPQ47 PAR 1 025'200-62 P BK 35 PG 47 PAR 2 025-200'63 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 8LK2OO8POROF8LK -� 00 025-200'64 EAST SIDE VILLA TRBLK20O8S1/ZOF SAID BLK 025-200'68 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1D08POROFLOT 025-200'69 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1707PDROF LOT AND FOR DF LOT 17O8 025-200-72 EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT LOT 1988PORQF LOT& POROF LOT 1D08&TRACT l916 LOTS O,9, 1O,QPDR0FLOT 153'091-05 SEC 1T6RIl |RR[GJJOACK4/L|NNVV1/45VV1/4 153'091'06 SEC 1T6R11PDRSVV1/4ASDE3[|NDD-7376/370OR 153'09I'17 T6R11 SEC 1 FOR SVV1/4 Resolution No.2010-18 -- - - - - Map 14 ' 153-0s1-06 -- — 153-091-05 o _ - ----- --- 025=191-03 153-091-17 �� 025191-51: 153-091-21 " --_ - --- - 025-191- '�____ _- --- 025-191' 9� rn 3 -- �^ 153-091-19 LU c 1h3 _lJtlGa_AV N fi25-200-62 $ , 025-20"3- 025 200 61 CD 153-091-3 025=200-64 025-200-72 - - h -- oiry 0 Altamar Dr. - 153-091-20 025-200-68 153-091-27 h° - Boa N a Cir. 153-091-28 025-200 69 ooya 8VAPY5 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-143'10 SEC 11T6R11PORNI/2NE1/4NE1/4NE1/4 ASDESC|NDD-7565/757OR 151-28I'03 SEC 12T6R11PORNVV1/4NVV1/4A3 PER LEASE'6734/643OR 151'282'26 T6R11 SEC 12pORNVV1/4 151-282'27 PBK247PG35 PAR 2 151'282'28 P BK 247 PG 36 PAR 1 151'282-31 P8K1OUPG15 PAR 1 151'282'32 P8K18OP616 PAR 3 151-282-33 PBK180PG16 PAR 2 |'-_---___ ______--- '_-__ _ �2.1.9 Residential Parkway Segment 025'171-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT ABLK1OODS1SOFTN270FTE10FT-EX ST'A\NDS1S0FTNI70FT-EX ST5- LOT 025'171-10 VISTA DEL MAR TRBLK1OO8LOTAPOROF LOT AND BLK10OOPOROF LOT B 025-172-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT ABLK9O8 ALL-EX PORS |N8TS-/AND ALL-INC PORA8ANSTACU--EX PC}RS INSTS- L 151-293-38 SEC 1ZT6R11PORNVV1/4 151'393'39 SEC 12T6R11PORNVV1/4 151'293-42 P.M. 35-2GPCLSZ AND 3 � p � ^� = i f Hillcrest Cir. rC" Anna Ln. , l a � Florida St. �D w� �- m y �� CD' ;� Pacific �(D Cove Ln. B�o .`' '� A� k i; ac ba C r. � Arrow Ln. } w Shor crest Ln. Georgia St. ; m Lakeside Ln. S,umm6rview Ln - - 025 172-06 025-171-06 f" Beach Blvd. �822 l+ 1 W O 4 Seven S Cent r v , Seas h. U- jejo e-sfOne Dr alb �p . . .nos, Seal ont Ln: - -p Brldgesi�� gayfront Ln._ � _ I'm Sealpoint.Ln. ` Somerville Ln. ( 1 1 Billingsgate Ln: �; i MAP 16 �2.1.6 Neighborhood Center 148-021-12 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-14 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-15 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-17 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-18 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4(=PM BK 44 PG 40 PARS. 1 & 2) 148-021-19 P BK 25 PG 27 PAR 2 i 2.1.9 Residential Parkway Segment 151-351-14 N TR 12820 LOT 1 151-351-43 N TR 15816 LOT B c� 0 c o' z 0 N O O 00 Resolution No.2010-18 o w caCL - --- Map 16 m o Sunset Cir;: - - CU 151 351 14` - Coral Ln. - - --- __ - - IVI u-rna_Dr. ca t6 - —- -- Bluefin Ln. cu 2 Sep 0 cc U Z m Mermaid Ln. - - Stinson r. - --- _ Evel - J J ---- "-- Shell Cir. _-- ___, O L U L' - - - to -- 0 O -- :«_ - U _ ... U) -- Beachcomber Dr. c a - - oleta Po\�" U - Om -- 148-021-18, - � Wildwood Cir. - Waterfall Cir. o 148=021-17 Whitestone Dr. J � 0 c Pennington Dr. 148-021-12' J o - 0 Seawall Cir. N p " Q- 9 3 co to N L v Woolburn Dr. O . r 5 O . :148-:q2:1-114 0 �- Southwind Cir. 0. 148-021-15 L, VJ Eastport Dr. Y - N00 Moonmi st CIr o. w - ,; iu U Deerfield Dr. Resolution=No. 20 � I8 CIA- 00 0. Coif aa I6G ••� 8A • o � RSA �• •G 4G 8B Bi- 88 88 5E ! � dy.. 31 4G 86 + g 9 4G— JIG 8B 9088_y 8B 9AB 90 8B • 8B-i- 9F ( 8B 8B 90 6D. A-1 • 4G � a —8B R 4G 4G-► 8B 8A R4G 6G 8B G-► ` 9D ~88 'mac 4G 4 ,7C 7A 8B _ = 4G "- 4G 4G 6G 9F r ____ _3______- -- ---�- - c ce an ss . pacr.®...gym..® • Pacific - - - \4J®, Coast Highway .. 41 9 Resolution No.2010-18 � -)� v4 �,�!7 S Y 3,Yt t � ♦ f'm•YY �ti s w,. �zt s r � =����O..w, i4v,F _ s.;ds°�� t ap�,s= acF cZ9 iS E I S St,Ir11Q= `r •E }A ��' \L ..�-i �� ��-�/�I �ci� i �ri unij'rg q,,r��=a xn^�8�s ��,�r w��°?•'S!+'77_'1•_�.E� r �S _. ra �- c~ -i7:Q Y `�,�`mfi s t � b� Z @ , i U A e .Yf ♦e 3..., :F t rc,�-�� / _:., n ��n � � i§ e Z• a �'N 'r ;St"runU, ti I n ~;R'Arl � i�� �x�5/,"��5�{I Sa 1: S�z�,Yuss"�� = x=c � _s: �■ E.R�§5�, ! R .e \1���;d :r r �1 �' .e um reY rY '���. in Yy��S. E i� t'S��s's' a•.fl... -� ICS ..� c�a /�, �£ �� 6 -.• s$°!Y ACI$,5 s =^'T- )z 1� s a �"3 a^- x??��. _ `- �. es1E^:l�'_lssf_!'i.T'_' a.;.C�>tC� � .rr' g •a.f�'g .. r - �—y3ii= c LS�.=x3�'A �u,i Zar�x �.�ri'c'-5. �.ty z �.- ai ' c�...,�• _ �■ _ -c_;g ..�ti,Tl�„ .rlSr�j'3i- _�. —y�'j=Cr'r l�^�,t��/'�i Yir a ��Y mrs' fR�M�S��3- 7Pc � a Y J... ,s�6nnn�'u7. '�s 'n S'h.�r� -,w.s es._o.,,:r. a:.•...,..,.:+"'lia:Si l�. � c� �:i t ';'.. +yS� PA. ro to=::6 • unc. +..� r� Y s t .•r. _ ,,q..,T„L.P; 4 �... a , :y '4 ....,Y' ,� YY $,yx 3.y .a •g1111� .rS..�, Y� _ 2�-' ,',in s'c�se � 3e �LE. /° ° z./S ♦ / ❑ is �,• A rl 1111 -Cs8444 S k q € i i y,•.,y .8° 'li�T1- ii „i—�_ jYu. y 2i".� •, a ..^.�� 1'�G�.�f I ,� a=ii SU.Es��y't ilr+_ �"3'nk:. S���:�;+. ?i. + - � � °� � r, 6a .' G _.'s+• ,. f f� /7rl 3y,�A S _+r � ... y( .�.�"rT - x qa, k�i�c� 5 Y N. ~. + `l .� i • O -.l+.i11Sr1r rY -!Yt.0 ��V�"tr .a �_ ,Svj E z � s. rY e. �� ; Y:` r ,,✓��.. � � ,'b` �/[ �a x -¢cE;;��S=1 S' S z x' S, E s o�y. t � ��' �� 1 xo �5 g".51H i,.i: x t ri.. �.J E p 4 ►.�„1 1. ti, �r- .;: a ' nn,r8 f I y xe at I f^'• � �� �q .� f I n ^ M I • I r - �¢gi f , • -,i °� o � �;t >=P r r ��� SAP t'•., �-!3E";,,E � n � 3 i r-Yj,Aj � � ~. � ,..ni � 3 i Y f t k 1 _- t Gx::FEI [_� -. CIL 3 r FF (� 1 r� 1 s � g �I E� ■1 � a: rNlz � F r 4- ..<a a ..s si(F 11.;a1 .+t,I.0 !a r . ...-;�> �. ,-� � r•fd't e:'��bl tl �YsS r�f.� ail. IrP �, - J'L k Ir Iu 8 t� i �zt $�I�r It�tr�3 � ,i.J':,P 6i�'.,..�,�`i. ;.9.,i,.• I y�i9 gg�:;l FI{µ � I f I� ;_v iP c �,ivie.I ra,�l:t�. s;�, I ., t y - : ) q;l I �f ,Y �I._ h-" nnn � fin �1 a. p � , ••�nf�no irnnm , 1' a3." fl-_',i�fi � 1 '•+:-. ii � ,� , ii'. II�N �� n q,�r t5-Y S1� ... �°S. '.-' �. a d .n, � � � � _Y t r��• P �u�z Ea�t�r�, ac, ,l, rm - n • I a r ^,.^ ;, . : - �. .. � :,.. s� �� 3, Y 3 - 4n,: ui Y moii�i8 .i.ru' •/ r. �01 i. � •i es2,�c �i c'iw � � a 9�'h� aE• 1!i.� � L'a' �, sc s.x.- �� a. ,� n�- • c rrn�t �.,v F..i� :5 � i't e � .Y, • r - vsA - v 1�A' f15 - i,YS, f �.@ 1 , • r Resolution No.2010-18 Resolution No.2010-18 CommuNCTY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 Wont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les 5 Cato Commercial Regional('CW') Region sen,ing coornmer-eial uses, including"big box2'r-etail uses permitted-by Corridor the"GR2'land., ...,to. PensrtensEt3` "J F2" 0 Height: th ee(3)-stones Category: Special Design(-_a-7 Development o ..a site development as a cohesive and integrated nto • Mitigate noise and vehicular knpaets that may occur on ,adjae residential neighbor-hoods7 9 hnplement ex4ensiye streetscape improvements-"landscape.,signage, l:ThAing etc.).,long Edinger. 5D Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") "Old World" Community-serving commercial uses, motel/bed and breakfast, restaurants, cultural facilities, and similar uses (as permitted by the "CG" land use category)and free-standing multi-family housing. Density/Intensity Category: "-F2/45" • Motel: 12 units • Height: three(3)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development • New development shall be designed to be consistent with the style of existing buildings. ® Provide pedestrian linkages to uses within the subarea and adjacent centers. "Student Eommclntty-serving coFimnercial-uses permitted by-the "Ca" land--¢se Center-" Eatteg9Pf_ Density,ftntensity Eateg9i3,.:_F!__ 0 Height. zy stories Design and Gategor7- Special nosig pLdL) Development • Design and site development to achieve a 1-1niffied-"-village"environ mein (as defined by Policy i U 10 1 12) 0 Locate buildings aFotmd common Go. ds and pedestrian areas-. • il' o the development of office uses n the f.-st floo • Establish pedestrian li..L...es tom,-Golden West College .,i,..d µd a sat College j........ regional commercial centciT THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1I-LU-57 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles Transit calm •,u:ty se i — :al l aV peFtaitted by the !'e....,.e. 1 Gene 1 ce )land("rr" ^.^..'l.'use Gat�veb"'J a"�''d ihmairt related cr yr�. - Eategel-y: " F8" o Height; four(4)stories Design and C;to Special De (« X) Development • Design tc.._,integrate roommer-cial and transit oriented uses and f litre 0 Cluster builditigs on eommonArallc",ays,open spaces,an"r plazas. lncer-por-ate unifying design elements(signage, street. a archit-ect- design, l ® Iipk T,ans t Center-with adjacent par-eels in the Regional 1 Core Design structures to be compatible with 4aoent r-esidenfial uses. 6 Area wide Provide for the evolution of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Beach and Functional hole corridors into a series of distinct commercial, mixed-use, and residential Edinger nodeseenters and segments. Develop a high level of design identity for Boulevard each nodecenter and seg ent,which improves the visual character of the Corridors Boulevarlcorridors and establishes a unique "sense of place." Facilitate pedestrian activity within each to minimize the need for automobile travel among individual uses. Permitted Uses Category: Mixed Use("M") Single uses containing commercial or residential uses and mixed uses pursuant to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(SP 14) Densi / Pursuant to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP Intensi 14) Design and Category: Special Design("-d") Development Require conformance with the SP 14 6A egot ,. Commercial Office<«Cv»> SWC o Uses pem+iaedby the"CO"land use c tegor, Beach and Warner Density/Intensity Category: =F3" a Height: per-existing strucitues Design and Cute Special Des (« dl') Development a Design additional uses and stmetwes to complement existing swacPares, THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 11-LU-58 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT Design and site stpaetwes to maintain pedestrian activity. where--feasible,, THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-59 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les 6B Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG");and Mixed Use-Vertical Integration Beach of Housing("MV") Warner area Commercial and community-serving commercial uses permitted by the Commercial General("CG")land use category. Density/Intensity Category: "-F 13";and"-F8" • Height: four(4)stories Design and Category: Special Design("-d"),Automobile District("-a") Development • Establish a unified"village" character, using consistent architecture and highly articulated facades and building masses, and siting buildings around common courtyards and pedestrian areas. • Locate buildings along the Beach and Warner street frontages and incorporate a visual landmark at the intersection (signage, landscape, architectural element,etc.). • Require vertical setbacks of structures above the second floor. • Limit access to and from Beach Boulevard, clustering driveways and entrances as feasible for multiple businesses. • Provide pedestrian linkages with surrounding residential and commercial areas_ • Encourage the creation of an automobile district. Five Points Commercial uses permitted by the"CG"v-__imcaa d use-cat Densitytensity EaategoFy: " Fz" ® Reigiit-. t ,.yam,('2�cZ3)stories Design and zsiegory_Special Design C' dL) Developm Establish a upAfied" " char-aeter-, using consistent ar-c-hitec4tre and highl articulated facades d bu ldi masses, and siting buildings i to..,-.,to new be consistent with ist;ng struct..,- •—�i hieve high lr-revel o.f development.,t quality y accord �withPolk -u"�gT 10 z LU >.�v-rv1-� � THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN 1I-LU-60 Resolution No.2010-18 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER LAND USE ELEMENT TABLE LU-4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Princi les 6D Permitted Uses Cate....r.,. 1\,Tiwd Use C*X'l Five Points and suppet4ing retail conuner-cial > offices, Medieal :tted by the Commercial C'CO") land ate congegate i� ",> Center . Density,ttntensity Categery— 34P • Height:• four(A)stories Design and Caftory! SPeci€e—PlaftC'sp') Develgpmen • Require the . e retie of and development in coonfoFfflance .,.:tspecifie or-master plan. • Wegr.,te ,development with :sting to ensure compatibility. ® De..0 ife vertical setback of building he4,4ts .,long the peripheral streer frontages,e*eept Main Str ,.,here feasible- 6F, Permitted Uses Category: !`s....,„ere:el Office�'CO'\ Office ode Uses permitted by the"GO"land use eateSviT (Adams York Densit)Antensity Category • Heights four(4)stories .Design a-nd ® Design to be consistent in .,le and ar-ehitectu fal .-karate.--with a i ting Development stye es. Require yert:eel sethoek of elevations above the second st.,r,. • Limit e e s to and fFem Beach Boulevard, clustering dr-iyeways ena 6F Permitted Uses Ca egor.,. r,,nu ereial General("CG') Newland Commemial uses pefmitted by the"GG"land use category, Center ty Eategety; " F l-' • Height: two(2)stories Design and Cuteuse d,Sp al Design<' > Development Ties:.,-., struuetu,res t...., .,rota+:the sele and ehar-aeter of the.,.jace.,t Heritage YY����"`''����`` �clrlc THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-6 I Res. No. 2010-18 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 1, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Coerper, Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen NOES: Hardy, Green ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CiU Clerk and ex-offici Jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #3 ORDINANCE NO. 3874 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING DISTRICT MAPS iZ, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z,25Z,26Z,27Z, 30Z, 31Z, 39Z,AND 40Z OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOR REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN PROJECT(SP 14)ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 WHEREAS, pursuant to California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002, which establishes the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(SP 14);and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council has determined that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby ordains as follows: I. That the real property that is the subject of this ordinance is generally known as the Edinger Avenue and Beach Boulevard corridors, and is more particularly described in the map attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by this reference. 2. That the Zoning Map of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to reflect Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 (establishing the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan SP 14) adopted by separate Resolution, and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08- 002 as described herein. The Director of Planning and Building is hereby directed to prepare and file amended maps for District Maps 1Z, 2Z, 12Z, 13Z, 14Z, 15Z, 17Z, 25Z, 26Z, 27Z, 30Z, 31Z, 39Z, and 40Z of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 15th day of March , 2010 ay ATTEST: INITI TED AND APPROVED: Ci lerk Director of Planning and Bu ding REVIE D APPROVED: ikCA ,MOVED AS TO FORM: City m' trator y Attorney µ1/' /- / - b ATTACHMENT: Exhibit A - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Map 09-2348/42577 Ordinance No. 3874 II II _ Proposed Beach Edinger - � Specific Plan Area City of Huntington Beach Edinger Ave. Beach Blvd. §ffr Warner Ave. 1� N Su ityti F Talbert Ave. A Main St./Ellis Ave. - "m*��' 54 �5 �e (�" T�,..,...7-1 OR . I IE }4�1 _U�3[�� if t'`4 MD... 01 MUM Ai Ya NMI `�4n Ord, No. 3574 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 1,2010, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 15,2010, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Carchio, Coerper, Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen NOES: Hardy, Green ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1,Joan L.Flynn,CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council,do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on March 25,2010. In accordance with the City Charter of said City a _ Joan L. Flynn,City Cler Cuy Clerk and ex-offici lerk Senior Deputy City Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #4 RESOLUTION NO. 2010-19 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 ESTABLISHING THE BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN(SP 14) WHEREAS, pursuant to the State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and the Huntington Beach City Council have held separate public hearings relative to Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002, wherein both bodies have carefully considered all information presented at said hearings, and After due consideration of the findings and recommendation of the Planning Commission and all evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council finds that such zone change is proper and consistent with the General Plan. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach resolves as follows: SECTION 1: The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan is consistent with the adopted Land Use Element of the General Plan, and other applicable policies and is compatible with surrounding development. SECTION 2: The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan enhances the potential for superior urban design through Form Based Code development criteria in comparison with the development standards under the base district provisions that would apply if the Plan were not approved. SECTION 3: The deviations from the base district provisions that otherwise would apply are justified by the compensating benefits of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. SECTION 4: The Specific Plan includes adequate provisions for utilities, services and emergency vehicle access and public service demands and pursuant to the EIR mitigation measures will not exceed the capacity of existing and planned systems. SECTION 5: That the real property that is the subject of this Resolution(hereinafter referred to as the "Specific Plan Boundary-Exhibit B") extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street and is more particularly described in the legal description and map attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 09-2348-002/42578 1 Resolution No.2010-19 SECTION 6: Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as thoroughly set forth herein, is hereby adopted and approved. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1st day of March 20 10 Ail; a r REVIE ND APPROVED: INITI TED ND APPROVED: cam City d i istrator Director of Planning and B ilding APPROVED AS TO FORM: ty Atto ey / ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Specific Plan No. 14- Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Exhibit B: Project Area Map and Legal 09-2348.002/42578 2 Resolution No.2010-19 Resolution No.2010-19 EXHIBIT A DRAFT SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 14 COPIES ARE AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, CENTRAL LIBRARY AND THE CITY WEBSITE AT www.suirfcity-hb.oirg/goveirnment/de]g i tm ent s/Wa nni g Resolution No.2010-19 KeSOlution No. YM-19 Proposed Beach Edinger Specific Plan Area City of Huntington Beach [_A ------------- Edinger Ave. 31, ---------- Iv7d -JBeach B 74� q�ff T. itm Warner Aved WL N fill SU ily w E Talbert Ave. S -Main St./Eliis Ave. !!EL —WEURYM 6 W'A ;9RA.FM & ONE M13 N I WINT: Ell IN' 7W V! 0.2 A r RIKENSIN COL__, _N FA Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 1 2.1.10 Residential Transition Zone 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T S R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN DID-8692/842 OR 146-463-22 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-131-05 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 1 142-131-10 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 6 142-131-11 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 7 146-463-18 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN DID-8692/842 OR 146-463-25 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-131-04 TR 6181 LOT 286 N 150 FT W 150 FT 142-131-06 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 2 142-131-07 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 3 142-131-09 P BK 98 PG 1 PAR 5 142-131-12 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 1 142-131-13 P BK 153 PG 26 PAR 2 145-252-54 TR 4138 LOT A 145-252-61 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 LOT IN SE1/4 SE1/4 145-252-63 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-64 SEC 15 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 145-252-65 E 188 FT OF S 185 FT SEC 15 T 5 R 11 146-463-14 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 146-463-16 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4NE1/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-8538/684 OR 146-463-20 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 146-463-24 SEC 22 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 I i F_ ,n —1 1 Molo�beam Dr). Map I cn annon Dr. 0 Retherford Dr. _TT oltBreeland Dr. W145-252-54 ......... ..... c) I cc 0 LL 14 145-252-64, 5`�-6 Edinger A, 146-,� 4 2� 41 i `61`12 42- - 14 g iT .1111,U 6. .......... 11`10 146-463 LI > �_L,_ LLL Bluesails Dr. c: _J _T_ I F_ _J L -4-A ' Nyanza Dr. 0': 0 Stonewood Dr. >i urelhurst Dr. U) I Candlelight Cir. Bou jet Dr. -Dr. _0 ht Cir. 10 0 T--- Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 2 2.1.3 Town Center-Core 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR SEC (POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 (POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074-05 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 LOT IN SE1/4 SW1/4 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 142-074-01 142-074-02 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR SEC(POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 (POR. PAR A OF LLA 02/0954206.) 142-074-04 SEC 14 T 5 R 118.99 AC M/L IN SE1/4 SW1/4 142-074-06 PM 211-25 PAR 1 POR OF PAR 142-074-07 142-074-08 142-074-09 142-074-10 142-074-11 142-074-12 PM 211-25 PAR 1 FOR OF PAR 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-072-06 P BK 32 PG 48 PAR 1 142-072-08 P BK 44 PG 11 PAR 2 142-072-09 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 FOR SW1/4(P M 44-11 PAR 1) 142-321-13 TR 4064 LOT 8 POR OF LOT(P M 5-36 PAR 2) 142-321-10 142-321-01 N TR 4064 LOT 7 142-511-04 TR 4064 LOT 1 FOR OF LOT 142-511-03 TR 4064 LOT 1 FOR OF LOT 142-511-02 142-511-05 TR 4064 LOT 1 S 182 FT W 316.70 FT 142-321-02 N TR 4064 LOT 6 142-321-12 142-511-01 Railroad -- -- 142-074-08 -7 ;, Map 2 � 142- - e 142 074 07� N , = 1}42-07412 ,t f "04 t:�+ "%. ,� �'� �a ,�+,e S.�?,g '� '^t°4•$`f� ,,y..;.gyp A.pp."",� a - '� ✓" O WS ., �~ 1_ . 't iy f o CN 142-074 04 �j 1'42-072-08.. x, x. �. w . � iC� 4 ,S 'w�b�'`e '_' .. � .�•. :.i�'^� r� �"�'"� 1, �'_ �; K��, 8 f,��`�''�'rrrh'�"1'.• �� �i.� 142-072-06. �f m ' �'�' v.y°tt•,>x §y 5 ... 142-072-09 142.074-05 = ' er Ave. -� li v r," ,. e ni 142 511-04 } u ,1,42,321��01 :. 142-511 03 , '142 r32l1-10 2 1,02: 1 4 ' 142 511 05 bar t Al 42.32,1 142 321 ,12 f4 k.• ff+. i i 2 Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 3 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 142-073-02 SEC 14 T 5 R 11 IRREG 3.05 AC M/L IN NE1/4 SW1/4 SEC 142-073-01 Railroad 142-073-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 2.14 Residential Required 142-073-03 T 5 R 11 SEC 14 POR S1/2 eso a ion N o. -19 Map 3 . ......... 401 TY r y � M r' w � �F , 1 Ci- 142 2 — .a. kx NMI AS F r E,. Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 4 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 142-111-18 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NE1/4 AS PER LEASE-1_5966/843 OR 142-111-27 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 W 126 FT E 340 FT N 630 FT NW1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 142-111-32 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 142-111-33 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-34 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 142-111-39 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 2 142-111-42 P BK 189 PG 31 PAR 1 142-112-05 P BK 3 PG 50 PAR 1 142-112-08 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-09 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 142-112-10 P M 003-50 PAR 2 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY Map 4 Ell Edinger Ave. n= 94211205 1111-18 142 111 42. .,, 142'112,09 142-111-34 142 112-10 t� eNA, •<,�,' .�,. i E ;"} "'}�. �` '�'� " .1 -39° I ! L J Volga Dr. U) t � JE, I Amazon Dr. N - 17 Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 5 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-781-03 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 2 107-781-04 P BK 51 PG 48 PAR 1 107-781-05 PM 61-2 PAR A POR OF PAR 107-781-06 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR B 107-781-07 P BK 61 PG 2 PAR C 107-782-08 PARCEL MAP 49-45 PARS 1 AND 2 142-081-01 TR 417 LOTS 1 TO 4 INC 142-081-02 TR 417 LOT 14 ALL-EX ST 142-081-03 TR 417 LOT 15 ALL-EX ST 142-081-06 TR 417 LOT 19 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 20 142-081-09 TR 417 LOT 24 N 60 FT ANDN 60 FT LOT 25 142-081-10 TR 417 LOT 24 ALL-EX N 60 FT-(AND ALL-EX N 60 FT- LOT 25 142-081-11 TR 417 LOTS 26&27 142-081-12 N TR 417 LOT 28 142-081-16 N TR 417 LOT 32 142-081-17 N TR 417 LOT 33 142-081-18 TR 417 LOTS 5,6&7 142-081-25 TR 417 LOT 8(AND LOTS 9 &10 142-081-26 TR 417 LOT 11(AND LOT 12(AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 13 142-081-27 TR 417 LOT 16 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOTS 17, 18, 29, 30& 31 142-081-28 TR 417 LOT 21 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL LOTS 22 & 23 -EX ST 142-082-02 TR 417 LOT 34 W 50 FT OF LOT AND W 50 FT OF LOT 35 142-082-22 TR 417 LOTS 42&43 142-082-26 TR 417 LOT 41 AND LOTS 38, 39 &40 142-082-27 P BK 25 PG 44 PAR 1 142-082-35 TR 417 LOTS 36, 37 AND POR. OF LOTS 34, 35. 142-083-04 TR 417 LOTS 76&77 142-083-24 TR 417 LOT 71(AND LOTS 72TO 75 INC(AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 70 142-083-25 TR 417 LOT 78 AND LOTS 79-85 INC 142-091-09 TR 417 LOT 106 ALL-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 107 142-091-18 TR 417 LOT 119 AND ALL-EX ST- LOT 120 AND ALL-EXSTS- LOT 121 142-091-27 N TR 6234 LOT 1 142-091-32 TR 417 LOT 108 AND LOTS 109 & 110 142-091-33 P BK 227 PG 3 PAR 1 i Map 5 N„ °poi v0AA N 107-781 06 — 142 081=27 142 081 18 14 081A �. w � 142081-25r ° O Nr,1.42-,0$1-26107-781 05 Aldrec rXk , 112 082a02, � 107 781 07 ' A, }. i 082 35 142 082-26 082 x 142 082=27 107.-781 04 -t + •`��u) Stark Dr. Stark Dr. 142-083=04 107 782=08 I i— 1424 Q83 25 4a � .. ._- ® .. H®It r. Jc 142=0"1'-09 091-32 co '. :a�;. ems..,•'.. .. LU 142-091`-2�1 r 142-091-33 N I �I 142.49T=`18 Mac®®nal } � Dr. Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 6 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-401-04 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 107-401-32 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 S 147.6 FT W 303 FT N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4-EX FREEWAY 107-401-33 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4SW1/4 AS PER DD-7231/388 OR 107-401-35 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 107-601-41 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR S1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 AS PER LEASE-L5912/547 OR 107-601-48 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 1 107-601-49 P BK 55 PG 4 PAR 2 142-092-15 TR 417 LOT 142 AND LOTS 143-148 INC 142-101-14 TR 522 LOT 10 BLK A AND LOTS 11-15 INC BLK A 142-102-20 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK B AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 BLK B 142-102-47 TR 522 LOT 17 BLK B AND LOTS 18 THRU 20 ALL IN BLKB 142-102-48 N TR 522 BLK B LOT 30 142-102-49 TR 522 LOT 13 BLK B AND LOTS 14 THRU 16 ALL IN BLKB 142-103-17 TR 522 LOT 12 BLK C(AND ALL-EX ST LOT 11 (AND ALL-EX ST-LOT 13(A ND ALL-EX ST-LOT 14 ALL IN BLK 142-173-01 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 142-173-02 SEC 23 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4SE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-8355/779 OR 142-462-06 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 2 142-462-09 P BK 47 PG 27 PAR 1 —�- —�- Resolution No.2010-19 1 Map 6 .1424 W�*.; r. �142=1k02 20 W, 24 4 9 z g42'102€4 7 9hambra Dr. :1 42103 17 142-173-02 _ Rhine I � Cir. J � j {401 33 ----- - - r � 4_0 P 10, 07-401 ,35 INN --- �� Chrrsler Cire ,"zVx — -- — 2 �. i. KKK . 1,07`6 r \ -§ x Nk 17 N 142=462-06 ff Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 7 2.1.6 Town Center Blvd Segment 107-100-67 TR 528 LOT 1 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E--EX FREEWAY-(AND ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY AD 107-100-68 TR 528 LOT 2 BLK A ALL-EX ST&W 29 FT-(AND ALL-EX W 29 FT-LOTS 4/6 BLK A 107-100-70 TR 528 LOT 11 BLK A ELY 46 FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-1 NC E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W-LOT 12 BL 107-100-71 TR 528 LOT 7 BLK A ELY 46FT-INC W1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON E-(AND ALL-IN C E1/2 ALLEY ADJ ON W-LOT 8(ANDEL 107-100-75 N TR 528 BLK A LOT 14 107-100-77 TR 528 BLK A POR ABAND ALLEY 107-100-79 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 1 107-100-80 P BK 204 PG 43 PAR 2 107-691-20 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 LOT IN N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4 107-691-22 SEC 24 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 SW1/4 SW1/4(PM48-9 PAR 1&2) 142-191-01 TR 194 LOT 1 BLK A AND LOTS 2 TO 6 INC BLK A 142-191-12 TR 194 LOTS 101&102 BLK B 142-191-14 TR 194 LOT 118 BLK A(AND LOTS 143, 144&169 BLK A(AND LOTS 119 TO 122 INC,&143 TO 146 INC ALL IN 142-191-15 TR 194 LOT 117 BLK A&LOT 97 BLK B 142-191-23 TR 194 LOT 99 BLK B AND LOTS 100,103, 114 TO 118 INC,123 TO 127 INC,138 TO 142 INC AND ALL LOTS 1 142-191-24 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 98 142-191-27 TR 194 LOT 21 BLK A AND LOTS 22-32 INC BLK A 142-191-33 N TR 194 BLK B LOT 106 142-191-34 TR 194 LOT 104 BLK B AND LOTS 105,111 TO 113 INC,128 TO 130 INC, 135 TO 137 INC AND ALL LOTS 152 TO 142-191-36 TR 194 BLK A LOT 110 AND BLK A LOTS 111,112,123,124&125 142-191-40 P BK 165 PG 38 PAR 1 142-191-42 TRACT NO 194 BLKA LOTS 119-122,139-142,145-148 AND165-168 142-191-43 TRACT NO 194 BLK A LOTS 113 TO 116 INC 142-191-44 P BK 159 PG 5 PAR 1 142-191-46 TR NO 194 BLK A LOTS 126 TO 129 AND LOTS 106 TO 109 AND POR OF LOTS 105 AND 130 142-191-47 TR 194 BLK A LOTS 41 TO 64 INC, LOTS 67 TO 90 INC&LOTS 93 TO 104 INC-EXSTR 142-481-11 P BK 83 PG 8 PAR 2 142-481-12 P BK 118 PG 16 PAR 2 r pi e � A , 1.07691-20 �4 t SVB®®r�shad®W Ciro 142 481-1`2 µ Y 4 x` 107 69 T 22 10 15 1:42-481 11µ rny4 Damask Ur. ;�Fx z D r.- I C�O LE X_��_ J -Ile co � 4 F 1077100-80 . �. w 1.42-19'I-47107-1( y. -- 1;07 100,75co M Wood/ '107 100 70 � ke Dr. �d 4 1'91 12 d. 42 191 �} ,Cb 142 191 46 107 1007,74 f4'4: k d7 "ZM-' r 'N r . N N -No ti N Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 8 2.1.6 Neighborhood Center 165-364-03 TR 436 BLK A LOT 2 POR OFLOT AND BLK A POR OF LOT 3 165-364-04 P BK 100 PG 9 PAR 2 165-364-06 P BK 185 PG 17 PAR 2 165-364-11 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR A 165-364-12 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 1 165-364-13 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 2 165-364-14 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR B 165-364-15 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 7 165-364-16 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 6 165-364-17 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR D 165-364-18 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 5 165-364-19 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 8 165-364-20 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR C 165-364-21 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 3 165-364-22 P BK 204 PG 33 PAR 4 165-364-24 P BK 260 PG 19 PAR 1 165-364-25 PARCEL MAP 260-19 PAR 2 AND PM 185-17 PAR 4 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-225-09 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT N 264 FT E 330 FT N1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-225-10 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 N 132 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-283-04 TR 436 LOT 1 BLK F POR OFLOT 165-283-05 TR 436 LOT 2 BLK F ALL-EX W 170 FT 165-283-13 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F S1/2-EX W 150 FT 165-283-14 TR 436 LOT 5 BLK F N1/2-EX W 150 FT 165-283-16 P BK 130 PG 35 PAR 1 165-283-17 TR 436 BLK F LOT 3 POR OFLOT 167-311-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4( PM 36-34 PAR 2) 167-324-01 N TR 298 LOT 23 167-324-04 N TR 298 LOT 17 167-324-05 N TR 298 LOT 15 167-324-06 N TR 298 LOT 13 167-324-07 N TR 298 LOT 11 167-324-09 N TR 298 LOT 5 167-324-10 TR 298 LOTS 1&3 167-324-11 TR 298 LOT 2 POR OF LOT(AND POR OF LOTS 4,6,8,10,12,14, 16,18,20 AND 22 167-324-12 N TR 298 LOT 9 167-324-13 N TR 298 LOT 7 167-324-14 TR 298 LOT 19 AND LOT 21 167-325-15 SEC 25 T 5 R 111 AC IN S1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 167-325-16 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 430 FT W 300 FT NW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-325-17 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR OF SEC AS DESC IN DD-6985/545OR 167-325-18 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 230 FT W 300 FT NW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO ST TO STATE 167-325-19 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NW1/4 167-325-20 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 130 FT W 205 FT NW1/4 NW1/4-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 167-325-21 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 IRREG LOTIN S1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 lZesMution No.2010-19 ap AAI np Awn V - -"A At > (D A� �ww 6 0-6`571�7 64-17 =37 I V�,l < En w e 7 24107 D 0--P Sycamore Dr. ARM "n M T rn,wn� 13 Fw Al, 21 ------------- ---------- ------ IQ- Lu 4VA 467" 2, Cypry OV 10 UJ, 46 17 C: %.J r16 K, Kristin Cir. LU Nam Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 9 Neighborhood Center 165-321-05 T 5 R 11 SEC 26 NE1/4 NE1/4 SE1/4 FOR OF SEC-EX STR 167-472-16 TRACT NO 405 LOTS 1 AND 2 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 165-225-06 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 20 FT N601 FT W 20 FT E 248 FT NE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4 165-225-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 165-225-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT N 396 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 165-234-07 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 W 127.53 FT S 132 FT E1/4 S1/2 SE1/4 NE1/4 165-234-08 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 132 FT E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4-EX FREEWAY&W 127.53 FT 165-234-13 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 E1/4 S1/2SE1/4 NE1/4-EX S 528 FT 165-234-18 P BK 123 PG 22 PAR 1 165-321-06 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 1 165-321-07 P BK 50 PG 39 PAR 2 167-311-03 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 2 167-311-04 P BK 46 PG 20 PAR 1 167-312-01 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT W 265.37 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-EX FOR TO HWY&ST 167-312-02 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 W 265.37 FT 5 160 FT N 320 FT SWl/4 SWl/4 NW1/4-E X HWY 167-312-03 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 N 160 FT S 340 FT W 265.37 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 NW1/4-E X FREEWAY&FOR TO LOCKWOOD-6426 167-312-04 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 FOR SW1/4SW1/4 NW1/4 167-312-05 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4DESC AS PARCEL 1 IN DD-6834/340 OR 167-312-06 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 S 180 FT W 265.37 FT-EX FREEWAY&POR TO DOAN-RUSSELL CO-6834/340 OR 167-472-03 TR 405 LOT 3 ALL-EX FREEWAY 167-472-04 TR 405 LOT 4 NLY 65 FT ELY 113 FT 167-472-05 TR 405 LOT 4 FOR OF LOT 167-472-06 TR 405 LOT 4 FOR OF LOT 167-472-07 TR 405 LOT 5 ALL-EX HWY esplutidtf -19 I Ni AWN, W;l ,ww'' lip w 16 5-2 25-077 Z1, L ol �7 �AV,,,� cn: ' 16 'a wt w _41-YAV a, Holl nd Dr. Ilk , C� T_ 1� ',q _j 1_2 F Windy Sea Cir. 0 I (D MF Aw d kol IN 167,31270 I J_ Windy Sands Cir. 1165-234�j 8 03 467 �Z W,e4t' SO A 167 t3l 2�041 �Ml C!"! �2, Cry 7 2b_ o" % 1, U4 K4 Z ZA&S,321-m06 W" 0,&7-2 472; T", mt ;A tig 167-47217; j ''N 31 0i C M" 111 Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 10 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 165-181-35 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 220 FT E 5 AC S1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4-EX HWY&ST 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment _a 165-181-36 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 N 100 FT S 320 FT E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4SE1/4-EX HWY&ALLEY 165-181-37 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 E1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4-EX S 320 FT&N 220.05 FT&HWY&ALLEY 165-181-38 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 S 110 FT N 220.05 FT W 228 FT E 330 FT SE1/4 SE1/4 SE1/4 165-181-39 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 165-181-40 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR SE1/4 165-301-22 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 W 50 FT E220 FT N 214 FT SE1/4 SE1/4 165-301-23 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 POR N1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 AS DESC IN DD-7930/925 OR 165-301-24 SEC 26 T 5 R 11 LOT IN N1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 165-301-25 165-301-26 165-301-27 165-301-28 P M 125-10 PAR 1 POR OF PAR 165-302-21 TR 3478 LOT 18 N 100 FT IN LOT-EX ST 165-302-22 TR 3478 LOT 18 ALL-EX N 100 FT 165-311-16 TR 411 LOT 1 POR OF LOT AND POR OF LOT 2 165-311-17 TR 411 LOT 1 POR IN LOT&S1/2 LOT 2 165-312-17 TR 411 LOT 19 N 93.3 FT IN LOT(AND POR N 93.3 FT W30 FT LOT 20 165-312-18 TR 411 LOT 19 N 140 FT INLOT-EX N 93.4 FT-(AND W 30 FT-EX S 140 FT&N 93.4 FT-LOT 20 165-312-19 TR 411 LOT 19 ALL-EX N 140 FT-AND POR S 140 FT W30 FT LOT 20 167-472-08 N TR 405 LOT 6 167-472-09 N TR 405 LOT 7 167-472-10 TR 405 LOT 8 N 74.66 FT 167-472-11 TR 405 LOT 8 S 53.34 FT 167-472-12 N 1/2 TR 405 LOT 9 167-472-13 TR 405 LOT 9 RECTANGULAR LOT IN LOT AND RECTANGULAR LOT IN LOT 10 167-472-14 TR 405 LOT 9 POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DID-7658/624 OR-AND POR OF LOT 10 AS DESC IN DID-7658/624 OR 167-472-15 TR 405 LOT 10 POR OF LOT AS DESC IN DD-7624/483 OR 167-601-01 SEC 25 T 5 R 11 POR SWl/4 167-601-02 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 4 167-601-03 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 3 167-601-14 PM 244-48 PAR 1 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-15 PM 244-48 PAR 1 POR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUB-SURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-16 PM 244-48 PAR 5 FOR OF PAR SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 167-601-17 PM 244-48 PAR 5 POR OF PAR 167-601-20 P BK 244 PG 48 PAR 2 sty'`• �' _ m.� --�-- 1'67 472-08. cu rn 167 472"L09 `} 165: ''1l t7 Y s - --� F�, o --- 167 472 16T�47212+ S4.~. 165 31218 I 167;=472 14 ' v ti ---- ;165 z �' ® 167472'15co __�---L------ �` �•• a� nF Wit: ';,r �`—------ —--�._�L_ _ l + N _> f 165 3©1-23 '� h r r 1,65 3©1-24 K' 0� Zv' 1v l ? 165=301=25 f 15 301.26 16L7 6�0 ��IM 0 M, , 17 165 302 1 .Y 16! )2, , 165=181-40 i µ ; 165�-181'39 I ;.n Resolution No. 2010-19 MAP 11 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 157-341-01 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 157-341-02 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 FOR NW1/4 157-341-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 157-341-04 P BK 39 PG 2 PAR 1 157-341-05 P BK 24 PG 44 PAR 2 157-341-06 P BK 24 PG 44 PAR 1 157-341-07 P BK 39 PG 2 PAR 2 157-341-08 P BK 38 PG 16 PAR 1 157-352-05 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4 159-031-08 SEC 35 T 3 R 11 S 99 FT N1/2 SE1/4 SE1/4 NE1/4-EXPOR TO STATE FOR ST 159-031-10 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 S 125 FT E 348.48 FT SE1/4 NE1/4-EX ST&POR TO F REEWAY 159-031-16 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 159-031-17 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 1 159-031-18 P BK 76 PG 4 PAR 2 159-031-22 T 5 R 11 SEC 35 POR NE1/4 159-031-23 159-031-24 P M 138-29 PAR 3 AND PAR 4 159-031-01 PM 14-8 PAR 1&2 2.1.10 Residential Transition Zone 159-031-01 PM 14-8 PAR 1&2 !2.1.5 Neighborhood Center _ 157-481-01 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR 2 157-481-02 P BK 93 PG 13 PAR 1 157-481-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N 53 FT 5451.29 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 157-481-04 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 106 FT N 367.71 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4(AN D N 53 FT S 292.29 FT W 330 FT NW 157-481-05 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 1 157-481-06 P BK 56 PG 33 PAR 2 157-481-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 92.29 FT W 330 FT NW1/4 NW1/4 NW1/4 157-481-08 PM 317-35 PAR 1 THRU 4 159-141-66 TR 172 BLK C LOT 4 POR OFLOT AND BLK C POR OF LOT S 5,6,10,16,22,28,34,40,46,52,58,64,70 2.1.7 Neighborhood Blvd Segment 159-141-83 TR 172 BLK C LOT 83 AND BLK C LOTS 84,89,90,95,96,101,102,107,108,113,114,119,120,125,1 159-271-67 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 POR NE1/4 159-271-68 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 S1/2 N1/2SE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4-EX HWY 159-271-69 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 N1/2 N1/2SE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4-EX N 82.50 FT&HWY 159-271-73 SEC 35 T 5 R 11 N 82.50 FT OF S1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 Map I Talb 1157-481-02 1 9-,'.l 1�66 �157481`01' 4, Z''J,"pj" 0 157�481 -04 4, 1v iLO8 al� Z:A -71 41.1 7�24' Dr. T5 8 p 5 41, '159-14.1- 83 7481166 P, A J-D-r. -- -Ij 70 A157481' 7. I;N I�?7-1-73 7 '69"' 15942 1" Sterlinq Dr. M 146 > cu� 4 Q)L 1�9-271-67 cu -Z Kiner Dr. 1—jr FaVlor.Dr. i LI _j aylo Dr. cu -159-031-01 U) cu P E 0 '651, P-7,-,352- N'' 4i r 7-F- 4" 1 57-341-01' Bea P970 c poin -j I orelle Dr. -'-159,031�221, I 5i� T 159-03ir23 157,m-341-03-: cu; 159-031-08 ox Cir. F -18 4,- -T La Palma Dr �,7 ol 159-0 LJ 3j'l 7 Ej CL F; 159 017� U) LO -1059, 3 T-1111 6 A L: Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 12 2.1.3 Town Center-Core 159-091-03 P BK 250 PG 9 PAR 1 159-091-04 TR 7 LOT 1 BLK D AND LOTS2,3&7 AND FOR OF LOT 4 ALL IN BLK D SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTIC 159-091-05 TR 7 BLK D LOT 5 AND BLK D LOTS 6&8 159-101-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D FOR OF LOT SURFACE AND 500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY 2.1.4 Town Center-Neighborhood 157-471-04 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N1/2 NW1/4 NW1/4 SW1/4-EX FOR IN DID-7468/631 OR-&STS 157-471-05 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR NW1/4NW1/4 SW1/4 AS DESC IN LEASE-7468/631 OR 157-471-06 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR S1/2 NW 1/4 N W 1/4 SW 1/4 AS PER DD-7263/194 OR 159-092-03 N TR 7 BLK G LOT 5 159-092-04 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK G 159-092-07 TR 7 BLK G LOT 3 AND BLK G LOT 4 159-101-01 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK D FOR OF LOT AS DESC IN DID-7833/255 OR 159-102-01 P BK 184 PG 17 PAR 1 159-102-14 TR 7 LOT 19 BLK H S 75 FTN 145.2 FT W 216 FT IN LOT 159-102-18 N TR 598 LOT 17 159-102-19 N TR 598 LOT 16 159-102-20 N TR 598 LOT 15 159-102-21 N TR 598 LOT 14 159-102-29 N TR 598 LOT 6 159-102-30 N TR 598 LOT 5 159-102-35 TR 598 LOT 7 AND LOTS 8-13 INC(PM 126-21 PAR 1) 159-102-36 P BK 150 PG 1 PAR 1 159-102-43 TR 7 BLK H LOT 4 AND BLK H LOTS 5&6 AND FOR OF LOT 3 AND TR 598 LOT 1 159-102-44 TR 598 LOT 2 AND LOTS 3&4 159-102-46 P BK 168 PG 44 PAR 1 159-121-02 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G N1/2 159-121-03 TR 7 LOT 9 BLK G S1/2 159-121-28 159-121-30 P M 175-07 PAR 2 FOR OF PAR 159-121-31 PARCEL MAPS 175 PG 8 LOT 1 159-262-01 TR 7 LOTS 1/2 BLK F 159-262-02 N TR 7 BLK F LOT 3 159-262-03 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF ALL-EX S 126.58 FT&ST 159-262-04 TR 7 LOT 4 BLK F THE SURFACE&500 FT SUBSURFACE VERTICALLY OF SLY 126.58 FT-EX ST 159-262-05 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 1 159-262-06 P BK 64 PG 33 PAR 2 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 FOR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 FOR OF LOT 159-121-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2-EXST ;Added Parcels 159-111-19 TR 7 LOT 21 BLK H AND S1/2 OF LOT 20 BLK H 159-102-45 TR 7 BLK H LOT 20 FOR OF LOT MAP 12 Residential Required(2.14) 159-121-26 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G N1/2 159-121-38 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-37 TR NO 7 BLK G LOT 7 POR OF LOT 159-121-25 TR 7 LOT 6 BLK G S1/2-EXST 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 157-451-07 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4(P M 6-43 PAR 1) 157-451-08 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SWl/4 157-451-09 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 N 65 FT E243 FT W 331 FT N1/2 NW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4-EX ST 157-452-03 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 S 200 FT W 238 FT SW1/4 SW1/4 SW1/4-EX STS 157-452-34 P BK 92 PG 26 PAR 2 157-452-35 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 3 157-452-36 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 1 157-452-37 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 2 157-452-38 P BK 107 PG 38 PAR 4 157-471-30 SEC 36 T 5 R 11 POR SW1/4 157-471-31 T 5 R 11 SEC 36 POR SW1/4 159-102-06 TR 7 LOT 7 BLK H ALL-EX ST-(P.M.30-44 PAR.1&2) 159-102-07 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H N 100 FTIN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 159-102-08 TR 7 LOT 8 BLK H S 50 FT-EX ST-AND ALL-EX ST-LOTS 9/10 BLK H 159-111-01 TR 7 LOT 11 BLK H N 37.5 FT IN LOT-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST 159-111-04 TR 7 LOT 12 BLK H ALL-EXELY 14 FT FOR ST 159-111-05 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H N 125 FT E 170 FT IN LOT-EX PORTO STATE FOR ST 159-111-06 TR 7 LOT 13 BLK H ALL-EXN 125 FT E 170 FT&POR TO STATE FOR ST-(AND ALL-EX POR TO STATE FOR ST-L 159-111-07 TR 7 LOT 15 BLK H N 50 FTIN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST 159-111-08 159-111-09 159-111-10 159-111-21 N TR 7 BLK H LOT 18 159-111-22 TRACT 7 BLK H LOT 11 S 112.50 FT IN LOT-EX ELY 14 FT FOR ST Map 12 �r—an MilinDr. F-Ox C r, I I I La Palma I Yukon Dr. J1 CL 2 1 cn I --- IOLI Ellis Ave. _7 t 157-,471-05 A"N 01-03 Brookwood Dr. .1 02- :4' 01 -,f-40 4, Rapids 2 157'--�7 14 Dr. 2 U) 159'091;05 W 1597102-44 02 7 �c) � �- .'f -� cu Whitewater Dr. cu Ak--- imberleaf Cir. qq in 11 CO �4 d", 59-102-36,�' -i57471-3 F --T L co 59-Ok-OT --159-102-07', Ivood-Dr- 159-102-46 id, Dr. V X W 4 ladi L Gra , > 9-102 092-04 15 4 1 0�- �157451-9?j co Cres oocf Dr. 41 . , " '451-08 .157 4- U) -121-26 9 '2 15 9-2 6 2",. U) -04:`�' 1��-262-04 cu 0 0 �-4z '1 -,121-25. U) 1, k2 Const., �OF S FL :3 -26�- 2 `02,- 157"1 7'.�243,4- 1§-121-30 159'262'-Ol 159-1",1- 0 5 -262-!0 , , ,, - I" C 6 E 'q 59!! Monte Cristo Ln Shaffer Cir. 7� '4 Timber Cir. 157j� Will 1W1 1 1'-I'V� cu LO -F� ' Garfield Ave. orra w Surfline Dr. -2 T M -c U) Islandvie, In w- ir. Clearh or pr. U) MAP 13 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 159-161-24 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 1 159-161-25 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 2 159-161-26 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 3 159-161-27 P BK 97 PG 14 PAR 4 r2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-180-06 TR 837 LOT BLK C POR OFBLK 025-180-13 TR 837 LOT BLK C W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX N 70 FT&S 155 FT 025-180-14 TR 837 LOT BLK C N 55 FT S 155 FT WLY 125 FT ELY145 FT 025-180-21 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2508 POR OF BILK 025-180-23 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2508 POR OF BILK AND FOR OF BLK 2507 025-180-24 TR 837 LOT BLK C S 92 FT W 125 FT E 145 FT 025-180-25 TR 837 LOT BILK C S 100 FT W 125 FT E 145 FT-EX S 92 FT 025-181-36 TR 837 BLK A LOT 1 AND BLK A LOTS 2 THRU 7&LOT 26 025-182-22 TR 837 BLK B LOT 3 AND S 45 FT LOT 26 BLK B 025-182-32 P BK 238 PG 1 PAR 1 025-182-33 TRACT NO 837 BLK B LOTS 4TO 6 INC 153-041-13 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 54.76 FTS 1808.28 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST 153-041-14 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 109.52 FT S 1753.52 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-15 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 82.20 FTS 1644 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-16 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 100 FT S1561.80 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-041-17 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 328.8 FTS 1561.8 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX N 100 FT&ST 153-041-18 P BK 122 PG 1 PAR 2 153-041-28 P.M.122-1 PAR 4 AND FOR PAR 3 153-041-29 P.M.122-1 PAR 3 FOR OF PAR 153-041-34 P BK 324 PG 40 PAR 1 153-051-08 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 123.3 FTS 822 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST 153-051-09 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 123.3 FTS 698.7 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-10 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 245.4 FTS 575.4 FT W 530 FT NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-11 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 100 FT 5330 FT W 530 FT NWl/4-EX ST 153-051-14 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 W 25 FT E 100 FT W 430 FT S 230 FT SW1/4 NW1/4 AND S 230 FT E 170 FT W 330 FT NWl/4 153-051-15 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 N 50 FT S 230 FT W 200 FT SW1/4 OF NW1/4-EX ST 153-051-16 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 RECTANG LOT IN SW1/4 NW1/4 153-051-17 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 IRREG LOT IN NW1/4 153-051-18 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR 1 153-051-19 P BK 32 PG 49 PAR 2 153-051-24 T 6 R 11 SEC 1 POR NW1/4 153-051-25 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 POR OF NW1/4 OF SEC 1 159-161-04 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2908 ALL-EX ST 159-161-29 EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 3008 ---- - eso lution N o.2U I U-19 —_ J Map 13 , n" 15, 161,-25" 153 041 34 0 Nom_ad Cir. ` Surfline Dr. --- s�� 159 161-24 m U�,c N u € A, g' h:•:_ Islandview nRainbolr v, earharbor Dr. ( I noRr r� Wt a 159 169 26 { C1 � je i a � C--ILL' S AS5161-'27 w 153 041 29 —�- r Baymist Dr. owtide Cir. 4°153*41-28, ------------- '153-041-13' '- I l 'b n"�, •;�,�' E-- 153 041 14y j Da (u 159-16104 •� �I` ,,s?` a ,'"' .t,'r •:;�>' - �we�.f t r 7-7 LL 153-0 17 41 . Clay Ave. '. _Fal _ -�- EIII -� — - 025 181 36 _err_ac-e Cir. Owen Dr. - 153��5125 ray LI _ 025 182 32 �- i'025-182-22 153-051-18 ;953-051,-19. W Jana_Cir. � � � r=rl 153 051 08 �, 9— -- -L— Williams Dr. -- - 25-180- 6 'v C� -- -- 025-180- 4 ,G ~: 153 051-10";i','• > 025-180-25 ;r ._ 025 180`, I It F-- - 15305/ 11 f 1El-17 5 ^r WenlockCir)5Li Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 14 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center � �� 153-091-19 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 1 153-091-20 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 2 153-091-21 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 3 153-091-22 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 4 153-091-23 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 5 153-091-25 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 7 153-091-26 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 8 153-091-27 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 9 153-091-28 P BK 158 PG 43 PAR 10 153-091-31 P BK 201 PG 15 PAR 1 153-091-32 P BK 201 PG 15 PAR 2 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment 025-191-03 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2308 025-191-32 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2108 FOR OF BLK 025-191-42 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2108 FOR OF BLK 025-191-43 P BK 43 PG 18 PAR 1 025-191-51 P BK 164 PG 18 PAR 1 025-191-53 PARCEL MAP 109-9 PAR 2 FOR OF PAR AND ALL PAR 1 AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2408 POR OF BLK 025-191-54 P M 109-9 PAR 2 FOR OF PAR AND EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2408 FOR OF BLK 025-200-50 SLY 160 FT EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 1708 025-200-51 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 1708 FOR OF BLK 025-200-61 P BK 35 PG 47 PAR 1 025-200-62 P BK 35 PG 47 PAR 2 025-200-63 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT BLK 2008 FOR OF BLK 025-200-64 EAST SIDE VILLA TR BLK 2008 S 1/2 OF SAID BLK 025-200-68 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1808 FOR OF LOT 025-200-69 EAST SIDE VILLA TR LOT 1707 POR OF LOT AND FOR OF LOT 1708 025-200-72 EAST SIDE VILLA TRACT LOT 1908 POR OF LOT&POR OF LOT 1808&TRACT 1916 LOTS 8,9,10,&POR OF LOT 153-091-05 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 IRREG 2.70AC M/L IN NW1/4 SWl/4 153-091-06 SEC 1 T 6 R 11 FOR SW1/4 AS DESC IN DID-7376/379 OR 153-091-17 T 6 R 11 SEC 1 FOR SW1/4 i � Map 14 �"� �- �� �r • ��_ �.;:��;,.�,� r -- �--- �— 1- rn r 025191-53 y; 153t- , 05 t � 07, 025-191 03 = 153 091 17 C % '. 4 , .: ✓ r' A' C r ti�025-191 51 � Jay i . v o 153-091}21 " „ oil 025-191- � ' r i i � 153 09119 _ Utic -A_ _ — 02�,200 63"' - j 025 200 61 153 091 3 025-200-64," pp / 09.1'3 / -' y-- 025 200 72V. ' hid --- — '. rho Altamar Dr. Y53-091 20 - 025=200-68' ,' a :? 53-0 '-27 N a Cir. oti: 153-091-28 � 025-26&W i Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 15 2.1.8 Neighborhood Parkway Segment ____ 025-143-10 SEC 11 T 6 R 11 FOR N1/2 NE1/4 NE1/4 NE1/4 AS DESCIN DD-7565/757 OR 151-282-03 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 FOR NW1/4NW1/4 AS PER LEASE-6734/643 OR 151-282-26 T 6 R 11 SEC 12 POR NW1/4 151-282-27 P BK 247 PG 36 PAR 2 151-282-28 P BK 247 PG 36 PAR 1 151-282-31 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 1 151-282-32 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 3 151-282-33 P BK 180 PG 16 PAR 2 22 1 9 Residential Parkway Segment 025-171-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT A BLK 1008 S 150 FT N 270 FT E 10 FT-EX ST-(AND S 150FT N 270 FT-EX STS-LOT 025-171-10 VISTA DEL MAR TR BLK 1008LOT A FOR OF LOT AND BLK 1008 POR OF LOT B 025-172-06 VISTA DEL MAR TR LOT A BLK 908 ALL-EX PORS IN STS-(AND ALL-INC FOR ABAN ST ADJ--EX PORS IN STS-L 151-293-38 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 FOR NW1/4 151-293-39 SEC 12 T 6 R 11 POR NWl/4 151-293-42 P.M.35-26 PCLS 2 AND 3 - - �-- ---- LU _�L �_ - -- -- _-] Hi'Ilcr_est Cir. 9r Anna Ln. �- !�� r (p rw Florida St. _ _ — - r y� f — Q� ----ram" - -- 1 O e° rn J- ��_ = T C�D !� l - Pacifica Cove Ln. -gip o - _> -- ��- 1, ' Bacoa Cir. _ Ix -- o 1 Y - - Ll < (D C- Arrow Ln. CJt Q� -- -1- - --- -- ---.CD L - !tz� Geor la St ��— S_horecrest Ln. w = -T r - Jb LLL �CD r— � -it- Ti Lakeside Ln._ _S_ummerview Ln. - �—� -- 025 L_�U — ( � Beach Blvd. N � s��� w �''�• l � � hi � N'" ��'�+ I r n SeV T-- - e 4 �a�4/7 - - - �1 �'�� 13ridgeside ; Seal Olnt Ln O-g ront Ln_ i �— -- , -j-.. --�_. ICDSealpoint Ln_ - � Somerville Ln.j ,--- r CD L Billingsgate Ln 08 I � 1 � r , Resolution No.2010-19 MAP 16 2.1.5 Neighborhood Center 148-021-12 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-14 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-15 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-17 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4 148-021-18 SEC 13 T 6 R 11 POR NW1/4(=PM BK 44 PG 40 PARS. 1 & 2) 148-021-19 P BK 25 PG 27 PAR 2 2.1.9 Residential Parkway Segment 151-351-14 N TR 12820 LOT 1 151-351-43 N TR 15816 LOT B 6 CD 0 z Map 1 Sunset, Cir Ki cifiE n. -——----- 7-7-771-7-7-7 CU 1'�351-�l 4 11 Li�4-3 Coral Ln. ICU L- ( IVIC, ��Zuma-Dr- E Bluefin Ln. Seal a) > 0 Q. z M Mermaid Ln. Stinson-------I Dr. C: Evel Shell Cir. 0 0 (D -C U) 7— Beachcomber Dr. Oleta IT! 0"1 "11 L ----------- 14 \Naterfall Cir. !Wiidwood Cir. v 0 :3 Whitestone Dr. 4 T LEI EI-1 E Pennington Dr. 0 14870�1'- 2- 0 eawall Cir. 0 IT a_ 0 IT C� a) 9 CO 3 'u- --i-- 0 C) Woolburn Dr. C: 0 southwind Cir. 4. 4�-- 5 FT LO <I J U) LILL Eastport Dr. -T, 0: Moonmist 0 Deerfield Dr. LL T J F I-I'L L Res. No. 2010-19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on March 1, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: Carchio, Coerper, Bohr, Dwyer, Hansen NOES: Hardy, Green ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CWy Clerk and ex-offici Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTACHMENT #5 See Attachment No. 4 to this RCA for the Resolution. Exhibit A (Specific Plan 14) to the Resolution would be modified as follows to reflect the Planning Commission's action: 1. Specific Phan, Page 10: Section 2.0.5.3) would read as follows: 3) Request for Deviation Deviations from the Development Standards of the Specific Plan may be granted at the time of Site Plan Review for special circumstances and/or unique architectural features. Requests for Deviation may include but are not limited to building height, setbacks open space, parking and landscaping. Deviations requests, up to 10 percent of any single standard, may be considered by the Director of Planning and Building. Requests for deviations greater than 10 percent shall be subject to approval of a Variance application by the Planning Commission pursuant to the procedures outlined in the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Remainder of section to remain unchanged. 2. Specific Plan, Pages 13 and 16 Yellow dashed line would be removed from the Redevelopment Agency owned parcel north of Center Drive. A new dashed line would be drawn around the Redevelopment Agency owned parcel and the adjacent Southern California Edison parcel to the west, and the legend box for this dashed line would read "For Transit Expansion." 3. Specific Plan, Page 20 Item (C 14) would read as follows: (C14) Up to 6 stories if property is within 500 ft. of I-405 Am #6 BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by PBSU 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 February 2010 Content Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CHAPTER1 Introduction............................................................................................................ 1-1 CHAPTER CEQA Findings......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 CHAPTER 3 Findings Regarding the Rejected Project and Project Alternatives......................3-1 3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Objectives...........................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Selection of Alternatives ................................................................................................3-2 3.4 Project and Alternatives Findings.................................................................................3-3 3.4.1 The Rejected Originally Proposed Project ........................................................3-3 3.4.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation..........3-3 3.4.3 Alternatives to the Project..............................................................................3-4 CHAPTER 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ...............................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Significant Adverse Impacts..........................................................................................4-1 4.3 Findings............................................................................................................................4-3 4.4 Overriding Considerations.............................................................................................4-4 Tables Table 2-1 CEQA Findings for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR..................................2-3 Table 3-1 Alternative 2--Comparison to Specific Plan........................................................................................3-5 Table 3-2 Alternative 3Comparison to Specific Plan........................................................................................3-5 Table4-1 Proposed Building Heights.........................................................................................................................4-5 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations iii CH I° ® ® ® ® This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively, of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the approval of Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (proposed project). This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the identified significant cumulative impacts. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced,by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Specific Plan is intended to implement a clear and comprehensive vision for growth and change along Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. In particular, the proposed project is designed to coordinate private and public investment activities in the project site that will enhance the visual quality and economic vitality of primary commercial corridors in the City. The proposed Specific Plan establishes the primary means of regulating land use and development intensity and standards related to site layout,building design, and landscaping within the project site. The Specific Plan project site extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street. The total acreage of the Specific Plan is approximately 459 acres. For ease of analysis within this EIR, the Specific Plan has been divided into five informal segments: (1) Residential Parkway, (2) Neighborhood Parkway, (3) Five Points District, (4) Neighborhood Boulevard, and (5) Town Center Boulevard. Each segment has unique planning approaches and development standards that would apply to new developments that are proposed within those areas. In all cases, however, existing uses within the Specific Plan area would be allowed to remain. A detailed discussion of the envisioned land use changes within each segment can be found in Chapter 3 (Project Description). To summarize the proposed land uses changes, the Specific Plan would preserve and enhance the existing residential uses in the southern portion of the project site (in the Residential Parkway Segment) and would focus on restructuring and revitalizing the area between Adams Avenue to the Five Points District (referred to as the Neighborhood Parkway Segment) with a broad mix of uses. Continuing north to the Five Points District, this segment would retain the successful community retail center and would Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-1 encourage restructuring and revitalization of surrounding areas with a greater intensification and mix of uses. Between the Five Points District and Warner Avenue, the Neighborhood Boulevard Segment would facilitate long term transition from strip retail uses to development types that retain visibility to motorists, while providing a more attractive and comfortable pedestrian environment. The remaining portions of the project site along the northern reaches of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue are within the Town Center Boulevard Segment. The development strategies within this segment are distinct for each corridor. However, the primary intent of land use changes along this segment is to encourage a dense central city district characterized by emerging structural differentiation, vitality, and activity. Geographically, the intention is to intensify land uses as one travels north along Beach Boulevard from the southern boundary of the Study area, developing a town center concept at the major intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The proposed land use changes and increases in development intensity would result in additional growth focused within each of the above-mentioned areas. The project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR included an addition of up to 6,400 new dwelling units (du), 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. As originally proposed, the project would result in significant and unavoidable project-level impacts to seven issue areas and cumulative impacts to eight issue areas. In an attempt to reduce these identified impacts, three Alternative project scenarios were analyzed in the Draft EIR. Of those three Alternatives analyzed,Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. The project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR has been rejected from further consideration. A modified version of the Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) analyzed in the Draft EIR was determined to be more desirable than the proposed project and has been recommended by City staff to become the recommended project and replace the original project. The modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) project would reduce the intensity of residential development while maintaining the same level of commercial development as the original project to include the addition of up to 4,500 new dwelling units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. This reduction in residential development would thereby reduce potential impacts to traffic/transportation and associated impacts to air quality, water demand, and recreation that were identified for the project as originally proposed. In addition, the reduction would eliminate a cumulative impact for population/housing. As was the case with the project as originally proposed, not all of this development would be considered net growth. In many cases, existing structures would be replaced or redeveloped with the new uses. In order to accommodate the proposed development, it is estimated that approximately 1.4 million sf of existing commercial development within the Specific Plan (or approximately 22 percent of existing development) would be demolished. This takes into account that many of the existing buildings would remain on redeveloped parcels (i.e., only part of a parcel would be redeveloped). It is estimated that at buildout, commercial and office space would decrease compared to existing conditions but the 4,500 du would be considered net growth. 1-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations ik e ® ® e 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR ("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency ("Finding 2"). (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision-making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests, is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Cal.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-1 a o - o 0 logical step between the finding and the facts in the record (State CEQA Guidelines §15091). Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, staff reports, and the record of proceedings. Table 2-1 (CEQA Findings for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR) summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the originally proposed project in the EIR that were reduced to less- than-significant levels with mitigation as well as the project-level and cumulative significant impacts. As discussed in Chapter 1, the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR has been rejected from further consideration. A modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) is more desirable than the proposed project and has been recommended by City staff to become the recommended project and replace the original project. The Modified Project would allow for development of up to 4,500 new dwelling units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. This would reduce the severity of transportation/traffic issues and associated air quality impacts, reduce the demand on water resources, reduce the demand on recreational resources and eliminate the cumulative impact for population/housing. 