Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZone Change 94-5 - Appeal by Bauer - TT 15033 - Conditional I / � 1 STATEMENT OF ACTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, March 6, 1995 A videotape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Mayor Leipzig called the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 5:00 p.m. in Room B-8. CITY COUNCILIREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ROLL CALL PRESENT: Harman, Sullivan, Leipzig, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo ABSENT: Bauer (City Council) PUBLIC HEARING ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5 -APPEAL BY COUNCILMAN BAUER OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033 - GREYSTONE HOMES -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-49 - NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT) NO. 94-15 -WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD BETWEEN MEMPHIS AVENUE AND KNOXVILLE AVENUE - INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 3276 - APPROVED (450.20) The Mayor announced that this was the day and hour set for a public hearing to consider the following appeal. APPLICANT: Greystone Homes APPELLANT: Councilmember Ralph Bauer LOCATION: West side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street ZONE: To rezone an approximately eight (8) acre site from CG (General Commercial) and RMH (Medium High Density Residential) to RM (Medium Density Residential). REQUEST: To appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033 - Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15, for a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 69 detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 also includes the request to develop a site which has a greater than three (3) foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading; to allow a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement along Florida Street and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height f Page 2 - Statement of Action ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Negative Declaration No. 94-15 In response to Councilmember Green's question, the Community Development Director reported that Councilmember Bauer had filed the appeal on this project and that he had communicated to her that Council could act on this item in his absence. The City Clerk presented Ordinance No. 3276 for Council introduction - "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 12 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 11-6-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MEMPHIS AVENUE, WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD, NORTH OF KNOXVILLE AVENUE AND EAST OF FLORIDA STREET FROM C-4 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) AND R3 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO RM (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5). The Community Development Director presented a staff report. The following communications were received and distributed to Council from: the Huntington Beach City School District, dated March 3, 1995, in opposition to Zone change No. 94-5 regarding the appeal to Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033, Pacific Coast Homes and Greystone Homes dated March 6, 1995 to Jerry Buchanan, Huntington Beach City School District, transmitting a proposed agreement between Greystone Homes, Pacific Coast Homes and said school district, Thomas Marshall, Director of Land Acquisition, Greystone Homes, regarding the School Mitigation Agreement for Tract No. 15033 and Greystone Homes dated March 6, 1995 to Dr. Buchanan, Huntington Beach School District, and Dr. Patricia Koch, Huntington Beach Union High School District, regarding the School Mitigation Agreement. Legal notice as provided to the City Clerk's Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. No further communication or written protests were received on the matter. Request for Planning Staff to Schedule Meeting With School Districts And Representatives Of Development Community - Reports Requested on Vacant School Sites/Fee Procedures/State Legislative Changes Councilmember Dettloff asked the City Planning Staff to meet with the five school districts to go over a uniform set of standards so the city knows what the standards are and to have the schools responsible to set the standards; also to have representatives from the development community at the meeting and follow through with not only a city policy but also, if it will be beneficial to the school districts, to assist them in proposing changes in State Legislation. i F Page 3 - Statement of Action A motion was made by Dettloff, seconded by Green,. to approve Planning Commission and Staff Recommendations as follows: 1. Approve Negative Declaration (Environmental Assessment No. 94-15) as revised, and 2. Approve Zone Change No. 94-5 with findings as outlined in Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action dated March 6, 1995 to include finding of fact that developer and school districts has resolved differences regarding school fees and approve introduction of Ordinance No. 3276 by Council after reading by title, and 3. Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 with findings and conditions of approval as outlined in Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action dated March 6, 1995. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Sullivan, Leipzig, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo NOES: None ABSENT: Bauer Findings For Approval - Zone Change No. 94-5 1. The proposed zone change from CG (General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard (approximately 4 acres) and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential) along Florida Street (approximately 4 acres) to RM (Medium Density Residential) does conform with the Residential Medium Density land use designation of the City's General Plan. 2. The proposed zone change from CG and RMH to RM is consistent with the surrounding medium density residential land uses, because the RM district allows for residential . 3. The proposed zone change from CG and RMH to RM is consistent with the City General Plan and Housing Element, in that it will provide for a variety of housing types within the City. 4. The applicant and school districts have resolved differences relative to school fees. Page 4 - Statement of Action Findings For Approval - Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 1. The size, depth, and frontage of the proposed 70 lot subdivision for 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot is in compliance with the standard plans and specification son file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential and RM, Medium Density Residential, (15 units per gross acre) zoning were implemented. The proposed density of the project is 8.95 units/acre, based upon 69 units on an 8 acre site. 3. The General Plan has set forth provisions for multifamily residential uses as well as setting forth objectives fro the implementation of this type of use. 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 for a 70 lot subdivision for 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot, is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. 5. The applicant and school districts have resolved differences relative to school fees. Findings for Approval - Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot, properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The project's design includes setbacks and building bulk compatible within the area. 2. With the suggested conditions imposed, the access to and parking for the proposed residential development will not create an undue traffic problem on the four (4) perimeter streets surrounding the project. 3. The planned residential development for 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot does conform to the provisions contained in Chapter 210 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, nor injurious to property and improvements in the area. The 69 unit residential project will function as a compatible residential project. i Page 5 - Statement of Action 5. The proposed project will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed development of 69 single family detached residential units, is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. 6. The six (6) foot high perimeter wall along Florida Street, which exceeds the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, the three and a half (3 1/2) foot high retaining wall on the exterior property lines along Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue, which exceeds the code requirement of two (2) feet in height, and the development of the site with a grade differential of 18 feet between the high point, which exceeds the code requirement of a 3 foot high maximum grade differential between the high point and the low point, will result in a better living environment and a design that is compatible with the surrounding area and will provide for maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of landscaping, design and building layout. The residential project to the north also contains retaining walls. 7. The six (6) foot high perimeter wall along Florida Street, the three and a half (3 1/2) foot high retaining wall along the exterior property lines along Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue and development of the site with an 18 foot grade differential between the high point and the low point, will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the city in general. 8. The six (6) foot high perimeter wall along Florida Street, the three and a half (3 1/2) foot high retaining wall along the exterior property lines along Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue and development of the site with an 18 foot grade differential between the high point and the standards in achieving a development compatible with the surrounding environment. Conditions Of Approval - Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 4, 1995, shall be the conceptually approved layout, with the following modifications: a. The rear building elevations of perimeter lots shall have architectural upgrades such as window treatments, to enhance the aesthetics of the project from the four perimeters. b. Vary the perimeter wall along Beach Boulevard by providing offsets or provide decorative pilasters along the wall at every other lot line (approximately every 85 feet). 2. Any future additions to the single family residential units shall be restricted to the standards contained in this report. Page 6 - Statement of Action 3. Prior to submittal for building permits. the applicant/owners shall complete the following: a. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transforms, on the site plan. The shall be prohibited in the front and exterior year setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. The markings, indicating the size, model number and serial number shall be visible on the back flow devices. b. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central hearing until; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. c. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retarding type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans. d. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. e. If outdoor lighting in included, high-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent"spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. f. The developer shall install an on-site lighting system on all vehicular access ways, within unenclosed parking areas, and along all major walkways. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Community Development. g. The conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover sheet of all plans submitted for plan check. Page 7 - Statement of Action 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and which includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9607 (Chapter 232) of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that require removal shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. "Drought tolerant' plants and turf shall be used for all landscaping. b. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance to the State's acoustical standards. Evidence of compliance shall consist of a noise study or acoustical analysis report, which includes evidence of adequate sound attenuation to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and State standards. Such study shall include noise attenuation measures such as setbacks, soundwalls, insulation and landscape buffers for the residential development, and shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. c. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit). A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. d. The water system shall be designed and installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's design criteria, standard plans and specifications. The system shall be located within vehicle travel ways in an,easement dedicated to the City. e. The proposed project shall have a separate domestic water service for each unit, sized per the Uniform Plumbing Code and Water Division Standard Plans. Any existing water service shall be abandoned. f. The applicant/owner shall submit a plan, showing water system improvements including service connections to each unit; back flow devices and other appurtenances shall be in accordance with applicable Uniform Plumbing Code, City Ordinances, Public Works standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by the Public Works Water Division and Fire Department prior to construction. g. Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water service connections from domestic service connections. The developer shall submit irrigation demands to ensure proper irrigation sizing. h. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to assure adequate parking is available for contractors, construction workers, etc., during the project's construction phase. i. Gated entry-%vay (access control devices) plans to the Community Development Department. A"statement of architecture' should be incorporated to highlight the theme of the development. Said gated entryway shall comply with Fire Department Standard 403. Prior to the installation of any such gates, such plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. j. Zone Change No. 94-5 shall be approved by the City Council and in effect. k. Condtion TMbb of Tentative Parcel Map No., 15033 shall be complied with. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for construction activities, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map by more than one (1) foot. c. A landscape plan and an irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. 6. Fire Department requirements are as follows: a. Two entry/exit gates shall be required. Electronic gates shall comply with City Specification 4403. Gates shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. b. All roadways shall comply with City Specification "'401. Minimum roadway width shall be 24 feet. All turns and turnarounds in the roadways must be capable of providing a 17' x 45" radius turn for fire apparatus. These roadways must be marked and posted as fire lanes to comply with City Specification TIM15. c, Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Department and comply with City Specification 1409. d. Approximately 7 fire hydrants will be required for the project. They shall be installed in locations approved by the Fire Department. e. The project shall comply with all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fore Code and City Specification 4422 and 4-4431 for the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. f. The project shall comply with all provisions of City Specification ',429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay district. g. Water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to any combustible construction. h. All adjacent roadways shall be completed to the base course of asphalt prior to any combustible construction. i. All buildings not within 150 feet of the property line on flag lots 42, 12, 22, and 34 shall have automatic fire sprinklers installed throughout in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. A two inch water service is required for these four buildings. 7. Police Department requirements are as follows: a. A knox box shall be installed at the gated entrance and at the gate surrounding the recreation area. b. The shrubs and groundcover shall be maintained so that the height does not exceed three (3) feet from the ground. c. The landcover near the north pool gate shall be maintained so that the view is not obscured when entering the complex from Florida Street. 3. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 9. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 10. Prior to final building permit inspection approval for the first unit, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Community Development Department. b. All improvements (including landscaping)to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. d. Prior to final inspection of the first unit, the applicant shall obtain a"Letter of Map Amendment', if required, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the entire project. e. Prior to final inspection of the first unit, a reproducible mylar copy of the recorded final map, along with a digital graphics file of the recorded map, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. Models may be exempted from this condition by the Director of Community Development. 11. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval. An extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Division a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15033: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated January 5, 1995, shall be the approved layout, with the following modifications: a. Vary the perimeter property lines/wall along Beach Boulevard or provide decorative pilasters along wall at every other lot line (approximately every 85 feet). 10 I 2. The following conditions are required to be completed prior to recordation of the final map, unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with provisions of the Subdivision Map Act: a. The applicant shall submit a separate utility plan showing water system improvements, including service connections to each building, fire hydrants, valves, backflow devices and other appurtenances in accordance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, City Ordinances, Public Works standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by the Public Works Water Division prior to any construction (excepting grading). b. Each proposed building shall have a separate v.,ater service per Water Division Standard Plans. c. The water system shall be designed per the City if Huntington Beach Water Division's design criteria, and shall be installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's Standard Plans and Specifications. d. The water system shall be located within vehicle travel-ways in an easement dedicated to the City. The developer shall be responsible for repairing enhanced pavement if the water mains or appurtenances require repair or maintenance. e. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrant laterals shall be located within vehicular travel--,vays in an easement dedicated to the City. f. The proposed water system shall be looped to Memphis Avenue and Florida Street. The minimum water main size shall be eight inches. The developer shall submit hydraulic calculations supporting the proposed water system design. g. The developer shall construct an eight inch water main within Beach Boulevard, approximately 47 feet west of centerline, from Memphis Avenue to Knoxville Avenue. The northerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the-existing eight inch water main located within the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue.. The southerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the existing eight inch water main located within the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Knoxville Avenue. h. The developer shall construct an eight inch water main within Florida Street, approximately 13 feet east of centerline, from Memphis Avenue to Knoxville Avenue. The northerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the existing eight inch water main located within the intersection of Florida Street and Memphis Avenue. The southerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the existing 12 inch water main located within the intersection of Florida Street and Knoxville Avenue. is The water system and appurtenances shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. j. A two (2) foot easement for pedestrian walkway purposes located behind the private street sidewalks shall be recorded concurrently with the final map, or the sidewalks shall be constructed to six (6) foot minimum width. • • ' k. Design and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue.. The developer shall be responsible for 25% of the total cost; the City shall be responsible for providing for reimbursement for 75% of the total cost through credits against traffic impact fees due for this project, and through a reimbursement agreement. 1. Sidewalk width on Beach Boulevard shall be fifteen feet. m. The following dedications shall be required: 1. 25 foot radius at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Knoxville Avenue; 2. 25 foot radius at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue; 3. 15 foot radius at the corner of Florida Street and Knoxville Avenue; and, 4. 15 foot radius at the corner of Florida Street and Memphis Avenue. n. The sewer system and appurtenances within the private interior streets shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. o. The storm drain system and appurtenances within the private interior streets shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. p. Corner lots shall include easements for sight distance purposes over corner segments to preclude installation of sight distance obstructions. q. All vehicular access rights to Beach Boulevard shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at street intersections and locations approved by the Planning Commission. r. Construct full public improvements on Memphis Avenue, Knoxville Avenue, Florida Street and Beach Boulevard, within the tentative map boundary and to the centerlines of streets, where improvements do not exist; Such improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, street lights, fire hydrants and half cross- gutter at Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue, and shall be designed and constructed to provide a 20 year design life. Existing, damaged or deteriorated public improvements within these areas shall be reconstructed to provide a 20 design life where determined necessary by the City Engineer. s. Remove and replace existing curb, gutter and sidewalk on Knoxville Avenue, adjacent to the project. t. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. u. A sewer study shall be submitted for Public Works approval. The developer shall design and construct the sewer system required to serve the development. v. The developer shall use"drought tolerant" plants and turf for all common area landscaping. w. All common area improvements, including landscaping, streets, and recreational facilities, shall be completed, or a cash bond may be posted with the Department of Public Works which will guarantee the completion of the common area improvements. Io`� x. The configuration of the proposed security gate shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Department, and the Police and Fire Departments. Calculations signed by a qualified, registered traffic engineer or civil engineer shall be submitted which demonstrate that the stacking distance from the public right-of-way to the security gate is adequate for storage of waiting cars, on-site, during the weekday, evening peak hour. The geometric design shall permit a turn-around maneuver to exit by a standard, SU-30 design vehicle which may be denied entry into the complex. The design vehicle shall be able to enter the site and return to the public street without backing into vehicles entering or exiting the secured area. y. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. z. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of the final map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9- 337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange Subdivision manual, Subarticle 18. aa. Zone Change"No. 94-5 shall be approved by the City Council and shall be in effect. bb. The applicant shall submit an affordable housing plan which provides for 10% of the total units (equal mix of 7 units) approved to be af.'ordable to families of low and moderate income provided the units' affordability averages to 100% of the median income level. Said plan shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The affordable units shall be under construction or available to the public prior to final building permit for the homes in Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49. The plan shall include, but is not limited to: 1. Build affordable units at an alternative location which is under control of the applicant. All units shall be constructed-prior to or concurrent with the primary project and final approval of the project shall be contingent upon completion and final approval, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion, of the affordable units. 2. Rehabilitate existing units and ensure long term affordability. 3. Preserve existing affordable units for the long term (30 years). 4. Other options which generate new opportunities for low and moderate affordable housing units for thirty (30) years. 5. In lieu fees may be paid only if an affordable housing ordinance is adopted and a resolution for in-lieu fees is adopted prior to issuance of building permits. )3 3. At least 60 days prior to recordation of the parcel map, CC&R's shall be submitted to and approved by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development. The CC&R's shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. The CC&R's shall also include Condition of Approval ;42 of Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49. The CC&R's must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 2. All applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards shall be met. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Tentative Tract Map No. 15033, and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. 5. Payment of the Traffic Impact Fees shall be made prior to the final inspection of the first unit. 6. Park and Recreation Fees shall be paid at the time the final map is accepted by City Council or issuance of any building permits, whichever occurs first. 7. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays S. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the public right-of-%vay. J � Page 15 - Statement of Action Motion Adopted To Direct Staff To Schedule Meeting With School Districts And Representatives Of Development Community Regarding Uniform Policy For School Impact Fees A motion was made by Dettloff, seconded by Green, to direct the Planning Staff to meet with the five school districts in Huntington Beach and with representatives of the development community to determine if the city would like to set a policy on school impact fees and also to look at vacant school properties and how that will play into this final decision. The motion carried by unaniomous vote. Mayor Leipzig adjourned the regular meetings of the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach. /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: /s/Connie Brockway /s/Victor Leipzig City Clerk/Clerk Mayor STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) County of Orange ) ss: City of Huntington Beach ) I, Connie Brockway, the duly elected City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, California, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct Statement of Action of the City Council of said City at their adjourned regular meeting held on the 6th day of March, 1995. Witness my hand and seal of the said City of Huntington Beach this the 12th day of April, 1995. /s/Connie Brockway City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California By Deputy Vy Clerk VW . Council/Agency Meeting Held: 3 — (p Deferred/Continued to: ❑Approved Aconditionally Approved ❑ Denied 15ty Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: March 6, 1995 Department ID Number: CD 95-8a REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City AdministratoraI,f/ PREPARED BY: MELANIE FALLON, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5, TENTATIVE„T CT NO. 15033, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-29`: ND fft 516 NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-15 ClrD �'3a76 a ac Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action,Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) ��lvl9 �a -Dd 7 - resa/v i o'loi�a ,�a rh�ye _I- o 4?— i rea STATEMENT OF ISSUE' e�� de°/Qhhrv� s���� ��zf r,�,`� .�"•s�hao/ drstr,ets av� W iA ;-epr,.- e v'Cr se�Jt�i�i' a{ ,e- eve/oprne-n cov"mLLr-1 1-y to Set fee proc9-odutoS� also k"WLcnt schoa/ ro�er}�ed 6e n�o� d o�. also d.-vise way y4, Transmitted for City Council consideratio is an appeal by Councilmember Bauer (Attachment No. 3) of a development proposal by Greystone Homes, Inc., located at the west side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street. The entitlements include Zone Change No. 94-5, to rezone an approximately 8 acre site from 6 CG (General Commercial) and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential) to RM (Medium Density Residential). The Planning Commission reviewed and voted to recommend to the City Council approval of Zone Change No. 94-5 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15 on January 10, 1995. Also included in the appeal are Tentative Tract No.15033 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 which were approved by the Planning Commission for the development of 69 detached residential units on the same property. The conditional use permit includes requests to permit development of a site that has a greater than three (3) foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading; to allow!a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards; and, to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height. The appeal was based upon the need to further evaluate the mitigation measures of the negative declaration and impacts to the school districts generated from additional students as a result of the proposed project. FUNDING SOURCE: /I Not Applicable. (,t_. i RECOMMENDATION: Planning Commission and Staff Recommendation: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 94-15 as revised", and, 2. "Approve Zone Change No. 94-5 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and adopt Ordinance No.52 76 (Attachment 2)," and, 3. "Uphold the Planning Commission's action and approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION ON JANUARY 10, 1995: THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-15 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5 WITH FINDINGS (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) AND RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: KERINS, BIDDLE, LIVENGOOD, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: GORMAN MOTION PASSED THE MOTION MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY TILLOTSON, TO APPROVE TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033 AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-29 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL (SEE ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: KERINS, LIVENGOOD, INGLEE, TILLOTSON, SPEAKER NOES: BIDDLE ABSTAIN: NONE ABSENT: GORMAN MOTION PASSED ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council may make one of the following motions: A. "Deny Zone Change No. 94-5 /Tentative Tract No. 15033 / Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15 with findings for denial." R16UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIA MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-8a PROJECT PROPOSAL: PROPERTY OWNER: Pacific Coast Homes, 18300 Von Karman Ave, Ste 850 Irvine, CA 92706 ZONE CHANGE: Zone Change No. 94-5 is a request to change the zone on an approximately eight acre site from GC (General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard (approximately four acres) and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential/ up to 25 units per net acre) along Florida Street (approximately four acres) to RM (Medium Density Residential/ up to 15 units per net acre). APPEAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 represents a request to subdivide approximately eight acres into a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of 69 detached residential units (small lot, single family residential design) pursuant to Title 25 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The lot sizes are typically 3139 square feet and are permitted as part of the PUD pursuant to Section 210.06 of the ZSO. The subdivision also contains 26 lettered lots for landscaping, streets, and open space areas which will be maintained by the future homeowner's association. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 represents a request to construct 69 detached residential units, with one (1) recreational lot, pursuant to Section 210.06 "RM Property Development Standards" and 210.12 "Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions" of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Conditional Use Permit also includes the following: 1. The site has a grade differential of eighteen feet (18) between the high point and the low point before rough grading which requires review by the Planning Commission for grading and compatibility concerns because it exceeds three (3) feet pursuant to Section 230.70 (C) of the ZSO; 2. A six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards along Knoxville Ave. and Florida Street pursuant to Section 230.88.A.11 of the ZSO as follows. a. Knoxville Avenue: Rear yard setback varies from a minimum of ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required fifteen feet (15) (Section 230.88.A.3) b. Florida Street: Street side yard setback varies from a minimum of nine (9) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required fifteen feet (15) (Section 210.06 "Property Development Standards for Residential Districts" Matrix). CD95-8A.DOC -2- 03/01/95 2:39 PM RWUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIL.i-4 MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-8a 3. Retaining walls on the exterior property lines along Beach Blvd. and Memphis Ave. that are up to 42 inches in height pursuant to Section 230.88.A.7. and 230.88.A.11. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: During the January 10, 1995 Planning Commission meeting, a representative from the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District presented two (2) letters of opposition (Attachment No. 5 and 6) to the project. Specifically, the school districts state that the additional impact of the number of students generated from the proposed project on the school system was not adequately mitigated in the environmental assessment of the proposed project. In addition, the letters state that the Districts were not notified of the Planning Commission public hearing, nor of the notice of preparation of the negative declaration and the Subdivision Committee meeting for the proposed project. The Community Development Department did notify the school districts of the aforementioned meetings (Attachment 12). No other individuals or parties spoke in opposition to the project. ISSUES: Zone Chance: The zone change will allow for a maximum density of 15 units per acre for a maximum total of 120 units on the site. The zone change is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Medium Density. In addition, the proposal is consistent with the City's Housing Element by increasing the variety of housing types in the community. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has recommended that the general plan land use designation remain as medium density residential. The proposed tentative tract and conditional use permit are dependent on the approval of Zone Change No. 94-5. The proposed tract map is designed at a density of 8.75 units per acre, which is well within the requirements of the RM District. Recordation of the final map for the proposed subdivision can not occur until Zone Change No. 94-5 has been approved by the City Council and in effect. Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit: If Zone Change No. 94-5 is approved, then this project will be located in the Residential- Medium Density (RM) District, and complies with the requirements of that zone. A discussion of the tentative map and conditional use permit as well as a zoning matrix are included in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 10, 1995 (Attachment No.5). CD95-BA.DOC -3- 03/01/95 2:39 PM R16UEST FOR COUNCIL ACTI09 MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-8a The proposed subdivision is compatible with surrounding developments, particularly with the setbacks of the planned unit developments to the east and north of the site. In addition, the site layout and design of the single family detached residential units is consistent with the design, including height and setbacks, of the surrounding residences to the south and west of the site with the surrounding planned residential developments in terms of density, design and site layout. Staff is recommending approval of the project because the project conforms with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of Medium Density Residential, is consistent with the City's Housing Element by increasing the variety of housing types in the community, and is compatible with the surrounding residential developments. Environmental Status: Negative Declaration No. 94-15 (Attachment No. 4) was prepared to analyze the potential impacts of the zone change, tentative tract map and conditional use permit. The following supplemental reports were prepared to assist staff in this analysis: 1). "Geotechnical Investigation", prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc.; 2). "Hydrology and Preliminary Hydraulics Study," prepared by Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc.; and, 3). "Traffic Study," prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. All concerns were mitigated to a level of insignificance. The "Geotechnical Investigation" confirmed that no portion of the proposed project is within 50 feet of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Seismic Zone, and the 'Hydrology and Preliminary Hydrology Study" concluded that the City's existing drain system can accommodate the projected additional water run-off generated from the proposed project. Finally, the "Traffic Study" concluded that the proposed project's gated entry will be free flowing and will not adversely impact through traffic along Florida Street, and that the proposed project will warrant the signalization of the Beach Boulevard to Memphis Avenue intersection (included in the conditions of approval for this project). Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 for twenty-one (21) days commencing on Thursday, December 15, 1994 and ending on Thursday, January 5, 1995. No comments were received during this period. Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. The Department of Community Development received the two letters of opposition from the Huntington Beach Union High and City School Districts (Attachment Nos. 9 and 10) regarding the negative declaration at the January 10, 1995, Planning Commission meeting. CD95-8A.DOC -4- 03/01/95 2:39 PM i AUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIAV MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-8a Negative Declaration No. 94-15 projects approximately nine (9) students for both Districts to be generated from the proposed project (based on the Districts' previously submitted rate of .1323 students generated per residential unit). Staff participated in phone conversations with the Districts in September of 1994 to confirm such rates. However, the Districts have indicated through recent communications with the City, including their aforementioned letters of opposition, that such rates should be increased to .2 students per unit for the high school (grades 9-12) and .5943 students per unit for the elementary and junior high school (grades K-8). Such generation rates would result in a projection of 55 total students generated from the project. Currently, such higher student generation rate analyses has been limited to large development projects such as Bolsa Chica. If approved by the City Council, staff will revise the Negative Declaration to reflect a projection of 55 students as a result of the project. Appeal/Schools: The Districts expressed their concern regarding the mitigation measures as contained in Negative Declaration No. 94-15 regarding the impacts of the additional students created by the proposed project. Councilmember Bauer subsequently appealed the project on January 20, 1995. The Huntington Beach Union High and City School Districts have indicated that the increased enrollment of students generated by this project will impose a financial burden on the districts due to the need for additional classroom and auxiliary space. Restated, the Districts do not believe that the current state mandated school impact fee of $1.72 per square foot for residential development is sufficient to adequately mitigate the impacts of the additional students on the existing school facilities. Using state mandated school impact fees would result in the following cumulative amount based upon the proposed 69 unit development: 2,022 square feet (Average sq ft per unit) x $1.72 = $3,477.84 per unit 69 units x $3,477.84 = $239,971 TOTAL SCHOOL IMPACT FEE MANDATED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA On February 6, 1995, the City sent letters by certified mail to both districts requesting a specific fee amount which would mitigate the impacts associated with additional students on the existing school facilities. On February 21, 1995, staff received a letter from the Huntington Beach Union High School District estimating the cost of each additional student at $28,277.80 (see Attachment 11), or a total of $395,889 for the fourteen (14) students (calculated at .2 students per unit for the high school) generated by this project. This would result in a per unit cost of$5,737.52 or $2.83 per square foot. Such costs CD95-8A.DOC -5- 03/01/95 2:39 PM RSUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIA MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-8a identify the general improvement and land costs associated with construction of new school facilities. The Huntington Beach City School District has not submitted a specific cost amount per student for the 41 students they project in their school district and a telephone conversation with Jerry Buchanan, Assistant Superintendent of Business Affairs, indicated that they prefer to negotiate with the developer to establish a cost.. Staff agrees to revise the student generation rates specified in the negative declaration to reflect 55 students but disagrees with requiring additional fees than those already mandated by the State of California for residential development. The intent of the state legislation was to offset some of the school district costs by assessing new developments. Increasing the fee as recommended by the school districts would have a dramatic affect on. the cost of housing in this community. It would also place the City in a position of becoming an arbitrator of fees between the state, school district and property owner. Any changes in how the City calculates fees for new development to mitigate school impacts should be done in a comprehensive and thoughtful manner. If a new fee is to be established, then all five school districts in the City should address the issue collectively. Student generation rates, closed school sites, and costs per student should be analyzed citywide and not on a case by case basis. Staff believes it would be unfair to single out this development project to pay $5,737 per unit cost to meet the Huntington Beach Union High School District's needs and additional costs to meet the other district's needs. Staff is in the process of facilitating meetings with the districts to address such issues and others areas of concern for future projects. In addition, staff is reviewing the Districts' request for future Citywide project evaluations to reflect the aforementioned increased student generation rates in their analysis. On February 21, 1995, staff conducted an informal telephone survey of five (5) surrounding cities, including Fountain Valley, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, Westminster and Garden Grove regarding the state mandated school impact fees and any additional fees beyond the school impact fee that might be imposed to offset costs. Three of the cities have a school impact fee of $1.72 per square foot, while two cities' school impact fees are $1.65 per square foot. None of the above cities impose an additional fee beyond the state mandated school impact fee. SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the negative declaration, zone change, tentative tract map, and conditional use permit based on the following, The negative declaration adequately addresses the potential impacts of the project proposal, including the adjustment of the number of projected students generated from the project to 55 students. The analysis indicates that based upon the mitigation measures, the proposed project will not have any adverse environmental effects. CD95-BA.DOC -6- 03/01/95 2:39 PM RhQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTIL,,j MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 95-8a The proposed zone change and development project are consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation and the City's Housing element of the General Plan by increasing the variety of housing types in the community. The project is consistent with the objectives of the RM standards and Planned Unit Development concept of the code in achieving a development that has an integrated design and that adapts to the terrain and compatibility of the surrounding environment. The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property and improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project provides better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, perimeter walls, site layout and design ATTACHMENTS: City Clerk's Page Number 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval for ZC 94-5/TT 15033/CUP-94- 29/ND 94-15 approved by the Planning Commission on Jan. 10, 1995 2. Ordinance No. 3. Letter of Appeal from Councilmember Bauer dated Jan. 20, 1995 4. Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 10, 1995 6. Zoning Map depicting Existing and Proposed Zoning 7. Site Plan, Floor Plan and Elevations, dated December 12, 1994 8. Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 dated December 20, 1994 9. Letter from Huntington Beach Union High School District, dated January 10, 1995 10. Letter from Huntington Beach City School District, dated January 10, 1995 11. Letter from Huntington Beach Union High School District, dated February 21, 1995 12. Letter to Huntington Beach City Elementary School District from Melanie Fallon, dated February 2, 1995 MTU:MSF:HZ:SH:*KK:kl CD95-8A.DOC -7- 03/01/95 2:39 PM ORDINANCE NO. 3276 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 12 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 11-6-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MEMPHIS AVENUE, WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD, NORTH OF KNOXVILLE AVENUE AND EAST OF FLORIDA STREET FROM C-4 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL) AND R3 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO RM(MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5) WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zone Change No. 94-5, which rezones the property generally located south of Memphis Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, east of Florida Street and north of Knoxville Avenue, to RM, Medium Density Residential; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The zoning designation of the real property hereinafter described in Section 2 hereof, and shown on District Map 12 (Sectional District Map 11-6-11) is hereby changed from C-4 (Highway Commercial) and R3 (Medium-High Density Residential)to RM (Medium Density Residential). SECTION 2. The real property subject to this ordinance is generally located south of Memphis Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, east of Florida Street and north of Knoxville Avenue, and described as follows: 1 4\s\G:Ord:znchZone Change 94-5\1/10/95 RLS 95-006 Lots A and B in Block 1107, Lots A and B in Block 1108, Lots A and B in Block 1207, and Lots A and B in Block 1208, all in the Vista Del Mar Tract, as shown on a map recorded inBook 4, Page 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, State of California. SECTION 3. Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9061, District Map 12 (Sectional District Map 11-6-11) is hereby amended to reflect Zone Change No. 94-5 as described herein. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of said district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20thday of March , 19 95 Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City ,Attorney o-q.�- REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City A inistrator I 1 ctor of Co6mutlity teve pment 2 4\s\G:Ord:znchZone Change 94-5\1/10/95 RLS 95-006 I Ord. No. 3276 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at an regular meeting thereof held on the 6th of March, 1995, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 20th of March. 1995, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Councilmembers: Harman, Bauer,Sullivan, Leipzig, Dettloff, Green, Garofalo NOES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California �t :.x Do Nor P&L � T - CT Ia- 1Vp 3p -b aw-lej go from the desk of: 1✓ ..YN SCHUBERT, CMC DEPUTY CITY CLERK NO. D r (714) 536=52E) J"�a 14TINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE DE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 12 TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY _ EMPHIS AVENUE, WEST OF BEACH /ENUE AND EAST OF FLORIDA STREET WA AND R3 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY • TM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) JE NO. 94-5) ite Planning and Zoning Law, the may`' G� a tington Beach City Council have held Zone Change No. 94-5, which rezones kvenue, west of Beach Boulevard, east r,/ILB o RM, Medium Density Residential; and . BOX 1 i recommendations of the Planning Commission HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the Ci ordain as follows: • �7 6 rid veto seal fir /J��4/�e SECTION 1. The zoning de sew e / �a G: �4 ySv rn Q y 7F+' 2 hereof, and shown on District Map C _ :: r" C-4 (Highway Commercial) and R3 i •9 Residential). SECTION 2. The real property sudject to tnis oralnance is generally iocatea soutn of Memphis Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, east of Florida Street and north of Knoxville Avenue, and described as follows: 1 4\s\G:Ord:znchZone Change 94-5\1/10/95 RIS 95-006 } ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ORDINANCE CODE BY AMENDING DISTRICT MAP 12 (SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 11-6-11) TO REZONE THE REAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED SOUTH OF MEMPHIS AVENUE, WEST OF BEACH BOULEVARD, NORTH OF KNOXVILLE AVENUE AND EAST OF FLORIDA STREET FROM C4 (HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL)AND R3 (MEDIUM-HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL TO RM(MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL) (ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5) WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zone Change No. 94-5, which rezones the property generally located south of Memphis Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, east of Florida Street and north of Knoxville Avenue, to RM, Medium Density Residential; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The zoning designation of the real property hereinafter described in Section 2 hereof, and shown on District Map 12 (Sectional District Map 11-6-11)is hereby changed from C-4 (Highway Commercial) and R3 (Medium-High Density Residential)to RM(Medium Density Residential). SECTION 2. The real property subject to this ordinance is generally located south of Memphis Avenue, west of Beach Boulevard, east of Florida Street and north of Knoxville Avenue, and described as follows: 1 4\s\G:0rd:znc6Zone Change 94-5\1/10/95 RLS 95-006 Lots A and B in Block 1107, Lots A and B in Block 1108, Lots A and B in Block 1207, and Lots A and B in Block 1208, all in the Vista Del Mar Tract, as shown on a map recorded inBook 4, Page 36 of Miscellaneous Maps, Records of Orange County, State of California. SECTION 3. Huntington Beach Ordinance Code Section 9061, District Map 12 (Sectional District Map 11-6-11) is hereby amended to reflect Zone Change No. 94-5 as described herein. The Director of Community Development is hereby directed to prepare and file an amended map. A copy of said district map, as amended, shall be available for inspection in the Office of the City Clerk. SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 19_ Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk A torney �._--e I - I o-i S' REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IMTIATED AND APPROVED: City Astrator I1 ctor of CoC munity Aeve pment 2 4\s\G:Ord:znchZone Change 94-5\1/10/95 RLS 95-006 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane • P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 BOARD OF TRUSTEES March 3, 1995 Catherine McGough President Mayor Victor Leipzig Clerk y Brian E. echsteiner 17461 Skyline Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Shirley Carey Member Re: School Mitigation Fees Brian Garland Member Dear Mayor Leipzig: Robert Mann,Ed.D. Member The City Council will have an opportunity to review a decision of the Planning Commission that involves 69 houses to be constructed on Beach Blvd.(Tract 15033). ADMINISTRATION This is one tract but the issues .are much broader and center upon all new development in the City and the amendment of the General Plan. Duane A.Dishno,Ed.D. Superintendent Although the issue of adequate mitigation is important to all school districts in the City. Alan Rasmussen,Ed.D. The Huntington Beach City School District has been working closely with the Assistant Superintendent Huntington Beach Union High School District on development that jointly impacts both Personnel/Educational districts. The issues I would like to address with the council, planning commission Services and staff in this letter and attachments are specific to the Huntington Beach City School Jerry Buchanan District, I believe that many are also of concern to the Huntington Beach Union High Assistant Superintendent School District. Business Services The history of the City of Huntington Beach from February of 1992 to Mid 1994 has been to require that developers mitigate the impact of development. The Holly-Seacliff, Downtown Development and Magnolia Pacific Specific Plans all contain mitigation language that protects schools. The language was agreed upon by City Staff and the District. While the Holly-Seacliff Plan was specific as to the Huntington Beach City School District, the other two specific plans covered both Huntington Beach City School District and Huntington Beach Union High School District. The City required Seacliff Partners to negotiate mitigation agreements on the Oil Islands Projects and Oceancrest. The Growth Management Element requires that all development pay its - share of costs associated with the project. However, in spite of this historical perspective, the City has recently taken a different tack. Tract 15033 (69 Units) and Tract 15109 (30 Units) were approved by the Planning Commission and with no additional mitigation. These tracts are served by schools that are at capacity and require busing. The cost to house and transport the students generated from these tracts is far greater than the $1.04 Statutory fee that City Staff has indicated is adequate mitigation.. The Huntington Beach City School District is requesting that the Council utilize the authority that it has been granted tinder the Mira, Hart and Murrieta decisions to reject the projects and require the developers to negotiate with the Districts to set a fee that Z 61-4 e io M rn ccr�%Gt��c-P-2 T - 3 "We Are An Equal Opportunity Employer" March 3, 1995 Page 2 will provide for the adequate housing of students. The District feels that the Council has both the power and the obligation to insure that students are adequately housed. The District is committed to providing adequate housing for students and will work with the City and Council to attain this goal. The District will be represented at the March 6 meeting to oppose Tract 15033. The District is also requesting that all future projects which require legislative action by the council be denied without adequate mitigation. There has been an initial meeting to discuss mitigation and the General Plan Amendment and the District is confident that agreement can be reached. The history of providing mitigation must be continued by this Council and cannot be forgotten. To do so will require that a few developers be required to pay a higher fee to make up for those who are held to the statutory fee. Sincerely, Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent Business Services Attachments: Huntington Beach City School District Position Statement Mitigation Language frorn: Holly Seacliff Specific Plan ($3,680.68 fee for 1995 HBCSD) Downtown Development Specific Plan Magnolia Pacific Specific Plan School Impact Mitigation Agreement between Seacliff Partners & HBCSD on The Islands and Surfcrest North Angton Beach City School Distrito Position Statement on School Mitigation Fees Proposition 170 was defeated in the November 2, 1993 state-wide election. The implications of the defeat of Proposition 170 are widespread with respect to the manner in which California school districts must now conduct business. The passage of Proposition 170 would have provided school districts with the ability to issue general obligation bonds with only a simple majority vote and would have perpetuated the additional $1.00 per square foot residential development fee created through the adoption of Senate Bill No. 1287. However, in return for these local revenue sources, Government Code Section 65996 would have been permanently amended with language intended to limit the mitigation measures available to local agencies with which to mitigate the environmental impacts of legislative acts upon school facilities to only those measures listed in Section 65996 and which would have removed the precedents set by the Mira. Hart and Murrieta decisions. Previous to Proposition 170 and Senate Bill No. 1287, the Mira, Hart and Murrieta decisions had set 1--gal precedents which ruled that a legislative act was not a "development project" and therefore, was not subject to the limitations on mitigation measures for the impacts on schools found in Section 65996. Local agencies had the-obligation to consider the adequacy of school facilities in. the legislative review process and could deny a legislative action based upon inadequate school facilities. The new language contained in Senate Bill No. 1287, aimed at reversingthese hese precedents, was repealed with the failure of Proposition 170, as was the additional $1.00 per square foot residential development fee. The Huntington Beach City School District had collected this additional $1.00 per square foot during the ten months it was available. School districts must conduct business in a pro-active manner and not in a re-active manner. In the wake of the failure of Proposition 170, school districts must utilize the limited available financial resources to fund capital facilities projects while keeping a watchful eye on the Governor and the Legislature who have made it known through the preamble to Senate Bill No. 1287 that the state government does not want to be in the school building business any longer: SECTION 1. It is the intent of the Legislature to enact a new program for the financing of school facilities in accordance with the following principles: (a) Primary financial responsibility for school facilities should rest with school districts. (b) School districts should be authorized to raise a sufficient amount of - revenue locally to finance a majority of their school.facility.needs. . - .. ... (c) The role of the state should be limited to: (1) Using state funds to supplement the local revenues of those school districts having low assessed valuation. (2) Using state funds to finance needed school facilities for those school district that have met or exceeded their debt capacity. (3) Using state funds to provide interim school facilities for those school districts that are unable to supply the expected level of local revenues. 1 I • Hu ngton Beach City School Distrito Position Statement on School Mitigation Fees With the failure of Proposition 170, the State is still in the business of providing school facilities. The Leroy F. Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Program ("State Program"), which has been the primary source of funding for school capital facilities projects, will remain in operation although there is a backlog of unfunded projects totaling many billions of dollars. However, there have been no state bond issues passed for school facilities in the past two years and the State Building Program is broke. School districts cannot continue to rely upon the State Program to fund capital facilities projects as the Legislature has made its intentions known to remove the State Program. Therefore, school districts must aggressively pursue revenue sources at the local level. School districts have one certain mitigation measure at the local level: statutory development fees. Currently the maximum fees that may be levied by school districts are $1.72 and $0.28 per square foot on residential and commercial/industrial development, respectively. This typically represents far less than 50% of the cost to house new students generated from new development. The Huntington Beach City School District ("District") is currently in a fee-sharing arrangement with the Huntington_ Beach Union High School District. The District collects $1.0492 per square foot (61% of$1.,72) and $0.1708 per square foot (61% of$0.28) on residential and commercial/industrial development, respectively. To illustrate what this fee represents to the District in terms of mitigation of the impacts of new housing units, an excerpt from the District's "Supplemental Letter to District's Developer Fee Report to Substantiate an Additional Residential Developer Fee of an Additional $1.00 Pursuant to SB 1287, 1992," states as follows: As of the end of the third week of the new 1992/93 school year, there were 5,758 students enrolled (3,703 K-5 students, 1,922 6-8 students and 133 special education students). Given an estimated District household count for 1992 of 30,973 households, this would:produce a total District household student generation factor of.1859, or a K-5 factor of.1195, a 6-8 factor of.0621, and a special education factor of.0042. If the estimated 1992/93 capital facilities costs from Exhibit "A" (District's previous Development Fee Finding Report) are used, a cost per household would be attained of: Grade SGF* Cost/Student Cost/Household K-5 .1195 - $22,855 $2,732.17. . : . . 6-8 .0621 $35,498 $2,204.43 Spec. Ed. .0042 $39,177 122.54 Total .1859 $5,058.14 Dividing the cost per household of$5,058.14 by the average square foot per housing unit of 1,600 square foot, as identified in the District's report, would leave a cost of$3.1613 per square foot. * Student Generation Factor for each household using 1992 District-wide generation rates. Student Generation rates for new construction exceed $.60 for 1994/95. 2 Huntington Beach City School District Position Statement on School Mitigation Fees Given the District's 61% share of the $1.72 per square foot residential development fee of $1.0492, development fees mitigate only 31.84% of the total cost 'per new housing unit. Clearly the current level of development fees is insufficient. The cost to house students using old student generation rates on total housing is three times the current developer fee. The needed fee for full mitigation exceeds$3.16 per square foot. The Huntington Beach City School District will utilize the applicable statutes and case law, including the precedents set forth in the Mira, Hart and Murrieta decisions to obtain adequate mitigation for the environmental impact of new development upon the District's facilities. As mentioned. the City of Huntington Beach has the obligation to consider the adequacy of school facilities prior to adoption of legislative actions, including_general plan amendments. zoning ordinances and specific plans etc. All environmental impact reports prepared for legislative actions should sufficiently consider the environmental impacts upon school facilities, including: (a) projections of new students to be generated; (b) capital facilities costs to house these new students including needed improvements/increases in infrastructure; and (c) school-related impacts on traffic and circulation, noise, safety, air quality, and infrastructure etc. These impacts should be set forth to such a degree that the District can make intelligent decisions regarding the adequacy of proposed mitigation measures. Sections 15147 of the CEQA Guidelines states: 15147. The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps plot plans,diagrams and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public. Placeinent of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Appendices to the EIR may be prepared in volumes separate from the basic EIR document, but shall be readily available for public examination and shall be submitted to all clearing houses which assist public review. Further, Section 15151 of the CEQA Guidelines states: 15151. An EIR should be prepared with a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decision- makers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences. An evaluation of the environmental effects of a proposed project need not be exhaustive, but the sufficiency of an EIR is to be reviewed in light of what is reasonably feasible. Disagreement among experts does not make an EIR inadequate, but the EIR should summarize the main points of disagreement among the experts. The courts have looked, not for perfection but for adequacy, completeness and a good faith effort at full disclosure. The District will continue to pursue impact mitigation in various development matters which may now or be hereinafter brought before the City of Huntington Beach, and which may have an impact on the services and/or facilities offered by the District. Previously the City and the District have reached understandings on acceptable General Plan language (Holly Seacliff, Downtown Development and NEST) with which to condition various projects. The District requests that the City condition future projects and amend The General Plan 3 Huntington Beach City School District Position Statement on School Mitigation Fees with the following language which is a combination of language that the City staff has proposed and previous Huntington Beach City Councils have included in the Holly Seacliff,Downtown Development and Magnolia Pacific Specific Plans which is acceptable to the District, as follows: " Prior to the issuance of any building permit, the developer or the property owner of record, shall enter into a School Facilities Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement with the appropriate school district(s) for K-12. The Agreement shall provide for the adequate mitigation of impacts on the District by providing that new school facilities shall be available to serve the student population generated by the proposed development or that funding shall be available to the District for the provision for said facilities. This condition may be waived by the appropriate school district." The District will be seeking this language with which to condition development within the City of Huntington Beach in the future and actively seeking its inclusion in the General Plan. There should be no elimination of low income housing from mitigation requirements. The Huntington Beach City School District should not bear the brunt of funding low income units. Elimination of low income housing will also substantially increase the fee required for full mitigation on other units. Further, the District seeks to have additional language placed into The General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach which requires mitigation of school facilities. The District recommends that the City consider and incorporate into The General Plan the following policies: 1) The City shall insure that development pursued under the authority of the General Plan occurs concurrent with the availability of school facilities and/or the availability of revenues to finance school facilities impacted by development; and 2) The City shall pursue and implement any and all remedies and measures to eliminate and alleviate the impacts of development and the implementation of the General Plan on the school districts of the community to the fullest extent possible by law. Additionally, the District hereby requests to be apprised of the consideration by the (a) Huntington Beach Community Development Department or any official or quasi-official committee of that department; (b) Planning Commission; (c) City Council; and (d) Redevelopment Agency of any administrative or legislative acts or actions which may directly or indirectly result in, authorize or provide for the development or redevelopment of any residential or non-residential land use within the City. In addition, the District requests to be given an opportunity to provide documentation, information and evidence to support its contentions as to the environmental and related financial impacts said development or redevelopment will have on the District's ability to provide educational services or facilities to the community. Requests for further information can be submitted to Mr. Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent, Business Services 20451 Craimer Lane - t P.O. Box 71 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 4 i HOLLY SEACLIFF SPECIFIC PLAN h . Schools A School Facilities Impact Mitigation and Reimbursement Agreement shall be a condition of approval for any subdivision, tentative tract, or parcel map within the Specific Plan . The Agreement shall provide for the adequate mitigation of impacts on the elementary school district by providing adequate funding of school facilities necessary to serve the student population generated by the proposed development . This condition may be waived by the Board of Trustees of the Huntington Beach City School District . Downtown Development Specific Plan In order to address the Huntington Beach School District ' s concerns , staff has included a condition that requires the applicant to enter into a school facilities impact mitigation and reimbursement agreement with the appropriate school district(s) . In order to comply with this request the following condition may be imposed : Prior to issuance of any building permit, the developer shall enter into a school facilities impact mitigation and reimbursement agreement with the appropriate school district(s) for K-12 . This condition may be waived by the aVVropr-iat-e school district . Magnolia Pacific Specific Plan prior to approval of any subdivision, tentative tract and/or har.c:c:. l mats, developer shall enter into a school facilities ini[)ac:t: mit_iclation and reirtibursement agreement- with the approhriat-ewle- school district: for K-12 . 'i'liis condition may he waived try the 11iintington []each City School District . i HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane, P.O.Box 71, Huntington Beach, California (714)964-8888 School Impact Mitigation Agreement This is a School Impact Mitigation Agreement between Seacliff Partners ("Seacliff) and the Huntington Beach City School District ("District"). I. ISLANDS 1. The Islands consist: of the projects as listed in Exhibit A for a total of 138 dwelling units (122 new lots and 16 existing lots), now or hereinafter approved for the subject properties, known collectively as the "Islands." 2. Seacliff shall pay District a school impact mitigation fee of $3,170.69 for each Islands dwelling unit to be constructed and District shall issue a Certificate of Compliance upon receipt of such payment. II. SURFCREST NORTH 1. Surfcrest North presently consists of Tentative Tract Map No. 14135, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45 and Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, now or hereinafter approved for the subject property, known as "Surfcrest North.." 2. Seacliff shall pay District a school impact mitigation fee for each Surfcrest North dwelling unit to be constructed as provided below and District shall issue a, Certificate of Compliance upon receipt of such payment. In the event of any redesign, the established concept will be followed. No. of No. of Bedrooms Units School Fee 1/1+ den 116 $ 790 2/2+ den 156 $1,989 3 12 $3,170.69 III. GENERAL 1. By entry into this agreement and the payment of school fees by Seacliff pursuant to this agreement, District agrees that Seacliff provides complete mitigation of the impact upon the District of development of the subject properties. i 2. School fees paid by Seacliff for these properties shall be-increas6d as provided by Governing Code Section 65995(b)(3) and as it may be amended. 