Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Public Hearing Noticed to be Scheduled at this Meeting to Co
Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: El Approved Ll Conditionally Approved Denied ar7C' ler s Si ture Council Meeting Date: February 22, 2005 Depad nenYID Number- PL05-03 C= CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION r7-1 C711 SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COU CIL MEMBERS dULBR TH-GRAFT, City Adiministra SUBMITTED BY: PENELOPI7/1 ULBRETI C-j PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-02 AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 (BEACH BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachments) Statement of Issue: This application represents a request by the City of Huntington Beach to amend the General Plan land use designation to match th e current zoning designation for three existing residential areas along Beach Boulevard as follows: Area A — Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General — Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50 — Auto District Overlay — Design Overlay) to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density -- Maximum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) or RM-15 (Residential Medium Density Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) to match the current zoning designation for properties along portions of Stark Ave., Holt Ave,, MacDonald Ave., Glencoe Ave., and Alhambra Ave., west of Beach Blvd. .. . . ......... .. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-03 7!.!7 A- .............................. ................... LEI_� -4- Fill Min 15,71 _.J ................... IBM 64�L I"Iff m. .... ............. ff 1 J MIN IM I d 10Ir M V, 0W. VIM FJ El 7_� wys H,I.All. !qA 0, C) ............................. 2 1 MLl ........... '7 �,3;-r Area B —Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General — Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50 —Auto District Overlay — Design Overlay) to RM-1 5 (Residential Medium Density— Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) to match the current zoning designation for properties south of Terry Drive, east of Viewpoint Lane, and along Moonshadow Circle. LJ 'EiRRL YM ................... . .......................... ....................... T11 D1. ------------- .......... Ewa I r —ML j EE] ENE f 6 1'. Map. .............. Damask Dr i ....................... ................... q ................ NIP! iii-2 zq YN 'Ell .................................. Werner Ave. .......... i®rl Hill lop!, �y.ni ,0_ Syce-0m:A". ig Z' PL05-03 GPA 04-02 -2- 2/712005 11:10 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PLOS-03 Area C —Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General — Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50 —Auto District Overlay— Design Overlay) to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density-- Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) to match the current zoning designation for properties along portions of A Street and B Street, south of Warner Ave. and north of Blaylock Drive. -.,IL ME! .... ............_.,. warn..1 INS- 100 Al E _ 1 r �»s� d r. sr ytock or Cypress Ave ._ R. ' � Lag- ED The request also includes Negative Declaration No. 04-02 which analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the General Plan Amendment and concludes that it will not have a significant effect on the environment. Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending approval (Recommended Action) because it will make the General Plan and zoning designations consistent and allow the property owners to proceed with improvements to their property. Funding Source: Not applicable. Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION AND STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 04-02 with findings (ATTACHMENT NO. 2);" 2. "Approve General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 by adopting Resolution No. )S)(Y7` \0 (ATTACHMENT NO. 3)." PL05-03 GPA 04-02 ,3- 2I712005 11.10 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PLOS-03 Planning Commission Action on November 9, 2004: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-02 WITH FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: THOMAS, SCANDURA, RAY, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD, STILTON NOES: DAVIS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO APPROVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: THOMAS, SCANDURA, RAY, DINGWALL, LIVENGOOD, STILTON NOES: DAVIS ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 04-02 and General Plan Amendment No. 04-02." - 2. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 04-02 and General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Location: Three areas along the Beach Boulevard corridor as stated in the Statement of Issue Negative Declaration No. 04-02 represents a request to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The study concludes that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. PL05-03 GPA 04-02 -4- 2/7/2005 11:10 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-03 General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 represents a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for three areas along the Beach Boulevard corridor from commercial to residential to match the current zoning designation. Additional information and individual General Plan and zoning maps for each area are provided in Attachment No. 1 . The General Plan also includes a Community District and Subarea schedule which describes the intended functional role of different areas of the city. The subject areas are located within Subarea 6B (Beach Warner Area) (Attachment No. 6). If the residential General Plan land use designation is approved then the subject areas will also be removed from Subarea 6B accordingly. B. BACKGROUND California State law requires that each City prepare and adopt a comprehensive long term General Plan for its future development. The plan must contain seven required elements, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. In addition, State law permits cities to include optional elements in their General Plans, thereby providing cities with the flexibility to address the specific needs and unique character of their jurisdiction. State law also requires that each city's daily decisions follow logically from and be consistent with the General Plan policies and goals. The General Plan includes a Land Use Map that delineates land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial and open space. In the early 1990s the City initiated a comprehensive update of its General Plan. The new General Plan was adopted by the City Council on May 13, 1996 and created a vision for development within the City for the next 20 years. Part of the update included modifications to the Land Use Element and Map by changing the land use designation for numerous properties to fulfill various goals and policies. As a result of the General Plan land use amendments numerous properties had zoning designations that were not consistent with the General Plan designations. Under City Council direction, the City over the past few years has processed several Zoning Map Amendments to bring the zoning designation of those properties affected by the General Plan update into conformance with the General Plan. During the General Plan update, the original concept for Beach Boulevard was to encourage nodes of dense commercial development at major intersections and allow some high density residential development to occur in selected areas along Beach Boulevard. The intent was to break up the continuous strip commercial development and help create distinctive, identifiable commercial nodes. To create this effect, staff and the General Plan Advisory Committee recommended a designation of Mixed Use Vertical (1.5 Floor-Area-Ratio; 25 dwelling units per acre of residential) for Areas A, B, and C. This would allow commercial uses to continue while permitting (but not requiring) residential development to take place. However, in order for mixed use to occur the City would have to adopt a mixed use zoning ordinance to implement this General Plan land use designation. PL05-03 GPA 04-02 -5- 217/2005 11:10 AM z REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PLOS-03 The Planning Commission made the same recommendation but with a reduced residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The ultimate decision from the City Council was to redesignate the subject sections of Beach Boulevard to CG (Commercial General) instead of the recommendation for Mixed Use Vertical. The intent was to provide an opportunity for expansion of the retail base and commercial property tax base, local job creation, attraction/retention of targeted businesses, and provide an Auto District Overlay for possible relocation of auto dealers to form a future auto district along Beach Boulevard between Edinger and Warner Avenue. Based on City Council direction, city staff processed Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03 in 2000 to amend the zoning from residential to commercial for Areas A, B, and C to be consistent with the new General Plan. However, due to opposition and concern from property owners the Planning Commission and City Council denied the rezoning to commercial. The Planning Commission and City Council felt that the subject areas were established residential neighborhoods that they wanted to preserve and directed staff to amend the General Plan land use designation back to residential to be consistent with the existing zoning. At present, the owners of the subject properties cannot construct any new structures, additions, or exterior modifications until the General Plan and zoning designations are consistent with each other. If the General Plan Amendment is approved, property owners may propose new construction subject to compliance with the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and any other city codes applicable to their property. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AND RECOMMENDATION: At the November 9, 2004 Planning Commission hearing one person spoke in favor of the request. There were no speakers in opposition. In response to a question, staff indicated that in the eight years since the adoption of the General Plan in 1996 no developers have approached the City regarding redeveloping the subject residential properties into commercial development with the exception of a car dealer which has acquired an abutting residential lot. A discussion ensued as to what would happen if the subject properties were to continue to have a commercial General Plan designation. Staff replied that it would inhibit exterior modifications and expansions to the residential structures. In response to a question, staff indicated that several property owners have plans to upgrade their residential properties but are not able to until the General Plan is changed back to residential. The Planning Commission approved Negative Declaration No. 04-02 and General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 consistent with the direction given to staff by the City Council in 2000 to redesignate the subject properties back to residential. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The primary issues with this request pertain to land use compatibility and loss of commercial land. The subject areas have been designated for residential use in the General Plan dating PL05-03 GPA 04-02 -6- 2/7/2005 11:10 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PLOS-03 back to 1976, and in the zoning ordinance as far back as the 1960s and 1970s. Specifically: 1962 — Current residential zoning established for Area A 1976 — Residential General Plan designation established for all three areas 1977 —Current residential zoning established for Area C 1978 -- Current residential zoning established for Area B 1996 — City Council amended the General Plan designation for all three areas from residential to commercial. 2000 — Staff processed Zoning Map Amendment for all three areas from residential to commercial to match General Plan adopted in 1996. Planning Commission and City Council denied the Zoning Map Amendment and directed staff to process General Plan Amendment from commercial back to residential. Approval of the request to restore the residential General Plan land use designation will continue to be compatible with the area, which consists primarily of commercial uses along the Beach Boulevard frontage with residential uses behind it. It is consistent with the existing zoning and the uses established on the subject properties and will allow property owners to once again proceed with proposed improvements to their property. A drawback to approving the request is a reduction in the amount of potentially available commercial land in the city. Providing for adequate commercial land is important to allow the city's economic base to grow and to provide employment opportunities to maintain a good jobs-to-housing balance. The General Plan currently designates the segment of Beach Boulevard from approximately Edinger Avenue to Warner Avenue as a potential district for auto dealers. Approval of the residential General Plan land use designation may make it more difficult to bring an auto sales district and other commercial uses to fruition. The properties that front on Beach Boulevard will continue to be designated commercial; however, one of the original intents of the General Plan update was to create deeper parcels for commercial areas along Beach Boulevard rather than the shallow lots that exist now. The proposed amendment would eliminate this opportunity at this time. Presently there is a greater interest in restoring the residential General Plan land use designation. In the eight years that the subject areas have had a commercial General Plan designation no development proposals have been brought forward other than a car dealer (former Hyundai Dealer and currently Drive Time Car Sales) purchasing an adjacent residential lot in order to expand. While the subject properties are developed with mostly older structures, they are generally still in good condition and are not expected to recycle in the near future. If auto dealers and other developers desire to expand commercial use on the subject properties in the future General Plan and Zoning Map amendments can be pursued at that time. That would make it possible to once again pursue the establishment of an auto mall and any additional commercial development in the future without severely restricting the current residential uses. Based on these points, and consistent with City Council and Planning Commission direction, staff is recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment. PL05-03 GPA 04-02 -7- 2/7/2005 11:10 AM REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE; February 22, 2005 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL05-03 E. SUMMARY Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 04-02 and General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 based upon the following: ■ It will make the General Plan and zoning designations consistent. ■ The residential General Plan land use designation is an accurate reflection of the existing uses on the subject properties and will continue to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. ■ It is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan which pertain to preservation of existing residential neighborhoods, providing a range of housing units, and retaining and expanding the supply of sound housing at prices affordable to all segments of the community. ■ The proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. Environmental Status: Staff prepared the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed General Plan amendment. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 04-02 (Attachment No. 8) was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 04-02 for twenty (20) days commencing on October 7, 2004 and ending on October 27, 2004. No comments, either verbal or written, were received. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, it is necessary for the City Council to review and act on the Negative Declaration. Both the Planning Commission and staff are recommending that the Negative Declaration be approved with findings. Attachments : City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1 Site Specific Information and Vicinity Maps 2 Suggested Findings for Approval of Negative Declaration No. 04-02 3 Resolution Adopting General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 4 Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 9, 2004 5 Planning Commission minutes dated November 9, 2004 6 Community District and Subarea Schedule and Legislative Draft of General Plan Subarea Map 7 Memo from the Economic Development Department dated May 28, 2004 8 Negative Declaration No. 04-02 9 PowerPoint Presentation Slides RCA Author: R. Ramos/M. Broeren PL.OS-03 GPA 04-02 -8- 217/2005 2:17 PM RRg _E6e�C»E,'.,.t[tllid i>m h C «IAtippx4 iF g M»".T£im:."�c:a.c:='...c::»..IC9�.ag C 9C 9xnc6YF'.`9®WCLSGs e"'�'E[PiGE�•n�69 ti° ^R tiYPi•�F�8t4x:»S:e'v�:ct�Gx:�Fa%3 a�8?� �t . .G:1:£:�.."`a""=aSGc>:;SFiF c>>rnraas6eccec.«t3F7[ Cii+:.x�.:•s4c Fs[ ��«SCeYyyEree..,�Anc:'G:.YSca m g,mwre,e» M. YC" C: ����F,;.... «ak ;marts:.«m`�.n9-ca;eAamFs�e:izi^a9g9'r 5.�.��ss .."., � u.a 4aExG::G a. c -a. �<.u6re..:s' _. ,mmcF�ie's6 as�:m. ;��a�s�grz£:,�IE; v£�5��:€e nR��^�cMc�'ii=?'•a^..�,^x0.is�s;�aa�rve�,.ps�vc� .•n...,F^C«,«V.»^:t3ixF%a.....,.. ^ 3 YeDi a .... '� 3.9CR «, ;^n€sa....r...rEr..«.>.,., Fc7G: r4 F [ �::Szste .��°rs zs xa°' gym; scam ^x9rR -.ecacax sra,'' Fe•fir..«w 9zagea •«;,> &�S"=e Er "ari?6 m rasa `a.;$., a�"n� cnF �cr3{ irF :L'��.�'.�'` act". ..Ea: rEi=:a::m a:a,•crrr w as.Efts' aa:.:a ERi � ' _ a:3;9mraa. .s: we sre:S4<ecg .k;.«.:i:=.a�ar«a.,^n�Estca. . 'caYstvem.; >Er;.»r.Ez;cu ame`s'"n«.«. . .m.as.ke;�r 'mnssrzE °s�3�>i . .�xcxe.- < £�€aF.. �L�:7^:9z aera'Z; €�.e;,d wE ��z-a-s �£ � ;��s»»:».E'�.P€•-.t3rr.^...€SE:faib�. ��«S:S9Galla3 9''�'�:�4: £Cx ��.:3>.a9CEY9Y9" 6cs[s� iaaCa .• ��:aci iY� _ «-: E98K' - '�'gix8h[ "€!Ca{a>.:�E:xst9. 4:"GF[t ba^4�^ras»�a�a���m sa.x;E...aos €'a&acCe ;"y^S:««.�°o�°y f•'F:m:x➢'3a.«.«�.E-..,..... s«,«.«.:.iY[f;Y9'YFp:e."` d.^.x=Fs^°i.:F'SY658 GY:.`..`m'.. •^sus� -n C..."s....ra�ak,¢ar.:...,P__._. escr. f gc{rgc;.-..;�.xsas?an3arc eaxr�aia�g��`nxc"r m�zsk�dY a a£E+sF �"a �.'s.p••°r dasae s9Yar��E ` F° c xee s eai5 ATTACHMENT NO. 1 AREA A LOCATION: Various properties along portions of Stark, Holt, MacDonald, Glencoe and Alhambra Ave., west of Beach Blvd. REQUEST: Amend the General Plan land use designation for the subject properties from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay—Design Overlay)to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density—Maximum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) or RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: LOCATION ; GENERAL PLAN ZONING, LANDUSE- Subject Property CG-F2-a-d RM(Residential Medium Multi-Family and Single (Commercial General— Density),RMH Family Residential Max FAR of 0.5— (Residential Medium Auto District Overlay High Density) —Design Overlay) North of Subject Property CG-F2-a-d RMH,CG(Commercial Multi-Family Residential, (across Stark) General) Commercial East of Subject Property CG-F2-a-d CG Commercial South of Subject Property RL-7 (Residential Low RL(Residential Low Single Family Residential across Heil) Density) Density) West of Subject Property RMH-25 (Residential RMH,PS (Public- Residential, School Medium High Semipublic),RM Density), P(RL) (Public),RM-15 (Residential Medium Density) E Attachment No. 1.1 3 Area A — Vicinity Map Edinger.:Ave. �_; Ala;-� _� � � � ❑ <----��,�_..�... - _ gyA q."?as�� ,¢��E B an, x I _... a-,,,Ba°bBpB e'dryBB ..�...".., x : rB r aa°cB" r°$ h�° 9° — I_.,..,.. g ' - t n .°"erBzris?:eYtta'H�eP1Nr'I °¢ �€[f r..„°.° •• s�¢ AldrWSI. » e .. . .... EMEa° LIME ( ». r_ g;� ":s.:grx=�.- a» °�'; - °v°.F-• »B 'k �,�a.»; a� .?� StBCk St 110-1 OEM A. L�J nu . La Paz.11 m —.-..-..-.. IJ, -- "' Holt Ave, ................. 713 00 £3 0' Mac Donald.Ave. q Subject Site m m qx Q � ® V E Glencoe Ave QkRQ City of Westminster .�,. Alhambra Ave Hell.Ava. r Attachment No. 1.2 Area A — Existing General Plan Mai) Edinger-Ave. CR-F2-dsm Aldrich,S1. RMH-25 CG-F2-a-d J RMH-25 St. ll -d Os-P CG-FI La Paz ............ Hall Ave. CG-F2-a-d Mae Donald Ave, Subject Site CG- C3 Glencoe Ave. ME NUU,U 2-a-d Alhambra Ave. CG-F2-a-d J� HeR Ave. �FTIM F.....T Attachment No. 1.3 Area A— Proposed General Plan Map Edinger.,Ave. Z4t 4 4 a CG-F 1 CR F2-d s$n e Aldrich.SL CG-F 1 RMH-25 l CGIF2-a d ILI 14 RMH-25 Stark..St. �I i OS-P RMH_25 C G—F 1 La Paz Holt Ave. p eeep R�M1'H--25 -a-d Macdonald Ave. •c SubjCd ect Sjte U ;•'xis;; ,. "_.".._. Glencoe Ave. � e ItM—I5 Alhambra Ave. IT", P IBM Y��E�e�::���h°w y.'.'.L3...� es^.t.:Zx.x.>d.3eab�A.:^:;". �eft 3 M�;B ,:m RM-15 Hell.Ave. i nM Attachment No. 1.4 Area A — Existing Zoning Map arr>�cwm zzrmccc�:,a3-saQass.�,arssa*a:a¢a�a�®ea�cu�.`:.',�sys..,.....,._� `tmc✓sucW:».. ^'= ..�=�-��-:.: -- .°.�s"_ mea axztt?�:scs EdingeKAve_ 3 � �`°gartp »dttp�#fir bra z P�7 a � rr c > Aldrich,St INN c;n C J m m 'O Stark.St. n aa �v am • e"'cn m Pa2. Wok Ave. p.t > a « � Donald Ave. _m Subject SiteOOM - IMP ME R IBM Ave. '"„��LMP2 y E I gip€PH Alhambra'Ave. Fiell.Ave. akS. ax°as e .:z'«`9;>,.,�eEee rases s`9a'C'_" �%; ;«. h7 * ' s»c 7u ,,° .. ea�aa¢s?znsu•. r vra «s.�a' �9ia" a�'8°z ,. ' °saza �saraera-- - r "r.«,. .. .' ^,a�dcs csruuetsu:r. „:.s vn a-z,x.�,,.°.., e�ea eases sav n a�ae,e Attachment No. 1.5 AREA B LOCATION: Various properties along the south side of Terry Drive, east side of Viewpoint Lane, and along Moonshadow Circle. REQUEST: Amend the General Plan land use designation for the subject properties from CG-F2-a-d(Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay—Design Overlay)to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS- LOCATION GENERAL PLAN. ZONING LAND',USE., Subject Property CG-F2-a-d(Commercial RM(Residential Multi-family Residential General--•Max FAR of 0.5 Medium Density) —Auto District Overlay— Design Overlay) North of Subject CG-F2-a-d CG(Commercial Auto Dealer Property(across Terry General) Drive East of Subject CG-F2-a-d CG Commercial Property South of Subject CG-F2-a-d CG Commercial Property West of Subject RMH-25 (Residential RMH(Residential Multi-family Residential Property(across View Medium High Density) Medium High Point Lane) Density) i i Attachment No. 1.6 Area B—Vicinity May " jgig r ra ::erg.,. a g:•, „ ; n;a...... .................... TEery..Ar: r - m ElS F-! ' I'M 9-2-Of BOOM] yy- P 33 r yam{ c Subject Site - :w �. _-..... �T a bamask Dr. - ._-_ Rn 63166a ... MI X `"•, T-7 _ ' 1 x€ LP�li ^• m _ E:Y.^ � '. �� � W � :°�=•.-[s4�-gym. -... 8, _� �� �.... : ._.....m �, ;ram ' ,w ..,��.ter.. ae � � -s � •� %.m. Warner Ave. -�.............. ..x.,,.ys.....¢:.-••_;-; sae@ERNE dr '��» �: .n<� - ❑ ?""' i Il ss:e: _m`y....-_x. �t�' s ;?�:%yi•.z;,e «:';'�.»pe s;aa ;;:m �?i '�"._._„ "' _ HIS Syeamore Ave .. - Sea ....._. ..-._re:. J - Attachment No. 1.7 3 _ _ Area B—Existiny- General Plan Map ?^;g?'' m ,. kk�� ^,F.g3 S T fi CG-F2-a-d ' ' CG-F2-a-d NN s 3 m rrQ Terry_.Dr. ii'6�wmm e:: Pww"�ev Subject Sitebj RMII-25 o�tshadow.Cir. Su J ry CG-F2-a-d CG-F2-a-d m -lowDamask Dr. Robidoux r- �e U -d C -F2-a-d -F2-a G CG a� m � Warner Ave. I 5111 CG-F1 Firz Dr. CG-F3-d CG-F2-a-d R-15 m 3 Sycamore Ave. Attachment No. 1.8 5 Area B — Proposed General Plan Map �� �� ���� 5�e�� �.�,: CnF CG-F2-a-d CG-F2-a-d m m �a Terry..Dr. INE RM-15 M��: RMH-25 onsn�d°, .cir. Subject Site n pw CG-F2-a-d µ CG-F2-a-d gamask qr. m m x obirdoux Dr. RMH-25 RM-15 a � CG-F2-a Id CG-F2-a-d c� � m a� I m py1 Warner Ave. Mlill III�'I� II Fir Dr. CG-F3-d CG-F2-a-d a-� t!€€ RM-15 BABE i Sycamore Ave. Attachment No. 1.9 __ _ _ ... . ... ........ . Area B — Existing Zoning Map EE r Terry.,Dr. F Subject Site E ns Cir a m, s mm Damask Dr: r Robidoux or. � m m m m m Warner Ave. Fir Dr, Sycamore Ave. v Attachment No. 1.10 AREA C LOCATION: Various properties along portions of A Street and B Street, south of Warner Ave and north of Blaylock Drive. REQUEST: Amend the General Plan land use designation for the subject properties from CG-F2-a-d(Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay—Design Overlay)to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation. SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS• LOCATION :GENERAL PLAN ZONING LAND USE Subject Property CG-F2-a-d(Commercial RM(Residential Medium Multi-Family and Single General—Max FAR of 0.5 Density) Family Residential, FAR—Auto District Church Overlay—Design Overlay) North of Subject CG-F2-a-d CG(Commercial General) Commercial Property West of Subject CG-F2-a-d CG Commercial Property(across alley) East of Subject RM-15 (Residential RM,RL(Residential Low Multi-Family and Single Property(across B Medium Density),RL-7 Density) Family Residential Street Residential Low Density) South of Subject CG-F1-d(Commercial CG,RL Commercial, Single Property(across General—Max FAR of Family Residential Blaylock Drive) 0.35 —Design Overlay), RL-7 The properties on the west side of A Street were not a part of the General Plan update adopted in 1996. The present inconsistency between the General Plan and zoning designations for these properties was already in existence prior to the General Plan update. However, the subject properties have been included in this application as well to remedy the inconsistency. Attachment No. 1.11 Area C —Vicinity Map �:m= damask Dr.. �_..._ ix i�' `g E e � .... _ © ke Dr. i2nbidux�f� T ».._. _ m :. ., I g � mm.. ERR .. %3 Subject Site - " �. Warner Ave. E >, w Hg� F � 4 El r >x ' m e Ave xM _ wr i r �- Mill eVI 0 on A-1 Egg _ w _ ✓ t Cypress Ave . w � � . E... L,il _ .... � � �: .v..... E _�..�.SaS q.»gym , � ....� .. a r e1'I ars ToQ g ®B 9 -a—m E`si??°a. °ab•�,a ,.xa :.N' i� �ag"`"x€..=5 9 .a ;«.� FF Ng ^68 .T Attachment No. 1.12 Area C—Existing General Plan Map INE ,;,..�� Imo`:"i Damask Dr. :; ���« = Y�mW .+ Robldaux r. f7� 1 RM-15 MV-F10-d-a ¢ at CG-F2-a-d CG-F2-a-d Subject Site : Wamer Ave. r - CG-F3-d Major Clr. _ r k sou .Y CG-F2-a-d RM-I5 e Ave. a 3 � s In Y....� e:Y:6�GCazYm`='� .� 3C..xS^w... �p `a' W a lock Dr. RL-7 >„ �.ia �9 L Cypress Ave. e PF Marseille Dr. CG-Fl 0 PEN RLV1-15 @ -CG-F 1 ry n:Y G dad Y pp � F 46 y bad nq ; LY gric OR T� RL 7 R.�m .:... __._. .-__ Q x ;-..�-...�,n ...savor•..� , Attachment No. 1.13 Area C— Proposed General Plan Map Damask Dr. x Rnbidoux r• 1. r RM-15 MV-F10-d-a CO CG-F2-a-d CG-F2-a-d Subject Site f.. Warner Ave. CG-173-d Major Cir. m RM-15� � RM-15 U e Ave. a m � w Blaylock Dr. RL'7 m ry � s.�, ,� '• a�a Cypress Ave. ON x v w r Marseille Dr. CG-F 1 gg s m ta: nom Km CG-F 1 :.- ;i=za• _.a ��r na, '� � me _��a-�� i-?,� r'.¢ �°n�c �.� � m P RL-7 45:6 .sa sYx.Y; �"°s''sM•s�qi�s Pr - v. nr- - ar. °, i Attachment No. 1.14 Area C—Existing Zoning May Lag Damask Dr. r Rbbrdoux or. a a � � f . d ' Subject Site " µG9 Warner Ave. :m �m m m ��m Major cit. .. - E-u m m Blaylock Dr. re Cypress Ave. usn." egam.._ nne-"°� n E-. n ea Marseille. Dr. ri � ��'� R se* rsa�r`4�� »a: H "r. .yes° cos seas .",a' "scs". " nisi: is. °�' "�- sseacua>:u� •` �qa 3 m �caaa - ,„n srea.�czf xu+ec.^a�a � :�nuats�'�e _°_—�,""%�niea��a5"'"��d + �� �• E� �a � s a " � � <••. " - -e4.ii8�esz€s'mxra u.�-�d%:e�r"ya° i Attachment No. 1.15 MZ —mcciw H;l III uIll -4-. RD%! HUI- FM OF nr, I , - 0� NN",I 22 IYIF�",Pl , I I I.. ATTACHMENT NO. 2 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-02 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-02: 1. Negative Declaration No. 04-02 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. There were no comments received during the comment period. 2. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City Council that the project will have a significant effect on the environment because the request consists only of an amendment to the land use designation of three existing residential areas along the Beach Boulevard corridor. The proposed designations of RMH-25 and RM-15 are compatible with and are an extension of the character of the area. The subject properties are currently developed and located in a fully urbanized area. No new construction or any other physical changes are proposed with this request. 3 "M Q°� g oK 'pi N . R i5"m, O R, 17, F!E .......... RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 REGARDING THE REDESIGNATION OF CERTAIN REAL PROP �FRTY WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 proposes to amend the Land se Element of the City's General Plan to incorporate a redesignation of the following property: Area A From CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General-Maximum Floor-Area do of 0.50-Auto District Overlay-Design Overlay) to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High D sity-Maximum 25 DweIling Units Per Net Acre) and RM-15 (Residential Medium Density-M imum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) to match the current zoning designation for properti located along portions of Stark Avenue, Holt Avenue, MacDonald Avenue, Glencoe Aven and Alhambra Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard; and. Area B From CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General-Maximu Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50-Auto District Overlay-Design Overlay) to RM-15 (Residential Mediu Density-Maximum 15 DwelIing Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designatio or properties located along the south side of Terry Drive, east side of Viewpoint Lane, and along oonshadow Circle; and Area C From CG-F2-a-d(Commercial General- Iaximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50-Auto District Overlay-Design Overlay)to RM-15 (Resident�A Medium Density-Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation for properties located along portions of A Street and B Street, south of Warner Aven .