2-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 0 0 - @ e o e • - @� ® ® o - - ® © © • ® - o • e o - • OR impactStateme►it Im actSurnma Findln Aesthetics Impact 4.1-3 Implementation of the proposed New development would generally range from one to three stories at a minimum, and Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would introduce new sources of light and from four to six stories at a maximum permitted height, depending on the various changes or alterations in the project,which would glare into the project vicinity that could adversely segments. There is one property that would be allowed up to 10 stories. Buildings reduce Impact4.1-3 to less-than-significant affect day or nighttime views in the area. However, generally three or more stories in height have the potential to include large building faces levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. with implementation of mitigation measures, this that could introduce reflective surfaces that could increase existing levels of daytime No additional mitigation measures are necessary impact is considered less than significant. glare. The proposed project could, therefore,serve as a new source of light and glare in with the implementation of mitigation measure the area, and impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of MM4.1-2. mitigation measure MM4.1-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The provision of non-reflective facade treatments for new structures would ensure that impacts related to daytime glare would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by reducing the reflective properties of the building materials employed, such as glass, metal,or finished concrete. Air Quality Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed Many of the individual projects developed under the proposed project would be small and Finding 3. The City finds that even with project could violate an air quality standard and would not generate construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of implementation of all feasible mitigation contribute substantially to an existing or projected significance.To the extent that construction of these individual projects overlaps,then the measures and compliance with applicable air quality violation for criteria air pollutants. Even combined emissions from these small, individual projects could exceed the requirements, construction emissions of the with mitigation measures,this impact is considered recommended SCAQMD thresholds, particularly for CO, NOx, and PMio, for which the proposed project could result in an exceedance significant and unavoidable. Basin is currently in nonattainment. In addition to the smaller-scale projects, some of the of established thresholds for daily construction individual development projects could also be large enough to generate construction emissions due to the speculative nature of future emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As the specific size, location, and projects. No mitigation measures in addition to construction techniques and scheduling for each individual development project within MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-11 are feasible to the Specific Plan area is not currently known, precise emission estimates for each reduce construction air quality impacts.There are individual development project, or a combination of these projects, is not currently no feasible mitigation measures available to feasible and would require the City to speculate regarding such potential future projects' reduce operational air quality impacts. potential environmental impacts. Nevertheless, construction activities conducted as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan could exceed SCAQMD thresholds and result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 would reduce construction-related emissions however, they may not reduce these emissions to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds, as the amount of emissions generated for each project would vary depending on its size, the land area that would need to be disturbed during construction, and the length of the construction schedule, as well as the number of developments being constructed concurrently as part of the Specific Plan. Under these conditions,no further feasible mitigation measures are available and this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.The City will make site-specific determinations of Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-3 • • •In • O ® O • O O - o 0• Spedfl, O Im StaFement Im Summ Findn significance during the review of individual development projects to determine which projects would result in construction emissions that exceed significance thresholds. Operation of the proposed project would generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC, NOx, CO, and PM1o, even with the proposed reduction in residential units. Although the Modified Project will reduce vehicular trips,due to a reduction in residential units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft OR, the exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds for these four criteria pollutants is primarily due to the increase in motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site and will continue to be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce these emissions, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed The proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the pollutants and Finding 3. The City finds that even with project would result in a cumulatively considerable precursors of ozone for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Therefore, the proposed implementation of all feasible mitigation net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project would make cumulatively considerable contributions of these pollutants during measures, compliance with applicable proposed project region is in nonattainment under both construction and operation of the proposed project, even with the reduction in requirements, and changes to the project, an applicable federal or state ambient air quality vehicular trips due to a reduction in residential units as compared to the project originally construction and operational emissions of the standard. This impact is considered significant and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 will be proposed project would result in an exceedance unavoidable. implemented during construction activities to reduce emissions to the extent feasible but of established thresholds for daily emissions in the potential impact will not be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. Furthermore, the cumulative scenario. No feasible mitigation there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce operational emissions measures in addition to mitigation measures below SCAQMD levels.Therefore,the proposed project would result in a significant and MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 are available. unavoidable cumulative air quality impact. Cumulative Air Quality The proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the pollutants and Finding 3. The City finds that even with precursors of ozone for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Therefore, the proposed implementation of all feasible mitigation project would make cumulatively considerable contributions of these pollutants during measures, compliance with applicable both construction and operation of the proposed project, even with the reduction in requirements, and changes to the project, vehicular trips due to a reduction in residential units as compared to the project originally construction and operational emissions of the analyzed in the Draft EIR.. Mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 will be proposed project would result in an exceedance implemented during construction activities to reduce emissions to the extent feasible but of established thresholds for daily emissions in the potential impact will not be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. Furthermore, the cumulative scenario. No feasible mitigation there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce operational emissions measures in addition to mitigation measures below SCAQMD levels. Therefore,the proposed project would result in a significant and MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 are available. unavoidable cumulative air quality impact. Biological Resources Impact 4.3-1 Construction of the proposed project Project implementation and construction-related activities may result in the disturbance of Finding 1. The City finds that the identified could have a substantial adverse effect, either nesting species protected by the MBTA. Prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities, changes or alterations in the project,which would directly or through habitat modifications, on birds the City shall implement mitigation measure MM4.3-1,which entails focused surveys and reduce Impact 4.3-1 to less-than-significant 2-4 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 2 HA flndirIgS Table N • o • - - • • • Edinger s - • k"pactStatement Impactsummary Findn protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with mitigation measures, this impact is consultation. No additional mitigation measures are necessary considered less than significant. with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1. Impact 4.3-2 Implementation of the proposed Although no wetlands are currently present in the Plan area, should they develop project Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could have a substantial adverse effect on implementation and construction-related activities may result in the disturbance or changes or alterations in the project,which would federally protected wetlands as defined by removal of wetland habitat. Prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities,the City shall reduce Impact 4.3-2 to less-than-significant Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but implement mitigation measure MM4.3-2, which requires that a wetland delineation is levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) conducted prior to development of any vacant parcels,as deemed necessary by the City No additional mitigation measures are necessary through direct removal, filling, hydrological of Huntington Beach. If wetlands are found, the applicant will be required to obtain all with the implementation of mitigation measure interruption, or other means. However, with necessary wetland permits and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats. MM4.3-2. mitigation measures,this impact is considered less than significant. Cultural Resources Impact 4.4-1 Construction activities associated Although an SCCIC records search prepared for the proposed project did not identify any Finding 3. The City finds that even with with implementation of the proposed project could previously recorded historical resources within the project site, the City's General Plan implementation of all feasible mitigation cause a substantial adverse change in the includes one structure that is identified as a local landmark(early fire Station)within the measures (MM4.4-1) and compliance with significance of an historical resource pursuant to project boundaries.The Newland House Museum,a recognized resource,was identified applicable requirements, the proposed project Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. With immediately outside of the project boundaries. It is the intent of policies within the would result in a significant and unavoidable incorporation of mitigation measures, this impact General Plan to protect and/or preserve structures and places identified.Consequently, it impact to historical resources. No feasible remains significant and unavoidable. is unlikely that any future development would disturb these sites. Implementation of the mitigation measures in addition to mitigation proposed project would not change any of the existing regulations governing historical measure MM4.4-1 are available. resources. However,development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would not preclude the possibility that previously unrecorded historic-period resources could be adversely affected by future development of the project site(e.g., demolition, relocation, or alteration of historic-period buildings or structures). Incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce impacts to the extent feasible however, impacts to historical resources are considered potentially significant. Impact 4.4-2 Construction activities associated According to the SCCIC records search, archaeological resources are present in the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified with implementation of the proposed project could vicinity and within the project site, including sites known to contain human remains. changes or alterations in the project,which would cause a substantial adverse change in the These sites have likely been destroyed or capped since they were first discovered. reduce Impact 4.4-2 to less-than-significant significance of an archaeological resource or Additionally, the NAHC indicated the presence of Native American cultural resources in levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. disturb human remains. With incorporation of the immediate project area. Furthermore, representatives from the Gabrielino Tongva No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,this impact is considered less Nation expressed concern about the sensitivity of the project area for Native American with implementation of mitigation measures than significant. resources and burial grounds. Impacts on archaeological resources from project-related MM4.4-2(a)and MM4.4-2(b). earth-disturbing activities are therefore considered potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-2 a and MM4.4-2 b would reduce this impact to a less- Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-5 • 0 - ` • • • • Edinger • s • • - •• • - - Im Statement Im Summa Findn than-significant level by requiring site-specific cultural resource investigations and that all earth-disturbing activity be halted within 100 feet of any discovered cultural resources until an assessment by a qualified professional can be completed. Impact 4.4-3 Construction activities associated A paleontological records search performed for the proposed project failed to identify any Finding 1. The City finds that the identified with implementation of the proposed project could previously recorded paleontological resources within the project site. However, the changes or alterations in the project,which would result in the disturbance of paleontological search did identify several paleontological resources in the project vicinity as well as soils reduce Impact 4.4-3 to less-than-significant resources. that often contain vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. The project site is considered levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. sensitive for paleontological resources, and impacts to paleontological resources from No additional mitigation measures are necessary project-related ground-disturbing activities are considered potentially significant. with implementation of mitigation measures Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-3(a) and MM4.4-3(b) would reduce this MM4.4-3(a)and MM4.4-3(b). impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring site-specific paleontological resource investigations and that all earth-disturbing activity is halted within 100 feet of discovered paleontological resources until an assessment by a qualified professional can be prepared. Cumulative Impact As all cultural resources are unique and non-renewable members of finite classes, all Finding 3. The City finds that even with adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation compliance with applicable regulations, it is not always feasible to protect cultural measures (MM4.4-1, MM4.4-2(a) and MM4.4- resources, particularly when preservation in place would frustrate implementation of 2(b)) and compliance with applicable projects. For this reason, the cumulative effects of development in the Orange County requirements, the proposed project would result region are considered significant. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-1 and in a significant and unavoidable cumulative MM4.4-2(a)and MM4.4-2(b)would require qualified professionals to conduct site-specific impact to historical resources. No feasible cultural resource investigations for future development of the project site and require all mitigation measures in addition to mitigation earth-disturbing activity to be halted within 100 feet of any discovered resources until a measure MM4.4-1, MM4.4-2(a) and MM4.4-2(b) qualified professional can assess the significance of the find. However, it is currently are available. infeasible to determine whether future development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in demolition or removal of historical resources within the project boundaries. The project's incremental contribution to these cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable and is therefore considered a significant cumulative impact to historical resources. Geology and Soils Impact 4.5-1 Future development under the The Specific Plan is located in a seismically active Region.A buried segment of the North Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could expose people and/or Branch Fault underlies an intersection of the Specific Plan area.Additionally,an 800-foot- changes or alterations in the project,which would structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, wide Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone crosses the Beach Boulevard Corridor at Adams Avenue. reduce Impact 4.5-1 to less-than-significant including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving Proposed construction within an Earthquake Fault zone is permitted only following the levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. fault rupture, strong seismic groundshaking and/or completion of a fault location evaluation and written report prepared for the specific site No additional mitigation measures are necessary seismic-related ground failure, including by a California-registered professional geologist. Most of the Beach Boulevard corridor is with the implementation of code requirement liquefaction. With implementation of mitigation located within a liquefaction zone or liquefaction investigation zone on the State of CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. 2-6 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations In o •te r IP • • o • - ff+ • • • e - - o o • • • - o • • o - • :Im Sf�tement ' I ��:_' Summa Findh measures and compliance with applicable State California State Hazard Zone Map. Per code requirement CR4.5-1, all future and City regulations, this impact is considered less development would be required to perform a site specific geotechnical report which than significant. would include design and foundation recommendations and adhere to the City's Municipal Code. Implementation of the Specific Plan does not currently include site-specific, individual development projects. With compliance to the seismic safety requirements of the City's Municipal Code, including adherence to CR4.5-1, as well as implementation of mitigation measure MM4.5-1 and the design recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigations associated with all future project design, the proposed Specific Plan's impact on exposure to seismically induced groundshaking and seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. Impact 4.5-2 Future development under the The Specific Plan area is a relatively flat area with no pronounced slopes. Only a small Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could expose people or structures portion of the Beach Boulevard corridor is in an area identified to have"Low"potential for changes or alterations in the project,which would to risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. slope instability. The remainder of the project site has no potential for slope instability. reduce Impact 4.5-2 to less-than-significant However, with compliance with soil stability Adherence to the City's Municipal Code, CR4.5-1, mitigation measure MM4.5-1 and the levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. standards required by the City of Huntington Beach design recommendations of a site-specific geotechnical investigation would ensure that a No additional mitigation measures are necessary General Plan, Building Code, and Grading and less-than-significant impact from landslide would result. with the implementation of code requirement Excavation Code, and implementation of code CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. requirements and mitigation measures, this impact is considered less-than-significant. Impact 4.5-3 Construction and operation of future Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in ground-disrupting Finding 1. The City finds that the identified development under the proposed project could activities. The exposure of previously covered soils during these activities could lead to changes or alterations in the project,which would result in substantial soil erosion, loss of top soil, increased on-site erosion and off-site sediment transport. Future development under the reduce Impact 4.5-3 to less-than-significant changes in topography or unstable soil conditions. Specific Plan would be required to comply with both State regulations and the City's levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with compliance with slope stability, soil existing Grading and Excavation Code regulations. Adherence to these requirements No additional mitigation measures are necessary stability, and seismic-resistant design standards for would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level from the perspective of soil loss at with the implementation of code requirement structures proposed for human occupancy required the construction site. CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Off-site erosion and sedimentation could occur if increased stormwater runoff were Building Code, and Grading and Excavation Code conveyed over unstable off-site soil surfaces. Because all stormwater from the Specific and implementation of code requirements and Plan area would continue to be conveyed through the City storm drainage system, mitigation measures,this impact is considered less stormwater runoff would not likely result in substantial erosion or sedimentation. than significant. Furthermore, any project sites 1 acre in size or larger are subject to the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such compliance, in addition to implementation of code requirement CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1, would reduce soil instability impacts to a less-than-significant level. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-7 0 0 - @ o • o • ' m • o - - • o • e e - o • • o - s Im Stafertient Im Summ" Findin Impact 4.5-4 A portion of the Specific Plan area Portions of the Specific Plan area would be subject to subsidence, which could result in Finding 1. The City finds that the identified would be located on subsidence-prone and the settlement of in-place subgrade soils caused by loads generated by large changes or alterations in the project,which would potentially liquefiable soils. However, with earthmoving equipment.Additionally,as shallow groundwater is found within the Specific reduce Impact 4.5-4 to a less-than-significant compliance with slope and soil stability standards Plan area, dewatering activities in the Specific Plan area could be needed during level,are hereby incorporated into the project. No required by the City of Huntington Beach General construction of any subterranean levels. The removal of groundwater to create a dry additional mitigation measures are necessary Plan, Building Code, and Grading and Excavation construction pit could cause porous soils to collapse when the support provided by the with the implementation of code requirement Code, as well as implementation of code water was withdrawn. Temporary shoring, dewatering wells, storage tanks, filters, and CR4.5-1 and CR4.7-1 and mitigation measure requirements and mitigation measures, this impact erosion control measures would be required and would result in a less-than-significant MM4.5-1, is considered less than significant. impact. Dewatering activities would be required to comply with the NPDES Permit for Groundwater Discharge from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Future development would be designed,constructed, and operated in conformance with the City's Municipal Code and Excavation and Grading Code,CR4.5-1 and CR4.7-1,and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. Potential risks to life and property from unstable soil conditions,subsidence,and liquefaction would be less than significant. Impact 4.5-5 A portion of the Specific Plan area A portion of the Beach Boulevard corridor is located within a "Moderate to High" soil Finding 1. The City finds that the identified would be located on expansive soil. However, with Expansion Potential area. The remainder of the project site has "Low to Moderate" soil changes or alterations in the project,which would compliance with soil stability standards required by Expansion Potential. The existence of expansive soils makes it necessary to ensure the reduce Impact 4.5-5 to a less-than-significant the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, materials used for foundation support are sound to avoid future problems. Future level,are hereby incorporated into the project. No Building Code, and Grading and Excavation Code, structures would be designed, constructed and operated in conformance with additional mitigation measures are necessary and implementation of code requirements and Section 1802.2.2 Expansive Soils, of the City's Municipal Code and Excavation and with the implementation of code requirement mitigation measures,this impact is considered less Grading Code, and would comply with CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. than significant. Potential risks to life and property associated with expansive soil would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Hazards Impact 4.6-2 Implementation of the proposed Demolition, grading and excavation activities for the proposed project could result in the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could create a potential significant hazard exposure of construction personnel and the public to previously unidentified hazardous changes or alterations in the project,which would to the public or the environment through substances in the soil. If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered reduce Impact 4.6-2 to less-than-significant reasonably foreseeable upset and accident during demolition, grading or excavation, the removal activities required could pose levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. conditions involving the release of hazardous health and safety risks capable of resulting in various short-term or long-term adverse No additional mitigation measures are necessary materials into the environment. However, with health effects in exposed persons. Additionally, construction activities on existing sites with the implementation of mitigation measures compliance with existing regulations and that are known to be contaminated could pose risks to workers.Coupled with compliance MM4.6-1,MM4.6-2,and MM4.6-3. implementation of mitigation measures,this impact with existing local, State and federal regulations relating to potentially hazardous is considered less than significant. materials, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.6-1 and MM4.6-2 would ensure that any potentially hazardous materials that may be discovered during construction activities would be handled so as to minimize potential exposure to construction workers and nearby residents. A portion of the project site south of Ellis Avenue is located within a designated 2-8 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations •• - MA'FinclingO Table, N • dings forthe,Beach • o Edinger CorridorsSpecific • ImpactSkftment Impoctsummary Findings methane gas overlay district. The City has set minimum requirements for new building construction within the methane overlay districts in order to reduce the hazards presented from accumulations of methane gas by requiring the appropriate testing and mitigation measures for all new buildings within the methane districts. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.6-3 would ensure appropriate testing and methods of gas reduction,as required by the HBFD. Impact 4.6-4 Individual sites within the Specific Sites located within the Specific Plan area have been identified on various regulatory Finding 1. The City finds that the identified Plan are included on a list of hazardous materials databases as being contaminated from the release of hazardous substances in the soil or changes or alterations in the project,which would sites and as a result could create a significant groundwater. Development of these sites would be required to undergo remediation and reduce Impact 4.6-4 to less-than-significant hazard to the public or environment. However,with cleanup before construction activities can begin. If contamination at any specific project levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. implementation of mitigation measures,this impact site were to exceed regulatory action levels, the project Applicant would be required to No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the with the implementation of mitigation measure supervision of appropriate regulatory oversight agencies. Implementation of mitigation MM4.6-1 and MM4.6-2. measures MM4.6-1 and MM4.6-2 would ensure that contaminated sites undergo remediation activities prior to development activities. As such, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.6-6 Implementation of the Specific Plan Construction of future development under the Specific Plan could result in short-term Finding 1. The City finds that the identified could impair implementation of or physically temporary impacts on street traffic adjacent to the proposed sites due to roadway and changes or alterations in the project,which would interfere with an adopted emergency response infrastructure improvements and the potential extension of construction activities into the reduce Impact 4.6-6 to less-than-significant plan or emergency evacuation plan. However,with right-of-way.This could result in a reduction of the number of lanes or temporary closure levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. implementation of mitigation measures,this impact of certain street segments.Any such impacts would be limited to the construction period No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. of individual projects and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections.Additionally, with the implementation of mitigation measures mitigation measure MM4.6-4 would ensure that emergency response teams for the City MM4.6-4. of Huntington Beach would be notified of any lane closures during construction activities in the project site and that a minimum one lane would remain open at all times to provide adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding neighborhoods, thereby resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.7-1 Construction and operation of the The proposed project would include construction activities, which would temporarily Finding 1. The City finds that the identified Specific Plan could increase stormwater runoff and disturb soils. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, changes or alterations in the project,which would alter existing land use such that stormwater resulting in sediment transport from the site. Erosion and sedimentation affects water reduce Impact 4.7-1 to less-than-significant pollutant loads or concentrations,including erosion quality through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and the respiration, levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. and sediment, are increased. These processes growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants, such as No additional mitigation measures are necessary could result in a violation of waste discharge nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported with the implementation of mitigation measure requirements or water quality standards and downstream,which could contribute to degradation of water quality. MM4.7-1. provide substantial additional sources of polluted During the operational phase of the proposed project, the major source of pollution in runoff. However, with implementation of mitigation stormwater runoff would be contaminants that have accumulated on rooftops and other Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-9 o e - !+ ' e • Table Q• Findi;ngs forthe Beach • • Edihger Corridors • - Plan EIR Impoctstatement by"ctsurnmaly Findings measures, this impact is considered less than impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, pedestrian walkways, and the off-site road significant. improvements prior to connecting to the storm drain system. Implementation of existing City regulations and mitigation measure MM4.7-1 would reduce potential pollutant loads, assure that appropriate BMPs are used (e.g., constraints on infiltration-type BMPs) and regulatory requirements are met. Therefore, any post-construction violation of water quality standards would be less than significant. Impact 4.7-2 Implementation of the proposed Construction activities are anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact on Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could result in substantial groundwater groundwater. changes or alterations in the project,which would dewatering or deplete groundwater supplies. Construction dewatering for utilities, foundation excavation and fill, and below-grade reduce Impact 4.7-2 to less-than-significant However, with implementation of code structures could be required. Development of the project would require coverage under levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. requirements and mitigation measures, this impact the De Minimus Threat General Permit, which would include discharge quantity and No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. quality limitations, based on site and groundwater characteristics. Compliance with code with the implementation of code requirement requirement CR4.7-1 would reduce potential impacts due to dewatering.Additionally, if a CR4.7-1 and mitigation measure MM4.7-2. project proposes to develop underground structures that include permanent groundwater dewatering,implementation of mitigation measure MM4.7-2 would ensure that permanent groundwater dewatering does not cause or contribute to a lowering of the local groundwater table that would affect nearby water supply wells. Impact 4.7-3 Implementation of the proposed The storm drain system serving the project site is currently constrained for build out of Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could increase stormwater runoff, exceed the General Plan (as assessed in the MPD) and may be constrained for existing changes or alterations in the project,which would the capacity of existing or planned stormwater conditions. Development in accordance with the Specific Plan could result in an increase reduce Impact 4.7-3 to less-than-significant drainage systems, and cause on- or off-site in the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions by up to about levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. flooding. However, with implementation of 6 percent thereby increasing stormwater runoff. No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,this impact is considered less Implementation of the Municipal NPDES Permit requires that priority development with the implementation of mitigation measures than significant. projects must infiltrate,harvest and re-use,evapotranspire,or bio-treat(e.g.,biofilter)the MM4.7-3 and MM4.7-4. 85t percentile storm event.This would also result in a reduction in peak flow rates for all design storms,' however this reduction may not be sufficient to ensure that the proposed project has adequate storm drain capacity. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.7-3 and MM4.74 would assess each specific development contribution to potential system capacity constraints and provide for mitigation of constraints such that potential impacts to storm drain system capacities would be less than significant. Noise Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed During construction activities, noise would be generated through the use of heavy Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could generate noise levels in excess of machinery that could affect sensitive receptors. However, construction-related noise is changes or alterations in the project,which would 1 Design storms,as described in the MPD,include the 10-year,25-year, 50-year,and 100-year storm events,where chance of a storm event occurring in any given year is 10 percent for the 10-year storm event,4 percent for the 25-year storm event,2 percent for the 50-year storm event,and 1 percent for the 100-year storm event. 2-10 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 2 NA Findings, Table N o •s for the Beach and Edii'naef.Corridorso - a lmpoctStateme4 ImpactSurnmaty Fincings standards established by the City. However, with intermittent in nature and would not generate continuous noise levels above the reduce Impact 4.9-1 to less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures,this impact Municipal Code standards. Furthermore, mitigation measures MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2, and levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. is considered less than significant. MM4.9-3 would ensure that exterior and interior noise levels would adhere to City No additional mitigation measures are necessary standards. with the implementation of mitigation measures Operational noise sources could include such stationary sources as rooftop HVAC MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3 (construction) and systems which could result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA Leq at mitigation measures MM4.9-4 and MM4.9-5 50 feet from the equipment. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-4 would (operational). reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the proposed project would introduce new noise activity in the area as residences are constructed and people are attracted to the new mix of uses. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-5 would require an acoustical analysis of all new residences to ensure that noise levels in liveable areas do not exceed established City criteria. Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed Due to the location of existing sensitive receptors with respect to the Specific Plan area, Finding 3. The City finds that even with project could generate or expose persons or groundborne vibration could occur at sensitive receptors at levels greater than 85 VdB at implementation of all feasible mitigation structures to excessive groundborne vibration. 25 feet. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3 would help to measures(MM4.9-1,MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3)and Even with implementation of mitigation measures, reduce this impact.However,this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. compliance with applicable requirements, the construction impacts are considered significant and proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable. unavoidable noise impact due to groundborne vibration. No feasible mitigation measures in addition to mitigation measures MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3 are available. Impact 4.9-3 Implementation of the proposed Construction activities associated with the proposed project could reach above 86 dBA Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would result in a substantial temporary or Leq within 50 feet of the proposed project site and could result in a temporary increase in changes or alterations in the project,which would periodic increase in ambient noise levels during ambient noise levels of over 3 dBA at uses adjacent to the project site. However, the reduce Impact 4.9-3 to less-than-significant construction activities but not during project construction activities would only occur during the permitted hours designated in the City levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. operation. However, with implementation of of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.9-1 No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,these impacts are considered through MM4.9-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. with the implementation of mitigation measures less than significant. MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3. Impact 4.9-4 The proposed project would not Permanent noise sources anticipated under the proposed project include Finding 1. The City finds that the identified cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient roadway/vehicular noise and noise generated by HVAC systems. No roadways within or changes or alterations in the project,which would noise levels. With implementation of mitigation around the Specific Plan would be anticipated to exceed the 3.0 dBA Ldn increase with reduce Impact 4.9-4 to less-than-significant measures, this impact is considered less than implementation of the proposed project. With implementation of mitigation measure levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. significant. MM4.9-4, noise levels resulting from HVAC systems would be reduced to a level that No additional mitigation measures are necessary would result in a less-than-significant impact.Therefore,this impact would be considered with the implementation of mitigation measures less than significant. MM4.9-4. Cumulative Noise Cumulative development in the City of Huntington Beach is not considered likely to result Finding 3. The City finds that even with in the exposure of on-site or off-site receptors to excessive groundborne noise and implementation of all feasible mitigation Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-11 •s - ! clings • • - N o • a - 'Be• • s o o -r Corridors Specifi:co ImpoctSkitement Impactsurnmory Findings' vibration due to the localized nature of vibration impacts. However, sensitive receptors measures(MM4.9-1,MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3)and located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each compliance with applicable requirements, the activity. Construction activities associated with these projects, which are adjacent to or proposed project would result in a significant and within,the Specific Plan, may overlap with construction activities for the proposed project unavoidable cumulative noise impact due to for some amount of time. Therefore,vibration from future development could combine to groundborne vibration. No feasible mitigation result in a potentially significant cumulative impact. Implementation of mitigation measures in addition to mitigation measures measures MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3 would help reduce this impact, but not to a less- MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3 are available. than-significant level. Therefore,the cumulative impact of the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable. Population and Housing Cumulative Population and Housing The proposed project would develop residential and neighborhood-serving commercial Finding 1. Based on the recommended Modified uses that would increase population and housing opportunities in the City. However,the Project, the City finds that the identified changes Modified Project as recommended by staff would result in the reduction of 1,900 or alterations to the project, which would reduce residential dwelling units as compared to the project as originally proposed and analyzed the Cumulative Impact to Population and Housing in the Draft EIR.As such,the Modified Project would result in approximately 5,054 fewer identified for the project as originally proposed to residents and the citywide cumulative development would no longer exceed SCAG's a less-than-significant level, are hereby 2030 growth projections and a cumulative impact to population and housing would no incorporated into the project. No additional longer occur. mitigation measures are necessary Public Services Impact 4.11-1 Implementation of the proposed Although the Specific Plan would permit less commercial and office square footage within Finding 3. The City finds that even with project would increase the demand for fire the corridors than is currently allowed, the increase in more intensive development implementation of feasible mitigation (MM4.11- protection services, and could require the throughout various segments and associated residential population would result in an 1)and compliance with applicable requirements, construction of new or physically altered facilities to increase in the number of fire service calls to the area compared to existing conditions. the proposed project would result in a significant accommodate the increased demand. Even with Implementation of MM4.11-1 would ensure that the HBFD receives adequate staffing and unavoidable impact to fire services. No implementation of mitigation measures,this impact and/or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of service. However, because each fire feasible mitigation measures in addition to is considered significant and unavoidable. station is currently at capacity, it is likely that increases in staffing or equipment would mitigation measure MM4.11-1 are available. require expansion of existing facilities or new fire station(s). Due to the size and long-range nature of the proposed project,it is not possible to specify the exact type,location,size,or timing of future development,which may contribute to an eventual increase in calls to the HBFD. Therefore, it is currently unknown which fire station may eventually require an expansion to accommodate an increase or expansion. However, because the provision of additional fire personnel and/or equipment could require new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts,this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 2-12 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter N , Finclifigs Table-2-1 C1EQA Findingsor the'Be-ach and Edinger Corridors • - Plan EIR ImpactSkitement Impactsurnmary Findings Impact 4.11-3 Although the proposed project could Population growth resulting from implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would Finding 1. The City finds that the identified result in additional students it is not anticipated to increase the number of students within the HBCSD, OVSD,and HBUHSD through 2030. changes or alterations in the project,which would require new or physically altered facilities, the However, the majority of schools serving the Specific Plan project site are currently reduce Impact 4.11-3 to less-than-significant construction of which could cause significant operating below maximum capacity.Additionally, all three school districts anticipate that levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. environmental impacts. The increase in students the enrollment will be lower in the upcoming years and will continue to decline in the No additional mitigation measures are necessary would likely be accommodated within existing future. Due to declining enrollment within each district, new students generated as a with the implementation of CR4.11-1, CR4.11-2, facilities due to available capacity in the school result of future development would not result in overcrowding and would likely help offset and CR4.11-3. districts. With implementation of code the current declining student population.Furthermore,incorporation of code requirements requirements, this impact is considered less than CR4.11-1,CR4.11-2,and CR4.11-3 would ensure that impacts to schools would be less significant. than significant. Impact 4.11-4 Implementation of the proposed Implementation of the proposed project would place a higher demand on services Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would not result in the need for new or provided by the Huntington Beach Library System.However,implementation of CR4.11-4 changes or alterations in the project,which would physically altered library facilities in order to would ensure that new development pay its fair share of fees towards library services to reduce Impact 4.11-4 to less-than-significant maintain acceptable service ratios. With ensure that increased growth does not result in significant impacts on existing services. levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. implementation of code requirements, this impact No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. with the implementation of CR4.11-4. Cumulative Fire Services Impact As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the Finding 3. The City finds that even with demand for fire services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. However, the implementation of feasible mitigation (MM4.11- HBFD is currently at capacity at each of their stations throughout the City.Therefore,any 1)and compliance with applicable requirements, increases in personnel and/or equipment would necessitate the expansion of existing the proposed project would result in a significant facilities or development of a new station, the construction of which could result in and unavoidable cumulative impact to fire significant environmental impacts. The proposed project's contribution to this cumulative services. No feasible mitigation measures in impact would be cumulatively considerable. Although MM4.11-1 would ensure that the addition to mitigation measure MM4.11-1 are project site is served within established response times and adequate staffing and available. equipment levels are maintained, the increase in either could trigger construction activities at an existing or new fire station. The contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on fire services would be cumulatively considerable. This is considered to be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Recreation Impact 4.12-1 Implementation of the proposed The direct increase in population could result in an increase in the use of local and Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would increase the use of and/or otherwise regional recreational facilities. However,future development within the project site would changes or alterations in the project,which would affect existing parks and recreational facilities, but be required to satisfy Chapter 230 and Chapter 254.08 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, reduce Impact 4.12-1 to less-than-significant would not cause substantial physical deterioration which implements the provisions of the Quimby Act, as identified by code requirement levels are hereby incorporated into the project. of the facilities to occur or be accelerated. With CR4.12-1. This could be met through land dedication or payment of park fees. While No additional mitigation measures are necessary implementation of code requirements, this impact dedicated parkland directly increases the available recreation space within the City for with the implementation of CR4.12-1. is considered less than significant. residents,the payment of park fees from new development could be allocated to fund the acquisition and/or development of future parks or facility renovations associated with Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-13 o s - A ' ftniclings Table !► • Findings forthe Beach o • Edinger Corridors • - Plan EIR impactSkdement Impact summary Ahcrings increased use of public facilities. Furthermore, the Modified Project includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential units(equivalent to approximately 5,054 residents)that will reduce demand on both existing and proposed parks and recreational facilities. Adherence to existing applicable local regulations and implementation of CR4.12-1 would ensure that parks and open space are acquired,developed, improved, and expanded as future residential projects are constructed in the Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.12-2 Implementation of the proposed Development within the Specific Plan area would be required to provide private and Finding 3. The City finds that even with project could result in the construction of public open space per existing regulations and standards. The potential construction of implementation of code requirement CR4.12-1, recreational facilities at the time of future these recreational amenities would occur as part of specific development projects in the compliance with applicable requirements, and development and/or redevelopment. Despite future. While direct physical effects could result as part of the individual construction changes to the project, the proposed project implementation of code requirements, this impact scenarios, future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would be would result in a significant and unavoidable is considered significant and unavoidable. subject to individual environmental clearance to ensure adequate review of potential impact to recreation. No feasible mitigation impacts and would be required to adhere to CR4.12-1. However, due to the substantial measures in addition to code requirement requirement of approximately 60 acres of new parkland that could be required at buildout MM4.12-1 are available. of the project, it is not feasible at this time to speculate where future acquisitions, development,improvements,and/or expansions to open space and parklands throughout the City may occur. Such improvements would likely occur off site,outside of the project boundaries, given the developed nature of the commercial corridors. The Modified Project, which includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential dwelling units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, would reduce the requirement for parkland space. However, as the specifics of future recreational facilities are unknown at this time, regardless of the exact amount of parkland needed, it is infeasible to provide adequate mitigation measures to cover the breadth of potential future actions.Therefore,this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Recreation Impact Development of other related projects in the City of Huntington Beach could result in the Finding 3. The City finds that even with development of new recreational facilities, the construction of which may cause a implementation of code requirement CR4.12-1, significant effect on the environment. The proposed project could ultimately require the compliance with applicable requirements, and equivalent of approximately 60 acres of new parkland, either through land dedication or changes to the project, the proposed project the payment of fees for future improvements of existing parks. There are many options would result in a significant and unavoidable that could be implemented to adhere to the City's local park requirements; however, cumulative impact to recreation. No feasible because the improvements could span a multitude of parks in existing residential mitigation measures in addition to code neighborhoods, or could result in the dedication of new parkland elsewhere in the City, requirement CR4.12-1 are available. the potential environmental impacts are considered speculative. The Modified Project, which includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential dwelling units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, would reduce the requirement for parkland space. However,as the specifics of future recreational facilities are unknown at this time, regardless of the exact amount of parkland needed, it is infeasible to provide 2-14 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations s • - Q• Fificlings, able • O • • • • • • g"er Corri-dorsSpecific Plan EIIR Impactswement Im summ Findngs adequate mitigation measures to cover the breadth of potential future actions.Therefore, the proposed project would have a considerable contribution, and this cumulative impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Transportation/Traffic Impact 4.13-1 Under Year 2016 conditions, As analyzed for the Year 2016 condition, the proposed project would result in a Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations operation of the proposed project would cause an significant impact at four intersections using the ICU performance criteria. Two of these that could reduce the potential impact of the increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to were also identified as showing a project impact using the HCM criteria.Three additional proposed project are within the responsibility and the existing traffic load and capacity of the street project impacted locations were identified using the HCM criteria. Additionally,the 1-405 jurisdiction of another public agency and not the system. Even with implementation of mitigation northbound loop ramp from Beach Boulevard was determined to be deficient in both the agency making the findings. measures,this impact is considered significant and AM and PM peak hours. A discretionary action was proposed to reduce the potential Finding 3. The City finds that, while unavoidable. impact at the intersection Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue to a less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 level. Mitigation measures MM4.13-1 through MM4.13-14 were developed to reduce the through MM4.13-14 and changes to the project remainder of the potentially significant intersection impacts. However, for Caltrans would reduce impacts at local intersections, for intersections, changes or improvements would require coordination and approval by intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. Consequently, this is considered a significant and coordination and approval by Caltrans would be unavoidable impact. required and is not guaranteed at this time. As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce impacts at Caltrans intersection and impact at these intersections would remain significant and unavoidable without approval by Caltrans. Impact 4.13-2 Under Year 2030 conditions, As analyzed for the Year 2030 condition, the proposed project would result in a Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations operation of the proposed project would cause an potentially significant impact at seven intersections using the ICU performance criteria. that could reduce the potential impact of the increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to Four of these were also identified as showing a project impact using the HCM criteria. proposed project are within the responsibility and the forecasted traffic load and capacity of the street Two additional project impacted locations were identified using the HCM criteria. jurisdiction of another public agency and not the system. Even with implementation of mitigation Additionally, the 1-405 northbound loop ramp from Beach Boulevard is deficient in both agency making the findings. measures,this impact is considered significant and the AM and PM peak hours.A discretionary action was proposed to reduce the potential Finding 3. The City finds that, while unavoidable. impact at the intersection Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue to a less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 level. Mitigation measures MM4.13-1 through MM4.13-18 were developed to reduce the through MM4.13-18 and changes to the project remainder of the potentially significant intersection impacts. However, for Caltrans would reduce impacts at local intersections, for intersections, changes or improvements would require coordination and approval by intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. The improvements for the remaining two locations, coordination and approval by Caltrans would be Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Bolsa Avenue, would required and is not guaranteed at this time. As mitigate the project impact at these locations but not achieve an acceptable LOS under such, there are no feasible mitigation measures the ICU methodology. Consequently, this is considered a significant and unavoidable available to reduce impacts at Caltrans impact. intersection and impact at these intersections would remain significant and unavoidable without Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-15 e e - h ' Finclins • s - 2-1. CEQA Findingsfor - Sbath • • Edinger Corridors • - • Im act Statement ImpactSummafy Findngi approval by Caltrans. Impact 4.13-5 Implementation of the project would The potential for roadway hazards can also occur as an inherent result of the placement Finding 1. The City finds that the identified not substantially increase roadway hazards. With of additional access points along public roadways. New intersections require adequate changes or alterations in the project,which would implementation of code requirements, this impact sight distance and intersection traffic control in order to minimize potential hazards. In reduce Impact 4.13-5 to less-than-significant is considered less than significant. order to ensure safe construction of project intersections, implementation of CR4.13-1 levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. and CR4.13-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with roadway hazards to a No additional mitigation measures are necessary less-than-significant level. with the implementation of CR4.13-1 and CR4.13-2. Cumulative Traffic Future development for the Year 2030, in conjunction with cumulative traffic generated, Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations would result in a potentially significant impact at various intersections. However, that could reduce the potential impact of the mitigation measures MM4.13-1 to MM4.13-18 would require future applicants to provide proposed project are within the responsibility and a fair share payment for improvements to those intersections (as applicable). Although jurisdiction of another public agency and not the the significant impact at these intersections would be reduced to a less-than-significant agency making the findings. level as a result of fair share payment for improvements, implementation of the proposed Finding 3. The City finds that, while project would also contribute to projected regional freeway deficiencies in both 2016 and implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 2030.The increase in projected regional freeway deficiencies is considered substantial in through MM4.13-18 and changes to the project relation to the forecasted traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, the would reduce impacts at local intersections,there proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects in the area would result in a is no feasible mitigation available to reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to area traffic. This is considered a proposed project's contribution to impacts at the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. regional freeway deficiencies. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.14-1 Implementation of the proposed The existing water pipes throughout the project site would provide some of the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could require new water connections or infrastructure necessary to provide water service to future uses under buildout of the changes or alterations in the project,which would expanded water conveyance systems. However, proposed project. However, it is likely that new on-site and off-site improvements (both reduce Impact 4.14-1 to less-than-significant the project would not require or result in the public and private) could be required to provide adequate service for the increase in levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. construction of new or expanded water treatment water demand. With respect to wastewater treatment, future development under the No additional mitigation measures are necessary facilities, the construction of which could cause proposed project represents a fraction of the remaining operating capacity at the existing with the implementation of CR4.14-1. significant environmental effects. This impact is treatment plants, it is anticipated that the existing plants could adequately serve the considered less than significant. additional demand generated by the proposed project without requiring expansion of these facilities. Prior to allowing additional connections or upgrades to the existing water lines, CR4.14-1 would be implemented which would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 4.14-2 Implementation of the proposed Based on the current state of water delivery to the City of Huntington Beach from Finding 3.The City finds that with implementation project would generate an additional demand for Metropolitan (based on the amount of water available to Metropolitan due to climate of mitigation measure MM4.14-1 and code water, which would require water supplies in conditions),the amount of water available to the City of Huntington Beach through 2030 requirement CR4.14-2 the proposed project excess of existing entitlements and resources, or may vary, at times supplies could exceed demand. However, a conservative analysis would result in a significant and unavoidable result in the need for new or expanded indicates that the water demand anticipated under the proposed project could exceed impact to water. No feasible mitigation measures 2-16 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations a e - N • • Table Q • Findings forthe Beach • • Edih ger Corridors • - Plan EIR Impactstatement Impoctsummary Rndngs entitlements. Even with the implementation of projected supplies if supply conditions continue as they are currently. Future water in addition to mitigation measure MM4.14-1 and mitigation measures, this impact is considered conservation measures employed by the and within the City of Huntington Beach can code requirement CR4.14-2are available. significant and unavoidable. help to reduce this impact.Additionally,implementation of mitigation measure MM4.14-1 and code requirement CR4.14-2 would reduce the impact to the extent feasible. However, due to an uncertainty in future supply and demand reduction measures, this impact would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.14-4 Implementation of the proposed Discharge associated with development under the proposed Specific Plan would be Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could require new sewer connections, and expected to exceed the capacity of several existing sewer pipes and require upsizing at changes or alterations in the project,which would could require or result in the construction of new or several locations.Additionally, because individual projects are unknown at this time, the reduce Impact 4.14-4 to less-than-significant expanded wastewater conveyance systems. remaining capacity available within the OCSD main and trunk lines at the time of each levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with implementation of code development is also unknown at this time.As such,development under the Specific Plan No additional measures are necessary with the requirements and mitigation measures, this impact could result in exceedance of City or OCSD wastewater collection systems.Additionally, implementation of code requirements CR4.14-3 is considered less than significant. analysis of the capacity of existing wastewater treatment systems and the need for new and CR4.14-4 as well as mitigation measure wastewater collection systems will have to be completed. Implementation of code MM4.14-2. requirements CR4.14-3 and CR4.14-4 as well as mitigation measure MM4.14-2 will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative Water Supply Current projections of regional supplies indicate that over the horizon of the proposed Finding 3. The City finds that even with project,all hydrologic years are insufficient to meet projected demands within the Orange implementation of mitigation measures MM4.14-1 County groundwater basin. This is primarily due to supply cutbacks related to the and MM4.14-2 as well as code requirements protection of the threatened Delta smelt and a continued statewide drought. In response, CR4.14-1 through CR4.14-4, the proposed Metropolitan's WSAP was adopted to curtail demands. If multiple dry years prevail, project will result in a significant and unavoidable further import water reductions could be necessary. Consequently, on an annual basis cumulative impact to water.No feasible mitigation MWDOC would adjust its supply allocations to higher MWDOC's WSAP stages. measures in addition to MM4.14-1 and MM4.14-2 However, statewide supply is subject to change and could return to normal precipitation as well as code requirements CR4.14-1 through at which point demand conservation measures and supply by Metropolitan would be 4.14-4 are available. relaxed. However, the proposed project would continue to contribute to the regional deficiency in the future,the effects of the proposed project are cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to water supply. Impact 4.15-1 Implementation of future Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant Finding 1. The City finds that the identified development under the proposed project would impact due to GHG production. However,operation of the proposed project will result in changes or alterations in the project,which would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in the the continued contribution of GHGs,primarily related to the production of CO2 by vehicles reduce Impact 4.15-1 to less-than-significant state of California. However, with implementation attributed to the proposed project.With implementation of mitigation measures MM4.15-1 levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. of mitigation measures, this impact is considered through MM4.15-9 as well as compliance with guidance provided by the CCAT,CAPCOA No additional measures are necessary with the less than significant. and the California Attorney General, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures MM4.15-1 level. through MM4.15-9 as well as compliance with guidance provided by the CCAT, CAPCOA and the California Attorney General. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-17 CHA • • • e • • • ® e e v e Pro*ect and' • • e 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Draft EIR prepared for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project considered three separate alternatives to the project originally analyzed. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project,which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." As discussed in Chapter 2, the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR has been rejected from further consideration. A modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) is more desirable than the project analyzed in the Draft EIR and is recommended to become the recommended project and replace the original project. The Modified Project would allow for the development of up to 4,500 dwelling units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. All other elements of the project as originally proposed would remain as presented in the EIR. As a result of the reduction in residential dwelling units, the anticipated population would be reduced by approximately 5,054 residents. This reduction would reduce impacts identified for the project as originally proposed to traffic/transportation by reducing potential vehicle trips and congestion in the project area. As a result of the reduction in vehicle trips, a reduction in the associated impacts to air quality is anticipated. The reduction in dwelling units will also result in a reduced demand to water in the long-term, thereby reducing potential impacts on future water supply. The Modified Project would continue to result in a significant and unavoidable impact to recreation however, the severity of the impact would be reduced due to the reduction in residential dwelling units and an associated reduction in required recreational facilities from 85 to 60 acres. The modified project would also eliminate a significant cumulative impact to population/housing. This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to reject the originally proposed project, develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR, and recommend a modified version of Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project). A description of the alternatives compared to the project originally proposed and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision-making process. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the project as originally proposed and identified by the City, as well as those of the Modified Project are as follows: Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-1 •0 - • • -0• 0 • - Rejected Projectarf.dProject Alternatives ■ Orchestrate new public and private investment toward the establishment of a more lasting framework for growth and developmenta framework of clearly defined districts, centers, street patterns, and local architecture, and landscape identity—upon which new development can reliably respond to,build upon, and draw value from. ■ Re-position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. ■ Begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. ■ Promote new investment that supports the growth and success of Bella Terra and Golden West College. ■ Build on the presence of Golden West College, Bella Terra, and the existing transit infrastructure to instigate the emergence of a vital and attractive urban district characterized by a synergistic mix of students, customers,residents, pedestrians, transit-riders, office workers, and visitors. ■ Instigate the development of a network of pedestrian-oriented streets, promenades, and other public open spaces that encourage walking, and ultimately, walking in combination with transit ridership. • Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between Golden West College, Bella Terra, the Goldenwest Transit Center, and development along Edinger Avenue. ■ Balance mobility and community development objectives that enable continued market-driven growth and development while maintaining minimum community mobility standards, and furthering patterns of land use and development that contribute toward long-term regional mobility and livability. ■ Make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. ■ Ensure that new buildings and landscaping contribute to the emergence of an increasingly visible and memorable visual identity appropriate to the unique history and character of the City. ■ Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development. 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[f][1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the project as originally proposed. 3-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter • • -•• e • - �pject6d'Prpject • • Project Ap 3.4 PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the project as originally proposed, as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. Three scenarios, representing a range of reasonable Alternatives to the project as originally proposed were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating any of these Alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of a proposed project,while attaining most of the project objectives. In general,the primary contention of the proposed Specific Plan was the perceived significant increase in residential uses that would be permitted. Consequently, because no specific Alternative can reduce any of the known significant impacts to a less- than-significant level, consideration was given to reductions in residential uses to determine the varying levels of impacts and how those would compare to the proposed project. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project as originally analyzed in the Draft EIR is infeasible. The reasons for each finding are provided following the description of the alternative, and are further described in the Draft EIR. 3.4.1 The Rejected Originally Proposes! Project The project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR included an addition of up to 6,400 new dwelling units (du), 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. Although the original project analyzed in the August 2009 Draft EIR would meet the objectives of the City, it would create significant and unavoidable project-related impacts to seven environmental issue areas and cumulative impacts to eight environmental issue areas,which led the City to prepare a modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) that would lessen project-related impacts and avoid the cumulative impact to Population and Housing, The primary difference between the project as originally proposed and the Modified Project is a reduction of 1,900 residential dwelling units, from 6,400 to 4,500 dwelling units. Findings The City hereby finds that the project as originally proposed is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social and other considerations: The project as originally proposed would result in significant and unavoidable project-level impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Furthermore, the project as originally proposed would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services,Recreation,Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-3 • • -f,3 fihding§Re gardirfg the Rejected Project andProject • 3.4.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation As shown below and in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, a range of Alternatives were considered but eliminated from further evaluation. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described below: Reducing Project-Related Impacts: As one of the main goals in determining potential alternatives to a project is to reduce significant project-related impacts, alternatives initially considered included those that could reduce potential impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities. However, many of the identified impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable because of the speculative nature of the Specific Plan and the lack of project-specific information at the current time. As such, a specific alternative to reduce project-related impacts could not reasonably be determined and was rejected as infeasible. Alternative site: As the Specific Plan is designed to guide the development of the Beach and Edinger Corridors, an alternative site would not be appropriate as an Alternative to the project as originally proposed and an alternative site was rejected as infeasible. All Residential or All Commercial: Other land uses such as all residential for all new or redevelopment would not achieve the objectives of the project as originally proposed and would not attract a wide range of activities to provide a dynamic atmosphere along various segments of the corridors or provide enough flexibility to adequately respond to changing market conditions over the long-term. In addition, by allowing only residential uses within the project site, it is likely that many of the significant impacts identified for the project as originally analyzed in the Draft EIR would be increased. All-commercial development would represent similar conditions to continuance of the current General Plan, which is evaluated under Alternative 1 (No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development). Therefore, an all- residential or all-commercial alternative was rejected from further analysis in the Draft EIR. No Project/No Build: As theoretical buildout year of the Specific Plan is 2030, it is considered extremely unlikely that no development on any parcel would occur in the corridors during this time frame. Therefore, this alternative was rejected as infeasible and the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario was evaluated instead. 3.4.3 Alternatives to the Project As shown below and in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, three alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: ■ Alternative 1—No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing General Plan): Under this Alternative, development in the project site would occur under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. This Alternative allows the decision- makers to compare the impacts of approving the project as originally proposed with the impacts of not approving the project as proposed. 3-4 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 F • • -e e • s the Rejeicted"Pr9jgEt aind Fr6jeZt • - ® Alternative 2—Decreased Residential: Under this Alternative, future development would be guided by a Specific Plan that permits a maximum of 4,500 dwelling units and approximately 137,000 square feet (sf more commercial/office uses than would be permitted by the project as originally proposed. The "increased" commercial results from existing commercial development not being demolished so that residential/mixed-use development can be built. It is an increase compared with the project as originally proposed, but it doesn't represent new commercial construction. Compared to the maximum of 6,400 units as proposed under the original project, this would represent a reduction in residential units by approximately 30 percent (1,900 units), and an increase in commercial/office uses by approximately 16 percent. The majority of the residential units would be decreased from Town Center Boulevard segment (1,055 units), followed by a decrease of 480 units in the Five Points segment, and 365 units in the Neighborhood Parkway segment. Similarly, due to the decrease in residential uses, the majority of increased commercial uses would be located within the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Table 3-1 (Alternative 3—Comparison to Specific Plan) summarizes where the changes would occur. Table Alternative e s • • • Specifht Plan segmere Residential Com on ,..Commercial Com 'on'' x Town Center Boulevard -1,055 +137,790 Neighborhood Boulevard — — Five Points -480 -340 Neighborhood Parkway -365 — Residential Parkway — — Total -11900 +137,450 ® Alternative 3—Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial: Under this Alternative, residential units would be decreased even further to a maximum of 4,300 dwelling units, and approximately 487,000 square feet (sf of additional commercial/office square footage would be added, for a total of approximately 1,337,830 sf of commercial/office uses. This would represent an approximate 33 percent reduction in residential uses and approximate 57 percent increase in commercial uses. Similar to Alternative 2, the majority of the land use changes would occur in the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Table 3-2 (Alternative 3—Comparison to Specific Plan) summarizes where the changes would occur. Table Alternative • o • e to • - e segrnent ResidenBal Comparison Commercial Com on Town Center Boulevard -1,265 +281,840 Neighborhood Boulevard — — Five Points -480 +55,660 Neighborhood Parkway -355 +119,930 Residential Parkway — +30,000 Total -2,100 +487,430 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-5 'Chapter,,3 Findings -•• • • the Rejected Pr9ject • • Project • ives 0 No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing General Plan) Implementation of the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would represent the continuation of the City's existing General Plan and zoning designations to guide future growth and development within the project site. The majority of the project site is zoned Commercial General (CG) which has a height limit of 50 feet (approximately four stories), and varying requirements for setbacks, densities, etc. for commercial/office development. For this Alternative, impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the project site with the allowed land uses and development standards designated in the existing General Plan and zoning designations. Compared with the Modified Project, the overall development potential in the area under this Alternative would include more commercial and office uses and no residential uses. Under this Alternative, construction of commercial and office uses would be allowed similar to the project as originally proposed. However, the growth would occur organically and would reflect the interests of individual developers within the constraints of City policy. However, merely developing commercial and office uses as the project area is currently zoned would be in direct conflict with the identified objectives. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to require comprehensive planning for the entire area, revitalizing, and creating a pleasant and vibrant environment. The intent is to begin "the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from"anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare." The Specific Plan would allow a unified planning approach and specific design standards where future subsequent projects serve as independent pieces of the greater whole. Development under this Alternative will be more of the same type of development (e.g. strip commercial),which is not the intent of the project. The Alternative would not fulfill the objectives identified for the Specific Plan. However, it would eliminate the significant cumulative population and housing impact as well as the significant recreation impact because no residential uses would be permitted. Simultaneously, it could result in greater impacts to Aesthetics,Air Quality, and Traffic for the same reason. Findings The City hereby finds that the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social,and other considerations: ■ Would not begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. ■ Would not build on the presence of Golden West College, Bella Terra, and the existing transit infrastructure to instigate the emergence of a vital and attractive urban district characterized by a synergistic mix of students, customers, residents, pedestrians, transit-riders, office workers, and visitors. ® Would not enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between Golden West College, Bella Terra, the Goldenwest Transit Center, and development along Edinger Avenue. 3-6 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 'the • - • e -ee o • - Rejected e - • • e - s - ■ Would not make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. ■ Would not ensure that new buildings and landscaping contribute to the emergence of an increasingly visible and memorable visual identity appropriate to the unique history and character of the City. Decreased Residential Under the Decreased Residential Alternative, future development would be guided by a Specific Plan that permits a maximum of 4,500 dwelling units and approximately 137,000 square feet (sf more commercial/office uses than would be permitted by the project originally proposed. Compared to the originally proposed maximum of 6,400 units, the Decreased Residential Alternative would represent a reduction in residential units by approximately 30 percent (1,900 units), and an increase in commercial/office uses by approximately 16 percent. The majority of the residential units would be decreased from Town Center Boulevard segment (1,055 units), followed by a decrease of 480 units in the Five Points segment, and 365 units in the Neighborhood Parkway segment. Similarly, due to the decrease in residential uses, the majority of increased commercial uses would be located within the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Implementation of the Decreased Residential Alternative would satisfy most of the identified objectives. Under the Decreased Residential Alternative, 4,500 residential units, 987,400 sf commercial/office uses, and 350 hotel rooms could be developed throughout the project site. This Alternative would still allow development to occur under the Specific Plan with all of the same design parameters and guidelines. It would still guide mixed-use development and create opportunities for people to walk and utilize public transportation. However, it is possible that fewer residential units may lessen some of the positive benefits envisioned by the proposed project by potentially limiting a "critical mass" of consumers that would be expected to patronize certain areas via walking, thus limiting some of the neighborhood clusters or nodes. For the most part, this Alternative would satisfy objectives relating to developing dense residential uses within close proximity to transit, schools, and regional activities while offering close proximity to retail opportunities. In addition, Alternative 2 would reduce the significant cumulative impact associated with population and housing to a less-than-significant level because cumulative development would not exceed 2030 population projections. Findings The City hereby finds that although the Decreased Residential Alternative could reduce potential impacts due a decreased long-term population, the Decreased Residential Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ Would not provide the appropriate mix of uses across the Specific Plan area that would sufficiently reduce potential impacts. • Would not re-position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-7 Chapt er 3 Findings -•• • • the Rejected Project • • Project • ■ Would not make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. EU Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Under the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative, residential units would be decreased even further to a maximum of 4,300 dwelling units, and approximately 487,000 sf of additional commercial/office square footage would be added, for a total of approximately 1,337,830 sf of commercial/office uses. This would represent an approximate 33 percent reduction in residential uses and 57 percent increase in commercial uses, as compared to the project originally proposed. Similar to the Decreased Residential Alternative, the majority of the land use changes would occur in the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Implementation of the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative would satisfy most of the identified objectives. Under the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative, 4,300 residential units, 1,337,400 sf of commercial/office uses, and 350 hotel rooms would be permitted throughout the Specific Plan area. This Alternative would still allow development to occur under the Specific Plan with all of the same design parameters and guidelines. It would still guide mixed-use development and create opportunities for people to walk and utilize public transportation. However, it is possible that fewer residential units may lessen some of the positive benefits envisioned by the proposed project by potentially limiting a "critical mass" of consumers that would be expected to patronize certain areas via walking, thus limiting some of the neighborhood clusters or nodes. For the most part, the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative would satisfy objectives relating to developing dense residential uses within close proximity to transit, schools, and regional activities while offering close proximity to retail opportunities. In addition, Alternative 3 would reduce the significant cumulative impact associated with population and housing to a less-than-significant level because cumulative development would not exceed 2030 population projections. However,it could result in greater impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. Findings The City hereby finds that although the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative could reduce potential impacts due a decreased long-term population, the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ Would not provide the appropriate mix of uses across the Specific Plan area that would sufficiently reduce potential impacts. ■ Would not re-position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. ■ Would not begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. ■ Would not make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. 3-8 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CHAPTER 4 Statem, entpf Overridlng! • - •• • 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. In discussing the proposed project, the City of Huntington Beach gave substantial consideration to the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and the associated potential for reduced environmental impacts. The City of Huntington Beach ultimately decided to reject the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR and to approve a modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project). As such, the Modified Project includes the development of up to 4,500 residential dwelling units, a reduction of approximately 1,900 units as compared to the project as originally proposed. The commercial and retail components of the Modified Project will remain unchanged from that included in the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The City proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant project- specific Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems, as well as cumulative impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems of the Modified Project. This section describes the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to support the decision to proceed with the project even though seven identified project-specific impacts and seven identified cumulative impacts are not mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 4.2 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The City is proposing to approve the Modified Project, with revisions to reduce environmental impacts, and has prepared an EIR as required by CEQA. Even with revisions in the project, the following impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-1 -Ctiopter 4Statementof Overriding Considerations mitigation is available or that the mitigation that could be implemented is outside the purview of the City and the Applicant. Air Quality ■ Implementation of the proposed project could violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation for criteria air pollutants. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. With mitigation measures, this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. Cultural Resources ■ Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. With mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ Similar to the impact identified for the proposed project, construction activities throughout the project site could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the proposed project could contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to cultural resources. This impact would be significant and unavoidable. Noise ■ Construction of the proposed project could generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration. With implementation of mitigation measures, construction impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. ■ The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable increase in exposure of persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration both within and outside of the project site area. With implementation of mitigation measures, cumulative construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Public Services ■ Operation of the proposed project would increase the demand for fire protection services, and could require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the increased demand. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the demand for fire services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable increase in the demand on fire services. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Recreation ■ The proposed project could result in the construction of recreational facilities at the time of future development and/or redevelopment. With implementation of code requirements, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 4-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations •e - o - - • • - s e. • •- e e ■ Development of related projects could result in the development of new recreational facilities, the construction of which may cause a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the proposed project will result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the potential impact on recreation. With implementation of code requirements, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation/Trafc ■ Under Year 2016 conditions, operation of the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ Under Year 2030 conditions, operation of the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the forecasted traffic load and capacity of the street system. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ Future development for the Year 2030, in conjunction with cumulative traffic generated, would result in a potentially significant impact at various intersections. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in a considerable contribution to projected regional freeway deficiencies in both 2016 and 2030. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Utilities and Service Systems ■ Operation of the proposed project would generate an additional demand for water, which would require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources, or result in the need for new or expanded entitlements. With the implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ The proposed project would continue to contribute to a future regional deficiency, resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact to water demand. With the implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 4.3 FINDINGS The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures, code requirements, and project revisions with respect to the project's impacts, both project-specific and cumulative. The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that the No Project/No Development Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. However, CEQA requires that if the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior another alternative (that is not the No Project) must be chosen. As such, Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Two of the three project alternatives would potentially result in lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project, although not necessarily less than significant. Some additional significant impacts may result with implementation of project alternatives. However, the City finds these alternatives infeasible and less desirable than the recommended project (Modified Project) and has rejected these alternatives from further consideration because they would not achieve the environmental, economic, social, and other considerations outlined in Chapter 3 (Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-3 I 4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the impacts of the Modified Project, as stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the Modified Project, even though seven identified project- specific impacts and seven cumulative impacts are not fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level, are described below. 12 Proposed Project Benefits The Modified Project is a plan to promote and support investment opportunities that would enhance the beauty and vitality of the primary commercial corridors in the City of Huntington Beach,including Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. 1. The project would be the catalyst for transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from an "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. 2. The project emphasizes compatibility and sensitivity to the existing uses surrounding the site and would recommend a variety of sustainable features, including requiring green building practices in new development Currently the Specific Plan area contains a mixture of low-scale commercial strip development and office buildings with no consistent architectural style. Most of this development is set back a considerable distance from the roadway, as the development was driven by the desire for vehicular access and parking. Views within the Specific Plan area are typically limited to the immediately adjacent commercial, office or retail uses. As discussed in the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan, "the major commercial corridors of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue have insufficient contrast in character, and no identifiable thematic strengths." Another issue states that the "Beach Boulevard commercial corridor lacks continuity and has multiple identities. This is attributable to inconsistent and extensive signage, varied development scale and character, and widespread clutter." The Modified Project was developed to respond to the issues facing the corridors and improve the existing visual character and quality of the project site and its surroundings. Through implementation of the Modified Project, the corridors would begin a transformation from commercial strip to a pattern of centers and segments. Whereas the commercial strip is undifferentiated the future corridors would be increasingly characterized by an emerging structural differentiation that gradually increases in intensity from south to north. The overall scale and massing of development would gradually transition from the one- and two-story scale of the existing residential community in the southern portion of Beach Boulevard to a high-density town center adjacent to the I-405 at the northern boundary of the Specific Plan, which will help to protect the compatibility of adjacent uses. The Specific Plan outlines specific strategies and development regulations to help incentivize the desired change, while implementing a variety of sustainable features. Strategies include providing greater development intensities in targeted areas, specifying and requiring landscape improvements, expanding permitted land uses, and other tools. Additionally, the Specific Plan implements a "form based" code that will provide for an appropriate transition between existing and future uses. This transition is not only important between existing and new uses within the Specific Plan area but also between new uses within the 4-4 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 4 o ent of 0V- s o ConsideratiqRs Specific Plan area and adjacent uses outside of the Specific Plan area. The new development standards and code will emphasize a harmonic compatibility that does not necessarily exist currently, and also requires that new development include green building practices thereby improving the overall sustainability of the community and Specific Plan area. With the goal of strengthening Huntington Beach's "sense of place" and architectural identity in mind, the Specific Plan provides guidance for architects and developers to make sensitive reference to, incorporate, and/or harmonize with characteristics of predominant architectural styles such as (but not limited to) massing, horizontal and vertical scale increments, facade composition, roof form, architectural elements, materials, and colors. Phased streetscape improvements,which would be staged over time as financial resources allow and with private development, would contribute significantly to the enhancement of the visual appeal and identity of the corridors. The Specific Plan also provides for building height limitations to help shape the architecture and character of specific areas, as shown in Table 4-1 (Proposed Building Heights). Table • • • - • Ruilding HeighKl S fiic Plan segment Min. Mcnc.H Residential Parkway nla 4 stories Neighborhood Parkway nla 4 stories Five Points ® Town Center Core 3 stories;(A):1 story 6 stories ■ Town Center Neighborhood 2 stories 6 stories Neighborhood Boulevard 1 story 4 stories Town Center Boulevard ■ Beach and Edinger Avenues(majority of the corridors in this segment) 1 story 5 stories' ■ Town Center Core(edge along Edinger Ave,south of Gothard) 3 stories;(A): 1 story 6 stories ® Town Center Neighborhood(north of Town Center Core) 2 stories 6 stories SOURCE: Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan,Public Review Draft,October 2008. (A) Exceptions apply to anchor stores *Special Building Height Limits also apply,which further restrict heights along certain street frontages in some segments. **Up to 6 stories for property within 500 feet of 1-405 Potential impacts from shade and shadow created by new building dimensions, setbacks, and height would be reduced by mitigation measures proposed as part of the project. As such, the Modified Project would, over time, become the catalyst for removal of the existing development with unidentified architecture in an effort to create a sense of place, and of interest to both residents and tourists alike, while creating a visual "iconic gateway" into the City of Huntington Beach. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-5 Zh•e - s -- • ® - • • • •- • • 3. The project would expand residential opportunities in both the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors to provide a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector along these corridors. 4. The project will provide affordable housing, consistent with City requirements. Goals and policies within the City's existing Housing Element seek to provide adequate housing sites to accommodate regional housing needs. In an effort to do this, goals seek to facilitate the development of mixed-use projects in appropriate commercial areas. The Specific Plan calls for the preservation of existing residences, and would permit an increase in mixed-use development throughout the site, which could result in a maximum of 4,500 new dwelling units. In general, implementation of the Modified Project would allow mixed-uses throughout the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue corridors, primarily within five distinct segments, with each intended to redevelop in a manner cohesive with existing surrounding land uses. Although the proposed Specific Plan would also result in an increase in commercial and office uses compared to existing conditions (while maintaining some existing commercial and office uses), the overall growth in these land use sectors would be less than what is currently allowed under the General Plan which would also help to ensure provision of appropriate public services. Within this overall development, the City will be able to achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Element to provide affordable housing to its citizens. The creation of more dense centers that allow residential, commercial and office uses to interface seamlessly creates a strong sense of community while encouraging utilization of adjacent services and transit opportunities. 5. The project would enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality, state-of-the-art development, consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan. 6. The project would promote residential and commercial buildings that convey a high quality visual image and character, as well as provide for the development of mixed-use projects that integrate residential and commercial uses and ensure compatibility of these uses. 7. The project would maximize land use opportunities by allowing for mixed use in a well- integrated urban environment. 8. The project would establish zoning standards and implementation mechanisms applicable to mixed-use developments consistent with the policies and development framework of the City's General Plan to maximize land use opportunities. Currently the Specific Plan area contains a mixture of low-scale commercial strip development and office buildings with no consistent architectural style. As discussed in the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan, "the major commercial corridors of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue have insufficient contrast in character, and no identifiable thematic strengths." Another issue states that the "Beach Boulevard commercial corridor lacks continuity and has multiple identities. This is attributable to inconsistent and extensive signage, varied development scale and character, and widespread clutter." Views within the Specific Plan area are typically limited to the immediately adjacent commercial, office or retail uses without the opportunity for interesting characteristics. The Modified Project seeks to improve the existing visual character of the Specific Plan area by implementing a form-based code. With the goal of strengthening Huntington Beach's 4-6 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations • • - s - - • S - a a a s- o s "sense of place" and architectural identity in mind, the Specific Plan provides guidance for architects and developers to make sensitive reference to, incorporate, and/or harmonize with characteristics of predominant architectural styles such as (but not limited to) massing, horizontal and vertical scale increments, facade composition, roof form, architectural elements, materials, and colors. One of the primary intents of the proposed Specific Plan is to guide new development that enhances the overall image of the project site as an exciting destination for visitors and residents with a cohesive identity. To do so, the Specific Plan promotes the construction of mixed-use developments. This will allow for an appropriate mix of retail, office, and community service uses while establishing a larger, vibrant residential community who will benefit from these complimentary uses. Pedestrian activity would be encouraged in key areas and new development would include increased or improved landscaping and open space areas which will enhance the visual aspect of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan implements the broad policies established in the General Plan to guide growth and change along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. In addition to improving the aesthetic of corridors, as discussed above, the development code contained within the proposed Specific Plan would replace previous land use and development regulations for portions of the City covered by the Specific Plan. Additionally, while the Specific Plan is consistent with the City's land use policies that generally encourage mixed use projects that are compatible with surrounding development, new zoning code categories, standards and permitted uses would be created by the Specific Plan. These new designations would allow for maximum design flexibility for future mixed-use development. The Plan's form-based development code would replace the existing Zoning categories and subsequently regulate future development based on form and scale. The proposed Specific Plan would ultimately allow mixed use and stand-alone residential development in an area of the City that was not previously designated to permit such uses. Given that the City is nearly fully developed, it is increasingly important for the City to actively manage the remaining vacant land to accommodate sustainable future growth. Past residential projects have not reached the full size allowed under the General Plan for those sites, with the City not reaching its growth potential within the time frame previously anticipated. In addition, very few remaining vacant residential sites in the City can achieve the maximum densities allowed by their land use designation due to a variety of site-specific constraints such as lot size, zoning designation, and accompanying development standards. Through implementation of the Specific Plan, the City will move closer to meeting future housing needs by redistributing the overall residential growth that was originally identified in the General Plan to other areas of the City, thereby maximizing land uses. 9. The project would enhance alternative modes of transportation, to include enhancement of the pedestrian experience as well as the movement of residents via bicycle and transit. 10. The project would foster walkability and reduced vehicle trips by promoting development close to established transit routes, a transit center, college and shopping and other services. The Specific Plan area is currently a mixture of low-scale commercial strip development and office buildings that serves a primarily automobile-dependent population. There is limited fixed-route transit (primarily bus) service offered along both Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue as well as park-and-ride facilities within the area. While this transit is available, based on the existing roadway widths, shortage of bicycle lanes and enticing sidewalks, and the lack of residential population Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-7 • o - m - - e ® - • o s •- a • within a reasonable distance from the available transit, the system is underutilized. Goals and policies of the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements seek to encourage development and use of transit services as well as to provide an efficient and attractive pedestrian system. The Modified Project, by nature of encouraging higher density development and an established residential population within proximity of transit services,would meet the objectives of the existing General Plan. Additionally, per development standards established within the Specific Plan, development would be shaped to encourage pedestrian activity, thereby making transit opportunities more accessible. Proximity to the OCTA transit center provides a convenient location for future residents to utilize transit. Furthermore, the Modified Project, including a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, would reduce vehicle trips within the Specific Plan area. The walkability of the surrounding area, as well as the easy access to transit facilities would promote objectives relating to traffic reduction and increase reliance on alternative modes of transportation included within the City's General Plan. 11. The project would ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development. The Modified Project includes the creation of a greater residential density within the Specific Plan area that could increase the demand on utility infrastructure and existing public services. However, the Modified Project recommended by staff includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential dwelling units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, which will reduce the demand on water as well as existing and proposed infrastructure. Additionally, mitigation measures and code requirements were incorporated into the project design to ensure that service levels are not decreased over the life of the Modified Project. For example, prior to the development of individual projects, it would be required that a sewer capacity study be performed to determine the capacity of the existing lines. If an upgrade to the existing system or new infrastructure would be required, that construction would be required to be performed concurrent with the construction of the individual development project. Furthermore, as part of the annual budgetary review, appropriate staffing levels for fire and police services would be reviewed, based on the level of recent development or that anticipated in the immediate future. This would ensure that funds are available to provide staffing levels adequate to serve the future residents and commercial uses. 4-8 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations ATTACHMENT #7 BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN Environmental Impact Report Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Planning Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by PBSU 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 February 2010 •4-7 Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CHAPTER1 Introduction............................................................................................................1-1 CHAPTER CEQA Findings......................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................2-1 CHAPTER 3 Findings Regarding the Rejected Project and Project Alternatives......................3-1 3.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................3-1 3.2 Project Objectives...........................................................................................................3-1 3.3 Selection of Alternatives ................................................................................................3-2 3.4 Project and Alternatives Findings.................................................................................3-3 3.4.1 The Rejected Originally Proposed Project ........................................................3-3 3.4.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation..........3-3 3.4.3 Alternatives to the Project..............................................................................3-4 CHAPTER 4 Statement of Overriding Considerations ...............................................................4-1 4.1 Introduction.....................................................................................................................4-1 4.2 Significant Adverse Impacts..........................................................................................4-1 4.3 Findings............................................................................................................................4-3 4.4 Overriding Considerations.............................................................................................4-4 Tables Table 2-1 CEQA Findings for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR..................................2-3 Table 3-1 Alternative 2--Comparison to Specific Plan........................................................................................3-5 Table 3-2 Alternative 3—Comparison to Specific Plan........................................................................................3-5 Table4-1 Proposed Building Heights.........................................................................................................................4-5 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations iii This document presents the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations that must be adopted by the City of Huntington Beach (City) pursuant to the requirements of Sections 15091 and 15093, respectively, of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines) prior to the approval of Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (proposed project). This document is organized as follows: Chapter 1 Introduction to the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. Chapter 2 Presents the CEQA Findings of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), including the identified significant cumulative impacts. Chapter 3 Presents the alternatives to the proposed project and evaluates them in relation to the findings contained in Section 15091(a)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. The City must consider and make findings regarding alternatives when a project would involve environmental impacts that cannot be reduced to a less-than-significant level, or cannot be substantially reduced, by proposed mitigation measures. Chapter 4 Presents a Statement of Overriding Considerations that is required in accordance with Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines for significant impacts of the proposed project that cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The proposed Specific Plan is intended to implement a clear and comprehensive vision for growth and change along Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. In particular, the proposed project is designed to coordinate private and public investment activities in the project site that will enhance the visual quality and economic vitality of primary commercial corridors in the City. The proposed Specific Plan establishes the primary means of regulating land use and development intensity and standards related to site layout,building design, and landscaping within the project site. The Specific Plan project site extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street. The total acreage of the Specific Plan is approximately 459 acres. For ease of analysis within this EIR, the Specific Plan has been divided into five informal segments: (1) Residential Parkway, (2) Neighborhood Parkway, (3) Five Points District, (4) Neighborhood Boulevard, and (5) Town Center Boulevard. Each segment has unique planning approaches and development standards that would apply to new developments that are proposed within those areas. In all cases, however, existing uses within the Specific Plan area would be allowed to remain. A detailed discussion of the envisioned land use changes within each segment can be found in Chapter 3 (Project Description). To summarize the proposed land uses changes, the Specific Plan would preserve and enhance the existing residential uses in the southern portion of the project site (in the Residential Parkway Segment) and would focus on restructuring and revitalizing the area between Adams Avenue to the Five Points District (referred to as the Neighborhood Parkway Segment) with a broad mix of uses. Continuing north to the Five Points District, this segment would retain the successful community retail center and would Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 1-1 Chaptipr 1 Introduction encourage restructuring and revitalization of surrounding areas with a greater intensification and mix of uses. Between the Five Points District and Warner Avenue, the Neighborhood Boulevard Segment would facilitate long term transition from strip retail uses to development types that retain visibility to motorists, while providing a more attractive and comfortable pedestrian environment. The remaining portions of the project site along the northern reaches of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue are within the Town Center Boulevard Segment. The development strategies within this segment are distinct for each corridor. However, the primary intent of land use changes along this segment is to encourage a dense central city district characterized by emerging structural differentiation, vitality, and activity. Geographically, the intention is to intensify land uses as one travels north along Beach Boulevard from the southern boundary of the Study area, developing a town center concept at the major intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The proposed land use changes and increases in development intensity would result in additional growth focused within each of the above-mentioned areas. The project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR included an addition of up to 6,400 new dwelling units (du), 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. As originally proposed, the project would result in significant and unavoidable project-level impacts to seven issue areas and cumulative impacts to eight issue areas. In an attempt to reduce these identified impacts, three Alternative project scenarios were analyzed in the Draft EIR. Of those three Alternatives analyzed,Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) was determined to be the environmentally superior alternative. The project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR has been rejected from further consideration. A modified version of the Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) analyzed in the Draft EIR was determined to be more desirable than the proposed project and has been recommended by City staff to become the recommended project and replace the original project. The modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) project would reduce the intensity of residential development while maintaining the same level of commercial development as the original project to include the addition of up to 4,500 new dwelling units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. This reduction in residential development would thereby reduce potential impacts to traffic/transportation and associated impacts to air quality,water demand, and recreation that were identified for the project as originally proposed. In addition, the reduction would eliminate a cumulative impact for population/housing. As was the case with the project as originally proposed, not all of this development would be considered net growth. In many cases, existing structures would be replaced or redeveloped with the new uses. In order to accommodate the proposed development, it is estimated that approximately 1.4 million sf of existing commercial development within the Specific Plan (or approximately 22 percent of existing development) would be demolished. This takes into account that many of the existing buildings would remain on redeveloped parcels (i.e., only part of a parcel would be redeveloped). It is estimated that at buildout, commercial and office space would decrease compared to existing conditions but the 4,500 du would be considered net growth. 1-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations CHAPTERZ e ® • 2.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter presents the potential impacts that were identified in the EIR and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR ("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency ("Finding 2"). (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines §115091(a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Ca1.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) Only after fully complying with the findings requirement can an agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Citizens for Quality Growth v. City of Mount Shasta [1988] 198 Cal.App.3d 433, 442, 445 [243 Cal. Rptr. 727]). CEQA requires the Lead Agency to state in writing the specific rationale to support its actions based on the Final EIR and/or information in the record. This written statement is known as the Statement of Overriding Considerations. The Statement of Overriding Considerations provides the information that demonstrates the decision-making body of the Lead Agency has weighed the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse effects in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse effects may be considered "acceptable." The California Supreme Court has stated that, "the wisdom of approving any development project, a delicate task which requires a balancing of interests,is necessarily left to the sound discretion of the local officials and their constituents who are responsible for such decisions. The law as we interpret and apply it simply requires that those decisions be informed, and therefore balanced." (Goleta II, 52 Ca1.3d 553, 576 [276 Cal. Rptr. 401].) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-1 Chqpter 2 CEQA • • logical step between the finding and the facts in the record (State CEQA Guidelines §15091). Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Draft EIR, the Final EIR, staff reports, and the record of proceedings. Table 2-1 (CEQA Findings for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR) summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the originally proposed project in the EIR that were reduced to less- than-significant levels with mitigation as well as the project-level and cumulative significant impacts. As discussed in Chapter 1, the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR has been rejected from further consideration. A modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) is more desirable than the proposed project and has been recommended by City staff to become the recommended project and replace the original project. The Modified Project would allow for development of up to 4,500 new dwelling units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. This would reduce the severity of transportation/traffic issues and associated air quality impacts, reduce the demand on water resources, reduce the demand on recreational resources and eliminate the cumulative impact for population/housing. 2-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations (�hapter 2 cEQA • e ImpactSkdement Im summmy Finoings Aesthetics Impact 4.1-3 Implementation of the proposed New development would generally range from one to three stories at a minimum, and Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would introduce new sources of light and from four to six stories at a maximum permitted height, depending on the various changes or alterations in the project,which would glare into the project vicinity that could adversely segments. There is one property that would be allowed up to 10 stories. Buildings reduce Impact 4.1-3 to less-than-significant affect day or nighttime views in the area. However, generally three or more stories in height have the potential to include large building faces levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. with implementation of mitigation measures, this that could introduce reflective surfaces that could increase existing levels of daytime No additional mitigation measures are necessary impact is considered less than significant. glare. The proposed project could,therefore,serve as a new source of light and glare in with the implementation of mitigation measure the area, and impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation of MM4.1-2. mitigation measure MM4.1-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. The provision of non-reflective fagade treatments for new structures would ensure that impacts related to daytime glare would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by reducing the reflective properties of the building materials employed, such as glass, metal,or finished concrete. Air Quality Impact 4.2-2 Implementation of the proposed Many of the individual projects developed under the proposed project would be small and Finding 3. The City finds that even with project could violate an air quality standard and would not generate construction emissions that exceed the SCAQMD's thresholds of implementation of all feasible mitigation contribute substantially to an existing or projected significance.To the extent that construction of these individual projects overlaps,then the measures and compliance with applicable air quality violation for criteria air pollutants. Even combined emissions from these small, individual projects could exceed the requirements, construction emissions of the with mitigation measures,this impact is considered recommended SCAQMD thresholds, particularly for CO, NOx, and PMio, for which the proposed project could result in an exceedance significant and unavoidable. Basin is currently in nonattainment. In addition to the smaller-scale projects,some of the of established thresholds for daily construction individual development projects could also be large enough to generate construction emissions due to the speculative nature of future emissions that exceed the SCAQMD thresholds. As the specific size, location, and projects. No mitigation measures in addition to construction techniques and scheduling for each individual development project within MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-11 are feasible to the Specific Plan area is not currently known, precise emission estimates for each reduce construction air quality impacts.There are individual development project, or a combination of these projects, is not currently no feasible mitigation measures available to feasible and would require the City to speculate regarding such potential future projects' reduce operational air quality impacts. potential environmental impacts. Nevertheless, construction activities conducted as part of the implementation of the Specific Plan could exceed SCAQMD thresholds and result in a potentially significant impact. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 would reduce construction-related emissions however,they may not reduce these emissions to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds, as the amount of emissions generated for each project would vary depending on its size, the land area that would need to be disturbed during construction, and the length of the construction schedule, as well as the number of developments being constructed concurrently as part of the Specific Plan. Under these conditions,no further feasible mitigation measures are available and this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable.The City will make site-specific determinations of Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-3 e e -r ZZEQA�flndings • o - 2;m 11 CEQA Fihding5for O • • Edinger Coerid6rs:S:pecificP1.ah Impact Statement Impad Summary Findings significance during the review of individual development projects to determine which projects would result in construction emissions that exceed significance thresholds. Operation of the proposed project would generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC, NOx, CO, and PM,o, even with the proposed reduction in residential units. Although the Modified Project will reduce vehicular trips,due to a reduction in residential units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, the exceedance of the SCAQMD thresholds for these four criteria pollutants is primarily due to the increase in motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site and will continue to be significant and unavoidable. No feasible mitigation is available to reduce these emissions, and this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.2-3 Implementation of the proposed The proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the pollutants and Finding 3. The City finds that even with project would result in a cumulatively considerable precursors of ozone for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Therefore, the proposed implementation of all feasible mitigation net increase of criteria pollutants for which the project would make cumulatively considerable contributions of these pollutants during measures, compliance with applicable proposed project region is in nonattainment under both construction and operation of the proposed project, even with the reduction in requirements, and changes to the project, an applicable federal or state ambient air quality vehicular trips due to a reduction in residential units as compared to the project originally construction and operational emissions of the standard.This impact is considered significant and analyzed in the Draft EIR. Mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 will be proposed project would result in an exceedance unavoidable. implemented during construction activities to reduce emissions to the extent feasible but of established thresholds for daily emissions in the potential impact will not be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. Furthermore, the cumulative scenario. No feasible mitigation there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce operational emissions measures in addition to mitigation measures below SCAQMD levels. Therefore,the proposed project would result in a significant and MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 are available. unavoidable cumulative air quality impact. Cumulative Air Quality The proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the pollutants and Finding 3. The City finds that even with precursors of ozone for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Therefore, the proposed implementation of all feasible mitigation project would make cumulatively considerable contributions of these pollutants during measures, compliance with applicable both construction and operation of the proposed project, even with the reduction in requirements, and changes to the project, vehicular trips due to a reduction in residential units as compared to the project originally construction and operational emissions of the analyzed in the Draft EIR.. Mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 will be proposed project would result in an exceedance implemented during construction activities to reduce emissions to the extent feasible but of established thresholds for daily emissions in the potential impact will not be reduced to a less-than-significant impact. Furthermore, the cumulative scenario. No feasible mitigation there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce operational emissions measures in addition to mitigation measures below SCAQMD levels. Therefore,the proposed project would result in a significant and MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 are available. unavoidable cumulative air quality impact. Biological Resources Impact 4.3-1 Construction of the proposed project Project implementation and construction-related activities may result in the disturbance of Finding 1. The City finds that the identified could have a substantial adverse effect, either nesting species protected by the MBTA.Prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities, changes or alterations in the project,which would directly or through habitat modifications, on birds the City shall implement mitigation measure MM4.3-1,which entails focused surveys and reduce I pact 4.3-1 to less-than-significant 2-4 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations e o - PA e e • • - • • O - kbbthiO • • o - • O • O O Im SkOement.' Impactsurnmdry Rndln protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. avoidance measures for sensitive nesting and MBTA species, and appropriate agency levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with mitigation measures, this impact is consultation. No additional mitigation measures are necessary considered less than significant. with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.3-1. Impact 4.3-2 Implementation of the proposed Although no wetlands are currently present in the Plan area,should they develop project Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could have a substantial adverse effect on implementation and construction-related activities may result in the disturbance or changes or alterations in the project,which would federally protected wetlands as defined by removal of wetland habitat. Prior to the onset of ground disturbing activities,the City shall reduce Impact 4.3-2 to less-than-significant Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including, but implement mitigation measure MM4.3-2, which requires that a wetland delineation is levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) conducted prior to development of any vacant parcels,as deemed necessary by the City No additional mitigation measures are necessary through direct removal, filling, hydrological of Huntington Beach. If wetlands are found, the applicant will be required to obtain all with the implementation of mitigation measure interruption, or other means. However, with necessary wetland permits and mitigate for impacts to wetland habitats. MM4.3-2. mitigation measures,this impact is considered less than significant. Cultural Resources Impact 4.4-1 Construction activities associated Although an SCCIC records search prepared for the proposed project did not identify any Finding 3. The City finds that even with with implementation of the proposed project could previously recorded historical resources within the project site, the City's General Plan implementation of all feasible mitigation cause a substantial adverse change in the includes one structure that is identified as a local landmark(early fire Station)within the measures (MM4.4-1) and compliance with significance of an historical resource pursuant to project boundaries.The Newland House Museum, a recognized resource,was identified applicable requirements, the proposed project Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. With immediately outside of the project boundaries. It is the intent of policies within the would result in a significant and unavoidable incorporation of mitigation measures, this impact General Plan to protect and/or preserve structures and places identified.Consequently, it impact to historical resources. No feasible remains significant and unavoidable. is unlikely that any future development would disturb these sites. Implementation of the mitigation measures in addition to mitigation proposed project would not change any of the existing regulations governing historical measure MM4.4-1 are available. resources. However,development associated with the proposed Specific Plan would not preclude the possibility that previously unrecorded historic-period resources could be adversely affected by future development of the project site(e.g., demolition, relocation, or alteration of historic-period buildings or structures). Incorporation of mitigation measure MM4.4-1 would reduce impacts to the extent feasible however, impacts to historical resources are considered potentially significant. Impact 4.4-2 Construction activities associated According to the SCCIC records search, archaeological resources are present in the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified with implementation of the proposed project could vicinity and within the project site, including sites known to contain human remains. changes or alterations in the project,which would cause a substantial adverse change in the These sites have likely been destroyed or capped since they were first discovered. reduce Impact 4.4-2 to less-than-significant significance of an archaeological resource or Additionally, the NAHC indicated the presence of Native American cultural resources in levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. disturb human remains. With incorporation of the immediate project area. Furthermore, representatives from the Gabrielino Tongva No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,this impact is considered less Nation expressed concern about the sensitivity of the project area for Native American with implementation of mitigation measures than significant. resources and burial grounds. Impacts on archaeological resources from project-related MM4.4-2(a)and MM4.4-2(b). earth-disturbing activities are therefore considered potentially significant. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-2 a and MM4.4-2 b would reduce this impact to a less- Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-5 Ch• • - Q s • Table E+ • o gs forthe Beach and Edinger'Corridbrt • - o ImpodSkdement ImpactSummary Findings than-significant level by requiring site-specific cultural resource investigations and that all earth-disturbing activity be halted within 100 feet of any discovered cultural resources until an assessment by a qualified professional can be completed. Impact 4.4-3 Construction activities associated A paleontological records search performed for the proposed project failed to identify any Finding 1. The City finds that the identified with implementation of the proposed project could previously recorded paleontological resources within the project site. However, the changes or alterations in the project,which would result in the disturbance of paleontological search did identify several paleontological resources in the project vicinity as well as soils reduce Impact 4.4-3 to less-than-significant resources. that often contain vertebrate and invertebrate fossils. The project site is considered levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. sensitive for paleontological resources, and impacts to paleontological resources from No additional mitigation measures are necessary project-related ground-disturbing activities are considered potentially significant. with implementation of mitigation measures Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-3(a) and MM4.4-3(b) would reduce this MM4.4-3(a)and MM4.4-3(b). impact to a less-than-significant level by requiring site-specific paleontological resource investigations and that all earth-disturbing activity is halted within 100 feet of discovered paleontological resources until an assessment by a qualified professional can be prepared. Cumulative Impact As all cultural resources are unique and non-renewable members of finite classes, all Finding 3. The City finds that even with adverse effects or negative impacts erode a dwindling resource base. Even with implementation of all feasible mitigation compliance with applicable regulations, it is not always feasible to protect cultural measures (MM4.4-1, MM4.4-2(a) and MM4.4- resources, particularly when preservation in place would frustrate implementation of 2(b)) and compliance with applicable projects. For this reason, the cumulative effects of development in the Orange County requirements, the proposed project would result region are considered significant. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.4-1 and in a significant and unavoidable cumulative MM4.4-2(a)and MM4.4-2(b)would require qualified professionals to conduct site-specific impact to historical resources. No feasible cultural resource investigations for future development of the project site and require all mitigation measures in addition to mitigation earth-disturbing activity to be halted within 100 feet of any discovered resources until a measure MM4.4-1, MM4.4-2(a) and MM4.4-2(b) qualified professional can assess the significance of the find. However, it is currently are available. infeasible to determine whether future development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in demolition or removal of historical resources within the project boundaries. The project's incremental contribution to these cumulative effects could be cumulatively considerable and is therefore considered a significant cumulative impact to historical resources. Geology and Soils Impact 4.5-1 Future development under the The Specific Plan is located in a seismically active Region.A buried segment of the North Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could expose people and/or Branch Fault underlies an intersection of the Specific Plan area.Additionally,an 800-foot- changes or alterations in the project,which would structures to potentially substantial adverse effects, wide Alquist-Priolo Fault Zone crosses the Beach Boulevard Corridor at Adams Avenue. reduce Impact 4.5-1 to less-than-significant including the risk of loss, injury, or death, involving Proposed construction within an Earthquake Fault zone is permitted only following the levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. fault rupture, strong seismic groundshaking and/or completion of a fault location evaluation and written report prepared for the specific site No additional mitigation measures are necessary seismic-related ground failure, including by a California-registered professional geologist.Most of the Beach Boulevard corridor is with the implementation of code requirement liquefaction. With implementation of mitigation located within a liquefaction zone or liquefaction investigation zone on the State of CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. 2-6 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations • • - k� s • Impoct Statement Impactsummmy Findnis measures and compliance with applicable State California State Hazard Zone Map. Per code requirement CR4.5-1, all future and City regulations,this impact is considered less development would be required to perform a site specific geotechnical report which than significant. would include design and foundation recommendations and adhere to the City's Municipal Code. Implementation of the Specific Plan does not currently include site-specific, individual development projects. With compliance to the seismic safety requirements of the City's Municipal Code,including adherence to CR4.5-1,as well as implementation of mitigation measure MM4.5-1 and the design recommendations of the site-specific geotechnical investigations associated with all future project design, the proposed Specific Plan's impact on exposure to seismically induced groundshaking and seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. Impact 4.5-2 Future development under the The Specific Plan area is a relatively flat area with no pronounced slopes. Only a small Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could expose people or structures portion of the Beach Boulevard corridor is in an area identified to have"Low"potential for changes or alterations in the project,which would to risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides. slope instability. The remainder of the project site has no potential for slope instability. reduce Impact 4.5-2 to less-than-significant However, with compliance with soil stability Adherence to the City's Municipal Code, CR4.5-1, mitigation measure MM4.5-1 and the levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. standards required by the City of Huntington Beach design recommendations of a site-specific geotechnical investigation would ensure that a No additional mitigation measures are necessary General Plan, Building Code, and Grading and less-than-significant impact from landslide would result. with the implementation of code requirement Excavation Code, and implementation of code CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. requirements and mitigation measures, this impact is considered less-than-significant. Impact 4.5-3 Construction and operation of future Future development under the proposed Specific Plan would result in ground-disrupting Finding 1. The City finds that the identified development under the proposed project could activities. The exposure of previously covered soils during these activities could lead to changes or alterations in the project,which would result in substantial soil erosion, loss of top soil, increased on-site erosion and off-site sediment transport. Future development under the reduce Impact 4.5-3 to less-than-significant changes in topography or unstable soil conditions. Specific Plan would be required to comply with both State regulations and the City's levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with compliance with slope stability, soil existing Grading and Excavation Code regulations. Adherence to these requirements No additional mitigation measures are necessary stability,and seismic-resistant design standards for would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level from the perspective of soil loss at with the implementation of code requirement structures proposed for human occupancy required the construction site. CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, Off-site erosion and sedimentation could occur if increased stormwater runoff were Building Code, and Grading and Excavation Code conveyed over unstable off-site soil surfaces. Because all stormwater from the Specific and implementation of code requirements and Plan area would continue to be conveyed through the City storm drainage system, mitigation measures,this impact is considered less stormwater runoff would not likely result in substantial erosion or sedimentation. than significant. Furthermore,any project sites 1 acre in size or larger are subject to the provisions of the General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). Such compliance, in addition to implementation of code requirement CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1, would reduce soil instability impacts to a less-than-significant level. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-7 Chapter 2 Q` Findings • • Q • Finding's for • • O Edinger,09rriders • Plan ImpactSkitement Impactsummary Findngs Impact 4.5-4 A portion of the Specific Plan area Portions of the Specific Plan area would be subject to subsidence, which could result in Finding 1. The City finds that the identified would be located on subsidence-prone and the settlement of in-place subgrade soils caused by loads generated by large changes or alterations in the project,which would potentially liquefiable soils. However, with earthmoving equipment.Additionally,as shallow groundwater is found within the Specific reduce Impact 4.5-4 to a less-than-significant compliance with slope and soil stability standards Plan area, dewatering activities in the Specific Plan area could be needed during level,are hereby incorporated into the project.No required by the City of Huntington Beach General construction of any subterranean levels. The removal of groundwater to create a dry additional mitigation measures are necessary Plan, Building Code, and Grading and Excavation construction pit could cause porous soils to collapse when the support provided by the with the implementation of code requirement Code, as well as implementation of code water was withdrawn. Temporary shoring, dewatering wells, storage tanks, filters, and CR4.5-1 and CR4.7-1 and mitigation measure requirements and mitigation measures, this impact erosion control measures would be required and would result in a less-than-significant MM4.5-1. is considered less than significant. impact. Dewatering activities would be required to comply with the NPDES Permit for Groundwater Discharge from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Future development would be designed, constructed,and operated in conformance with the City's Municipal Code and Excavation and Grading Code,CR4.5-1 and CR4.7-1,and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. Potential risks to life and property from unstable soil conditions,subsidence,and liquefaction would be less than significant. Impact 4.5-5 A portion of the Specific Plan area A portion of the Beach Boulevard corridor is located within a "Moderate to High" soil Finding 1. The City finds that the identified would be located on expansive soil. However, with Expansion Potential area. The remainder of the project site has"Low to Moderate" soil changes or alterations in the project,which would compliance with soil stability standards required by Expansion Potential. The existence of expansive soils makes it necessary to ensure the reduce Impact 4.5-5 to a less-than-significant the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, materials used for foundation support are sound to avoid future problems. Future level,are hereby incorporated into the project. No Building Code, and Grading and Excavation Code, structures would be designed, constructed and operated in conformance with additional mitigation measures are necessary and implementation of code requirements and Section 1802.2.2 Expansive Soils, of the City's Municipal Code and Excavation and with the implementation of code requirement mitigation measures,this impact is considered less Grading Code, and would comply with CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. CR4.5 1 and mitigation measure MM4.5-1. than significant. Potential risks to life and property associated with expansive soil would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Hazards Impact 4.6-2 Implementation of the proposed Demolition, grading and excavation activities for the proposed project could result in the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could create a potential significant hazard exposure of construction personnel and the public to previously unidentified hazardous changes or alterations in the project,which would to the public or the environment through substances in the soil. If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered reduce Impact 4.6-2 to less-than-significant reasonably foreseeable upset and accident during demolition, grading or excavation, the removal activities required could pose levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. conditions involving the release of hazardous health and safety risks capable of resulting in various short-term or long-term adverse No additional mitigation measures are necessary materials into the environment. However, with health effects in exposed persons. Additionally, construction activities on existing sites with the implementation of mitigation measures compliance with existing regulations and that are known to be contaminated could pose risks to workers.Coupled with compliance MM4.6-1,MM4.6-2,and MM4.6-3. implementation of mitigation measures,this impact with existing local, State and federal regulations relating to potentially hazardous is considered less than significant. materials, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.6-1 and MM4.6-2 would ensure that any potentially hazardous materials that may be discovered during construction activities would be handled so as to minimize potential exposure to construction workers and nearby residents. A portion of the project site south of Ellis Avenue is located within a designated 2-8 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations e m - l+ ' e m Table N ' Findings for,the - • and • s -r Corridors-Sp-cific Pion ImpadSkdement Impoctsummmy Findngs methane gas overlay district. The City has set minimum requirements for new building construction within the methane overlay districts in order to reduce the hazards presented from accumulations of methane gas by requiring the appropriate testing and mitigation measures for all new buildings within the methane districts. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.6-3 would ensure appropriate testing and methods of gas reduction,as required by the HBFD. Impact 4.6-4 Individual sites within the Specific Sites located within the Specific Plan area have been identified on various regulatory Finding 1. The City finds that the identified Plan are included on a list of hazardous materials databases as being contaminated from the release of hazardous substances in the soil or changes or alterations in the project,which would sites and as a result could create a significant groundwater. Development of these sites would be required to undergo remediation and reduce Impact 4.6-4 to less-than-significant hazard to the public or environment. However,with cleanup before construction activities can begin. If contamination at any specific project levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. implementation of mitigation measures,this impact site were to exceed regulatory action levels, the project Applicant would be required to No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. undertake remediation procedures prior to grading and development under the with the implementation of mitigation measure supervision of appropriate regulatory oversight agencies. Implementation of mitigation MM4.6-1 and MM4.6-2. measures MM4.6-1 and MM4.6-2 would ensure that contaminated sites undergo remediation activities prior to development activities. As such, this impact would be reduced to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.6-6 Implementation of the Specific Plan Construction of future development under the Specific Plan could result in short-term Finding 1. The City finds that the identified could impair implementation of or physically temporary impacts on street traffic adjacent to the proposed sites due to roadway and changes or alterations in the project,which would interfere with an adopted emergency response infrastructure improvements and the potential extension of construction activities into the reduce Impact 4.6-6 to less-than-significant plan or emergency evacuation plan. However,with right-of-way.This could result in a reduction of the number of lanes or temporary closure levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. implementation of mitigation measures, this impact of certain street segments.Any such impacts would be limited to the construction period No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. of individual projects and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections.Additionally, with the implementation of mitigation measures mitigation measure MM4.6-4 would ensure that emergency response teams for the City MM4.6-4. of Huntington Beach would be notified of any lane closures during construction activities in the project site and that a minimum one lane would remain open at all times to provide adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding neighborhoods, thereby resulting in a less-than-significant impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4.7-1 Construction and operation of the The proposed project would include construction activities, which would temporarily Finding 1. The City finds that the identified Specific Plan could increase stormwater runoff and disturb soils. Disturbed soils are susceptible to high rates of erosion from wind and rain, changes or alterations in the project,which would alter existing land use such that stormwater resulting in sediment transport from the site. Erosion and sedimentation affects water reduce Impact 4.7-1 to less-than-significant pollutant loads or concentrations, including erosion quality through interference with photosynthesis, oxygen exchange, and the respiration, levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. and sediment, are increased. These processes growth, and reproduction of aquatic species. Additionally, other pollutants, such as No additional mitigation measures are necessary could result in a violation of waste discharge nutrients, trace metals, and hydrocarbons, can attach to sediment and be transported with the implementation of mitigation measure requirements or water quality standards and downstream,which could contribute to degradation of water quality. MM4.7-1. provide substantial additional sources of polluted During the operational phase of the proposed project, the major source of pollution in runoff. However, with implementation of mitigation stormwater runoff would be contaminants that have accumulated on rooftops and other Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-9 • s - WA.Findings, • •le 2-1; ;CEQA Fin dirtgsf6rihe Beach,and' Edinger.,CorfidorsiO - O Impactstatement ImpactSummary Findings measures, this impact is considered less than impervious surfaces, such as parking lots, pedestrian walkways, and the off-site road significant. improvements prior to connecting to the storm drain system. Implementation of existing City regulations and mitigation measure MM4.7-1 would reduce potential pollutant loads, assure that appropriate BMPs are used (e.g., constraints on infiltration-type BMPs) and regulatory requirements are met. Therefore, any post-construction violation of water quality standards would be less than significant. Impact 4.7-2 Implementation of the proposed Construction activities are anticipated to have a less-than-significant impact on Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could result in substantial groundwater groundwater. changes or alterations in the project,which would dewatering or deplete groundwater supplies. Construction dewatering for utilities, foundation excavation and fill, and below-grade reduce Impact 4.7-2 to less-than-significant However, with implementation of code structures could be required. Development of the project would require coverage under levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. requirements and mitigation measures, this impact the De Minimus Threat General Permit, which would include discharge quantity and No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. quality limitations, based on site and groundwater characteristics. Compliance with code with the implementation of code requirement requirement CR4.7-1 would reduce potential impacts due to dewatering.Additionally, if a CR4.7-1 and mitigation measure MM4.7-2. project proposes to develop underground structures that include permanent groundwater dewatering,implementation of mitigation measure MM4.7-2 would ensure that permanent groundwater dewatering does not cause or contribute to a lowering of the local groundwater table that would affect nearby water supply wells. Impact 4.7-3 Implementation of the proposed The storm drain system serving the project site is currently constrained for build out of Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could increase stormwater runoff, exceed the General Plan (as assessed in the MPD) and may be constrained for existing changes or alterations in the project,which would the capacity of existing or planned stormwater conditions. Development in accordance with the Specific Plan could result in an increase reduce Impact 4.7-3 to less-than-significant drainage systems, and cause on- or off-site in the amount of impervious surfaces compared to existing conditions by up to about levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. flooding. However, with implementation of 6 percent thereby increasing stormwater runoff. No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,this impact is considered less Implementation of the Municipal NPDES Permit requires that priority development with the implementation of mitigation measures than significant. projects must infiltrate,harvest and re-use,evapotranspire,or bio-treat(e.g.,biofilter)the MM4.7-3 and MM4.7-4. 891 percentile storm event.This would also result in a reduction in peak flow rates for all design storms,' however this reduction may not be sufficient to ensure that the proposed project has adequate storm drain capacity. However, implementation of mitigation measures MM4.7-3 and MM4.74 would assess each specific development contribution to potential system capacity constraints and provide for mitigation of constraints such that potential impacts to storm drain system capacities would be less than significant. Noise Impact 4.9-1 Implementation of the proposed During construction activities, noise would be generated through the use of heavy Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could generate noise levels in excess of machinery that could affect sensitive receptors. However, construction-related noise is changes or alterations in the project,which would 1 Design storms,as described in the MUD,include the 10-year,25-year, 50-year,and 100-year storm events,where chance of a storm event occurring in any given year is 10 percent for the 10-year storm event,4 percent for the 25-year storm event,2 percent for the 50-year storm event,and 1 percent for the 100-year storm event. 2-10 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations In e O't- Q` Findinds Jable 2-1 C EQA Findings;for the Beach and Edinger Corridors,Specific Plan EIR ImpactStatemerd JMpCpCtSLqn;r=yy Findngs standards established by the City. However, with intermittent in nature and would not generate continuous noise levels above the reduce Impact 4.9-1 to less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures,this impact Municipal Code standards. Furthermore, mitigation measures MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2, and levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. is considered less than significant. MM4.9-3 would ensure that exterior and interior noise levels would adhere to City No additional mitigation measures are necessary standards. with the implementation of mitigation measures Operational noise sources could include such stationary sources as rooftop HVAC MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3 (construction) and systems which could result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA Leq at mitigation measures MM4.9-4 and MM4.9-5 50 feet from the equipment. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-4 would (operational). reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the proposed project would introduce new noise activity in the area as residences are constructed and people are attracted to the new mix of uses. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-5 would require an acoustical analysis of all new residences to ensure that noise levels in liveable areas do not exceed established City criteria. Impact 4.9-2 Implementation of the proposed Due to the location of existing sensitive receptors with respect to the Specific Plan area, Finding 3. The City finds that even with project could generate or expose persons or groundborne vibration could occur at sensitive receptors at levels greater than 85 VdB at implementation of all feasible mitigation structures to excessive groundborne vibration. 25 feet. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3 would help to measures(MM4.9-1,MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3)and Even with implementation of mitigation measures, reduce this impact.However,this impact would remain significant and unavoidable. compliance with applicable requirements, the construction impacts are considered significant and proposed project would result in a significant and unavoidable. unavoidable noise impact due to groundborne vibration. No feasible mitigation measures in addition to mitigation measures MM4.9-1, MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3 are available. Impact 4.9-3 Implementation of the proposed Construction activities associated with the proposed project could reach above 86 dBA Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would result in a substantial temporary or Leq within 50 feet of the proposed project site and could result in a temporary increase in changes or alterations in the project,which would periodic increase in ambient noise levels during ambient noise levels of over 3 dBA at uses adjacent to the project site. However, the reduce Impact 4.9-3 to less-than-significant construction activities but not during project construction activities would only occur during the permitted hours designated in the City levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. operation. However, with implementation of of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Implementation of mitigation measures MM4.9-1 No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,these impacts are considered through MM4.9-3 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. with the implementation of mitigation measures less than significant. MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3. Impact 4.9-4 The proposed project would not Permanent noise sources anticipated under the proposed project include Finding 1. The City finds that the identified cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient roadway/vehicular noise and noise generated by HVAC systems. No roadways within or changes or alterations in the project,which would noise levels. With implementation of mitigation around the Specific Plan would be anticipated to exceed the 3.0 dBA Ldn increase with reduce Impact 4.9-4 to less-than-significant measures, this impact is considered less than implementation of the proposed project. With implementation of mitigation measure levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. significant. MM4.9-4, noise levels resulting from HVAC systems would be reduced to a level that No additional mitigation measures are necessary would result in a less-than-significant impact.Therefore,this impact would be considered with the implementation of mitigation measures less than significant. MM4.9-4. Cumulative Noise Cumulative development in the City of Huntington Beach is not considered likely to result Finding 3. The City finds that even with in the exposure of on-site or off-site receptors to excessive groundborne noise and implementation of all feasible mitigation Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-11 Char)t`e QAFindmgs • e - !► • Findings iforthe Beach • •, Edinger Corrid'ors • - P1,an; EIR Im Statement 170surnmary Fincffngs vibration due to the localized nature of vibration impacts. However, sensitive receptors measures(MM4.9-1,MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3)and located in close proximity to each construction site would be potentially affected by each compliance with applicable requirements, the activity. Construction activities associated with these projects, which are adjacent to or proposed project would result in a significant and within,the Specific Plan, may overlap with construction activities for the proposed project unavoidable cumulative noise impact due to for some amount of time.Therefore,vibration from future development could combine to groundborne vibration. No feasible mitigation result in a potentially significant cumulative impact. Implementation of mitigation measures in addition to mitigation measures measures MM4.9-1 through MM4.9-3 would help reduce this impact, but not to a less- MM4.9-1,MM4.9-2 and MM4.9-3 are available. than-significant level.Therefore,the cumulative impact of the proposed project would be significant and unavoidable. Population and Housing Cumulative Population and Housing The proposed project would develop residential and neighborhood-serving commercial Finding 1. Based on the recommended Modified uses that would increase population and housing opportunities in the City. However,the Project, the City finds that the identified changes Modified Project as recommended by staff would result in the reduction of 1,900 or alterations to the project, which would reduce residential dwelling units as compared to the project as originally proposed and analyzed the Cumulative Impact to Population and Housing in the Draft EIR.As such,the Modified Project would result in approximately 5,054 fewer identified for the project as originally proposed to residents and the citywide cumulative development would no longer exceed SCAG's a less-than-significant level, are hereby 2030 growth projections and a cumulative impact to population and housing would no incorporated into the project. No additional longer occur. mitigation measures are necessary Public Services Impact 4.11-1 Implementation of the proposed Although the Specific Plan would permit less commercial and office square footage within Finding 3. The City finds that even with project would increase the demand for fire the corridors than is currently allowed, the increase in more intensive development implementation of feasible mitigation (MM4.11- protection services, and could require the throughout various segments and associated residential population would result in an 1)and compliance with applicable requirements, construction of new or physically altered facilities to increase in the number of fire service calls to the area compared to existing conditions, the proposed project would result in a significant accommodate the increased demand. Even with Implementation of MM4.11-1 would ensure that the HBFD receives adequate staffing and unavoidable impact to fire services. No implementation of mitigation measures,this impact and/or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of service. However, because each fire feasible mitigation measures in addition to is considered significant and unavoidable. station is currently at capacity, it is likely that increases in staffing or equipment would mitigation measure MM4.11-1 are available. require expansion of existing facilities or new fire station(s). Due to the size and long-range nature of the proposed project,it is not possible to specify the exact type,location,size,or timing of future development,which may contribute to an eventual increase in calls to the HBFD. Therefore, it is currently unknown which fire station may eventually require an expansion to accommodate an increase or expansion. However, because the provision of additional fire personnel and/or equipment could require new or physically altered facilities, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts,this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. 2-12 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations !ChalJter,2,CEGA,Fir1dings Table l4 ' Findings forthe Re ac • s lEdihger Corridors • - Plan,ECR ImpactSkdernent k"picctsummoy Find►n Impact 4.11-3 Although the proposed project could Population growth resulting from implementation of the proposed Specific Plan would Finding 1. The City finds that the identified result in additional students it is not anticipated to increase the number of students within the HBCSD,OVSD,and HBUHSD through 2030. changes or alterations in the project,which would require new or physically altered facilities, the However, the majority of schools serving the Specific Plan project site are currently reduce Impact 4.11-3 to less-than-significant construction of which could cause significant operating below maximum capacity. Additionally, all three school districts anticipate that levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. environmental impacts. The increase in students the enrollment will be lower in the upcoming years and will continue to decline in the No additional mitigation measures are necessary would likely be accommodated within existing future. Due to declining enrollment within each district, new students generated as a with the implementation of CR4.11-1, CR4.11-2, facilities due to available capacity in the school result of future development would not result in overcrowding and would likely help offset and CR4.11-3. districts. With implementation of code the current declining student population.Furthermore,incorporation of code requirements requirements, this impact is considered less than CR4.11-1, CR4.11-2, and CR4.11-3 would ensure that impacts to schools would be less significant. than significant. Impact 4.11-4 Implementation of the proposed Implementation of the proposed project would place a higher demand on services Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would not result in the need for new or provided by the Huntington Beach Library System.However,implementation of CR4.11-4 changes or alterations in the project,which would physically altered library facilities in order to would ensure that new development pay its fair share of fees towards library services to reduce Impact 4.11-4 to less-than-significant maintain acceptable service ratios. With ensure that increased growth does not result in significant impacts on existing services. levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. implementation of code requirements, this impact No additional mitigation measures are necessary is considered less than significant. with the implementation of CR4.11-4. Cumulative Fire Services Impact As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the Finding 3. The City finds that even with demand for fire services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. However,the implementation of feasible mitigation (MM4.11- HBFD is currently at capacity at each of their stations throughout the City.Therefore,any 1)and compliance with applicable requirements, increases in personnel and/or equipment would necessitate the expansion of existing the proposed project would result in a significant facilities or development of a new station, the construction of which could result in and unavoidable cumulative impact to fire significant environmental impacts. The proposed project's contribution to this cumulative services. No feasible mitigation measures in impact would be cumulatively considerable. Although MM4.11-1 would ensure that the addition to mitigation measure MM4.11-1 are project site is served within established response times and adequate staffing and available. equipment levels are maintained, the increase in either could trigger construction activities at an existing or new fire station. The contribution of the proposed project to cumulative impacts on fire services would be cumulatively considerable. This is considered to be a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Recreation Impact 4.12.1 Implementation of the proposed The direct increase in population could result in an increase in the use of local and Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project would increase the use of and/or otherwise regional recreational facilities. However,future development within the project site would changes or alterations in the project,which would affect existing parks and recreational facilities, but be required to satisfy Chapter 230 and Chapter 254.08 of the City's Zoning Ordinance, reduce Impact 4.12-1 to less-than-significant would not cause substantial physical deterioration which implements the provisions of the Quimby Act, as identified by code requirement levels are hereby incorporated into the project. of the facilities to occur or be accelerated. With CR4.12-1. This could be met through land dedication or payment of park fees. While No additional mitigation measures are necessary implementation of code requirements, this impact dedicated parkland directly increases the available recreation space within the City for with the implementation of CR4.12-1. is considered less than significant. residents,the payment of park fees from new development could be allocated to fund the acquisition and/or development of future parks or facility renovations associated with Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-13 e • -rj;22 C'EQA Finaing�, • o - !� • • o - - o • e • • - • • o • - • Im Statement Im Summ Findings increased use of public facilities. Furthermore,the Modified Project includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential units(equivalent to approximately 5,054 residents)that will reduce demand on both existing and proposed parks and recreational facilities. Adherence to existing applicable local regulations and implementation of CR4.12-1 would ensure that parks and open space are acquired,developed, improved, and expanded as future residential projects are constructed in the Specific Plan. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. Impact 4.12-2 Implementation of the proposed Development within the Specific Plan area would be required to provide private and Finding 3. The City finds that even with project could result in the construction of public open space per existing regulations and standards. The potential construction of implementation of code requirement CR4.12-1, recreational facilities at the time of future these recreational amenities would occur as part of specific development projects in the compliance with applicable requirements, and development and/or redevelopment. Despite future. While direct physical effects could result as part of the individual construction changes to the project, the proposed project implementation of code requirements, this impact scenarios, future development allowed under the proposed Specific Plan would be would result in a significant and unavoidable is considered significant and unavoidable. subject to individual environmental clearance to ensure adequate review of potential impact to recreation. No feasible mitigation impacts and would be required to adhere to CR4.12-1. However, due to the substantial measures in addition to code requirement requirement of approximately 60 acres of new parkland that could be required at buildout MM4.12-1 are available. of the project, it is not feasible at this time to speculate where future acquisitions, development,improvements,and/or expansions to open space and parklands throughout the City may occur. Such improvements would likely occur off site,outside of the project boundaries, given the developed nature of the commercial corridors. The Modified Project, which includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential dwelling units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, would reduce the requirement for parkland space. However,as the specifics of future recreational facilities are unknown at this time, regardless of the exact amount of parkland needed, it is infeasible to provide adequate mitigation measures to cover the breadth of potential future actions.Therefore,this impact is considered significant and unavoidable. Cumulative Recreation Impact Development of other related projects in the City of Huntington Beach could result in the Finding 3. The City finds that even with development of new recreational facilities, the construction of which may cause a implementation of code requirement CR4.12-1, significant effect on the environment. The proposed project could ultimately require the compliance with applicable requirements, and equivalent of approximately 60 acres of new parkland, either through land dedication or changes to the project, the proposed project the payment of fees for future improvements of existing parks. There are many options would result in a significant and unavoidable that could be implemented to adhere to the City's local park requirements; however, cumulative impact to recreation. No feasible because the improvements could span a multitude of parks in existing residential mitigation measures in addition to code neighborhoods, or could result in the dedication of new parkland elsewhere in the City, requirement CR4.12-1 are available. the potential environmental impacts are considered speculative. The Modified Project, which includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential dwelling units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, would reduce the requirement for parkland space. However,as the specifics of future recreational facilities are unknown at this time, regardless of the exact amount of parkland needed, it is infeasible to provide 2-14 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations ChaPter,2CEQA Findings, ImpactStatement Im Summ Findngs adequate mitigation measures to cover the breadth of potential future actions.Therefore, the proposed project would have a considerable contribution, and this cumulative impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. Transportation/Traffic Impact 4.13-1 Under Year 2016 conditions, As analyzed for the Year 2016 condition, the proposed project would result in a Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations operation of the proposed project would cause an significant impact at four intersections using the ICU performance criteria. Two of these that could reduce the potential impact of the increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to were also identified as showing a project impact using the HCM criteria.Three additional proposed project are within the responsibility and the existing traffic load and capacity of the street project impacted locations were identified using the HCM criteria. Additionally,the 1-405 jurisdiction of another public agency and not the system. Even with implementation of mitigation northbound loop ramp from Beach Boulevard was determined to be deficient in both the agency making the findings. measures,this impact is considered significant and AM and PM peak hours. A discretionary action was proposed to reduce the potential Finding 3. The City finds that, while unavoidable. impact at the intersection Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue to a less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 level. Mitigation measures MM4.13-1 through MM4.13-14 were developed to reduce the through MM4.13-14 and changes to the project remainder of the potentially significant intersection impacts. However, for Caltrans would reduce impacts at local intersections, for intersections, changes or improvements would require coordination and approval by intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. Consequently, this is considered a significant and coordination and approval by Caltrans would be unavoidable impact. required and is not guaranteed at this time. As such, there are no feasible mitigation measures available to reduce impacts at Caltrans intersection and impact at these intersections would remain significant and unavoidable without approval by Caltrans. Impact 4.13-2 Under Year 2030 conditions, As analyzed for the Year 2030 condition, the proposed project would result in a Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations operation of the proposed project would cause an potentially significant impact at seven intersections using the ICU performance criteria. that could reduce the potential impact of the increase in traffic,which is substantial in relation to Four of these were also identified as showing a project impact using the HCM criteria. proposed project are within the responsibility and the forecasted traffic load and capacity of the street Two additional project impacted locations were identified using the HCM criteria. jurisdiction of another public agency and not the system. Even with implementation of mitigation Additionally, the 1-405 northbound loop ramp from Beach Boulevard is deficient in both agency making the findings. measures,this impact is considered significant and the AM and PM peak hours.A discretionary action was proposed to reduce the potential Finding 3. The City finds that, while unavoidable. impact at the intersection Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue to a less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 level. Mitigation measures MM4.13-1 through MM4.13-18 were developed to reduce the through MM4.13-18 and changes to the project remainder of the potentially significant intersection impacts. However, for Caltrans would reduce impacts at local intersections, for intersections, changes or improvements would require coordination and approval by intersections under the jurisdiction of Caltrans, Caltrans, which is not guaranteed. The improvements for the remaining two locations, coordination and approval by Caltrans would be Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Bolsa Avenue, would required and is not guaranteed at this time. As mitigate the project impact at these locations but not achieve an acceptable LOS under such, there are no feasible mitigation measures the ICU methodology. Consequently, this is considered a significant and unavoidable available to reduce impacts at Caltrans impact. intersection and impact at these intersections would remain significant and unavoidable without Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-15 e e - Q� • e a Table Q► • Findings forthe - • • • • s - • o • e - o ImpactSkilement ImpactSummmy Findings approval by Caltrans. Impact 4.13-5 Implementation of the project would The potential for roadway hazards can also occur as an inherent result of the placement Finding 1. The City finds that the identified not substantially increase roadway hazards. With of additional access points along public roadways. New intersections require adequate changes or alterations in the project,which would implementation of code requirements, this impact sight distance and intersection traffic control in order to minimize potential hazards. In reduce Impact 4.13-5 to less-than-significant is considered less than significant. order to ensure safe construction of project intersections, implementation of CR4.13-1 levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. and CR4.13-2 would reduce potential impacts associated with roadway hazards to a No additional mitigation measures are necessary less-than-significant level. with the implementation of CR4.13-1 and CR4.13-2. Cumulative Traffic Future development for the Year 2030, in conjunction with cumulative traffic generated, Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations would result in a potentially significant impact at various intersections. However, that could reduce the potential impact of the mitigation measures MM4.13-1 to MM4.13-18 would require future applicants to provide proposed project are within the responsibility and a fair share payment for improvements to those intersections (as applicable). Although jurisdiction of another public agency and not the the significant impact at these intersections would be reduced to a less-than-significant agency making the findings. level as a result of fair share payment for improvements,implementation of the proposed Finding 3. The City finds that, while project would also contribute to projected regional freeway deficiencies in both 2016 and implementation of mitigation measures MM4.13-1 2030.The increase in projected regional freeway deficiencies is considered substantial in through MM4.13-18 and changes to the project relation to the forecasted traffic load and capacity of the street system. Therefore, the would reduce impacts at local intersections,there proposed project, in conjunction with cumulative projects in the area would result in a is no feasible mitigation available to reduce the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to area traffic. This is considered a proposed project's contribution to impacts at the significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. regional freeway deficiencies. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.14-1 Implementation of the proposed The existing water pipes throughout the project site would provide some of the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could require new water connections or infrastructure necessary to provide water service to future uses under buildout of the changes or alterations in the project,which would expanded water conveyance systems. However, proposed project. However, it is likely that new on-site and off-site improvements (both reduce Impact 4.14-1 to less-than-significant the project would not require or result in the public and private) could be required to provide adequate service for the increase in levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. construction of new or expanded water treatment water demand. With respect to wastewater treatment, future development under the No additional mitigation measures are necessary facilities, the construction of which could cause proposed project represents a fraction of the remaining operating capacity at the existing with the implementation of CR4.14-1. significant environmental effects. This impact is treatment plants, it is anticipated that the existing plants could adequately serve the considered less than significant. additional demand generated by the proposed project without requiring expansion of these facilities. Prior to allowing additional connections or upgrades to the existing water lines, CR4.14-1 would be implemented which would reduce the impact to a less-than- significant level. Impact 4.14-2 Implementation of the proposed Based on the current state of water delivery to the City of Huntington Beach from Finding 3.The City finds that with implementation project would generate an additional demand for Metropolitan (based on the amount of water available to Metropolitan due to climate of mitigation measure MM4.14-1 and code water, which would require water supplies in conditions),the amount of water available to the City of Huntington Beach through 2030 requirement CR4.14-2 the proposed project excess of existing entitlements and resources, or may vary, at times supplies could exceed demand. However, a conservative analysis would result in a significant and unavoidable result in the need for new or expanded indicates that the water demand anticipated under the proposed project could exceed impact to water. No feasible mitigation measures 2-16 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations • e - Q' s • Table Q • Findfng5, • the Beach aridldinger CQrridors,�pecific iPlan impact Statement ImpactSummarl dm entitlements. Even with the implementation of projected supplies if supply conditions continue as they are currently. Future water in addition to mitigation measure MM4.14-1 and mitigation measures, this impact is considered conservation measures employed by the and within the City of Huntington Beach can code requirement CR4.14-2are available. significant and unavoidable. help to reduce this impact.Additionally, implementation of mitigation measure MM4.14-1 and code requirement CR4.14-2 would reduce the impact to the extent feasible. However, due to an uncertainty in future supply and demand reduction measures, this impact would continue to be significant and unavoidable. Impact 4.14-4 Implementation of the proposed Discharge associated with development under the proposed Specific Plan would be Finding 1. The City finds that the identified project could require new sewer connections, and expected to exceed the capacity of several existing sewer pipes and require upsizing at changes or alterations in the project,which would could require or result in the construction of new or several locations.Additionally, because individual projects are unknown at this time, the reduce Impact 4.14-4 to less-than-significant expanded wastewater conveyance systems. remaining capacity available within the OCSD main and trunk lines at the time of each levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with implementation of code development is also unknown at this time.As such,development under the Specific Plan No additional measures are necessary with the requirements and mitigation measures, this impact could result in exceedance of City or OCSD wastewater collection systems.Additionally, implementation of code requirements CR4.14-3 is considered less than significant. analysis of the capacity of existing wastewater treatment systems and the need for new and CR4.14-4 as well as mitigation measure wastewater collection systems will have to be completed. Implementation of code MM4.14-2. requirements CR4.14-3 and CR4.14-4 as well as mitigation measure MM4.14-2 will reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Cumulative Water Supply Current projections of regional supplies indicate that over the horizon of the proposed Finding 3. The City finds that even with project,all hydrologic years are insufficient to meet projected demands within the Orange implementation of mitigation measures MM4.14-1 County groundwater basin. This is primarily due to supply cutbacks related to the and MM4.14-2 as well as code requirements protection of the threatened Delta smelt and a continued statewide drought. In response, CR4.14-1 through CR4.14-4, the proposed Metropolitan's WSAP was adopted to curtail demands. If multiple dry years prevail, project will result in a significant and unavoidable further import water reductions could be necessary. Consequently, on an annual basis cumulative impact to water.No feasible mitigation MWDOC would adjust its supply allocations to higher MWDOC's WSAP stages. measures in addition to MM4.14-1 and MM4.14-2 However, statewide supply is subject to change and could return to normal precipitation as well as code requirements CR4.14-1 through at which point demand conservation measures and supply by Metropolitan would be 4.14-4 are available. relaxed. However, the proposed project would continue to contribute to the regional deficiency in the future,the effects of the proposed project are cumulatively considerable, resulting in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact to water supply. Impact 4.15-1 Implementation of future Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to result in a less-than-significant Finding 1. The City finds that the identified development under the proposed project would impact due to GHG production. However,operation of the proposed project will result in changes or alterations in the project,which would contribute to greenhouse gas emissions in the the continued contribution of GHGs,primarily related to the production of CO2 by vehicles reduce Impact 4.15-1 to less-than-significant state of California. However, with implementation attributed to the proposed project.With implementation of mitigation measures MM4.15-1 levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. of mitigation measures, this impact is considered through MM4.15-9 as well as compliance with guidance provided by the CCAT,CAPCOA No additional measures are necessary with the less than significant. and the California Attorney General, impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant implementation of mitigation measures MM4.15-1 level. through MM4.15-9 as well as compliance with guidance provided by the CCAT, CAPCOA and the California Attorney General. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 2-17 • • - • • • • - - - CHAPTER • 3.1 INTRODUCTION The Draft EIR prepared for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan project considered three separate alternatives to the project originally analyzed. Pursuant to Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the primary intent of an alternatives evaluation is to "describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." As discussed in Chapter 2, the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR has been rejected from further consideration. A modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) is more desirable than the project analyzed in the Draft EIR and is recommended to become the recommended project and replace the original project. The Modified Project would allow for the development of up to 4,500 dwelling units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. All other elements of the project as originally proposed would remain as presented in the EIR. As a result of the reduction in residential dwelling units, the anticipated population would be reduced by approximately 5,054 residents. This reduction would reduce impacts identified for the project as originally proposed to traffic/transportation by reducing potential vehicle trips and congestion in the project area. As a result of the reduction in vehicle trips, a reduction in the associated impacts to air quality is anticipated. The reduction in dwelling units will also result in a reduced demand to water in the long-term, thereby reducing potential impacts on future water supply. The Modified Project would continue to result in a significant and unavoidable impact to recreation however, the severity of the impact would be reduced due to the reduction in residential dwelling units and an associated reduction in required recreational facilities from 85 to 60 acres. The modified project would also eliminate a significant cumulative impact to population/housing. This chapter describes the project objectives and design criteria used to reject the originally proposed project, develop and evaluate project alternatives presented in the Draft EIR, and recommend a modified version of Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project). A description of the alternatives compared to the project originally proposed and the findings regarding the feasibility of adopting the described alternatives is presented for use by the City in the decision-making process. 3.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The objectives of the project as originally proposed and identified by the City, as well as those of the Modified Project are as follows: Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-1 Chapter,3 Findings -ee • • the RejectedPro'60 o • Project Alternativq�s ■ Orchestrate new public and private investment toward the establishment of a more lasting framework for growth and development—a framework of clearly defined districts, centers, street patterns, and local architecture, and landscape identity—upon which new development can reliably respond to, build upon, and draw value from. ■ Re-position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. ■ Begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. • Promote new investment that supports the growth and success of Bella Terra and Golden West College. • Build on the presence of Golden West College, Bella Terra, and the existing transit infrastructure to instigate the emergence of a vital and attractive urban district characterized by a synergistic mix of students, customers, residents,pedestrians, transit-riders, office workers, and visitors. ■ Instigate the development of a network of pedestrian-oriented streets, promenades, and other public open spaces that encourage walking, and ultimately, walking in combination with transit ridership. ■ Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between Golden West College, Bella Terra, the Goldenwest Transit Center, and development along Edinger Avenue. ■ Balance mobility and community development objectives that enable continued market-driven growth and development while maintaining minimum community mobility standards, and furthering patterns of land use and development that contribute toward long-term regional mobility and livability. ■ Make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. ■ Ensure that new buildings and landscaping contribute to the emergence of an increasingly visible and memorable visual identity appropriate to the unique history and character of the City. ■ Ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development. 3.3 SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVES The range of feasible alternatives was selected and discussed in a manner to foster meaningful public participation and informed decision-making. Among the factors that were taken into account when considering the feasibility of alternatives (as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6[fJ[1]) were environmental impacts, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries, and attainment of project objectives. As stated in Section 15126.6(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR need not consider an alternative whose effects could not be reasonably identified, whose implementation is remote or speculative, or one that would not achieve the basic project objectives. The analysis includes sufficient information about each alternative to provide meaningful evaluation, analysis and comparison with the project as originally proposed. 3-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 F • es lk-gardlng th6 - - -• • - • • Projeict kllterAfi'vAes 3.4 PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES FINDINGS The following is a description of the alternatives evaluated in comparison to the project as originally proposed, as well as a description of the specific economic, social, or other considerations that make them infeasible for avoiding or lessening the impacts. Three scenarios, representing a range of reasonable Alternatives to the project as originally proposed were selected for detailed analysis. The goal for evaluating any of these Alternatives is to identify ways to avoid or lessen the significant environmental effects resulting from implementation of a proposed project,while attaining most of the project objectives. In general, the primary contention of the proposed Specific Plan was the perceived significant increase in residential uses that would be permitted. Consequently, because no specific Alternative can reduce any of the known significant impacts to a less- than-significant level, consideration was given to reductions in residential uses to determine the varying levels of impacts and how those would compare to the proposed project. The City finds that the adoption of any of the alternatives to the project as originally analyzed in the Draft EIR is infeasible. The reasons for each finding are provided following the description of the alternative, and are further described in the Draft EIR. 3.4.1 The Rejecter! Originally Proposed Project The project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR included an addition of up to 6,400 new dwelling units (du), 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms, and 112,000 sf of office uses. Although the original project analyzed in the August 2009 Draft EIR would meet the objectives of the City, it would create significant and unavoidable project-related impacts to seven environmental issue areas and cumulative impacts to eight environmental issue areas,which led the City to prepare a modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project) that would lessen project-related impacts and avoid the cumulative impact to Population and Housing, The primary difference between the project as originally proposed and the Modified Project is a reduction of 1,900 residential dwelling units, from 6,400 to 4,500 dwelling units. Findings The City hereby finds that the project as originally proposed is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social and other considerations: The project as originally proposed would result in significant and unavoidable project-level impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Furthermore, the project as originally proposed would result in a significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Population and Housing, Public Services, Recreation,Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-3 qhapter 3 Findingi Regardin ethe Relected Prpiect andftoject Alternpt!yes 3.4.2 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Evaluation As shown below and in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, a range of Alternatives were considered but eliminated from further evaluation. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described below: Reducing Project-Related Impacts: As one of the main goals in determining potential alternatives to a project is to reduce significant project-related impacts, alternatives initially considered included those that could reduce potential impacts to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation, and utilities. However, many of the identified impacts were determined to be significant and unavoidable because of the speculative nature of the Specific Plan and the lack of project-specific information at the current time. As such, a specific alternative to reduce project-related impacts could not reasonably be determined and was rejected as infeasible. Alternative site: As the Specific Plan is designed to guide the development of the Beach and Edinger Corridors, an alternative site would not be appropriate as an Alternative to the project as originally proposed and an alternative site was rejected as infeasible. All Residential or All Commercial: Other land uses such as all residential for all new or redevelopment would not achieve the objectives of the project as originally proposed and would not attract a wide range of activities to provide a dynamic atmosphere along various segments of the corridors or provide enough flexibility to adequately respond to changing market conditions over the long-term. In addition, by allowing only residential uses within the project site, it is likely that many of the significant impacts identified for the project as originally analyzed in the Draft EIR would be increased. All-commercial development would represent similar conditions to continuance of the current General Plan, which is evaluated under Alternative 1 (No Pro)ect/Reasonably Foreseeable Development). Therefore, an all- residential or all-commercial alternative was rejected from further analysis in the Draft EIR. No Project/No Build: As theoretical buildout year of the Specific Plan is 2030, it is considered extremely unlikely that no development on any parcel would occur in the corridors during this time frame. Therefore, this alternative was rejected as infeasible and the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development scenario was evaluated instead. 3.4.3 Alternatives to the Project As shown below and in Chapter 6 (Alternatives) of the Draft EIR, three alternatives were evaluated in comparison to the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The environmental advantages and disadvantages of each of these alternatives are described. The alternatives that were selected for analysis include: ■ Alternative 1—No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing General Plan): Under this Alternative, development in the project site would occur under the existing General Plan and zoning designations. This Alternative allows the decision- makers to compare the impacts of approving the project as originally proposed with the impacts of not approving the project as proposed. 3-4 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations Chapter 3 F • e -•• • e the'R6jiected Projedf• e Projedt 4Alt,,�rindillv4s ■ Alternative 2—Decreased Residential: Under this Alternative, future development would be guided by a Specific Plan that permits a maximum of 4,500 dwelling units and approximately 137,000 square feet (sf) more commercial/office uses than would be permitted by the project as originally proposed. The "increased" commercial results from existing commercial development not being demolished so that residential/mixed-use development can be built. It is an increase compared with the project as originally proposed, but it doesn't represent new commercial construction. Compared to the maximum of 6,400 units as proposed under the original project, this would represent a reduction in residential units by approximately 30 percent (1,900 units), and an increase in commercial/office uses by approximately 16 percent. The majority of the residential units would be decreased from Town Center Boulevard segment (1,055 units), followed by a decrease of 480 units in the Five Points segment, and 365 units in the Neighborhood Parkway segment. Similarly, due to the decrease in residential uses, the majority of increased commercial uses would be located within the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Table 3-1 (Alternative 3Comparison to Specific Plan) summarizes where the changes would occur. Table Alternative • •• s • s - • segnent Reskknti'al Com on Commerrdi Com on(Sig 2 Town Center Boulevard -1,055 +137,790 Neighborhood Boulevard — — Five Points -480 -340 Neighborhood Parkway -365 — Residential Parkway — — Total -1,900 +137,450 ® Alternative 3—Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial: Under this Alternative, residential units would be decreased even further to a maximum of 4,300 dwelling units, and approximately 487,000 square feet (s fl of additional commercial/office square footage would be added, for a total of approximately 1,337,830 sf of commercial/office uses. This would represent an approximate 33 percent reduction in residential uses and approximate 57 percent increase in commercial uses. Similar to Alternative 2, the majority of the land use changes would occur in the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Table 3-2 (Alternative 3—Comparison to Specific Plan) summarizes where the changes would occur. Table - • - 3—Comparison t• Specik-Plan Segment Resiiiential Com on commermicompomon Town Center Boulevard -1,265 +281,840 Neighborhood Boulevard — — Five Points -480 +55,660 Neighborhood Parkway -355 +119,930 Residential Parkway — +30,000 Total -2,100 +487,430 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-5 Q�qpter,3 Findings -o• • • the kej6cted,Projects • Project Alternatives El No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development (Continuation of Existing General Plan) Implementation of the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative would represent the continuation of the City's existing General Plan and zoning designations to guide future growth and development within the project site. The majority of the project site is zoned Commercial General (CG) which has a height limit of 50 feet (approximately four stories), and varying requirements for setbacks, densities, etc. for commercial/office development. For this Alternative,impacts would be analyzed under a maximum buildout scenario within the project site with the allowed land uses and development standards designated in the existing General Plan and zoning designations. Compared with the Modified Project, the overall development potential in the area under this Alternative would include more commercial and office uses and no residential uses. Under this Alternative, construction of commercial and office uses would be allowed similar to the project as originally proposed. However, the growth would occur organically and would reflect the interests of individual developers within the constraints of City policy. However, merely developing commercial and office uses as the project area is currently zoned would be in direct conflict with the identified objectives. The purpose of the Specific Plan is to require comprehensive planning for the entire area, revitalizing, and creating a pleasant and vibrant environment. The intent is to begin "the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare." The Specific Plan would allow a unified planning approach and specific design standards where future subsequent projects serve as independent pieces of the greater whole. Development under this Alternative will be more of the same type of development (e.g. strip commercial),which is not the intent of the project. The Alternative would not fulfill the objectives identified for the Specific Plan. However, it would eliminate the significant cumulative population and housing impact as well as the significant recreation impact because no residential uses would be permitted. Simultaneously, it could result in greater impacts to Aesthetics,Air Quality, and Traffic for the same reason. Findings The City hereby finds that the No Project/Reasonably Foreseeable Development Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ Would not begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. im Would not build on the presence of Golden West College, Bella Terra, and the existing transit infrastructure to instigate the emergence of a vital and attractive urban district characterized by a synergistic mix of students, customers, residents, pedestrians, transit-riders, office workers, and visitors. ■ Would not enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular connections between Golden West College, Bella Terra, the Goldenwest Transit Center, and development along Edinger Avenue. 