3. The District, upon signature of the final agreement, agrees not to oppose or delay the award or approval of any entitlements for [lie subject properties and at the request of Seacliff, to support the approval of entitlements for the subject properties up to the maximum number of units referenced in the Agreement. There is no guarantee that all of the units subject to this Agreement will be constructed. 4. This Agreement shall be binding on any and all successors and assigns of Seacliff and the District. 5. The fees will be paid directly to the Huntington Beach City School District. HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT By By President, Board of Education Clerk, Board of Education ATTEST: Superintendent of Schools SEACLIFF PARTNERS a California General. Partnership By: UWC- Seacliff,L.P. General Partner By: Urban West Communities Agent - Vice President PACIFIC COAST HOMES a California Corporation By: Vice President l EMB ELA Islands projects consist of- l. Zone Change No.90-9 Tentative Tract No. 14042 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.90-38 2. Zone Change No.90-11 Tentative Tract No. 14043 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.90-39 3. Zone Change No.90-15 Tentative Tract No. 14044 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.90-37 4. Zone Change No.90-12 Tentative Tract No. 14243 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.90-40 5. Zone Change No.90-13 Tentative Tract No. 14244 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.90-41 6. Zone Change No.90-16 Tentative:Tract No. 14296 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.91-37 7. Tentative Tract No. 14318 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.9046 8. Tentative Change No.90-8 Tentative Tract No. 14319 9. Tentative Tract No. 14320 10. Tentative Tract No. 14321 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.90-38 11. Tentative Tract No. 14326 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.91-43 12. General Plan Amendment No.90-7 Zone Change No.90-14 Tentative Tract No. 14277 Conditional Use Permit No.9146 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.91-36 and all accompanying Negative Declarations B. Existing lots in the Seacliff area by Assessors Parcel Number: 023-261-01 023-263-15 023-263-16 023-212-12 023-212-22 023-221-09 023-221-10 023-222-05 023-222-06 023-222-07 023-231-02 023-231-03 023-231-21. 023-231-22 023-232-26 023-232-03 EMIMIT R 1. Description of Surfcrest North,Tentative Tract No. 14135: Assessor's Parcel No. 23-181-14 ATTACHMENT 1 Huntington Beach Planning Commission N NN/vNNNNN NNNNNNNNN NNN NN Nf�IN P.O. Box 190 California 92648 Date: January 13, 1995 NOTICE OF ACTION Applicant: Greystone Homes, Inc., 7 Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Subject: ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15033/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION' NO. 94-15 Your application was acted upon by the Huntington Beach Planning Commission on January 10. 1995 and your request was: WITHDRAWN APPROVED APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS XX (see attached). DISAPPROVED. _ TABLED CONTINUED UNTIL Under the provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance code, the action taken by the Planning Commission is final unless an appeal is filed to the City Council by you or an interested party. Said appeal must be in writing and must set forth in detail the actions and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deems himself aggrieved. Said appeal must be accompanied by a filing fee of twelve hundred ($1,200) dollars and be submitted to the City Clerk's office within ten:(10) days of the date of the Commission's action. In your case, the last day for filing an. appeal and paying the filing fee is January 23, 1995 Provisions of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code are such that any application becomes null and void one (1) year after final approval, unless actual construction has started. I J Huntington Beach Planning Commission 0 P.O. BOX 190 CALIFORNIA 92646 January 13, 1995 Greystone Homes, Inc. 7 Upper*Newport Plaza Newport Beach, CA 92660 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 15033/ CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-29/1\'EGATIVE DECLARATION INTO. 94-15 REQUEST: Zone Change: To rezone an approximately 8 acre site from CG (General Commercial) and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential)to RNI (Medium Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit: To allow a 71 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 70 detached residential units and one recreational lot. The conditional use permit also includes the following requests: to permit development of a site that has a greater than (3) foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading, to allow a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height. Variance: A request for a reduced sideyard setback of eight (8) feet for one unit along Florida Street in lieu of 15'. LOCATION: West side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street DATE OF ACTION: January 10, 1995 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL- ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5: 1. The proposed zone change from CG(General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard (approximately 4 acres) and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential) along Florida Street (approximately 4 acres) to RM (Medium Density Residential) does conform with the Residential Medium Density land use designation of the City's General Plan. 2. The proposed zone change from CG and RT\4H to RM is consistent with the surrounding medium density residential land uses, because the RM district allows for residential 3. The proposed zone change from CG and RMH to RM is consistent with the City's General Plan and Housing Element, in that it will provide for a variety of housing types within the City. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15033: 1. The size, depth, and frontage of the proposed 70 lot subdivision for 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot is in compliance with the standard plans and specifications on file with the City as well as in compliance with the State Subdivision Map Act and the supplemental City Subdivision Ordinance. 2. The property was previously studied for this intensity of land use at the time the General Plan designation of Medium Density Residential and RM, Medium Density Residential, (15 units per gross acre)zoning were implemented. The proposed density of the project is 8.95 units/acre, based upon 69 units on an 8 acre site. 3. The General Plan has set forth provisions for multifamily residential uses as well as setting forth objectives for the implementation of this type of use. 4. Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 for a 70 lot subdivision for 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot, is consistent with the goals and policies of the Huntington Beach General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. FRiDIINTGS FOR APPROVAL- CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-49: 1. The location, site layout, and design of the proposed 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot, properly adapts the proposed structures to streets, driveways, and other adjacent structures and uses in a harmonious manner. The project's design includes setbacks and building bulk compatible within the area. 2. With the suggested conditions imposed, the access to and parking for the proposed residential development will not create an undue traffic problem on the four (4) perimeter streets surrounding the project. 3. The planned residential development for 69 single family detached residential units and one (1) recreational lot does conform to the provisions contained in Chapter 210 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 4. The proposed project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons residing or working in the vicinity, nor injurious to property and improvements in the area. The 69 unit residential project will function as a compatible residential project. 5. The proposed project will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Huntington Beach. The proposed development of 69 single family detached residential units, is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation of the General Plan. 6. The six (6) foot high perimeter mall along Florida Street, which exceeds the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards , the three and a half(3 1/2) foot high retaining wall on the exterior property lines along Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue, which exceeds the code requirement of two (2) feet in height, and the development of the site with a grade differential of 18 feet between the high point and the low point, which exceeds the code requirement of a 3 foot high maximum grade differential between the high point and the low point, will result in a better living environment and a design that is compatible with the surrounding area and will provide for maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of landscaping, design and building layout. The residential project to the north also contains retaining walls. 7. The six (6) foot high perimeter wall along Florida Street, the three and a half(3 1/2) foot high retaining wall along the exterior property lines along Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue and development of the site with an 18 foot grade differential between the high point and the low point, will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. 8. The six (6) foot high perimeter wall along Florida Street, the three and a half(3 1/2) foot high retaining wall along the exterior property lines along Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue and development of the site with an 18 foot grade differential between the high point and the low point, are consistent with the objectives of the Planned Residential Development standards in achieving a development compatible with the surrounding environment. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL -CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-49: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations received and dated January 4, 1995, shall be the conceptually approved layout, with the following modifications: a. The rear building elevations of perimeter lots shall have architectural upgrades such as window treatments, to enhance the aesthetics of the project from the four perimeters. b. Vary the perimeter wall along Beach Boulevard by providing offsets or provide decorative pilasters along the wall at every other lot line (approximately every 85 feet). 2. Any future additions to the single family residential units shall be restricted to the standards contained in this report. 3. Prior to submittal for building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transforms, on the site plan. They shall be prohibited in the front and exterior yard setbacks unless properly screened by landscaping or other method as approved by the Community Development Director. The markings, indicating the size, model number and serial number shall be visible on the back flow devices. (pcc1020-3) • b. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating units; and low-volume heads shall be used on all spigots and water faucets. c. If foil-type insulation is to be used, a fire retarding type shall be installed as approved by the Building Department and indicated on the floor plans. d. Elevations shall depict colors and building materials proposed. e. If outdoor lighting is included, Nigh-pressure sodium vapor lamps or similar energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. f. The developer shall install an on-site lighting system on all vehicular access ways, within unenclosed parking areas, and along all major walkways. A lighting plan shall be submitted for approval to the Director of Community Development. g. The conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover sheet of all plans submitted for plancheck. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant/owner shall complete the following: a. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Departments of Community Development and Public Works and must be approved. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect and wNch includes all proposed/existing plant materials (location, type, size, quantity), an irrigation plan, a grading plan, an approved site plan, and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Section 9607 (Chapter 232) ofthe Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. The set must be approved by both departments prior to issuance of building permits. Any existing mature trees that require removal shall be replaced at a 2 to 1 ratio with minimum 36-inch box trees, which shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. "Drought tolerant" plants and turf shall be used for all landscaping. b. All structures on the subject property, whether attached or detached, shall be constructed in compliance to the State's acoustical standards. Evidence of compliance shall consist of a noise study or acoustical analysis report, which includes evidence of adequate sound attenuation to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance and State standards. Such study shall include noise attenuation measures such as setbacks, soundwalls, insulation and landscape buffers for the residential development, and shall be submitted to the Community Development Department for review and approval. c. A grading plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and it must be approved (by issuance of a grading permit). A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. d. The water system shall be designed and installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's design criteria, standard plans and specifications. The system shall be located within vehicle travel ways in an easement dedicated to the City. e. The proposed project shall have a separate domestic water service for each unit, sized per the Uniform Plumbing Code and Water Division Standard Plans. Any existing water service shall be abandoned. f. The applicant/owner shall submit a plan, showing water system improvements including service connections to each unit; back flow devices and other appurtenances shall be in accordance with applicable Uniform Plumbing Code, City Ordinances, Public Works standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by the Public Works Water Division and Fire Department prior to construction. g. Landscape irrigation system shall be designed and constructed to include a separate water service connections from domestic service connections. The developer shall submit irrigation demands to ensure proper irrigation sizing. h. An interim parking and/or building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to assure adequate parking is available for contractors, construction workers, etc., during the project's construction phase. i. Gated entryway (access control devices) plans to the Community Development Department. A"statement of architecture' should be incorporated to highlight the theme of the development. Said gated entryway shall comply with Fire Department Standard 403. Prior to the installation of any such gates, such plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. j. Zone Change No. 94-5 shall be approved by the City Council and in effect. k. Condtion rbb of Tentative Parcel Map No., 15033 shall be complied with. 5. Prior to issuance of grading permits the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for construction activities, from the Regional Water Quality Control Board; b. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map by more than one (1) foot. c. A landscape plan and an irrigation plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets and utilities. • 6. Fire Department requirements are as follows: a. Two entry/exit gates shall be required. Electronic gates shall comply with City Specification 14403. Gates shall be a minimum of 24 feet wide. b. All roadways shall comply with City Specification 4401. Minimum roadway width shall be 24 feet. All turns and turnarounds in the roadways must be capable of providing a 17' x 45" radius turn for fire apparatus. These roadways must be marked and posted as fire lanes to comply with City Specification 4415. c. Street names shall be submitted to the Fire Department and comply with City Specification 4409. d. Approximately 7 fire hydrants will be required for the project. They shall be installed in locations approved by the Fire Department. e. The project shall comply \N,-Ith all provisions of the Huntington Beach Fore Code and City Specification 4422 and 47431 far the abandonment of oil wells and site restoration. f. The project shall comply with all provisions of City Specification I429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay district. g. Water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed and in service prior to any combustible construction. h. All adjacent roadways shall be completed to the base course of asphalt prior to any combustible construction. i. All buildings not within 150 feet of the property line on flag lots 42, 12, 22, and 34 shall have automatic fire sprinklers installed throughout in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings shall be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. A two inch water service is required for these four buildings. 7. Police Department requirements are as follows: a. A knox box shall be installed at the gated entrance and at the gate surrounding the recreation area. b. The shrubs and groundcover shall be maintained so that the height does not exceed three (3) feet from the ground. c. The landcover near the north pool gate shall be maintained so that the view is not obscured when entering the complex from Florida Street. 8. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 9. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight) for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 10. Prior to final building permit inspection approval for the first unit, the following shall be completed: a. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Community Development Department. b. All improvements (inciuding landscaping) to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein. c. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished. d. Prior to final inspection of the first unit, the applicant shall obtain a"Letter of Map Amendment', if required, from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for the entire project. e. Prior to final inspection of the first unit; a reproducible mylar copy of the recorded final map, along with a digital graphics file of the recorded map, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. Models may be exempted from this condition by the Director of Community Development. 11. Conditional Use Permit Nlo. 94-49 shall become null and void unless exercised within two (2) years of the date of final approval. An extension of time as may be granted by the Planning Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Planning Division a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP INTO. 15033: 1. The tentative tract map received and dated January 5, 1995, shall be the approved Iayout, with the following modifications: a. Vary the perimeter property lines /wall along Beach Boulevard or provide decorative pilasters along xvall at every other lot line (approximately every 85 feet). I 2. The following conditions are required to be completed prior to recordation of the final map, unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with provisions of the Subdivision Map Act: a. The applicant shall submit a separate utility plan showing water system improvements, including service connections to each building, fire hydrants, valves, backflow devices and other appurtenances in accordance with applicable provisions of the Uniform Plumbing Code, City Ordinances, Public Works standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by the Public Works Water Division prior to any construction (excepting grading). b. Each proposed building shall have a separate water service per Water Division Standard Plans. c. The water system shall be designed per the City if Huntington Beach Water Division's design criteria, and shall be installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's Standard Plans and Specifications. d. The water system shall be located within vehicle travel-ways in an easement dedicated to the City. The developer shall be responsible for repairing enhanced pavement if the water mains or appurtenances require repair or maintenance. e. Fire hydrant locations shall be approved by the Fire Department. Fire hydrant laterals shall be located within vehicular travel-,nays in an easement dedicated to the City. i f. The proposed water system shall be looped to Memphis Avenue and Florida Street. The minimum water main size shall be eight inches. The developer shall submit hydraulic calculations supporting the proposed water system design. g. The developer shall construct an eight inch water main within Beach Boulevard, ' approximately 47 feet west of centerline, from Memphis Avenue to Knoxville Avenue. The northerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the existing eight inch water main located within.the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue.. The southerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the existing eight inch water main located within the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Knoxville Avenue. i h. The developer shall construct an eight inch water main within Florida Street, approximately 13 feet east of centerline, from Memphis Avenue to Knoxville Avenue. The northerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the existing eight inch water main located within the intersection of Flofida Street and Memphis Avenue. The southerly end of the proposed water main shall be connected to the existing 12 inch water main located within the intersection of Florida Street and Knoxville Avenue, is The water system and appurtenances shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach. j. A two (2) foot easement for pedestrian walk vay purposes located behind the private street sidewalks shall be recorded concurrently with the final map, or the sidewalks shall be constructed to six (6) foot minimum width. i k. Design and construct a traffic signal at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue.. The developer shall be responsible for 25% of the total cost; the City shall be responsible for providing for reimbursement for 75% of the total cost through credits against traffic impact fees due for this project, and through a reimbursement agreement. 1. Sidewalk width on Beach Boulevard shall be fifteen feet. m. The following dedications shall be required: 1. 25 foot radius at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Knoxville Avenue; 2. 25 foot radius at the corner of Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue; 3. 15 foot radius at the corner of Florida Street and Knoxville Avenue; and, 4. 15 foot radius at the corner of Florida Street and Memphis Avenue. n. The sewer system and appurtenances within the private interior streets shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. o. The storm drain system and appurtenances within the private interior streets shall be owned and maintained by the homeowner's association. p. Corner lots shall include easements for sight distance purposes over corner segments to preclude installation of sight distance obstructions. q. All vehicular access rights to Beach Boulevard shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach excerpt at street intersections and locations approved by the Planning Commission. r. Construct full public improvements on Memphis Avenue, Knoxville Avenue, Florida Street and Beach Boulevard, within the tentative map boundary and to the centerlines of streets, where improvements do not exist; Such improvements shall include, but are not limited to, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping, street lights, fire hydrants and half cross- gutter at Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue, and shall be designed and constructed to provide a 20 year design life. Existing, damaged or deteriorated public improvements within these areas shall be reconstructed to provide a 20 design life where determined necessary by the City Engineer. s. Remove and replace existing curb, gutter and sidewalk on Knoxville Avenue, adjacent to the project. t. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. u. A sewer study shall be submitted for Public Works approval. The developer shall design and construct the sewer system required to serve the development. v. The developer shall use "drought tolerant" plants and turf for all common area landscaping. w. All common area improvements, including landscaping, streets, and recreational facilities, shall be completed, or a cash bond may be posted with the Department of Public Works which will guarantee the completion of the common area improvements. x. The configuration of the proposed security gate shall be subject to approval of the Public Works Department, and the Police and Fire Departments. Calculations signed by a qualified, registered traffic engineer or civil engineer shall be submitted which demonstrate that the stacking distance from the public right-of-way to the security gate is adequate for storage of waiting cars, on-site;. during the weekday, evening peak hour. The geometric design shall permit a turn-around maneuver to exit by a standard, SU-30 design vehicle which may be denied entry into the complex. The design vehicle shall be able to enter the site and return to the public street without backing into vehicles entering or exiting the secured area. y. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. z. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of the final map in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9- 337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange Subdivision manual, Subarticle 18. aa. Zone Change Into. 94-5 shall be approved by the City Council and shall be in effect. bb. The applicant shall submit an affordable housing plan which provides for 10% of the total units (equal mix of 7 units) approved to be affordable to families of low and moderate income provided the units' affordability averages to 100% of the median income level. Said plan shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The affordable units shall be under construction or available to the public prior to final building permit for the homes in Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49. The plan shall include, but is not limited to: 1. Build affordable units at an alternative location which is under control of the applicant. All units shall be constructed'prior to or concurrent with the primary project and final approval of the project small be contingent upon completion and final approval, or evidence of the applicant's reasonable progress towards attainment of completion, of the affordable units. 2. Rehabilitate existing units and ensure long term affordability. 3. Preserve existing affordable units for the long term (30 years). 4. Other options which generate new opportunities for low and moderate affordable housing units for thirty (30) years. 5. In lieu fees may be paid only if an affordable housing ordinance is adopted and a resolution for in-lieu fees is adopted prior to issuance of building permits. 3 e submitted to and. At least 60 days prior to recordation of the parcel map, CC&R's shall b approved by the City Attorney and the Department of Community Development. The CC&R's shall reflect the common driveway access easements, and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the: Homeowners' Association. The CC&R's shall also include Condition of Approval 11112 of Conditional Use Permit 'No. 94-49. The CC&R's must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. CODE REQUIRE'NIENTS: 1. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 2. AlI applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards shall be met. 3. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Ordinance Code, Building Division, and Fire Department. 4. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Tentative Tract Map No. 15033, and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code occurs. S. Payment of the Traffic Impact Fees shall be made prior to the final inspection of the first unit. 6. Park and Recreation Fees shall be paid at the time the final map is accepted by City Council or issuance of any building permits, whichever occurs first. 7. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sunda,,sand Federal holidays S. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the public right-of-way. I hereby certify that Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract Map '-Nlo. 15033, Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15 were approved by the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach on upon the foregoing findings and conditions. This approval represents conceptual approval only; detailed plans must be submitted for review and the aforementioned conditions.completed prior to final approval. Sincerely, Howard Zelefsky, Secretary Planning Commission by: Scott ess Senior-Planner Reviewed by: Planning &mmissioner i I ,2 i — G,4y prt`hrney CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNT94GWN.EACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Councilmember (� DATE: January 20, 1995 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL I would like to appeal the Planning Commission decision of January 10, 1995, on Zone Change number 94-5/Tentative Tract Map Number 15033/Conditional Use Permit Number 94- 29Nariance Number 94-40/Negative Declaration Number 94-15. My reason for this appeal is that additional impact on public services, e.g. schools, has not been adequately mitigated. Thank you. RB:paj a � r CA—) c� rs m r. Min (A 7 r r,. C.G) C.J`7 ATTACHMENT 4 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE ACTION AGENDA Wednesday,December 7, 1994 2:00 P.M. Third Floor Conference Room Members: Bruce Crosby, D'Alessandro, Herb Fauland. Staff. Kelli Klan, Julie Osugi. Guests: .Wom,'' ,.1- Lie. vev- I. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 94-15 in conjunction with Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract Map No. 15033, and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29: Project Planner: Kelli Klan, Assistant Planner Applicant: Adam Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc. 15 Corporate Park Irvine, CA 92714 Request: To amend the zoning on approximately 8 net acres from CG(Commercial General)to RMH(Residential Medium High Density). The request also includes a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow for development of a 71 lot subdivision to allow for development of 70 residential units and 1 recreation lot. Location: West side of Beach Boulevard between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Avenue. Discussion: Staff made a brief presentation explaining some of the changes made to the draft initial study prior to the EAC meeting. The EAC, then, discussed the following issues related to the project: l. Seismic Impacts: Staff clarified that the applicant had submitted a soils study which had been reviewed by the Department of Public Works and deemed adequate. The study indicated that the subject site is not in the vicinity of any significant geological hazards. 2. Hydrology Impacts: Staff clarified that Public Works had reviewed the proposed project and drainage study submitted by the applicant and had determined that the existing storm drain � . .Er(rH►VE .NTO �. system in the area could adequately accommodate the project. EAC Action Agenda 12/7/94 1 of 2 3. Traffic/Circulation Impacts: Staff clarified that the applicant had also submitted a traffic study on the impacts of the proposed project. The study, which was reviewed and accepted by the Traffic Division, indicated that the project would contribute sufficient trips to warrant installation of a new traffic signal at Beach and Memphis. Staff clarified that mitigation would be incorporated to require that the applicant pay his fair share toward installation of the new signal. The applicant inquired whether he would have the opportunity to review all of the mitigation prior to final approval. He was informed that he could do so in the week lag time before the comment period began and through the comment period as well. 4. Noise: Staff identified that a portion of the project site was located within a 65 CNEL contour and would require implementation of additional sound attenuation measures to meet the City's interior noise level criteria. Staff indicated that this had been successfully accomplished in several other projects in the City and that mitigation has been included to require provision of a noise study and evidence of adequate sound attenuation to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. The EAC indicated that this was appropriate. 5. Recreation: Staff clarified that the proposed project includes a lot for recreation uses and will also be subject to park and recreation fees. MOTION: ON A MOTION BY FAULAND AND A SECOND BY CROSBY, THE EAC RECOMMENDED PROCESSING OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH THE ADDITIONAL REFINEMENTS RECOMMENDED BY THE EAC. Ayes: Three. Absent: None cAtemp\environ\agenda\ea 12-7aa.doe I ATTACHMENT NO. EAC Action Agenda 12/7/94 2of2 LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING DIVISION CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Notice is hereby given by the Department of Community Development, Planning Division of the City of Huntington Beach that the following Draft Negative Declaration request has been prepared and will be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission for consideration in January, 1995. The Draft Negative Declaration will be available for public review and comment for twenty(20) days commencing Thursday, December 15, 1994. Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 in conjunction with Zone Change 94-5, Tentative Tract 15033 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 analyzes the potential environmental impacts associated with a proposal, by Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc., to change the zone from C4 (along Beach Boulevard) and R3 (along Florida Avenue) to RM (Residential Medium Density) on approximately 7.99 acres. The request also includes a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow for development of a 71 lot subdivision consisting of 70 single family residential units and one recreation lot. A copy of the request is on file with the Department of Community Development, City of Huntington Beach City Hall, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. Any person wishing to comment on the request may do so in writing within twenty(20) days of this notice by providing written comments to Kelli Klan, Assistant Planner, City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development, Planning Division, P.O. Box 190, Huntington Beach, CA 92648. ATTACNMENTNO, - ENVMONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM MY OF HUNTINGTON IBA. PLANNINGDWISION EWMO WAL A;!�E WW NO. 94-15 1. Name of Proponent: Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc. Address: 15 Corporate Park Irvine, California 92714 Phone Number: (714) 474-2330 2. Date Checklist Submitted for Review: August 31, 1994 3. Concurrent Entitlement(s): Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract 15033, Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 4. Proiect Location: West side of Beach Boulevard between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Avenue 5. Proiect Description: The applicant is requesting a zone change from C4 (along Beach Boulevard) and R3 (along Florida Street) to RM (Residential Medium Density) on approximately 7.99 acres. The request also includes a tentative tract map and conditional use permit to allow for development of a 71 lot subdivision (see attachment no. 1) consisting of 70 single family residential units and one recreation lot. MENT N0. �. • ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of answers are included after each subsection.) 1. Earth. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ _ X b. Disruptions, displacements,compaction or overcovering of the soil? X c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X d. The destruction,covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? _ _ X e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ X _ f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands,or changes in siltation,deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? _ _ X g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure,or similar hazards? X Discussion: The project consists of the rezoning of a vacant, commercially zoned parcel and high density residential (single story building currently used as a preschool) parcel, to medium high density residential fro single family residential purposes. Implementation of the proposed project will require 100% of the site to be graded (approximately 20,000 cubic yards), which will be balanced on-site, to prepare the site for dwelling units and concrete curb and gutter street improvements. The project site is located approximately 400 feet outside of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zone. The applicant has submitted a"Geotechnical Investigation' of the subject property conducted by Petra Geotechnical, Inc., in August, 1994. The report concluded that the property is suited for the proposed development provided standard conditions of approval are implemented. The Department of Public Works has reviewed the proposed project and the referenced geotechnical report and has determined that the report is adequate. No adverse seismic or soils conditions, or other geotechnical hazards are expected to occur in the vicinity of the site. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of a soils report for review and approval by the City Engineer, which will further minimize geotechnical impacts from the proposed project. 2. Air. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? _ X _ b. The creation of objectionable odors? X c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? X 2 i Discussion Short term: Short-term deterioration of local ambient air quality may occur during the construction as a result of construction equipment emissions and dust. Specifically, emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel-powered grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with earth moving activities. However, with the implementation of conditions of approval minimizing dust and emissions resulting from construction equipment, no significant adverse air quality impacts are anticipated. Long term: Development of the proposed project may indirectly generate automotive and off-site energy generated emissions by attracting additional users to the site, These emissions may incrementally contribute to the degradation of local air quality. However, the project is far below threshold criteria established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and therefore, the project's contribution is minor in nature and is not anticipated to be significant. The proposed project is approximately 60% below projected threshold levels for potentially significant air quality impacts, as identified in the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), and CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 3. Water. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents,or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? _ _ X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? X c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? X d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? _ _ X e. Discharge into surface waters,or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature,dissolved oxygen or turbidity? _ _ X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? _ _ X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ _ X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? _ X _ i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? X Discussion: The proposed project will result in the minor alteration of topography to facilitate drainage and runoff. Slight increases in surface run-off will occur-due to the overcovering of the site with impervious surfaces. Proposed drainage will follow the natural gradient toward the southwest section of the project. The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposed project and has indicated that the existing storm drain system will be able to adequately accommodate the project's runoff. In addition, the applicant submitted a hydrology and preliminary hydraulics study, prepared by Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc., t e 3 which was approved by the Public Works Department on December 7, 1994, which indicated the existing storm drain system will be able to adequately accommodate the proposed development's run-off. With standard conditions of approval requiring approval of drainage plans by the City Engineer verifying that development related run-off will be accommodated in a manner that will not adversely impact adjoining properties, no adverse drainage impacts are anticipated. The proposed project will require the installation of new on-site water lines and is anticipated to use approximately 31,500 gallons of water per day. Based on discussions with the Public Works Department, Water Division, the City has an adequate supply and the facilities to provide the additional 31,500 gallons per day. The project will contribute to the cumulative water demand in the City; however, the water division has indicated that the project's contribution is not significant. Standard conditions of approval requiring water conservation measures including the use of water saver toilets, low flow fixtures, and drought tolerant landscaping, will further minimize water usage. No significant adverse impacts to the existing water supply are anticipated. The project is not located within a Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Zone, and is not subject to flood insurance or floodproofing requirements. No adverse impacts resulting from flooding or tidal waves are anticipated. 4. Plant Life. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or number of any species of plants(including trees, shrubs, grass,crops, and aquatic plants)? _ _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any mature,unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ X c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area,or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _ _ X d. Reduction in acreage of an agricultural crop? X Discussion: Plant life on the project site is very sparse, as the majority of the site is vacant. However, the site contains some mature trees around the parameter of the preschool along Beach Boulevard. The construction of the 70 single family units may result in the removal of such trees; however, the trees are not rare or endangered species. With recommended mitigation measures requiring the preservation of all mature trees to the greatest extent possible, or replacement of all mature trees on a 2:1 ratio, no significant impacts to plant life are anticipated. Mitigation: 1. All mature trees shall be identified as to type, size and location on a tree plan submitted to the Department of Community Development and Public Works. The development of the subdivision shall retain all existing mature trees to the greatest extent possible, with a concentration of trees along the perimeter of the project. However, should existing trees be removed as part of the development, they shall be replaced within the subdivision at a 11 ratio. If a 2:1 ratio of replacement of trees on-site is not feasible, the applicant may provide the balance of trees to adjoining properties through the establishment of a tree voucher program. The program will be run by the applicant, subject to the supervision and approval of the Department of Community Development. The A'r-!rrAj!`' N1 T N 0. 4 — -- program shall be reviewed by the City's Landscape and Planning Division prior to removal of any tree or issuance of a grading permit, whichever occurs first. 5. Animal Life. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species,or numbers of any species of animals(birds, land animals including reptiles,fish and.shellfish,benthic organisms or insects)? _ _ X b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,rare or endangered species of animals? _ _ X c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area,or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ _ X d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? X Discussion: The project area is periodically utilized.by a variety of animal species including domestic dogs and cats, squirrels and various bird species. The:proposed project will not result in any loss to endangered or sensitive animal species. No significant impacts to animal wildlife are anticipated. 6. Noise. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ X _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? X Discussion: Short-term noise levels will increase during the earthmoving and construction phase. However, with implementation of standard conditions of approval which restrict hours of construction activity between the hours of 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Mondays through Saturdays, no significant impacts are anticipated. Long-term: Projected generated traffic may result in a minor increase in noise levels in the project vicinity generated by the new subdivision. However, due to the low level of traffic generated by the project, and the ambient noise from existing uses, the noise levels generated by the project are considered negligible. All noise will be required to remain in compliance with the City's Noise Code. No significant noise impacts are anticipated. The east side of the proposed tract is located adjacent to an arterial highway (Beach Boulevard) and may experience noise levels greater than those allowed for residences by the Huntington Beach Noise Ordinances. Specifically, the proposed residential structures along Beach Boulevard will be within the projected 65 CNEL noise contour level, which exceeds the 45 CNEL noise contour level for interior residential developments. Standard techniques can be applied to residential developments in order to comply with the 45 CNEL noise contour levels. Future development will be required to comply with State and City acoustical requirements. No significant impacts are anticipated. A17ACHMENT NO. Yk_ 5 Mitigation: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, noise attenuation measures such as setbacks, soundwalls, insulation, and landscape buffers will be required and subject to the approval of the Director of Community Development for residential development adjacent to Beach Boulevard. The effectiveness of the sound attenuation measures will be verified by a noise study which includes evidence of adequate sound attenuation to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. This noise study shall be submitted by the applicant for approval by the City's Department of Public Works prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Li ht and Glare. Yes Mavbe No [Will the proposal produce new light or glare? X Discussion: Development of the site will result in new light sources on the site including street and residential lighting. However, due to existing ambient light levels from street lights and residences surrounding the site, the light and glare impacts from 70 single family residences is not anticipated to be significant. The proposed project will include street lights on the internal private streets of the residential development. Implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring directing of such lighting away from adjacent properties will be required. Minimal use of reflective or glare producing finishes or building materials will significantly reduce any potential adverse light or glare impacts. The project's point of ingress/egress is from Florida Street. Such entrance will be directly aligned with the existing cross-street known as Lincoln Avenue; therefore, the head lights of the ingress/egress traffic of the project will not shine directly into the existing residences along Florida Street, Mitigation: 1. Use of reflective or glare producing finishes or building materials shall be minimized. 8. Land Use. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? X Discussion: The proposed project includes a Zone Change(No. 94-5) which will change the zoning designation on approximately 7.99 acres from C4 (Highway Commercial) and R3 (High Density Residential) to RM (medium-high density residential). Although the majority of the site is vacant, a portion of the project site is currently used as a private preschool. The owner of the preschool has indicated that the school will relocate to a site which has not yet been determined. The project will allow for development of 70 single family homes on the subject site. The existing zoning on the property is inconsistent with the Medium/High Density Residential General Plan land use designation; the proposed zone change will bring the zoning into conformance with the General Plan land use designation. The proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding single family and multi family residential uses, as the new homes will generally be constructed using similar development standards as the surrounding homes. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. For discussion on the loss of the preschool site, please refer to item 14c. ATTACHMENT NO. 41 6 9. Natural Resources. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? _ _ X b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? X Discussion: The proposed project will result:in increases of fueVenergy usage in the City; however, anticipated energy demands created by the proposed project are within parameters of the overall projected demand which is planning to be met in the area. Natural gas will be provided to the residences by the Southern California Gas Company, and will not result in a significant increase in the rate of use of any natural or non- renewable energy resource. The existing Southern California Gas Company facilities are adequate to accommodate the additional development. No significant adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated. 10. Risk of Upset. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances(including,but not limited to oil,pesticides,chemicals or radiation)in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ _ X b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? X Discussion: The proposed subdivision and construction of 70 new single family residences will not involve the use of any hazardous materials and will not result in any impediments to emergency response or evacuation plans. Grading and excavation of the project site will result in the storage of diesel fuel in a small tank on- site during the excavation and construction phase of the project. The project will also include the demolition of the existing preschool building, which may contain asbestos. With implementation of recommended mitigation measures, no significant impacts resulting from hazardous materials are anticipated. Mitigation: 1. The placement and storage of the diesel tank(s) or any flammable substance shall be reviewed and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to construction. 2. Prior to demolition, any asbestos contained in the preschool shall be identified and removed in compliance with City, State and Federal standards. An asbestos abatement program shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer and Building Official. �1 A►FACNNIENT NO. 7 7 ,i 11. Population. Yes Mavbe No Will the proposal alter the location,distribution,density,or growth rate of the human population of an area? X Discussion: The propose development will increase population in the project area; however, the increased population is consistent with the Medium-High Density Residential General Plan land use designation, and anticipated build-out of the area. No significant adverse impacts resulting from the subdivision are anticipated. 12. Housing. Yes Maybe No [;i7llthe proposal affect existing housing,or create a demand for additional housing? X Discussion: City policy requires that 10% of the units of a development project shall be provided and available as affordable housing. A plan outlining the above shall be submitted for approval by the City's Housing Department. 13. Transportation/Circulation. Yes Mavbe No Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new off-site parking? _ X _ c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ X _ d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? _ X _ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? _ _ X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles,bicyclists or pedestrians? X Discussion: The project proposal of 70 residential units is projected to result in an increase of 1050 vehicle trips per day (based upon ITE manual, 4th edition). The applicant has submitted a traffic study, prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc., and approved by the Public Works Traffic Division, which indicates that the proposed increase of the project's vehicle trip generation warrants signalization at the Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue intersection. The applicant's fair share contribution to the installation of such traffic signal will mitigate the potential adverse impacts of the project's projected increased vehicle trip generation. Parking for development of the proposed site will be required to comply with the City's parking code. All parking will be contained on-site. Construction traffic resulting from development of the proposed project may result in some short -term interruptions to traffic circulation. Although the interruptions are not anticipated to be significant, any impacts will further be reduced through implementation of conditions of A71 TACHMENT NO. V/�_. 8 approval requiring Public Works approval of a construction vehicle control plan, which specifies use of measures such as warning signs, during construction phases and during periods of traffic interruption. During the construction phase of the project, pedestrian and bicycle flow may be impeded from time to time; however, with implementation of standard conditions of approval requiring adequate warning signs for pedestrian, bicycle and motor vehicle traffic, no significant impacts are anticipated. No significant impacts are anticipated regarding transportation or circulation. Mitigation: 1. The applicant shall contribute their fair share, as determined by the Public Works Traffic Division, towards the signalization of the intersection located at Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue. 14. Public Services. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ _ X b. Police protection? _ _ X c. Schools? _ _ X d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ _ X e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? _ _ X f. Other governmental services? X Discussion: The proposed project will not require any additional public services. According to the Huntington Beach Union High School District's estimate of.2 students generated per housing unit, and the Huntington Beach City School District's estimate of.5943 students generated per housing unit, the number of students generated by the specific project of 69 units is projected at 55 students. The additional students can be accommodated at existing facilities. The costs/impacts of the additional students generated as a result of the development can be sufficiently mitigated through state mandated school impact fees of$1.72 per square foot of development. No significant impacts are anticipated on the public services. The private preschool which is located on a portion of the subject property will be relocated; however, the school has not indicated the proposed location. No adverse impacts are anticipated by the relocation of the private school. 15. Energy. Yes Mavbe No Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ _ X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing source of energy,or require the development of sources of energy? X Discussion: 9 Please refer to the discussion under#9 (a-b). 16. Utilities. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in a need for new systems,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? _ _ X b. Communication systems? _ _ X c. Water? _ _ X d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? _ _ X f. Solid waste and disposal? X Discussion: The project will require incremental extensions of public services and utilities to the site, which will be provided by the different governmental agencies and utility companies. Water utilized by the development would be approximately 31,500 gallons per day. Based on discussions with the Department of Public Works, Water Division, the City can adequately provide the quantity of water for the proposed project. With the implementation of standard conditions of approval on water conservation measures, no adverse impacts to the City's existing water supply and other utilities are anticipated. 17. Human Health. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard(excluding mental health)? _ X _ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? X Discussion: Grading and excavation of the project site will result in the storage of diesel fuel in a small tank on-site during the excavation and construction phase of the project. With implementation of mitigation measures, no hazards to human health will result from the project (see Mitigation, under 10 "Risk of Upset"). 18. Aesthetics. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public,or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? X Discussion: I TAf�14 AA 10 The subject site consists primarily of vacant land, with a preschool located at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Knoxville Avenue. The project site is abutted on all four sides by Beach Boulevard to the east, Florida Street to the west, Memphis Avenue to the north and Knoxville Avenue to the south. In addition, a six(6) foot high slumpstone wall, along with landscaping, will surround the perimeters of the site, separating the proposed development from the abutting streets and existing surrounding residential developments across the abutting streets. No significant adverse aesthetic impacts are anticipated. 19. Recreation. Yes Maybe No Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? X Discussion: The proposed project will not result in any loss of existing recreational facilities within the specific plan area, and the proposed project will comply with the City's zoning and subdivision ordinance code requirements for private and common open space. The project includes an approximately 6,400 square foot recreation area which will include a swimming pool and picnic area. In addition, the project will be subject to payment of park and recreation fees to contribute toward the projects' share of park facilities in the City which will offset the project's cumulative park and recreation impacts. 20. Cultural Resources. Yes Mavbe No a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? _ _ X c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ _ X d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? X Discussion: The project site is not in the vicinity of any known archaeological, historical or other cultural resources. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. Yes Maybe No a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, sub- 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? X AT TAGP.m PNlT NO. 11 • b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? (A.short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief,definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) _ _ X c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited,but cumulatively consid- erable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small,but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) _ _ X d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _ _ X 12 TAC;HMLENTINV'o. �} D DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Er I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Signature Date For: City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department Format Revised: September, 1993 13 ATTACPMENT K10. ATTACHMENT 5 Huntington Beach Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Kelh Klan, Assistant Planner DATE January 10, 1995 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO 94-5/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 15033//CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 94-29/VARIANCE NO 94-40/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO 94-15 LOCATION: West side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Zone Change No 94-5 represents a request to change the zone from CG(General Commercial District) along Beach Boulevard and RMH(Medium High Density Residential District) along Florida Street to RM (Medium Density Residential District) on approximately eight acres Tentative Tract No 15033, Negative Declaration No 94-15, Conditional Use Permit No 94-49 and Variance No 94-40 represent a request for a 71 lot subdivision for a planned unit development, consisting of 70 single family residential detached units and one (1) recreational lot The conditional use permit also includes a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height and development of lots with a greater than three (3) foot grade differentiation from the high point to the low point Variance No 94-40 is to allow a reduced sideyard setback of eight (8) feet for Unit No 34 along Florida Street The applicant is withdrawing the Variance Staff is recommending approval of the project for the following reasons • The project is consistent with the objectives of the planned residential development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment • The project provides better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design • The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property and improvements of the neighborhood of the City in general • The project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation and the goals and policies of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan by increasing the variety of housing types in the community RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 94-15", 2. "Approve Zone Change No. 94-5 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption", 3. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 with findings and conditions of approval", and 4. Accept the applicant's request to withdraw Variance No. 94-40." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Greystone Homes, Inc., 7 Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, California 92660 PROPERTY OWNER: Pacific Coast Homes, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850 Irvine, California 92706 REQUEST: Zone ChgM: To rezone an approximately 8 acre site from CG(General Commercial) and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential) to RM (Medium Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit: To allow a 71 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 70 detached residential units and one recreational lot. The conditional use permit also includes the following requests: to permit development of a site that has a greater than (3) foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading, to allow a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height. Variance: A request for a reduced sideyard setback of eight (8) feet for one unit along Florida Street in lieu of 15'. DATE ACCEPTED: August 31, 1994 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: CG(General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard, RMH (Medium High Density Residential) along Florida Street LAND USE: Vacant and a Preschool Staff Report- 1/10/95 2 (ncsrl 1 1) North of Subiect Property (across Memphis Ave.): GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: RM(Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Planned Residential Development and Single Family Residential East of Subiect Property (across Beach Blvd): GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: RM(Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Planned Residential Development (Seabridge) South of Subiect Property (across Knoxville Ave).- GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density ZONE: RMH(Medium High Density Residential) LAND USE: Multi Family Residences West of Subiect Property (across Florida Street): GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density ZONE: RMH-A(Medium High Density Residential-Small Lot) LAND USE: Multi Family Residences PROJECT PROPOSAL: The requested entitlements for the proposed project include the following: l. Zone Change No. 94-5 is a request to change the zone on an approximately eight acre site from GC (General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard (approximately four acres) and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential/up to 25 units per net acre) along Florida Street (approximately four acres) to RM (Medium Density Residential/up to 15 units per net acre). 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 represents a request to subdivide approximately eight acres into a 71 lot subdivision for a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of 70 detached residential units (small lot, single family residential design) pursuant to Title 25 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The lot sizes are typically 3139 square feet and are permitted as part of the PUD pursuant to Section 210.06 of the ZSO. The subdivision also contains 26 lettered lots for landscaping, streets, and open space areas which will be maintained by the future homeowner's association. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 represents a request to construct 70 detached residential units, with one (1) recreational lot, pursuant to Section 210.06 "RM Property Development Standards" Staff Report- 1/10/95 3 (pcsrl11) and 210.12 "Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions" of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Conditional Use Permit also includes the following: a. The site has a grade differential of 18' between the high point and the low point before rough grading which requires review by the Planning Commission for grading and compatibility concerns because it exceeds three (3) feet pursuant to Section 230.70 (C) of the ZSO; b. A six(6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards along Knoxville Ave. and Florida Street pursuant to Section 230.88.A.11 of the ZSO as follows. 1. Knoxville Avenue: Rear yard setback varies from a minimum of ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required 15' (Section 230.88.A.3) 2. Florida Street: Street side yard setback varies from a minimum of nine (9) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required 15' (Section 210.06 "Property Development Standards for Residential Districts" Matrix). c. Retaining walls on the exterior property lines along Beach Blvd. and Memphis Ave. that are up to 42" in height pursuant to Section 230.88.A.7. and 230.88.A.11. 4. Variance No. 94-40 is requested to a allow a reduced sideyard setback of twelve (12) feet for Unit No. 34 along Florida Street, in lieu of the 15 .foot code requirement for sideyard setbacks pursuant to Section 210.06 (J) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 5. Negative Declaration No. 94-15 is being processed to address any potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The development will be designed as a private community with a gated entry and interior private streets. The project will also include a four (4) foot wide private sidewalk throughout the development on one side of each private street to facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian paths. The typical lot size for each unit is 43 feet in width and 73 feet in depth, for a total of 3,139 square feet. There are three floor plans consisting of forty-four (44) two-story, three (3) bedroom units and twenty-six (26) two-story, four (4) bedroom units, which are from 1,825 square feet to 2,219 square feet in size. Each unit has a two (2) car attached garage with a two car space driveway for a total of four (4) on-site parking spaces. Guest parking is provided on the private streets at a minimum of.5 space per unit, for a total of 36 spaces. Each unit contains at least 950 square feet of private open space, with 20 units having 1,165 square feet of open space. In addition;, the proposed project includes a 6,364 square foot recreational lot with a swimming pool, shower facilities and a barbecue area. The applicant has indicated that the variance request for a reduced side yard setback for Unit No. 34 is necessary for a better designed project, in that it increases the private open space area for the unit. Staff Report- 1/10/95 4 (pcsrl11) Zoning Compliance If the Planning Commission approves Zone Change No. 94-5, then this project will be located in the Residential-Medium Density (RM)District, and with the exception of the variance request, complies with the requirements of that zone. The following is a zoning matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of Sections 210.06, 210.12, and 231.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance: Section Issue Required Proposed 210.06 Bldg. Site Requirements: Min. Area(sq ft) 6,000 8 acres Min. Width (ft) 60 350 Min.Setbacks: (F) Front (Memphis) 15 feet Bldg.: 34 to 40 ft. (J) St. side (Beach) 15 feet Bldg.: 18 to 36 ft. St. side (Florida) 15 feet Bldg.: 12** to 30 ft. Rear(Knoxville) 10 feet Bldg.: 26 to 33 ft. (U) Garage 20 feet 20 feet (22 units), 22 ft which includes 4 ft private sidewalk(48 units) Max.Bldg. Height 35 feet 29.8 feet (measured from finished grade) - Max. FAR 1.0 .41 (Total bldg. sq. ft./entire site) Min.Lot Area/DU 2,904 sq ft 3,139 sq. ft. minimum (Max. 15du/ac) (Max. 13.8du/ac) Max.Lot Coverage 50% 48% (M) Min. Floor Area 1100 for 3 bdr m 1,825 - 2,060 sq ft 1300 for 4 bdr m 2,219 sq ft (0) Min. Open Space 25% of floor area/ 52%/ 35,909 sq. ft. 70,800 sq. ft.(Private) 6,364 sq. ft. (Common) 77,164 sq ft. (Total) 210.12 PUD Standards CC&R's Provided * Conditional Use Permit request ** Variance request Staff Report- 1/10/95 5 (pcsrl11) Section Issue Required Proposed 232.08(B) Landscape Tree Req. One 24"-box tree/unit 70 24"-box trees in front setback One tree/45 ft 49 trees in 24" and 36" box lineal street frontage=49 sizes 230.88 Fences and Walls: (A.1) Max. height in setback areas- Front (Memphis) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall setback 15 to 19 ft St. side (Beach) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall setback 15 ft. St. side (Florida) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall with min. 10 ft. setback* Rear (Knoxville) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall with min. 10 ft. setback* (A.7) Retaining walls Max. 24" 3.5 feet high retaining wall along Beach and Memphis 231.04 Off-Street Parking- Multi-family PUD: 3 or more bedroom 2.5 spaces (1 enclosed)/unit 175 spaces total 280 spaces total (70 enclosed) (140 enclosed) Guest .5 space per unit 35 spaces total 36 spaces total 231.14 Aisle Width 25 feet 25 feet * Conditional Use Permit request ** Variance request Staff Report- 1/10/95 6 (pcsr111) Individual Lot Analysis Pursuant to Section 210.06 "Property Development Standards," the 71 individual parcels may be less than the minimum building site requirements of the district the parcels are located (RM in this case) if approved pursuant to a Planned Unit Development. This particular request is for a small lot, single-family residential PUD that contains lots less than the min. 6,000 sq. ft. requirement. The lot sizes range from 3,139 to 5,830 square feet. The following is a matrix of development standards for individual lots: Issue Provided Min. Lot Size 3,139 sq ft Min. Lot Width 43 feet Lot Depth 73 feet Minimum Setbacks: Front 15 feet for habitable area; 10 ft. for patios/porches; 20 ft. for garages. Side 3 ft nun. on one side and 5 ft min. on the other for a total of 8 ft between units. Rear 10 feet minimum; many units have 15 feet. Lot Coverage 48% max. Open Space 950 sq. ft. min. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed project, including the zone change from CG and RMH to RM, conforms with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the Medium Density Residential on the subject property. In addition, the proposed development is consistent with the City's Housing Element by increasing the variety of housing types in the community. Environmental Status: On December 9, 1994, the Environmental Assessment Committee determined that no significant impacts were anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Negative Declaration No. 94-15 was prepared with the following supplemental reports: 1). "Geotechnical Investigation", prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc.; 2). "Hydrology and Preliminary Hydraulics Study," prepared by Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc.; and, 3). "Traffic Study," prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. All concerns were mitigated to a level of insignificance. The"Geotechnical Investigation" confirmed that no portion of the proposed project is within 50 feet of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Seismic Zone, and Staff Report- 1/10/95 7 (pcsr111) the `Hydrology and Preliminary Hydrology Study" concluded that the City's existing drain system can accommodate the projected additional water run-off generated from the proposed project. Finally, the "Traffic Study" concluded that the proposed project's gated entry will be free flowing and will not adversly impact through traffic along Florida Street, and that the proposed project will warrant the signalization of the Beach Boulevard to Memphis Avenue intersection(included in the conditions of approval for this project). Negative Declaration No. 94-15 is included in the report as Attachment No. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act(CEQA), the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 for twenty-one (21) days commencing on Thursday, December 15, 1994 and ending on Thursday, January 5, 1995. Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract No. 15033, Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49. and Variance No. 94-40, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 94-15. The Department of Community Development has not received any comments regarding the negative declaration. Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable Design Review Board: Not applicable Subdivision Committee: On December 29, 1994, the Subdivision Committee reviewed Tentative Tract No. 15033. After Staff discussion regarding the general character of the project and discussions of suggested conditions of approval, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the tract map with the following modifications: 1. Vary the perimeter property lines/wall along Beach Boulevard. 2. Provide a pedestrian accessway at the southeast corner of the site to Beach Blvd. unless discouraged by the Police Department. 3. Eliminate a lot along the southerly property line and a lot along the northerly property line, or redesign the project, in order to allow for development that conforms with code required perimeter building setbacks and increase the building setback to generally thirty feet from the Beach Blvd. ROW line. Staff Report- 1/10/95 8 (pcsrl11) • Other Departments Concerns: The Police, Fire and Public Works Departments have recommended conditions which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. ANALYSIS: Zone Change The proposed tentative tract and conditional use permit are dependent on the approval of Zone Change No. 94-5. Recordation of the final map for the proposed subdivision can not occur until Zone Change No. 94-5 has been approved by the City Council and in effect. The request for a change of zone from CG(General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential) along Florida Street to RM (Medium Density Residential) allows a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The proposed project is designed at a density of 8.75 units per acre, which is well within the requirements of the RM District. The change of zone to RM is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Medium Density. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has recommended that the general plan land use designation remain as medium density residential. Conditional Use Permit: The conditional use permit request includes the provision for a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards. The six (6) foot high wall provides a buffer around the four perimeters of the subject site which includes landscaped areas as follows: 1. Memphis Avenue: The six (6) foot high wall is designed to provide movement around this perimeter of the site, as it undulates from a minimum of fifteen (15) feet to a maximum of nineteen(19) feet from the site's front property line. 2. Beach Boulevard: The six (6) foot high wall does not exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, as it is setback the required 15 feet form the side property line. However, the Subdivision Committee has recommended that the wall be redesigned so that it provides movement and variation along Beach Boulevard while maintaining a minimum 15 feet setback. 3. Knoxville Avenue: The six (6) foot high wall is designed to provide movement around this perimeter of the site, as it varies from a minimum of ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the site's rear property line. 4. Florida Street: The design of the six (6) foot high wall provides movement around this perimeter of the site and is setback a minimum of nine (9) feet and a maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the property line. Staff Report- 1/10/95 9 (pcsr 111) The site is surrounded by three local streets and one arterial highway (Beach Boulevard). As such, staff supports the six (6) foot high perimeter wall, in lieu of the code required 42 inch high wall, into the required yard along Florida Street, as it enhances and increases the effectiveness of the perimeter landscaping and buffers the residential units from noise impacts associated with street traffic. In addition, the walls enhance the gated community environment of the proposed planned unit development, while providing aesthetically pleasing exterior variations along the four streets. Finally, the walls are compatible with the setbacks and design of the surrounding neighborhood. The conditional use permit also includes a retaining wall that exceeds two (2) feet along the northeastern portion of the site at Beach Boulevard and Memphis Avenue. The maximum height of the retaining walls is three and a half(3 1/2) feet. The retaining walls are designed to be compatible.with adjacent development along Memphis Avenue and Beach Boulevard. As such, staff supports the retaining walls of a maximum of three and a half(3 1/2) feet. Finally, the conditional use permit includes the development of the site with a greater than three feet grade differentiation from the high point to the low point. As indicated above, the perimeter of the subject site will be designed with a retaining wall and 15-18 foot landscaped area on a 2:1 slope which will be compatible with adjacent development. Variance Request The applicant was requesting a reduced sideyard setback along Florida Street for Unit No. 34 of twelve (12) feet in order to provide the three foot interior setback which is provided on the remaining 69 units of the project. The applicant has subsequently submitted a letter requesting to withdraw the variance and will redesign the project to conform to the code. Compatibility and Circulation: The proposed subdivision is compatible with surrounding developments, particularly with the setbacks and the planned unit developments to the east and north of the site. In addition, the site layout and design of the single family detached residential units is consistent with the design, including height and setbacks, of the surrounding residences to the south and.west of the'site. The proposed development will be accessed from Florida Street, as a gated entry. A stacking study was conducted and approved by the City's Traffic Division, which demonstrates that the entry will be free flowing and will not adversely impact through traffic along Florida Street. The width of the project's interior private streets meet the requirements for emergency fire lane widths. In addition, there is a 25 foot emergency access easement located along Memphis Avenue, which has been approved by the Fire Department. The project is providing a four(4) foot wide private sidewalk along one side of the interior streets to provide safe and convenient pedestrian access.throughout the site. Staff Report- 1/10/95 10 (pcsrl l l) SUMMARY: Based on the design and compatibility with surrounding residential uses, Staff recommends approval of the project for the following reasons: The project is consistent with the objectives of the RM standards and Planned Unit Development concept of the code in achieving a development that has an integrated design and that adapts to the terrain and compatibility of the surrounding environment. The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property and improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general. The project provides better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, perimeter walls, site layout and design The proposed project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation and the City's Housing element of the General Plan by increasing the variety of housing types in the community. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The Planning Commission may deny Negative Declaration No. 94-15, Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract No. 15033, and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 with findings for denial. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Findings and Conditions for Approval 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 dated December 20, 1994 3. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations dated December 21, 1994 4. Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15/Environmental Assessment No. 94-15 5. Letter from applicant requesting to withdraw Variance No. 94-40, dated January 4, 1995 SH:KK:kjl Staff Report- 1/10/95 11 (pcsrI11) ATTACHMENT 6 0 0 0 r Esc �;� �-- � l�Ll�1.IJ " y., H::L'�:1 11::L1:1.11 (rrf.l nFln iI �NAI Ode _ .�_ _ • ' �.` W+uLLW m % — c If"Fffl.l M11 OI1lu] 77 rCt'F�K.-I-(A'FNF�ftI 51 ��N/t100s v:� •� %. 1 /l. — rr\1 C•11•r W111JJJl., � mm,-L-] L I r-rrfr Tui I I I I I I I I I ' 1y II- ILW � 1 vn- -�� � ►x l'J �' Fili � ,x: •, i -1_I_i-.F/\ E rQ011-11 - • 7) i vY _- :r,.r..... `.y;•. sOMOVILLC IIIj Y r'-- - — •{+' �.:•:.—�' ...... ,.>,'iit,..' .�� - -_ R-- t - 1 k r.r...�. ...... ;�1� - _ - __ J i`..�t, 't•J'+. '.t. f, YVanv...tw _ .._s _ f� � F. 't .•�:�.i; .�•�� .r�'. -11 r _ 2 "no 10 H"n 1r' 1•r� ,+.wlr. - IONDONOIN- CI/- I PLI-Ci_I I JJ_- ,['1,�_2T�f..f 1--1 -fT'm.n rrnITF FFFM,n v� ATTACHMENT 7 I^ I^ I^ I^ SITE:SUMMARY � — zn .Ns �• I ni uZlLlw..l.l MIN of xexm es] — x 1Tj MPS J I s nv uE -t— vl * .... noel' —. 21 .vn. •.al ..a} 011 I 1 _.Nq ._._�Na IH- — - -- _.-___ xewGi •Iae •ne �-� .. ._ ni e4 Srep•w.. a9 le P� L - .. 51. - y� IJ. rvnr. a SFIIV W.1•ix.ln SF' a6 ^ N 1 LA // - ' I j. N} 68. N tLA la ] j/ ` I � J! 41 55. �I I— PIA If 51. 'r')NI 1.A f. 67. B..». jj. —JI n Mr. RI I De .11 OI 11 y;LL •nJ •nr x� 'Ie1:6 uNuva:wrc ❑ nu wx5 17 I 9. 65. -� I8, L1 1 upyw,a�lu:u cn lB Tom' A. ZJZ� � 'I 211 uvLw4e1. •Ne.11'•.t uuu n9 I_ 1, 4A e•� 14 I 6U. 4 - u al _ . Lai _PIA Y NI - rr..w.......... -•)I] I r W-A.A.' I.A Pu ' j. n 20 ...w�....wrw ' 1 .1e4' 1a r N I_ IIIII` N J - 65. I6. ISwN t- 61. IIAN I _ IJ '� n5 • I+ 4. 34 FT e Q i1• IAx?51'. IV IAI.lh 77. - r.lxo fl' Se Ul.Irc n1 I N} IP J t I I ANI Ilw 1 P N, I 4 zx1451' }e lAr L4 JI, ]0. 28. 27. 76. 25. '2a. 23. 2 •Ine.. .Y.. ___.. _.. _• ..._.. .. _ .._ .. - .:__.' ..� I MEMPHIS BEACH S.F.D. L— Ill GREYSTONE HOMES •Iff •r9�'�?I� 4 a,.Jt N. �`-� SITE PLAN KNOXVILLE AVENUE ha m I;a Ir •29.1 zi9 291 I Al na lz/l .Il] IS.N Ve FOO-1. dal_- M. A • � r rFur-F R/W MEMPN/S A l£NUE �- 4 6•h.,o �—LANOSCAPF fp(1 O7Xi WWT 5 1 5 I — i i G JS'Nox h B f S� R L. wwr �5' y1 h � SE-CT/ON E - E • /IOfr'/ZONTA/ SCA/F 1" . 4" VC1?71CAL SCALE 1 . 4" SECT/ON REFERENCED TO TENT. TRACT MAP 150JJ Adsme��V.e�.tec NOTE- F/rVA T/ON OF NOUSF /S FOI? //L USll?A T/ON PU!'POSES ONLY C n BEACH ©OLV-l40R12 (ANOSCARE --I D � 6'NgA , ---I o��or� ��� oo = iiiui► � ��k PAO=757 'S J,_y_ 15'S/OCIYAz —1 `4 I 7, = SECT/OIII F - F 1-101?/ZON7AL SCALE 1"" 4' 7/CAL SC/J/.F e ' SE T1ON REFERENCED TO TENT. TRACT MAP 150J 3 ® A9aRme�Se�.aa.Sss NO7F.- E/_ -VA 7/01V OF HOUSF /S FOPT //_L U57RA 7/ON PURPOSES ONLY P - - - GIG,- Lijr-lj TYPICAL STREET ELEVATION MEMPHIS BEACH S.F.D. GREYSTONE HOMES nxc:uncx ru runmret u.everx++rn.unns rrr nancr amr.an:m;rans iin„ sN�"•�•� A n'$r .vim~'4,a•, ,,.•.. J9v -' .r'fTn k9.,,;.;..:�.` ` ti t; ,� .`i ic.+k..:-:. ....•, •`,�j,F n.`� •f M1� .i -" .ra2�'� :.Bi: �ti�i q '�Str��i' M'.,�•dl� �,� FH �gq� ImrN�•�:'r, i � '�^` �.�li' `ice y^ ...�..• ,f� ��. MEMPHIS BEACH S.F.D. GREYSTONE FIOMES BEACH BOULEVARD ELEVATION @ LOT IJ,14&IS NOTE:MLF'C-TECHN-ELEVAII(H GIAWINI.S: E-10U1-11-1I'S I I I I I it I Do li rl ? „I. ' LI ` R' i — 1 I � i I I � !r I I I o of '� � � ji °r �I• • xr1 I I i D DAD DID DIED DiD1D D a- DDDDID>ID D!D DAD —� • I NIE'A > I FZ � • �' ����� I�D ID D,DDDDD?DDDI � jf I I I n I • i a i R y I IZB O CC<i CC:C�CCCCn Z �Mjg ,. W15� , Q s s. I '� 1T ICI I II � F:q I H41 FES: 1 � � I ''I li I I I rl�i7 � W I� I 00 I i � � I ' I I l I I i I II 17777-- jai le, i � ! I I 00 ID Iz DDD Daa - � � c:r=1 � � "El ! I E21 Wol lt-t'Ji Eli J i I m i W ;2 I I > M til z Fn T x pl,F coo I Ij lI 44 ``I� I I I I EE I I I I l l i�i � I i O❑' I• i� ill FM l i Ali ooao - - i J•Plat `"' . II I I ' I I DDDDDDD D.D>-Al RD �ptl n I. N �I� �nmJ •ICI in 1 N ATTACHMENT 8 �t Y - ��",- TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15033 D.R« V. „r.= 1 4 1 R r!• -%-- - T.T. NO. 15033 NOTES: V O �l O HO O `'l :01 90UARE•AODIAGE • -...�..�.-. Cam)... • 5 • +� JP/ / f I f i _ AND� USE SUMMARY U r•Ji I hJor • PJI •'r ."O�• . •4 �, !O � .-!L N �� �. .. in. .. _L__._�- �•"• e � + � ., '.-' .Jar !r,• xl . • ; I Iy ." �........ f 11 `I I 1� ' I � ___�L'i -l.,.,—_ __.--_I _—_l.er[ __._-..__ I 1 �.r,o A ` •I . .. ^��1 _ ...._ .x� ^,....., .i,T ... iRa : Y 1 - T 1 JI"w" ,p� p{ MI'1'NY'[IYINAI. 1.esf 1 t,roJ l.trr �I : W I�i1 .. i ly.l .�. .••y J UFI 1.111' I IJ• �i �rq •}ht:�� ul."{LLF A A - �' , _. _ 7N i (1 i____._• _ -i i� ,• ,� r.! i 1 I 1- JJ]nC!.:f_c n1GICLti r.lr �_�.,. - -S:TBE T' rl lvu! Ju w• - JJ> J, IN• 1 _ —G�v!-1( O �)sf.r•rrt>)' �\ yr �w.n��•:...... I �I..mr.u.^a I '� uli, __ O 0 y.• .a ;k �.J/s � i.Dl , 1 :M^-�`- i.eq, 3i� 8 •��,„ ih � �11_ _ (� �!J \"'#_--.::_- -----•.-= —.. ----_.. _ _ .- - '. i ��+L1,1/ rvl�Lii�LLur,.. _ -r;ei:��.,xJ. .` _ �.J•s r!'I .1 �' ( . mot.. I } I I1 IL � 01 J• !Ir 1 � ..tF.-- ' �7r . rr �_•_ '—�-•, . .,.��-.- .... .. --• ?'�_. �.....;� �'T�..... _ r- I ,« IFLEND rn, unnu.uuu. - , "'aaR ILLE AVENUE "• „�••" . a� ADAMf•STRFFTFR �s ava INLWi:[ws NC. .s• VICV"V MAP ATTACHMENT 9 o Otter) ( Board of Trustees: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION Bonnie Bruce oN a Bonnie Castrey HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Barbara Johnson Curt Jones + Michael Simons i 10251 Yorktown Avenue • Huntington Beach, California 92646-2999 (714) 964-3339 FAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D., Superintendent of Schools y('IyS SCHOOL p9 January 10, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 94-5 and Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract 15033, Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 (Environmental Assessments 94- 10 and 94-15, respectfully) Comments and Objection from Huntington Beach Union High School District Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") These comments are made by the District, after reviewing the proposed Projects, to provide public hearing testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") and City Council ("City Council") in order to protect and preserve the District's administrative and legal remedies, to provide the City, of Huntington Beach ("City") with information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Projects on the District, and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate in the Projects' adoption and the environmental review process. This letter represents the District's comments on and reasons for objection to the Negative Declaration. The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 2.5., Definitions, Section 21069, and the CEQA Guidelines, in that the District is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out) public services (education) and facilities (schools) for the area within and directly affected by the Projects. The District may have to rely on the environmental documentation prepared by the City for the Projects for its approval of any necessary facilities and services necessary to accommodate the students generated by the Projects. The District's comments and reasons for objection are as follows: 77ze mission of the HBUHSD, responsive to our diverse conznzunity expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and focused educational program which develops responsible, productive and creative individuals with a capacity for leadership. i Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 2 1. Failure to Provide an Adequate Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration as Required by Public Resources Code, Section 21092, subdivision (b)(1). A lead agency must provide members of the public with notice of its intention to adopt a negative declaration, and an opportunity to review the supporting initial study and any other documents. Such notice shall be posted within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the county clerk of the county or counties in which the project will be located, and shall remain posted for a period of 20 days, unless notice is otherwise legally required to be posted for 30 days. (Public Resources Code, Sections 21092, 21092.3.) Before reaching a decision on the project, the lead agency must "consider" any comments submitted during the review period. (Public Resources Code, Section 21091, sub. (d)(1).) If an agency is to hold a hearing on the project for which a negative declaration is prepared, the agency must provide notice of that fact to any other agency that has commented on the negative declaration (Public Resources Code, Section 21091.5.) In P/aggmier v. City of San Jose (1st Dist. 1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 842, 853-856 [161 Cal.Rptr. 886], the Court emphasized the importance of giving the public the proper opportunity to protest the conclusion of a proposed negative declaration. Negative declarations have a "terminal effect: on the environmental review process. (101 Cal.App.3d at 853 {161 Cal.Rptr. 886].) Thus , an agency's failure to comply with public notice requirements invalidates the subsequent adoption of the negative declaration and its conclusions. (101 Cal.App.3d at 854 {161 Cal.Rptr. 886]; but see Public Resources Code, Section 21092, sub. (b)(1).) The City of Huntington Beach is well aware of the District's desire (as previously requested in writing) to be notified of all legislative actions and associated environmental assessments. Despite the District's long-standing request for notification, the first knowledge that the District had of the Projects was upon receipt of the Notice of the Public Hearing for January 10, 1995, which the District received on Friday, January 5, 1995. Even then, the District had to go to the City to obtain a copy of the Environmental Assessment. Obviously, the District was never notified, as previously requested in writing, of the preparation of the Negative Declarations and therefore was not permitted to make comments during the review period, a violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration shall specify the following: 1) the period during which comments will be received; 2) the date, time and place of any public Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 3 meetings or hearings on the proposed project; 3) a brief description of the proposed project and its location; and 4) the address where copies of the proposed negative declaration and all documents referenced therein are available for review. (Public Resources Code, Section 21092, sub. (b)(1).) The District acknowledges that where the lead agency has substantially complied with these notice requirements, its action shall not be invalidated because of alleged inadequacies of the notice contents. (Public Resources Code, Section 21092, sub. (b)(2).) However, it is the District's contention that the City of Huntington Beach has not substantially complied with the notice requirements and has failed to provide any notice to the District. 2. Failure to Evaluate the Projects' Effects on the Existing Physical Conditions in the Actual Environment: upon Which the Proposal Will Operate. The findings and determinations of impact found in the Environmental Assessments (Nos. 94-10 and 94-15) fail to evaluate the Projects' effects on the existing physical conditions found within the District. Under "Public Services," Environmental Assessment No.94-15 states: "The proposed project will not require any additional public services. According to the Huntington Beach Union School District's estimate of .1353 students generated per housing unit (for residential units which are between 1700-2200 square feet in floor area), the number of students generated by the specific project of 70 units is projected at 9 students. The HBUSD has indicated that the additional nine (9) students is not considered significant and can be accommodated at existing facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated on the public services." First, this analysis is clearly inadequate and fails to consider the full impact of the project on schools. From the citation, it is not entirely clear as to which school district the environmental assessment is referring. As the City is well aware, the project is served by two school districts, Huntington Beach City School District, serving grades kindergarten through eight, and Huntington Beach Union High School District, which serves grades nine through twelve. It is assumed that "Huntington Beach Union School District" refers to Huntington Beach Union High School District. Therefore, the analysis is only partially complete, and makes no analysis of the impact on Huntington Beach City School District. ' • • Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 4 Similarly, Environmental Assessment No. 94-5 does not appear to completely and accurately reflect the total impact on schools. Under "Public Services," Environmental Assessment No. 94-10, the total discussion on public services and schools states: "The proposed project will not require any additional public services. According to the Huntington Beach City School district's estimate of .5943 students generated per housing unit (as stated in their "Comments" for the DER for the Bolsa Chica Project, dated September 28, 1994), the number of students generated by the specific project of 32 units is projected at 19 students. No significant impacts are anticipated on the public services." The District notes that no assessment of impact is made on the Huntington Beach Union High School District, therefore, the analysis is incomplete and inaccurate. The analysis made in each of the Environmental Assessments has been made only considering the project as if it existed "in a vacuum" and not within the context of the "existing conditions" of the District. The Negative Declarations, in their analysis of impact, should focus on the proposed Projects' effects on the "existing physical conditions" in the "actual environment upon which the proposal will operate." Environmental Planning and Information Council(131 Cal.App.3d at 354 [182 Cal.Rptr. 317].) While an individual project may not have a significant impact, the combination of projects plus the cumulative impact of pending, approved, and planned projects within the District, when compared to the shortage of available capacity within the District, show that the Projects do have a significant impact on the District. The tables on the following pages show the impact on the District, the estimated cumulative impact on the District, and present an analysis of direct and cumulative enrollment impacts versus capacity within the District. The District also notes that EA No. 94-10 refers to the fact that the a previous EIR was prepared in 1980 for the Seabridge Specific Plan and the initial study has been prepared to address current conditions of the property and area in general. However, no information regarding the "existing conditions" of the District, which are significantly different now than they were fifteen years ago, has been provided or considered. The District therefore contends this analysis (or lack of analysis) makes the environmental assessment inadequate. ,k EA 94-10 & EA 94-15 Impact on Huntington Beach Union High School District Proposed Dwelling Units EA No. 94-10 32 EA No. 94-15 70 TOTAL 102 Projected Students(EIR SGR) Average SGR(from EIR) 0.1353 14 Projected Impact Cost/Student SGR Cost/Unit Maximum 9-12 $27,635.00 0.1353 $3,739.02 $381,380 0.1353 $3,739.02 $381,380 Projected Students(District SGR) New Housing SGR 0.2000 20 Projected Impact Cost/Student SGR Cost/Unit Cost 9-12 $27,635.00 0.2000 $5,527.00 $563,754 0.2000 $5,527.00 $563,754 Closed School Re-opening Option Non-Available Adding Portables to Existing Properties Option Number of Portables Required 30 0.68 Minimum Cost $150,000 $102,000 Adding Transportation Option Number of Buses 70 0.29 Fleet Cost $120,000 $34,971 Annual Operating Cost $55,000 $16,029 20-Year Operating Cost 20 $320,571 Total Estimated Cost $355,543 Total Cost of Portables and Transportation $457,543 Total Cost of New Facilities without Transportation $563,754 Projected Revenue District Capture vg. Unit SF Fee/Unit Revenue $1.72 39.00% 1,950 $1,308 $133,422 Total Cost of Portables and Transportation less Projected Revenue $324,121 Total Cost of New Facilities without Transportation less Projected Revenue $430,332 Additional Costs On-site support facility expansion + District-wide support facility expansion + Transportation facility expansion + District-vide Increased Transportation + IMP109.XLS HBUHSD EA 94-10 & Ea 94-15 Huntington Beach Union High School District District Estimated Cumulative Impact Estimated Estimated Cumulative Project Total Units Units Units Number of Units 18,014 102 18,116 Projected Impact Projected Students 0.2000 3,603 20 3,623 Project Cost $27,635.00 $99,563,378 $563,754 $100,127,132 Projected Revenues Statutory Fee $1.72 District Share 39.00% Average Sq. Ft./Unit 2,200 Average Fee/Unit $1,475.76 $26,584,341 $133,422 $26,734,868 Revnue Surplus/(Deficit) ($72,979,037) ($430,332) ($73,392,264) IMP109.XLS HBUHSDCUM EA 94-10 & EA 94-15 Huntington Beach Union High School District Analysis of Direct and Cumulative Enrollment Impacts v. Capacity Assumes Closed Schools are Available (excluding in-fill/other development,internal growth,general plan/zoning amendments) Huntington Beach Union High School District Direct Cumulative Impact Impact(b) Additional Residential Units 102 18,014 Present Enrollment K-5 Grades N/A N/A 6-8 Grades N/A N/A Special Education inc. inc. 9-12 Grades 13,084 13,084 Total 13,084 13,084 Additional Enrollment K-5 Grades N/A N/A 6-8 Grades N/A N/A Special Education inc. inc. 9-12 Grades 20 3,603 Total 20 3,603 Total Enrollment 13,104 16,687 Present Capacity Permanent Facilities 13,230 13,230 Temporary Facilities 1,338 1,338 Theoretical Additional Capacity - - Total Capacity 14,568 14,568 Capacity Utilization of Permanent 99% 126% of Permanent&Theoretical Facilities 99% 126% of Total 90% 115% (b) excludes Booby Ranch, Bay City Villas IMP109.XLS Capacity Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 8 3. Mischaracterization of the Proposed Project. A Negative Declaration is defective if it mischaracterizes the proposed project and fails to acknowledge evidence showing that significant effects might occur. The Negative Declaration mischaracterizes the proposed Projects and fails to acknowledge evidence showing that a significant effect might occur. The Environmental Assessments provide only a partial view of the number of students to be generated, thus mischaracterizing the project. EA 94-10 estimates that only 19 students will be generated, while EA 94-15 estimates that a total of 9 students will be generated; 28 total students. However, since each discussion omits one of the Districts which serve the project, the impact is understated and the project mischaracterized. The District estimates that a total of 61 elementary and middle school (K-8) students, along with 20 high school (9-12) students will be generated: 81 total students. Clearly, when all of the students to be generated from both Districts are considered, the number of students is significantly greater than currently characterized in the Environmental Assessments. Request for Notices and Documentation We hereby request that all notices and documentation with regard to this project be specifically mailed to the following representatives of the District: Dr. Patricia Reid Koch Assistant Superintendent of Business Services HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92646 The District hereby objects to the use of a Negative Declaration for the proposed Foothill Boulevard project. Due to the significant issues identified, the finding of the above analysis, and the fact that the District, as a public agency and responsible agency, may be required to use the environmental analysis prepared by the City, in its consideration of disposition of property necessary for the project to occur, the District formally requests that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared for the Foothill Boulevard project, by the City. If we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call the District. Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 9 Sincerely, HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT H atricia Reid Koch Assistant Superintendent of Business Services 1154nop109._dmd ATTACHMENT 10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 O. January 10, 1995 Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: Code Amendment No. 94-5 and Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract 15033, Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 (Environmental Assessments 94- 10 and 94-15, respectfully) Comments and Objection from Huntington Beach City School District Dear Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission: HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT ("District") These comments are made by the District, after reviewing the proposed Projects, to provide public hearing testimony before the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") and City Council ("City Council") in order to protect and preserve the District's administrative and legal remedies, to provide the City of Huntington Beach ("City")with information supporting the District's contention of the impact of the Projects on the District, and to enable the District to consistently and effectively participate in the Projects' adoption and the environmental review process. This letter represents the District's comments on and reasons for objection to the Negative Declaration. The District is a "Responsible Agency" as identified by CEQA, Chapter 2.5., Definitions, Section 21069, and the CEQA Guidelines, in that the District is a public agency, other than the Lead Agency, which has direct, statutory responsibility for providing (carrying out) public services (education) and facilities (schools) for the area within and directly affected by the Projects. The District may have to rely on the environmental documentation prepared by the City for the Projects for its approval of any necessary facilities and services necessary to accommodate the students generated by the Projects. The District's comments and reasons for objection are as follows: Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 2 1. Failure to Provide an Adequate Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration as Required by Public Resources Code, Section 21092, subdivision (b)(1). A lead agency must provide members of the public with notice of its intention to adopt a negative declaration, and an opportunity to review the supporting initial study and any other documents. Such notice shall be posted within 24 hours of receipt in the office of the county clerk of the county or counties in which the project will be located, and shall remain posted for a period of 20 days, unless notice is otherwise legally required to be posted for 30 days. (Public Resources Code, Sections 21092, 21092.3.) Before reaching a decision on the project, the lead agency must "consider" any comments submitted during the review period. (Public Resources Code, Section 21091, sub. (d)(1).) If an agency is to hold a hearing on the project for which a negative declaration is prepared, the agency must provide notice of that fact to any other agency that has commented on the negative declaration (Public Resources Code, Section 21091.5.) In Plaggmier v. City of San Jose (1st Dist. 1980) 101 Cal.App.3d 842, 853-856 [161 Cal.Rptr. 886], the Court emphasized the importance of giving the public the proper opportunity to protest the conclusion of a proposed negative declaration. Negative declarations have a "terminal effect: on the environmental review process. (101 Cal.App.3d at 853 {161 Cal.Rptr. 886].) Thus , an agency's failure to comply with public notice requirements invalidates the subsequent adoption of the negative declaration and its conclusions. (101 Cal.App.3d at 854 {161 Cal.Rptr. 886]; but see Public Resources Code, Section 21092, sub. (b)(1).) The City of Huntington Beach is well aware of the District's desire (as previously requested in writing) to be notified of all legislative actions and associated environmental assessments. Despite the District's long-standing request for notification, the first knowledge that the District had of the Projects was upon receipt of the Notice of the Public Hearing for January 10, 1995, which the District received on Friday, January 5, 1995. Even then, the District had to go to the City to obtain a copy of the Environmental Assessment. Obviously, the District was never notified, as previously requested in writing, of the preparation of the Negative Declarations and therefore was not permitted to make comments during the review period, a violation of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines. The notice of intent to adopt a negative declaration shall specify the following: 1) the period during which comments will be received; 2) the date, time and place of any public Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 3 meetings or hearings on the proposed project; 3) a brief description of the proposed project and its location; and 4) the address where copies of the proposed negative declaration and all documents referenced therein are available for review. (Public Resources Code, Section 21092, :sub. (b)(1).) The District acknowledges that where the lead agency has substantially complied with these notice requirements, its action shall not be invalidated because of alleged inadequacies of the notice contents.. (Public Resources Code, Section 21092, sub. (b)(2).) However, it is the District's contention that the City of Huntington Beach has not substantially complied with the notice requirements and has failed to provide any notice to the District. 2. Failure to Evaluate the Projects' Effects on the Existing Physical Conditions in the Actual Environment upon Which the Proposal Will Operate. The findings and determinations of impact found in the Environmental Assessments (Nos. 94-10 and 94-15) fail to evaluate the Projects' effects on the existing physical conditions found within the District. Under "Public Services," Environmental Assessment No.94-15 states: "The proposed project will not require any additional public services. According to the Huntington Beach Union School District's estimate of .1353 students generated per housing unit (for residential units which are between 1700-2200 square feet in'floor area), the number of students generated by the specific project of 70 units is projected at 9 students. The HBUSD has indicated that the additional nine (9) students is not considered significant and can be accommodated at existing facilities. No significant impacts are anticipated on the public services." First, this analysis is clearly inadequate and fails to consider the full impact of the project on schools. From the citation, it is not entirely clear as to which school district the environmental assessment is referring. As the City is well aware, the project is served by two school districts, Huntington Beach City School District, serving grades kindergarten through eight, and Huntington Beach Union High School District, which serves grades nine through twelve. It is assumed that "Huntington Beach Union School District" refers to Huntington Beach Union High School District. Therefore, the analysis is only partially complete, and makes no analysis of the impact on Huntington Beach City School District. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 4 Similarly, Environmental Assessment No. 94-5 does not appear to completely and accurately reflect the total impact on schools. Under "Public Services," Environmental Assessment No. 94-10, the total discussion on public services and schools states: "The proposed project will not require any additional public services. According to the Huntington Beach City School district's estimate of .5943 students generated per housing unit (as stated in their "Comments" for the DER for the Bolsa Chica Project, dated September 28, 1994), the number of students generated by the specific project of 32 units is projected at 19 students. No significant impacts are anticipated on the public services." The District notes that no assessment of impact is made on the Huntington Beach Union High School District, therefore, the analysis is incomplete and inaccurate. The analysis made in each of the Environmental Assessments has been made only considering the project as if it existed "in a vacuum" and not within the context of the "existing conditions" of the District. The Negative Declarations, in their analysis of impact, should focus on the proposed Projects' effects on the "existing physical conditions" in the "actual environment upon which the proposal will operate." Environmental Planning and Information Council (131 Cal.App.3d at 354 [182 Cal.Rptr. 317].) While an individual project may not have a significant impact, the combination of projects plus the cumulative impact of pending, approved, and planned projects within the District, when compared to the shortage of available capacity within the District, show that the Projects do have a significant impact on the District. The tables on the following pages show the impact on the District, the estimated cumulative impact on the District, and present an analysis of direct and cumulative enrollment impacts versus capacity within the District. The District also notes that EA No. 94-10 refers to the fact that the a previous EIR was prepared in 1980 for the Seabridge Specific Plan and the initial study has been prepared to address current conditions of the property and area in general. However, no information regarding the "existing conditions" of the District, which are significantly different now than they were fifteen years ago, has been provided or considered. The District therefore contends this analysis (or lack of analysis) makes the environmental assessment inadequate. EA 94-10 & EA 94-15 Impact on Huntington Beach City School District Proposed Dwelling Units EA No. 94-10 32 EA No. 94-15 70 TOTAL 102 Projected Students K-5 Students 0.3859 39 6-8 Students 0.1989 20 Special Education Students 0.0095 1 Total 0.5943 61 Projected Impact Cost/Student SGR Cost/Unit Cost K-5 Students $23,998.00 0.3859 $9,260.83 $944,604 6-8 Students $37,273.00 0.1989 $7,413.60 $756,187 Special Education Students $30,635.50 0.0095 $291.04 $29,686 Total 0.5943 $16.965.47 $1,730,477 Closed School Re-opening Option $4,000,000 Adding Portables to Existing Properties Option Number of Portables Required 30 2.02 2.02 Minimum Cost $150,000 $303,093 Adding Transportation Option Number of Buses 70 0.87 0.87 Fleet Cost $120,000 $103,918 Annual Operating Cost $55,000 $47,629 $47,629 20-Year Operating Cost 20 $952,578 Total Estimated Cost $1,056,496 Total Cost of Portables and Transportation $1,359,589 Total Cost of New Facilities without Transportation $1,730,477 Total Cost of Re-opened School and Transportation $5,056,496 Projected Revenue District Capture Avg. Unit SF Fee/Unit Revenue $1.72 61.00% 1,950 $2,046 $208,686 Total Cost of Portables and Transportation less Projected Revenue $1,150,903 Total Cost of New Facilities without Transportation less Projected Revenue $1,521,792 Total Cost of Re-opened School and Transportation less Projected Revenues $4,847,810 Additional Costs On-site support facility expansion + District-wide support facility expansion + Transportation facility expansion + District-wide Increased Transportation + IMP109.XLS HBCSD EA 94-10 & EA 94-15 Huntington Beach City School District District Estimated Cumulative Impact Estimated Estimated Cumulative Project Total Units Units Units Number of Units 16711 102 16,813 Projected Impact K-5 Projected Students 0.3859 6,449 39 6,488 6-8 Projected Students 0.1989 3,324 20 3,344 Special Ed. Projected Students 0.0095 159 1 160 Total Projected Students 0.5943 9,931 61 9,992 K-5 Projected Costs $23,998.00 $154,757,700 $944,604 $155,702,305 6-8 Projected Costs $37,273.00 $123,888,665 $756,187 $124,644,852 Special Ed. Projected Costs $30,635.50 $4,863,523 $29,686 $4,893,209 Total Projected Costs $283,509,888 $1,730,477 $285,240,366 Projected Revenues Statutory Fee $1.72 District Share 61.00% Average Sq. Ft./Unit 2,200 Average Fee/Unit $2,308.24 $38,572,999 $208,686 $38,808,439 Revnue Surplus/(Deficit) ($244,936,889) ($1,521,792) ($246,431,926) IMP109.XLS HBCSDCUM EA 94-10 EA 94-15 Huntington Beach City School District Analysis of Direct and Cumulative Enrollment Impacts v. Capacity Assumes Closed Schools are Available (excluding in-fill/other development,internal growth,general planhoning amendments) Huntington Beach City School District Direct Cumulative Impact Impact(a) Additional Residential Units 102 16,711 Present Enrollment K-5 Grades 3,865 3,865 6-8 Grades 2,096 2,096 Special Education inc. inc. 9-12 Grades N/A N/A Total 5,961 5,961 Additional Enrollment K-5 Grades 39 6,449 6-8 Grades 20 3,324 Special Education 1 159 9-12 Grades Total 61 9,931 Total Enrollment 6,022 15,892 Present Capacity Permanent Facilities 4,890 4,890 Temporary Facilities 720 720 Theoretical Additional Capacity 2,635 2,635 Total Capacity 8,245 8,245 Capacity Utilization of Permanent 123% 325% of Permanent&Theoretical Facilities 80% 211% of Total 73% 193% (a) excludes Baby Ranch, Bay City Villas,Ocean View School Site, Meadowlark Airport, &McDonnell Douglas IMP109.XLS Capacity Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 8 3. Mischaracterization of the Proposed Project. A Negative Declaration is defective if it mischaracterizes the proposed project and fails to acknowledge evidence showing that significant effects might occur. The Negative Declaration mischaracterizes the proposed Projects and fails to acknowledge evidence showing that a significant effect might occur. The Environmental Assessments provide only a partial view of the number of students to be generated, thus mischaracterizing the project. EA 94-10 estimates that only 19 students will be generated, while EA 94-15 estimates that a total of 9 students will be generated; 28 total students. However, since each discussion omits one of the Districts which serve the project, the impact is understated and the project mischaracterized. The District estimates that a total of 61 elementary and middle school (K-8) students, along with 20 high school (9-12) students will be generated: 81 total students. Clearly, when all of the students to be generated from both Districts are considered, the number of students is significantly greater than currently characterized in the Environmental Assessments. Request for Notices and Documentation We hereby request that all notices and documentation with regard to this project be specifically mailed to the following representatives of the District: Mr. Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent of Business Services HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach, California 92648 The District hereby objects to the use of a Negative Declaration for the proposed Foothill Boulevard project. Due to the significant issues identified, the finding of the above analysis, and the fact that the District, as a public agency and responsible agency, may be required to use the environmental analysis prepared by the City, in its consideration of disposition of property necessary for the project to occur, the District formally requests that an Environmental impact Report be prepared for the Foothill Boulevard project, by the City. If we can answer any questions, please don't hesitate to call the District. Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach January 10, 1995 Page 9 Sincerely, HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent of Business Services 1120nop109._dmd ATTACHMENT I I —� reD L1 .`j5 t1 :41 NO .V + Board of Trustacs: HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION Donnie Brace HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT Bbara Canon Barbara Johnson ° Curt Jonas * f Michael Simons 10251 Yorktown Avenue •Huntington Reach, California 92646-2999 (714) 964.3339 PAX(714) 963-7684 David J. Hagen, Ed.D.,Superintendent of Schools Mr. Howard Zelefsky ,,_ ,M February 21, 1995 Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach FFB22 2000 Main Street Hof lr� 1995 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Dear. Mr,. Zelefsky: I have been asked by Ms. Kelli Klan of your office to submit information regarding Code Amendment No. 94-5 and Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract 1.5033, pertaining to a proposed 69 lot subdivision for single family dwellings. District staff have analyzed the existing capacity of our schools and projected enrollment growth for the next few years. We find that internal growth and approved development will absorb our capacity and that enrollment generated by new development will impose a financial burden on the District due to the need for additional classroom-and auxiliary space. Our analysis shows that the cost of adding permanent classroom space for new students is $28,277.80 per student, ' which consists of$15,676.97 for construction and furnishings and an additional $12,600.83 for the cost of land acquisition. Attached are details for these figures. (Please note that the total is slightly higher than the amount included in a letter dated January 10, 1995, sent by Marshall Krupp on our behalf. The $28,277.80 figure reflects inflation and should be used in place of the figure in Mr. Krupp's letter.) For this proposed development we project an increase of 14 students based on the student generation rate of .20. (This figure can also be found in Mr. Krupp's correspondence.) While we are sensitive to the burden that the costs of full mitigation place on a development, we are also concerned about the need to ensure that adequate classroom space is provided for the children of those home buyers. Therefore, we request that, prior to approval of the Tentative Tract Map, the City require the developer to enter negotiations with the District for mitigation of the impact of the proposed development on our schools. I would be pleased to meet with representatives of the developer and City staff to discuss this matter further. Sincerely, 4� atricia Reid Koch, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent, Business Services Attachment ?he mission of the 11BU11SD, responsive to our diverse community expectations, is to educate all students by ensuring a relevant and focused educational program which develops responsible,productive and Creative individuals with a capacity for leadership. ILL : t-eo 'L'L .`j5 `J :41 No -UU4 .0 Huntington Beach Union Higl&hool District � 9-12 Canrf Cost Estimates Per Squara Foot of Building Area Gruratton Typical Elementary School Site Statistics Statistic Adjustments Factor Description �..., Acres �.� Geographic :OO:Orange Land Sq Ft. 1,742,400 Small Building :No Y 400 IndexAd ustme t Students � ) Lee Saylor Net Sq.Ft per Student 91 Urban ..:No Gross Sq.FL per Student 84 Security No Net Building Sq.Ft. 218.400 Base med Fee Building Costs Y $95.74 Gross Building Sq.Ft. 225,600 Structures-Sto 1 Cost Inflator 100.00% Building Class D Cost Per Total Cost Per Category Factors Unit Sq,Ft, Total Costs Student Total ar .Costs. 7.. .....v..:,D:;Du.,Di»S•. ,....^.`S:;` ;;f>,,:U iv.t.»,:.,.::<.>.•::,..>.<.<.< EtoBife;.:;.>M7tr<.x.,:.•x.-. Building Costs- Foxed $95.74 $20,909,398 ,71 .2 $0 $ 0.00 -x...,,....,.. Adjustments Lee Saylor 50.00 On-Site Development-Gcncral 5.00% Of Building Costs $4.79 $1,045,470 543$•61 On-SHe Development-General $7,500 Per Acre $1.37 $300,000 $125.00 On-Site Development.-Sc,vices 7 50% Of Building Costs $7.18 $1,568,205 $653.42 Utility Services 2.50% Of Building Costs $2.39 $522,735 $217.61 Off-Site Improvements 10-00% Of Building Costs 49•57 $2.090,940 $871 22 Energy Management 3.00%,Of Building Costs $2.87 $627,282 $261.37 Other Hard Costs 1,00% Of Building Costs $0.96 $209 094 !-lard Cost Sub-Total $124.88 11,ss3. S2 7 •So o s':;`;,><.�.:;.:.,... :.: :; <.x,:�.a.x.<a.»..:: .s. ,,w,w.�_��.:,:x. ..-a;..,�;..w. ft. St :cxer,.•,:. .<::f':<""•:�:x:,•:,eex. r: •<.0 ........... 3,12 b:.:::::.::::::.:.:x::.:..:..:.::..::::... .......,,::,,,..,xom:rrr.>:�,IYp.;�xwwr.w•.>.•...>..:a>,:�.a. .... <..+. :ee%+o>t,::3f'.,.a ^.,; =k« <..� `Kt"S�.ES: -Y:��>. Arch./Eng.Fees »:.•�,!' =.... .<M,�;,:=z':" ...:.. 7.50% Of Hard Costs In tlon/l'csls $9,37 $Z,045,484 5852.29 pee 2,50% Of Bard Costs $3.12 $681,828 $2eAio Plan Check Fees 0.75% Of Hard Costs $0.94 $204,548 $g5,23 Utility Fees 0.25% Of Hard Costs $0.31 $158,183 $28.41 Environmental Documentation MOW Per Site $0.14 $30,000' $12 50 Afcheaological Survey $5,000 Per Site $0.02 $5,000 08 Solis Report $20.000 Per She $ $o,o� $zo,000' 8,33.�� Site Survey 57,500 Per Site $0.03 Appraisal&Escrow Costs $7,500 .13 350,000 Per Site $0.23 $50,000 � $20.83 Administrative Costs 3.00% Of Hard Costs $3.75 $818,194 ZW.91 Relocation Costs $0 Per Site $0,00 $0. $0.00 Other Soft Costs 0.15% Of Hard Costs Soft Cost Sub-Total $1654.85 �. �,,Ynology,,.,:, ,:•. ' ::.>:. :.x�3: > >kw kM:a z .,w,,,.�.w,..,s�,..,..�.,.:..:. .....: ..:.>. �H:�v,»M,v<v?�.?.�:a�>�e rx,..:;:.,,».,er,:� sic,F,x.,�;M�a.�..:«.>x„�.;>.e«<: i>: >h:,,vrx� .�"'�` �.. t �:�:�-,•,^,= a;i..,• w:,,e.oaa x�.......t,.,.,......»cr�.:..>,.t v x.,.+!>.?K,; .a x,r...`?>!:t'i.:.:,",.'„ "v?»tv >x'm t�L`<.3: °:41J�7... ..ia�°.'�x`°°`'w"".:,".'�'�PG v'rgvt°rv�yX%i Furniture E Equipment(FFb[) 47.00 Per Bld S Ft. 9- 9• w..$7,00 $1,528,800 $637.00 Technology&Media $14.00 Per Bldg.Sq.Ft. $14.00 $3,057,600 $1,274,00 FF4E 8 Technology Sub-?'cr,r/ $21.00 $4,586,400 $1,911.00 Hard/Soft&FF&E Cost Sulr•Tota! •-. . 5164.06 535,831,170 $14,929.6.5 Cdt'i'S'trtiehon Conlin ene =;:�'.? �:::»:.M�:�%i:,�;'n ;':�:x�,`?'�;�,:"�'�,:.�<::r�::;:,;:!a�„�,-�., •.x<eD«,>�•�„r,;:..;.. w, ...-....... State Contingency ............ :............ 50% Of Sub-1'otaj` x«.... ..S2.4G $W7 4&8 '2.' 4 a v' <- State Contingency � $223.94 52,000 Per School ••,$0,01 $2,000 $0.83 District Contingency 3.50% Of Sub-Tolal $5.74 $1,254,091 $522.54 Construction Con6h.gcncy arrb-Total $8.21 V,793,558 $747.32 Hard/Soft,FF&E,&Conting.:ncy Sub-Total _ $172.27 S37,624,728 $15,676.97 $37,624,728. ..., 3:N;> :^risky; b1f,+.wa���M, ,;:y;:;;ack.x.,-• x<>u,;: :•,u :e>x i•.:. .,.-..M,.x < `r,<a,<ow`o:>t• .cta..w.:;i=a:A... ,,,tvNt. :. ✓w�w..v.,,.:w... .�.x. YC LAnd $720,000 F'erAcr....a t13187.,........,,,�,a,: • >�?��..,nx,,>:.e.:�•�s;°<x>i�" ..:?:::.,...:`.N..".:cx;<;i:3'x�<���;�:���s;•.S<:.s.�` Land Cost Sub-Toro/ 2,00D. x pE $28,800,000 -�gcncy. Stale Contingency $131.87 528,800,000 512,000.00 ..,�.�. ...... :� ,:Dn NM ;::D:;�s�+r.�".r^,w.T,�. v,o:^C." :e:x':kf'•1"w,:.,r .ea^ ,e ..x..D,N., :"�«<r >:?4 ^><x•, �"�:n, s �'�".«;;'oi:4x�::;D:�:<:�Zeq:: 1.50% Uf>Su > s:i✓�"'�:r b-Total $ w$432,000 µ$180.00 State Contingency $2,000 'Per School $0.01 52,600 District Contingency 3.50% Of Sub-Tolal $4.62 $1,00$000 $0.83 Land Contngoncy sub.Trra! � � 5420,00 Land&Contingency Suu•T•;1.,1 S6.60 $1,442,000 .5600.83 S138,47 $3p,242,000 $12,600,8J 570,242,000 Total ConstructionrLand Cw l per Sq.Ft. 4:.p. 010.75 $67,866,728 528,277.80 $67 866,728 antenm fr orl facdiltes •:D <aw °oK x n• I ter m Facilities ...., Support ili• :$0 Per�30•Sludents� $0.00 Fac ,bcs �$0 $0.00 $0.00 Per Net Sq. FL $0.00 $0 50.00 lnlerium 1 Supnorl/:ac;r,t;a�Svl,,Total GRAND TOTAL $0.00 SO CU51 111'R SQ. FT. � $310.76 $67,866,728 $26,277.80� $*Vice:Commyni,y BrIN.,. 0�,,.,.I.les,Inc, --•.- COSTSALS i II .•1 ATTA(./HMENT I 44 City of Huntington Beach ( • 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Building 636-5241 Planning 536-5271 February 2, 1995 Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent of Business Services Huntington Beach City Elementary School District 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92646 RE: NOTIFICATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS Dear Mr. Buchanan: The City of Huntington Beach Cornmunity Development Department is in receipt of your letter dated January 10, 1995. In your letter, you indicate that the Huntington Beach City School District did not receive notification of the preparation of Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15, the Subdivision Committee meeting on December 29, 1994 and the Planning Commission public hearing on January 10, 1995, regarding Zone Change No. 94-5/Tentative Tract No. 15033/ Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15. These entitlements represent a request for a zone change from CG and RMH to RM and a 70 lot subdivision consisting of 69 single family detached residential units and one recreational lot on an eight (8) acre site located on the west side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Avenue. Specifically, you indicate that the City failed to notify the public regarding the preparation of and comment period for Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15. The City did in fact provide citywide notification of such on December 15, 1994, published as a legal advertisement in the Huntington Beach Independent (copy attached for your review). In addition, planning staff did participate in phone conversations with the school districts for data collection regarding the ratio of the number of students generated per housing unit during the initial environmental assessment of the project. Page 2 of 2 February 3, 1995 Secondly, you indicate that you failed to receive notice of the Subdivision Committee and Planning Commission meetings. The City mailed such notices to you on December 14, 1994, and December 30, 1994, respectively. Such public hearing notification checklists of mailing labels that were sent prior to the subdivision meeting and the Planning Commission public hearing have been attached herewith and provide evidence that the school district was in fact notified for both meetings. The City regrets that you were not aware of the subject project prior to environmental and subdivision review meetings. Through recent conversations with you, the City has received an updated address which will be used for all future correspondence. If you have any questions regarding the information contained herein, please feel free to call me at (714) 536-5271. You can also contact Kelli Klan, project planner, with any questions regarding the aforementioned project. K ely, ie S. Fallon Community Development Director PROOF OF PUBLICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA). SS. -. County of Orange ) '�PlJBLlC NOTICE LEG„`' I am a Citizen of the United States and a � ;.. =-ADVERTISEMENT resident of the County aforesaid; I am :=a�EPA MIMUN�TY F over the age of eighteen years r and not a ?'DEVELOPMENT ;.PUNNING DIVISION party to or interested in the below CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of fl��Is hereby given by tfi"Degtment of Com- i m__ elopment, Plan- the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a rd.19-twori of the City of Huntington Beach that the newspaper of general- circulation, printed III : and published in the City of Huntington following. Draft Negative 'Declaration request has begs'prepared and will be Beach County of Orange, .State of ;subrnlned to the City•of � Htintingtori Beach Planning Commission for consider- California, and that attached Notice is a }atlon In January,1995.The true and complete copy as was printed will-Navaiiab Declaration will- available for public revl and comment for and published in the Huntington Beach twenty(20)dayscommenc- ing_...Thursd a December and Fountain Valley issues of said Draft Negative Declaration newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: No .�on ,n conjunction wrih".Zone Change 94.5, Tentative Tract 15033 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29-analyzes the poten- tial-environmental impacts associated with a proposal i by Adams Streeter Civil En- December 15, 1994 ;goners;Inc-,t�change the zone from C4(along each Boulevard) and R3 (along Florlda_Avenue) to AM (Resldentlal Medium Den- slty),on approximately 7.99 acres.The request also In- cludes; a. tentative tract' I declare, under penalty of perjury, that mipiar'd conditional tine permll to allow for develop- ment:of:a 71 lot subdivl- the fore .. v e n of 70 single c onsisting olill i� true at�d c rrct. sto g g fanitly-residential units and one recreation lot. copy_of the request is 1._file with the Department Executed on Dec o1;rComty.-of Develop mert;';Clty*,City.-of Huntington December 15 , 1 94.__ Beach City Hall,2000 Main Street,;Huntington Beach, at Costa Mesa, California. California. Any person wishing to comment on the request.may do so In writ- ing within twenty (20)days of_thls'notice by providing written comments to Kelli Klan; Assistant Planner, City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Development, Planning Di- vision, P.O. Box 190,iHun- tington Beach,CA 92648. G' G•'�t�� Published Huntington Beach-Fountain Valley In- ignature dependent December 15, 1994. 123.520 ' i • BW ff A� City of Huntington Beach rDEPAt--- 2000 MAIN STREET CALI FORNIA 92648 4. iI[ RTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT -21 r, Building 536-5241 Planning 536-5271 December 13, 1994 INTERESTED AGENCIES The following item is scheduled of the Subdivision Committee Meeting on Thursday, December 29, 1994 at 2:00 p.m. in Room B-7 of City Hall, Huntington Beach California: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 15033 We will appreciate your comments by Tuesday, December 27, 1994 relative to the proposed Subdivision in order that your report and recommendations can be received in time to be considered. The Planning.Commission is tentatively scheduled to review these projects on January 10, 1995 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, City Hall, Huntington Beach, California. If you have any questions, please contact Kelli Klan, Assistant Planner at (714) 536-5271. dSine.-ely,d Zelefs tary, Subdivision ommi tee HZ:lp g:klan\ttm 15033 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE NOTIFICATION LABELS (1575D) I epartment of Housing & Orange County Flood District Orange County Sanitation Community Development P.O. Box 4048 District Magnon Business Park Santa Ana, CA 92702 10844 Ellis Avenue 2038 Iowa Ave.,Bldg. B, Ste 102 Fountain Valley, CA 92643 Riverside, CA 92507 Orange County Environmental California State Dept. of California Regional Management Agency Transportation Water Quality Board 400 Civic Center Dr., West District 12 6809 Indiana Avenue, Ste 200 Santa Ana, CA 92701 2501 S., Pullman Riverside, CA 92506 Santa Ana, CA 92705 U.S. Postal Service H.B.H.'S. District Office H.B. City Elementary School 6771 Warner Avenue 10251 Yorktown Avenue District - 20451 Craimer Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Mr. Burgner Fountain Valley School Dis"ir: HB High School Ocean View Elementary 17210 Oak 1905 Main Street 17200 Pinehurst Lane Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Attn: Mr. Ecker Attn: Mr. Jones Westminster School District Community Systems Associates., Inc. H.B. School District 4121 Cedarwood Avenue 730 El Camino Way, Suite 200 P.O. Box 71 Westminster, CA Tustin, CA 92680 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Attn: Mr. Frazier Attn: Marshall B. Krupp Attn: Mr. Buchanan Southern Calif. Southern Calif. Gas Co. Nick Tomaino P.O. Box 4 00 P.O. Box 3334 6812 Scenic Bay Lane Land Ri s ion Anaheim, CA 92803-3334 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 100 Beach Blvd. L g ach, CA 90801 sk Jay Kreitz John Roe Kathy Hinsche 19781 Island Bay Lane 19382 Surfdale 6781 Evening Hill Drive Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Jay Fowler Jeff Metzel c�E: 19762 Island Bay Lane 19391 Shady Harbor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 '/'��11 L V 2 � 1 01 Y`•IY1 V 1�1 e�r U ( N O L,-X1 Yr'� t i L) l 1'�� CL1lTt�`j�G1\Z L�1�Q�i1`� 1 1� 1 is1 K41v„us D ,� e s� E. 3-� e�12 �� ►�`i HEARING NOTIFICATION' CHECKLIST Pg. 2 D) atherine Stipe, Environmental F1ann g Dir. Mr.Tom Zanic Board Chairman City o ountain Valley Seacliff Partners 1 G391 Fairway Lane 10200 at Ave. 520 Broadway Ste. 100 Huntington Beach,CA 92G49 Fountain alley,CA 92708 Santa Monica,CA Paci 1c Coast Archaeological Planning Department OC County Harbors,Beach Socie ,Inc. Orange County EM.A and Parks Dept. P.O. x 10926 P. O. Box 4048 P. O. Box 4048 Costa esa,CA 92627 Santa Ana,CA 92 702-4048 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Aitn:)at Gothold ,,JERR-W0CHAR5UN -•..✓ _ California Coastal Commission 1012 I�R�D O��uE 2-0Z HB,CityLE•IemerifarvPSclool District South District Office CcST� MEN CA PgOx xBo i l 245 W. Brozdway No. 380 Huntington 14clr-CA 92645 Long Beach,CA 92502-4455 �64'SBSSµ OQ. ?P.TekC�a Dr. Duane Dishno HB Union High School Disrict. HB City Elementaiv-School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue PO Box 71 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92626 964-3339 964-8SSS L C ECKER David Hagen Four ain Vailev HB Union High School district Eleme Lary School District 10251 York-town 17210 ak Street Huntington Beach,CA 926 G Fountain Valley CA 9270.8 9G4-3339 JAMES JONES 6e'ib k&J c V►IIei3� r���5Tc2 Carir• Ocean view elementary �q19 W esTcC\i PlcLc e 2co . School district ��-� r c1�, CA 4aLbfj 17200 Finel�urst Lane Huntington Beach CA 92G47. R FRAZIER �Jr��Y�p�e �(tllc�e. I•'t0 Qssc� \�%est. inster school district 1412I dar�a�oed Avenue Westmin- rCA92GS3 k RAJ I��� C}L C-S \ 73 mino Wav ±!200 �c r Twstin,C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNUiG COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Tuesday, January 10, 1995, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the following items: ❑ 1. CODE AMENDMENT NO. 94-3/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 94-10: APPLICANT: The Centerstone Company - An amendment to the Seabridge Specific Plan to change the land use designation on approximately 3.95 acres within Area B from Resource Production (01) to Medium Density Residential. LOCATION: Parcel 4 of Tentative Tract No. 11673, east side of Beach Boulevard, 400 feet south of Adams. PLANNER ASSIGNED: Kelli Klan . B'2. ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5/CONDITIONALUSE PERMIT NO. 94-29NARIANCE NO. 94-40/ TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033/ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 94-15: APPLICANT: Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc. - To permit a zone change from CG, General Commercial District, and RMH, Medium High Density Residential District, to RM, Medium Density Residential District; on approximately 7.94 acres. The conditional use permit and tentative tract map is for a 71 lot subdivisi: .'nsisting of 70 single family residential detached units and one (1) recreational lot. The conditions .ise permit also includes a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards and for a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height. Variance No. 94-40 is to allow a reduced sideyard setback of eight (8) feet for Unit No. 34 along Florida Street, in lieu of the 15 foot code requirement for street sideyard setbacks, pursuant to Section 210.06(J) of the Huntington Beach Zoning& Subdivision Ordinance. LOCATION: West side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Avenue. PLANNER ASSIGNED: Kelli Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that initial environmental assessments for the above items were processed and completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that Item(s) 41 and 2, with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. These environmental assessments are on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, and are available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning(714) 536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Community Development Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library(7111 Talbert Avenue) after January 6, 1995. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the Planning Commission's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Howard Zelefsky Huntington Beach Planning Commission (pc1g020-1) 15, 2 IF PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST WILING LABELS (LPH01) 3/2/93 President William D. Holman Plannin irecto H.B. Chamber of Commerce Pacific Coast Homes City es ster 2210 Main Street,Suite 200 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 82 \�J inster Blvd. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 W stm' ster,CA 92G83 Judy Legan Pres.,H.B. Hist. Society Planning for H.B./F.V. Board of Realtors C/O Newland House Museum City of al B 8101 Slater Ave. 19820 Beach Blvd. 211 gh;40— Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Se h,CA 90740 President Chairperson CA Coastal Commission Amigos De Bolsa Chica Historical Resources Bd. Theresa Henry P. O. Box 3748 Comm. Services Dept. 245 W. Broadway, Ste 38D Huntington Beach,CA 92605 2000 Main St. Long Bch,CA 90802 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Charles Grant Robert Joseph Friends of the HB Wetlands �In�tio�n-Bea Caltrans District 12 21902 Kiowa Lane 2501 Pullman St. Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ch,C 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92705 7-crest L,) o,� Edna Littlebury Director t 3Oq Le&.e S 2 Golden St. Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. �Ore�are ad\V , . g o. 11021 Magnolia Blvd. Agency l3• L C(210�t6 Garden Grove,CA 92642 x 355 President County of Orange/E\ZA Dominick Tomaino Huntington Beach Tomorrow Michael M. Ruane,Dir. Seacliff Homeowners Assoc. 411 Gth St. P.O. Box 4048 6812 Scenic Bay Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92 702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Julie Vandermost BIA-OC County of Orange/Eti'LA Huntington Harbor HOA 9 Executive Circle #100 Thomas Mathews,Dir,Planning P. O. Box 791 Irvine Ca 92714-6734 P. O. Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Richard Spicer SCAG County of Orange/EMA Bill Lilly 818 West 7th, 12th Floor Bob Fisher,Dir. HHHOA ARC Los Angeles,CA 90017 P.O. Box 4048 1G835 Algonquin St. #119 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 E.T.I. Corral 100 Plannin ir. New Growth Coordinator Mary Bell City o . 4esa Huntington Beach Post Office 20292 Eastwood Cir. P. B 200 6771 Warner.Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 9264G C to esa,CA 92G28-1200 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 IHEA RING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST Pg. 2 21 Catherine Stipe, Environmental Plann' Di Asir.Tom Zanic Board Chairman Ci f F tain Valley Seacliff Partners 16391 Fairway Lane 200 ater Ave. 520 Broadway Ste. 100 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 oun in Valley,CA 92708 Santa Monica,CA Pacific Coast Archaeological Planning Department - OC County Harbors,Beach Society,Inc. Orange County EA and Par . P.O. Box 10926 P. O. Box 4048 P. O ox 4048 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa Ana., 92702-4048 San a Ana,CA 92702-4048 Attn:Jane Gothold JE�RRY BLCHAMANY California Coa Commission .IIB City E,Iemeentaiy4School:District South Distr' � Office ILBox i 1 245 \u. adway No. 380 ::Hunfington'Beac}i,@A 92648 Long Bqfch,CA 92802-4458 GARY BURGNER Dr. Duane shno HB Union High School Disrict HB City ementary School District 1'0251 Yorktown Avenue PO Bo 71 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Hun ' gton Beach,CA 92626 964-3339 964-8888 MARC ECKE David gen Fountain '. jIev HB U n High School district Elemea� ry School District 1025 Yorktown 172 Oak Street Hu ngton Beach,CA 92646 Fountain Valley CA 92708 964-3339 JAMES JO Ocean � w elementary Sc district 1ho 7 0 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach CA 92647 RON FRAZI Westmi er school district 1412 Avenue \\lest(edarwood ster CA 92683 CSA 730 Camino Way#200 Tus ,CA 9680 I� PUBLIC NOTICE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL PROOF OF PUBLICATION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, STATE O F CALIFORNIA) March C y Co at l C m- in the City Council Cham- bers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City S S. Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: County of Orange ) SIGN PERL ONOSECL P93I71 (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7, 1994 CITY I am a Citizen of the United States and a COUNCILnt: J. colt Applicant: J. Scott Fawc- .ett/ Appellant: Former resident o the County aforesaid; I am Councilman Jim Silva - To Street, and is available for retain two (2), 15 feet high public inspection and com- over the age of eighteen years, and not a nonconforming freestand- ment by contacting the ing pole signs in lieu of Community Development party to or interested in the below compliance with Limited Department, or by tele- Sign Permit No. 91-9 which phoning (714)536-5271. entitled matter. I am a principal clerk of required the removal of the ON FILE: A copy of the p p two(2)signs by September proposed request is on file 17, 1993. Location: 17422- in the City Clerk's Office, the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT, a 17438 Beach Boulevard 2000 Main Street, Hunting- newspaper of general circulation, printed (Sterling Center) Planner ton Beach, California signed:Herb Fauland - by and published in the City of Huntington ZONE CHANGE NO. he p for inspection 94-5 t AND APPEAL OF THE the public. A copy of the PLANNING COMMIS- staff report will be available Beach County of Orange State of SION'S APPROVAL OF to Interested parties at the / / TENTATIVE TRACT NO. City Clerk's Office after 15033/CONDITIONAL USE March 2, 1995. California, and that attached Notice is a PERMIT NO. 94-29/NEGA- ALL INTERESTED PER- TIVE DECLARATION NO. SONS are invited to attend true and complete, copy as was printed 94.15: - Applicant: Grey- said hearing and express stone Homes/Appellant: opinions or submit evi- and published in the Huntington Beach Councilman Ralph Bauer - dance for or against the To rezone an a p- application as outlined and Fountain Valle Issues of said proximately eight (8) acre above. If you challenge the Y site from CG (General City Council's action in Commercial) and RMH court, you may be limited newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: (Medium-High Density Res- to raising only those issues Idential) to RM (Medium you or someone else Density Residential).To ap- raised at the public hearing peal the Planning Commis- described in this notice, or sion's approval of Tentative in written:.correspondence Tract No. 15033/Condi- delivered to the City at, or tional Use Permit No.94-29 prior to,the public hearing. ` February 23 , 1995 and Negative Declaration if there are any further No.94-15, for a 70 lot sub- questions please call the division for a planned unit Planning Division at 536. development consisting of 5271 and refer to above 69 detached residential items. Direct your written units and one (1) recre- communications to the City ational lot. Conditional Use Clerk. . Permit No. 94-29 also in- Connie Brockway, I declare, under penalty of perjury, that velop the request h a City Clerk, City of Hun- velo a site which has a tin ton Beach 2000 greater than three (3) foot Main Street,2nd Floor, the foregoing is true and correct. grade differentiation be, Huntington Beach, CA tween the high point and 9264a(714)536.5227 the low point before rough grading, to allow a six (6) Published Huntington loot high perimeter wall to Beach- Fountain Valley In. Executed on Februar 23 exceed the 42 inch high dependent February 23, y 19 9 5 code requirement along. 1995 / Florida Street, and to per. 024-911 at Costa Mesa, California. mit a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height. - Location: West side of Beach Boulevard, between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street- Plan. ner Assigned:Kalil Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s) #1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the Cali- fornia Act Environmental Qual- ity Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY Signature GIVEN that Item(s) #2 is covered in Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 which was prepared in ac- cordance with the Cali- fornia Environmental Qual. ity Act and was approved by the Planning Commis- sion on January 10, 1995. Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 Is on file at the City of Huntington Beach _ ;Community Development. -� Department, 2000 Main RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Community Development SUBJECT: APPEAL OF ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5, TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-49 AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-15 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 6, 1995 RCA ATTACHMENTS STATUS Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Attached Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Appoved 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) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS C?, REVIEWED RETURNED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial _- City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXPLANATION FOR RETURN OF ITEM: (Below • . For Only) 9 a- /9S NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 6, 1995,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: ❑1. APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO.93-11 (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING): Applicant: J.Scott Fawcett/Appellant: Former Councilman Jim Silva-To retain two(2), 15 feet high non conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two(2)signs by September 17, 1993. Location: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard(Sterling Center) Planner Assigned: Herb Fauland ZONE CHANGE NO.94-5 AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF Oa2. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.94-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.94-15: -Applicant: Greystone Homes/Appellant: Councilman Ralph Bauer-To rezone an approximately eight(8)acre site from CG(General Commercial)and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential)to RM(Medium Density Residential). To appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033/Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15,for a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 69 detached residential units and one(1) recreational lot. Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 also includes the request to develop a site which has a greater than three(3)foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading,to allow a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement along Florida Street,and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two(2)feet in height.-Location: West side of Beach Boulevard,between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street-Planner Assigned: Kelli Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)# 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#2 is covered in Draft Negative Declaration No.94-15 which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1995. Draft Negative Declaration No.94-15 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 2, 1995. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer W the above items. Direct you written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648(714)536-5227 •I� 4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL COMMUNICATION HUNnNGTON BEACH TO: Connie Brockway, City Clerk ,/A FROM: Ralph Bauer, City Councilmember (�! DATE: January 20, 1995 SUBJECT: PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL I would like to appeal the Planning Commission decision of January 10, 1995, on Zone Change number 94-5/Tentative Tract Map Number 15033/Conditional Use Permit Number 94- 29Nariance Number 94-40/Negative Declaration Number 94-15. My reason for this appeal is that additional impact on public services, e.g. schools, has not been adequately mitigated. Thank you. RB:paj � x o j C.-1m VI rn Lnn norm Y� T (f� 1 ' ♦} l r GUARANTEE LIABILITY $ 100.00 ORDER NO. FEE $ N/C YOUR REF: 025-170-03-04 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY a Corporation, herein called the Company, GUARANTEES GREYSTONE HOMES #7 UPPER NEWPORT PLAZA DR. NEWPORT BEACH, CA herein called the Assured, against actual loss not exceeding the liability amount stated above which the Assured shall sustain by reason of any incorrectness in the assurances set forth in Schedule A. LIABILITY EXCLUSIONS AND LIMITATIONS 1. No guarantee is given nor liability assumed with respect to the identity of any party named or referred to in Schedule A or with respect to the validity, legal effect or priority of any matter shown therein. 2. The Company's liability hereunder shall be limited to the amount of actual loss sustained by the Assured because of reliance upon the assurances herein set forth, but in no event shall the Company's liability exceed the liability amount set forth above. Dated: JANUARY 10, 1995 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY James F. Gonunsky Assistant Vice President Director of Special Services First American Title Insurance Co. 114 E. Fifth Street Santa Ana, CA 92702 714/558-3211 Connie Brockway,City Clerk _ City of Huntington Beach ^ Office of the CityClerk !� P.O. Box 190 FEB 23 95 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 FIRST CLASS f';M � ��'` ' t�,f *� Z��X APN: 025-162-05 Robert A. Boehme > 1116 England St INGTpy / Huntington Beach CA 92648o44n110 • O`—\N001tPOgq�F (T 1 ,r�� 1 f y 9y �n., `�� F2v a ppUNTY Ca LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING ILl,liilillll11J111111(Illltliiillilllll(liltilllllltilllltl Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach �� "' CA j Office of the City Clerk R E T �� U.S.aOsraGEj; �tiP.O. Box 190 5Q '9 5. : � i C t 4Huntington Beach, CA 92648 ST CLA •;� . ,� :- r .1 — i APN: 1 1-282 2 .• ��,`' : ',,Mola D velopment Corp ��tJT I N G Tp?, " 0 T2 A ama Ave N���NCiQ O� •NOONFOggTF �� Hunt in ton Bh C7 �60 =_..s `�. . q 111ppppppRRRRRR���www , .. ^ OQ CpUNT y CP LEGAL NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING till (f1(1i111if1((111f11(i(flail(f1( j ( (i i ( j i --, •-. LI LIIf11.f,IIIi.I1.IIIII 3IIfill111i IF6iI id.IiIill�i� - - -- .... .,.._.,.�..,....;� ``1w...._._. ._..�'`'• lam._.+,"r-�.....�„ ._ ____/ _ _,.__._.�. Connie Brockway,City Clerk _ City of Huntington Beach d �y tt�R r� ���`�"�� ���NGTaN e P R Office of the City Clerk G S 4' I P.O. Box 190 e� FE6 23 95 ; / 1! Huntington Beach, CA 92648 FIRST CLASS MAIL V APN: 025-162-03 Ahmad Abdelnaby / 1 M ING Huntington Bh CA 92648-4113 V 5-�-:i!l_;�7..1.c.i c. _iy.zL %li•�`,I-t;} LL DEU M�11'I�D. LEFT e:—T F.D •1 fi .- � e i�vi_L• .:.� f +;•_ Fit_'.?�.:_.�.::• ii-i`B. f!H .t (• cpUNTY CPS r+:cTl_Ih:�••i TI,� =ctx�iE=�: LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING III,1111,,,,11!,:I!„I!,,,lill,!►,,,11,,,,,,!!!!1„ll,,,ll,,,l Connie Brockway,City Clerk e City of Huntington Beach p �\N�Ta Svc ` u.S.F[1srAGE p E z+''t Office of the City Clerk �T"R E S®R = 9Z i�Z►�` P.O.Box 190 FFEB23 '95 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 FIRST CLASS ME ;� '; ; 1 • )Q 1` APN: 025-152-87 Np S Racquet Club Homeowners As La Cuesta "Cyr '$Fq 17601 17th S 218 INGTpy /N Tustin CA 92 Cj LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ---I.I-Ii--I--�-II "-.. III I I Is 11 l�iiil i It '' ``• Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach +r ��\N�To Office of the City Clerk PRESORT "1"� N.S.TTURSETf�T�,M NA MB ER •r>�' =i tir`E•B•2:P.O. Box 190 95 Eru _ _ -- r•Huntin ton Beach,CA 92648 RST CLASSlr�c _ 5-152-88 APN: 02 '• tI�J;,�7>,-,.. ` •y . -" • La Cuest t Club oow ners As �pNtINGTpy Racque /17�•1// 17601 17th S 218 _ I / �O� =NCOq POgq/FO T , CA 9268 l/v � Tustin C- ppUN T Y LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING I, , , ; �► ,, �, �,; I ,, ,,; ; ; ,; , „ III ; Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 0�y U.S.POSiAGE►� ... .-� Office of the City Clerk tl•"R E S U R 1�f'��'t" P.O.Box 190 s FEB 95 = �`' 'i j;(� irl +� Huntington Beach,CA92648 FIRST CLASS MAIL _� ti I l.� APN: 025-162-03 Ahmad Abdelnaby 6( Y Knoxvi 1j12- MINGjp� � � Huntington Bh CA 92648-4113 j • � 0 =NG9q POg4lf� F \\ y ASDELMASY MOVED LEFT NO ADDRESS I UNABLE TO FORWARD RD •'-• cppNTY Cad RETURN TO SENDER LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING f I t � l A CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST S'.:BJECT: 2G-94 6f -11 DEPARTMENT: IK— ' 'ETING: - - Administration Use Only - i NTUMBER OF OTHER VUBLIC HEARINGS: (PER -Initial) i I AUTHORIZATION- Assist nt City Administrator N11A 1-ES NO Does Heading and Closing of Notice Reflect City Council Hearing (\ot PC) W ( ) Is a Map attached and'or is a qua;te- page legal ad r equired' If ao�eai :s a=ellant's na-me shoe:: on legal -:once" ( ) (✓j ( ) if housing is involved, is "legal challenge paragraph" included' If Coastal De%elopment Perrot, a-e :he RESIDENT labels attached and is the Coastal Commission Orrice on the labels? ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit, has :he Master Legal Notice Document been used? Is T4e GempeoWverincation letter attached' 1 ( ) Were the latest Assessor's Parcel Rolls used? (Please attach N erification of Title Co. or indicate that rolls used Ni ere derived from Assessor's Rolls in Planning Dept.,whichever applicable) Is the appellant's name and address part of the labels? YN ( ) Is day of public hearing correct - Monday/Tuesday? ( ) ( ) Has the City Administrator's Office authorized the public hearing to be set? Is day of public hearing correct - ?Monday/Tuesday? ( ) ( ) Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? ( ) ( ( ) Are the appellant/applicant's names and addresses on mailing labels? For Public Hearings at the City Council level, please insert the following paragraph and City Clerk ft closing at the end of the public hearing notice "ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit to the City Clerk-written evidence for or against the application as outlined above NVritten communications may also be sent to the City Clerk If there are an• further questions. please call (insert name of Planner) at 5-36-5271 CONNIE BROCKWAY.CITY CLERK CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET-2N D FLOOR HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFOR-NLA 92648 (714) 536-5227 6 F 94 G esATBI-ER AM w ^ +f PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST MAILING LABELS (LPH01) 3/2/93 President William D. Holman Planning or H.B. Chamber of Commerce Pacific Coast Homes City o estminster 2210 Main Street,Suite 200 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 82 estminster Blvd. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 W stminster,CA 92683 Judy Legan Pres.,H.B. Hist. Society Plannin ' ctor H.B./F.V. Board of Realtors C/O Newland House Museum City o al Beach 8101 Slater Ave. 19820 Beach Blvd. 21 ight St. Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Se 1 Beach,CA 90740 President Chairperson CA Coastal Commission Amigos De Bolsa Chica Historical Resources Bd. Theresa Henry P. O. Box 3748 Comm. Services Dept. 245 W. Broadway,Ste 380 Huntington Beach,CA 92605 2000 Main St. Long Bch,CA 90802 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Charles Grant Robert Joseph Friends of the HB Wetlands Council ging Caltrans District 12 21902 Kiowa Lane 170 range Ave. 2501 Pullman St. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 H tington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92705 Edna Littlebury Director 00* Golden St.Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. Local Soli aste Enf.Agy. 11021 Magnolia Blvd. O.C. H Care Agency Garden Grove,CA 92642 P.O. x 355 Sa a Ana,CA 92?OZ President County of Orange/EMA Dominick Tomaino Huntington Beach Tomorrow Michael M. Ruane,Dir. Seacliff Homeowners Assoc. 411 6th St. P.O. Box 4048 6812 Scenic Bay Lane Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Julie Vandermost BIA-OC County of Orange/EMA Huntington Harbor HOA 9 Executive Circle#100 Thomas Mathews,Dir,Planning P. O. Box 791 Irvine Ca 92714-6734 P. O. Box 4048 Sunset Beach,CA 90742 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Richard Spicer SCAG County of Orange/EMA Bill Lilly 818 West 7th, 12th Floor Bob Fisher,Dir. HHHOA ARC Los Angeles,CA 90017 P.O. Box 4048 16835 Algonquin St. #119 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 E.T.I. Corral 100 Pl2taMes5a, New Growth Coordinator Mary Bell C Mesa Huntington Beach Post Office 20292 Eastwood Cir. P. 00 6771 Warner Ave. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 CCA 92628-1200 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST Pg. 2 (1211D) Catherine Stipe,Environmental Planning D' . Mr.Tom Zanic Board Chairman City of F ntain Valley Seacliff Partners 16391 Fairway Lane 1020 later Ave. 520 Broadway Ste. 100 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 Fou ain Valley,CA 92708 Santa Monica,CA Pacific Coast Archaeological Plannin/a,CA ment OC Coun rbors,Beach Society,Inc. OrangeEMA and P Dept. P.O. Box 10926 P. O. Bo P. O ox 4048 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 Santa A2702-4048 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Attn:Jane Gothold Te►zESA wRu.Nj_ JERRY BUCHANAN California Co Commission 130cl L.AkF-SipE LP Uar HB City Elementary School District South Dist ' Office ?.�}51 CP-NoAER L-P Me- 245 W. adway No. 380 R-IuNT�n��soti! N,�-A 9�y8 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Long ach,CA 92802-4458 964-8888 L�I�uDA L..AI�IC�E S DRY.. INTRtGRA V-0 -1-k Dr. Duane . hno 2oO42 dtALH C3tv0•�STE 2ov HB Union High School Disrict HB City mentary School District 10251 Yorktown Avenue PO BOO 71 Nu►aT. f3CN.1 GP �210'18 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntington Beach,CA 92626 964-3339 964-8888 MARC ECK David Ha en Fountai alley HB Uni igh School district Elem ary School District 10 orktown 17 0 Oak Street Hu ington Beach,CA 92646 untain Valley CA 92708 964-3339 JAMES'ONEelem Ocean vie entary Schoo strict 172 Pinehurst Lane Huntington Beach CA 92647 RON FRAZ ER Westmi er school district 1412 edarwood Avenue Westminster CA 92683 CSA 730 Camino Way #200 Tu in,CA 9680 C APN: 025-152-09 APN: 025-152-10 APN: 025-152-11 John D. Viggiano Ronald D. Rossiter Evelyn M. Kamp 849 Boston Post Rd 9A Po Box 733 612 Ashland Dr Marlborough MA Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3771 APN: 025-152-12 APN: 025-152-13 APN: 025-152-14 Robert M. Page Charles Buscemi Cory D. Clark 27955 Avenida Armijo 31 Heatherwood 622 Ashland Dr Aliso Viejo CA 92656 Aliso Viejo CA 92656 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3771 APN: 025-152-15 APN: 025-152-16 APN: 025-152-17 John B. Franklin Elsa M. Aldama John J. Doran 624 Ashland Dr 619 West Riggin St 708 Ashland Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648-3771 Monterey Park CA 91754 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3708 APN: 025-152-18 APN: 025-152-19 APN: 025-152-20 George K. Bobbitt Jeannette Marie Kaye Kathy Ann Ahluwalia 710 Ashland Dr 712 Ashland Dr 714 Ashland Dr Huntington Bh CA 92648-3708 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3708 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3708 APN: 025-152-21 APN: 025-152-22 APN: 025-152-23 Jeffrey R. Hamburg James Patrick Brant Clarence V. La Nier Jr. 718 Ashland Dr 720 Ashland Dr 721 Ashland Dr Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3709 APN: 025-152-24 APN: 025-152-25 APN: 025-152-26 Karen S. Hirschfeld Angeline Tsuris Gregory F. Hartnett 717 Ashland Dr 1122 Kellinger Dr 19632 Sacramento Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3709 Baden PA 15005 Huntington Bh CA 92646 APN: 025-152-27 APN: 025-152-28 APN: 025-152-29 Deborah S. Barb Carole Monheim Frank J. Zara 711 Ashland Dr 627 Ashland Dr 625 Ashland Dr Huntington Bh CA 92648-3709 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 APN: 025-152-30 APN: 025-152-31 APN: 025-152-32 Larry V. Genzel Hans J. Witten Marnell L. Himes 623 Ashland Dr 621 Ashland Dr 619 Ashland Dr Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 APN: 025-152-33 APN: 025-152-57 APN: 025-152-58 Su Van Dang Wallace E. Berry Wayne T. Ferguson 615 Ashland Dr 1324 Arch Ln 1322 Arch Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3772 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3765 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3765 APN: 025-152-59 APN: 025-152-60 APN: 025-152-61 Thomas W. Linam Tom L. Logrecco Jr. George Robert Bell 1320 Arch Ln 708 April Dr 710 April Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648-3765 Huntington Beach CA 92648-3775 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3775 APN: 025-152-62 APN: 025-152-63 APN: 025-152-64 Theodore R. Bryan David H. Coleman Lana Christine Carlson 16124 Mount Musala Ct 716 April Dr 4949 Dolores Dr Fountain Vly CA 92708 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3775 Pleasanton CA 94566 APN: 025-152-65 APN: 025-152-76 APN: 025-152-77 Van Lupo William K. Smith John Watson 720 April Dr 1406 Arrow Ln 1404 Arrow Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3775 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3710 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3710 APN: 025-152-78 APN: 025-152-79 APN: 025-152-80 William Robert Lichty Edward A. Hart J. Stanley Mc Ateer 1402 Arrow Ln 1322 Arrow Ln 16602 Robert Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3710 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3776 Huntington Bh CA 92647 APN: 025-152-81 APN: 025-152-82 APN: 025-152-83 Edward Vernon Davis Deborah F. Butler Thomas J. Mc Nicholas 1318 Arrow Ln 1316 Arrow Ln 1314 Arrow Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3776 Huntington Beach CA 92648-3776 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3776 APN: 025-152-84 APN: 025-152-85 APN: 025-152-86 Homes By Ayres Sandra L. Hill Robert E. Crosslin 355 Bristol St A 1308 Arrow Ln 1306 Arrow Ln Costa Mesa CA 92626 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3776 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3776 APN: 025-152-87 APN: 025-152-88 APN: 025-153-10 Racquet Club Homeowners As La Cuesta Racquet Club Homeowners As La Cuesta Gayle C. Andrick 17601 17th St 218 17601 17th St 218 1319 Lakeside Ln Tustin CA 92680 Tustin CA 92680 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3756 APN: 025-153-11 APN: 025-153-12 APN: 025-153-13 Richard Lee Faulk Dennis Fitzgerald James J. Klutnick 1317 Lakeside Ln 9732 Olympic Dr 17582 Berlark Cir Huntington Bh CA 92648-3756 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92649 APN: 025-153-14 APN: 025-153-15 APN: 025-153-16 Teresa S. Wright James J. Klutnick Jeffrey C. George 1309 Lakeside Ln 17582 Berlark Cir 1301 Lakeside Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3756 Huntington Bh CA 92649 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3756 APN: 025-154-09 APN: 025-154-10 APN: 025-154-11 Jim Wayne Osuna Donald C. Peterson Marylyn S. Knoth 1320 Lakeside Ln 19951 Edgewood Ln 1312 Lakeside Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3755 Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3755 APN: 025-154-12 APN: 025-154-13 APN: 025-154-14 Joel M. Minamide Terry Thien Patrick O. Roy 1310 Lakeside Ln 1308 Lakeside Ln 1304 Lakeside Ln Huntington Bh CA 92648-3755 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3755 Huntington Bh CA 92648-3755 O APN: 025-154-15 APN: 025-161-01 APN: 025-161-07 Gary R. Poff James Kenneth Jackson Julius H. Caulder 1302 Lakeside Ln 1102 Carriage Dr 1202 England St Huntington Bh CA 92648-3755 Santa Ana CA 92707 Huntington Bh CA 92648-4112 APN: 025-161-08 APN: 025-161-09 APN: 025-161-11 Donald Larson Jeffrey L. Chilcott Anna Lee O Neal 1206 England St 1212 England St 1214 England St Huntington Bh CA 92648-4112 Huntington Bh CA 92648-4112 Huntington Bh CA 92648-4112 APN: 025-161-12 APN: 025-161-13 APN: 025-161-15 Mary E. Kerr Nancy Ann Mardesich Marvin J. Shumate 9240 South Barnards Rd 6732 Via Carona 1100 Catalina Ave Canby OR 97013 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Seal Beach CA 90740 APN: 025-161-16 APN: 025-161-17 APN: 025-162-02 Ronald C. Earnest Margaret I. Riggs Edward L. Launders 17206 Palm St Po Box 86 1107 Florida St Fountain Vly CA 92708 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648-4113 APN: 025-162-03 APN: 025-162-04 APN: 025-162-05 Ahmad Abdelnaby Dennis Mahood Robert A. Boehme 1101 Florida St Po Box 691 1116 England St Huntington Bh CA 92648-4113 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648-4110 APN: 025-162-06 APN: 025-162-07 APN: 025-162-08 Betty Lou Pedersen Lucille Wagner Wilfrie L. Byer 2415 French St 3079 Nestall Rd 1108 England St B Santa Ana CA 92707 Laguna Beach CA 92651 Huntington Bh CA 92648-4110 APN: 025-162-10 APN: 025-162-12 APN: 025-162-13 Edwin H. Sher Stephen A. Noffsinger Burton Berj Toumayan 6971 Lafayette Dr 627 17th St Po Box 2382 Huntington Bh CA 92647 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Newport Beach CA 92659 APN: 025-162-14 APN: 025-162-15 APN: 025-163-01 Virginia Kramer Nathaniel S. Arcilla Dave A. Phillips 1102 England St 1104 England St 4385 East Rocky Point Rd Huntington Bh CA 92648-4110 Huntington Bh CA 92648-4110 Anaheim CA 92807 APN: 025-163-02 APN: 025-163-03 APN: 025-163-04 Edna B. Pedersen Jack Dean Weide Jack Dean Weide 610 Main St 1007 Florida St 1007 Florida St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Huntington Bh CA 92648 APN: 025-163-05 APN: 025-163-06 APN: 025-163-07 Jack Dean Weide Jack Deane Weide Yalcin Cakmak 1007 Florida St 1007 Florida St 10 Elkader Huntington Beach CA 92648-4315 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Dove Canyon CA 92679 APN: 025-163-08 APN: 025-163-09 APN: 025-163-12 Ronald A. Parker Thomas A. Mardesich Mark Victor Hansen 611 Joliet Ave 6732 Via Carona Dr 321 23rd St Huntington Bh CA 92648-4338 Huntington Bh CA 92647 Costa Mesa CA 92627 APN: 025-163-19 APN: 025-163-20 APN: 025-163-21 James Jeffrey Brown George M. Fisher Charles Downing 1010 England St 1016 England St 1014 England St Huntington Beach CA 92646-4312 Huntington Bh CA 92648-4312 Huntington Beach CA 92648-4312 APN: 025-170-03 APN: 025-170-04 APN: 025-171-04 Pacific Coast Homes Huntington Beach Co David R. Hoppe Po Box 285 Po Box 285 16291 Mandalay Cir Houston TX 77001 Houston TX 77001 Huntington Bh CA 92649 APN: 025-171-06 APN: 025-171-10 APN: 025-173-04 Dale S. Newman Clinton S. Eastman James D. Glenn 4600 Monarca Dr Po Box 1098 5074 149th St Tarzana CA 91356 Westminster CA 92684 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 025-173-05 APN: 025-173-06 APN: 02S-173-07 William M. Roeschlaub Michael Sutko Robert Lee Corona 1120 Pacific Coast Hwy Po Box 59215 325 19th St Huntington Bh CA 92648 Norwalk CA 90652 Huntington Beach CA 92648 APN: 025-173-08 APN: 025-173-14 APN: 02S-173-15 Christopher L. Button Jack Dean Weide Rudolph A. Mendoza 9242 Christine Dr 1007 Florida St 996 Northwood Ave Huntington Bh CA 92646 Huntington Bh CA 92648 Brea CA 92621 APN: 025-173-16 APN: 025-179-01 APN: 151-282-25 Richard Joseph Battaglia Chevron U S A Inc Mola Development Corp 18872 Macarthur Blvd Po Box 7611 8072 Adams Ave Irvine CA 92715 San Francisco CA 94120 Huntington Bh CA 92646 APN: 151-282-30 APN: 151-293-38 APN: 151-293-42 Jmb Institutional Apartment Partners Mc Donald S Corporation Seaview Plz Mgmt Inc LOTH Floor 900 N Michigan Ave Po Box 2744-707 4500 Rosemead Blvd Chicago IL 60611 Huntington Beach CA 92647 Rosemead CA 91770 1 SCHEDULE A PROPERTY OWNER'S NOTICE GUARANTEE 1. That, according to the last equalized "Assessment Roll" in the Office of the Orange County Tax Assessor - a. The persons listed as "Assessed Owner" are shown on the assessment roll as owning real property within 300 feet of the property identified on the assessment roll as Assessor's Parcel Number 025-170-03-04. b. The Assessor's Parcel Number and any addresses shown on the assessment roll are attached hereto. _ - ._:.-,..__ ..--.�-.---�: ,-,,-+.tee 4..:tY:� ..�-:.;.--.•. _._:..::�a-.,..,..,y�i.S":,��M.�,MfY-:-. ,r -•r: .-n.:....•:vs •ral.*,..frfi^. ;t'• Y .. , . .. :;. M' ..a: ..r`:yN '�' rT};"o; "'1 ..r;'; �; �` ;" �—:. -a— - - _ v:. 77. SEE SPEC/AL PAGE 25-179 FOR FEE' T/TLE ASSESSMENT BELOW swF4x -�7 151-29 �T L25 XtFACE I51-28 = - •-- . /'•/oo' /N:/N f/N67'ON BEACH BLVC 1 j BEACH 8 s£c.c,NE /A"PSNIRE AVE) BOULEVARD —� p /LOT LINE fl 'o LQ .l oo• O� Y• /SO• �• J.p 1 • GO I `V I VISTA I W 10 I Q ? PN. //3•JS I Q /.J AG / B /08 - /008B 1 908B WMA //ABAI ---° � A= 9OBA LAKES/OE � O 2 � �le• LANE 6AC I I \J O ioo $I a JWQ N GEORGIA STREET A DEL MAR IS4 4` Ss c�u A ` TRACT '7 + 20 8a /ro 9o7a17B „ " , 1• /207 A //07A I ^ I\�I /007A (.174 I 907A yi \ • Z w � .� ' I � o I .p�y I •el 12 � Q r- k �OrU ! Oi010 Q�IG10 1111 � Q -_ - loe• cs 4,• I - I • ac' 8 FLORIDA STREET 0 � Q MARCH /948 V/STA DEL MAR TR. UM.4-36 16 NOTE — ASSESSOR'S BLOCK B ASSESSOR'S MAP PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 25 PAGE /7 SHOWN /N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE .{..: ,f,...I.y..,;v a :�S -•w�.•w.c4�., Yrli :\i .. $.''ri.` •. ? -�. �.' :i�``�'IC[ �e;1'.,r��..•_r.� R� :'.J�{j�'fl a'... '�,.��'_. . 25- 179 1"=moo, lu SURFACE m BEACH S£C.L/N£ BOULEVARD —� I kAj 2 II. VISTA Q I204 B 1006 I Q + Q 7 11� "B 1208A }II09A' O 908A L Ai'fSiDf LANE b•. I � Q I I tso' ise' 6e I ,!re,I 179.e G£ORGIA STREET DEL MAR YI � Y TRACT 1207E !1078 J G. I /007B I I 907BI I �� • 1207A 11107A I I I 10 I I r I J I 1 � 1 1907A1 •` h I I � v o Q 't I lee' Joe• I a• Le' I I I I Se• Ge' Se I I � I I Je• • Ge fLORIDA STREET f...'COILN eve. MARCH 1962 VISTA DEL MAR. TR. M.M.4-36 NOTE • .SSESSOR'S BLOCK 8 ASSESSCR'S MAP PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK25 PACE179 O SHCWN !!4 C!PCI fs COJ.:IY OF fit;:: `f,-•' � + POR. N.W.1/4, SEC. 12, T.6S., R.11W, 51 28 1 PAGE 1 OF 2 50 51 A N P - 200' TRACT r7 PARCEL MAP L 6 0 SEE PACE 2 C7 SEE PACE 2 cV 2 219-26 so+cani r Q NO. 11886 0 yyy f `0. C D. y( y� F ;TRACT ^ 'PAR'J: n a.Nc7�N' C. `y z Pµ it0-t6 PEACH CHA&"O PAR..28 lc i; 107�{ �ffi r ���.�').7- - TRACT '}... AC. 25' h p 821" . • 1730 AC. cn = C! o. 11861.. �976 AC. (J 727 C. saki O i 0 6 Q NO. 11673 3 BEACH (r4p/MCI BEACH) BOULEVARD 3 N, ^. 25-14 25-15 yN 25- 17 MARC.V 1969 TRACT NO. 11861 M.M. 506-21,22 N TRACT NO. 11673 M.M. 525-45,46,47 TRACT NO. 11886 M.M. 530-17,18 NOTE - ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 6 A55£SS^,"S MA? PARCEL MAP P.M. 219-26, 247-36 PARCEL NUA48ERS BOOK 151 PACE 28 S40WN /N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE 1-7 IV r� -4 RIM -.!-77�F�':• TMS MP''4AS'i��FOR 01RAA" W ASSESSOR MAKES NO GUARANTEE AS TO CVWrY ASSESSOR"Pr. Puwoscs om r ITS ACCURACY AMOR ASSUWS ANY LiAaxorr fc-9 orwR Uses NOT To ar RrpRwuceD. 25-16 ALL fir.MTS RESERWOL 0 COPYJ?,�r oRA&Cr C0UM4rY ASSESSOR 1.991 17 -T7- 1* 100. i FL PRO A STREET -I- • 4c. .27 27. 27. Vl5rA C�L MAR so -c 4 7o 3 P,3 -,Q1 -E .1) C5 n i -162 164 3 to 2 2. .1. 1 27 :).1 2'. 'K f, • 41 211 • 2 1 L ALLEY ey L-1 y -7T-14 I! ; A8 19;r, 13; 14 20—777 15]eD It' 12 V 14 17 ;1 12 is' 12 1 7c .31 - ; *5 1 1 * 17 78 9L 1196 1 21 1 37 5 1 1 1106 6L K." 9 c BLK. .1206 1 1 1 14 91 �e- 1 6 c I'S CI �.Z, Coss P12� P2 C!� �7D CO 21 21 ,8 q)� 6. 1 1 6, 11 6 1 2 ZT Is, .02". 21'. '1- 21 1 27-1 2r 1 2?'1 Et4aAA0 STREET 04 Ile.�, 5o 166, '- (2F d68 oil 2 (D 20 G 10 (,f�,6� (D Q 187 V 7 A F v 12 ij, -2 14 Q- .2 21 4 BL 1005 ?2.05 BLK 1105 Lw id Q 0 01 JAA& to DEL AWARE STREET 10 F MARCH 1948 VISTA DEL MAR TRACT MAI, 4-29 A 0 Tf S S F 5 S r,.,;;5z 5: ,4SEESSOR'S IfAF 660K 25 PACE 16 sk wv ltv ci-?cLEs COUNTY OF rRANrE n .._,............. .:r......._......... .x n.....,.'rAfRJGL al1)'Ir. - 'r.wa. ,w- .. ... .. _. - - - -. :d'L:w.l. a.y;i '.•:�__=: rt: iY. r. _ _ ._ _. ._.. - - - _—. .-- —. _._. _ .—. - -.� _ - -.ry-..r...---,fin._.-.--�-.Z._ _,_�:+.=y,.,,_r,. ... .• POR. SE. //4,NE.//4, NE. //4, SEC. //, T. 6S, R.//W. 25-15 14 J �) uuY y# / O 2 7 2 OSWE60 n m J J m AVE. a" 60• V. M. I •7!. •7r- ✓ / a'/)►' nI' i T ' 2 3 4 S © 7 9 ® 4 �j�(�", [OTC 6J na.u• a u~ I ,a• 5 � z � , �/ • 'SRACT a ALONDRA i DRIVE J , I9 50 S 17 Z.Z5 AC 3 W /! W 49 ae• 05 3)� 6 29 3O qj" ( 41 7/ / Q 4 -� \_.Q /I1 O i✓ J 151 4 70 • ly W O �1 �• sr tl \ \ ,74 t O • // !C5 IQI LOTH /Q �: 3�969 ✓, ,{ /�/ Ell 1 2 s 4S / 10 7 I W 3 �6�7 ' 43 15 / 1 // 77 9 SAP SS rrr /s 1 -41 o b 66 / J7 t� 69 69 67 66 I n , .,• 41'. \+� I a+ 9 8O m O I1QP\ - - - - 1• 7s O 7 i N S7 DRIVE �u I e W ), r uo 9 • 1 Z' e /0 2 .. so a. 37 61 11 O `� lSB r s y y ua',�' 10 h 10 I W I � ! 3 I Lg 60 61 ®63 6a 5 152 i W 1 36 I I Lor a/ w •s Q //211 IQI O 41 3S6r1 ©� 6 , aar Igl e16 121J II * 2 19 , < 1 4 w' /6/A / 39 SB 37 33 3t 3 12 3/� 30 I I 3 W 12 p /N 13 .- \ \ S ,�, �)®6l \ J), 1 0 ©7 6 25 n 13 O • a' - ` a � /// d � � --j�— _ "_J� ^J)�/ I � it9o'' Ill 13 J N ���_ORIYE / �4SVLAND — — DRIVE— :NO. 8736�I ! ra �� e• � 1 Z J 14 ` . J)' H: ,�. Jr l)`).. " )... . ' O ± IS O Q 04 )e, I�S 16 17 Is 67 9 /11 /13 12 13 14 IS 16 17J 16 19 A!� 21 I Q I �/ ,i,zi ,&or/ I16-' � raz' ��8. 16 z hO/02ZIS MEMPHIS+ AVENVE — R Y 17 MARCH 1976 TRACT NO. 8736 M.M. 357- 47 TO 50 /NC. NOSE•ASSESSOR'S BLOCK 3 ASSESSOR'S MAP O TRACT NO. 10226 M.M. 453-20,2/ PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 25 PAGE 15 SHOWN IN CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE V �f L r c /. ::2� •+':q-: '?' M,-r;•�e '�'R•.nr:..,� .is .P .�•. ti.. •'Y POR. S.W.I/4, S.W.//4, N.W.1/4, S£C.12. US.,R.//W. 151-291- 28 KNOXYKLE /O'STANDARD OK P/PELWE E SM/. TRACT TRACT . yi . 70 I ce 3e \c' i2 1 7s 20 k cO ° O O O 2 l (D 0- p 39 9 0'' y 2i •i 9•r 76 g MONSTER DRIVE u m u p7 2 tro �f 28 f 0 ?� Lord 23 0 G) l'•/oo' Q W vY JJ•?6 1 '�°� S V O • 'Z 7,.7' toz I fo• O W Y4 7J Zip/ to /9 1817 m ..PAo• •o 0 19 79 ,•_ .o 16 '° IS 14 13 12 11 10 p O v O /� JOLoET 2 • O7 a 46dC ¢ 25 fh AVEM,f O 42 ? a 10 i .• O� x O J' MAL L OY DRIVE o a •s. .. .. or •..' m ^ i J J i6 27 /: to w 29 31 J! !4 5536 fo J 40 m 7 17 49 ALtE48 ♦7 46 4s $ 2 'c �» 40 4J 4 4?LEr 4, 8 / •• .. :6 8 ` NO 4649 37 36 35 34 33 10 10 9O 8O O 6 NO 4114 IN'DIANAPOL 1S o AVENUE m MARCH 1969 34 33 a T TRACT NO. 4114 M.M. 151-3.4 NOTE ASSESSORS BLOCK a ASSESSORS MAP as o TRACT NO. 4649 M.M. 162-44,45,46 PARCEL NUMBERS BOOK 151 PAGE 29 Q 4 SHOWN /N CIRCLES COUNTY OF ORANGE O 0 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 6, 1995,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: ❑1. APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO.93-11(CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING): Applicant: J. Scott Fawcett/Appellant: Former Councilman Jim Silva-To retain two(2), 15 feet high non conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No. 91-9 which required the removal of the two(2)signs by September 17, 1993. Location: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard(Sterling Center) Planner Assigned: Herb Fauland ZONE CHANGE NO.94-5 AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.94-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.94-15: -Applicant: Greystone Homes/Appellant: Councilman Ralph Bauer-To rezone an approximately eight(8)acre site from CG(General Commercial)and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential)to RM(Medium Density Residential). To appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033/Conditional Use Permit No. 94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15,for a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 69 detached residential units and one(1) recreational lot. Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 also includes the request to develop a site which has a greater than three(3)foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading,to allow a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement along Florida Street,and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two(2)feet in height.-Location: West side of Beach Boulevard,between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street-Planner Assigned: Kelli Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)# 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#2 is covered in Draft Negative Declaration No.94-15 which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10, 1995. Draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 2, 1995. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct you written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City_of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648(714)536-5227 (CCLGO 1-1) sty Huntington Beach Department of Community Development STAFF REPORT TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Direpto; BY: Kelli Klan, Assistant Plannerr DATE- January 10, 1995 SUBJECT: ZONE CHANGE NO. 94-5/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 15033//CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 94-29/VARIANCE NO. 94-40/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 94-15 LOCATION: West side of Beach Boulevard,between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Zone Change No. 94-5 represents a request to change the zone from CG(General Commercial District) along Beach Boulevard and RMH(Medium High Density Residential District) along Florida Street to RM (Medium Density Residential District) on approximately eight acres. Tentative Tract No. 15033, Negative Declaration No. 94-15, Conditional Use Permit No 94-49 and Variance No 94-40 represent a request for a 71 lot subdivision for a planned unit development, consisting of 70 single family residential detached units and one(1) recreational lot. The conditional use permit also includes a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, a retaining wall which exceeds two (2)feet in height and development of lots with a greater than three (3)foot grade differentiation from the high point to the low point Variance No. 94-40 is to allow a reduced sideyard setback of eight (8) feet for Unit No. 34 along Florida Street The applicant is withdrawing the Variance. Staff is recommending approval of the project for the following reasons: The project is consistent with the objectives of the planned residential development standards in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment. The project provides better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design. The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, and safety, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property and improvements of the neighborhood of the City in general. The project is consistent with the Medium Density Residential land use designation and the goals and policies of the City's Housing Element of the General Plan by increasing the variety of housing types in the community. ^'S RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 94-15", 2. "Approve Zone Change No. 94-5 with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption", 3. "Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 and Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 with findings and conditions of approval", and 4. Accept the applicant's request to withdraw Variance No. 94-40." GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: Greystone Homes, Inc., 7 Upper Newport Plaza, Newport Beach, California 92660 PROPERTY OWNER: Pacific Coast Homes, 18300 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 850 Irvine, California 92706 REQUEST: Zone Change: To rezone an approximately 8 acre site from CG(General Commercial) and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential) to RM (Medium Density Residential). Tentative Tract Map and Conditional Use Permit: To allow a 71 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 70 detached residential units and one recreational lot. The conditional use permit also includes the following requests: to permit development of a site that has a greater than(3) foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading, to allow a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two (2) feet in height. Variance: A request for a reduced sideyard setback of eight (8) feet for one unit along Florida Street in lieu of 15'. DATE ACCEPTED: August 31, 1994 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE,ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: Subiect Property: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: CG(General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard, RMH (Medium High Density Residential) along Florida Street LAND USE: Vacant and a Preschool Staff Report- 1/10/95 2 (pcsr111) North of Subiect Property (across Memphis Ave-): GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: RM (Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Planned Residential Development and Single Family Residential East of Subiect Property (across Beach Blvd): GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: RM(Medium Density Residential) LAND USE: Planned Residential Development (Seabridge) South of Subject Property (across Knoxville Ave.): GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density ZONE: RMH (Medium High Density Residential) LAND USE: Multi Family Residences West of Subiect Property (across Florida Street): GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential Low Density ZONE: RMH-A(Medium High Density Residential-Small Lot) LAND USE: Multi Family Residences PROJECT PROPOSAL: The requested entitlements for the proposed project include the following: 1. Zone Change No. 94-5 is a request to change the zone on an approximately eight acre site from GC (General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard (approximately four acres) and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential/up to 25 units per net acre) along Florida Street (approximately four acres) to RM (Medium Density Residential/up to 15 units per net acre). 2. Tentative Tract Map No. 15033 represents a request to subdivide approximately eight acres into a 71 lot subdivision for a planned unit development (PUD) consisting of 70 detached residential units (small lot, single family residential design) pursuant to Title 25 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO). The lot sizes are typically 3139 square feet and are permitted as part of the PUD pursuant to Section 210.06 of the ZSO. The subdivision also contains 26 lettered lots for landscaping, streets, and open space areas which will be maintained by the future homeowner's association. 3. Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49 represents a request to construct 70 detached residential units, with one (1) recreational lot, pursuant to Section 210.06 "RM Property Development Standards" Staff Report- 1/10/95 3 (pcsr111) and 210.12 "Planned Unit Development Supplemental Standards and Provisions" of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The Conditional Use Permit also includes the following: a. The site has a grade differential of 18' between the high point and the low point before rough grading which requires review by the Planning Commission for grading and compatibility concerns because it exceeds three (3) feet pursuant to Section 230.70 (C) of the ZSO; b. A six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards along Knoxville Ave. and Florida Street pursuant to Section 230.88.A.11 of the ZSO as follows. 