`and north of Blaylock Drive; and The amendment also includes removin he subject areas from Subarea 6B of the Community District and Subarea Schedule of the General . an; and Pursuant to California Government Code,the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach, after notice duly given, held a pu c hearing to consider General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 and recommended approval of said entitlement to the City Council;and Pursuant to California Gov ment Code,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach,after notice duly given, held a public h ring to consider General Plan Amendment No. 04-02; and The City Council finds hat said General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 is necessary for the changing needs and orderly developm t of the community, and is necessary to accomplish refinement of the General Plan and is consist nt with other elements of the General Plan, NOW, THEREF RE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach as follows: SECTION$1: That the real properties that are the subject of this Resolution (hereinafter referred to as the "Subject P operties") are generally located as follows: Area along portions of Stark Avenue, Holt Avenue,MacDonald Avenue, Glencoe Avenue, and Al mbra Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard; Area B along the south side of Terry Drive, east side o Viewpoint Lane, and along Moonshadow Circle; and Area C along portions of A Street and B treet, south of Warner Avenue and north of Blaylock Drive, and as more particularly described in 04reso/GPA 04-02/11/23/04 1 the legal description and sketch attached hereto as Exhibits A and B respectively and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein.. SECTION 2: That General Plan Designation for the Subject Properties is hereby than dd as follows: Area A From CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General-Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio District Overlay-Design Overlay) to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density-11Yz/0.50-Auto imum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) and RM-15 (Residential Medium Density-Maximum' 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre); and Area B From CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General-Maximum Floor- ea-Ratio of 0.50-Auto District Overlay-Design Overlay)to RM-15 (Residential Medium Densi -Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre); and Area C From CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General-Maximu Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50-Auto District Overlay-Design Overlay) to RM-15 (Residential Medi Density-Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre). SECTION 3. That the amendment also included removing the Subject Properties from Subarea 6B of the Community District and Subarea Schedule of the General Plan. SECTION 4. That General Plan Amend i cent No. 04-02,which amends the General Plan Designation for the Subject Properties as stated herein, is hereby approved, and the Land Use Plan in the Land Use Element of the General Plan is hereby amended to implement General Plan Amendment no. 04- 02. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the d of , 200 9 1 4' Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: f� Ali PROVED AS TO FORM: -A rnn i City Ad4nistrator F' i Attorney IN ED AND APPRO ED: Di ctor of Planning EXHIBITS A. r` Legal Description of Subject Property B.',,` Property Sketch. 04reso/GPA 04-02111123/04 2 __ Exhibit A Legal Description for GPA No. 04-02-Area A APN 142-083-5 through 10, 12 through 20, 26, 27 LOTS 86 THROUGH 105 OF TRACT 417, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16, PAGE 47, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. s. APN 142-091-1, 4 through 6, 25, 26, 28 through 31, 34 through.47 s LOTS 124 THROUGH 139 OF TRACT 417, IN THE CITY/OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON�X MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16, PAGE 47 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE/COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED F,OR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. APN 142-092-1 through 4, 6 through 8, 13, 14 LOTS 149 THROUGH 157 OF TRACT 417, INz THECITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS �HOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 16, PAGE 47 MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS PREVIOUSLX"A" ICATED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. APN 142-101-6 through 11 LOTS 6 THROUGH 9 OF BLOCKF TRACT 522, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE'OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK _ 19, PAGE 49, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. APN 142-102-11, 12, 14 hough 16, 26, 27, 42, 43,45, 46, 50 through 55 LOTS 6 THROUGH 1p-EXCLUDING THE EAST 40 FEET OF LOT 10,AND LOTS 26 THROUGH 29 OF BLOCK"B" 9F TRACT 522, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE/OF CALIFORNIA,AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 49, MISCELLANEO /S MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTI NS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. APN 142-103-12, 18 through 20, 23 through 26, 28 through 30 LOTS 6 ROUGH 10 BLOCK"C" OF TRACT 522, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUN Y OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 19, PAGE 49, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. 1 _; r . .. 1; 7 J ; BEACH :� ^. - . BOULEVARD ":4' i � I I I' I [ nl T 1 f I I I i I sn• I r I' f I I I ! € I i I au i I I I € ! I I I I I € I € r FI41 !'`°I- 119 I I I € j] I I ! I i I n I ( �' I �8 2+ I a k I ! I fir) I ! Z 1 ° ! ! I 1 I ! I I I I I, I I I € � ,4•" x�lI y° I€ e° II�� "I •€ I . I zv I x° yy' z}' JS ! ��! 1 II I • II 4J441IL 5I 6•IIzI I4 ]�a�ato 34 3fi€ =°I xo j I 49€ „ ' n• 14y ., 17 O F.M. 26-44 ' O 2O L � !4 J3- 50 69. as 105 - - sr 5 O 15 J2 S! as O 87 roa foal er I,•ti I � � .�28 19 N" 8 1 .. a,. -, - ----_..._�--. r5 Lil - --. �52 si 1•• � 60 ns•' 88 10 51, -----„-, 171Jo------_ _ SJf>` o°• 89 f42 .. ---- — --- ----= �• .18 129- �s� sv' 9a 65 _1L... ' 9 r ry lfi— xaa r9. Za 9e•: 55 64 91 too too• e� lt>I - ` leo� .2027 ------� 'xv• ' w5J —_� 16 — -- ---•--9299 a ' g � � 12 � 14 a•Q a°' �! -----_---j21 6 eon tss 57 62 mr 'k Isrs 9J 88 ss• 2 '.. se e: .va ��;.. _28 - 1 i1 5 -' P.M.- 204-44 ; ,¢,. � " � s.NO. 417: ————— ---- 22 25•�? __ - �. FAR. 1 �'FkR. 2 58 6r 15 __..a �'— 27 „---- �6-84 �/ ZJ 24 r"� �1 _— yy, .� 8 — 59 6'O— __^_— eu• PAP.. 1 '. PAR. 2 99 96 �`a rd' °u• uo- 1v 34+. +a 'M1�9 3r ° ae ao. ' rya a. m M 90 - 41 a1 12 a0, a PARKSIDE p LAND' o rRACT NO. 417 M.M.16--47 �1 M Nora - ASSESSORS 6Lacx BOCK 142's MAP ARCH 1962 PARCEL MAP P.M. 90-4€;f04••-44 PARCEL NUMBERS BACK 2 =AGF 08 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF 7RANGE 51SY? Be M., Mod AWVV�' IZ CT TRACT e, N 29 oi 2 99 apa. ji, �a 130 139 -J� aaw ..76 A PA R.3 -7. rag 1149 120 �J 3- A VENME MACDONALD, -Rm SF' 94 143 '7 Rill, A. 154, 1051 154 $1 is 15 NOTE ASSESSOR'S ASSESSOR is, Bi�ck a MARCH 1962 TRACT NO. 417 'M M. 16�47 FARC44 A(IVM,6rERS -rl?ACr NO 6234 M M: 296-42,43.' .#00/(14zm ce PARCEL MAP P.M. 121-32 coujor' e-or SHOWN CIR04 ES 139 ORANGE " Olk ............. r., THIS MAP lfAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE COUNTY ASSE55OR DEPT. PURPOSES ONLY. THE ASSES50R MAKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO 142-10 -' ITS ACCURACY NOR A55UAlES ANY LIABILITY FOR OTHER USES. NOT TO BE REPRODUCED. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. m COPrRIGHr ORANGE C UNTY ASSESSOR 2000 jt<TF LOW OM ! '� J 14 { 5 T 9 9 to nr TRAG7' P 0-27 { l P.AL 264•-2 1. I u_g . PAR 1 P � I $PAR f FAR 2 O� PA15B P.A6 260•-26 f2 a— '_ N1 15 i7 4J 1 O 13 OAT 1B y V O I I (7 {14 � er � too• � els+ ea sa sr mao• e7aa ns >��. I ss P VLEACC i AVEME f .aaa en .o mao yrao S73e as 8.• StaaE02 e73a ar sP m•RAL P•M. 202-20 P.IC 1 -*�254-21 PAR 1 PAR 2 A-All, PAR 2a (D @ t:l `i' 0 (D �! �J Q 10 1 ¢ g5 14 15 1 53f!h ! BLK. B '� _r 1 !4 — 49^ Aa ,m• + t . t l 2 J f 4 r 5 B 8 1 9 { f0 ,� g T$ r- CV 21 22 2s 24 125 26 27`ti, 29 ^— co 1 P.AL 8fI-30 P.AL 40-49 P„W P. 116-10 y t1 N I PA f PAIL 2 PAfL f PAIL 2 PAR 2 r PAL 4J-IB IL 1T O 39 38 41 40 36 35 34 33 3�2 + 31 46 ' 45 g 43 42 1 50 7 26 49 rg 47—_a �T1 R h + t! l ro sue• sY .7 9s• ee' SY Si3C L .o• � o f M' ALHAMM A VEME M., 37ae' l73a 57r& 57Aa IV . a S 574r mw %73a ,p• f or 1.57 /0 � 7.3 YP () 44 BM. R. • —__— �j} � P�f PAR 2 - n ���' �� � (� (� �7 - PAR. AR. P I.UT 10 r° v+ ° O+ 11 L'! t J V 19 1 0 Q , 2 0 28 n �—�7 —_ w. IC 22 21 >y ^ le'. 1 a '' S ' s7 + t k 4 03 297 0 r� J� 2 , y � q�A a• f � 3 r � 7. s7as R E u• � L/` IEL A WNW - TRACT NO..::SR" M.1 m. _19.=49 ; f PARCEL MAP „ 44-43+ 48=48. 88=30 r MgI, 162._ PARCEL MAP h ±_P.M.; f1D�;27.yIlb fD. ;156 44 :.t: _ 4 , NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLLIC!( 8 ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL kMAF' ` r;P.ik. `2C12�2L?r 2�4 25. 29TD3: +; PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 142 PAGE 70 SNowy IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE Exhibit A Legal Description for GPA No. 04-02—Area B ' APN 142-481-1 through 10 ALL OF TRACT 10179, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, ,COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RE l''ORDED IN BOOK 434, PAGES 26 AND 27, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, REC6RDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. i s 3 f� 1' i r POR. S.E.114, A114, SEC. 23, T 5S., R III W. f 1 42- 4 8 46 -- 19 rERRY DRIVE rRacr a 3 a 60 m N sz.�4' yo' g'1•� PAR. 2 al MOONSHADOW CIRCLE 12 N v aP ez.9v' �F raw" 1.289 AC. ra "d. Y �F 8 mi N N v A CQ 3� NO. IQ uano'. 8 co' T 6x• 8 caae i7r' io) su' 2 P N. 38-15 Z I PAR. Z a O u— ABANU.————— STREET v q H DAMASK DRIVE * 0. C. f C D. (UCEANV1EW CHANNEL) !9 r MARCH 1979 TRACT N0, lo179 M.M. 434-26,27 NOTE ASSESSOR S 810CY• & ASSESSCIR'S MAP PARCEL MAP P.M, 83-8, 118-16 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 142 PAGE 48 CD SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE Exhibit A , i Legal Description for GPA No. 04-02—Area C APN 167-321-2 through 21 LOTS 25 THROUGH 44 OF TRACT 360 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, 7 COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN'ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 15, PAGE 24, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES APN 167-324-4 through 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 �I. 2.. LOTS 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 OF TRACT 298, IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGE 24, MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY. EXCEPTING THEREFROM THOSE PORTIONS Y PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED FOR HIGHWAY PURPOSES. a +IIS W)PAS PREPARED FOR ORANGE PDR. W 112• NW 114. NW 1/4. SEC. 25, 1 5 5. R 1! W ODUrY ASSESSOR OEPF, PURPOSES ORLY• HE ASSESSOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO 167- rS OR AMIR OTHER USES. NOT MO HAREPY L IODUCRILEOr LL RIGHTS RESERVED. iCOPYRIGHT ORANGE COUNTY ASSESSOR 2001 " 33 m $ '+ - V • � \� r.. ea l06• teo' A:' 1.7 IOu' . .e•r• TRACT �' c r g s + r _ STREET 0 do es as as tu ' r Acr. tetx 322 Q 323(Dg u. m .td 69 55 tow to- V J/ ``r .. g�. b 5 p S� V� 5 . 8 F E 10 E 11 g g 58 57 38 as 1 �:: .2Z ' L�J A 'oo, � �:J � ev'" °" _ ' �•1.:•.::': tla �63 �,�oa' �o�• r L^r / 45 •39 1 � am• mm•- � loop W I- nB. _ -�e •' .48./5 z /0 Jg 36 J/ s2 se • 28�. , ORANADA • LANE. - .-• "s• ,1R ' C} ° 23 22 21 20 f B 18 18 6 10 14 ='- 13 12 9 o '► , ''' V. 360 =\\1A s 13 72 11 10 " 'i.� 77. '.t0 !f" O a A e s § STREET r air 2 s / 3 b 7 @ •, 9. ' • � . � n "�Soo73• too• ' ts .o• ,jr • 1 , Zar7 �• 19 S: -. a �FRA 1 r 23 21 t f8 13 LT 9 7 5 qt a^^ ud *�22i90� 1t5 � 1f5r 1� 11? i10. 18 16 •1 lzeda .e• ¢" ► 1 tl1e i n i 1 ► NO 12981= na a rae• �d. - LBEACH „J MUM TWO TDN HEACR HLVO.J 2- 29 A -165 — 36, 16S - 2,8 HARM 1974 TRACT Na 296 Alit 14 24 - NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK & AS'SESSOR'S,MAP' TRACT NO."36.0 MM fS--;24 PARCEL NUMBERS B1?OK 161 .P.A GE'.:3? n9Acr No. 39 MA 140-42,43 SHOWN IN CIRCLE'S COUNTY OF ORANGE ::'.- ------ HIM HV IME =M.�'NO�ff py 55EMH M ,ammg�- = 775 � 5, R v g . �J City ofHuntington Beach Planning Department STAFF REPORT HllNTINGTON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner. DATE: November 9, 2004 SUBJECT: NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-02/GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 (BEACH BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach PROPERTY OWNER: Various LOCATION: Three areas along the Beach Blvd. corridor of the City of Huntington Beach STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Negative Declaration No. 04-02 request: To determine that the proposed General Plan Amendment will not have a significant effect on the environment. • General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 request: To redesignate three areas along the Beach Boulevard corridor from CG-F2-a-d(Commercial General —Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay—Design Overlay)to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density—Maximum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) or RM-15 (Residential Medium Density--Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) consistent with the current zoning designation. ♦ Staff s Recommendation: Approve Negative Declaration No. 04-02 with findings and General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 by resolution and forward the recommendation to the City Council based upon the following: - It will make the General Plan and zoning designations consistent. - The residential General Plan land use designation is an accurate reflection of the existing uses on the subject properties and will continue to be compatible with the character of the surrounding area. - It is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan which pertain to preservation of existing residential neighborhoods, providing a range of housing units, and retaining and expanding the supply of sound housing at prices affordable to all segments of the community. - The proposed General Plan Amendment will not result in significant adverse environmental impacts. 1 RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 04-02 with findings (Attachment No. 1);" B. "Recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 by adopting Resolution No. 1578 (Attachment No. 2) and forward to the City Council for adoption." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Negative Declaration No. 04-02 with findings and recommend denial of General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 and forward to the City Council." B. "Continue Negative Declaration No. 04-02 and General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 and direct staff accordingly." PROJECT PROPOSAL: Negative Declaration No. 04-02 prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed General Plan Amendment. The study concludes that the project will not result in significant environmental impacts. General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 represents a request to amend the General Plan Land Use Map for three areas along the Beach Boulevard corridor as follows: Area A—Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay—Design Overlay)to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density—Maximum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) or RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation for properties along portions of Stark Ave., Holt Ave., MacDonald Ave., Glencoe Ave., and Alhambra Ave., west of Beach Blvd. Area B—Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay—Design Overlay)to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density--Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation for properties along the south side of Terry Drive, east side of Viewpoint Lane, and along Moonshadow Circle. Area C —Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay—Design Overlay)to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) to match the current zoning designation for properties along portions of A Street and B Street, south of Warner Ave. and north of Blaylock Drive. Approval of the request would also remove the subject properties from Subarea 6B of the Community District and Subarea Schedule which describes the intended functional role of each of the city principal PC Staff Report—1119/2004 -2- (04SR28) subareas (Attachment No. 6). Additional information and individual vicinity maps for each area are provided in Attachment No. 4. BACKGROUND: California State law requires that each City prepare and adopt a comprehensive long term General Plan for its fixture development. The plan must contain seven required elements, including land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise and safety. In addition, State law permits cities to include optional elements in their General Plans, thereby providing cities with the flexibility to address the specific needs and unique character of their jurisdiction. State law also requires that each city's daily decisions follow logically from and be consistent with the General Plan policies and goals. The General Plan includes a Land Use Map that delineates land uses such as residential, commercial, industrial and open space. In the early 1990s the City initiated a comprehensive update of its General Plan. The new General Plan was adopted by the City Council on May 13, 1996 and created a vision for development within the City for the next 20 years. Part of the update included modifications to the Land Use Element and Map by changing the land use designation for numerous properties to fulfill various goals and policies. As a result of the General Plan land use amendments numerous properties had zoning designations that were not consistent with the General Plan designations. Under City Council direction, the City over the past few years has processed several Zoning Map Amendments to bring the zoning designation of those properties affected by the General Plan update into conformance with the General Plan. During the General Plan update, the original concept for Beach Boulevard was to encourage nodes of dense commercial development at major intersections and allow some high density residential development to occur in selected nodes along Beach Boulevard. The intent was to break up the continuous strip commercial development and help create distinctive, identifiable commercial nodes. To create this effect, staff and the General Plan Advisory Committee recommended a designation of Mixed Use Vertical (1.5 Floor-Area-Ratio; 25 dwelling units per acre of residential) for Areas A, B, and C. This would allow commercial uses to continue while permitting (but not requiring) residential development to take place. The Planning Commission made the same recommendation but with a reduced residential density of 15 dwelling units per acre. The ultimate decision from.the City Council was to redesignate the subject sections of Beach Boulevard to CG (Commercial General) instead of the recommendation for Mixed Use Vertical. The intent was to provide an opportunity for expansion of the retail base and commercial property tax base, local job creation, attraction/retention of targeted businesses, and provide an Auto District Overlay for possible relocation of auto dealers to form a future auto district along Beach Boulevard between Edinger and Warner Avenue. Based on City Council direction, city staff processed Zoning Map Amendment No. 00-03 in 2000 to amend the zoning from residential to commercial for Areas A, B, and C to be consistent with the new General Plan. However, due to opposition and concern from property owners the Planning Commission and City Council denied the rezoning to commercial and directed staff to amend the General Plan land use designation back to residential to be consistent with the existing zoning. PC Staff Report—11/9/2004 -3- (04SR28) At present, the owners of the subject properties cannot construct any new structures, additions, or exterior modifications until the General Plan and zoning designations are consistent with each other. if the General Plan.Amendment is approved, property owners may propose new construction subject to compliance with the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and any other city codes applicable to their property. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the following General Plan goals,policies, and objectives: Land Use Element 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. LU 9.1 -Provide for the development of single-and multi-family residential neighborhoods. LU 9.2 -Provide for the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods. Restoring the residential General Plan land use designation for the subject properties will help preserve the existing residential uses and reduce the likelihood of the area transitioning into a different use. Preservation of the area will help maintain the housing stock to meet the needs of residents. Housing Element HE 1.1 —Retain and expand the supply of sound housing at prices affordable to all segments of the community through conservation of the currently sound housing stock, and rehabilitation of deteriorated units. HE 2.1.5 —Locate residential uses in proximity to commercial and industrial areas and transportation routes to provide convenient access to shopping and employment centers. HE 3.1.10—Promote the availability of sufficient rental housing to afford maximum choice of housing types for all economic segments of the community. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will help retain the existing dwelling units in the area which contribute to the variety of housing choices for residents. The existing residential uses will continue to be located close to commercial services and employment centers. PC Staff Report—11/9/2004 -4- (04SR28) 3 The proposed General Plan Amendment will not promote the following General Plan goals, policies, and objectives: Economic Development Element ED 1.1 - Enhance the City's market potential in terms of retail, office, industrial, and visitor serving activity. This would allow Huntington Beach to provide for retail, office, and industrial opportunities that serve the current and projected population and enhance sales and occupancy tax revenue. ED 3.1 - Maximize the economic viability of commercial and industrial use through the creation of specialized districts and nodes. ED 11.5 - Consider the development of an"auto mall" district, especially along Beach Boulevard. Approval of the General Plan Amendment will reduce the amount of potential commercial land in the city which may limit the future growth of the city's economic base, employment opportunities, and the possibility of establishing an auto mall. Zoning Compliance: Approval of the General Plan Amendment will allow the General Plan land use and zoning designations for the subject areas to be consistent. Urban Design Guidelines Conformance: Not applicable. Environmental Status: Staff prepared the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed General Plan amendment. Subsequently,Negative Declaration No. 04-02 (Attachment No. 3)was prepared pursuant to Section 240.04 of the HBZSO and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Planning Department advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 04-02 for twenty(20) days commencing on October 7, 2004 and ending on October 27, 2004. No comments, either verbal or written, were received. Prior to any action on General Plan Amendment No. 04-02, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on the Negative Declaration. Staff, in its initial study of the project,is recommending that the Negative Declaration be approved with findings. Environmental Board Comments - The Environmental Board reviewed the Negative Declaration at their October 13, 2004 meeting and did not have any comments. Coastal Status: Not applicable. Redevelopment Status: None of the three subject areas are within a redevelopment area. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. PC Staff Report— 11/9/2004 -5- (04SR28) .. ...................................................... ... . Other Departments Concerns: The Economic Development Department recommends against the General Plan amendment because it is contrary to the Economic Development Element's goals, policies, and objectives (see Attachment No. S). They indicate that removal of these properties from the pool of potentially available commercial land may limit the future growth of the City's economic base,particularly in the area of automotive sales. The Departments of Public Works, Fire, and Community Services did not have any comments regarding the request. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on October 28, 2004. Notices were sent to property owners of record (and tenants) of the parcels which are the subject of this General Plan Amendment as well as parcels within a 300-foot radius of the subject properties, individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), and interested parties. As of November 4, 2004, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): Not applicable Not applicable because GPA is a legislative act and not a development permit ANALYSIS: The primary issues with this request pertain to land use compatibility and loss of commercial land. The subject areas have been designated for residential use in the General Plan dating back into the 1970s,and in the zoning ordinance as far back as the 1960s and 1970s. Approval of the request to restore the residential General Plan land use designation will continue to be compatible with the area, which consists primarily of commercial uses along the Beach Boulevard frontage with residential uses behind it. It is consistent with the existing zoning and the uses established on the subject properties and will allow property owners to once again proceed with proposed improvements to their property. A drawback to approving the request is a reduction in the amount of potentially available commercial land in the city. Providing for adequate commercial land is important to allow the city's economic base to grow and to provide employment opportunities to maintain a good jobs-to-housing balance. The General Plan currently designates the segment of Beach Boulevard from approximately Edinger Avenue to Warner Avenue as a potential district for auto dealers. Approval of the residential General Plan land use designation may make it more difficult to bring an auto sales district and other commercial uses into fruition. The properties that front on Beach Boulevard will continue to be designated commercial; however, one of the original intents of the General Plan update was to create deeper parcels for commercial areas along Beach Boulevard rather than the shallow lots that exist now. The proposed amendment would eliminate this opportunity. PC Staff Report—11/9/2004 -6- (04SR28) Presently there is a greater interest in restoring the residential General Plan land use designation. In the eight years that the subject areas have had a commercial General Plan designation no development proposals have been brought forward other than a car dealer purchasing an adjacent residential lot in order to expand. While the subject properties are developed with mostly older structures, they are generally still in good condition and are not expected to recycle in the near future. if auto dealers and other developers desire to expand commercial use on the subject properties in the future General Plan and Zoning Map amendments can be pursued at that time. That would make it possible to once again pursue the establishment of an auto mall and any additional commercial development in the future without severely restricting the current residential uses. Based on these points, and consistent with City Council and Planning Commission direction, staff is recommending approval of the General Plan Amendment. ATTACHMENTS: 1 02 2 G.eneml Plan endmeitt No. 4-02 3. a ec ara Ion o. - 4. ps 5. 04 6. ap SH:MBB:RR:rl PC Staff Report— 11/9/2004 -7- (04SR28) 3 I i nE:scd6:s:s»cs§s >^•«»>•--,...g m... ',q._.».»..:3Y [[ ...Y.ea^eg"ii8¢ci[s s"t Es<s k> «"<:nun YaCa:e:;e.•.•.:':aa a M?:aE:°vien 3Ya.83YC1CtPiFF p x.ccdiYxc.¢ iy' {,a, ..YR9Y i'ti3::"�msaaN",:».^.�966-'..'s.. 3re 8.C36a.^.n L...........:» t g.�[3[:t[i?st:L..»...>»».E::PCP€FF.�°�`�tla.a»:.3:.:::tl..3x CtF¢9A . . »F:Pi'isSS....E»>.w»..'"` eGc5Y6€:d§"".>»>» eau'•"........C°tl9¢Eta.3 e�tl86vtlt"••'">3:iCa°.9�eE8aa§9c�y^��»FI6M45t::ac.0..As•" E°§�°a°:.e:33waaamk9E;t:x?BO xs'a c£=.yc'?:;vsoc§L.w».,» rer.:p an.;cr"...».».» .,�. a _ ...9EIa:E4FFY... «w».ib ax=iF E':.•C.eci ..,....Yd.am.�'�.4"�m:inaY:§scC'tx»mmC xix.••,••�'mE`Few es.^.Es?si:l.���REIh6??de9:9Fne�A:»:4�x:F¢€yFy F% 69.w�aa§9E»^L °� e^9ix13.6.%.S:d��6�^ 69G:��9SYCft«¢P9ge�dY» §s3c..?...».»scxPsr9sle➢ »«: a z ..=%f? s m3;am a gram mm x:tl9.3m a:s:s7si.. s9xd: IN €:$-em:«.3 ...«cmc ra x P m x^^c... _ 9.a9eBe%?�96 rPeaw.�aEzndEdEz;s9rna¢d$ 39 5 Zmm,a ;Y9Y gB�Y... .Bmm :It%CEFC:siC:.imt�ec9:>E:a:CFi:CGm G399¢e� �^[t;3-FggFi$� "''� Ym'.�d;x3�ged °"°R9�'13 :S£ffRs£��W� •':f»^ e P�s�•. ''4§s»« m c� 4d69W§a.. 3'a `FR' £s§ 3a '. Wm�3 &:- "3 9w 8ama e�:jrjd i g eeg. s,Ff:sa»tid¢e3: naa».,. m °o3Gc";^Crt3 amp a� ampdp»d:�a a h�`.xc_'r. a Em9er..:,.yx'° c'a:e�.?c°E,i�:°>r:;:=v3a?y �E:�� »,.9.. m caw tleca �h'.>....p.3E.'•[c:n..�� ;�5 tiGC...F»»»:. �GEFi:?«.». Lei° ciG§9Rd»�R.^"CPt pp .� .F•.. .. W§ -2Y. :i6SP3:»C m.eAb. 3:9m69�§8:»"✓`otii:ti'ca:�:e9 a^- .€§.EC.�w«a»«F'"i=«.aG- 9 §s&i§Y8»w �i6F� ��g•° •e� '. mCa&:e...4d§ cr»-3».»»;^wrnc rme9€F. .cw•c•tr-;a—a: g§{�<» remra.a. .�:xa c.?•"'„f% mrrFrai �%,...�..m �, �w rse :mw � - a'3"` '�,;9s5¢9�9°9 „�caxa:d;,.!��^^9c e9a9@eEe'.en.,cusYcr:.,.,,0 9a. ..l 'W::;9.9aoEA[.w: r nri:n;� :f.:»<».».»., qFF» °':tF4 8y°"`„».»» z�aaa 3 39ai9 L' .YaGC�m•.•m p b $. °•^�aY°�Y�aE.4i8LI"` `��: GK«"'.».» i3§ stem€§r€:s:tf6>:..:-e3—ed:,..., ..... �:tFF3F:>.:..= mydeytl.."... :a9€ €a,tttw w.»:.... 6vTFE:axww.».».:. » , g���ic,.; .: e9ra,.,.,.ci ava�e�ww _armx�Cin�:_n®v���"s�r"taPso9zrs§-.x:xrn3...;o Ra¢as��"x,......d e"c�,r�:�:_.. 9®E9aa¢9¢"w.:ncs s3k�ea�iPaedti.mur:..�F•...t§3aaa� ».,w,N.Ezm?�i�scale.�m=xaeo�a9»mm:rsu3mmmmmrss:asera:Pxs;;».»Sr;:c:c9zcxaacm.:..'smrisa9:^re;cccm9ml:yss§vms¢9�s::wc,icastt.�a°s.�..m°'°-�:ea:;? m��°nE'e?Si§xxxst:�W�eSe:�me9��°:e:�'°c:�Ww=rce�9ecsea�...�veraEs°sd8fic?�t:�muean ..�..»..-. MIN DRAFT MINUTES HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 9, 2004 HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH. CALIFORNIA 92648 5:16 P.M. - ROOM B-8 (CITY HALL LOWER LEVEL) CALL PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO ORDER P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall AGENDA APPROVAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004, WAS APPROVED BY ACCLAIMATION. A. STUDY SESSION ITEMS A-1. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 (BEACH BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL) — Ricky Ramos Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, provided a brief overview of the proposed amendment. He explained that the amendment is scheduled for a public hearing tonight and that all property owners within a 300-foot radius of each property to be amended was notified along with subject property owners. Vice Chair Ray asked if the Automobile Dealers Association had been notified of the request. Staff responded no. Staff referenced maps depicting General Plan and zoning designations and discussed concerns raised by property owners and residents about the non-conforming status of their property as a result of the previous amendments to a commercial designation. Staff provided background on the past actions by the City and how the area was amended from residential to commercial and then directed by the City Council to amend the area back to residential. Chair Davis voiced concerns about discussing the item without the public having an opportunity to provide input. Commissioner Scandura stated that request might require more time to study. A-2. PCP COMMUNITY MEETINGS —Commissione ir�rC'vengood Commissioner Livengood introduced t xpressed his reasons for asking the Chair to place the item on the or discuss He noted concerns with individual Commissioner's se out meeting invitations on an ite rently before the Commis (04pcml 109) PC Minutes November avember 9, 2aa5 Page 2 mmissioner Dingwall reminded the Commission of past discussions related to a Co missioner advocating for or against any given subject, and how such a restrictio is an in Ming test of one's first amendment rights. Chair Da responded that public officials give up certain I"Amendment right (i.e., meeting on i sues, providing a position, etc.), explaining further how courts i erpret such issues. also voiced concerns about public perception and confid ce. Commissioner Din all stated that the Brown Act does not prohibit a ocating routine procedural matters, a d discussed his personal experience with bei g chastised for advocating a position o a past item heard by the Planning Cam sion. Commissioner Livengood s oke in opposition to initiatinglorg izing community meetings. Commissioner Thomas spoke in vor of public forum avoid misrepresentation andlor comments taken out of context. Commissioner Stilton stressed the imp ance o careful, organized communication when involved in serving the public as a lann' g Commissioner, not private citizen. Commissioner Scandura stated that altho he would not advise organizing community meetings, he felt that a recent communit mee ing organized by Vice Chair Ray was held for informational purposes only. Vice Chair Ray explained that the eeting being di s ussed was organized by the neighborhood residents to bring th sides of an issu together. He stated that he did not distribute a flier and didn't h ve time to reach all Co missioners to notify them of the meeting. He stated that it is ommissioners duty to sp ak to the public on issues before the Commission, an hat a majority of the Commis ion meeting at an unadvertised location viol es the Brown Act. He explained a information discussed at the meeting, and that th meeting was helpful to clarify some ntruths among the public about government proass. He also stated that he did not adv ate for or against the issue being discusse . Commissioners T omas and Stilton discussed public misconception whether or not any inappropriate ac on has actually taken place. Commission Dingwall repeated the importance of 1st Amendment right , but understand that it may benefit the Commission to refrain from providing opinion on an entitle ent issue. Commi sioner Stilton stated that it is inappropriate to discuss project details wit any one s a without the other side receiving the same information. She commented that emo onally driven individuals often provide incorrect information. Vi e Chair Ray discussed arriving at a decision and making a judgment call based on t facts presented and opinions from staff and other sources. Commissioner Scandura stated that meetings should not be held if potential Brown Act violations exist. (04pcml 109) Minutes No DRA FT November 9, 2005 Page 3 Commissioner Thomas cited the recent City Council Candidates Forum as an example of misinformation and lack of knowledge. he Commission and staff agreed that the issu;TS e discussed at t e next P nning Commissioner Workshop to be held i 2005. B. AGE A REVIEW UPDATE ON ALL AGEN — Her Fauland Herb Fau nd reported that staff has received nr ation on Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (B ch Boulevard Residential), and idcommunication received on Public Hearin it No. B-2 (Good Shepard Cxpansion.) PLANNING CO ISSION COMMITTEE REP Commissioner Scan ra discussed the sessions and workshops he attended at the California Chapter of t American Planp ng Association (CCAPA) Annual Conference held in Palm Springs he October 17 20, 2004. D. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Re ard' Study Session portion of Meeting-- None. 6:30 P.M. — RECESS FOR DINN 7:00 P.M. —COUNCIL CHA ERS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIAN CALL PLANNING CO, MISSION MEETING TO O ER /PROVAL P P P P P P ROLL CALs, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, 'vengood, Dingwall AGENDA A A MOTI WAS MADE BY THOMAS, SECONDED BY SCAND A, TO APPROVE THE PLAN NG COMMISSION AGENDA OF NOVEMBER 9, 2004 BY HE FOLLOWING VOTE: 3 1 AY S: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Davis, Stilton, Livengood, D gwall ES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Felipe Serrano, Meander Lane, questioned who initiated the request for Public Hearing Item No. B-1 (Beach Boulevard Residential). Chair Davis suggested that the individual speak on the item during the public hearing portion of the meeting. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes DRAFT o No Page 4 vember 9, 2005 B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1. NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-021GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 {BEACH BOULEVARD RESIDENTIAL]: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Property Owner: Various Request: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the proposed project. GPA: To amend the General Plan land use designation to match the current zoning designation for three areas along Beach Boulevard as follows: Area A—Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General —Maximum Floor-Area- Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay— Design Overlay) to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density—Maximum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) or RM-15 (Residential Medium Density— Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) for properties along portions of Stark Ave., Holt Ave., MacDonald Ave., Glencoe Ave., and Alhambra Ave., west of Beach Blvd. Area B —Amend from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial General —Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50 —Auto District Overlay— Design Overlay) to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density— Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) for properties south of Terry Drive and east of Viewpoint Lane and along Moonshadow Circle. Area C —Amend from CG-F2-a- d (Commercial General— Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay— Design Overlay) to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density —Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) for properties along portions of A Street and B Street, south of Warner Ave. and north of Blaylock Drive. Project Planner: Ricky Ramos STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Negative Declaration No. 04-02 with findings;" and, "Recommend approval of General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 by adopting Resolution No. 1593 and forward to the City Council for adoption." Ricky Ramos, Associate Planner, provided a staff report and PowerPoint presentation to the Commission. Commissioner Livengood asked if the existing zoning on Moonshadow Circle would remain RM - Residential Medium density. Staff confirmed, explaining that the General Plan Amendment was initiated in order to make the General Plan and zoning designations consistent. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Thiet Nguyen, Sailport Drive, requested that the zoning remain residential. WITH NO ONE ELSE PRESENT TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner Scandura asked if the City had received requests for commercial development in the area in question. Staff responded that the City was approached by a car dealership about acquiring an adjacent parcel for a parking lot. Staff discussed the uncertainty of the market and explained that the subject parcels are not large enough for an auto dealership. Staff also stated that no plans had been submitted for any commercial development on the subject properties. (04pcm1109) PC Minutes November 9, 2005 R A F T Page 5 Vice Chair Ray asked about auto dealerships within an auto district overlay. Staff described the overlay district explaining that dealerships are restricted by their own guidelines from moving within 10 miles of another dealer without the other dealer's permission. Staff also explained auto dealership's options for expansion. Vice Chair Ray asked what type of residential units exists on Moonshadow Circle. Staff replied apartments. Vice Chair Ray asked if any properties in areas A, B or C were individually owned? Staff replied yes. Vice Chair Ray asked if the area is slated for affordable housing. Staff replied that no sites are identified specifically for affordable housing. Discussion ensued about how the General Plan designation for the area changed to commercial in 1996. The Commission made the following disclosures: Commissioner Thomas drove the area; Commissioner Scandura spoke with staff and drove the area; Vice Chair Ray drove the area; Commissioner Livengood visited the area and spoke with staff; Commissioner Dingwall visited the area, read the staff report and discussed the issue during a Commission Study Session; Chair Davis is familiar with the area. Commissioner Dingwall asked if the auto dealership mentioned would be able to continue using the parking lot area for commercial purposes. Staff replied yes. Commissioner Scandura discussed the City Council's 1996 decision to amend the General Plan in order to facilitate auto dealership, and how the request ran t into public opposition in 2000, explaining that the request should not impact future development of the area as residential. Chair Davis asked if the existing zoning designations in the area were to remain unchanged, how would it negatively impact property owners? Staff replied that if the request before the Commission does not pass, the properties would have inconsistent zoning and General Plan designations and be rendered non- conforming. The inconsistency or non-conformity would prohibit the owners from making improvements to their properties. The intent with the request is to remedy the situation and have the General Plan and zoning made consistent. Chair Davis asked what type of process is required to remedy the inconsistency and the non-conforming status. Staff explained that an application must be submitted to change zoning or the General Plan. Chair Davis asked what is involved in changing the General Plan. Staff explained the process and noted a timeline of approximately 12 to 16 months, including the need for a possible environmental impact report. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-02 WITH FINDINGS. Vice Chair Ray asked if any discussions were held with the apartment owners to upgrade the area. Staff replied yes and some are ready to submit plans. Vice Chair Ray asked if staff had contacted and/or received comments from the Auto Dealers Association. Staff answered that the Auto Dealers Association was (04pcm1109) PC MinutesEj`R A F T November 9, 2005 Page 6 aware of the opportunity to provide comments on the request, and that the City had not received any comments to date. Vice Chair asked why the Economic Development Department is opposing the request. Jim Lamb, Business Development Manager, explained that the Economic Development Department has a general philosophy about retaining and expanding land for future commercial development, and opposes any request that may reduce commercial growth that has the potential to provide increased sales tax, services and employment. Vice Chair Ray voiced concerns about the lack of notification to the Auto Dealers Association and suggested continuing the item in order to consider their input on the matter. Commissioner Thomas also voiced concerns about auto dealerships but is in support for the request. Commissioner Dingwall called for the vote. Commissioner Livengood asked if auto dealerships within the required public notification area were notified. Staff answered yes. - Chair Davis asked about a possible mixed-use development. Staff explained the direction provided by the City Council, and that the current zoning does not allow a mixed-use development. Staff also explained that auto dealerships have not been disregarded and encouraged the Commission to take action on the item this evening. Chair Davis asked why staff had not considered a mixed-use designation in the past in order to make both parties happy, explaining that he doesn't want to disadvantage anyone and will vote no on the request. Commissioner Scandura noted how the action taken this evening might cause expanding commercial businesses to go through a lengthy amendment process, but that the process will allow additional analysis and that the process is certainly not new. THE MOTION TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 04-02 WITH FINDINGS WAS RESTATED BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SCANDURA, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: Davis ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY DINGWALL, TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 04-02 BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1693 AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION. (04pcmt 109) PC Minutes DRAFT November 9, 2005 Page 7 Vice Chair Ray made reference to Area C on Attachment No. 4.12 and discussion ensued with staff about the term "mixed vertical" (commercial on the ground floor and residential above) and how the Lowe's project changes the area to commercial. Vice Chair Ray voiced approval. Staff discussed mixed use being used for 10-15 acre parcels, and explained that requests involving smaller parcels do require a coordinated development plan. Staff explained uniform regulations throughout each district and also discussed how zoning maintains property values and character. Commissioner Dingwall discussed how the request assists residential owners that are locked out of making improvements and how this request will not hurt auto dealerships. Commissioner Stilton explained how the request only makes consistent the current zoning identified in the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance with the General Plan. THE MOTION WAS ACTED ON BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Thomas, Scandura, Ray, Stilton, Livengood, Dingwall NOES: Davis ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION APPROVED B-2. TIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 03-081CONDIT[ONAL USE PERMIT NO. 00-63 GOOD SHEPHERD CEMETERY EXPANSION : licant: Padian earn Consulting Property Owner: Roman Catholic Diocese,,orOrange Rettuest: ND: To analyze the potential environmental impacts sociated with the implemen tion of the proposed project. CUP: 1) To per he three-phase expansion of the xisting 23 acre cemetery. The phased i rovements include the construction of approximately 85,000 square too , hree-story mausoleum, an approximately 10,0 square foot maintenance f Ility, and above-ground garden crypts totaling app ximately 100,000 sq a feet on 12.5 undeveloped acres adjacent to the existin emetery. 