3-6 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations •e - •ihgs�,"Regardi.ne thle RejKted1rqj&s o Rrbiiect o - ® Would not make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. ® Would not ensure that new buildings and landscaping contribute to the emergence of an increasingly visible and memorable visual identity appropriate to the unique history and character of the City. 0 Decreased Residential Under the Decreased Residential Alternative, future development would be guided by a Specific Plan that permits a maximum of 4,500 dwelling units and approximately 137,000 square feet (sf) more commercial/office uses than would be permitted by the project originally proposed. Compared to the originally proposed maximum of 6,400 units, the Decreased Residential Alternative would represent a reduction in residential units by approximately 30 percent (1,900 units), and an increase in commercial/office uses by approximately 16 percent. The majority of the residential units would be decreased from Town Center Boulevard segment (1,055 units), followed by a decrease of 480 units in the Five Points segment, and 365 units in the Neighborhood Parkway segment. Similarly, due to the decrease in residential uses, the majority of increased commercial uses would be located within the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Implementation of the Decreased Residential Alternative would satisfy most of the identified objectives. Under the Decreased Residential Alternative, 4,500 residential units, 987,400 sf commercial/office uses, and 350 hotel rooms could be developed throughout the project site. This Alternative would still allow development to occur under the Specific Plan with all of the same design parameters and guidelines. It would still guide mixed-use development and create opportunities for people to walk and utilize public transportation. However, it is possible that fewer residential units may lessen some of the positive benefits envisioned by the proposed project by potentially limiting a "critical mass" of consumers that would be expected to patronize certain areas via walking, thus limiting some of the neighborhood clusters or nodes. For the most part, this Alternative would satisfy objectives relating to developing dense residential uses within close proximity to transit, schools, and regional activities while offering close proximity to retail opportunities. In addition, Alternative 2 would reduce the significant cumulative impact associated with population and housing to a less-than-significant level because cumulative development would not exceed 2030 population projections. Findings The City hereby finds that although the Decreased Residential Alternative could reduce potential impacts due a decreased long-term population, the Decreased Residential Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ■ Would not provide the appropriate mix of uses across the Specific Plan area that would sufficiently reduce potential impacts. ® Would not re-position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 3-7 Chdjot6r 3 Findinos -•• • e the - -cted Prdject andl'Pr•jecf • ® Would not make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. 11 Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Under the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative, residential units would be decreased even further to a maximum of 4,300 dwelling units, and approximately 487,000 sf of additional commercial/office square footage would be added, for a total of approximately 1,337,830 sf of commercial/office uses. This would represent an approximate 33 percent reduction in residential uses and 57 percent increase in commercial uses, as compared to the project originally proposed. Similar to the Decreased Residential Alternative, the majority of the land use changes would occur in the Town Center Boulevard segment. All other aspects of the Specific Plan would remain the same. Implementation of the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative would satisfy most of the identified objectives. Under the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative, 4,300 residential units, 1,337,400 sf of commercial/office uses, and 350 hotel rooms would be permitted throughout the Specific Plan area. This Alternative would still allow development to occur under the Specific Plan with all of the same design parameters and guidelines. It would still guide mixed-use development and create opportunities for people to walk and utilize public transportation. However, it is possible that fewer residential units may lessen some of the positive benefits envisioned by the proposed project by potentially limiting a "critical mass" of consumers that would be expected to patronize certain areas via walking, thus limiting some of the neighborhood clusters or nodes. For the most part, the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative would satisfy objectives relating to developing dense residential uses within close proximity to transit, schools, and regional activities while offering close proximity to retail opportunities. In addition, Alternative 3 would reduce the significant cumulative impact associated with population and housing to a less-than-significant level because cumulative development would not exceed 2030 population projections. However, it could result in greater impacts to air quality, noise, and traffic. Findings The City hereby finds that although the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative could reduce potential impacts due a decreased long-term population, the Decreased Residential/Increased Commercial Alternative is infeasible for the following environmental, economic, social, and other considerations: ® Would not provide the appropriate mix of uses across the Specific Plan area that would sufficiently reduce potential impacts. ® Would not re-position disinvested corridor properties to capture value in the contemporary marketplace. ■ Would not begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. ® Would not make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. 3-8 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations • • - • to 4.1 INTRODUCTION Section 15093 of the CEQA guidelines states: (a) CEQA requires the decision-making agency to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks when determining whether to approve the project. If the specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." (b) When the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant effects which are identified in the final EIR but are not avoided or substantially lessened, the agency shall state in writing the specific reason to support its actions based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record. The statement of overriding considerations shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record. (c) If an agency makes a statement of overriding considerations, the statement should be included in the record of the project approval and should be mentioned in the notice of determination. In discussing the proposed project, the City of Huntington Beach gave substantial consideration to the alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR and the associated potential for reduced environmental impacts. The City of Huntington Beach ultimately decided to reject the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR and to approve a modified Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) (Modified Project). As such, the Modified Project includes the development of up to 4,500 residential dwelling units, a reduction of approximately 1,900 units as compared to the project as originally proposed. The commercial and retail components of the Modified Project will remain unchanged from that included in the project as originally proposed and analyzed in the Draft EIR. The City proposes to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations regarding the significant project- specific Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems, as well as cumulative impacts to Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Noise, Public Services, Recreation, Transportation/Traffic, and Utilities and Service Systems of the Modified Project. This section describes the anticipated economic, social, and other benefits or other considerations of the proposed project to support the decision to proceed with the project even though seven identified project-specific impacts and seven identified cumulative impacts are not mitigated to a less-than-significant level. 4.2 SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS The City is proposing to approve the Modified Project, with revisions to reduce environmental impacts, and has prepared an EIR as required by CEQA. Even with revisions in the project, the following impacts are considered to be significant and unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-1 0 0 - o - - • • - • • o o- • m mitigation is available or that the mitigation that could be implemented is outside the purview of the City and the Applicant. Air Quality ® Implementation of the proposed project could violate an air quality standard and contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation for criteria air pollutants. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ® The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in nonattainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard. With mitigation measures, this cumulative impact would be significant and unavoidable. Cultural Resources ® Construction activities associated with implementation of the proposed project could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. With mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ® Similar to the impact identified for the proposed project, construction activities throughout the project site could cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines and the proposed project could contribute to a cumulatively considerable impact to cultural resources. This impact would be significant and unavoidable. Noise ® Construction of the proposed project could generate or expose persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration. With implementation of mitigation measures, construction impacts are considered significant and unavoidable. ® The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable increase in exposure of persons or structures to excessive groundborne vibration both within and outside of the project site area. With implementation of mitigation measures, cumulative construction impacts would be significant and unavoidable. Public Services ® Operation of the proposed project would increase the demand for fire protection services, and could require the construction of new or physically altered facilities to accommodate the increased demand. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ® As additional development occurs in the City, there may be an overall increase in the demand for fire services, including personnel, equipment, and/or facilities. The proposed project would result in a cumulatively considerable increase in the demand on fire services. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Recreation ® The proposed project could result in the construction of recreational facilities at the time of future development and/or redevelopment. With implementation of code requirements, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 4-2 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations e o -r 4-,Stat(-,ffe�qt of 04rri8ind o o- o s ■ Development of related projects could result in the development of new recreational facilities, the construction of which may cause a significant effect on the environment. Additionally, the proposed project will result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to the potential impact on recreation. With implementation of code requirements, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Transportation/Traffic ■ Under Year 2016 conditions, operation of the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ Under Year 2030 conditions, operation of the proposed project would cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the forecasted traffic load and capacity of the street system. With implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ Future development for the Year 2030, in conjunction with cumulative traffic generated, would result in a potentially significant impact at various intersections. Additionally, implementation of the proposed project would result in a considerable contribution to projected regional freeway deficiencies in both 2016 and 2030. With the incorporation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. Utilities and Service Systems ■ Operation of the proposed project would generate an additional demand for water, which would require water supplies in excess of existing entitlements and resources, or result in the need for new or expanded entitlements. With the implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. ■ The proposed project would continue to contribute to a future regional deficiency, resulting in a cumulatively considerable impact to water demand. With the implementation of mitigation measures, this impact would be significant and unavoidable. 4.3 FINDINGS The City has evaluated all feasible mitigation measures, code requirements, and project revisions with respect to the project's impacts, both project-specific and cumulative. The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project. Based on this examination, the City has determined that the No Project/No Development Alternative is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. However, CEQA requires that if the No Project Alternative is environmentally superior another alternative (that is not the No Project) must be chosen. As such, Alternative 2 (Decreased Residential) is considered to be the environmentally superior alternative. Two of the three project alternatives would potentially result in lesser environmental impacts than the proposed project, although not necessarily less than significant. Some additional significant impacts may result with implementation of project alternatives. However, the City fords these alternatives infeasible and less desirable than the recommended project (Modified Project) and has rejected these alternatives from further consideration because they would not achieve the environmental, economic, social, and other considerations outlined in Chapter 3 (Findings Regarding Project Alternatives). Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-3 Chalj,tei(4,St'afdh1ent of Overriding • e- • • 4.4 OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS Specific economic, social, or other considerations outweigh the impacts of the Modified Project, as stated above. The reasons for proceeding with the Modified Project, even though seven identified project- specific impacts and seven cumulative impacts are not fully mitigated to a less-than-significant level, are described below. M Proposed Project Benefits The Modified Project is a plan to promote and support investment opportunities that would enhance the beauty and vitality of the primary commercial corridors in the City of Huntington Beach,including Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. 1. The project would be the catalyst for transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from an "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. 2. The project emphasizes compatibility and sensitivity to the existing uses surrounding the site and would recommend a variety of sustainable features, including requiring green building practices in new development Currently the Specific Plan area contains a mixture of low-scale commercial strip development and office buildings with no consistent architectural style. Most of this development is set back a considerable distance from the roadway, as the development was driven by the desire for vehicular access and parking. Views within the Specific Plan area are typically limited to the immediately adjacent commercial, office or retail uses. As discussed in the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan, "the major commercial corridors of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue have insufficient contrast in character, and no identifiable thematic strengths." Another issue states that the "Beach Boulevard commercial corridor lacks continuity and has multiple identities. This is attributable to inconsistent and extensive signage, varied development scale and character, and widespread clutter." The Modified Project was developed to respond to the issues facing the corridors and improve the existing visual character and quality of the project site and its surroundings. Through implementation of the Modified Project, the corridors would begin a transformation from commercial strip to a pattern of centers and segments. Whereas the commercial strip is undifferentiated the future corridors would be increasingly characterized by an emerging structural differentiation that gradually increases in intensity from south to north. The overall scale and massing of development would gradually transition from the one- and two-story scale of the existing residential community in the southern portion of Beach Boulevard to a high-density town center adjacent to the I-405 at the northern boundary of the Specific Plan, which will help to protect the compatibility of adjacent uses. The Specific Plan outlines specific strategies and development regulations to help incentivize the desired change, while implementing a variety of sustainable features. Strategies include providing greater development intensities in targeted areas, specifying and requiring landscape improvements, expanding permitted land uses, and other tools. Additionally, the Specific Plan implements a "form based" code that will provide for an appropriate transition between existing and future uses. This transition is not only important between existing and new uses within the Specific Plan area but also between new uses within the 4-4 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations e • - State me4nt kf Overriding e •- e • Specific Plan area and adjacent uses outside of the Specific Plan area. The new development standards and code will emphasize a harmonic compatibility that does not necessarily exist currently, and also requires that new development include green building practices thereby improving the overall sustainability of the community and Specific Plan area. With the goal of strengthening Huntington Beach's "sense of place" and architectural identity in mind, the Specific Plan provides guidance for architects and developers to make sensitive reference to, incorporate, and/or harmonize with characteristics of predominant architectural styles such as (but not limited to) massing, horizontal and vertical scale increments, facade composition, roof form, architectural elements, materials, and colors. Phased streetscape improvements,which would be staged over time as financial resources allow and with private development, would contribute significantly to the enhancement of the visual appeal and identity of the corridors. The Specific Plan also provides for building height limitations to help shape the architecture and character of specific areas, as shown in Table 4-1 (Proposed Building Heights). • • - Proposed BuIlding Heights- Specoc Plan Segnew Min.t!qW I Max HdgW Residential Parkway n/a 4 stories Neighborhood Parkway n/a 4 stories Five Points ® Town Center Core 3 stories;(A): 1 story 6 stories ■ Town Center Neighborhood 2 stories 6 stories Neighborhood Boulevard 1 story 4 stories Town Center Boulevard ■ Beach and Edinger Avenues(majority of the corridors in this segment) 1 story 5 stories" ■ Town Center Core(edge along Edinger Ave,south of Gothard) 3 stories; (A): 1 story 6 stories ■ Town Center Neighborhood(north of Town Center Core) 2 stories 6 stories SOURCE: Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan,Public Review Draft,October 2008. (A) Exceptions apply to anchor stores *Special Building Height Limits also apply,which further restrict heights along certain street frontages in some segments. **Up to 10 stories for property within 500 feet of 1-405 with a conditional use permit. Potential impacts from shade and shadow created by new building dimensions, setbacks, and height would be reduced by mitigation measures proposed as part of the project. As such, the Modified Project would, over time, become the catalyst for removal of the existing development with unidentified architecture in an effort to create a sense of place, and of interest to both residents and tourists alike, while creating a visual "iconic gateway" into the City of Huntington Beach. Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-5 0 0 - 4 Statementof Overriding Considerations 3. The project would expand residential opportunities in both the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors to provide a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector along these corridors. 4. The project will provide affordable housing, consistent with City requirements. Goals and policies within the City's existing Housing Element seek to provide adequate housing sites to accommodate regional housing needs. In an effort to do this, goals seek to facilitate the development of mixed-use projects in appropriate commercial areas. The Specific Plan calls for the preservation of existing residences, and would permit an increase in mixed-use development throughout the site, which could result in a maximum of 4,500 new dwelling units. In general, implementation of the Modified Project would allow mixed-uses throughout the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue corridors, primarily within five distinct segments, with each intended to redevelop in a manner cohesive with existing surrounding land uses. Although the proposed Specific Plan would also result in an increase in commercial and office uses compared to existing conditions (while maintaining some existing commercial and office uses), the overall growth in these land use sectors would be less than what is currently allowed under the General Plan which would also help to ensure provision of appropriate public services. Within this overall development, the City will be able to achieve the goals and policies of the Housing Element to provide affordable housing to its citizens. The creation of more dense centers that allow residential, commercial and office uses to interface seamlessly creates a strong sense of community while encouraging utilization of adjacent services and transit opportunities. 5. The project would enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality, state-of-the-art development, consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan. 6. The project would promote residential and commercial buildings that convey a high quality visual image and character, as well as provide for the development of mixed-use projects that integrate residential and commercial uses and ensure compatibility of these uses. 7. The project would maximize land use opportunities by allowing for mixed use in a well- integrated urban environment. 8. The project would establish zoning standards and implementation mechanisms applicable to mixed-use developments consistent with the policies and development framework of the City's General Plan to maximize land use opportunities. Currently the Specific Plan area contains a mixture of low-scale commercial strip development and office buildings with no consistent architectural style. As discussed in the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan, "the major commercial corridors of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue have insufficient contrast in character, and no identifiable thematic strengths." Another issue states that the "Beach Boulevard commercial corridor lacks continuity and has multiple identities. This is attributable to inconsistent and extensive signage, varied development scale and character, and widespread clutter." Views within the Specific Plan area are typically limited to the immediately adjacent commercial, office or retail uses without the opportunity for interesting characteristics. The Modified Project seeks to improve the existing visual character of the Specific Plan area by implementing a form-based code. With the goal of strengthening Huntington Beach's 4-6 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations e• -1 Q S t s te m e n ts • -r r 10 1 • o e- • o "sense of place" and architectural identity in mind, the Specific Plan provides guidance for architects and developers to make sensitive reference to, incorporate, and/or harmonize with characteristics of predominant architectural styles such as (but not limited to) massing, horizontal and vertical scale increments, facade composition, roof form, architectural elements, materials, and colors. One of the primary intents of the proposed Specific Plan is to guide new development that enhances the overall image of the project site as an exciting destination for visitors and residents with a cohesive identity. To do so, the Specific Plan promotes the construction of mixed-use developments. This will allow for an appropriate mix of retail, office, and community service uses while establishing a larger, vibrant residential community who will benefit from these complimentary uses. Pedestrian activity would be encouraged in key areas and new development would include increased or improved landscaping and open space areas which will enhance the visual aspect of the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan implements the broad policies established in the General Plan to guide growth and change along the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. In addition to improving the aesthetic of corridors, as discussed above, the development code contained within the proposed Specific Plan would replace previous land use and development regulations for portions of the City covered by the Specific Plan. Additionally,while the Specific Plan is consistent with the City's land use policies that generally encourage mixed use projects that are compatible with surrounding development, new zoning code categories, standards and permitted uses would be created by the Specific Plan. These new designations would allow for maximum design flexibility for future mixed-use development. The Plan's form-based development code would replace the existing Zoning categories and subsequently regulate future development based on form and scale. The proposed Specific Plan would ultimately allow mixed use and stand-alone residential development in an area of the City that was not previously designated to permit such uses. Given that the City is nearly fully developed, it is increasingly important for the City to actively manage the remaining vacant land to accommodate sustainable future growth. Past residential projects have not reached the full size allowed under the General Plan for those sites, with the City not reaching its growth potential within the time frame previously anticipated. In addition, very few remaining vacant residential sites in the City can achieve the maximum densities allowed by their land use designation due to a variety of site-specific constraints such as lot size, zoning designation, and accompanying development standards. Through implementation of the Specific Plan, the City will move closer to meeting future housing needs by redistributing the overall residential growth that was originally identified in the General Plan to other areas of the City, thereby maximizing land uses. 9. The project would enhance alternative modes of transportation, to include enhancement of the pedestrian experience as well as the movement of residents via bicycle and transit. 10. The project would foster walkability and reduced vehicle trips by promoting development close to established transit routes, a transit center, college and shopping and other services. The Specific Plan area is currently a mixture of low-scale commercial strip development and office buildings that serves a primarily automobile-dependent population. There is limited fixed-route transit (primarily bus) service offered along both Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue as well as park-and-ride facilities within the area. While this transit is available, based on the existing roadway widths, shortage of bicycle lanes and enticing sidewalks, and the lack of residential population Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations 4-7 o • — • - — • ® - • o o •- o s within a reasonable distance from the available transit, the system is underutilized. Goals and policies of the City's General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements seek to encourage development and use of transit services as well as to provide an efficient and attractive pedestrian system. The Modified Project, by nature of encouraging higher density development and an established residential population within proximity of transit services,would meet the objectives of the existing General Plan. Additionally, per development standards established within the Specific Plan, development would be shaped to encourage pedestrian activity, thereby making transit opportunities more accessible. Proximity to the OCTA transit center provides a convenient location for future residents to utilize transit. Furthermore, the Modified Project, including a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, would reduce vehicle trips within the Specific Plan area. The walkability of the surrounding area, as well as the easy access to transit facilities would promote objectives relating to traffic reduction and increase reliance on alternative modes of transportation included within the City's General Plan. 11. The project would ensure adequate utility infrastructure and public services for new development. The Modified Project includes the creation of a greater residential density within the Specific Plan area that could increase the demand on utility infrastructure and existing public services. However, the Modified Project recommended by staff includes a reduction of approximately 1,900 residential dwelling units as compared to the project originally analyzed in the Draft EIR, which will reduce the demand on water as well as existing and proposed infrastructure. Additionally, mitigation measures and code requirements were incorporated into the project design to ensure that service levels are not decreased over the life of the Modified Project. For example, prior to the development of individual projects, it would be required that a sewer capacity study be performed to determine the capacity of the existing lines. If an upgrade to the existing system or new infrastructure would be required, that construction would be required to be performed concurrent with the construction of the individual development project. Furthermore, as part of the annual budgetary review, appropriate staffmg levels for fire and police services would be reviewed, based on the level of recent development or that anticipated in the immediate future. This would ensure that funds are available to provide staffmg levels adequate to serve the future residents and commercial uses. 4-8 Beachand Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR Findings of Fact/Statement of Overriding Considerations ATTAC H M E N T #8 1 J. City of Huntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HUNTINGTON BFACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Econo evelopment BY: Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner DATE: January 12, 2010 SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 (BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: The project site extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ♦ General Plan Amendment(GPA)No. 08-002 represents a request for the following: — To amend the General Plan Land Use designation on 459 acres to Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay (M-sp-d), thereby changing all existing land use classifications within the Specific Plan area. The change in land use designation would also remove the existing floor area ratio and density caps, eliminate the auto overlay designation from properties fronting Beach Boulevard between Warner and Edinger and allow for residential development in areas of the city where it is currently not permitted. — To amend the General Plan Land Use Element by amending the Community District and Subarea Schedule and map to reflect the change in subarea designation for the 459 acre specific plan area. ♦ Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA) No. 08-002 represents a request for the following: - To establish the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14), a form based code, for a 459 acre area. - SP 14 would allow for development of up to 6,400 Dwelling Units, 738,400 sq. ft. of Retail Space, 350 Hotel Rooms, and 112,000 sq. ft. of Office Space, which represents a decrease in commercial uses and increase in residential uses that would be allowed within the area. - SP 14 will supersede the Pacifica Community Plan(SP 2), which will no longer be in effect. ♦ Zoning Map Amendment(ZMA)No. 08-002 represents a request for the following: - To amend the City's Zoning Map to reflect the SP 14 designation, thereby changing all existing zoning designations within the 459 acre Specific Plan area. • Staff s Recommendation: Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 based upon the following: - Consistent with the General Plan policies and development framework related to Mixed Use development. - Facilitates new development in the area by proposing development standards that provide greater flexibility for land uses, which will maintain and expand economic and business opportunities. - Facilitates mixed use development that produces an environment that is both attractive and sustainable by increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use of land resources. - Includes development standards that will result in compatible, attractive and adequately served land uses and buildings - Consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of smart growth and sustainable development. - Accommodates some of the City's already projected growth in areas that are currently and in the future served by transit, thereby efficiently using land and improving opportunities for transit growth while maintaining the remainder of the City's environmental resources and scale of character. - Serves affordable housing needs of the community by providing for affordable housing units through the City's Inclusionary Housing requirement. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 by approving the draft Resolution(Attachment No. 3) and forward to the City Council for adoption." B. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval (Attachment No. 1) by approving the draft Resolution(Attachment No. 4) and forward to the City Council for adoption." C. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval (Attachment No. 1) by approving the draft Ordinance (Attachment No. 5) and forward to the City Council for adoption." D. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations— EIR No. 08-008 (Attachment No. 2)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: 1. "Continue General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 and direct staff accordingly." 2. "Deny General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002, and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings for denial." PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 2 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) McFadden Are - m Proposed Beach Edinger rut. Specific Plan Area - E City of Huntington Beach i e i N s r�edAe ��I \lE S - : c w a#imp C Garlep Ave °o rn� c •4 a, - �- 'may .a.+�•e.. __ _ � .... -__ __ _ :.,_:- -- ," s err, —_..v —_— •. .. -- — — m . 1 PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 3 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) PROTECT PROPOSAL: General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 (GPA), Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 (ZTA) and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 (ZMA) represent a City-initiated proposal to adopt the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is intended to implement a clear and comprehensive vision for growth and change along primarily Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors, including Five Points, Pacific Community Specific Plan (SP-2) and commercial portions of the Seabridge Specific Plan (SP-3). The total acreage of the Specific Plan is approximately 459 acres. The Specific Plan allows mixed use development focusing on how population and employment growth can be strategically accommodated in a manner that is responsive to market demand while complementing existing commercial uses. The specifics of the entitlements are as follows: General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to amend the proposed Specific Plan area's General Plan Land Use Designations from the current Commercial Regional, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General, Commercial Office, Mixed Use, Mixed Use Vertical, Mixed Use Horizontal and Residential Medium Density to Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay (M-sp-d). The existing Floor Area Ratios and density limitations of the General Plan would no longer be in effect for the area, and the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger would be removed from the Land Use Map. The General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map would be amended to reflect the provisions of SP 14 (Attachment No. 3). Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to establish the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) pursuant to Chapter 215 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO). SP 14 is a form based code that sets forth permitted uses, development standards, development regulations including architecture and sign regulations, and processing procedures to regulate property in the proposed Specific Plan area. Form based codes create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form, with a lesser focus on land use. The Specific Plan consists of three primary sections, or "Books"; Book I: Community Intent, Book II: Development Code, and Book III: Public Improvements (Attachment No. 4). The development plan envisioned by the Specific Plan anticipates new infill replacement development along the Beach and Edinger Corridors and environs. New construction will start to connect developments that encourage pedestrian activity. In the future, Goldenwest College (outside of the Specific Plan), the residential neighborhood development, the shopping and entertainment cores and the transit center will create the mixed use developments that will revitalize the two core districts of the Specific Plan: Five Points and Edinger Town Center. The remaining areas identified in the Specific Plan will begin the transformation from commercial strip to a pattern of centers and segments, each with development specifications and criteria to achieve differentiation between and along Beach Blvd. and Edinger Corridor. A brief description of the primary centers and segments, moving south to north is provided below: ➢ Residential Parkway: In the most southern portion of the Specific Plan, this area is located along Beach Blvd from Adams Avenue to the southern Specific Plan boundary, near Atlanta. Infill and replacement development in this area will be directed to primarily replicate and improve upon the best features of the existing pattern. The general planning approach to this particular area is preservation, as the majority of development along this segment is composed of existing residential uses. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 4 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) ➢ Neighborhood Parkway: Transitioning north, this segment is located between Adams and Five Points. Development will take advantage of existing and new residential development. In addition to residential development, office, lodging, and neighborhood-serving retail would also be permitted. Existing vehicle sales operations (auto dealers) would be allowed to expand operations, but no new dealerships would be allowed in this segment. ➢ Five Points District: This area encompasses the existing Five Points Shopping Center, the Pacifica Community Plan area and immediate vicinity. The District relies on the development standards for the Town Center Core and the Town Center Neighborhood in the proposed Specific Plan. Envisioned development in this area is expected to intensify existing development and create an even more thriving mixed use area to insure emergence of a vital urban district. The standards are developed to create the most urban districts of the Specific Plan by increased heights and regulating structure placement. ➢ Neighborhood Boulevard: This segment along Beach Blvd is generally located between Five Points and Warner Ave. In this neighborhood there are two major attractors to investment: Walmart and the Huntington Beach Hospital. Another factor to support new commercial development in this district is its proximity to residential development. The strategy for this area is to encourage the development of neighborhood-serving and hospital-serving retail and services. Additionally, the inclusion of residential development throughout the segment will revitalize the district. New vehicle sales operations and expansion of existing will also be permitted in this segment. ➢ Town Center Boulevard: The Town Center Blvd segment encompasses uses along Beach Blvd from Warner to Edinger Ave, and along Edinger from Beach east to Goldenwest. This area is envisioned for gradual transition to more pedestrian oriented and distinctive building types but would allow for almost all commercial uses, as well as for mixed-use development to encourage the emergence of more efficient land uses. A wide range of City-oriented retail and service uses would be supported in this segment, including expansion of existing and new vehicle sales operations. ➢ Town Center Core/Town Center Neighborhood-Edinger Avenue: This area encompasses the Levitz site, the Red Oak/Amstar (formerly The Ripcurl) site, and property immediately north of Center Ave. It uses the same development standards as referenced for Five Points District above. This area is intended to build on the momentum of the Bella Terra Mall to the east and serve as a focal neighborhood,with some commercial development. The Specific Plan also contains standards for existing Neighbhorhood Centers, such as are located at major intersections along Beach Boulevard, and for Residential Transition areas, where existing low density residential development backs to commercial development. Buildout of the Specific Plan (estimated at 2030) could potentially result in the addition of 6,400 new units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms and 112,000 sf of office uses. However, not all of this development would be considered net growth. In many cases existing structures would be replaced or redeveloped with the new uses. In order to accommodate the proposed development, it is estimated that approximately 1.4 million sf of existing commercial development within the Specific Plan area or 22 percent of existing development would be demolished over the 20 year life of the Plan. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 5 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) The Draft Specific Plan was released for public comment in October 2008. Staff has made suggested changes to that document based on comments from the public and the Planning Commission. The revised Specific Plan, titled Final Draft, was distributed to the Planning Commission on December 19`h and made available on the City's website on December 21 St. The Final Draft is incorporated in Attachment No. 4 for adoption. Based on the various comments received, staff has moved many of the illustrations and photos as well as some of the previous appendices that were in the October 2008 Draft into a new Beach and Edinger Corridor Reference Volume. The Reference Volume does not contain any new information and is not proposed for adoption, but serves as useful guidance and background information. The Reference Volume was made available concurrently with the Final Draft Specific Plan. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 represents a request to amend the City's Zoning Map to reflect the SP 14 designation, thereby changing the existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area, pursuant to Chapter 247 of the HBZSO. SP 14 would supersede the Pacifica Community Plan, which would no longer be in effect(Attachment No. 5). The City Council initiated the proposed project in response to the issues facing the corridors, in an effort to position the area and the City such that it would remain competitive and attractive to businesses as well as result in improvement of the existing visual character and quality of the Corridors. The General Plan states that uses along Edinger Avenue have little physical or visual connection and that the corridors lack an overall identity and strong physical anchors. Over the years the City's major commercial corridors, Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave., have increasingly become more vulnerable to change because large anchored centers located at major intersections have created an adverse impact on the smaller unanchored commercial centers found throughout these two corridors. The General Plan and Zoning Code designate the majority of land within the proposed specific plan area as commercial use. The overabundance of commercially designated land has limited the ability to adjust to market trends for the development of the highest and best land uses. This has resulted in the creation of vulnerable vacant land and buildings, poorly maintained buildings, and underutilized land with low value businesses or structures that could solicit higher rates of return but fail to respond to market needs. BACKGROUND In 1999, the City Council added the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (ECSP) and Economic Development Action Plan to their priority list of projects. In 2000, a consulting firm was hired to prepare the ECSP. The ECSP was initiated by City Council because various special studies concluded that as a primary entrance to the City of Huntington Beach Edinger Avenue was not taking advantage of its location next to the Mall or as a potential commercial regional destination. Special studies explored a variety of development options within and surrounding the project area. During 2000-2001, a total of three community workshops were conducted to solicit comments and participation from the community. Throughout the three workshops, participants showed considerable support for ongoing efforts to address the complicated issues affecting Huntington Beach and the Edinger Corridor area. In March 2005, an update of the ECSP was presented to the City Council. By the end of 2005, the draft ECSP was completed. A draft was made available to the public on January 6, 2006 for PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 6 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) review and comments. The draft ECSP was presented to the City Council at a study session on January 17, 2006 and two study sessions were held with the Planning Commission. On February 28, 2006, a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission for consideration of the adoption of the draft Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. Upon discussion and significant comments by the public, including property owners, the Planning Commission voted to continue the Specific Plan (Attachment No. 7). The Planning Commission outlined a list of issues to improve that Specific Plan document (Attachment No. 8). After review of the concerns and consideration of the outstanding issues, staff made a recommendation to re-examine the Specific Plan. City Council concurred. The revitalization of Beach Boulevard was under discussion during this timeframe, and a Corridor Workshop had been held in September 2005. After a review of the Planning Commission's concerns, staff concluded that it would be in the best interest of the City to combine both corridors in a comprehensive Specific Plan. In 2006, City Council directed staff to combine both Beach Blvd. and Edinger Avenue to form the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Contracts with consultants were then executed. The proposed Specific Plan project began in 2007 with a series of workshops to solicit public comments and receive input prior to the drafting of the Specific Plan document. The analysis of the revised Specific Plan began with a series of workshops and study sessions, as well as meetings with focus groups. Below is a list of the public meetings held for the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. 2007 Community Workshop #1: Existing Conditions and Community Aspirations - May 10, 2007 Community Workshop#2: Revitalization Concepts-Broad Brush Alternatives and Trade-Offs - June 20, 2007 Community Workshop# 3: Traffic - August 27, 2007 Community Workshop#4: Making the Most of Near Term OpportunitiesNision for Edinger- Sept. 20, 2007 2008 City Council Study Session: Making the Most of Short-Term OpportunitiesNision for Edinger—Jan. 8,2008 Community Workshop# 5: Design Character& Identity for the Beach/Edinger Corridors—Jan. 30, 2008 Community Workshop# 6: Envisioned Future/Revitalization Strategy for Beach Blvd.—Feb. 7, 2008 City Council Study Session: Revitalization Strategy&Envisioned Future Corridors—April 17, 2008 City Council Study Session: Draft Specific Plan—Oct. 20, 2008 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#1: Introduction and Book I Overview- March 24, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#2: Book 11 Overview-April 14, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#3: Book 11 Overview—May 12, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#4: Book III Overview- May 26, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#5: Book III Continued Overview- June 9, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#6: Specific Plan Comments—Sept. 22, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#7: Specific Plan Comments—Oct. 13, 2009 Planning Commission Field Trip: Review of Development Standards—Oct. 29, 2009 Planning Commission Study Session#8: EIR—Nov. 9, 2009 Planning Commission Public Hearing: EIR and Project—Dec. 8, 2009 PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 7 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) ISSUES: Subiect Property Land Use, Zoning, and General Plan Designations: The project area encompassed by the Specific Plan extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street. In total, the project site contains approximately 6,262,174 square feet (sf) of existing development. Currently, the primary land use within the Specific Plan is commercial (including a variety of retail and office uses), as well as residential uses in the Five Points area. General commercial uses account for approximately 5,741,598 sf of existing development. In addition, there are 493 existing residential units, 303 hotel rooms (approximately 139,369 sf) and 264 hospital beds (381,207 sf) within the Plan's boundaries. The General Plan Land Use and Zoning Designations for the Specific Plan area are as follows: 1,()CAflNtGESNERAL PLAN k '_ ,' AZON Subject Area Commercial Regional, Commercial General, Commercial Centers, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial Office, Vacant Retail Building Commercial General, General Industrial, (Levitz Furniture Store), Commercial Office, Commercial Office, Multiple Family Mixed Use, Residential Low Density, Residential, Auto Mixed Use Vertical, Residential Medium Density, Dealerships, and Senior Mixed Use Horizontal, and Residential Medium Density Pacifica Community(SP2), Housing and Seabridge Specific Plan (SP3) In addition, there is an auto overlay on the properties that front Beach Boulevard between Warner and Edinger Avenues. The General Plan states that the auto overlay"permits the development of an automobile district in addition to the underlying land uses." General Plan Conformance: The proposed project includes changing the existing General Plan and Zoning designations. The new General Plan Land Use designation would be M-sp-d(Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay). The Zoning designation would be the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan No. 14 (SP 14). The proposed project is consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan as follows: A. Circulation Element Policy CE 2.1.3: Identify and improve roadways and intersections that are approaching, or have reached, unacceptable levels of service. Objective CE 3.2: Encourage new development that promotes and expands the use of transit services. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 8 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Policy CE 6.1.6: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments, schools, and public facilities. The Specific Plan allows for mixed use development thereby promoting alternative modes of transportation. It is designed to foster opportunities and convenience for many households to use alternate travel modes such as walking and biking to complete their daily routines and errands. The Specific Plan envisions a concentration of living, shopping, entertainment and employment opportunities within walking and biking distance of the Bella Terra lifestyle development and Five Points Shopping Center. By allowing for greater concentrations of population within the Specific Plan area, greater use of transit may also occur. Book III of the Specific Plan indicates those intersections that warrant improvement due to overall growth in the City and implementation of the Specific Plan. Pursuant to the mitigation measures provided in the Specific Plan Appendix, new development in the Specific Plan area will be required to contribute to the construction of those improvements. B. Economic Development Element Policy ED 2.3.1: Strive to reduce all discretionary permit and licensing processing time. Goal ED 3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. Objective ED 3.1: Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. Policy ED 3.1.2: Encourage the consolidation of strip commercial areas to create commercial and/or residential nodes. Policy ED 3.1.6: Concentrate office and mixed use nodes along the primary corridors at the public transportation routes and stops. Policy ED 3.3.1: Work with land owners, businesses, and tenants located along the primary corridors and at the principal nodes to define the market character and to create district themes for market recognition purposes. The Specific Plan allows for the Site Plan Review process to expedite the processing of many of the allowed uses and new construction. The allowance is based on the implementation of the Form Based Code, which is precise and deliberate in building placement, setbacks,the use of materials,restrictions on the length of buildings, building massing and height. The Specific Plan has separated the project area into centers and segments in order to focus development at the primary nodes of the project area and therefore maximize economic opportunity for the City. C. Growth Management Element Policy GM 1.1.7: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize policing safety and security. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 9 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Policy GM 2.1.4: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize fire safety and prevention. Objective GM 3.1: Establish minimum standards for traffic circulation and provide a means to ensure that those standards are met and maintained. Policy GM 3.1.8: Promote traffic reduction strategies including alternate travel modes, alternate work hours, and a decrease in the number of vehicle trips throughout the city. Specific Plan Objective No. 11, listed in Book I, is to incorporate Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design guidelines. With input from the Police Department, these guidelines have been incorporated in the Specific Plan regulations. The Specific Plan also requires compliance with Fire Department regulations. As noted above, the Specific Plan includes mitigation measures that address potential traffic impacts, and one of the overall results of the Specific Plan development concept is to promote traffic reduction by allowing for mixed use development and enabling greater intensity of development near existing and future transit opportunities. D. Housing Element Policy H 2.2: Facilitate the development of mixed-use projects in appropriate commercial areas, including stand-alone residential development (horizontal mixed-use) and housing above ground floor commercial uses (vertical mixed-use). Establish mixed use zoning regulations. Policy H 3.1: Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic segments of the community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households, to maintain a balanced community. Goal H 5: Provide equal housing opportunity. The proposed Specific Plan allows for mixed use development that can offer a wide range of housing opportunities and options, accommodating different age groups, income levels, and household types. Consistent with the City's Housing Element, there are two areas where residential development would be required: one area in the vicinity of Five Points and one on property owned by The City Redevelopment Agency, north of Center Dr. Development within the Specific Plan area is required to meet the affordable housing provisions set forth in Book II, which require that any required affordable housing be located within the Specific Plan area. E. Land Use Element Goal LU 1: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Objective L U 1.1: Provide for the timing of residential, commercial, and industrial development coincident with the availability of adequate market demand to ensure economic vitality. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 10 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Goal LLU 2: Ensure that development is adequately served by transportation infrastructure, utility infrastructure, and public services. Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Goal LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Goal L U 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the principles discussed below: b. Vary uses and densities along the City's extended commercial corridors, such as Beach Boulevard. c. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. e. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. f. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. Goal LU 9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic,physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Policy LU 9.1.4: Require that recreational and open space amenities be incorporated in new multi- family developments and that they be accessible to and of sufficient size to be usable by all residents. Goal L U 10: Achieve the development of a range of commercial uses. Goal LU 11: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use. Policy LU 11.1.2: Limit commercial uses in mixed-use development projects to those uses that are compatible with the residences. Policy LU 11.1.4: Require the incorporation of adequate onsite open space and recreational facilities to serve the needs of the residents in mixed-use development projects. Policy LU 11.1.5: Require that mixed-use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 11 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Policy LU 11.1.6: Require that the ground floor of structures that horizontally integrate housing with commercial uses locate commercial uses along the street frontage (housing may be located to the rear and/or on upper floors). Policy LU 11.1.7: Require that mixed-use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of the: a. Visual and physical integration among the commercial and residential uses. b. Architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts and residential units. One of the initial catalysts for the City to pursue a specific plan for the Corridors was to improve the fiscal viability of the city and be responsive to changing market economic demands. As discussed in the General Plan, Beach Boulevard, in particular, has not fared well from an economic development perspective and is less attractive and inviting than the City would like. The proposed Specific Plan is designed to address this issue while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. The proposed Specific Plan adoption and the amendments to the General Plan and Zoning Map are a mechanism to achieve the goals of smart growth. The Specific Plan would allow for mixed use development thereby increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a sense of place for the City's two major corridors, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use of land resources. Because of the central location of the Corridors they are ideal for mixed use development, which would complement the surrounding area. The Specific Plan proposes a combination of centers and segments to provide differentiation between and along Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. In the more residential segments, the Specific Plan limits and/or prohibits certain types of uses that may be less compatible, e.g. live entertainment, dancing, drive-throughs. The Specific Plan contains development standards that address open space, parking, building massing, setbacks and height as well as detailed architectural regulations that will provide for enhanced exteriors. The Specific Plan requires compliance with the mitigation measures adopted with Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 to address infrastructure needs and City codes pertaining to noise and lighting. The General Plan buildout scenario for residential units in the City is 92,679 units. According to the State Department of Finance projections, there were 78,007 housing units in Huntington Beach in 2008. As the City nears buildout, the City's desire is to redistribute some of the remaining growth identified in the General Plan to other areas of the City through implementation of the Specific Plan. The maximum increase in projected residential development at build out in the specific plan area of 6,400 dwelling units is within the General Plan build out cap. The Specific Plan would result in an increase in development that is in a different location from that described in the General Plan Land Use Plan but would not exceed residential build-out capacity and would reduce the daily trip generation along both corridors (at buildout). Full buildout of the Specific Plan would capture less than half of the remaining anticipated residential growth in the City(as outlined in the General Plan). PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 12 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) F. Noise Element Policy N 1.3.10: Require that mechanical equipment, such as air conditioning units or pool equipment, comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Policy N 1.5.1: Require that commercial and residential mixed-use structures minimize the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial land use to the residential land use. The design measures may include: (1) the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission; or (2) the configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and transmission. The Specific Plan requires compliance with the mitigation measures adopted with Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008 and City codes pertaining to noise and lighting. G. Urban Design Element Goal UD 1.1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach Because it is a form based code, SP 14 is focused on the resulting physical form. The development standards are designed for the purpose of creating an interesting and active street scene, where appropriate in the Specific Plan area, and also allow for wide landscape setbacks in other areas of the Specific Plan where that is a more suitable and logical treatment. The proposed Specific Plan also includes architectural regulations to guide quality design of buildings and includes unifying streetscape treatments to enhance the public right-of-way. Overall, the Specific Plan serves the overarching purpose of improving the visual image of the Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. corridors. H. Utilities Element Policy U 1.1.1: Monitor the demands on the water system, manage the development to mitigate impacts and/or facilitate improvements to the water supply and distribution system, and maintain and expand water supply and distribution facilities. Objective U 1.3: Minimize water consumption rates through site design, use of efficient systems, proper maintenance, and other techniques. Policy U 2.1.6: Require that sewer capacity is available before building permits are issued for new development. Objective U 5.1: Ensure that adequate natural gas, telecommunication, and electrical systems are provided. The Specific Plan identifies anticipated infrastructure improvements to accommodate development in Book III as well as the EIR mitigation measures that also address infrastructure needs. New development will be required to provide adequate infrastructure prior to proceeding. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 13 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Zoning Compliance: One of the entitlements associated with this project is Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 to create a new Specific Plan, SP 14, which would establish permitted uses and development standards applicable to property within the Specific Plan area. The Specific Plan uses and standards are established for the various centers and segments within the Specific Plan and provide for logical physical transitions from one area to the next. The table below summarizes the uses allowed by center and segment in comparison with the uses currently allowed by the HBZSO for the majority of Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. and by the Pacifica Community Plan near Five Points. General Comparison of Allowed Uses Proposed SP 14 and Current Code b b 1.. -o $. U. _ - 1.. O Use x .°0 �° U �° U O �' U °' N E _S� ; aaU 3 3U � 0 3 0 Z Z F- 4 H Z � E~ � U U Specialty Goods Anchors ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Community Oriented Anchors ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Entertainment Anchors ✓ ✓ ✓ Eating,and Drinking ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Eating and Drinking w/Live Entertainment ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ & Dancing Specialty Goods&Foods ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Entertainment& Recreation ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Convenience Uses ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Business Services ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Personal Services ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Service Commercial&Repair ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Large Scale Commercial Goods ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Vehicle Sales—establishment of new ✓ ✓ ✓ Vehicle Sales—expansion of existing ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Civic&Cultural ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Office ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Lodging ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Live Work ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Multi-family Residential ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Single Family-Attached ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Single Family-Detached ✓ ✓ Note: The Specific Plan further restricts some uses. For example, some uses are limited to a major street, e.g. Beach Boulevard, while others are limited to upper floors. In addition, some uses in the SP as well as current code require a conditional use permit. Pages 13-28 of the Specific Plan contain the proposed Development Standards Charts. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 14 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) The Specific Plan is a form based code. As such, its development standards are deliberate in the required physical placement of buildings for the purpose of creating walkable, pedestrian oriented environments. The standards bring structures closer to the street, create landscape themes per segment and integrate pedestrian and vehicular circulation. The development standards address many of the same topics that are currently addressed in the HBZSO. However, the Specific Plan does not propose Floor Area Ratios or density factors. The Specific Plan proposes a change in maximum building heights, reduced front yard setbacks, changes to the location of new parking lots, reduced parking requirements and new standards related to configuration and massing of buildings. The zoning standards are addressed in detail in the Analysis section of this report. Urban Desi,Qn Guidelines Conformance: The proposed General Plan amendment includes a design overlay designation. Pursuant to the General Plan this overlay "permits underlying uses in accordance with special design standards." The Specific Plan is a Form Based Code providing special design specifications, which are more specific than the citywide Urban Design Guidelines. As with other specific plans with detailed design regulations, the SP 14 guidelines will supercede the citywide guidelines for the Specific Plan area. Notwithstanding this, the City's consultant included many of the concepts of the City's Urban Design Guidelines in the proposed Specific Plan, such as moving buildings to the corner, limiting the location of parking lots and providing for architectural treatment that results in varied storefronts. Environmental Status: In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), EIR No. 08-008 was prepared by PBS&J to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the proposed project as well as identify appropriate mitigation measures. The Draft EIR was distributed to the Planning Commission for review at the start of the 45-day public comment period on August 28, 2009. The Final Draft EIR, including the Response to Comments and all text changes, was distributed to the Planning Commission and posted on the City's website on November 11, 2009. On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission certified Environmental Impact Report 08-008 as adequate and complete with mitigation measures and amendment to Mitigation Measure MM4.15-3 to include language referencing recycled building materials. The adopted mitigation measures are included as Appendix A to the Specific Plan. The environmental impact report discussed the potential adverse impacts associated with the project. The direct, indirect and cumulative impacts of the proposal were addressed, as were the impacts of project alternatives. Although the project results in adverse impacts to the environment that cannot be mitigated or avoided, the Planning Commission may still approve the project if a Statement of Overriding Considerations is adopted. CEQA requires decision makers to balance the benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of a proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the City may consider the adverse environmental effects acceptable. In this particular case, staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to air quality, cultural resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities and service systems. The adverse impacts are unavoidable because it has been determined that no feasible mitigation PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 15 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) is available or the mitigation that could be implemented, such as I-405 improvement, is outside the purview of the City. Approval of the Specific Plan and associated GPA and ZMA would allow for improved opportunities for future development in the proposed Specific Plan area. With the adoption of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, multiple sustainable development principles are achieved, resulting in the improved social and economic well-being of the Corridors. More specifically, the project would have the following benefits: 1. The proposed project would be the catalyst for transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from an "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north/south thoroughfare. 2. The project emphasizes compatibility and sensitivity to the existing uses surrounding the site and would recommend a variety of sustainable features. 3. The proposed project would expand residential opportunities in both the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors to provide a greater number and variety of housing options and a stronger base for the commercial sector along these corridors. 4. The Specific Plan project will provide affordable housing, consistent with City requirements. 5. The proposed project would enhance the community image of Huntington Beach through the design and construction of high quality, state-of-the-art development, consistent with the Urban Design Element of the City's General Plan. 6. The project would promote residential and commercial buildings that convey a high quality visual image and character, as well as provide for the development of mixed-use projects that integrate residential and commercial uses and ensure compatibility of these uses. 7. The project would maximize land use opportunities by allowing for mixed use in a well-integrated urban environment. 8. The project would establish zoning standards and implementation mechanisms applicable to mixed- use developments consistent with the policies and development framework of the City's General Plan to maximize land use opportunities. 9. The proposed project would enhance alternative modes of transportation,to include enhancement of the pedestrian experience as well as the movement of residents via bicycle and transit. 10. The project would foster walkability and reduced vehicle trips by promoting development close to established transit routes, a transit center, college and shopping and other services. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 16 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Following approval of the GPA, ZTA and ZMA the Planning Commission must approve the CEQA Findings of Fact with a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 2). Environmental Board Comments: The City's Environmental Board provided a comment letter during the DEIR process. The majority of the Board's comments were related to the Specific Plan document itself and not directed at the adequacy of the EIR. In summary, the Environmental Board supports the fundamentals of the Specific Plan. The Board's concerns are that of residential density particularly along the Edinger Corridor, reducing building heights to four stories, inclusion of green building requirements, school facilities and traffic. The Board's comments were responded to in the Final EIR approved in December. Coastal Status: The proposed Specific Plan area is not located within the Coastal Zone. However, a portion of the southernmost section is located within zoning district maps that do have property within the Coastal Zone. Therefore, the Zoning Map Amendment associated with the proposed project will be combined with other minor amendments that will be forwarded to the California Coastal Commission as a minor Local Coastal Program Amendment for certification. Redevelopment Status: A small portion of the Specific Plan area across from Bella Terra Mall along Edinger Avenue is located in the Huntington Center Sub-area 1. The Redevelopment Agency concurs with the proposed Specific Plan. Desi,en Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: At the on-set of the Specific Plan project, a staff Core Team was created consisting of members of the departments of Administration, Planning, Economic Development and Public Works. The Core Team met throughout the preparation of the Specific Plan, providing comments and guidance. In addition, the departments of Fire, Police and Community Services were consulted and provided input and review of the Specific Plan. All Department comments and recommendations are incorporated into the Specific Plan. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on November 25, 2009, and approximately 22,000 notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 1000 ft. radius of the subject property, individuals/organizations requesting notification (Planning Department's Notification Matrix), interested parties, and individuals/organizations that commented on the environmental document and draft Specific Plan. Six communications were received prior to and/or at the December 8, 2009 Planning Commission meeting and previously provided with that staff report. As of January 5, 2010, no additional letters have been received regarding the project. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 17 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Application Processing-Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): General Plan Amendment; Zoning Map Amendment; Zoning Text Amendment: October 20, 2008 Not applicable, legislative action ANALYSIS: The primary factors to consider when analyzing the proposed project are the type and amount of development that would be permitted with the General Plan Amendment and the creation of the new Specific Plan in terms of standards and proposed area. The following is a detailed discussion of these issues. General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment would change the existing General Plan land use designations in the proposed SP area to M-sp-d (Mixed Use-specific plan-design overlay). Because the Specific Plan has detailed design regulations the design overlay designation is appropriate. The existing Floor Area Ratios and density limitations of the General Plan would no longer be in effect for the area, and the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger would be removed from the Land Use Map. The General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map would be amended to reflect the provisions of SP 14. A discussion of the proposed Mixed Use land use designation and the amount of development, which is also included in the Specific Plan, is presented below. Mixed Use Development The existing General Plan land use designations for the Specific Plan area include a variety of commercial categories as well as mixed use and residential designations. The proposed project would ultimately allow mixed use development and stand-alone residential and commercial development throughout the Specific Plan area, in areas of the City that it is currently not allowed. The City's Mixed Use land use designation is best suited to accomplish the goals for the proposed Specific Plan. The growing trend towards mixed land use development in Southern California is part of the larger shift in thinking about managing future growth. It is designed to create livable cities, promote economic development, minimize dependence on auto transportation, reduce air pollution, and make infrastructure investments more efficient. The following are smart growth principles: ■ mix land uses ■ take advantage of compact building design ■ create a range of housing opportunities and choices ■ create walkable neighborhoods ® foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place ■ preserve open space, natural beauty and critical environmental areas ■ strengthen and direct development towards existing communities PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 18 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) ® provide a variety of transportation choices ■ make development decisions predictable, fair and cost-effective • encourage community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions The integration of mixed use into communities is a critical component in achieving smart growth and specifically for assisting Huntington Beach respond to ever changing market forces for the following reasons: ® Mixed land uses provide a more diverse and sizable population and commercial base for supporting viable alternatives to driving such as walking, biking, and public transportation where it is available or may be provided in the future. ■ Allowing residential uses, whether solely or as part of a mixed use development, improves demand for the City's existing commercial businesses. ■ As an almost built-out city, there are limited opportunities to accommodate new residential development. Integrating that development into key areas, such as Five Points and near Bella Terra, maximizes the use of the city's land area while at the same time benefits nearby commercial operations. The City of Huntington Beach has long recognized the importance of mixed use as a land use tool to manage growth and stimulate economic activity within specified areas for the purpose of achieving certain goals. The following are some of the specific plan areas that have a General Plan designation of Mixed Use. ® Downtown Specific Plan: Established Mixed Use Standards in 1983. Plaza Almeria(Main St. & Olive) and Townsquare (Main& Orange) are examples of individual mixed-use projects (commercial, office, and residential within the same building). ® Holly Seacliff Specific Plan: Designates 53 acres for mixed-use development allowing a combination of commercial, limited public, and residential use. A senior apartment project, an attached townhome development and a day care are clustered around the Seacliff Shopping Center. ■ Pacifica Community Plan: Intended to integrate the area into an office/professional, medical, senior citizen multi-story residential complex and to provide necessary support services for the elderly. ■ Palm Goldenwest Specific Plan: Designates a 150 acre site for horizontal mixed use: 54 acres has been developed with detached and attached homes and a public park; the remaining area fronting Pacific Coast Highway is designated for future commercial, office, visitor serving, open space and civic uses but is currently used for oil production. ■ Seabridge Specific Plan: Master plans a 60+acre area for medium to high density residential, open space and commercial uses. Moreover, the City of Huntington Beach General Plan currently contains three Mixed Use land use designations, which apply to numerous areas throughout the city, as well as many objectives and policies that are fulfilled by and foster mixed use development. The General Plan encourages the incorporation of mixed use development for a variety of reasons but most importantly because of the flexibility it provides to meet the changing needs of a city to meet future housing needs and development opportunities. Such development allows some combination of residential, commercial, and office use in the same neighborhood or building. Mixed use development helps residents live closer to business and employers, PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 19 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) as well as to essential services and shopping areas. It gives businesses a ready source of nearby customers. This helps reduce traffic, leading to transportation and environmental benefits. The proposal to develop the proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the overall goals of the General Plan. The market analysis completed at the onset of the Specific Plan project demonstrates that retail space is generally fully built out and oversupplied in the Specific Plan area. In regards to office demand, the analysis found that office rents are too low to support new speculative development. There are possible opportunities for smaller owner-occupied buildings, "build-to-suit," pre-leased or pre-sale buildings because of the reduced market risk. The analysis indicates potential demand for limited lodging. The analysis concludes that the demand for residential development would be strong in the project area and would provide the economic engine for new investment. Residential development could occur alone or as part of a mixed use development. The City's economic consultant indicated that the economic goal for the Specific Plan area, and specifically the key centers, should be to attract younger professional residents with discretionary spending potential to support restaurants, quick foods, electronics, fashion and accessories and services, thereby spinning off additional retail spending. The City should also attract urban-oriented residents who enjoy walking to shopping/entertainment adjacent to or near their residences. Despite the recent downturn in the economy, staff believes that allowing mixed use development within the Specific Plan area remains a viable, sound and logical decision. The City needs to be positioned to accommodate development when the financing markets are more stable, given that it can take multiple years to have plans in place. There are a number of property owners/developers who are currently in the design phase now, understanding the length of time it can take to complete a project. In addition, the City's action to allow for mixed use in the Specific Plan area is wholly consistent with recent and ongoing State and regional actions. Beach Boulevard, a State highway, and Edinger Avenue, both with freeway access, close proximity to an OCTA transit center and a rail line, are the best opportunity the City has for furthering alternative transportation modes. Recent State legislation with the goal of reducing passenger vehicle trips provides incentives for mixed use projects. In compliance with State mandates, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is working on a region- wide land use plan to make that goal a reality. In staff's meetings with SCAG staff, they indicated strong support for what the City was contemplating. The concept of allowing mixed use development along Beach Boulevard is not new. There have been unsuccessful attempts as far back as the 1960s and as most recent as the 1996 General Plan update. What has changed, however, are the demands of the marketplace and growing awareness that the development patterns of the last 50 years are not sustainable and do not result in places that people want to spend their time. Moreover, the City of Huntington Beach has matured significantly—even in the last 10 years. Staff believes the City can position two of its primary commercial corridors for revitalization for the next one to two decades by allowing mixed use development, with specific standards as set forth in the Specific Plan. The amendment to the General Plan land use map also includes removing the auto overlay from those properties fronting Beach Blvd. between Warner and Edinger Ave. The General Plan states that the auto overlay "permits the development of an automobile district in addition to the underlying land uses." PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 20 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) r. Although this auto overlay has been in effect since the update of the General Plan in 1996, an automobile district has never been created, but rather auto uses have often located notably south of Warner Ave. Therefore, staff does not believe it is necessary to keep this overlay on the Land Use Map for the proposed area. In addition, the Specific Plan would not preclude the formation of an auto district between Warner and Edinger, or even almost to Ellis Avenue, given that new vehicle sales are permitted along this entire stretch of Beach Boulevard per the proposed development standards. Amount of Development The proposed Specific Plan limits the amount of new growth with the Specific Plan area, based on the analysis in EIR No. 08-008. Buildout of the Specific Plan (estimated at 2030) could potentially result in the addition of 6,400 new units, 738,400 sf of retail uses, 350 hotel rooms and 112,000 sf of office uses. However, not all of this development would be considered net growth. In many cases existing structures would be replaced or redeveloped with the new uses. In order to accommodate the proposed development, it is estimated that approximately 1.4 million sf of existing commercial development within the Specific Plan area or 22% of existing development would be demolished over the 20 year life of the Plan. The City's General Plan envisions an additional 18,500 additional residential units above those existing in 1990. Since 1990, less than 6,000 units have been built, not adjusting for units lost to demolition. Full buildout of the proposed Specific Plan would be significantly less than the remaining permitted number of units under the General Plan, still providing for ample development opportunity elsewhere in the city. Thus, the allowance of residential development as part of the mixed use concept for the Specific Plan is a redistribution of growth that is already allowed by the General Plan. In comparing the commercial square footage that is allowed by the current General Plan designations with the development limits that are proposed for the Specific Plan, the numbers show that significantly more square footage could be built per the existing General Plan. As indicated in the Specific Plan EIR,there is approximately 6.3 million square feet of commercial space in the proposed Specific Plan area. Based on the existing General Plan designations, this could increase by 50 percent at buildout. The numbers are summarized below. Comparison of Potential Commercial Development in proposed Specific Plan Area Additional Development per Buildout of Existing General-P-la-n--T 3,155,435 s . ft. Additional Development Allowed by Proposed Specific Plan 980,400 s . ft. Retail 738,400 s . ft. Lodging 250 rooms (approx. 130,000 s . ft. Office 112,000 s . ft. Difference 2,175,035 s . ft. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 21 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) The proposed commercial square footage limit for the Specific Plan is approximately one-third of that allowed by existing land use regulations. However, buildout of the Plan could result in approximately 90 percent more residential uses than are now existing in the Specific Plan area. Staff believes that the proposed Specific Plan numbers would better achieve the goals of improving the Corridors, while at the same time helping to reduce traffic and associated air quality; The proposed GPA includes modifying the General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and map to reflect the provisions of SP 14. In so doing, the "growth limits" of the Specific Plan are included in the General Plan. A number of questions have been asked during study sessions and as part of the public comments on the Specific Plan as to the process for changing the maximum amount of new development that is proposed. Additional environmental analysis would be required to increase any of the development numbers, unless already analyzed in EIR No. 08-008. The EIR included an alternative analysis that looked at modified residential and retail buildout numbers; in both cases there was less residential but greater retail square footage. Any of the alternatives could be approved without further analysis. Zoning Text Amendment The proposed Zoning Text Amendment would adopt the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. The Specific Plan is intended to implement a clear and comprehensive vision for growth and change along Beach Blvd and Edinger Avenue. The Specific Plan contains the proposed zoning regulations for the Specific Plan area and would supercede the existing zoning. The discussion below reviews the concept of form based codes and analyzes the proposed Specific Plan. Form Based Code The proposed Specific Plan uses Form Based Code as a method of regulating development to achieve specific urban form. Form based codes create a predictable public realm by controlling physical form with a lesser focus on land use: addressing the relationship between building facades and the public realm, the form and mass of buildings in relation to one another, and the scale and types of streets and blocks. This is in contrast to conventional zoning's focus on the segregation of land uses, and the control of development intensity through abstract and sometimes uncoordinated parameters (e.g., FAR, dwellings per acre, setbacks, parking ratios, etc.) to the neglect of the integrated built form. Whereas conventional zoning tends to be proscriptive, stating what is prohibited; form based codes are prescriptive, stating what the community desires in the physical environment. Conventional zoning contains three components: 1) information on how private property may be used; 2) a series of standards for planning and design of development; and 3) procedures for review and approval of projects. These zoning regulations are typically"one size fits all" that often excessively limit the range of possible land uses and do not lend themselves to achieving specific land use goals for a particular area. Form based codes contain the same three components; however, there are notable differences in emphasis and approach to the regulations. To achieve a sense of place, form based codes establish rules for building height and bulk, building setbacks, site layout, the configuration of public open space, parking location, and streetscape design. The standards are particular, often dictating maximums as well as the PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 22 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) minimums that are typically employed in conventional zoning (e.g. front setbacks). Because of precise development criteria, these codes are often accompanied with standards that are illustrated through the use of extensive graphics. Although form based codes control the physical environment, they tend to allow a variety of uses within a structural form or area. The ability to mix uses more readily encourages creating higher-density, walkable, pedestrian-friendly communities. Because there is more flexibility for uses, the resulting development can better respond to changing markets. Although a new concept for the City of Huntington Beach, the roots of form based codes lie in traditional development patterns, which are generally described as those patterns that existed prior to World War 11. Prior to the widespread use of privately-owned motor vehicles, development patterns were more constrained by transportation options such as walking, bicycling, and the availability of transit. This determined how far people lived relative to their place of employment. Subsequently, cities were more compact, more dense and developed housing that was close to one another and to the desired services such as grocers and other commercial needs. Commercial establishments were designed to encourage customers to enter their stores while walking home. The automobile has transformed the way society operates facilitating the movement of people much quicker than anyone could have imagined and increasing accessibility to previously inaccessible places. While by itself not necessarily a negative outcome, the resulting development pattern, known as urban sprawl, has had negative side effects. The change in travel options coupled with zoning standards focused on segregating uses created cities that lack a sense of place and diversity. Form based codes have increasingly been at the forefront of Planning discussions and are being used in a wide variety of communities and situations to counteract these trends of the last 50+years. Within the State of California, form based codes are being used for specific areas, similar to the City's approach with the proposed Specific Plan, as well as for an entire city. A list of some of the cities using form based coding is provided below: ■ Sonoma, Form Based Code for entire City ■ Cotati, Form Based Code for entire City ■ Santa Clarita, Downtown Specific Plan, 217 acres ■ San Fernando Maclay, San Fernando, Truman Corridors Specific Plan(several planning awards)• ■ Livermore Downtown Specific Plan(award winning and successful revitalization) ■ Whittier Blvd. Specific Plan(Whittier) ■ Yuba City Central City Specific Plan(significant transformation) ■ Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan (award winning and significant developer interest)- ■ Mountain View Evelyn Ave. Corridor Specific Plan and Downtown Precise Plan(successful revitalization) ® Petaluma, a 400 acre area ■ Ventura Victoria Ave. Corridor Specific Plan ■ Ventura Downtown Specific Plan(from 1993) Form based codes are also used throughout the United States, including Arlington County, Virginia, for a 3.5 mile corridor; form based regulations for Fort Worth, Texas and form based districts in Louisville, Kentucky. PC Staff Report—1/12/10 23 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Based on the challenges facing the City of Huntington Beach's two main corridors and their existing characteristics, staff believes that a form based specific plan is the right tool to guide future development. By more precisely identifying the City's goals for the Specific Plan area, through refined development standards and targeted architectural regulations, the City can more readily achieve visual and economic transformation for Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. The City's existing citywide zoning regulations have not been able to accomplish this. Specific Plan The purpose of the Specific Plan is to orchestrate individual public and private investment along the City's two major corridors: Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue. The Specific Plan addresses the efforts and standards that will be required to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of the Corridors. As mentioned in the Project Proposal section of this report, the Specific Plan document is divided into three books. The analysis below is provided by book. However, the first discussion pertains to the proposed boundary for the Specific Plan. Specific Plan Boundary The proposed Specific Plan boundary was initially informed by input from the public, Planning Commission and City Council in 2005-2006 when comments were made to go beyond just looking at Edinger Avenue, which was then under study, to include Beach Boulevard. At the onset of the current effort, the City's consultant reviewed the existing conditions of Edinger and Beach, documented in the Beach Edinger Corridor Reference Volume. Based on various factors, including objectives for the area, the desire to minimize perceived disruption to established neighborhoods and likely opportunities for reinvestment, staff and the consultants developed the proposed boundaries for the Specific Plan. Notably, the only substantial existing residential development included in the boundary is that near Five Points, in the Pacifica Community Plan area. This existing specific plan area has been included in the proposed SP 14 boundary for two reasons. First, this area provides great opportunity for new housing to support existing commercial operations in the area. There are limited choices for accommodating new medium to high density housing in the city, as discussed in the recent Housing Element update, and the Pacifica area was specifically identified in the Housing Element as an area targeted for a zone change to address this need. Second, the Pacifica area has suffered from a lack of disinvestment for some time. Various meetings with potential developers have led staff to conclude that the existing limitations of the Pacifica Community Plan will continue this trend. While staff recognizes the importance of incentivizing housing for the elderly, one of the goals of the Community Plan, it is clear that no new housing will result under the existing regulations. Therefore, staff believes that the area should be included in SP 14. This would render the Community Plan's regulations no longer in effect. The boundaries in the southern reach of the Specific Plan area were drawn to capture the shopping center at Beach and Atlanta and a few other much smaller commercial properties. While this portion of the Specific Plan area is not seen as key to the transformation of Beach Boulevard, due to its small size, location and stable land use pattern, staff believes that the standards of the Specific Plan will produce compatible, attractive and better designed projects than otherwise would result with existing zoning. Similarly, another small commercial area included in the southern reach of the Specific Plan is the PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 24 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) commercial development of the Seabridge Specific Plan, at the southeast corner of Beach and Adams. Upon adoption of SP 14, the City could then process a change to that Specific Plan to reflect the change in boundary. The remainder of the Specific Plan area, north of Adams, contains more opportunities for meaningful change along the Corridors. Staff believes that the proposed boundaries will allow for the most effective implementation of the Specific Plan goals. Book I: Community Intent Book I provides the development concept and revitalization strategy for the Specific Plan. As previously mentioned in the Background section of this report, the City has recognized the need to revitalize the primary commercial corridors of the city in order to compete at a regional level with the successful commercial districts of the surrounding cities. The City recognizes that corridors reflect the values of a city and desires to address the uniqueness of the Huntington Beach Corridors in an effort to stimulate economic investment. The Specific Plan Community Objectives (short excerpt below-see specific plan for entire list) were reviewed with the City Council in early 2008 and provide the launching point for the standards and regulations in Book II.: o Begin the transformation of the visual character of Beach Boulevard from"anywhere strip"to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north-south thoroughfare. e Instigate the development of a network of pedestrian-oriented streets,promenades and other public open spaces that encourage walking, and ultimately, walking in combination with transit ridership. • Enhance pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections between Golden West College, Bella Terra, Golden West Transportation Center, and development along Edinger Avenue. e Insure that new buildings and landscaping contribute to the emergence of an increasingly visible and memorable visual identity appropriate to the unique history and character of the City. To harness market demand the City must realign development policies and planned public investments to capitalize on primary market trends. The Revitalization Strategy identifies a number of actions, including the sample below: ® Make the most of value already in place which is restructuring,transition and preservation. ® Promote the addition of new housing in a wide variety of formats and densities to support corridor retail and services. ® Along Edinger Avenue in particular, promote the development of dense and high quality housing formats. ® Support the continued presence and expansion of Auto Dealerships along Beach Boulevard. ® Enhance Corridors Identity by promoting varied visual structures. Finally, Book I provides a narrative of the Development Concept envisioned for the Specific Plan area. This was summarized in the Project Proposal section of this report, which described the primary centers and segments of the Specific Plan. The Development Concept is further described, along with concept illustrations, in the Beach Edinger Corridors Reference Volume. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 25 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Book II: Development Code Book II contains the development standards and regulations that will govern Specific Plan development. The analysis below discusses the maximum amount of development, allowed uses, processing requirements, and standards and regulations of the Specific Plan. Maximum of Amount of New Development(MAND) Section 2.1.1 of the Specific Plan sets forth the Maximum Amount of New Development (MAND), which establishes the maximum amount of new residential and commercial development permitted in the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. These totals were analyzed above in the General Plan Amendment section of this report. Based on comments from property owners, the Final Draft Specific Plan does allow for transfer of building types between Corridors. For example, a point may be reached when all 206,000 square feet of retail space that is allocated to Edinger has been developed. Assuming not all of the retail space that is allocated to Beach has been built, a request to transfer some of that square footage to Edinger could be made. The process for a transfer request is set forth in Section 2.0.5 and would require an infrastructure, environmental and policy analysis. The approving body, either the Planning Director or Planning Commission, is dependent on the size of the transfer. The concept of transfers is currently used in the Holly Seacliff Specific Plan; there were a number of density transfers that occurred in that plan area. As proposed, a transfer request would not trigger a Zoning Text Amendment application/process, however, any request to exceed a MAND total would. In other words, if the total cap of 738,400 square feet of retail space is reached, a Zoning Text Amendment application/process would be required to change that cap, along with associated environmental analysis. Staff does not propose that a transfer between development types, e.g. between retail and office, be allowed with the more simplified process. The proposed MAND caps were established based on market analysis and desired outcomes for the Corridors. Staff believes that a change in those caps is a more significant request that should warrant a Zoning Text Amendment. Allowed Uses The allowed uses are presented in the Development Standards charts on pp. 13-28 of the Specific Plan, and the use types are defined on pp. 29-30. The Zoning Compliance section of this staff report provides a comparison table of the allowed uses by center/segment in comparison with what is currently allowed by the HBZSO and the Pacifica Community Plan. The commercial portion of the Seabridge Specific Plan simply refers to the General Commercial category of the HBZSO and is therefore covered by that column in the table. The Specific Plan allows for the same variety of uses as the current code; however, unlike the current code it does not allow them in all centers and segments. As indicated in the table, the Residential Parkway and Neighborhood Parkway are intended for less commercially intense development to promote the residential character of these areas. The remaining centers/segments are envisioned for a greater variety of commercial uses coupled with residential/mixed use development. Some areas are appropriate for entertainment uses while other areas should be developed with more neighborhood serving uses. To PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 26 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) further ensure that the goals of the Specific Plan are achieved, there are maximum square footages allowed and certain retail configurations that are required for some uses. Currently, the only residential type use permitted in the Commercial General district is Single Room Occupancy (SRO). SROs, while residential in nature, are considered a commercial use. The Pacifica Community Plan is designated for Mixed Use Vertical and Mixed Use Horizontal permitting commercial, office and residential development at a range of heights. Therefore, both the proposed Specific Plan and the Community Plan are similar in the allowance of mixed use development. However, as previously discussed, the only residential development permitted in Pacifica is Senior Housing and ancillary apartments or condominiums as part of an integrated development. The Specific Plan will allow for mixed use development (includes residential) throughout but the type of residential development is more flexible allowing for multiple-family and live work units, as well as single family developments in some instances. In response to the Housing Element Update process, there are several areas within the Specific Plan that require residential development. These include the Redevelopment Agency-owned parcel in the Town Center Neighborhood district north of Center Avenue and, as noted previously, a portion of the Pacifica Community Plan area both denoted in yellow in the Specific Plan (page 15). Additionally, the Specific Plan requires certain areas within the Town Center Boulevard and Town Center Neighborhood segments to provide for residential transition. This requires the development of residential transition streets to create the connectivity between existing residential zones and new development(pp. 27-28). Questions have been raised about vehicle sales uses and their role in the Specific Plan. As stated in the Revitalization Strategy of Book I, the City desires to support the continued presence and expansion of Auto Dealerships along Beach Boulevard. As indicated in the comparison table, new vehicle sales are permitted along Beach from just north of Ellis Ave. to Edinger Ave. in the Neighborhood Boulevard and Town Center Boulevard segments. The Final Draft Specific Plan also shows a recommendation to change the segment designation of one property currently occupied by an auto dealer from Town Center Neighborhood to Neighborhood Boulevard (pg. 12). Additionally, the Neighborhood Parkway allows for the expansion of existing vehicle sales uses. Combined, the Neighborhood Parkway, Neighborhood Boulevard and Town Center Boulevard segments comprise the majority of Beach Boulevard and all allow vehicle sales in some manner. Although somewhat more restrictive in location, the Specific Plan is more permissive in that it will not require a conditional use permit to expand or establish a new dealership as the ZSO does now. Another question that was raised pertains to the rights of existing uses. Section 2.0.1 addresses the applicability of the Specific Plan and states that policies in the Specific Plan shall apply to new construction as well as significant additions greater than 15 percent of an existing building's floor area or exterior renovations to an existing structure. The Specific Plan also states that existing uses have the right of continued use. Changing property ownership or tenants of existing uses would not trigger Specific Plan compliance for the buildings or structures. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 27 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) ® Processing Requirements A streamlining aspect of the proposed Specific Plan is that it simplifies the approval process for projects. The premise for this is that the development standards and regulations are much more specific and provide clearer guidance such that the resulting projects will be attractive, compatible and consistent with City requirements. The development standards charts indicate whether or not a use is permitted/allowed and the Building Use Regulations in Section 2.2 indicate whether a permitted use is permitted by right or if it requires a conditional use permit. If a use is permitted by right, it still will require approval of a Site Plan Review at the staff level. Per the Specific Plan, a Site Plan Review application needs to be accompanied with an environmental assessment and mitigation monitoring matrix to demonstrate compliance with the certified EIR and findings need to be made in order to grant its approval. This is the same approval process required in the McDonnell Centre Business Park Specific Plan and the Bella Terra Specific Plan. If a use requires a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), it would be heard by the Planning Commission. This is a change from the original draft Specific Plan and is in response to concerns that some of the processing requirements are too lenient. The original draft allowed the Planning Director to approve a conditional use. While staff does not think that a full public hearing is necessarily warranted given the detailed nature of the Specific Plan, this change is made for the Planning Commission's consideration. Alternatively, the Planning Commission could recommend that the Zoning Administrator act on the CUP requests. Per the Final Draft Specific Plan, those uses that will require a CUP are listed below: - Community Oriented Anchor over 65,000 sq. ft. - Eating and Drinking Establishment with Live Entertainment, Dancing and/or Alcohol - Open Air Market - Financial Services (does not include banks) - Indoor Veterinary Clinic In addition, there is a recommended change that would trigger a CUP, as discussed below under Building Height. Finally, the Specific Plan also requires a CUP if a request is made to provide less than the minimum number of guest parking spaces. In the ZSO, development of vacant land, additions of 10,000 sq. ft. or more, additions equal to or greater than 50 percent of existing floor area, or additions within 300 feet of a residential zone or use require a CUP to the Zoning Administrator. In addition, the following are some of the commercial uses that require a CUP to either the Zoning Administrator or the Planning Commission: - Eating and Drinking Establishment with Live Entertainment, Dancing and/or Alcohol - Commercial Recreation and Entertainment - Swap Meets - Animal Hospitals - Vehicle Sales - Hotels PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 28 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) The Specific Plan also includes provisions for deviations from the Development Standards of the Specific Plan, which may be granted at the time of Site Plan Review for special circumstances and/or unique architectural features. The Specific Plan allows for staff approval of a deviation that is 20 percent of any single standard. In its evaluation, staff is to consider the benefits that may result by allowing the deviation, which may include the following: public open space, greater setbacks, unique or improved design and potential energy efficiency. For those deviation requests larger than 20 percent, an applicant is required to apply for a Variance that would be considered by the Zoning Administrator. 6 Development Standards and Regulations The analysis below focuses on those development standards that have garnered comment or that are new to the City as a result of the form based code approach of the Specific Plan. Building Height The Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance generally permits heights from 45 ft. to 140 ft. in the Specific Plan area, though the typical limit is 50 ft. (The 140 ft. limit is in the Pacifica Community Plan area.) The HBZSO restricts development height when adjacent to residential development. The Specific Plan generally allows for a range of development height from one to six stories. (The existing 50 ft. limit is the equivalent of four to five stories.) The proposed height standards are summarized below. Specific Plan Segment Min.Height Max. Height* Residential Parkway n/a 4 stories Neighborhood Parkway n/a 4 stories Five Points ® Town Center Core 3 stories; (A): 1 story 6 stories ® Town Center Neighborhood 2 stories 6 stories Neighborhood Boulevard 1 story 4 stories Town Center Boulevard ® Beach and Edinger Avenues(majority of the corridors in this 1 story 5 stories" **® Town Center Core(edge along Edinger Ave, south of Gothard) 3 stories; (A): 1 story 6 stories ® Town Center Neighborhood(north of Town Center Core) 2 stories 6 stories (A)Exceptions apply to anchor stores *Special Building Height Limits also apply,which further restrict heights along certain street frontages in some segments. **Up to 10 stories for property within 500 feet of I-405. The SP also considers the visual impacts of development adjacent to single family residential development by including a provision for a Transitional District. The Transitional District is designed to consider the transition from residential development to commercial or mixed use development only PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 29 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) permitting a maximum height of three stories. Consideration of building scale is vital to the development of pedestrian scale development. The maximum height for the majority of Beach Boulevard is four stories, which is equivalent to or less than the current ZSO. The proposed height of six stories for the Five Points area and the Town Center Core-Edinger area is in recognition of their role as the more urban nuclei of the Specific Plan, in which greater density is desired to create vibrant mixed use areas. Discussions with various property owners in the Specific Plan area have resulted in three changes to the building height standards since the original draft. As presented in the Final Draft, an increase in height up to six stories would be allowed for the Warner/Beach Neighborhood Center with approval of a conditional use permit to allow for better transition in building scale and architectural design given the taller structures that already exist on that site. The Town Center Boulevard District is the largest district within the Specific Plan. Its proximity to the I-405 provides some challenges and opportunities to enhance the City entrance. The southeast corner of Beach and Edinger property can benefit from an increase in height given the size of the parcel and development potential. The property owner has asked for consideration of up to 14 stories at this site. The Final Draft Specific Plan includes an allowance for up to 10 stories for properties within 500 feet of the I-405, which limits it to the southeast property, but does not require a CUP. This height limit is consistent with that approved with the recent changes to the Bella Terra Specific Plan. Finally, staff recommends an increase in allowable height within the Town Center Boulevard District to five stories; however, within the front 65 feet of a lot the maximum would be four stories. Parking The proposed parking standards are designed to reinforce the desired character within each district of the Specific Plan. In contrast, the City's current parking standards are one size fits all and permit parking to face the corridors. When developed in this manner, structures are placed further to the rear of a parcel creating a longer distance for pedestrians to walk from the sidewalk to the entrance of a building. This discourages pedestrian activity. The intent of the Specific Plan is to encourage pedestrian activity, improve the pedestrian experience and reduce vehicular trips. In terms of parking standards, the Specific Plan addresses this in three ways: 1) Requires new development to reorient parking areas, such that parking lots may not be allowed in the front of a building. Some side parking lot configurations would be allowed. The types of surface parking varies depending on the segment/center of the Specific Plan. 2) Specifies the maximum number of parking spaces that may be located in surface parking lots. The intent is encourage a more efficient use of land and reduce the "sea of parking" effect that comes from large surface parking lots. 3)Requires that parking be within a certain distance of the use, with a range of 200 to 500 feet. Although the Specific Plan does not permit parking in the front of lot, it does offer two compensating benefits. First, it includes reduced front setbacks that will bring buildings closer to the street and improve their visibility. Second, net new on-street parking that is created along new streets would be able to count as required parking. Thus, along Edinger the parking that is created in conjunction with the access drive PC Staff Report—1/12/10 30 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) (frontage road) would be able to count toward required parking, as well as serve parking in the front of businesses. Parking regulations continue to be a challenge to promote new development. The Specific Plan generally requires less parking than the current code as part of the overall mixed use development concept because demands for parking vary for different uses throughout the day. A comparison of the proposed and existing parking standards for the most common uses is provided below. The Town Center Boulevard standards are used in the comparison as that designation comprises the largest part of the Specific Plan. Standard Minimum Parking Requirements Use Proposed Existing Town Center HBZSO Boulevard Retail i s ace/250 s . ft. i s ace/200 s . ft. Eating and Drinking 1/83 sq. ft. 1 space/200 sq. ft. if less than 12 seats 1 space/ 0 sq. ft. when on a site with 3 or more uses Office—Professional 1 space/286 sq. ft. 1 space/250 sq. ft. for less than 250,000 sq. ft. 1 space/ 00 sq. ft. for 250,000 sq. ft. or more Office—Medical 1 s ace/222 sq. ft. 1 s ace/175 sq. ft. Lodging 1 space/room 1.1 space/room, min. of 2 stalls for passenger transport vehicle, 2 spaces for employees Residential Studios 1 space 1 s ace 1 Bdrm. i space i s ace 2 Bdrms. + 1.5 spaces 2 spaces for 2 Bdrms./2.5 spaces for 3+Bdrms. Guests aces 2 s aces/10 units 5 s aces/10 units The Specific Plan also includes provisions for reduced parking standards per Section 2.7.1 as follows: 1) Mixed use developments may request consideration of reduced parking standards when it can be demonstrated that shared parking facilities will meet parking demand. 2) For physically constrained properties, the number of parking spaces required may be reduced by the amount of public open space provided over and above the required minimum at 200 square feet per space with a maximum reduction for non-residential development of 10 parking spaces and a maximum reduction for residential development of five parking spaces. The HBZSO permits reduced parking for: 1) joint use parking (the mixed use concept of the Specific Plan), 2) up to a five space reduction for a change in use on a site with two or more uses and a minimum of 50 spaces, and 3) by a variance. Open Space The Specific Plan requires the extensive use of public open space as a primary tool to encourage pedestrian activity. Open space in the Specific Plan is identified as public or private. Commercial and residential developments are required to provide a certain amount of public open space pursuant to the PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 31 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) type of development, and residential development is required to also provide private open space. New development would also have to comply with the City's park requirements for dedication and/or payment of in-lieu fees. The Final Draft Specific Plan incorporates a recommended decrease in the amount of public open space for lodging, live-work and residential uses based on recent action on the Downtown Specific Plan. Staff believes these changes will still provide for effective public open space areas. Public open spaces are outdoor spaces that are accessible to the public and include seating, lighting and landscaping but do not have to necessarily be sheltered from the elements. The Specific Plan provides for varying design configurations as listed in Section 2.6.4, providing flexibility for new development to meet the public open space requirement. The City also requires public open space in the Downtown. The Specific Plan currently calls for one special public open space. This area would be located in the Town Center Neighborhood at Edinger(Levitz Site) and be a minimum of half an acre. The plan specifies that the primary public open space be centrally located within the Town Center Neighborhood and approved prior to development. As part of the Book III Parks discussion, staff has also suggested that a minimum half acre public open space area be located in the Pacifica area, as that is intended to be the Town Center Neighborhood for the Five Points area. Given the various parcel configurations and property owners, staff is not recommending a specific location at this time but would work with the developers that bring proposals forward to have the open space incorporated into a project(s). New Standards The City's Form Based Code incorporates precise development standards such as Build-to-Corner criteria, building volume, building length, building massing and reduced setbacks in order to ensure the desired physical environment. The new standards are not new concepts for the City, as many of them are suggested in the City's adopted Urban Design Guidelines. The Specific Plan requires the following new development criteria be implemented in the design of a new project: Section 2.3 Building Scale Regulations ® Building Length: Limits the maximum length based on location ® Building Massing: Regulates the proportion of building volume in relationship to location. Section 2.4 Frontage& Building Placement Regulations ® Building Orientation: Goal is to have entrances face public streets or open space. ® Build-to-Corner: Implemented at intersections Another important design factor resulting from the Form Based Code criteria is the regulation of Block Length. The intent of regulating block length is to visually and physically shorten the walking experience. The Specific Plan requires a range of block lengths depending on center/segment. When a development cannot meet the block length criteria, then the provision of New Streets is required pursuant to Section 2.5.2 of the Specific Plan. As noted, the City's Urban Design Guidelines include many of these concepts. The recommendation for General Commercial development is that buildings be placed and designed to the corner or mid-block to establish a strong tie to the street frontage. The Guidelines state that when commercial development does not consider this the result is often developments that lack a defined street edge that discourages PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 32 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZN A 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) pedestrian access and creates a primary view of the parking area rather than a view of the structure. The Urban Design Guidelines suggest ways to improve this aspect of the built environment via the following: ® Define street edge to create more desirable pedestrian environments ® Internal parking reduces negative impact from street. ® Encourage site plans that create connectivity between developments via internal streets to entice use by adjacent residents. ® Avoid expansive parking lots which discourage pedestrian access across a site. The intent of the Urban Design Guidelines was to fill in the gap between the Zoning Code and the built environment, providing guidance to developers. Unfortunately, the Guidelines are only guidelines and the City has not benefited from many of its concepts. This trend demonstrates that change is needed in order to achieve the desired built environment. Staff believes that the proposed Specific Plan implements development standards that create the desired pedestrian and physical environments as envisioned with the adoption of the Urban Design Guidelines. Architectural Regulations The Architectural standards and guidelines incorporated in the Specific Plan are intended to guide the design of architectural elements used in new development and parking areas. These guidelines and standards are intended to achieve high quality design and create a visual character for the Beach and Edinger Specific Plan area. The Architectural Regulations are intended to provide sufficient opportunities for a developer to be creative and yet respond to the market demand for impressive architectural environments. New development will be required to consider the visual impact of materials, architectural design, and public and private open space. The regulations further require that building entrances are easily recognizable and scale is appropriate. The Specific Plan addresses window design and placement, fagade treatment, wall cladding and roof design. Architectural treatment of buildings is aimed to minimize visual bulk and mass. A goal of the Specific Plan is to strengthen the sense of place along the City's two major corridors reinforcing architectural character envisioned for the project area. A Character Workshop was conducted to solicit public input regarding what they envision as Huntington Beach Character. The interactive workshop process allowed for participants have an opportunity to see "What Fits and What Does not Fit" the image of Huntington Beach. Round table discussions were conducted so that tables could become clear as to the preferred design and architectural elements. Then the discussion was followed by a presentation to the entire room to share the table's findings. The Character Workshop is documented in the Reference Volume and the input was used to craft the architectural regulations in the Specific Plan. The regulations provide for the incorporation of green building practices with the inclusion of energy efficient design standards but do not make them a requirement. Since the original draft Specific Plan for Beach and Edinger was released, the Planning Commission and City Council have acted on the Downtown Specific Plan including a requirement that sustainable or green building practices be incorporated into building and site design. This same language could be included in the proposed Specific Plan in Section 2.8.2.3) Sustainability(pg. 75) . PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 33 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Signage Regulations Signage is intended to complement the built environment by incorporating an additional design element. In each center/segment, signage standards have been selected based on the desired environment. The intention of the signage regulations is also to enhance the quality and character of new development within the corridors. While certain types of signage will continue to refer to the HBZSO and continue to incorporate location of signage to comply with the HBZSO visibility triangle, the Specific Plan allows for some signage that is currently only allowed in the Downtown area, such as Grand Projecting and Cafe Umbrella Signs. Additionally, the Specific Plan proposes an increase in the allowable square footage of sign area based on linear frontage from a 1:1 ratio (1 square foot per linear foot of frontage) to 1.5:1. The allowable sign square footage may be used on all eligible locations as presently permitted in the HBZSO. The physical configuration of each sign type is established in the Specific Plan and is established by text, plan and section graphics. Staff has already received compliments on this section of the Specific Plan because of the inclusion of graphics, making it more user friendly and clear as to what the City desires in the design and location of signage. Affordable Housing The Specific Plan incorporates the standards of the City's standard inclusionary housing guidelines and requires that all required affordable housing be located within the Beach and Edinger Specific Plan area consistent with the City's General Plan Housing Element. Street Regulations The Specific Plan introduces a theme of street improvements that will contribute to the sense of place along the project area. The Street Regulations of the Specific Plan contain regulations and guidelines for the improvement, provision, configuration and design of streets. Implementation of improvements required along existing streets is also addressed in Book III Public Improvements. Street improvements along Beach Blvd. and Edinger Ave. and all other existing streets shall be designed and constructed as illustrated in the Streetscape Specifications. The proposed streetscape varies for the different segments within the Specific Plan. The most notable change is for Edinger Avenue, which would improved to the Classic Boulevard specifications. This configuration allows for three through lanes in each direction. Center Median improvements include specific tree types, spacing criteria and boulevard-scale street lighting. Additionally, this area requires the Access Lane Configuration. This protected access lane is intended to encourage quick short stops to shops for services. Landscape design includes moderately large single species trees located in flush tree grates in the parking zone with well manicured tree canopies to add to the desired pedestrian environment. The Pedestrian Zone provides twelve foot wide sidewalks. Both the Access Lane and sidewalk are located on private property. Parking along the Access Lane is counted toward the required onsite parking demands. PC Staff Report—1/12/10 34 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) Book III: Public Improvements Book III has been completed in the Final Draft Specific Plan with the information from the Certified EIR. In addition to the Circulation Plan, that was in the original draft, Book III now includes information on wastewater, water, sewer, parks and dry utilities. Staff has also added a section on transit. The street network improvements section has been updated pursuant to the EIR as well. Zoning Map Amendment: The City's Zoning Map would be changed to reflect the Specific Plan zoning designation for the 459 acres in the proposed Specific Plan boundary. The amendment to the Zoning Map will provide consistency with the proposed General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use and the Subarea Map. Summary Staff believes that the proposed project is compatible with surrounding uses in terms of architecture, design criteria, public open space and access, and other development standards. Staff recommends approval of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002) because it would encourage and facilitate mixed use development in an area in manner that would carry out the goals, policies and objectives of the General Plan and as directed by City Council. The Specific Plan will implement the revitalization of the City's two major corridors incorporating a high quality of aesthetics, efficient use of resources, improved landscaping while meeting the housing needs of the City. ATTACHMENTS: I—S,�g�es i gs-fer-Z�o i e - a e- i ei#-Ne-89-402-�Z-oni4ig-Map-Amendment Now 08-002 -2 -C-EQA--Statefft,.,Findings-and+aet-with-Statement-o�Qvefr-idi-rig-E<atisiderations---fIR--No--08- 4)0* 3.-- C C-,t mnei�-R e4tit4on-fer-Gerieral-Plan7Amendrnent-IcTo-fl8=882� -A.Br-af-C-i��y-"u*e44eselimt4em-fef-Ze g4ex4-Amermdffment-Ne48-09-2-1 -5. Ia€L,ty-Eetmrmeil-6rdin1tee46r- irmg-lt ap-Arr drrierrt-PIIo-f}8=0a2— 6. February 28, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes 7. Letter to City Council dated March 2, 2006 8. Letter to City Council dated May 15, 2006 9. Pacifica Community Plan SH:HF:MBB:RM:lw PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 35 10sr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP) MINUTES KA" HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2006 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 5:15 P.M. -ROOM B-8 (CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL) CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Burnett, Livengood, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Horgan, Dwyer AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA OF FEBRUARY 28, 2006, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Burnett, Livengood, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Horgan, Dwyer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. PROJECT REVIEW(FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS) : A-1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-021ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 05-041ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-02 (EDINGER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN)—Rosemary Medel Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, advised of late communications received from Caltrans, Weber Consulting, and Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development for the City of Huntington Beach. Dingwall gave direction to the members of the public as to how the study session portion of the meeting works and that there will not be any interaction between the Commissioners and the public. Commissioner Ray inquired if staff has responded to the late communications as of yet. Staff advised there was a brief response. A-2. APPEAL OF ENVIRMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE (EAC) DECISION TO PRI0 S MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-10 (HOME DEPOT)—Ron ntos Santos provided an overview of\theoposed project and the Environmental '2 Assessment Committee's determinatio with respect to the Draft Mitigated Negative (06pcm0228) ATTACHMENT NO. PC Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 2 Declaration. He stated that the Planning Commission could direct staff to have an Environment I Impact Report prepared. He advised the reports stated that the project would not hav a negative impact on the environment; however, the Planning Commission w Id have a final determination on the environmental impacts on the project. Discussion ensued egarding the application process. Mulvihill explained that the Planning Commissio is to either approve continued processing of the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration r require an Environmental Impact Report. If the decision of the EAC is not overturned majority vote of the Planning Commission, the original EAC would stand. Livengood advised his area of concern which include: Traffic, noise and trucks entering and exiting the loadi g dock; noise study comparisons of Home Depot versus Kmart; and placement of loadi docks. Dwyer asked what studies were c mpleted for the Walmart store. Staff advised a full Environmental Impact Report was repared. Dingwall questioned the distance be een the north property line of the proposed project and the homes on the north sid of Garfield. Scandura and Burnett asked about condit ns that could be set forth in the CUP prior to approval regarding noise issues and loadin dock placement. Santos stated that the Planning Commission could impose conditio prior to issuance. B. STUDY SESSION ITEMS - NONE C. AGENDA REVIEW UPDATE ON ALL AGENDA I MS — Herb Fauland Herb Fauland reviewed late communications received n Public Hearing Item No. B-1. D. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS - NE E. PUBLIC COMMENTS (Regarding Study Session Portio of Meeting): Anthony Gaynair, resident, spoke in opposition of the Home Depot ite He advised he submitted a letter regarding items of inadequacy such as the traffic stu He suggested a car count study be conducted. Britt Klingenberg, resident, spoke in opposition to the Home Depot item. He tated he would be submitting paperwork describing problems with the traffic analysis, the pedes ian study, comparison of Kmart to Home Depot, and the air quality study. Kathy Klingenberg, resident, spoke in opposition to the Home Depot item. She di ussed issues she felt were not adequately addressed such as: Child safety crossing at M nolia and Hyde Park Dr.; time and day of week the pedestrian and child crossing study conduc d; and the potential for day laborers gathering in a nearby park as the parking lot of Home De of will be within 200 feet of the park. (06pcm0228) . ATTACHMENT a_ PC Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 3 Richard Pool, Presiden of Associated Traffic Engineers, spoke on behalf of Home Depot. He advised he prepared the traffic analysis report and then proceeded to explain how it was prepared. He stated the ize increase of the new store was considered and the analysis was based on the traffic volum of Kmart in 2004 and then was increased with the additional traffic volume of an already existin Home Depot store. Donald Ballanti, Air Polution teorologist and author of the Air Quality Study for the Home Depot project. Mr. Balanti refer d to items in the report regarding diesel exhaust from mobile sources such as trucks. He advi d there would be a relatively low number of trucks delivering and idling in the area. He also sta d that there is a state law allowing a maximum of two minutes of idling per truck at any giv n time. Paul Ballard of Ballard Accoustical, spo a on behalf of Home Depot. Stated he worked on the noise assessment report and directed C missioners to review the study and analysis as it met city standards and noise level limits. Scott Mommer of Home Depot, advised that a reviewed the traffic on site while vacant and at an existing Home Depot store and stated that a site will meet city standards. Mike Joyce, attorney for Home Depot, expresse that Home Depot does understand the concerns of residents regarding noise and traffic; Nowever, his client is concerned over the length of time the approval of the project is taking. a urged the Commission to move forward with the conditional use permit process, addressing i sues as they come, while also moving ahead in the CEQA process. He stated that the Com ission was filibustering the project. Marice White, representative for Home Depot, reviewed I the effort that has been put forth by Home Depot regarding resident's concerns. She suggest the CUP process move forward and address any issues of concern as they arise. Eric Brenn, representative of Hyde Park Business Center, spo a in favor of the Home Depot project. Ms. Brenn pointed out the positives of adding another ome Depot to the city and the financial benefits to the immediate area. Harry Moore, Home Depot project Technical Engineer, stated he co ducted a detailed study of the site regarding vibration and suggested approval of the project. F. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: t Horgan requested information regarding the school pedestrian traffic stud Livengood suggested that a new pedestrian study be conducted. \ Burnett questioned the traffic study and the baseline used in the analysis. Ray stated that he did not take the appeal of the Environmental Assessment Co ;tt ee's decision on the Home Depot lightly and this is not a filibuster. He stated that sus information in the draft had caused him to appeal the decision. Dwyer questioned why Home Depot hasn't made suggested design modifications to heir plans now and averted the many issues expressed this evening. (06pcm0228) ATTACH T o , PC Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 4 6:45 P.M. —RECESS FOR DINNER 7:20 P.M.—COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL PLANNING COMMISSI N MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE— Le by Chair Dingwall P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Burnett, Livengood, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Horgan, Dwyer AGENDA APPROVAL A MOTION WAS MADE BY RAY, SECON ED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OFF RUARY 28, 2006, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Burnett, Livengood, Scandura, ingwall, Ray, Horgan, Dwyer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: Ruth Johnson, resident, requested an exemption for Conditional Use Permit regarding her home day care business due to potential financial ifficulty. She advised the business has been in operation for 18 years and she h not been required to have a permit in the past. Discussion ensued regarding the conditional use permits re ired for home daycare. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PROCEDURE: Commission Disclosure Statement(s), Staff Report Prese ation, Commission Questions, Public Hearing, Discussion/Action. B-1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 05-02/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 06-02/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 05-04/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 06-01 (EDINGER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PLAN). Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Request: 1) GPA: To amend the City's General Plan Land Use Element by changing the existing land use categories within the project area from Commercial Neighborhood (CN),.Commercial General (CG), Commercial Regional (CR), Mixed Use Vertical (MV) and Public (P) to a Mixed Use—Specific Plan Overlay (M-sp) designation; and to amend the General Plan Circulation Element Figure CE-3 to change the Gothard Street designation within the project area between Edinger Avenue and Mc Fadden Street from Major Arterial (120 foot right-of-way)to Primary Arterial (90 foot right-of-way). 2)ZMA: To amend the City's Zoning Map by changing the Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Commercial General (CG), General Industrial (IG), Residential Medium High (RMH) Density and Residential Low Density(RL)zoning designations within the project area to "SP 14" (Edinger Corridor Specific Plan). 3)ZTA: To adopt SP 14 (Edinger Corridor Specific Plan) that will regulate the land uses and development standards for the 242 acre area. 4) MND: To adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration that addresses the potential environmental impacts associated with the (06p=0228) TCAN ENT Nth,_ PC Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 5 adoption of the Specific Plan. Location: 242 acre site generally bounded by Goldenwest Street to the west and Beach Blvd. to the east and the north and south sides of Edinger Ave. —excluding Bella Terra). Proiect Planner: Rosemary Medel STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 05-02/Zoning Map Amendment No. 05-02/Zoning Text Amendment No. 05-04 /Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 06-01 (Edinger Corridor Specific Plan)with suggested findings and conditions of approval and forward to the City Council." The Commission made the following disclosures: • Commissioner Dwyer visited the site, spoke with staff • Commissioner Scandura is familiar with the site and spoke with Mr. Adams, Harlow, staff and Commissioner Horgan • Commissioner Dingwall advised he has visited the site numerous times over 40 years and spoke with staff and Commissioner Livengood. • Commissioner Livengood visited the site and spoke with staff, Mr. Adams and Mr. Harlow. • Commissioner Horgan visited the site and spoke with Commissioners Scandura and Ray. • Commissioner Burnett has visited the site many times over decades and spoke with staff, Mr. Adams and Harlow. • Commissioner Ray has visited the site on numerous occasions and spoke with Commissioners Livengood, Dingwall and staff. Ken Ryan of EDAW gave an updated presentation of the proposed project that included the following: Image of"Gateway" to the City; land use: mixed use, commercial and public; improvements on current business properties; parking access and circulation; energy conservations; density; landscape architecture; cosmetic enhancement; and a logo and signature style for the project as a whole. Medel stated that the adoption of the Specific Plan would require a general plan amendment to change thedand use map for the area to mixed use. The project would strengthen the Edinger Corridor area and compliment Bella Terra. Staff believes the ECSP is consistent with the General Plan and Economic Development and Housing Elements. Three late communications were introduced by Medel: 1) Caltrans Impacts/Provisions letter dated February 27, 2006; 2) Memo from Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development for the City of Huntington Beach, regarding the participation of Goldenwest College in the project and a proposed Economic Action Plan; 3) Letter from Weber Consulting on behalf of Freeway Industrial Park. Medel also mentioned the community meeting which was held on February 9, 2006, where issues were discussed including underground utilities, funding of improvements, and the participation of Golden West College in the project. Staff recommended opening the public hearing for comments and allowing a 30-day response time for the public to comment on the draft document. Discussion ensued regarding the following issues: Street widening; mixed use; necessity of an Environmental Impact Report; sidewalks and pedestrian traffic; involvement of Golden West College; types of residential areas; and structural height limitations. (06p=0228) >� ATIFACCAMENTNO.. �° _ � PC Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 6 THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. James Burgard, owner at Old World, expressed his views regarding mixed-use projects. He stated that it does not work well at Old World and creates excessive traffic in the area. He suggested building on to Bella Terra in lieu of mixed use within this project. Irene Barkai, business owner at Gothard/Center, voiced her concern with regards to the reduction in size of Gothard. She stated it would reduce traffic, therefore, reducing patronage to her business. She feared that the grandfathering of her business via zoning changes would not exist in the future. Mike Adams, resident, recommended continuing the item at least 60 days. He stated the plan doesn't incude a phasing plan and would like more clarification on the zoning. He suggested creating a pool of developments for the area. He would also like more dialog between the property and business owners and the Planning Commissioners. Steve Dodge, Huntington Executive Park, stated that the plan should not be based on a ten- year-old general plan and suggested updating the Specific Plan for the area. Gary Weber, Freeway Industrial Park, thanked the staff and EDAW for their clarification of the project. He recommended continuing the project for another 60 days to allow for more dialog between the owners and the Commission. His primary concerns are statistical and advised of an error in the size of the area. He would like the plan to be clearer as to what is expected of the landowners and developers. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Discussion of the project ensued with Chair Dingwall recommending a continuance of no less than 60 days. Livengood also recommended continuing the item and requested minutes from previous workshops regarding the project. He also added some areas that need to be reviewed including: Logo/identity for the area; design guidelines for loading and delivery area; refuge and storage; traffic studies; flora; and incentives for property owners. Livengood motioned to continue the item to 90 days in the future and to schedule two public workshops and one Planning Commission workshop. With input from the other Commissioners, Ray proposed the following items be addressed before the next meeting: • Expansion of the plan • Create incentives for owners with regards to: FAR; Public Improvement Funding; and more mixed use possibilities • Discussion with Golden West College representatives regarding future development • Consideration of energy utilization designs and native landscaping • More clarity regarding the theme of the area (The Edge) • Coordination with Bella Terra • More specific uses and development standards giving better direction • Gothard Industrial Center (06p=0228) ATTACHMENT O, Coo PC Minutes February 28, 2006 Page 7 • Request copies of workshop minutes from 1998-2000 • Infrastructure items as submitted by Commissioner Livengood: • Phasing timeline for infrastructure • Vehicular and pedestrian orientation • Redevelopment Plan boundaries concurrence with Edinger Corridor Specific Plan • Westminster Triangle purchase • Reformatting development standards by land use categories as addendum A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY RAY TO CONTINUE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 05-02/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT 05-02/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 05-04/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 06-01 TO JUNE 27, 2006,WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Burnett, Livengood, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Horgan, Dwyer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED C. CONSElk CALENDAR C-1. PLA ING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JANUARY 24 2006 RECOM NDED ACTION: Motion to: "Approve the January 24, 2006, Planning C mission Minutes as submitted." A MOTION WAS MAD BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY HORGAN, TO APPROVE THE JANUARY 24, 200 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AS MODIFIED, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Burnett, Liven od, Scandura, Dingwall, Ray, Horgan, Dwyer NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None D. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS—None., E. PLANNING ITEMS E.1. CITY COUNCIL ACTION FROM PREVIOUS MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager— reported n the Planning Department items heard before the City Council on February 27,. 006 E2. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING Scott Hess, Planning Manager—reported on the nning Department items scheduled before the City Council on March 6, 2006. E3. PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING� Scott Hess, Planning Manager—reported on the items scheduled for review on March 14, 2006. (06pcm0228) ATTACHMENT NO, Planning Commission Issues List Edinger Corridor Specific Plan February 28, 2006 • The plan is too constrained, needs to expand beyond the General Plan development limitations. • Create incentives for property owners with regards to: 1. FAR 2. Public Improvement Funding 3. More mixed use possibilities • Discuss with Golden West College representatives future development of their property • More future thinking needed such as energy conservation designs and native landscaping • More clarity needed regarding the theme of the area(The Edge) • Coordination with Bella Terra development • More specific uses and development standards giving better direction to property owners • Consider including the Gothard Industrial Center • Identify infrastructure improvements including: 1. Sewer Line 2. Water 3. Storm Drain 4. Curb/sidewalk 5. Driveway Locations 6. Median breaks 7. Bus stops 8. Traffic signals 9. Street lights 10. Street signs 11.Median landscape 12. Curb cuts, closure plan • Phasing timeline for infrastructure improvements • Vehicular and pedestrian orientation throughout Plan • Redevelopment Plan boundaries expanded to match with Edinger Corridor Specific Plan • Westminster Triangle purchase(Beach Blvd. &Edinger) • Reformat development standards by land use categories • Move Design Guidelines section to addendum • Address remodel issues applicable to non-conforming buildings (retrofitting) • Provide copies of workshop minutes from 1998-2000 to the Planning Commission TT ��H ENT ,_ CITY( OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members VIA: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, City Administrator FROM: Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning SUBJECT: EDINGER CORRIDOR SPECIFIC PL —PROJECT STATUS DATE: March 2, 2006 On Tuesday, February 28, 2006, the Planning Commission held a study session and a public hearing for consideration of General Plan Amendment no. 05-02, Zoning Map Amendment No. 05-02, Zoning Text Amendment No. 05-04, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 06-01 for the adoption of the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan- SP 14. The public hearing was opened and a total of five people spoke. Upon discussion,the Planning Commission voted to continue the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan to a tentative date of June 27, 2006 with the public hearing open. They requested staff to perform the following: 1) Address the issues outlined by the Commissioners during the meeting(see attached) 2) Conduct two Edinger Corridor Community Workshops with property and business owners during April, 2006 3) Conduct one Edinger Corridor Community Workshop with the Planning Commission in May, 2006 The Planning Commission also created an"Edinger Corridor Sub-committee"to assist staff with the prioritization of the Planning Commission's Issues List and to participate further in this information gathering process. City Council will be notified of the exact dates of all future Edinger Corridor Community meetings. Should you have any questions feel free to contact Scott Hess, Planning Manager(714) 536-5554 or Rosemary Medel,Project Planner at(714) 374-1684. Attachment cc. Paul Emery,Assistant City Administrator;Scott Hess,Planning Manager;Mary Beth Broeren,Principal Planner;Rosemary Medei,Project Planner;Stanley Smalewitz,Economic Development Director;and Carol Runzel,Assistant Project Manager. ATTACH T O. 7` j (G:A&A-tr 200"302rmla.doc) Planning Commission Issues List Edinger Corridor Specific Plan February 28, 2006 • The plan is too constrained, needs to expand beyond the General Plan development limitations. • Create incentives for property owners with regards to: 1. FAR 2. Public Improvement Funding 3. More mixed use possibilities ® Discuss with Golden West College representatives future development of their property • More future thinking needed such as energy conservation designs and native landscaping • More clarity needed regarding the theme of the area(The Edge) ® Coordination with Bella Terra development • More specific uses and development standards giving better direction to property owners ® Consider including the Gothard Industrial Center ® Identify infrastructure improvements including- 1. Sewer Line 2. Water 3. Storm Drain 4. Curb/sidewalk- 5. Driveway Locations 6. Median breaks 7. Bus stops 8. Traffic signals 9. Street lights 10. Street signs 11. Median landscape 12. Curb cuts, closure plan • Phasing timeline for infrastructure improvements • Vehicular and pedestrian orientation throughout Plan • Redevelopment Plan boundaries expanded to match with Edinger Corridor Specific Plan • Westminster Triangle purchase(Beach Blvd. &Edinger) • Reformat development standards by land use categories • Move Design Guidelines section to addendum • Address remodel issues applicable to non-conforming buildings (retrofitting) • Provide copies of workshop minutes from 1998-2000 to the Planning Commission ATTACH MENT NO. 7, �--- o Ajm CITY OF HUNTINGTON TO- Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Penelope Culbreth-Graft, DPA, City Administrator FROM: Paul Emery, Deputy City Administrator DATE: May 15, 2006 SUBJECT: Edinger Corridor Specific Plan/Beach Blvd Revitalization Study On January 17, 2006, at the regularly scheduled City Council study session, Council was presented an update to the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. This update included the presentation of the draft specific plan, a schedule for Planning Commission public hearings, and the proposed return to the City Council for adoption. During the February 28, 2006, Planning Commission public hearing there was significant comment and discussion by the public, including property owners, and the Commission that resulted in a list of 19 concerns/issues that need to be addressed_ City staff reviewed the comments received and the outstanding areas to be addressed and made the determination to discontinue the services of the consultant who prepared the original Specific Plan, EDAW. Concurrent with the review of outstanding issues for the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, the City had prepared and distributed a request for proposals to consulting firms for the development of the Beach Blvd Corridor Revitalization Study, as a follow-up to the September 2005 City Council workshop. In staff discussions on how to move forward with the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, the option was presented to have the consultant who has been rated the highest by the evaluation committee of the Beach Blvd Revitalization Study prepare both the Beach Blvd Revitalization and a revised Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. The factors that were evaluated in this option are the inextricable link between Edinger Avenue and northern stretches of Beach Boulevard from a physical land use perspective, the relationship of the economic drivers of each of these corridors, and the opportunity to have a planning tool that recognizes the interrelationship of these two important transportation and economic street segments. Staff is currently preparing an RFP for a consultant to perform an Economic Development Strategy for these two corridors. It is anticipated that staff will present to the City Council in.July or August a recommendation and appropriation of funds for the Edinger Corridor Specific Plan;the Beach Blvd Corridor Study and the Economic Strategy. It is anticipated that staff will recommend one consultant to perform the Edinger and Beach Blvd studies and one consultant perform the Economic Strategy. ATTACHMENT NO. Edinger Corridor Specific Plan/Beach Blvd Revitalization Study March 15, 2006 Page 2 In addition, staff will budget in FY 2006/2007 the resources necessary to complete the environmental documentation for the Edinger Corridor and Beach Blvd studies. Should you have any questions, please contact me at(714) 536-5482. c: Planning Commission Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning Stanley Smalewitz, Director of Economic Development Robert Beardsley, Director of Public Works Scott Hess, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner 4 e_k.e"ll.' a NT NO.--T. �--- 9640--9641 Article 964 PACIFICA COMMUNITY PLAN (2484-6/81, 2543-4/82, 2627-8/83, 2806-12/85, 2987-3/89, 3070-11/90) Sections: 9640 Purpose 9641 Specific Plan Boundaries 9642 Definitions 9643 Conditional Use Permit Required 9644 Establishment of District Areas 9645 Development Standards 9645.1 Permitted Uses 9645.2 Minimum Building Site Area 9645.3 Maximum Site Coverage 9645.4 Rear Yard and Interior Side Yard Setback 9645.5 Setback From Public Street 9645.6 Perimeter Setback 9645.7 Minimum Distance Between Buildings 9645.8 Building Height 9645.9 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size 9645.10 Parking and Loading 9645.11 Parking Area Landscaping and Screening 9645.12 Pedestrian Walkway System 9645.13 Open Space Landscaping and Screening Requirements 9645.14 Open Space and Recreation Areas 9646 General Provisions 4646.1 Transit Facilities 4646.2 Sign Regulations 9646.3 Sewage and Water System Fire Prevention 9646.4 Telephone and Electrical Service 9646.5 Lighting 9646.6 Refuse Collection Areas 9646.7 Undeveloped Areas 9646.8 Nonconforming Uses and Buildings 9646.9 Park and Recreation Facilities 9640 Purpose. The purpose of this article is to establish a specific plan to promote the orderly development and improvement of a section of the City of Huntington Beach referred to as the Pacifica Community. This specific plan is intended to integrate the area "into an office/professional, medical senior citizen multistory residential complex, and to provide necessary support services that will meet the health, business and housing needs for the elderly of the community. 9641 Specific Plan Boundaries. The real property described herein is included in the Pacifica Community Plan and shall be subject to development provisions and requirements set forth in this article. The Pacifica Community Plan encompasses that area located within the specific plan boundaries as delineated on the area map in subsection(a)hereof and described in subsection(b)hereof. 11/90 ATTACHMENT 9641 (a)—9642 (b) (a) Area Map tit I [ IttIj ( 111111 ( IL-Uutf *......... aY Pacifica Community Pl-an Z L Ali[ (b) Legal Description. Precisely, Pacifica Community Plan includes the real property described as: The North 1/2 of Lot 20, Block H of Tract No. 7, Block F, Lots 1-5; Block G, Lots 1-9;the north half of Lot 10 of Tract 7 and Lot 21 and the south half of Lot 20, Block H, as recorded in Book 9,page 8 of Miscellaneous Maps of Orange County, California. (2543-4/82, 2627-8/83) 9642 Definitions. For the purposes of this article, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning set forth. . (a) Building site shall mean a legally created parcel of land bounded by property lines after dedication. (b) Office/Professional uses shall mean office building used for the following professional services: 11/90 ATTACHMENT NO. 9642 (b)-- 9645.1 (a)(3) Accountant, architect, attorney, chiropractor, collection agency, dentist, engineer, insurance broker, optometrist,physician and surgeon, private detective, real estate sales, social workers, surveyor, pharmacies or similar uses and occupations. Diagnostic laboratories and biochemical laboratories that do not exceed twenty-five hundred (2500) square feet in gross area are also considered office/professional uses. (c) Perimeter setback shall mean the required setback distance between the specific plan boundary line and any proposed buildings along said boundary lines. (d) Property line shall mean the lot line established after street dedication. (e) Resident shall mean the occupant or occupants of residential dwelling units located within the specific plan area. (f) Specific plan shall mean the Pacifica Community Plan as adopted by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach. (g) Specific plan mqp shall mean the map described in Section 9646.10. 9643 Conditional Use Permit Required. Any development under the provisions of this specific plan shall be subject to approval of a conditional use permit as provided in Article 984 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. In addition to the criteria provided in Article 984, development proposals within the specific plan area shall be subject to the imposition of conditions to provide for future parking needs in addition to the minimum parking requirements herein. 9644 Establishment of District Areas. This specific plan is divided into District One and District Two, as delineated in the specific plan map contained in Section 9616.10. 9645 Development Standards. Proposed development within the Pacifica Community Plan shall comply with the following development standards,provided further that all applicable provisions of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code shall also apply except where there is conflict with the provisions of this article, in which case the provisions of this article shall take precedence. 9645.1 Permitted Uses. The following uses are permitted in the specific plan area in accordance with the development standards contained in this article, and as delineated on the specific plan map: (a) District One Permitted Uses (1) Hospitals and convalescent hospitals; (2) Medical and dental buildings; (3) Pharmacies; 11/90 ATT NT N�. 42-_'25 9645.1 (a)(4) -- 9645.5 (4) Rest homes, nursing homes, residential health care facilities and sanitariums; (5) Office/professional uses; (6) Service stations with or without convenience markets in conformance with Commercial District Standards contained in Article 922. (2987-3/89) (7) Apartments or condominiums when support services prescribed herein are integrated into such structures to implement the purpose of this article. (8) Support services to apartments and condominiums including but not limited to eating facilities, beauty/barber shops, libraries, private health clubs, health care facilities and retail commercial establishments. (b) District Two Permitted Uses (1) Apartments when support services prescribed herein are integrated into such structures to implement the purpose of this article. (2) Support services to apartments including but not limited to eating facilities, beauty/barbershops, libraries, private health clubs, health care facilities and retail commercial establishments. (3) Office/professional uses. (4) Public institutions. 9645.2 Minimum Building Site Area. (a) Buildings forty-five (45) feet or less in height shall have a minimum building site area or ten thousand(10,000) square feet. (b) Buildings exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height shall have a minimum building site area of twenty thousand(20,000) square feet. 9645.3 Maximum Site Coverage. Total site coverage shall not exceed 45 ,percent of site. provided further. buildings exceeding forty-five (45) feet shall not exceed 25 percent of site coverage. 9645.4 Rear Yard and Interior Side Yard Setback. Except as provided in Section 9645.6, the minimum rear yard and interior side yard setback shall be five (5) feet, provided further that all buildings exceeding forty-five(45)feet in height shall have an additional setback of one (1) foot for every two (2) feet above forty-five (45) feet of building height plus an additional one(1) foot setback for every ten(10) feet of building length facing said yard. 9645.5 Setback From Public Street. Except as provided in Section 9645.6, all buildings and structures shall be set back from a public street as follows: 11/90 ATTACHMENT N0.J__ L 9645.5 (a) -- 9645.12 (a) All buildings and structures forty-five (45) feet or less in height shall be set back from a public street a minimum of fifteen (15) feet. (b) All buildings and structures exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height shall be set back from a public street a minimum of twenty (20) feet, provided further that said setback shall be increased one (1) foot for each two (2) feet above forty- five(45) feet of building height plus an additional one (1)foot setback for every ten(10) feet of building length facing said street shall also be required. (c) The required setback shall be measured from the property line parallel to the public street. 9645.6 Perimeter Setback. All building-s not exceeding forty-five (45)feet in height shall have a minimum perimeter setback of twenty(20) feet from the boundaries of the specific plan unless otherwise designated on the specific plan map. All buildings exceeding forty-five (45) feet in height shall have a minimum perimeter setback of twenty (20) feet provided further that an additional two (2) foot setback for every ten(10) feet above forty-five (45) feet of building height plus an additional one (1) foot setback for every ten(10) feet of building length facing said yard shall be required. The required perimeter setback shall be measured from the property line along the specific plan boundary. 9645.7 Minimum Distance Between Building . The minimum distance between main'buildings shall be fifteen(15) feet provided further that an additional one (1) foot separation shall be provided for every additional two(2) feet of building height above forty-five (45) feet. Where more than one structure exceeds forty-five (45) feet in height,the separation between adjacent buildings shall be calculated by using the tallest structure proposed to be developed on the site. 9645.8 Building Height. Building height within the specific plan area shall not exceed the limitations for each district as delineated upon the specific plan map. 9645.9 Minimum Dwelling Unit Size. All dwelling units within a residential multistory structure shall be exclusively one (1)bedroom units of not less than five hundred(500) square feet of floor area. 9645.10 Parking and loading All developments shall comply with the standards outlined in Article 960. (3070-11/90) 9645.11 Parking Area Landscaping and Screening Parking area landscaping and screening shall conform with the standards outlined in Article 960. (3070-11/90) 9645.12 Pedestrian Walkway System. A continuous pedestrian walkway system shall be provided within District Two of the specific plan for the benefit of the residents. 11/90 TT H T NO. 9645.13 -- 9646 9645.13 Open Space Landscaping and Screening Requirements. (a) Excluding any portion of a setback area assigned for parking purposes all setback areas fronting a public street and all recreation, leisure and open space areas shall be landscaped and permanently maintained in an attractive manner. (b) Decorative landscape/architectural design elements such as fountains, pools, benches, sculptures, planters, gardens and similar elements shall be provided and incorporated as part of the landscape plan. (c) Permanent irrigation facilities shall be provided in all landscaped areas. (d) Detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to and subject to approval by the Director of the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of building permits. (e) Landscaping in the public right-of-way shall be installed in accordance with standard plans and specifications on file in the Department of Public Works. (f) Such landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection. 9645.14 Open Space and Recreation Areas. Open space and recreation areas shall be provided to serve the recreational and leisure activity needs of residents within the specific plan area. Open space and recreation areas shall conform to the following criteria: (a) The amount of open space and recreation area shall be provided. at a ratio of two hundred(200) square feet per dwelling unit. (b) Common open space and recreation areas may include but not be limited to game courts or game rooms, swimming pools, gyms, saunas,putting greens, garden roofs or grounds, and other similar type facilities. (c) At least one (1) main recreation area or facility shall be provided. This area shall be conveniently located to afford maximum use by all residents and shall be located within District Two of the specific plan area. (d) Enclosed buildings used for recreational or leisure facilities shall not constitute more than 50 percent of the required open space and recreational area. (e) Private balconies shall be provided to serve the private open space needs of residents within the specific plan area. Such balconies shall be located adjacent to the unit they are intended to serve and shall have a minimum area of sixty (60)square feet. 9646 General Provisions. In addition to satisfying the development provisions contained in this article, all proposed development shall comply with the applicable general provisions set out herein. 11/90 ATTACH ENT NO. 9646.1 -- 96469 9646.1 Transit Facilities. There shall be a transportation transfer facility provided adjacent to Main Street for the purpose of accommodating mass transit vehicles. Said facility shall include a canopy shelter for the convenience and comfort of persons utilizing the facility which shall not be subject to setback requirements of this article. The location of the facility shall generally conform to the location designated upon the specific plan map. 9646.2 Sign Regulations. All signs shall conform to Article 976 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9646.3 Sewage and Water Systems Fire Prevention. (a) All sewage systems shall comply with standard plans and specifications of the city and shall connect to the city sewage system. (b) All water systems shall comply with standard plans and specifications of the city and shall connect to the city water system. (c) All fire protection appliances, appurtenances, emergency access and any other applicable requirements pursuant to Chapter 17.56 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, shall meet the standard plans and specifications on file with the Fire Department. 9646.4 Tel ehhone and Electrical Service. All on-site electrical lines (excluding lines in excess of 12KV) and telephone lines shall be placed underground. 9646.5 Lighting_ The developer shall install an on-site lighting system on all vehicular access ways and along sidewalks. Such lighting shall be directed onto driveways and walkways within the development and away from adjacent properties. Lighting shall also be installed within all parking areas. 9646.6 Refuse Collection Areas. (a) Opaque materials shall be used to screen outdoor refuse containers from view from access streets and adjacent property. (b) No refuse container area shall be permitted between a street and the setback line. 9646.7 Undeveloped Areas. Undeveloped areas for future expansion shall be maintained in a weed and dust-free condition and shall remain free of debris. 9646.8 Nonconforming Uses and Buildings. Existing uses and buildings which do not meet the criteria contained in this article are declared non-conforming and subject to the applicable requirements of Article 991 and Article 941 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. 9646.9 Park and Recreation Facilities. Any residential developments with the specific plan shall be subject to the requirements of Article 996B, Park and Recreation Facilities, of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. (See specific plan map on next page) ATTA H NT N - 11/90 ATTACHMENT 9646.10 LEGEND DISTRICT ONE A. HOSPITAL C OMPL ))OFFICE PMFESSIONAI/MEDICAL BUILDING n. CONVALESCEzgr AMID R£SIm iAL CARE C. RESIDENTIAL. CARE/APAR�-TNTS AND OONDCMINIUM, D. RECREATION PARK E. MEDICAL FACILITY F. MEDICAL BUILDING AND OFFICE/PROFESSiaAL DISTRICT TWO Residential Office/Professional and Public Institutions I J. I SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY s �--DISTRICT SEPARATION LINE DISTRICT I Two TRANSIT STOP 6�' I 140 Feet Height Limit ® w� C. C 30' fiat PARKING 150 foot AJF DISTRICT ONE height Limit ��*-- x u ® 45 foot h*i ght limit 15'Min. Setback g D. c S. o m ti Parking:k - - j * j r n e a = u D T A w $ $g .� 015. C Q 0 Q U. A ji 11/90 ATTACHMENT NO. �', ATTACHMENT #9 s PC Minutes January 12,2010 Page 4 A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE ' B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 (BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN — CONTINUED FROM THE DECEMBER 8, 2009 MEETING) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Request: To establish a new Specific Plan (SP 14) along a majority of Beach Blvd. and the easterly portion of Edinger Ave. to allow mixed-use and residential development in areas of the city that were not previously designated to permit such uses, as well as to continue to allow commercial uses. The Request includes the following entitlements: GPA: To amend the proposed area's General Plan Land Use Designations from the current Commercial Regional, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General, Commercial Office, Mixed Use, Mixed Use Vertical, Mixed Use Horizontal and Residential Medium Density to M-sp-d (Mixed Use — specific plan-design overlay). The existing Floor Area Ratios and density limitations of the General Plan would no longer be in effect for the area, and the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger would be removed from the Land Use Map. The General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map would be amended to reflect the provisions of SP 14. ZTA: To amend the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance to establish the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan No. 14. SP 14 sets forth permitted uses and development standards for the area. It does not propose Floor Area Ratios or density factors. SP 14 would allow for development of up to 6,400 Dwelling Units, 738,400 sq. ft. of Retail Space, 350 Hotel Rooms, and 112,000 sq. ft. of Office Space. SP 14 proposes building height limits of two to six stories; current height limits generally range from 45 ft. to 140 ft., though the typical existing limit is 50 ft. The proposed standards also call for reduced front yard setbacks, changes to the location of new parking lots, reduced parking requirements and new standards related to configuration and massing of buildings. ZMA: To amend the City's Zoning Map to reflect the SP-14 designation, thereby changing the existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area. SP 14 would supersede the Pacifica Community Plan, which would no longer be in effect. Location: The project site extends along Beach Boulevard, from the Coastal Zone boundary in the south to Edinger Avenue, and along Edinger Avenue from Beach Boulevard westward to Goldenwest Street. Project Planner: Rosemary Medel STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 by approving the draft Resolution (Attachment No. 3) and forward to the City Council for adoption." B. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval (Attachment No. 1) by approving the draft Resolution (Attachment No. 4) and forward to the City Council for adoption." 10pcm0112 i PC Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 5 C. "Approve Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 with findings of approval (Attachment No. 1) by approving the draft Ordinance (Attachment No. 5) and forward to the City Council for adoption." D. "Approve CEQA Statement of Findings and Fact with a Statement of Overriding Cons iderations—EIR No. 08-008 (Attachment No. 2)." The Commission made the following disclosures: • Commissioner Mantini has attended numerous study sessions, taken the Beach and Edinger Corridors tour and spoken to staff. • Commissioner Scandura has attended two public workshops, attended numerous study sessions, attended and voted on the Planning Commission's Public Hearing for this project's Environmental Impact Report, talked to staff, taken the tour, spoken to Commissioner Livengood and Vice Chair Speaker, and voted on various entitlements located within the project boundaries. • Vice Chair Speaker has attended and voted on the Planning Commission's Public Hearing for this project's Environmental Impact Report, attended numerous study sessions and spoken to staff. • Chair Farley has attended numerous study sessions, spoken to Ed Kerins and spoken to HB Tomorrow. • Commissioner Shier Burnett has attended public workshops, taken the tour, attended numerous study sessions and spoken to staff. • Commissioner Delgleize has attended numerous study sessions, talked to staff and taken the tour. • Commissioner Livengood has attended eight study sessions, three public workshops, attended and voted on the Planning Commission's Public Hearing for this project's Environmental Impact Report, talked to HB Tomorrow, talked to Commissioner Scandura, talked to staff and taken the tour. Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, gave the staff presentation and an overview of the project. She noted that the total project site is approximately 459 acres. General discussion ensued regarding the proposed auto dealer overlay zone. Commissioner Scandura noted that in the proposed plan, auto dealers north of Ellis Avenue can expand and build, while auto dealers south of Ellis Avenue can expand only. Commissioner Scandura inquired as to whether staff had heard from the auto dealers. Ms. Medel responded that they had met with the Auto Dealers Association twice and that no letters had been received. Commissioner Scandura said that he has concerns with proposed building heights and would like to limit them. He also asked for clarification regarding the process for deviations from the standards. Chair Farley asked about the approved Red Oak/Amstar project, which will be located at the corner of Gothard Street and Center Avenue. Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren indicated that the Red Oak project plans are consistent with 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12,2010 Page 6 � the proposed Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan 14. Mr. Farley also U inquired as to how the residential only (yellow dashed lines) were decided. Commissioner Livengood asked what kind of new development would require a Conditional Use Permit. Ms. Broeren indicated that at the corner of Beach Blvd. and Warner Avenue, buildings up to 6 stories would be allowed with a Conditional Use Permit from the Planning Commission. Mr. Livengood asked for further clarification. Ms. Broeren said that in this instance, the Conditional Use Permit would have to be approved by the Planning Commission, instead of the Director of Planning or the Zoning Administrator. Ms. Broeren also noted that if a project requires an EIR (Environmental Impact Report), it will come before the Planning Commission. Commissioner Shier Burnett inquired as to the reason for recommending up to 10 stories within 500' of 1-405. THE PUBLIC BEARING WAS OPENED. Robert Sternberg, of HB Tomorrow and the Goldenwest Homeowners Association, spoke against Item No. B-1, citing concerns with traffic, density and open space. Steve Semingson, resident, spoke in support of Item No. B-1, stating that the proposed Specific Plan represented smart growth and real placemaking. He stated that a critical mass is needed for business. Karen Jackie, representing HB Tomorrow, spoke against Item No. B-1, citing concerns with traffic and density. She briefly discussed the two Late Communication items that HB Tomorrow submitted to the Planning Commission. Bijan Sassounian, developer, spoke in favor of Item No. B-1. He said that he was pleased to see the redevelopment opportunities this project will provide to the Beach and Edinger Corridors area. Edith Gonzales, of the McFadden/Sugar Street Safe Exit citizens group, spoke against Item No. B-1, citing concerns with water conservation, traffic and density. She also provided the Planning Commission with a letter. Alex Wong, of Red Oak Investments, spoke in favor of Item No. B-1 and said that he thinks the proposed Specific Plan is flexible. He noted that developers generally wouldn't go over 4 stories or 75' in height for construction reasons. Mike Winter, Sares Regis Group, spoke in favor of Item No. B-1. Brett Feuerstein, Brookhurst Shopping Center retail owner, spoke in favor of Item No. B-1. Dave Sullivan, resident, spoke against Item No. B-1, citing concerns with density, traffic, and the potential delay in emergency response times. Scott Hoffman, Watt Companies, spoke in favor of Item No. B-1; however, he noted that the standards do not"pencil out" for them. He inquired as to when the 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 7 proposed Specific Plan standards and improvements would be required if they did site improvements. Steve Dodge, representing the Huntington Executive Park, spoke in favor of Item No. B-1. He also requested that the Planning Commission approve buildings up to 12 stories within 600' of 1-405. Tom Schiff, of Decron Properties and manager of Plaza Huntington, spoke in favor of Item No. B-1, stating that the Specific Plan is about smart growth and balance. He requested that the Planning Commission allow live/work units on the ground floor along Warner Avenue. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC BEARING WAS CLOSED. Commission Speaker stated that deviations from the proposed standards need to be discussed at a public hearing. Commissioner Scandura discussed the levels of approval required for deviation from the proposed Specific Plan. He questioned the process to be followed for variations of more than 10%, asking if this would require a Variance, a Zoning Administrator Conditional Use Permit (CUP), a Planning Commission CUP or the Planning Director's approval. Commissioner Mantini suggested that variances at less than 10% should be approved by staff, and that variances of more than 10% should come before the Planning Commission for approval. STRAIN VOTE #1 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE A REVISION TO BOOK 11, 2.0.5 SITE PLAN REVIEW (3) REQUEST FOR DEVIATION, STAFF APPROVAL UP TO 10 PERCENT AND OVER 10 PERCENT VARIANCE TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL. AYES: SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD NOES: MANTINI ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED Chair Farley recommended that the Planning Commission focus their discussion on Book 11. Commissioner Livengood noted that the proposed Specific Plan would impact eighteen traffic intersections. He also noted that if Caltrans did not approve the proposed changes to the intersections controlled by them, it would present a problem. He recommended downsizing the project. Commissioner Scandura said that the projected build out of Specific Plan 14 could result in the addition of 6400 new units by the year 2030 (reference: page 5 of the staff report). 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12,2010 4, Page 8 Commissioner Delgleize noted that some of the projected 6400 new units will never be built. Vice Chair Speaker recommended reducing the projected 6400 units by 25%. Mr. Farley recommended tabling this discussion for now. Mr. Scandura noted that he would like to see building heights be capped at 5 stories instead of 6 stories (reference: section 2.3.1). A motion was made by Mr. Scandura to reduce the maximum number of stories from 6 to 5 (reference section 2.1.3, page 13), but he received no second. Commissioner Mantini said that she has concerns regarding the future expansion of the OC Transit Center at Gothard Street and Center Avenue. She said that she wants to ensure that the city will be able to take advantage of mass transit options. Deputy Director of Economic Development Kellee Fritzal noted that the subject property in the Town Center Neighborhood area north of Center Avenue is owned by the Redevelopment Agency. Commissioner Delgleize recommended setting aside the parcel at Gothard and Center for future transit and rail needs. She commented that the site is close to Bella Terra and the 405 freeway. Ms. Fritzal noted that this parcel is approximately 2.4 acres. Commissioner Shier Burnett concurred with Commissioners Mantini and Delgleize and recommended setting aside the parcel for future transit and rail needs. Ms. Broeren noted that per the City's Housing Element, which was approved by Housing and Community Development (HCD), the subject property area is earmarked for a zone change to residential only. Ms. Mantini noted that the parcel needs a light rail hook up. She also recommended that the residential requirement be removed from the Town Center Neighborhood and be set aside for transit and rail. Director of Planning Scott Hess noted that changing the zoning on this parcel is inconsistent with the Housing Element. He noted that staff is not recommending this. Mr. Scandura recommended that a transit study should be completed first. Mr. Hess said that one option would be for the Planning Commission to take this recommendation as a separate minute action and to forward it to the City Council. Mr. Farley recommended adding transit as a use, and to make residential uses not mandatory. Staff indicated that transit is already a permitted use in this area. 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 9 Ms. Broeren noted that the Housing Element identified 5-7 sites in addition to the subject property where a zoning change could be pursued. If the subject site is not changed to residential only, other properties would need to be. Mr. Hess noted that the transit district parcel is only 100' wide. STRAW VOTE #2 A MOTION WAS MADE BY MANTINI, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE A REVISION TO BOOK II, REMOVING THE REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL (YELLOW AREA) IN THE TOWN CENTER-NEIGHBORHOOD DISTRICT, ALONG CENTER AVENUE INCLUDING THE PARCEL TO THE WEST OF THIS SITE AND MARK THE PARCELS FOR TRANSIT EXPANSION ONLY. AYES: MANTINI, SPEAKER, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE NOES: SCANDURA, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED Commissioner Scandura discussed section 2.3.1 and recommended changing the height cap from 6 stories to 5 stories. Mr. Hess said that staff does not support this recommendation. Mr. Livengood recommended excluding the Levitz site from Mr. Scandura's recommendation. Ms. Shier Burnett noted that reducing the allowable height would reduce the amount of affordable housing that could be offered. STRAW VOTE #3 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO CHANGE THE BUILDING HEIGHT CAP FROM 6 STORIES TO 5 STORIES. AYES: SCANDURA NOES: MANTINI, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION FAILED Mr. Scandura recommended added a revision to section 2.1.5 in the neighborhood center district to change portion L-9 to reflect "at the ground level" within the development standards section. 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 10 STRAW VOTE #4 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE A REVISION TO BOOK II, 2.1.5 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DISTRICT, TO CORRECT L-9 TO READ AT THE GROUND LEVEL WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHARTS LEGEND. AYES: MANTINI, SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: LIVENGOOD MOTION APPROVED STRAW VOTE #5 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SHIER BURNETT, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE A REVISION TO BOOK 11, 2.1.5 NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER DISTRICT, TO ADD L-11 PERMITTING LIVE-WORK UNITS ALONG WARNER AVENUE ONLY. AYES: MANTINI, SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED The Planning Commission discussed the proposed building height increase at the southeast corner of Beach Blvd. and Edinger Avenue. Ms. Broeren noted that in the proposed Specific Plan 14, no buildings higher than 4 stories would be allowed unless they were set back at least 65' from Beach Blvd. STRAW VOTE #6 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE A REVISION TO BOOK 11, 2.1.6 TOWN CENTER BOULEVARD DISTRICT, DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CHARTS LEGEND, (C-14) TO READ UP TO SIX STORIES WITHIN 500 FEET OF 1-405. AYES: SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD NOES: MANTINI, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED Chair Farley discussed Book 11, pages 21-22, and asked about building to the corner. Ms. Broeren noted the illustration on page 45 of the proposed Specific Plan, and that this is required to activate the corner. Commissioner Scandura recommended that stadium uses require a Conditional Use Permit. 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12,2010 Page 11 STRAW VOTE #7 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE A REVISION TO BOOK II, 2.2 BUILDING USE REGULATIONS, 2) CIVIC AND CULTURAL TO REQUIRE A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR STADIUMS. AYES: SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, LIVENGOOD NOES: MANTINI, DELGLEIZE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED Mr. Speaker asked about the affordable housing requirements and confirmed that an in-lieu fee could be paid for small projects. Mr. Scandura inquired about the allowance for 20 ft. high architectural projections. He also asked about the use of jacaranda trees on Edinger Avenue. Staff indicated that the city landscape architect had reviewed the plan but that they would re-confirm this aspect of the plan. Mr. Farley discussed the definition of Public Open Space and noted that it can be (but not must be) a park. Ms. Broeren noted that permitted Open Space includes parks. She asked the Planning Commission if they wished to add verbiage that stated that double- counting would not be allowed (Public Open Space versus Quimby). Staff explained, however, that the Special Public Open Space requirement on the Levitz site presents a constraint on that property and therefore the Planning Commission may wish to let that count towards both requirements. Director of Planning Scott Hess noted that the above condition is already built into the proposed Specific Plan. STRAW VOTE #8 A MOTION WAS MADE BY FARLEY, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE A REVISION TO BOOK II, 2.6 OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS, 3) GENERAL REQUIREMENTS, TO INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION READING, EXCEPT PROPERTIES WITH A SPECIAL PUBLIC OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, PUBLIC OPEN SPACE MAY NOT BE USED TO SATISFY CHAPTER 230 & 254 PARK REQUIREMENTS. AYES: MANTINI, SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12, 2010 1P Page 12 Mr. Farley asked about the inclusion of the environmentally-friendly "cool roof' design. Consultant Erik Calloway of Freedman, Tung & Sasaki noted that this recommendation is included in Book II on page 69. STRAW VOTE #9 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO ADD TO THE LIST OF SUGGESTIONS AS TO "GREEN" PRACTICES THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED. AYES: MANTINI, SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED Mr. Farley recommended that the Planning Commission should focus its discussion on Book Ill. Transportation Manager Bob Stachelski spoke regarding traffic signal coordination in order to alleviate potential traffic problems. Mr. Livengood recommended adding a traffic signal at the northeast portion of Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue to the proposed Specific Plan. Mr. Farley asked about the McFadden/Sugar Street Safe Exit citizens' concerns. Mr. Stachelski noted that the city is working with the residents. He also said that an acceleration lane would be added to the Sugar Street exit and be implemented by approximately mid-January of 2010. Mr. Farley asked about emergency response times at McFadden/Sugar Streets and Fire Department services in general. Ms. Broeren said that the city is working on a citywide capital facilities needs assessment, but has nothing specific yet for proposed Specific Plan 14. Deputy Fire Marshal Jeff Lopez noted that the Fire Department has nothing concrete/specific in terms of emergency response times. STRAW VOTE #10 A MOTION WAS MADE BY FARLEY, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO MAKE GREEN BUILDING A REQUIREMENT. AYES: MANTINI, SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE, LIVENGOOD NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12,2010 Page 13 STRAW VOTE #11 A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE ALTERNATIVE 2 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT, REDUCING THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS TO 4,500 DWELLING UNITS WITH 1,745 ON EDINGER AVENUE AND 2,755 ON BEACH BLVD., BUT KEEPING THE REDUCED COMMERCIAL BUILDOUT NUMBERS OF ALTERNATIVE 1. AYES: SCANDURA, SPEAKER, FARLEY, LIVENGOOD NOES: MANTINI, SHIER BURNETT, DELGLEIZE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: NONE MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY LIVENGOOD, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 BY APPROVING THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Scandura, Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett, Delgleize, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY MANTINI, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 WITH MODIFICATIONS AND FINDINGS OF APPROVAL, BY APPROVING THE DRAFT RESOLUTION AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Scandura, Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett, Delgleize, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12,2010 Page 14 A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY DELGLEIZE, TO APPROVE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 WITH FINDINGS OF APPROVAL BY APPROVING THE DRAFT ORDINANCE AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Scandura, Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett, Delgleize, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY SCANDURA, SECONDED BY SHIER BURNETT, TO APPROVE CEQA STATEMENT OF FINDINGS AND FACT WITH A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS WITH MODIFIED FINDINGS, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Mantini, Scandura, Speaker, Farley, Shier Burnett, Delgleize, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 amends the existing zoning designations within the 459 acre project area from Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Commercial Office (CO), General Industrial (IG), Residential Low Density (RL), Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Medium High Density (RMH), Pacific Community Specific Plan (SP 2), the commercial portions of Seabridge Specific Plan (SP 3) to Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14). The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan by combining the majority of permitted uses for the Commercial and Mixed Use categories as permitted uses within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will assist to revitalize business opportunities and strengthen the employee base of the City by allowing for and encouraging mixed-use development. The Specific Plan also identifies design/architectural standards, consistent with the intent of the goals and polices of the Community District and Subarea Schedule pertinent to the adoption of the Specific Plan and consistent with the Urban Design Element. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. The form based code development standards of the 10pcm0112 PC Minutes January 12, 2010 Page 15 Specific Plan ensure that new construction will comply with the intent of the Specific Plan to achieve connectivity, increase the amount of public open space, introduce residential development into the City's two major commercial corridors and by allowing uses that support consumer needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. 2. In the case of general land use provisions, the Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendments are consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses identified in the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan SP No. 14 allow for continued commercial development in conjunction with mixed-use development consistent with the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed Specific Plan provides the standards and design guidelines necessary to develop a high quality of diverse land uses complementing and enhancing surrounding land uses. The continued expansion of the commercial base and incorporation of mixed use development provides the opportunity for the development of homes and jobs close to one another thereby reducing daily vehicle trips. The Specific Plan area has not flourished with the existing regulations. The Specific Plan is intended to stimulate investment in the area, while minimizing impacts to established neighborhoods, to maximize the benefit of new development to the community. The Specific Plan will enhance the potential for superior urban design by the use of Form Based Code criteria in comparison with the current commercial development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Specific Plan will ensure a consistency in development standards, a high quality of architectural design, and landscape design requirements to achieve the desired compatibility with surrounding developments. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because the community workshops held for this project have revealed that the citizens and landowners recognize that without a clear vision the revitalization of the two corridors may not be achieved. The Specific Plan provides standards for future development that will transform the character of the project area in a beneficial way consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan. The Plan development standards work together to provide development that is compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding area and to development within the Specific Plan itself. The proposed standards pertaining to height, setback and parking are not significantly different than existing code or what has been approved in the area in the recent past. The standards of the Specific Plan as they relate to building form and use allow for denser projects to be built that are attractive and enhance pedestrian activity, which minimizes impacts. 10pcm0112 ATTACHMENT # 10 1 BEACH AND EDINGER CORI®ORS SPECIFIC PLAN — SP 14 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL Public Hearing March 1, 2010 Specific Plan Project Area ® Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan area encompasses 459 acres and includes Five Points, Pacifica Community Specific Plan (SP 2) and the commercial portion of Seabridge Specific Plan (SP 3)0 1 Proposed Beach Edv,ger .. Specific Plan Area Gm lAmringrore Benrh 8 c�A`e y.-ft.�t7�}tl�yh �ltj_yl.s, se c.e 44 Beach ' s �I Edinger Corridors 1 A.,� "ry's I�11-S `7 -Maui Sr,Eilts Aye Specific Planr iA ! rc t5fsr�`i u�� ems•-�It i�_My-'�,r*'�j f sL�`i�s Request — Overview ® Adoption of the Specific Plan requires the following entitlements: — General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, amends general land use designations on the 459 acres. — Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002, establishes the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, SP 14. — Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002, amends the City's Zoning Map to reflect the SP 14 designation. 2 Background • 1999, City Council added Edinger Corridor SP (ECSP) and Economic Development Action Plan to their priority list of projects. • 2000-2006, Edinger Corridor Specific Plan effort — Consisting of community meetings, study sessions, PC public hearing • Upon consideration of PC concerns and comments during the public hearing, staff recommended that the two Corridors be combined to become more effective. • 2006 City Council directs staff to combine both the corridors to form the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan — SP 14. Background ® Corridors Study • 2006 City Council's directive states: - Corridors Lack: • Integrated Vision • Identity • Clarity of Location • Consistent Landscaping • Incorporating Theme ® 2007, Beach & Edinger Corridors SP began with a series of workshops and Study Sessions. 3 Background : Study Sessions Community Workshops ® Beach & Edinger SP - Outreach: 4 S — 2007: Four Workshops s — 2008: Five Workshops/Study Sessions (2 w/CC) y — 2009: Nine Workshops/Study Sessions with PC Planning Commission Action ® On December 8, 2009, the Planning Commission Certified Environmental Impact Report No. 08- 008 as adequate and complete with mitigation measures and amended MM4.15-3 to include language referencing recycled building materials. ® The EIR discussed potential adverse impacts associated with the project (Specific Plan). ® On January 12, 2010, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project with changes to the Specific Plan. 4 Originally Proposed Amount of Development ® Potential amount of new development based on analysis in EIR No. 08-008: — 6,400 new residential units — 738,400 sf retail — 350 hotel rooms — 112,000 sf of office uses — All development is not considered new development because of replacement potential with an estimated 1.4 million sf of commercial square footage replaced over the 20 year life of the Specific Plan. ® SP buildout estimated at year 2030. Specific Plan Purpose ® To enhance the economic performance, functionality and beauty of the Beach and Edinger Corridors, in accordance with the forces of the free market and the community's vision for its primary commercial corridors. ® Specific Plan boundary is as a result of public input, including Planning Commission and City Council comments, to have the least adverse impact to surrounding areas and achieve the greatest revitalization benefit. 5 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan ® Zoning Text Amendment �K = establishes the Beach & Edinger Corridors Specific t. ? Plan. =, Specific Plan uses and Fi � � '� �'� " � << standards are established � = for the logical physical � transitions from one area to the next. i „ - ® Form Based Code proposes: No Floor Area Ratio — No Density Factors ® Form Based Codes are being used in California today. Specific Plan Document Organization ® Book I: Community Intent, describes the community objectives needed to achieve the desired outcome of the project area. v Book II: Development Code, establishes the primary means for regulating land use and development. ® Book III: Public Improvements, describes the infrastructure needs to stimulate, promote and support the desired growth. ® Also created a Reference Volume, not adopted, but used for background information and guidance. 6 Specific Plano Book I Community Intent • Community Objectives — Enhance overall economic performance, beauty and functionality of the corridors. • Revitalization Strategy — Orchestrate growth and change in the plan area pursuant to the community vision. — Harness Market Demand to respond to the primary market trends that are most likely to benefit the plan area. — Integrate Interdependent Specific Plan Areas to create a Mutually Beneficial Community Vision — Promote A Range of New Housing Choices, in a wide variety of formats and densities to support retail and services in the plan area. Specific Plana Book I • Development Concept — Considers the existing physical and economic conditions and implements a revitalization strategy. —The intent is to transform development that is no longer supported by the market, and replace it with more contemporary consumer and investor preferences. Specific Plano Book Ia (cont"d) ® Development Concept: — Responds to investment trend to concentrate large clusters of retail along major intersections and Freeway off ramps — Strategy is to respond to changing retail requirements — Promotes Corridor Revitalization to benefit the City finances Specific Plan: Core Centers -The pattern of retail will be transformed from linear to City Centers. -Plenty of land is left in between the centers that is unappealing for retail investment. - The pattern of retail clusters sets up the primary framework for the restructuring plan. p NIR FI9.1 3 Goncepluel 0.ev:lelzalwn 8 Urban Des:pn Framework 8 Corridor Centers & Segments • Town Center - Core • Town Center — Neighborhood • Town Center Boulevard Segment • Neighborhood Center • Neighborhood Boulevard Segment • Neighborhood Parkway Segment • Residential Parkway Segment • Residential Transition Zone Envisioned Core Districts _ • Greatest development intensity a . would be provided in the core areas. 41 4 a € } flak r #ay ' iR ar # 9 Town Center Core Areas Edinger Core — Expand the amenity driven ""Lifestyle Center" of Bella Terra along Edinger — Feature continuous ground floor shop fronts — Include a significant population of residents, workers, and visitors adding to the vitality of the area — Improve pedestrian and vehicular connectivity Town Center Core Areas Five Points Core — Retain the community retail center — Support its eventual uowsn Five D.I.