1. Knoxville Avenue: Rear yard setback varies from a minimum of ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required 15' (Section 230.88.A.3) 2. Florida Street: Street side yard setback varies from a minimum of nine (9) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet in lieu of the required 15' (Section 210.06 "Property Development Standards for Residential Districts" Matrix). c. Retaining walls on the exterior property lines along Beach Blvd. and Memphis Ave. that are up to 42" in height pursuant to Section 230.88.A.7. and 230.88.A.11. 4. Variance No. 94-40 is requested to a allow a reduced sideyard setback of twelve (12) feet for Unit No. 34 along Florida Street, in lieu of the 15 foot code requirement for sideyard setbacks pursuant to Section 210.06 (J) of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 5. Negative Declaration No. 94-15 is being processed to address any potential environmental impacts of the proposed project. The development will be designed as a private community with a gated entry and interior private streets. The project will also include a four (4) foot wide private sidewalk throughout the development on one side of each private street to facilitate safe and convenient pedestrian paths. The typical lot size for each unit is 43 feet in width and 73 feet in depth, for a total of 3,139 square feet. There are three floor plans consisting of forty-four (44)two-story, three (3) bedroom units and twenty-six (26) two-story, four (4) bedroom units, which are from 1,825 square feet to 2,219 square feet in size. Each unit has a two (2) car attached garage with a two car space driveway for a total of four (4) on-site parking spaces. Guest parking is provided on the private streets at a minimum of.5 space per unit, for a total of 36 spaces. Each unit contains at least 950 square feet of private open space, with 20 units having 1,165 square feet of open space. In addition, the proposed project includes a 6,364 square foot recreational lot with a swimming pool, shower facilities and a barbecue area. The applicant has indicated that the variance request for a reduced side yard setback for Unit No. 34 is necessary for a better designed project, in that it increases the private open space area for the unit. Staff Report- 1/10/95 4 (pcsr 111) Zoning Compliance If the Planning Commission approves Zone Change No. 94-5, then this project will be located in the Residential-Medium Density (RM) District, and with the exception of the variance request, complies with the requirements of that zone. The following is a zoning matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of Sections 210.06, 210.12, and 231.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance: Section Issue Required Proposed 210.06 Bldg. Site Requirements: Min. Area (sq ft) 6,000 8 acres Min. Width (ft) 60 350 Min.Setbacks: (F) Front (Memphis) 15 feet Bldg.: 34 to 40 ft. M St. side (Beach) 15 feet Bldg.: 18 to 36 ft. St. side (Florida) 15 feet Bldg.: 12** to 30 ft. Rear(Knoxville) 10 feet Bldg.: 26 to 33 ft. (U) Garage 20 feet 20 feet (22 units); 22 ft which includes 4 ft private sidewalk (48 units) Max.Bldg. Height 35 feet 29.8 feet (measured from finished grade) Max. FAR 1.0 .41 (Total bldg. sq. ft./entire site) Min.Lot Area/DU 2,904 sq ft 3,139 sq. ft. minimum (Max. 15du/ac) (Max. 13.8du/ac) Max.Lot Coverage 50% 48% (M) Min. Floor Area 1100 for 3 bdr m 1,825 - 2,060 sq ft 1300 for 4 bdr in 2,219 sq ft (0) Min. Open Space 25% of floor area/ 52%/ 35,909 sq. ft. 70,800 sq. ft.(Private) 6,364 sq. ft. (Common) 77,164 sq ft. (Total) 210.12 PUD Standards CC&R's Provided * Conditional Use Permit request ** Variance request Staff Report- 1/10/95 5 (pcsr 111) Section Issue Required Proposed 232.08(B) Landscape Tree Req. One 24"-box tree/unit 70 24"-box trees in front setback One tree/45 ft 49 trees in 24" and 36" box lineal street frontage=49 sizes 230.88 Fences and Walls: (A.1) Max. height in setback areas- Front (Memphis) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall setback 15 to 19 ft St. side (Beach) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall setback 15 ft. St. side (Florida) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall with min. 10 ft. setback* Rear (Knoxville) 42" in 15 feet setback area 6' high wall with min. 10 ft. setback* (A.7) Retaining walls Max. 24" 3.5 feet high retaining wall along Beach and Memphis 231.04 Off-Street Parking- Multi-family PUD: 3 or more bedroom 2.5 spaces (1 enclosed)/unit 175 spaces total 280 spaces total (70 enclosed) (140 enclosed) Guest .5 space per unit 35 spaces total 36 spaces total 231.14 Aisle Width 25 feet 25 feet * Conditional Use Permit request ** Variance request Staff Report- 1/10/95 6 (pcsrlll) I Individual Lot Analysis Pursuant to Section 210.06 "Property Development Standards," the 71 individual parcels may be less than the minimum building site requirements of the district the parcels are located (RM in this case) if approved pursuant to a Planned Unit Development. This particular request is for a small lot, single-family residential PUD that contains lots less than the min. 6,000 sq. ft. requirement. The lot sizes range from 3,139 to 5,830 square feet. The following is a matrix of development standards for individual lots: Issue Provided Min. Lot Size 3,139 sq ft Min. Lot Width 43 feet Lot Depth 73 feet Minimum Setbacks: Front 15 feet for habitable area; 10 ft. for patios/porches; 20 ft. for garages. Side 3 ft min. on one side and 5 ft min. on the other for a total of 8 ft between units. Rear 10 feet minimum; many units have 15 feet. Lot Coverage 48% max. Open Space 950 sq. ft. min. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed project, including the zone change from CG and RMH to RM, conforms with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of the Medium Density Residential on the subject property. In addition, the proposed development is consistent with the City's Housing Element by increasing the variety of housing types in the community. Environmental Status: On December 9, 1994, the Environmental Assessment Committee determined that no significant impacts were anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Negative Declaration No. 94-15 was prepared with the following supplemental reports: 1). "Geotechnical Investigation", prepared by Petra Geotechnical, Inc.; 2). "Hydrology and Preliminary Hydraulics Study," prepared by Adams Streeter Civil Engineers, Inc.; and, 3). "Traffic Study," prepared by Austin-Foust Associates, Inc. All concerns were mitigated to a level of insignificance. The"Geotechnical Investigation" confirmed that no portion of the proposed project is within 50 feet of the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Seismic Zone, and Staff Report- 1/10/95 7 (pcsr111) the `Hydrology and Preliminary Hydrology Study" concluded that the City's existing drain system can accommodate the projected additional water run-off generated from the proposed project. Finally, the "Traffic Study" concluded that the proposed project's gated entry will be free flowing and will not adversly impact through traffic along Florida Street, and that the proposed project will warrant the signalization of the Beach Boulevard to Memphis Avenue intersection(included in the conditions of approval for this project). Negative Declaration No. 94-15 is included in the report as Attachment No. 4. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA), the Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 94-15 for twenty-one (21) days commencing on Thursday, December 15, 1994 and ending on Thursday, January 5, 1995. Staff, in its initial study of the project, has recommended that a negative declaration be issued. Prior to any action on Zone Change No. 94-5, Tentative Tract No. 15033, Conditional Use Permit No. 94-49. and Variance No. 94-40, it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 94-15. The Department of Community Development has not received any comments regarding the negative declaration. Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable Design Review Board: Not applicable Subdivision Committee: On December 29, 1994, the Subdivision Committee reviewed Tentative Tract No. 15033. After Staff discussion regarding the general character of the project and discussions of suggested conditions of approval, the Subdivision Committee recommended approval of the tract map with the following modifications: 1. Vary the perimeter property lines/wall along Beach Boulevard. 2. Provide a pedestrian accessway at the southeast corner of the site to Beach Blvd. unless discouraged by the Police Department. 3. Eliminate a lot along the southerly property line and a lot along the northerly property line, or redesign the project, in order to allow for development that conforms with code required perimeter building setbacks and increase the building setback to generally thirty feet from the Beach Blvd. ROW line. Staff Report- 1/10/95 8 (pcsrI 11) Other Departments Concerns: The Police, Fire and Public Works Departments have recommended conditions which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. ANALYSIS: Zone Change The proposed tentative tract and conditional use permit are dependent on the approval of Zone Change No. 94-5. Recordation of the final map for the proposed subdivision can not occur until Zone Change No. 94-5 has been approved by the City Council and in effect. The request for a change of zone from CG(General Commercial) along Beach Boulevard and RMH (Medium-High Density Residential) along Florida Street to RM (Medium Density Residential) allows a maximum density of 15 units per acre. The proposed project is designed at a density of 8.75 units per acre, which is well within the requirements of the RM District. The change of zone to RM is consistent with the City's General Plan Land Use Designation of Residential Medium Density. The General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has recommended that the general plan land use designation remain as medium density residential. Conditional Use Permit: The conditional use permit request includes the provision for a six (6) foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards. The six (6) foot high wall provides a buffer around the four perimeters of the subject site which includes landscaped areas as.follows: 1. Memphis Avenue: The six (6) foot high wall is designed to provide movement around this perimeter of the site, as it undulates from a minimum of fifteen(15) feet to a maximum of nineteen (19)feet from the site's front property line. 2. Beach Boulevard: The six (6) foot high wall does not exceed the 42 inch high code requirement for walls in required yards, as it is setback the required 15 feet form the side property line. However, the Subdivision Committee has recommended that the wall be redesigned so that it provides movement and variation along Beach Boulevard while maintaining a minimum 15 feet setback. 3. Knoxville Avenue: The six (6) foot high wall is designed to provide movement around this perimeter of the site, as it varies from a minimum of ten (10) feet to a maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the site's rear property line. 4. Florida Street: The design of the six (6) foot high wall provides movement around this perimeter of the site and is setback a minimum of nine (9) feet and a maximum of fifteen (15) feet from the property line. Staff Report- 1/10/95 9 (pcsrlll) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday,March 6, 1995,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following items: ❑1. APPEAL OF SPECIAL SIGN PERMIT NO.93-11(CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 7, 1994 CITY COUNCIL MEETING): Applicant: J. Scott Fawcett/Appellant: Former Councilman Jim Silva-To retain two(2), 15 feet high non conforming freestanding pole signs in lieu of compliance with Limited Sign Permit No.91-9 which required the removal of the two(2)signs Y September b S tember 17, 1993. Location: 17422-17438 Beach Boulevard(Sterling Center) Planner Assigneded: Herb Fauland ZONE CHANGE NO.94-5 AND APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15033/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO.94-29/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.94-15:-Applicant: Greystone Homes/Appellant: Councilman Ralph Bauer-To rezone an approximately eight(8)acre site from CG(General Commercial)and RMH(Medium-High Density Residential)to RM(Medium Density Residential). To appeal the Planning Commission's approval of Tentative Tract No. 15033/Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 and Negative Declaration No. 94-15,for a 70 lot subdivision for a planned unit development consisting of 69 detached residential units and one(1) recreational lot. Conditional Use Permit No.94-29 also includes the request to develop a site which has a greater than three(3)foot grade differentiation between the high point and the low point before rough grading,to allow a six(6)foot high perimeter wall to exceed the 42 inch high code requirement along Florida Street,and to permit a retaining wall which exceeds two(2)feet in height.-Location: West side of Beach Boulevard,between Memphis Avenue and Knoxville Street-Planner Assigned: Kelli Klan NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)# 1 is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item(s)#2 is covered in Draft Negative Declaration No.94-15 which was prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and was approved by the Planning Commission on January 10,1995. Draft Negative Declaration No.94-15 is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach, California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after March 2, 1995. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct you written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,CA 92648(714)536-5227 (CCLGO I-1) MAR 03/06/96 06.r.9u 05 9PM,` A HOMES NEWPORT pCg g$Cp �-, GREY5TOA'E tIAR 06 '93 04:52PM A M NEWPORT P.2i9 GRE1•STONE HOMES. INr I }*Lgh cl-4-f ltivi¢pn 7 UPPor Nowpnrs Pla:a Nc vp°rt Rauh,C21I1aMiL e:60 OfGca 714-e5«•1411 Fa. 714-754-0911 1 t Match 6, 1995 • MT. Jerry Buhl= � HUNMNO TON BEACH CITY SCH001. DISTRICT 2001 CraimtT lAnd P.O. Box 71 — HuntinEtan AaAoh, rAliforitia Q2648 cm + Dr. Patricia Reid Kmh `-� "'_'<t r t r HUNTiNGTON SEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DIS'1UCT �_ 102S 1 Yorkwwu Avanac Ilwging=Bach, California 92646 - � T Schaot mitigation At=CmCnt Dwr Jerry and Patricia; EncloW witb this letter is the farm of the proposed SChaol MitigatiOn Agraarta►ent (the "A9=M9 of-). In discussions today► all the parties have xapressed agreemmnt in principle to its form and content. You have indicum that you wUl be authorized so sign the Agrer=at upon its approval by your School Boaxds. All r1w partir, Mow asr. intensW rbat tha review of Gmystone's Project by the City of � Huntington Reach not be delayed iM fbr lbar ceama all the parties have exwved this lema to express that wish. FTowevef, this term' has Ixbs signed try each xwy with an esprme reservation of its tights to a fetmai,review and appstzval by tkir Tmpecttve mtmirAdanK of the Agre==t's final.form. Sinccrcly. GRCYSTONC. HOMLS.INC. PACIFIC COAST ROMI~S, } a Delaware Corporation a Caufosnia corpomdon 7hom"4T. Ushall Dinner of Land Acquisition post lt•Fax Now 7671 From Y 1Qn'/�11LlY�LQ Ca•/peps Phone M PIIM@ A ax it Fd><0 � �� MAR 06 '95 05:19PM A MES NEWPORT Phfill MAR- 6--9b I•wiv 10.0 r • P.�� I -1995 16-.51 FRQ D 714--9FZ 7664 TO Mr. leny tucbaAm W"WOTOX BEACH CUY SCHOOL DWWCT W. Patr'da A. Koch HUNTNGTON UA,CH UNION MOH SCHOOL DLSMCt' M�utrh 6, 199s Pa."2 I=FORMOING L5 AGRMW TO AND ACC FM ON , i99S, BY pm HCB.VTINC"T ON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISIWCT. jaiy = . Assi n►t Swrintmdeat nM FOREGOING IS AGE TO ANn ACCWM ON , 1995, BY TFIB E UN WOTON U&CH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DMMCr. R. h .Assistant Sttperin6eadent MAR 06 '95 05:19PM A M HOMES NEWPORT p.5i9 GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. South Coast Division 7 Upper Newport Plaza Newport Breach, California 92660 Office 714-852.9411 Fax 714.756-0919 March 6, 1995 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Land P.O. Box 71 Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dr. Patricia Reid Koch HUNTTNGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT 10251 Yorktown Avenue Huntington Beach, California 92646 RE: School Mitigation Agreement Dear Jerry and Patricia: Over the past several months, a dispute has arisen with the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District (collectively "Districts") with regard to the appropriate amount of fees to be paid as mitigation for perceived impacts on the Districts' schools caused by the proposed development of approximately eight acres on the southwest corner of Memphis Avenue and Beach Boulevard, a legal description of which is ;found on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "property"). Greystone Homes, Inc. ("Greystone") and Pacific Coast Homes ("PCH") contend that the developer of the Property is only obligated to pay the State statutory maximum fee of$1.72 per habitable square foot for residential units to be constructed, whereas the Districts contend that a greater amount is due. The dispute involves fundamental questions regarding the sufficiency of current capacity in Districts' schools to accommodate Greystone's proposed project (the "Project"), as well as how the amount of mitigation fees are to be calculated and paid. More recently, the Districts have instigated an appeal to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's January 10, 1995 approval of Tentative Tract Map 15033, Conditional Use Permit 94-29, Zone Change 94-5, and Negative Declaration 94-15 and have taken the position that they will also oppose those items when the Project is heard on March 6, 1995 by the Huntington Beach City Council. MAR 06 "9 05:20PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.6i9 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr. Patricia R. Koch HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT March 6, 1995 Page 2 In order to resolve the dispute with the Districts, Greystone hereby proposes the following Agreement in settlement of the dispute; 1. Concurrent with the issuance of a building permit for a particular residential unit to be constructed in the Project, Greystone shall pay the amount of One Dollar and Seventy- two Cents ($1.72) per habitable square foot of that residential unit (the "School Mitigation Fee"), to be split between the Districts. Such amount may be increased by the State Allocation Board pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 as it exists as of this date. 2. In addition to the payment of the School Mitigation Fee, Greystone shall also pay to the Districts, concurrent with the issuance of a building permit for a particular residential unit in the Project, an additional fee of One Dollar ($1.00) per habitable square foot ("Additional Fee"), to be split between the Districts. 3. The payment by Greystone of the School Mitigation Fee as well as the Additional Fee described above shall be deemed to be full and complete mitigation of all present and future impacts on the Districts' schools caused by Greystone's development of the Project. The Districts shall not levy, impose, collect, enforce or advocate any additional fees, special taxes or other exactions to be payable by Greystone for the development of the Project. 4. Each District will withdraw any and all objections and appeals it has to Tentative Tract Map 15033, Conditional Use Permit 94-29, Negative Declaration 94-15, Zone Change 94-5, and all other development approvals. Additionally, each District shall not object to,. nor shall it oppose, any applications or requests for land development entitlement permits, including, but not limited to, tentative tract map applications, zone changes and building permits submitted by Greystone to the City for development of the above referenced Project. 5. If the escrow regarding the purchase by Greystone of the Project shall close, from and after the date upon which said escrow closes, PCH shall have no further obligation whatsoever for any payments to Districts of any amounts for perceived impacts on the Districts' schools caused by the proposed development of the Project, including, but not limited to mitigation fees, Additional Fees, School Mitigation Fees, special taxes or other MAR 06 195 05:20PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.7i9 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr. Patricia R. Koch HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT March 6, 1995 Page 3 exactions. The foregoing limitation shall be fully applicable whether or not Greystone fulfills its obligations as set forth in this Agreement. 6. If for any reason the sale escrow for the purchase of the Project fails to close, then Greystone shall have no further obligation for payment of any mitigation fees to the Districts; provided, however, that this Agreement will remain in full force and effect with respect to any future development proposals submitted by PCH or the successors in interest thereto. 7. After the execution of this Agreement by all parties, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Districts, Greystone, and PCH (collectively the "Agreeing Parties") and their respective predecessors, successors, devisees, affiliates, representatives, assigns, officers, directors, agents and employees, including such entities as stated in paragraph 6 above. 8. By signing this Agreement below, each District represents that it has approved the terms of this Agreement. Each of the undersigned signing on behalf of an Agreeing Party warrants that he or she is authorized to sign for and bind such party. Each District has approved this settlement and has authorized its respective Assistant Superintendent to sign on its behalf. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and may be signed by FAX copies. With the payment of the School Mitigation Fee and the Additional Fee described above, satisfactory mitigation for impacts on schools will have been given to the Districts. Each of the Districts shall promptly upon request execute and deliver to the City a Certificate of Compliance to facilitate the issuance of building permits. MAR 06 '95 05:21PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.e/9 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr. Patricia R. Koch HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT March 6, 1995 Page 4 If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please sign all four (4) copies of this Agreement where indicated. This proposed Agreement is made for settlement discussion purposes only; however, this proposed Agreement shall automatically become binding when signed by all parties, whether in counterpart, or by FAX, or by FAXED counterparts. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, GREYSTONE HOMFS, INC. PACIFIC COAST HOMES, a Delaware corporation a California corporation H. Lawrence Webb By: President, South Coast Division Name: Title: THE FOREGOING IS AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED ON , 1995, BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent THE FOREGOING IS AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED ON , 1995, BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. Patricia R. Koch Assistant Superintendent MAR 06 195 05:21PM A M MES NEWPORT P.9i9 EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1107, LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1108, LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1207, AND LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1208 , ALL IN THE VISTA DEL MAR TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4, PAGE 36 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF LOTS A AND B OF SAID BLOCK 1108 THAT LIES SOUTHERLY OF A LINE 'WHAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 50. 00 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1108, AND THAT EXTENDS FROM THE EASTERLY TO THE WESTERLY ]BOUNDARY LINES . OR-9438I54 TITLE OFFICER •GOvtEZ DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: THAT PORTION OF LOTS A AND B, BLOCK. 2108 IN THE VISTA DEL MAR TRACT, SECTION 7, AS PER MAP. RE-ORDER IN BOOK 4 , PAGE 36 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITE AND 50 . 00 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1108, AND THAT EXTENDS FROM THE EASTERLY TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY, LINES . EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND OTHER MINERALS, WHETHER SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN SPECIFIED OR NOT, WITHIN, OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM SAID PROPERTY• 200 FEET IN DEPTH; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE SURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY SHALL NEVER BE USED RCR THE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, EXTRACTION, REMOVAL OR STORAGE OF SAID OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND OTHER MINERALS, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM STANDARD OIL COMPANY, RECORDED JANUARY 28, 1958 IN BOOK 4178, PAGE 490 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. MAR 06 '95 05: 18PM A OMES NEWPOF2T P.1i9 FAX T SNUTTAL COVER SIME10 CREY5TONE HOMES, INC. South Coast Division 7 Upper Newport P1axa Newport Beach, California 92660 Office 714-852-9411 ' Fax 714.756-0919 HomEs DATE: # PAGES. 1 (INCLUDING THIS SHEET) TO: FROM: R �- i FAX #: Ca REPLY FAX NO: '{JPSTAMS 141756-0919 I)OWNSTAMS -714/474-7403 CODQVMNTS: MAR 06 '95 05:19PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.5i9 i GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. South Coast Division 7 Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 Office 714-852.9411 Fax 714-756-0919 March 6, 1995 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Land P.O. Box 71 =' Huntington Beach California 92648 m r rn Dr. Patricia Reid Koch T m HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT -� 10251 Yorktown Avenue i Huntington. Beach, California 92646 RE: School Mitigation Agreement Dear Jerry and Patricia: Over the past several months, a dispute has arisen with the Huntington Beach City School District and the Huntington Beach Union High School District (collectively "Districts") with regard to the appropriate amount of fees to be paid as mitigation for perceived impacts on the Districts' schools caused by the proposed development of approximately eight acres on the southwest corner of Memphis Avenue and Beach Boulevard, a legal description of which is found on Exhibit "A" attached hereto (the "property"). Greystone Homes, Inc. ("Greystone") and Pacific Coast Homes ("PCH") contend that the developer of the Property is only obligated to pay the State statutory maximum fee of$1.72 per habitable square foot for residential units to be constructed, whereas the Districts contend that a greater amount is due. The dispute involves fundamental questions regarding the sufficiency of current capacity in Districts' schools to accommodate Greystone's proposed project (the "Project"), as well as how the amount of mitigation fees are to be calculated and paid. More recently, the Districts have instigated an appeal to the Huntington Beach Planning Commission's January 10, 1995 approval of Tentative Tract Map 15033, Conditional Use Permit 94-29, Zone Change 94-5, and Negative Declaration 94-15 and have taken the position that they will also oppose those items when the Project is heard on March 6, 1995 by the Huntington Beach City Council. . � -3 MAR 06 '95 05:20PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.6i9 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr. Patricia R. Koch HUN77NGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT March 6, 1995 Page 2. In order to resolve the dispute with the Districts, Greystone hereby proposes the following Agreement in settlement of the dispute: 1. Concurrent with the issuance of a building permit for a particular residential unit to be constructed in the Project, Greystone shall pay the amount of One Dollar and Seventy- two Cents ($1.72) per habitable square foot of that residential unit (the "School Mitigation Fee"), to be split between the Districts. Such amount may be increased by the State Allocation Board pursuant to Government Code Section 65995 as it exists as of this date. 2. In addition to the payment of the School Mitigation Fee, Greystone shall also pay to the Districts, concurrent with the issuance of a building permit for a particular residential unit in the Project, an additional fee of One Dollar ($1.00) per habitable square foot ("Additional Fee"), to be split between the Districts. 3. The payment by Greystone of the School Mitigation Fee as well as the Additional Fee described above shall be deemed to be full and complete mitigation of all present and future impacts on the Districts' schools,, caused by Greystone's development of the Project. The Districts shall not levy, impose, collect, enforce or advocate any additional fees, special taxes or other exactions to be payable by Greystone for the development of the Project. 4. Each District will withdraw any and all objections and appeals it has to Tentative Tract Map 15033, Conditional Use Permit 94-29, Negative Declaration 94-15, Zone Change 94-5, and all other development approvals. Additionally, each District shall not object to, nor shall it oppose, any applications or requests for land development entitlement permits, including, but not limited to, tentative tract map applications, zone changes and building permits submitted by Greystone to the City for development of the above referenced Project. 5. If the escrow regarding the purchase by Greystone of the Project shall close, from and after the date upon which said escrow closes, PCH shall have no further obligation whatsoever for any payments to Districts of any amounts for perceived impacts on the Districts' schools caused by the proposed development of the Project, including, but not limited to mitigation fees, Additional Fees, School Mitigation Fees, special taxes or other -3 MAR 06 '95 05:20PM A M HOMES NEWPORT li P.7i9 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr. Patricia R. Koch HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT March 6, 1995 Page 3 exactions. The foregoing limitation shall be fully applicable whether or not Greystone fulfills its obligations as set forth in this Agreement. 6. If for any reason the sale escrow for the purchase of the Project fails to close, then Greystone shall have no further obligation for payment of any mitigation fees to the Districts; provided, however, that this Agreement will remain in full force and effect with respect to any future development proposals submitted by PCH or the successors in interest thereto. 7. After the execution of this Agreement by all parties, this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Districts, Greystone, and PCH (collectively the "Agreeing Parties") and their respective predecessors, successors, devisees, affiliates, representatives, assigns, officers, directors, agents and employees, including such entities as stated in paragraph 6 above. S. By signing this Agreement below, each District represents that it has approved the terms of this Agreement. Each of the undersigned signing on behalf of an Agreeing Party warrants that he or she is authorized to sign for and bind such party. Each District has approved this settlement and has authorized its respective Assistant Superintendent to sign on its behalf. This Agreement may be signed in counterparts and may be signed by PAX copies. With the payment of the School Mitigation Fee and the Additional Fee described above, satisfactory mitigation for impacts on schools will have been given to the Districts. Each of the Districts shall promptly upon request execute and deliver to the City a Certificate of Compliance to facilitate the issuance of building permits. MAR 06 '95 05:21PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.8i9 Mr. Jerry Buchanan HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Dr. Patricia R. Koch HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT March 6, 1995 Page 4 If the foregoing is acceptable to you, please sign all four (4) copies of this Agreement where indicated. This proposed Agreement is made for settlement discussion purposes only; however, this proposed Agreement shall automatically become binding when signed by all parties, whether in counterpart, or by FAX, or by FAXED counterparts. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. PACIFIC COAST HOMES, a Delaware corporation a California corporation H. Lawrence Webb By: President, South Coast Division Name: Title: THE FOREGOING IS AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED ON , 1995, BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent THE FOREGOING IS AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED ON , 1995, BY THE HUNTINGTON BEACH UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT. Patricia R. Koch Assistant Superintendent MAR 06 '95 05:21PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.9/9 T • EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1107, LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1108, LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1207, AND LOTS A AND B IN BLOCK 1208, ALL IN THE VISTA DEL MAR TRACT, AS SHOWN ON A MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 4 , PAGE 36 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF LOTS A AND B OF SAID BLOCK 1108 THAT LIES SOUTHERLY OF A LINE 7HAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 50. 00 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1108 , AND THAT EXTENDS FROM THE EASTERLY TO THE WESTERLY 80UNDARY LINES . oR-9438154 TrrLE OFFICER •GpMEZ DESCRIPTION THE LAND REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT IS SITUATED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CITY OF MWINGTON BEACH, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS : THAT PORTION OF LOTS A AND B, BLOCK. 1108 IN THE VISTA DEL MAR TRACT, SECTION 7, AS PER MAP, RECORDED IN BOOK 4 , PAGE 36 OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE THAT IS PARALLEL WITH AND 50. 00 FEET SOUTHERLY, MEASURED AT RIGHT ANGLES, FROM THE NORTH BOUNDARY LINE OF SAID BLOCK 1106, AND THAT EXTENDS FROM THE EASTERLY TO THE WESTERLY BOUNDARY. LINES . EXCEPTING THEREFROM, ALL OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND OTHER MINERALS, WHETHER SIMILAR TO THOSE HEREIN SPECIFIED OR NOT, WITHIN, OR THAT MAY BE PRODUCED FROM SAID PROPERTY• 200 FEET IN DEPTH; PROVIDED, HOWEVER, THAT THE SURFACE OF SAID PROPERTY SHALL NEVER BE USED FOR THE EXPLORATION, DEVELOPMENT, EXTRACTION, REMOVAL OR STORAGE OF SAID OIL, GAS, ASPHALTUM, AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND OTHER MINERALS, AS RESERVED IN'THE DEED FROM STANDARD OIL COMPANY, RECORDED 7ANUARY 28, 1958 IN $OOK 4178, PAGE 490 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. MAR 06 '95 05:18PM A M HOMES NEWPORT P.1i9 FAX T SMxTTAL COVER SIMFI* GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. South Coast Division 7 Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 Office 714-852-9411 ' Fax 714-756-091 HOMES 9 � q DATE: # PAGES. I (INCLUDING THIS SHEET) TO: FROM. yR � FAX #: REPLY FAX NO: UPSTAIRS 14/756-0919 DO"STAMS -714/474-7403 COMMENTS: MAR 06 '95 05:18PM P HOMES NEWPORT } P.2i9 CREYSTONE HOMES, INC. South Coast Division 7 Upper Newport Plaza Newport Beach, California 92660 Office 714.852.9411 Fax 714-756-0919 March 6, 1995 EMWIlNGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL " M. do City Council Secretary 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 .n r- �„ T• RE: School Mitigation Agreement for Tentative Tract Map 15033. To Whom it may concern: Greystone Homes, the Huntington Beach City School District, the Huntington Beach Union High School District, and Pacific Coast Homes have reached an agreement in principle regarding the School Mitigation for Tentative Tract Map 15033(CUP 94-29, Zone Change 94-5, and Negative Dec. 94-15). Enclosed is a draft of the Agreement with a cover letter signed by the parties stating their basic agreement (subject to final approval) with the content of the Agreement. Please note that the cover letter expressly states that all the parties desire that the review of the Project by the City not be delayed due to the School Mitigation issue. In reliance on the Agreement, the Districts have told Greystone that they intend to formally withdraw their appeal •.to the Project's Planning Commission approval and will not oppose any further approvals by the City. Please call the undersigned if you have any questions. Sincerely, GREYSTONE HOMES, INC. Thomas T. Marshall Director of Land Acquisition b -3