2) To ermit approximately 980 lineal feet of six-foot tall decorative blo walls a view fencing at a zero setback along the Beach Boulevard and Ta ert enue frontages. Location: 8301 Talbert Avenue (North side of Talbe enue, east of Beach Boulevard). Promect Planner: Paul Da Veiga STAFF RECOMMENDATIO Motion to: "Ap ove Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 03-08 wi indings and mitigatio easures;" and, "Approve Conditional Use Permi o. 00-63 with findings, mo cations and conditions of approval." The Commiss' n made the following disclosures: Vice Chair ay and Commissi er Dingwall excused themselves from action on the ern due to possib[ onflicts of interest; Commissioner Thomas visited the sit Corn issioner Scandura visited the site and spoke with staff; Commi ioner St' on visited the site; Commissioner Livengood visited the site and own a rawer for remains on the cemetery property. (04pcm17 09) i Qgg— ID E sg -i NE "Un mieF J -EL, Ou NVem— COMMUN[Tv DFVFI.0PM1:NT CHAP'rFR LAND USE ELEMENT 'li` -4 (Cont.) Community District and Subarea Schedule Subarea Characteristic Standards and Principles 613 Permitted Uses Category; Commercial General("CO");and Mixed Use-Vertical Integration Seach..: of Housing("W") Warner area Commercial and community-serving commercial uses permitted by the Commercial General("CG")land use category, Density/Intensity Category: "�;and" e 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 strictures 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. Permitted Uses Category: Commercial General("CG") Five Poi Commercial uses permitted by the"CG" land use category. €density city Category: "-3;2„ ® Height: three(3)stories Design and Category: ial gn("-d") Development a Estab ' a unt "village" character,using consistent architecture and ghly articulated faca nd building masses, and siting buildings around common courtyards an strian areas. 0 Integrate new development to be consist e ith existing structures. ® Achieve a high level of development quality in dance with PPolicy LU 10,1.12. THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH GENERAL PLAN II-LU-59 _T .- f ". 6G BA5 4G 11101 n ` •. .�, , Be— As 4G 1 �3 qG ■ g BB X4G 88... 86-•� 40-. f6G 1. sA —G r�G 6A ••� t '.. . 8C 4G BE sG •✓BG 86 Be 4G� SG BE --BB 4a- 4GJ 4G g eli. d 9E_ \4G } au �\8A :�G'.. �6E � BB 4G 4G ,. ' . —gg BG GG— so NN • ; r _ ell BE 4A ' -V_-__ __. ___36._ 9F_ s e 4G j BE eB / -. _ - - - -�8- 6G ,r 9F J��t�`d-S! k:9-� ••� �...� ( ��k � -Qs=3Q- -'_-- rJ � .!r,+"t�✓ �:x w�7+'.v .Qsn 1� cP qba c p .. +. �.. Paahc Caa per 1_ x yG �ragney ec _ �..,.+��..,��..-�.. au� +a s;tt`'.' � -� - y.. :�:s:ir•.,- .•\4J Q2C1�[IGOCBB[1 .LEGEND �4J y4J 4J \ ' x City Boundary Old Town Bear Boulevard Oowntown r F PCH Coastal Corridor CIAC Center Node e Pier Commerciall Core Commercial Nodes Industrial Nodes HUNTINGTON BEACH SUB-AREA MAP n-LU-6s a 25 ,5 LU City of Hunlingtan Beash General Plan a S.M 'M............. �-O�N� M N jF-EEr, �—'M ITO Ramm 9H, �FFE�R 5s� -.F� MM r.W -��Mu MIT MUMP�01 MOM- --Ip U»; rf i Ii=.i .y CTY Of UTf UOn TACH fCOnO/1[C XMOP/ATT XPAPT/TF9 InTtP-OfflCt /T/' OWDM To: Ricky Ramos, Planning Department From: Jim Lamb, Economic Development Departmen Q-q- Re: Proposed General Plan Amendment 04-02, Beach Blvd. Residential areas Date: May 28, 2004 Thank you for soliciting our input on the subject matter relative to revising the General Plan to reduce the amount of potential commercial and automotive land along Beach Boulevard. The Economic Development Department respectfully recommends against this proposed amendment, as it is contrary to the Economic Development Element's goals, objectives and policies. Removal of these lands from the pool of potentially available commercial land may limit the future growth ns of the City's economic base, especially in the critical area of automotive sales. During the 1996 General Plan adoption process, this issue was given much analysis and discussion, and the current land use was established with the City's long-term best interests in mind. Also at that time, the City adopted an Economic Development Element with "the same legal status as any of the mandatory elements." The Economic Development Element contains numerous references to the expansion, revitalization, renovation, modernization, and attraction of commercial businesses and the expansion of commercial properties. Accordingly, we recommend the City stay the course and not amend the General Plan as to reduce the amount of commercially designated land, especially along our most important commercial engine, Beach Boulevard. We have been pleased to review this mater for you and are available if you have any questions or require additional information. _ _ 1 ft e.i ........... ME. 'No 'MEER I'M MM Mgi:13'--igg R -pHi- wo fl- =E!ug, M"MiMM �.IM 1. PROJECT TITLE: Beach Boulevard Residential Concurrent Entitlements: General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 2. LEAD AGENCY- City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Ricky Ramos Phone: (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Various locations along Beach Blvd. (see attached vicinity maps) 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: City of Huntington Beach 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: CG-F2-a(Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area- Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay) 6. ZONING: RMH(Residential Medium High Density) or RM(Residential Medium Density) 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The request is a City initiated General Plan Amendment(GPA)to revise the General Plan Land Use designation for three areas (A through Q along Beach Blvd as follows: Area A—This area includes properties along Stark Ave., Holt Ave., MacDonald Ave., Glencoe Ave., and Alhambra Ave., west of Beach Blvd (see attached vicinity map). These properties are currently developed with residential and related uses. The General Plan land use designation for this area is proposed to be changed from CG-F2-a(Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay)to RMH-25 (Residential Medium High Density—Maximum 25 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre) or RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation. Area B—This area includes properties along Moonshadow Circle which are all currently developed with residential uses (see attached vicinity map). The General Plan land use designation for this area is proposed to be changed from CG-F2-a(Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50— Auto District Overlay)to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation. GAENVIROWCHECKLST Page I ATTACHMENT NO. Area C--This area includes properties along A Street and B Street, south of Warner Ave. and north of Blaylock Drive,which are primarily developed with residential and related uses (see attached vicinity map). The General Plan land use designation for this area is proposed to be changed from CG-F2-a (Commercial General—Maximum Floor-Area-Ratio of 0.50—Auto District Overlay)to RM-15 (Residential Medium Density—Maximum 15 Dwelling Units Per Net Acre)to match the current zoning designation. The General Plan land use designation for these properties was revised from residential to commercial with the General Plan update in 1996 to create a Iarger commercial base for the city. The City Council then directed city staff to amend the zoning to be consistent with the General Plan. However, due to opposition and concern from property owners the Planning Commission and City Council denied the rezoning to commercial and directed staff to amend the General Plan land use designation back to . residential to be consistent with the zoning. At this time the owners of these properties cannot construct any new structures, additions, or exterior modifications until the General Plan and zoning designations are consistent with each other. If the GPA is approved,property owners may propose new construction subject to compliance with the General Plan, Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, and other city codes applicable to their property. Any new construction proposed in the future will also be evaluated pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and may either be subject to environmental analysis or categorically exempt depending on the _ scope of the project. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: All three areas are infill sites located in a highly developed urban area near Beach Boulevard. Surrounding areas include commercial uses along Beach Boulevard as well as other residential uses. 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: None I0. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at Ieast one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"or is"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated,"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ PubIic Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION—On the basis of this initial evaluation: - I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, FJCI and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on ❑ an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL EYDACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment,but at least one impact(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL BWACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided ❑ or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. t Signature Date Ricky Ramos Associate Planner Printed Name Title Page 3 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL BWACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A"No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A"No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as.direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate, if an effect is significant or potentially significant,or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more"Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level(mitigation measures from Section XVIII, "Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EK or other CEQA process, an effect _ has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(1)). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVIII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts(e.g.,general plans, zoning ordinances)have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVIII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix G of Chapter 3, Title 14, California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. SAMPLE QUESTION: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources: 1, 6) El El 9 Discussion: The attached source list explains that I is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1,2) b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan orEl El El 19 natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 1) c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources:3) ❑ ❑ El ❑X Discussion: Presently the General Plan and zoning designations for the subject properties are in conflict. The proposed General Plan Amendment(GPA)will make the General Plan and zoning designations for the subject areas consistent with each other. The proposal is not in conflict with any other policy or regulation adopted for the purposes of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The subject properties are not located in a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. The proposed GPA will not affect access to nor physically divide the surrounding _ community. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly El ❑ 0 (e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources: 7) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 7) c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:7) Discussion: Approval of the GPA will allow property owners to propose new residential construction consistent with the City's regulations which may result in an increase in the population in the subject areas. However,the majority of the properties in the subject areas are already developed with the maximum number of residential units permitted. Also, development on infill sites such as these are usually not substantial enough to noticeably alter the City's growth rate. The request will allow the continued use of the subject properties for residential purposes and therefore will not result in the displacement of existing housing. III.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the � ux most recent AIquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 11) Page 5 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion. Approval of the GPA will allow residential use in the subject areas. The subject areas are not located within the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or any other known earthquake faults. However,these areas may be subject to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake in the region. Future developments are required to comply with the Uniform Building Code and must be built to Seismic Zone 4 standards to address this issue. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: 11) El El 9 11 Discussion: See III(a)(i)above. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? El El (Sources: 7, 11) Discussion: Areas A and B are designated on the State Seismic Hazard Zones Map as an area of potential liquefaction while Area C is not. Impacts to new construction resulting from soil factors such as liquefaction are addressed through a standard requirement by the Building and Safety Department requiring the preparation of a soils report and implementation of recommendations in the report. iv) Landslides? (Sources: 1,7) ❑ 9 Discussion: Site stability,including impacts from landslides,is not a concern because the subject areas and the surroundings do not have any severe slope. b) Result in substantial soil erosion,loss of topsoil,or changes inEl 19 topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading,or fill? (Sources:7) Discussion: The proposed GPA and any future residential development resulting from it will not involve any significant physical changes to the topography as the subject areas are predominantly already built out and do not have any significant topography. Additionally,any significant improvement to the properties may require submittal of a grading plan as required by city code to prevent or minimize soil erosion or unstable soil conditions. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that El would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1,7) Discussion: See III(a)(iii)and(iv)above. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the El Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1,7) Discussion: The subject areas are shown on the Expansive Soil Distribution Map as having moderate to high clay content. Approval of the GPA may result in additional residential structures being built on the subject properties. Impacts to new construction resulting from factors such as expansive soil are addressed through a standard requirement by the Building and Safety Department requiring the preparation of a soils report and implementation of recommendations in the report. Page G A HM T O Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources:3) Discussion: The subject areas are served by the local sewer system. No impacts are anticipated in this regard. IV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge El ❑ ❑ 1 requirements? (Sources: 7) Discussion: The subject GPA will not result in any impacts to water quality. Any new construction resulting from the GPA will be required to comply with the National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)and implement Best Management Practices(BMP)as mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to address water quality,which would be addressed when a specific project is proposed. b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 7) Discussion: Completion of the GPA would allow new construction to occur which would result in an increased demand on the water supply and an increase in impermeable surfaces which could impact groundwater recharge. However,given that the majority of the properties involved in the GPA are already fully developed,new construction is expected to be minimal. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site orEl El 19 area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 3,7) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not impact the existing drainage pattern of the subject properties. No stream or river runs through the subject properties. Additionally,the subject properties are already predominantly fully developed and are not expected to see any substantial alterations to its existing drainage pattern. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or El 19 area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? (Sources:3,7) Discussion: See IV(c)above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the El 9 El capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or Page 7 votentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources: 7) Discussion: The majority of the subject and surrounding areas are already fully developed. Any new construction on the subject properties that might take place after the GPA is approved is minimal relative to existing development. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources:7) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ Discussion: See IV(a)above. g) Place housing within a I00-year flood hazard area as mapped ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ on a federal FIood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources:5) Discussion: Approval of the GPA could result in new housing being placed within the flood zone. Any new construction or substantial improvement of existing structures will be required to comply with local flood zone regulations consistent with requirements from the Federal Emergency Management Agency to minimize any impacts. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which ❑ ❑ Z ❑ would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources:5) Discussion: Some of the subject properties are within the I00-year flood zone. However,the subject properties are located within an urbanized area where storm waters are directed to local and regional flood control channels which service the area. Impacts in this regard are less than significant. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury ❑ ❑ ❑ or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 5) Discussion: The subject areas are not within the immediate vicinity of a dam. However,failure of Prado Dam would result in the inundation of the majority of the city. Due to the distance of Prado Dam,sufficient time would be available to warn and evacuate the city's affected areas to minimize impacts to less than.significant. Furthermore,there are flood control channels in the general area which are slated for capacity improvement by the County in the future thereby minimizing the potential for failure. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 1,7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ryl- Discussion: The subject areas are not expected to be inundated by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow because they are located far enough from the ocean, any inland body of water,or hillsides. k) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from construction ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ activities? (Sources:7) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not impact construction storm water runoff as no construction is proposed. However, any future construction activities that occur must comply with National Pollutants Discharge Elimination System(NPDES) requirements and implement Best Management Practices(BMP)as mandated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to address storm water runoff. Page 8 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post-construction ❑ activities? (Sources: 7) Discussion: See IV(e)above and IV(m)below. ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants. from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance(including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery areas,loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources: 1, 2) Discussion. The proposed GPA will not result in discharge of pollutants. Moreover,with the exception of occasional vehicle washing,generally none of these activities which result in the discharge of storm water pollutants occur in residential areas. Impacts from the occasional vehicle washing will be addressed through BMPs applied by the City in compliance with NPDES requirements. n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to affect the El beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources:7) Discussion: The subject areas are predominantly built out. New construction may be proposed after the GPA is approved thereby creating more impermeable surfaces. However,any storm water discharge will be addressed through BMPs applied by the City in compliance with NPDES requirements. El El El o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow velocity ❑ or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources:3,7) Discussion: Since the majority of the subject properties are already fully developed,any impermeable surface resulting from new construction proposed after the approval of the GPA will be minimal and not expected to result in a significant increase in flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff. Additionally,storm water runoff will be handled through dedicated storm drains. p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the ❑ ElEl project site or surrounding areas? (Sources:3) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not create or contribute significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas. Because the subject properties are mostly developed and relatively flat erosion is anticipated to be a less than significant concern. V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to ❑ ❑ ❑ an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources:7) Page 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutantEl 9 El concentrations? (Sources: 3) c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources:3) El 9 El d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 7) e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of anyEl El criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources:7) Discussion: The subject properties are nearly fully developed. Any new construction that may occur after the approval of the GPA is not expected to reach the Air Quality Management District's threshold for significant residential projects which include 166 single family residential units and 261 apartment units. Residential uses do not create pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors. Similarly,the surrounding nonresidential uses consist primarily of general commercial uses which also do not generate substantial pollutant concentrations or objectionable odors. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(e.g., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections? (Sources: 1,3) Discussion: The subject areas are served by local streets and arterial highways that are designed to handle the traffic load for the land uses depicted in the General Plan.. Additionally,since the subject properties are fully developed any new construction that may occur after the GPA is approved would be minimal in relation to the existing and will not result in a substantial increase in traffic. E b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of serviceEl El 19 El standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1,3) Discussion: See VI(a)above. c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either anEl El 0 19 increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources:3,7) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not result in a change in air traffic patterns. The project area is not located within the PIanning Area for the Joint Forces Training Center in Los Alamitos and will not affect the airport's navigable air space. d) SubstantialIy increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., El El El 9 Page 10 TT MEN O, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses? (Sources: 1,3) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not affect circulation design. Furthermore,b-.cause the project site is predominantly built out,the request is not anticipated to result in changes to the circulation system in the area. No impacts are anticipated. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 3,7) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: The proposed GPA will not change emergency access. Emergency access will be maintained pursuant to Fire Department requirements. No impacts are anticipated. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources:2) El El 0 Discussion: The proposed GPA will not impact parking. Any new construction that may be proposed after the GPA is approved will be required to provide adequate parking pursuant to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. No impacts are anticipated. g) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? (Sources:2) ❑ ❑ ❑ Discussion: The request involves an amendment to the General Plan land use designation and will not modify or conflict with adopted policies pertaining to alternative transportation. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,7) b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1,7) c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected ❑ ❑ ❑ wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources: 1,7) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1,7) e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting Page 11 a Potentially Significant Potentially unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy orEl El El ❑X ordinance? (Sources: 7) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or ❑ M other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation - plan? (Sources: 1,7) Discussion: Approval of the GPA will not have an impact on biological resources. The subject properties are located within a highly urbanized area away from any habitat areas identified in local or regional plans. The subject properties are not located near riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans or any federally protected wetlands. Any new construction resulting from the GPA is required to comply with all City requirements including the Landscaping Ordinance. No impacts are anticipated. VIII. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resourceEl El El 19 that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 1) - b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineralEl 19 resource recovery site delineated on a IocaI general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The subject areas are not noted as an important mineral resource recovery site in the general plan,or in any specific plan or other land use plan. No impacts are anticipated. IX.HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment El El 19 through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1,7, 10) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1,7) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutelyEl El El 1K hazardous material,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 1,7) El El d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 10) El El e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 3 PagelZ ATTACHMENT NO, i 5 eotentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (Sources: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1,7) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury, or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not have any impact on hazards and hazardous materials. The subject properties do not have land uses that involve hazardous materials nor are they listed in the State hazardous waste and substances sites list. They are also not within the Oil or Methane Districts. The subject properties are not located within an airport land use plan,within two miles of an airport,or within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project will not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Emergency access to the subject properties is not proposed to be altered with this project and will continue to be provided pursuant to Fire Department regulations. Lastly,the subject properties are set within a highly urbanized area away from any wiIdlands and will not be exposed to wildland fires. No impacts are anticipated. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess ❑ ❑ 9 ❑ of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1,7) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ❑ ❑ El vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 3,7) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ E] 0 ❑ (Sources: 3,7) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the ❑ ❑ ❑X ❑ project? (Sources: 3,7) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people ❑ ❑ ❑ Q residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 9) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1,7) Page 13 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Approval of the GPA will not have any impacts to noise. Existing and future residential and related uses established in the subject areas will continue to be compatible with the character of the area and are not expected to generate or be subject to excessive noise levels due to their nature. Any new residential or related structures constructed after the GPA is approved may cause substantial temporary increases in ambient noise levels during the construction process. However,construction is only temporary and is limited by ordinance to between 7 a.m,to 8 p.m.Monday through Saturday to minimize impacts to less than significant. Lastly,the subject properties are not located within an airport land use plan or within,the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources:Fire Dept.) El El - b) Police Protection? (Sources:7) El El ❑ c) Schools? (Sources:7) ❑ 19 ❑ d) Parks? (Sources:7) El El e) Other public facilities or governmental services? (Sources:7) ❑ ❑ 19 El Discussion: The subject properties are located within an urbanized area serviced with existing utilities and public facilities. Approval of the GPA is not expected to result in significant impacts to public services or the construction of new or altered facilities. The construction of new residential or related structures will result in some additional demand on fire and police protection services,schools,parks,and other governmental services. However,the subject properties are nearly fully developed and any new construction will be minimal in relation to the existing. Therefore,no new or physically altered government facilities that could cause significant environmental impacts are anticipated to be required. Any new construction resulting from the approval of the GPA will also be subject to payment of school impact fees and park and recreation fees to address impacts to those facilities. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicableEl El Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1,7) b) Require or result in the construction of new water orEl El 9 El wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1,7) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental Page 1.4 TA T rotentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact effects? (Sources: 1,7) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 19 ❑ from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1,7) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider El El Qes which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 1,7) fl Be served by a Iandfill with sufficient permitted capacity toEl 9 ID accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1,7) g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1 ,7) h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment control Best Management Practice(BMP),(e.g.water quality treatment ❑ El ❑X basin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources: 1,7) Discussion: Infill projects that are consistent with the existing zoning and General Plan land use designations will result in an incremental increase in the demand on utilities and service systems but are not expected to require new or substantially altered utilities, service systems,or landfills. The subject properties will continue to be served by Rainbow Disposal and be subject to participation in any solid waste reduction programs presently available in the city. The need for new or retrofitted BMPs will not be known until new construction is proposed. At such time the Public Works Department will require the developer to provide BMPs pursuant to Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. XHI. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: El El El 9 3,7) b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but notEl 19 limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 3,7) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of ❑ X❑ the site and its surroundings? (Sources:3,7) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: El El 9 1) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not have any impacts on aesthetics. The subject properties and the surrounding area do not contain any scenic vistas or resources other than potentially some mature trees. Any existing mature trees that may be proposed for removal in the future must be replaced as required by the Landscaping Ordinance. Any new construction proposed after the approval of the GPA should be an improvement to the area which includes many older structures. They must comply with the development standards in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and should continue to be consistent with the character of the area. Because the subject properties are nearly fully developed,any new construction after the approval of the GPA will be minimal in relation to the existing. As a result any additional lighting proposed is expected to be nominal and in keeping with the existing character of the area. Page 15 r.. rotentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a ❑ ❑ K❑ historical resource as defined in 815064.5? (Sources: 1) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources:7) El El 13 0 c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ❑ ❑ 59 resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 7) d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of ❑ ❑ ❑ formal cemeteries? (Sources:7) Discussion: The proposed GPA will not have any impacts on cultural resources. The subject properties are not identified _ in the General PIan as containing historic or archaeological resources. They are also nearly fully developed and are not known to contain any unique paleontological resource,geologic feature,or human remains. XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood, community and regional parks or other recreational facilitiesEl El 19 El such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 7) Discussion: Approval of the GPA could result in the construction of new residential and related structures on the subject properties which would increase the population and the demand for parks. However,any new construction would be minimal in relation to the existing development. Additionally,new construction will be subject to payment of park in Iieu fees to mitigate impacts to less than significant. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the . construction or expansion of recreational facilities which ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources:2) Discussion: Any new construction resulting from the approval of the GPA would be minimal in relation to the existing development and is not expected to result in the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities. Depending on the type,new construction may be required to provide open space on site pursuant to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. However,these open space areas usually consist of private patios,balconies,and some common area which are minimal in nature and not expected to have any adverse impacts on the environment. c) Affect existing recreational opportunities?(Sources:7) ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: The subject properties do not contain any public recreational opportunities. All existing required private recreational facilities on site must remain pursuant to the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. i Page 16 AT A II,INI EE , Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997) prepared by the California Dept.of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared ❑ ❑ 0 pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 7) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources:2) 13 El El 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to ❑ El X❑ nonagricultural use? (Sources:7) - Discussion: The proposed GPA will not have any impacts on agricultural resources. The subject properties do not include any farmland and are not zoned for agricultural use. They are also not in close proximity to any farmland;therefore,any changes to the development on the subject parcels are not anticipated to cause pressure to convert any farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts are anticipated. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the 0 environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 1,3,7) Discussion: The subject properties are located within an urbanized area and are nearly fully developed. Any new development that might occur subsequent to the GPA approval will be minimal in relation to the existing development and is not anticipated to degrade the quality of the environment. The subject properties are not located within any wildlife or biological resource area and therefore will not impact fish,wildlife,or plant community. The subject properties also do not contain any historic resources identified in the General Plan. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"means ❑ ❑ 0 El that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 1,3,7) Discussion: As discussed in Sections I to XVI above,any cumulative impacts are less than significant. _ Page 17 AT a 1d �l T ta. i .otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or ❑ ❑ Q El indirectly? (Sources: 1,3,7) Discussion: As discussed above in Sections I to XVI,the project will have a less than significant impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Page 18 ATTET NO.. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to tiering,program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision " Ordinance 3 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1 q. City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report City of Huntington Beach Planning Dept., Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3`d Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 5 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(February 18,2004) " and Flood Management Plan(August 2000) 6 CEQA Air Quality Handbook " South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) 7 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " g Trip Generation Handbook,6t'Edition,Institute of Traffic " Engineers 9 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training " Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17,2002) 10 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List " 11 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map and Alquist-Priolo " Earthquake Fault Zoning Act 12 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code " G:IENV1ROIVMICHECKtS7 Page 19 TT iC "MIRE N 1 N 0. i Edinger Ave, Aldrtch.St. Eli . CL ' Stark St. - Doll WIN Holt Ave. Qi Mac Donald Ave. LIZIJ _ y tomY _ clenaoe Ave. —logn A oil Alhambra Ave. Nei Ave. G PA 04-021EA 04-02 - Area A N IN E S . City of Huntington Beach Scale:1 401' Location Map ATTACHMENT NO. ; / � _ � /, `^�' e�� FLit4 ,fin, �� •Q�' EJ ' �'�' Mv A 7 . Terry.Dr. EN 1 N oonshadow. 1r.a jg Damask,Dr. ....... ....... 019alke Dr EV ff, R"P Me,-Ys COL. " --- ---- I RNI Cl 5L ( I Pffih'ii KY j . Sou I'ake Dr.. , Warner.Ave. IL da Fir. Dr. I— E� f --Sycamore,.Ave. IF: GPA 04-021EA 04-02 Area B e N w E 17 s City of Huntington Beach Scale: 1"= 300' Location Map T 2 . ITACHMENTNO. 3-- F i i Ca Pr'y1�4�' 11m , OR f [3 S a r E 1 a I �] Major. Cir. .j 179,111 , IN ff ! F I s Ioo I I� _g l_ Sta .. I ' Q01 WIN - & ri I WaY[o e k. Dr I I IR -- - i ! got Marseille Dr. I A s - I 37 'I I �I -5 Y_;a`.; r ,•,�..r, Eli _70 IR.. :!'3T° �ti_s� G PA 04-021EA 04-02 Area C N s City of Huntington Beach Scate: V= 200' Location Map 3 A I 1 ".'`" :%4CC+1^ae3i[«e'ia° m c..dLPtiy «YRPC6a :»b"'Sl �-KF":e 9c56iati'euo««x x :3[Elttit F"""."'Ys Y i;'3ed•. ".T:9;fCdi e°. ^»?i4»....,». vLmt^mwMiCatl� 'e6�e�6d:.... Y:4F�ticoi[i.Nvee.mw9��'" ....>P6�^.nAP69Wnea:G^EEC:d CAc»st'�cc [ct"E:S:t�a..F, R:F".�[�s[�siX:Y€Y{a.9C3C9Cx i",.fib[ a:�ce Oa.En6aE »•::Y¢Y9YF4..A... «»9:ar9xr>33:a:aeive°.re�'�'°.•areaeaE::.aa:¢s"rnar.vu��eY•;•sccaerG..r.... m .»:cc;�"a�ea��.A "..9.r.�t..e�4;� cr9c9n�<ss��e:E;:,t.t;f...s..4r..d :GEC9C9-?Y m »•„"CaY i-P4a::.. ...lYf.YCF.w :Ct[ .3«C3CICa6a t4:g»ymA. ccCC:.... m �mE�w» +. ..R"sY.,.,.�Y iYAC1Y9Y8CatlFB»t"^E �.,C{a5 ae 'aE.csG..>.. L•.w F.^.4as[1ase. ec9.5G&a[&4HGa::.» !sc:'Oceoe^'..:» '?x _ ^^.!-sib"}-peg ry-C...^'1.YaCira.y� [t Eb [::i° m_ F:d'n,:•'6°E's""'?»»9.9:f¢yy 9ye;»^F't'sccn ee Wa:ae. pnG` = m. [:•SIFT: ["« EY'CBCd b'd..ww» `!»9Y ed.Yy'»:""«»««aC9C8:9xf.e.ye •. aa.d-E"..I:.....","b »y"encx8r ae E •...«CI C'aCaeePaC ..,.YRi'�CF m mm gpy Ea ccnE� m YY9Y Fm ec��Y4:a� m��` "as• a.•:9rcc ci�s'a�$°�A-m_ —� w&:en»rara�A„-:e.e;»zee:ca.:.:e:�.r n�'-:s�sY::c�a9ru9aa�'g, p :UiFUchefl''mY°.Ie6eF:.M3::t>�.9�9:ae3xFtre�. �q"Y side.:rt aaede: ae&a:`..YA9xyC:ga 'BE m a k••G M iYF7R: :(" m `ctwGRD ". .• :Y^:kY.::YdiYiin id°«wm6c WE �:.»9YPGdri%.......C4caXG»9..C9C983... "..^.CE:a �C8aG9..a96ea9: I?«d..p"iY99R$> �" mev8 - '.�`a��= mF�mcz iµa".„a a�;� .F.:^•u.;a e.eoE� CwE�"� 's s at¢t> as:�ucac» - ::ic�--c'e�:gr�;p€,:a��.9e:;nl:'' <o�;::lezt;;e aaaEdrnaaa 'ra°:�.°e�r';'- Asa a4:�"�iain�c��°e eseliraea ca^i a: `t:•:a �s�i 4::$x Po e Ym"�,. ii� 4':cmcac�,..cscsEaex .88��E EE r�. s� a>.,.nlaasmE�z��¢ae> `°ci";z"n:. :anFer9r.::,.�EaF.a.», =° :Y?tl, "mvsrr:i@ m saai4i4rcx ,Ft; i. :F a4Fsra ae:r.R�H�' i »cataecs? `a1-1. 1m...,:aa `"sz4S3r•x„':aear.::m gaga»:a:a:ara "' 's'`a'i:4rSe zc9:r3 n �ar.?:i7°i'acr ::m wae;..aca:w� m 33 (@@(�� ;;SS aayy iF:lii m.a C 3�e.3' F�3 �8 "!a1» "®C. �SL•lL,. Ea Ce6C�` b. 1,—M'E�s','.,.t«p—91 R®6»9S➢S➢asnc?i3y,:y.�aetl3°7 "a"ii;;>.»cc� • c:?tE.. rs 1vae:' s icx9`. »'n g ;acacc n� xrnrsa .a ��� ��s.�� �xraer'FmE` �h �� �mm�a �:v��c��aE;:�,........ _ ?..va:4a �sce a ......m,c:saEnr."€�.v,?.::r.�.aa.•.ar,s9s..,.»:: Fa-::>..... (($� >...; cYn .:"s:n ..,... �F' crar r;:?t? ssF,Y.:>.,.... «.S'�x;v3.>.>... »CR»c.:v;'•iip95�b»Y»3G:»BYca:F:.,.¢cY:4:Fx<a`»`. �PaCe..:ac�empW.....,.,:i:Y+ciY"acaGCn.>.3S6s:.2:.,µHR-5Ca6"aC°:e.. aa[ :C 6bCa 'ead t.mtiCc," a ixFs'-Rsaca•'c..:... ::Faasa4As�f;c».;mn:azu >.,a$.:...,;.y,y,..—. asgu.:::>c�Ene?�.ega^';:rsar �°'.�a•z:renra�ca^ ccaetviiYa.. c�-;"uie;a:e�. :apnea'rii%e33_aay x'*n�tcarr.'r®vs,aasaae r..Pd'e€i?xt?W viF�a'c ur :?mmsecpm. <:;:»wcmrnvra".c�va a eaa:�-»r"ac"wa"'c mm a.r s ra a:5 mmr".eW�ce€.F:.wm ?. _®.4araat.a�+a., ?� E i Area AAI Negative Declaration No. 04-02 - � Eo ' f General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 ° (Beach Blvd. Residential �M °p 1 cRiaie�s a . "�td _ Area B Coe Area C - dx w ET Qi �7q xi Ilra�aiis B; 9 wars ' m m® C;f7L . P� a� rz br. 9 7Fd� S �.. rr'B°Y� —^ r"cl p ,L'� �.'. „G 1 REQUEST BACKGROUND • GPA-To change the General Plan In 1996 City Council approved designation from CG-F2-a-d (Commercial comprehensive General Plan update. General)to RMH-25(Residential Medium In 2000 City Council and Planning High Density)or RM-15(Residential Medium Commission denied ZMA 00-03 from Density)to match the existing zoning residential to commercial (to match updated designation General Plan)for Areas A, B, and C. • Neg Dec-Analyzes potential environmental Directed staff to process General Plan impacts of the GPA amendment to restore residential designation for areas A, B, and C. s RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the request END OF PRESENTATION because: It will make GP and zoning designations consistent. • It is consistent with GP goals and policies. • It will allow property owners to proceed with improvements to their property. 2 i i i fi RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Negative Declaration No. 04-021General Plan Amendment No. 04-02 Beach Blvd. Residential COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 22, 2005 RCA ATTACH M E NTS STATUS Ordinance (wlexhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Resolution (wlexhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (wlexhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorne ) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARD Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial 1 City Administrator Initial City Clerk .. .. .... EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: ..... (Below Space For City Clerk's Use Only) RCA Author: HZ:SH:MBB:RR:rl f