—IT T-1 land use intensification and mix — Encourage the restructuring and revitalization of surrounding areas to enhance market trends 10 Town Center Core Ground floor retail req. '': `! '►;{ ® Height: — Min: 1 story anchor retail — Max: 4 stories w/in front 65 ft along Main and r. Edinger; — 3 stories across street from ,> : x- h` residential; i .u� _ , — Otherwise 6 stories r ! �..- o Setbacks: r' Aki y I — Beach &Ellis/5 ft mini 15 ft max '� , ,. All other streets/0 ft min / 4 5 ft max Transformation: Town Center Core Areas —77 t ... ;�N. 1iy e..,.�a..��...o.„....�"4e�:v c�,�co.. x..,n�e.�o...�e..�:.r.e.re.K c��u ce.:s�� .••>•. - . 11 Beach Blvd. : Discourages, walking, bicycling , transit stop waiting .f. Sae: n X EISTINC ENVIRONMENT LONG ftACH BLVD 1N THE NmHEORHOOD 1NO�TOWN CENTER SLVD Envisioned Future Environment Along Beach Blvd in the Neighborhood and Town Center Blvd I 12 Town Center Neighborhood • New development to be 4F � pedestrian-friendly. • Promote better connectivity between "" r college, employees, e , shoppers, and residents. • Provides the intensity u .„ '1 45 4 and activity expected in 5i E a vibrant urban district. '" ' ' h 4 s • 5-7 mile Trade Area; requires 30 000-50 000 households, office, r� � lodging. ^M N '`.54,E Town Center s , Neighborhood ® Height: — 2 stories minimum Beach & Main only — 4 stories within 65 ft of front property line — 2 stories across from residential — Otherwise 6 stories a s. ,. „ ® Setbacks ' ' I,`� - Beach — 0ft min / 10ft max jjw - Main—0 ft min / 5 ft max - All other streets—0 ft min /15ftmax 13 14 Envisioned Town Center Boulevard i .s_ a w T— Booa.s vo Tess nc m as ,tea K6NS Ow Cons 1as, ,....- -...,. t tom. 9 A -. { T.—V.—Hovus. -Bin o Ds,svevsuvx Tress-IT �f ns Feo-cncc Classic Boulevard (Edinger Ave. between Goldenwest and Parkside) X� S � k r ' I I I f to l 4y/ � 4�a tames �> 15 Classic Boulevard ® Access Road required (Edinger Corridor) for only Edinger Corridor. • Pedestrian Zone will require larger sidewalk setbacks, to accommodate more ( - activities such as outdoor dining, location for kiosks, food carts, r „gym, etc... asrSSb • Pedestrian Zone: minimum 12 foot-wide sidewalk. ® Iconic single-arm, „ .�. pedestrian-scale street lighting located on the Fi .2.5.1.-3)C—Ss—B—.. wen sidewalk at back of PUBLIC'FRONTAC6 curb. Palm Boulevard (Beach Blvd. between Edinger and Ellis) - . y35, El ;MY .:. i t i �.wd �mM;lxl t:;4'i1 T..+1 t Tmm;im.xl I7r Fig.:.3flR.c«�3ans+cs E.�Sr�3hce[Caeyl•�fihn:x.+�,s 16 Neighborhood Boulevard (Five Points to Warner) fan' s a' • Neighborhood Boulevard 40 ` Segment located between Five Points and Warner Avenue is characterized by a significant amount of aging commercial development. • Existing attractors to investment; Hospital, Walmart, h existing residential development. • Encourage development of neighborhood—serving and hospital serving retail services. 44 Neighborhood Boulevard (Five Points to Warner) �x ® Height: — Min: 1 story Max: 2 stories across street from residential; otherwise 4 stories _ Setbacks: 7T.7 77Y — Beach/12 ft / 25 ft fixmax — All other Streets/5 ft , o E" h, �����.: min / 15 ft max i ; .l a 4111�7 b Nis.. 17 Neighborhood Parkway Segment ® Height a — Min 2 stories (on Beach) otherwise no minimum limit Max 2 stories (across from residential), otherwise 4 stories Setbacks Min 30 ft or 20% of parcel .� t depth whichever is smaller, r no max All other streets t 'NP2 � • 5ft min/ 15ftmax Envisioned Residential Parkway • Almost entirely residentialyT _. • Development in this area =� will be largely infill, replacement of structures, and improving upon the best of this area. p 5 Y � � ¢ AMR 18 Parkway Design e4 $ I Trewl f�nc�'. 1'sx {.� A^E Trawl'Trv�•n`�� Fin+_:.'-9eeci ioule.3lfzls:.ic sues:aEsign-Sxth al�sars-- —_. Neighborhood Centers s ® Neighborhood Centers is an additional designation within the Specific Plan. — Are existing shopping centers that would retain their overall function and encourage T eventual transition to greater land use ' M efficiency and mix of , compatible uses. q — Located in three of the proposed segments. 19 Neighborhood Centers e Height: — Min- 1 story y — 4 stories w/ in front 65 ft along Beach; #� $ — 2 stories across street from residential; — Otherwise 5 stories — * (C13) up to 6 stories with CUP if on same site with -. . < existing buildings of same or greater height �— • Setbacks: u.*x — Beach/0 ft min / 10 ft max :, — 5 ft min / 15 ft max 4 Auto Dealerships { a } rz, I • Streamlined approval: No CUP required for New Auto Sales along Beach Blvd. • City continues to support continued presence and expansion of existing Auto Dealerships along Beach Blvd, as a vital retail tax base. • Final SP proposes to change Town Center Neighborhood parcel designation to Neighborhood Blvd to allow auto sales. • Combined, Neighborhood Parkway, Neighborhood Blvd, Town Center Blvd segments comprise the majority of Beach Blvd to all allow vehicle sales in some manner. 20 Specific Plan : Book II - Development Code 1Ny :; • Proposed Specific Plan will ultimately allow for: — Mixed Use Development — Stand-Alone Residential — Commercial Development • The mixed use development y trend continues in California, as the State responds to the need to manage future population growth Book II - MAN® (Maximum Amount of New Development) • Establishes the maximum amount of new construction of Corridor Units Retail Office Hotel residential and SF SF Rooms commercial development Edinger 1,745 206,000 0 150 permitted on Beach Beach 2,755 532,400 112,000 200 and Edinger Total 4,500 738,400 112,000 350 • Decreased number of residential units will reduce potential environmental impacts but still support the City's objectives for the Corridors. 21 Specific Plan Processing • Site Plan review required for new development — Environmental Assessment — Mitigation Monitoring Checklist — May require a Subdivision Map • CUP required for some uses and increased height. • Deviations from Development Standards: — Staff recommends: Director up to 10%, Variance to ZA greater than 10% — PC recommends: Director up to 10%, Variance to PC greater than 10% • Projects evaluated against Program EIR; however, some may require an additional EIR, or Negative Declaration. Specific Plan : Form Based Code • Design Standards are deliberate in the physical placement of development 'p • Creates walkable, pedestrian oriented environments by �' xa setbacks, increase in public open space, architectural regulations, building heights, etc. • Creates Landscape themes to define each District • Build to Corner regulations and limits the location of surface parking lots 22 Specific Plana Form Based Code: (cont'd) • Requires Architectural treatment to create storefronts with more . visual interest. • Integrates pedestrian and vehicular circulation when new developments occur. • City Urban Design Guidelines encourage the concepts that Form Based codes require. Development Standards • Building Height limits from two to six stories — Increased Building Height within 500 feet of I-405 permitted to ten stories with CUP to Planning Commission — Increased Building Height with CUP to PC if on same site with existing buildings of same or greater height (Beach & Warner only) • General Standards — Reduced front yard setbacks — Changes location of new surface parking areas — Establishes standards regulating development to achieve a specific urban form 23 Parking Regulations SP requires "A that surface FA parking is not located along IN frontages. Types vary per 5 segment or IN center. Parking Regulations T • Specifies the maximum number of parking spaces permitted on surface lots. • Requires that parking is located within a certain distance from the use, 200-500 feet. • Standards reinforce desired character • Encourage pedestrian activity, improve pedestrian experience and reduce vehicular trips. 24 Architectural Elements Regulations • Intended to provide f flexibility in design, while � � responding to market demand. r y, • Requires that entrances g - are easily recognizable and that scale is appropriate. Tr ,a • Sustainability principles are required. $ "Y #.t.j Sign Regulations • Intended to complement the built environment. • Ensures design } consistency with the e overall quality and ~m character of new development anticipated for the corridors. 25 Open Space Public open space is accessible ` to the public and may include seating lighting and - i ppirnimnnu i �� landscaping. ® The amount of open space is =sue defined by the district or segment. — ® Open space may be . . constructed off site or be a part of a larger public open space being provided by City or private development uponw approval of the Director. rg ti Open Space: At least 1/2 acre shall be provided in the Town Center Neighborhood as illustrated on the map at � e I 3 Edm erAve. ±a r Fig.2.6.2 Town Center 6ghborhood Map '�� ►111 11V 11ii1Ml #!I I lll 26 Planning Commission Recommendation: Jan. 12th • Deviations approved by Staff from 20% to 10% • Reduce overall project from 6,400 to 4,500 Units • Remove Residential Requirement (yellow dash) along Center Ave and mark this and adjacent property for transit expansion • Allow Ground Level units along Ash Street • Allow Live-Work units on ground floor along Warner • Reduce height for property w/500 ft of I-405 from 10 stories to 6 stories • CUP for Stadiums (excludes professional sports teams) • Except for properties with a Special Public open space requirement, public open space may not be used to satisfy Chapter 230 &254 of the ZSO • Require sustainable or"green"building practices � Planning Commission Recommendation : . • Staff supports the majority of recommendations, except three for the following reasons: — Approving body for deviations - Zoning Administrator: • Reduced processing time from 4-6 mos to 2-3 mos • Fee reduced from $3,453 to $2,444 • Variance Findings imposed irrespective of hearing body — Remove`Residential Requirement": RDA owned. Identified in Housing Element as property to rezone exclusively for housing — Up to 6 stories if property is within 500 ft of 1-405 (affects southeast corner of Beach/Edinger) 27 Book III Public �faa �pfa�a:Afumalsiga� streeu,lMth-1iplamw;°free; _. parking fin re,,I shop,,a broad promenade sidewalk-h sfrett ttcea fin A.ppi.g, ovidooe dmiag,sn'oll'mg,aM special evrnts. Improvements -- - � Monomer,S:LvoLc.Amcu:wes We gaw �� way min Hunimgron B a h • Circulation Plan: — To stimulate and support Edinger the envisioned growth and change along Beach and l}ee Bopkyard:wide aidewalkn, Edinger Corridors �`'a""ems"°° 'e""''"ampal vu devclopmenl.�u usmcss an �x • Streetscape Improvements: — Implement phased Streetscape Improvements E"`�` significantly contributing to the visual enhancement 4,'.. and identity of the 1Ptnrkway:Si fi—inf°emal landscaping _ egmden-like ennrommenc appropnate corridors — Design specific streetscape improvements to integrate with the various centers and segments 'PCH(P,,fie C—fthway)gat—y _ uape I--a south of Panfic view Avenue(ou�ei&of Sp fic Pb.1.) Street Improvements — Classic Blvd (Edinger - between Goldenwest and Parkside) dank d Palm Tsea BoulasaN , 'IIIIIN01, Ifi` • Characterized by street } elements that include: RBI a llluu — Street furniture { A :inn d P < — Landscape themes � y — Increased landscaped } areas — Iconic Blvd scale street- i { �� s r'i � g6pallTRaBaMMk — lighting and wide BenMeseMTmah Rexy#arb t q sidewalks creating a sense of place az — Protected Access Lane ® Jacaranda Street Tree theme proposed --02,-W- 28 Palm Tree Blvd. Pamr �atl,� t (Beach Blvd-north of Five Points) x ® Sidewalk and sidewalk buffer: — 6 foot wide sidewalk: separated from the MAI back-of-curb by a 4 foot continuous planter strip q — Pedestrian scale lighting Wnl Sitle Eut SW. aA-ryd sam M.,..M ac m — Street furniture .: — Illuminated street trees and tall palm trees contribute to the visualWi improvement of Beachfi Blvd Q5 ® Improvements made upon Beach Blvd - Parkway new development (south of Main St to SP boundary) v Street improvements include a 6 foot sidewalk with a 9 tt foot continuous planter strip w� ;= T along the back-of-curb • Special Street lighting Y Y y Ull w.tsa. �sw. 29 Infrastructure Facilities ® Information from EIR used to prepare diagrams ® Specific Plan identifies facilities needed based on available information — Water — Sewer — Storm Drain ® Improvements will be a combination of public and private investment. Recommendation ® Approve General Plan Amendment No. 08-002 (Attachment No. 2); ® Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002 (Attachment No. 4); ® Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 (Attachment No. 3) with Findings of Approval and forward to City Council for adoption; ® Approve CEQA Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations (Attachment No. 7) 30 Recommendation based on the following: ® Consistent with the General Plan policies and development framework related to Mixed Use development. ® Facilitates new development in the area by proposing development standards that provide greater flexibility for land uses, which will maintain and expand, economic and business opportunities. ® Facilitates mixed use development that produces an environment that is both attractive and sustainable by increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use, of land resources. Recommendation based on the following: (cont'd) ® Includes development standards that will result in compatible, attractive and adequately served land uses and buildings. ® Consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of smart growth and sustainable development. ® Accommodates some of the City's already projected growth in areas that are currently, and in the future, served by transit, thereby efficiently using land and improving opportunities for transit growth, while maintaining the remainder of the City's environmental resources and scale of character. ® Serves the affordable housing needs of the community by providing for affordable housing units through the City's Inclusionary Housing requirement. 31 THE END 32 Citizen Communications Public Hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 08-002, Zoning Text Amendment No. 08-002, and Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002, to adopt the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan. Esparza, Pasty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#3991 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Joseph& Christine DiSomma Description: To: Honorable Mayor Green and Council Members Hardy, Bohr, Carchio, Coerper, Dwyer and Hansen: We ask that you vote against the Beach and Edinger Corridor Project. We are strongly opposed to it. As homeowners and voters of Huntington Beach, our concerns are the following: 1. Our first and foremost concern with the Beach and Edinger Corridor Project is that it allows buildings to be five stories in height. As we walk down Serenade Lane from our house, we will see the five-story commercial buildings before us, which is an eyesore. Further, when we go into our back yard and look to the left, we will also see before us five-story commercial buildings. In summary, we did not buy our home 15 years ago to now face commercial buildings at a height of five stories. We don't want to see those buildings from our house. 2. The home we own is located near the intersection of Serenade Lane and Stonewood. Currently, the traffic at the intersection of Goldenwest and Edinger is congested enough. The project will add 4,500 units to this already impacted area. Assuming, three persons per unit, at least 13,000 additional people will exacerbate the traffic congestion as they will be driving cars. We urge you again to vote against the project. We will monitor who votes against the i project and assure you we will vote for them in future Huntington Beach elections. We want to thank you in advance for your consideration in this project. Regards, Joseph and Christine DiSomma and our four adult children Expected Close Date: 02/24/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. i ' v Date: February 2O. 2O1O 20/0FEB 23 �� 0: c�� —. '~ "° FnD[n� � @3ndip Patel cN ` 18191 Ganges Lane Huntington Beach, CAS2O47 To: Joan L Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Stnaet, 2"" Floor Huntington Beach, CA92O48 714-530-5227 To: City Council of Huntington Beach, | will be unable to attend the public hearing on March Vt@ Oprn. However, | wanted tovoice rny opinion inregards t0 the proposed planning (O8-OO2/Zoning & K8-SP-C)) | have o multi-unit dwelling /4-P|ex\ at 18191 Ganges Lane. Rental demand has significantly decreased in the area and currently there is an abundant amount of"for rent" signs scattered throughout the neighborhood. A vacated unit previously would be filled within a couple of xveeka, now it can take several months. As a raou|t, nantm| pricing has also dropped in order to fill the vacancies. The proposed plan could further damage the rental/housing business sector. I am in opposition and concerned with the proposed 6,400 or 4,500 new dwelling units that will be introduced with this plan. These additional dwellings will further dilute a larger supply of available housing in the area with already decreasing demand. Not only will this lead tomore vacancies but further drop in rental prioes/houGing. As the housing/rental pricing drops due to this larger supply, it can also result in o different socio-economic demographic o|aaa of renters and residents of the city. As an owner ofa multi-unit dwelling, | rely on full occupancy and high demand to keep the building and standard of living high for my tenants and overall residents of this city. Please consider these concerns and others like myself in this situation. Sincerely and Respectfully, Sandip Patel ' ' a A-) THRIFTY ®IL CO October 28, 2009 Joan L. Flynn City of Huntington Beach --. 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor > _ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Beach Blvd Specific Plan, EIR#08-001 •» Dear Members of the City Council, Planning Commission and Planning Department; Thank you for allowing me to speak at the Beach Blvd Study Session on September 22, 2009. The "draft" Plan issues that I mentioned, which concerned Thrifty Oil, and, I would think any property owner along Beach in the "Parkway" section, were, at least in my opinion, dismissed by staff when they made the statement that the proposed Beach Blvd. Plan had language that `protected' current uses. I have attached a copy of the `protection' language to this letter so I may elaborate on its shortcomings without forcing you to refer back the Plan. The language is on page 31 of the document. If you consider the effect on an existing property owner with an existing use deemed `no longer permitted' within the guidelines of the Specific Plan, the Plan's problems are apparent. Item 1, New Construction. No building may be enlarged by more than 15% even if it is significantly less dense a use than a use contemplated within the Plan. The ability to retain a tenant, or modernize an eyesore property, may hinge on some additional square footage being added. The Plan Policies `apply' to any exterior renovations on any existing building. No dollar level was discussed, no definition of just what Policies apply, a restriction that would seem to allow Staff to define `how to comply' rather than giving the Staff guidelines in just what the `renovations' might trigger a need for compliance. Perhaps item(iii) is meant to clarify that ONLY architectural issues can be considered in renovations but if so, it is not clear. Additionally, there is no cost containment so the City could, in theory, demand architectural embellishments that would add enormous cost, making the renovation non-economical. The language may make an owner reluctant to even consider exterior renovations. It would seem that exterior renovations of existing structures would be viewed as a positive contribution to the City. 13116 Imperial Hwy, Santa Fe Springs,CA 90670 562-921-3581 There are many mandated State or Federal environmental requirements which potentially could trigger its `new' construction requirements. Obviously there are several legal and material problems with this issue. Item 2, Use Changes: If we consider Thrifty's actual situation, we own an operating gas station, a service-commercial use. Under the plan, no `service-commercial uses' are permitted in this `Parkway" section of Beach Blvd. (I note that the property adjacent to us is also automotive related). Are we entitled to keep any `service-commercial' use or are we required to remain a gas station, even if gas stations become un-necessary? Item 3, Right of Continued Use. We are owners of numerous gas station corners in California. Many have been in use as gas stations since the mid-1950's. We have had specific instances of attempting to renovate stations only be told that we were `not fully entitled' as we did not have a required discretionary permit, for example a conditional use permit, due to the fact that when the station began operations no CUP was required as a condition of opening. The language of the Plan's clause would seem to leave a loophole for any property owner with a long-standing use that now required additional permits. If the language is meant that so long as a building permit was issued in the past for the improvements, then perhaps these concerns are unfounded. Item 4, New Signs. This language could be interpreted as disallowing any structural alteration that made a sign safer and/or repaired an existing problem. The advent of new materials may make it in the City's best interest to allow a modification to a sign so long as the square footage and height didn't increase significantly. Again, the language might be construed to stop renovations. Rather than just taking issue with the language, we would like to propose possible solution that would seem to mitigate these concerns and place a positive light on getting property owners to upgrade their facilities. To that end, we have added some additional language to the clauses referenced. 1) New Construction, Additions and Exterior Renovations i) The policies contained within this section shall apply to new construction, as well as to significant additions (addition greater than either 15% of the building's floor area)or exterior renovations to existing structures. New construction, or renovations mandated by Governmental regulations, is exempt. Exterior renovations shall be required to adapt only to architectural treatments on the structure to blend in, at an additional cost of no more than 5%,to the themes proposed in the Specific Plan. ii) Where significant additions are'made to existing buildings, requirements for renovation or enlargements shall apply only to new floor area. No costs or required square footage related to Government mandated ordinances shall be considered in triggering a 'significant' definition. 13116 Imperial Hwy, Santa Fe Springs,CA 90670 562-921-3581 iii) Where exterior improvements are made to existing buildings, architectural regulations shall apply to that portion of the building being renovated. iv) Improvements and additions to existing buildings that increase nonconformities are not permitted unless the use is already a non-conforming use and the added space is to be used in the same manner. Should a use be non-conforming and the applicant is requesting approval for new construction to replace existing older structures, and the request is for a total square footage that is no greater than the 115% of the existing square footage, the use will remain allowed provided the new project mares reasonable attempts to adapt to the spirit of the Plan while retaining the characteristics necessary to continue the use. 2) Use Changes i) The policies contained within this section shall apply to new land uses proposed for existing facilities. ]Land use is the overall zoning designation, such as `service commercial' not the specific use, such as gas station. 3) Right of Continued Use i) Nothing contained in this section shall require any change in any existing building or structure for which an entitlement application has been previously issued, or in any proposed building or structure for which a building permit application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Changes in the property's ownership or tenants of existing uses shall require no change in any existing building or structure. Entitlement shall be defined having the required permits necessary at the time of the original construction. 4) New Signs i) The regulations contained in section 2.9 shall apply to all new signs. ii) Any permanent signs made non-conforming as a result of the adoption of this Development Code may be repaired, but not structurally altered or made more non-conforming in any way. Structural reinforcement or replacing supporting structures and/or cabinets with new structures due to age/wear shall not be construed as structural alteration. We hope that our suggestions `language clarifications' will be given due consideration as we believe they will enable both property owners and City staff to have a clearer understanding of the Plan. Sincerely, H 'ward Burns Director of Real Estate, Thrifty Oil Co. Attachment: one page w/Pg 31 Plan language. 13116 Imperial Hwy, Santa Fe Springs,CA 90670 562-921-3581 Actual language taken from the Beach Blvd. Specific Plan document, Page 31 2.0 ORIENTATION This section contains the Development Code that will govern all future private development actions in the Beach Boulevard/Edinger Avenue Corridors. The Development Code is used to evaluate private development projects or improvement plans proposed for properties within the Plan Area(see Fig. 2.1. Corridor Centers and Segments Map).2.0.1 Applicability The policies contained within this chapter shall apply as follows: 1)New Construction, Additions and Exterior Renovations i) The policies contained within this section shall apply to new construction, as well as to significant additions (addition greater then 15%of the buildings floor area) or exterior renovations to existing structures. ii) Where significant additions are made to existing buildings, requirements for renovation or enlargements shall apply only to new floor area. iii) Where exterior improvements are made to existing buildings, architectural regulations shall apply to that portion of the building being renovated. iv) Improvements and additions to existing buildings that increase nonconformities are not permitted. 2) Use Changes i) The policies contained within this section shall apply to new land uses proposed for existing facilities. 3) Right of Continued Use i)Nothing contained in this section shall require any change in any existing building or structure for which an entitlement application has been previously issued, or in any proposed building or structure for which a building permit application was deemed complete prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Changes in the property's ownership or tenants of existing uses shall require no change in any existing building or structure. 4)New Signs i) The regulations contained in section 2.9 shall apply to all new signs. ii) Any permanent signs made non-conforming as a result of the adoption of this Development Code may be repaired,but not structurally altered or made more non-conforming in any way. Page 1 of 2 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2009 2:36 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 1193 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to ,Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on Agenda Items Citizen name: Garr Nelson Description: I am writing to express my concern over the new planned Beach Edinger development. I have lived in the small pocket of Huntington Beach which can be entered from Sugar St from Mc Fadden between Beach and Gothard for 10 years. One of the main reasons for moving to this area was how quiet and unassuming the neighborhood was. My greatest concern over this new development is the safety entering and exiting my block. I fear as a tax payer and resident that we may not be being well represented, It has been the general consensus of those living around me and myself that since the development of the Bella Terra we have had increased traffic in the region near our house and the bridge over the 405 freeway. Often the street in front of our track is back up bumper to bumper in the afternoon already increasing the likelihood of incident. The lack of jurisdiction agreement in this reg ion is a problem as well, for example, I was involved in a hit and run accident just past Beach on Mc Fadden several years ago and had to wait 1 hour for the Westminster police, Huntington Beach police, and Orange County Sheriff to decide that the CHP needed to take the report. We live in Huntington Beach and should be represented by Huntington Beach. This development plan proposes three large low income housing developments that will mean the addition of several thousand people within a 0.5 mile radius of my home. This will have a enormous impact on the existing traffic flow and public safety.Not only will it increase the potential for accidents but will also slow the public officers including police and fire. The plan suggests that this housing will be utilized by employees of the newly proposed corridor. Does this mean that they will not need cars?Have you attended the Bella Terra on a weekend and witnessed the parking traffic and traffic in the vicinity of the in all? Something needs to be done to protect the rights and individuals of those that currently live in the area and not just the concerns of these prospectus residents of low income housing that is to be built. At minimum some public property in the region needs to be set aside for public use in the form of transportation. Ideally Mc Fadden needs to be widened across the bridge to four lanes and Sugar needs a stoplight. I hope we residents living in this are of Huntington Beach are a concern to the commission. Thank You Garr Nelson Expected Close Date: 06/18/2009 6/17/2009 Page 2 of 2 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. 6/17/2009 RC,A ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: PLANNING and BUILDING SUBJECT: GPA No. 08-002, ZTA No. 08-002, ZMA No. 08-002 (Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan) COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 1 , 2010 RCA-iNT •Mt'!t " STATUS - c Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Not Applicable ❑ Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Not Applicable ❑ Attached ❑ Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) Not Applicable (Signed in full by the City Attorney) . Attached ❑ Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Not Applicable (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Certificates of Insurance (Approved b the City Attorne Attached ❑ ( pp Y Y Y) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Fiscal Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Attached ❑ Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Attached Staff Report (If applicable) Not Applicable ❑ Commission Board or Committee Re ort If a licable Attached p ( pp ) Not Applicable ❑ Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable ❑ TA . . . REVI 1nlE �, RETURNED-_ F�_. RDEQU Administrative Staff ( ) ( ) Assistant City Administrator (Ini 'al) 1 ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) N o ( ) ( ) City Clerk o 1'1 ( ) EX I?LA,cNATION FOR RETURN O e o .4 RCA Author: SH: IViBB: RM CITY OF HUNTINTON BEACH Inter Office Communication "B Planning and Building Department 0 0 TO: City Council VIA: Fred A. Wilson, City Admin FROM: Scott Hess, AICP, Director 4Panning and Buil i4 dl DATE: March 1, 2010 SUBJECT: BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN — LATE COMMUNICATION City staff has had meetings and conversations with two property owners on the south side of Edinger Avenue regarding when the requirements of the Specific Plan would be triggered. This memorandum summarizes this aspect of the draft Specific Plan, suggestions from two of the property owners and staff's recommended changes. Draft Specific Plan Section 2.0.1 of the Specific Plan, pg. 9, addresses the applicability of the Specific Plan provisions. It states that new construction or additions greater than 15 percent of the building(s) floor area or exterior renovations would trigger Specific Plan policies. In contrast, the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance has a threshold of 10 percent. Thus, as proposed, the Specific Plan would allow for more renovation to existing buildings than the City's existing ordinance without triggering anything other than building compliance for the new floor area, or the area being renovated. In other words, an addition to an existing building exceeding 15 percent would need to meet the Specific Plan development standards and not be made (more) non- conforming. PropertV Owner Suggestions As of February 26th, the City had received two suggestions from property owners. Both seek to clarify when public frontage improvements, in particular, would be required, and one seeks to increase the percentage of improvements allowed before Plan compliance is required to 25 percent. Staff's Recommendation Staff has evaluated the property owners' suggestions and recommends a combination of adjusting the language to make it more clear as well as adjusting the percentage. Staff's recommendation is presented on page 2. xc: Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney Stanley Smalewitz, Economic Development Director Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Jim Engle, Community Services Director Ken Small, Police Chief Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Patrick, McIntosh, Fire Chief Rosemary Medel,Associate Planner Staff s Recommendation for Section 2.0.1 Applicability(pg. 9) Page ^�pr�Pp^^x"/.w�q�/9v;�*uVu �u��! (\ The policies contained within this section shall apply to new construction, as well as to significant additions (addition greater than 45% 2096 of the buildings floor area) or exterior nanOvoUoOs to existing structures, . ii\ VVhena significant additions are made to existing bui|dinga, requirements for renovation or enlargements shall apply only to new floor area. iii) Where exterior improvements are made b} existing ou/m/ngo, architectural and_sign L_regulations eho|| apply to that port/On of the building being renovated. No other Specific Plan requirements shall be required. iv) Improvements and additions to existing buildings that increase nonconformities are not permitted. ��� � � i) The policies contained within this oaCbon ahGU apply to new land uses proposed for existing facilities. 3) Righ - v~difflnued'o-se i\ Nothing contained in this section shall require any change in onyeuadng building or structure for which an entitlement application has been previously iaaued. Or any proposed building or structure for which a building permit application was deemed oonnp|e&a prior hothe RfhaoUve d@Ua of this ordinance. Changes in the property's ownership or tenants of existing uses ah@|| require DO ChGDg8 in any existing building or structure. Staff's Recommendation for Section 2.5.1 Improvements to existing streets (pg. 47) rovqM�nf i\ The installation of new Public Frontage |rnpnovern9nte (from the back-of-sidewalk to the face Of curb) ia required oa development occurs. ii\ In instances where installation of required public frontage improvements as part of on-site construction are found to be irnpnaCtio8/ —fOr exannp|8, in instances where the private frontage is particularly narrow or fnagrn8nted, the property Owner/Developer may request to the City that an in-lieu fee be paid for the required public frontage improvements when they can be combined with those on adjacent properties or as part of 8 city-sponsored street improvement program. If the city ognaea, a cost estimate shall be submitted to the City by the developer for nov/avv and acceptance. Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.coml Sent: Tuesday, February 23, 2010 12:09 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request#3991 from the Government Outreach System has heen assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Joseph & Christine DiSomma Description: To: Honorable Mayor Green and Council Members Hardy, Bohr, Carchio, Coerper, Dwyer and Hansen: We ask that you vote against the Beach and Edinger Corridor Project. We are strongly opposed to it. As homeowners and voters of Huntington Beach, our concerns are the following: 1. Our first and foremost concern with the Beach and Edinger Corridor Project is that it allows buildings to be five stories in height. As we walk down Serenade Lane from our house, we will see the five-story commercial buildings before us, which is an eyesore. Further, when we go into our back yard and look to the left,we will also see before us five-story commercial buildings. In summary, we did not buy our home 15 years ago to now face commercial buildings at a height of five stories. We don't want to see those buildings from our house. 2. The home we own is located near the intersection of Serenade Lane and Stonewood. Currently, the traffic at the intersection of Goldenwest and Edinger is congested enough. The project will add 4,500 units to this already impacted area. Assuming, three persons per unit, at least 13,000 additional people will exacerbate the traffic congestion as they will be driving cars. We urge you again to vote against the project. We will monitor who votes against the project and assure you we will vote for them in future Huntington Beach elections. We want to thank you in advance for your consideration in this project. Regards, Joseph and Christine DiSomma and our four adult children Expected Close Date: 02/24/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Monday, March 01, 2010 9:34 AM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4090 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: Joseph& Christine DiSomma Description: To: Honorable Mayor Green and Council Members Hardy, Bohr, Carchio, Coerper, Dwyer and Hansen: I am unable to attend the hearing tonight because of a bout with the flu. Therefore, I request that the following proposal from me be submitted and acted upon: Amend the Beach and Edinger Corridor Project plans to require that new commercial and residential construction absolutely not exceed the height of existing homes that border the construction. We, the homeowners, strongly do not want buildings that can be up to five stories in height towering over our existing homes. We definitely want them limited to the height of existing homes. We will closely watch the voting of our elected officials on this issue. Thank you. Joseph DiSomma 16252 Serenade Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 714-848-4382 Expected Close Date: 03/02/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. . 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH TOMORROW P. O. BOX 865, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 "Making a difference today for Huntington Beach tomorrow" Phone: (714) 840-4015 E-Mail: info@hbtomorrow.org Website: www.hbtomorrow.org February 23, 2010 City Council City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach ca 92648 Subject: Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Huntington Beach Tomorrow commends the city council, planning commission and city staff for their efforts which can lead to the revitalization of the Beach Blvd. and Edinger Avenue corridors . We are in accord with many of the provisions in the proposed plan including going to form based planning from conventional zoning. The planning commission actions on the specific plan have addressed our density and site plan approval process concerns to an acceptable degree. However, we urge you to take further actions which will resolve the many significant and unavoidable impacts resulting from development under this specific plan. These impacts as stated in the EIR are in the areas of traffic/transportation, fire services, housing/population and recreation/open space. We believe many mitigation measures are so costly they will never be achieved. We believe it is the city' s moral and legal responsibility to inform every property owner whose property needs to be acquired for mitigation purposes of this fact. As it stands now many of these property owners are unaware that the city needs to acquire their property and if aware, are unwilling to do SO. We also believe it is the city' s duty to advise all citizens now that development under this specific plan means they will experience significant traffic delays at many city intersections every day of their lives as they travel to work or shop. You would be doing the current and future citizens a disservice if you approved a statement of over riding considerations on this specific plan without taking actions to resolve these significant and unavoidable impacts. No action could result in legal actions or an initiative drive to over turn approval of this specific plan. Karen Jackle l President '�'� ` Copies : City Clerk, HB Independent, HB Wave C / ; Residents of Dutch Haven Tract Homes Southwest Comer Edinger and Goldenwest Huntington Beach, CA 92647 2010 FEB 26 AN 9: 5;3 February 23,2010 ijj Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2d Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: GENERAL PLAN ADMENDMENT NO. 08-0021ZONING MAP ADMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO 08-002 (BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN) While we presently have no intention to challenge the City Council's action in court we would like to keep that option open on the following issue: Changing the zoning code on the property located on the southwest corner of Edinger and Goldenwest to allow condominiums and/or high-density apartments. Apartments or condos embedded in an established residential area of single family homes present many problems already well known to the City Council and Planning Commission. After one of the very early meetings regarding the Specific Plan we met with the presenter of the plan and discussed the issue of condos being built on this property. He indicated that the plan would call for"high end"condos and that special codes would apply to ensure that they had very little negative effect on any of the existing home owners. Since that time it seems that planners have given up on the condo plan and are now discussing high-density apartments. Many of us that own homes along Marjan Lane and Nyanza were seriously effected by the City Councils decision to allow a Home Depot to move into that same subject area. Building apartments in this area would be encroaching not only on our privacy but would effect traffic and schools to name a few. Please be sure that serious consideration is given to any code change that could effect the lives of long time Huntington Beach residents, Thank you, Vern H. Hart 16112 Marjan Lane A Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (71.4)847-0165 Esparza, Patty From: Surf City Pipeline [noreply@user.govoutreach.com] Sent: Friday, February 26, 2010 2:17 PM To: CITY COUNCIL; agendaalerts@surfcity-hb.org Subject: Surf City Pipeline: Comment on an Agenda Item (notification) Request# 4063 from the Government Outreach System has been assigned to Johanna Stephenson. Request type: Comment Request area: City Council - Comment on an Agenda Item Citizen name: John Erskin Description: Please see attached letter. Expected Close Date: 03/01/2010 Click here to access the request Note: This message is for notification purposes only. Please do not reply to this email. Email replies are not monitored and will be ignored. ATTORNEYS AT LAW Vk NOSSAMANLLP 18101 Von Karman Avenue Suite 1800 Irvine,CA 92612 T 949.833.7800 F 949.833,7878 VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND DELIVERY John P.Erskine D 949.477.7633 jerskine@nossaman.com Refer To File#:300175-0001 February 26, 2010 Mayor Cathy Green and Councilmembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 41h Floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Watt-Edinger Plaza Renovation; Request for Council Revision of Book 11 Development Code Section 2.01 - Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan Dear Mayor Green and Councilmembers: On behalf of the Watt Companies and the Huntington Beach No. 1 partnership ("Watt"), we want to thank the individual Councilmembers and City staff for taking the time to meet with us and hear Watt's proposal for renovation of Edinger Plaza and our request for revision of the Book II Development Code Section 2.01 ("Section 2.01") of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan ("Specific Plan"). This letter confirms our requested revision of Section 2.01 and provides specific substitute language for same. As we have described, Watt hopes to proceed with a major renovation of this successful retail center across from the vacant Montgomery Ward property, and will soon have the opportunity to do so given various current and/or anticipated vacancies at the Center. The optimal reuse scenario would consist of a major architectural and site renovation, which may entail a minor net increase of the Center's 151,000 square feet of gross leasable area ("GLA") by 15,000-25,000 GLA. Watt's specific concerns about application of Specific Plan standards and policies to the proposed Edinger Plaza renovation include: 1. Application of the requirement of a 50 foot Edinger Avenue setback and imposition of the Section 3.1.1 Streetscape Improvements (installation or in-lieu fee payments)will reduce site parking and retail/restaurant configuration options; 2. The "Classic Boulevard" improvements detailed in Section 2.5 (page 48 of the Specific Plan), particularly the Access Lane Separator, Access Lane and angled parking required as a part of the "Public Frontage"will adversely impact Edinger Plaza's proposed renovation. The "Classic Boulevard," which can only be partially implemented on the south side of Edinger and minimal portions of the north side of Edinger will, in our opinion, create significant traffic conflicts and 297412_1.DOC nossaman.com Mayor Cathy Green and Councilmembers February 26,2010 Page 2 stacking issues that foreseeably may make ingress and egress at Edinger Plaza a very difficult proposition; 3. Existing retail centers in the Specific Plan area, particularly in the Edinger Corridor, should be permitted to accomplish renovation and/or minor expansion that will upgrade existing tenant mix and expand the City's sales tax base, without additional costly Specific Plan requirements. In the case of Edinger Plaza, the "Classic Boulevard" improvements will, as mentioned above, limit location of key new retail and restaurant operators that may prefer to locate closer to Edinger (e.g., King's Fish House). Watt would like to retain the flexibility to comply with current Zoning Code requirements, including maintaining the current 25-foot Edinger Avenue setback, while complying with architectural, landscaping and pedestrian zone improvements, including the twelve (12) foot sidewalk, iconic street lighting, benches and other amenities required by the Specific Plan. Requested Revised Book II Development Code Section 2.01 "Applicability" Wording We would, therefore, request that the City Council revise Book 11 Development Code Section 2.01 "applicability" provisions to clarify that: (1) Only new construction or additions resulting in an increase of net gross leasable area for an existing retail center of an established percentage will require compliance with the Specific Plan Development Standards, other than architectural guidelines and landscaping; and (2) That an increase in gross leasable area over 25% be established as the threshold for triggering compliance with the Specific Plan's requirements. The restated Book II Development Code language we would specifically request is as follows: "2.01 Applicability The policies contained within this chapter shall apply as follows: 1) New Construction Additions and Exterior Renovations (i) The policies contained within this section shall apply only.to new construction—a-s-> -a� o, i �anr andW.additions�aek greaterthan-15%-of the t '.�-f:.exC ed,25%._cif atr axis in ..r #ail_cerfr s rrss 1easbJe flaps areas new CQnstruction„arrdlor additio t f exceed_? l cif sin le fi eestandrng buildira.that is not part of are existing retail center or . �t`arinrrne-:norms{innc fr nviciinJ sf r�r.enf,,,�r�� c-Ga-rcfr—rrr�m.rrr..r-rcr,->c. sr Exterior renovations are.also.exempt fr m.fhe...policies coniained in this,Specjfic Flan, except#t'ose pgrfainiaq.to architectural or landsca,oe reuulations. 297412_1.DOC Mayor Cathy Green and Councilmembers February 26,2010 Page 3 (ii) Where new constrlrction or s /sat additions tl�t ezr the 2 %_threshold are made#a existiagildirs-retemextt�fig reno�t exq-Ue— olicies—rT.�—c6 shall apply r�to the new floor area. (N) Where exterior improvements are made to existing buildings, architectural regulations shall apply to that portion of the building being renovated. (iv) Improvements and additions to existing buildings that increase nonconformities are not permitted." We thank you for your consideration of our request. Representatives of the Watt partnership and I will be at the March 1, 2010 City Council hearing to provide additional background on the rationale and facts in support of our requested revision. Please do not hesitate to contact us if there are questions regarding this matter. a ine n LLP JPE/rst Enclosure cc: Fred Wilson, City Administrator Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning Mary Beth Broeren, Principal Planner Susan Rorison,Watt Communities Scott Huffman,Watt Communities 297412_1.DOC Carole Cherchian 19427 Santa Alberta Circle 20101 R 2 PH 12* 5 1 Fountain Valley, CA. 92708 Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St,, 2'd Floor Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 2/27/2010 Re- Beach and Edinger Corridors plan. Dear Joan, I have no real objection of your plans to change the zoning and increase the population density for any of your projects. One big real problem I see is; a. the lack of adequate parking at each of the building locations b. the major increase in traffic on Beach Blvd. These are extremely important issues that need resolution and improvement, before you allow any more building or upgrades for these projects. Unless you address these issues first, --traveling on Beach Blvd will be a nightmare day and night, as if it isn't bad enough already. You need lane turn outs at all bus stops and all tight turns at each block to allow traffic to flow more quickly and smoothly in each of the other thru lanes. These problems currently continue to impede the smooth flow of traffic on Beach in many spots, all the time!! We won't even talk about summer traffic, which is even worse. I would like to see a traffic flow, iMprovement plan --first, before there is any further development on Beach Blvd. Sincerely, Caro e Cherchian d �y Itl! S McFadden/Sugar Safe Exit E March 1 , 2010 RECEIVED ERGS AS PUBLIC REGARD R o IL ETIQdG OF CITY E ICE City Council Members FL :CI7`rCLERK City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648 Dear Council Members, As one of the representatives of the one hundred fifty-three homeowners organized as McFadden/Sugar Safe Exit we want you to know that we are very concerned about certain proposals of the new Specific Plan. #1 Dwelling Units We were happy to know that the Planning Commission recommended lowering the number of dwelling units from 6,400 to 4,500. However, we would like to see the number of dwelling units lowered even more because we know that we do not have the necessary roads to accommodate the thousands of cars that these units will add to our already congested roadways. Also, these units will put a strain on all our utilities such as water, sewage, etc., and our fire department and police department. #2 Affordable Housing It is our understanding that this type of housing is to be built on the corner of McFadden and Gothard. This will greatly increase traffic on both of these streets making it even more dangerous to exit our tract. We do like the idea of a Trolley Station being built on this lot which is the recommendation of the Planning Commission. The existing railroad tracks could be utilized and it would flow more with the already functioning OCTA station just next door. Being able to take a trolley to the beach would also cut down on the heavy traffic downtown, especially in the warm months of the year. After all, making the beach more accessible is what a beach town should try to do. There are many parts of the Specific Plan that we do like. We're looking forward to having the empty businesses at Bella Terra and the other empty commercial businesses along Edinger rebuilt and thriving. We love the idea of a more planned community with more foliage and trees as the communities in south Orange County have. What we are asking is that you consider those of us who already live in Huntington Beach and how the decisions you make will impact our lives. Also, ask yourself, do you want our city to be known as a relaxing beach town that tourist can enjoy or do you want us to be known as a busy metropolis with high-rise buildings and bumper-to-bumper traffic. Thank you for your consideration. Yours Truly, Edith Gonzales NOTICE OP PUBLICHEA CITY Nt7E THE OF JAUNTI Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of I "NOTICEi§44iii that on circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Si- - , -1-1- I 7 uq�Mpin:--, HuntingtonStreet Beach the City Llzoning Court of Orange County, State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 199 ,, ; 997 A50479. AMENDMENT NO 'MI)EDINGER'CORRIDOWSP -1 -;EL&VV,Ap- W Wcaht-, City j, Huntington Beach 2au9at To(,"iisft easterlyportloh,cri Ed1n§ei,Ave-'ViI"mixed-useandres designat ed ka4to permit such uses"as well as tb oomimre to allow cemmercialtrsee The Reque§ttrictudes th ,',if proposed Gerii-it"Planti4dti" natiphs5ftniiiiii" PROOF OF -,,a following 'o ,Ddili-Po_ area - re, C -Cminerdal'N61 'Cb a[current, mrnerciaLRO41oral,�, o Neighborhood mme ifted'Us M Ned Vertical Mimed lies Honmmal and Residanbal Medium Density M spy Ji",I; _._ , _,, design-oviiria -T6 &,666`"f '0Ian,wouWnb,1bn§ar t tan PUBLICATION and dis and OOW- m ,,Woffect,fur the area,'a the auto ov6dayap 6046,froa!inj flaacii'AjoW P110able to 0_ Edinger would be removed firm the L and,Use p and,Mop,ivoulcl -Mito"n s- S0 14 amend the tfuMington-Beach Zoning: 'Orditiahc�6.tod�,establish,t,fiiE(e Ed n STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) and d6vei6iinienfilandah:6 PqOrcipose-, ir e drafted to allow for& �b )tweAlln is!;( 6ms_:�350 all Rooms y th" of ''[I'�-e,-Planning bar ,d ng,I units Gvould be reduced to 4,W6'ZP14 proposes "bulid!n tiek "q*c", ,'end,up to ) SS. height g _jht limits - 10 stones 'adj4dent.tp�!4,05!�'Curie' h W ' — ".y _45,II-to-,,140,ft,,thought�qiq I,m",gap"llyr the-typical existing lmitig 50 00 fiord yard setbackschanges to COUNTY OF ORANGE ,,tl-e,looa!lon blf,niiW�--p"4'Nfig";tots,- .pa -'re-ulromo, an iQ*, �d A6',66hfigdratI6r`and,' massing of buildings',ZM&To a'mend-11 4 lohlherpb,changing the existing zomngdesignations P u� ifaa"SP-i4 would supersede-,-eac"CPm a SpeciftFPI;ir�j S ,,4c!qcaCbm and'oommeicial:06!#6h,6f,§"Pddgp,_ecfflc:-P1an:SP-j.:Whlo�' Idib in effect:1 p,The, I shorop attactiied,am the Citizen of the United States and a prole area P., resident of the County aforesaid; I am over NOTICES HEIREBY-GiVEk t64ii Edipg�n- -fic Processed underEnvInifinnsintall I'm ort paq�tep eras the aBti ge of eighteen years, and not a party No.:08408,certified on_psoe-b!! .6c6rd6nc;elw th ih'6,L;allfomia I:qvIronmqntaI, -- to or interested in the below entitled matter, I am aCl principal clerk of the HUNTINGTO ON FILE A copy of the 16 the Planning and Elpitidig BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper o S k1pritingtqw, , eneral circulation, p p jrisp"n,byine report rinted and g ublished ir will'be available to,interested,'parfi"'of _y� the City of Huntington Beach, County o Cie cn'Thdrsday,,F,6 -6, an ALLIWEREStED ER86N�br�lhvltad d" said 'he Oran e, State of California, and th( " I - ; 9 prmg,a-d express- -c attached Notice is a true and complete cop� ...... above. If you chalfpNe,,,,"-qlty-"ricil'siaLtom, as was printed and published on the in,cou _Isi 14ng:o 7,-A Pas issues you or someone else public:,' e'ta!"' 'at thp-PpW:�, following date(s): correspondence delivered to:the C, I I City at P 7* , o4 thepublichearing tftflereareangNuthargpp"ons=. please call the Planning and pMtq1nq,D"r"qtsi WiandhsiWiiothe Direct {714) your writien corrimunicafionatp'MO City qlaiff.- Joan L.-Plyrm CityCterk :-Ciii,of fiwiungitcm Beady 2000 Ma1n Street 2nd Floor February 11 , 2010 Huntington Beach 9 7 77 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 11, 2010 at Costa Mesa, California s. M7e Signatuw,-" 211� ',BEEQRE _Q E CITY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACK' Huntington Beach Independent has been adjudged a newspaper of gene HEREBY GIVEN on-M, circulation in Huntington Beach and Orange County by Decree of the Supet 6 _rs,�2 tis in'-, Street?Huntington Beach the City Coundt.vwll how,-- h fic. !ps:, Court of Orange County,State of California,under date of Aug. 24, 1994,c-. A50479. C eras AND EDIMMAXIMMM Beach`Huntington — _ ' , W , W."!md the fror veto�Iot!pWecse and residential Pea of the city that,iai6;n bt prewousty ed "'allow commercial tisei.,` it such,uii",'as, aii!Qooq1Jnt�etq_ The,Rqi Request psuqas'�' ...... General Plan LandAJse,DdsignaU6iis'i6iWffi6�i, 0 PR1'OOF OF proposed'! a"_ Commercial al.-- aide]Neighborhood Mffiffibrblal" �t -,,r'Commercial-_. ,General - ;. a F J!"4R9"144uifill)fielly V4,- -Q_pd{M ixed e a c design overlay) The ngd ii o a be"., gd,_,�,,,a Plan 10 General 0 PUBLICATION „.'in'16 r 6,a d 9, and a auto tingi each -ee north to_ouI0vqrJ;"m We Edinger inilial.linatiiiiM - ��Subarea ligg rWoU ep;L,,Thq District and 'arid Mapwould be amended to reflect the provistans of SP`.14 �,To amend the n4n InZoning inance to 6 ;pectfic S F N � ndd�-elopfiirt stihdard"s"4br the',aha. got PTP-e,.Floor A- Area Sp 44aTATE O CALIFORIA ) �raedtoiffowforoev06pmentofuptb,6;400Dkallnj UnItsJ3t;400 Rooms and,112,000.s4?ft:of 0fflq',`e"Sp_a'c'e,-.,As,6_60inniiindie'd tv the number of dwelling _its.would,,",Wucodi:o,,4;500:-SP,i4',' buld"' proposes'] I Ing',heig S.S. _.,110 stories Opp property adjacani.6`f405?:C the V tifi,q firrittIs 50'ft.�The-0io-osed standaNs also calf for.reduced from:yard setbacks changesao e' p COS OF ORA NGE on of now parfdng,lo!;,, qbic�pa parking new; related 4606n-anc,U n asagof , To iirnendl'tfie,plty�i Zoning Map re _ - . . . ' the d 6si`g"fi;�,1hereib y_ In theeidstrlzonng a6w'iafions rthe'SpbdfqFIanae4�SF_14wo supeisidetheP"i CommunityPlan 'and rconiinerdal pG'bon',af§ei3brtdgespeelflc*PtanSP,-3,which.v�o4, worigar effect. I am the Citizen of the United States and a niPict areais'�hown,on the ached map.,Prol resident of the County aforesaid; I am over NOTICE IS HEREBY MEN t Itsm,#1--wai sedundeirErrvironniiiintbi .proces ImpactKepon. party No.66-bm certified on December n�',, the age of eighteen years, and not a with the Calffornia"Enviro. to or interested in the below entitled matter. nmental. I am a principal clerk of the HUNTINGTON ON FILE,Acopy oftheproposedrequestisonfile ,:Inth�,Pl�nning�ndgDeoartrnent,2000,Ma!n: BEACH INDEPENDENT, a newspaper of Street Huntington-.Beach;'California"92648Jor_:x :%.Jndpe_ on by,the-pt general circulation, printed and published in 16116 A0D�py Of tfifistaff�fi)port' wilt lie available to Interested,parties at the City 9' F the City of Huntington Beach, County of _:�rk'i:qTO on Th4rsday,*e6niiry'26; Orange, State of California ALL INTERESTEDPI , and the 'EksONS are irivited to attend, said,hearing and express.opinions,qr submit, attached Notice is a true and complete copy *&16nce for or age n -iiie-applicatimas outlined above I Council's'actlow R you challenge the QW as was printed and published on the e' else raiiid-at tha*64c, mues,you;or-someoni following date(s): V`this-'notice ge,,,or in wn correspondence delivered to the City at,or P�Xtl.�_ V 'the public hearifig:�4fjhsresra any furth4questl6hs, -please call the Plan6i'n'gand'-B-Ldidin"g Depar tment p (714)536-5271 and refer to the ibo%4 iterns.,Direct ,your"an communtoalliqnsto th, e City.Clerk Joan L.F ynn,City Clerk" City of Huntington Beach 2WO Main Sb��2rd FI oor Z February 11, 2010 Hiinfington Beich;daiihirnia 92648. (7 3 7, 4 I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February 11 , 2010 at Costa Mesa, California Signature-"' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING y?a_6c's14 2_11r BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 1, 2010, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning items: ❑ 1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002/ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 (BEACH AND EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN) Applicant: City of Huntington Beach. Request: To establish a new Specific Plan (SP 14) along a majority of Beach Blvd. and the easterly portion of Edinger Ave. to allow mixed-use and residential development in areas of the city that were not previously designated to permit such uses, as well as to continue to allow commercial uses. The Request includes the following entitlements: GPA: To amend the proposed area's General Plan Land Use Designations from the current Commercial Regional, Commercial Neighborhood, Commercial General, Commercial Office, Mixed Use, Mixed Use Vertical, Mixed Use Horizontal and Residential Medium Density to M-sp-d (Mixed Use — specific plan-design overlay). The existing Floor Area Ratios and density limitations of the General Plan would no longer be in effect for the area, and the auto overlay applicable to property fronting Beach Boulevard from Warner north to Edinger would be removed from the Land Use Map. The General Plan Community District and Subarea Schedule and Map would be amended to reflect the provisions of SP 14. ZTA: To amend the Huntington Beach Zoning Ordinance to establish the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan No. 14. SP 14 sets forth permitted uses and development standards for the area. It does not propose Floor Area Ratios or density factors. SP 14 was drafted to allow for development of up to 6,400 Dwelling Units, 738,400 sq. ft. of Retail Space, 350 Hotel Rooms, and 112,000 sq. ft. of Office Space. As recommended by the Planning Commission, the number of dwelling units would be reduced to 4,500. SP 14 proposes building height limits of two to six stories overall and up to 10 stories on one property adjacent to 1-405. Current height limits generally range from 45 ft. to 140 ft., though the typical existing limit is 50 ft. The proposed standards also call for reduced front yard setbacks, changes to the location of new parking lots, reduced parking requirements and new standards related to configuration and massing of buildings. ZMA: To amend the City's Zoning Map to reflect the SP-14 designation, thereby changing the existing zoning designations for the Specific Plan area. SP 14 would supersede the Pacifica Community Plan, and commercial portion of Seabridge Specific Plan SP- 3, which would no longer be in effect. Location: The project area is shown on the attached map. Proiect Planner: Rosemary Medel NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 was processed under Environmental Impact Report No. 08-008, certified on December 8, 2009 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, February 26, 2010. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 IBM T TO 0 It NMI • I'M 11 IIIYli 4A • . • T CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: ' �� DEP T11�N'T: . f`P� MEETING DATE: CONTACT: I�'~DC PHONE:_ S� N/A YES NO Is the notice attached? Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? .Are the date,'day and time of the public bearing correct? ( ( ) ( ) If an appeal,is the appellant's name included in the notice? { ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? i Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? t Is a map attached for publication? - ( ) ( ( ) Is a larger ad required? Size 1 ( ) ( ) ( Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the availing labels? ( ) ( ) Are the appellanes name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mauling labels? If Coastal Development Permit,are the resident labels attached? ( ( ) ( •) Is the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept.items only) Pleas complete the following: 1. Miaim=days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published 1 3. Number of days between publications 21 i CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Inter-Department Communication Planning Department TO: Distribution FROM: Rosemary Medel, Associate PlannervN� DATE: November 12, 2009 SUBJECT: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE BEACH EDINGER CORRIDORS SPECIFIC PLAN The Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Beach Edinger Corridors Specific Plan has been completed and is attached for your information. The 45-day comment period on the Draft EIR concluded on October 12, 2009. A total of 13 comment letters were received. The Final EIR includes the comment letters, responses to the comments and text changes to the Draft EIR. The Draft EIR is incorporated by reference into the Final EIR and was previously distributed in August 2009. The Final EIR has been distributed to the City Council, Planning Commission, and Administration and Economic Development staff under separate cover. The Planning Commission public hearing to certify the EIR is tentatively scheduled for December 8, 2009. If you have any questions please contact Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner, at 374-1684. MBB:RM xc: Jennifer McGrath, City Attorney (memo only) Joan-L—Flynn,-City memo_only)l Bob Hall,Deputy City Administrator(memo only) Ken Small, Police Chief Duane Olson, Fire Chief Bill Reardon, Deputy Fire Marshall Jim Engle, Community Services Director Dave Dominguez, Facilities, Development & Concessions Manager Travis Hopkins, Public Works Director Tony Olmos, City Engineer Bob Stachelski, Transportation Manager Terri Elliot, Principal Engineer Steve Bogart, Acting Principal Civil Engineer Bob Milani, Senior Civil Engineer Scott Hess, Planning Director (memo only) FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—ZONING MAP AMENDMENT NO. 08-002 AND ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 08-002: 1. Zoning Map Amendment No. 08-002 amends the existing zoning designations within the 459 acre project area from Commercial Regional (CR), Commercial General (CG), Commercial Neighborhood (CN), Commercial Office (CO), General Industrial (IG), Residential Low Density (RL), Residential Medium Density (RM), Residential Medium High Density (RMH), Pacific Community Specific Plan (SP 2), the commercial portions of Seabridge Specific Plan (SP 3) to Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14). The proposed Specific Plan is consistent with the goals and policies of the Land Use Element of the General Plan by combining the majority of permitted uses for the Commercial and Mixed Use categories as permitted uses within the Specific Plan. The Specific Plan will assist to revitalize business opportunities and strengthen the employee base of the City by allowing for and encouraging mixed-use development. The Specific Plan also identifies design/architectural standards, consistent with the intent of the goals and polices of the Community District and Subarea Schedule pertinent to the adoption of the Specific Plan and consistent with the Urban Design Element. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP 14) is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. The form based code development standards of the Specific Plan ensure that new construction will comply with the intent of the Specific Plan to achieve connectivity, increase the amount of public open space, introduce residential development into the City's two major commercial corridors and by allowing uses that support consumer needs and reflect market demand of City residents and visitors. 2. In the case of general land use provisions, the Zoning Map and Zoning Text Amendments are consistent with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which they are proposed. The proposed land uses identified in the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan SP No. 14 allow for continued commercial development in conjunction with mixed-use development consistent with the General Plan as well as the proposed General Plan Amendment No. 08-002. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The proposed Specific Plan provides the standards and design guidelines necessary to develop a high quality of diverse land uses complementing and enhancing surrounding land uses. The continued expansion of the commercial base and incorporation of mixed use development provides the opportunity for the development of homes and jobs close to one another thereby reducing daily vehicle trips. The Specific Plan area has not flourished with the existing regulations. The Specific Plan is intended to stimulate investment in the area, while minimizing impacts to established neighborhoods, to maximize the benefit of new development to the community. The Specific Plan will enhance the potential for superior urban design by the use of Form Based Code criteria in comparison with the current commercial development standards of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Specific Plan will ensure a consistency in development standards, a high quality of architectural design, and landscape design requirements to achieve the desired compatibility with surrounding developments. 4. Its adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice because the community workshops held for this project have revealed that the citizens and landowners recognize that without a clear vision the revitalization of the two corridors may not be achieved. The Specific Plan provides standards for future development that will transform the character of the project area in a beneficial way consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan. The Plan development standards work together to provide development that is compatible with and sensitive to the surrounding area and to development with in the Specific Plan itself. The proposed standards pertaining to height, setback and parking are not significantly different than existing code or what has been approved in the area in the recent past. The standards of the Specific Plan as they relate to building form and use allow for denser projects to be built that are attractive and enhance pedestrian activity, which minimizes impacts. PC Staff Report— 1/12/10 2 1Osr07 GPA,ZTA,ZMA 08-002(Beach Edinger SP)