Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutHolly-Seacliff - Appeals withdrawn - General Plan Amendment f ' H" UNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane, P.O.Box 71, Huntington Beach, California (714)964-8888 i !�pp Fes .,- April 7, 1992 Ms. Connie Brockway City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: 1. 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 �' a Tentative Tract No. 14296 Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-37 x 7. Tentative Tract No. 14318 A T m m Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-46 ' r 8. Zone Change No. 90-8 N 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. 90-43 Community Systems Associates.Inc. '"MP, Mr. Mike Adams February 11, 1992 Page 2 On May 17, 1991, we transmitted a letter to Mr. Michael T Uberuaga (enclosed) requesting that all notices to the Huntington Beach City School District on development applications, environmental documentation, etc. , be additionally transmitted to Community Systems Associates, Inc. , pursuant to State Law. We hereby advise you that Community Systems Associates, Inc. , did not receive any notice of the Planning Commission hearing of January 28, 1992 on the above-stated items and development applications. As such, on behalf of the District we filed on February 7 , 1992, an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission' s decisions on the .. above-stated items, on the grounds that adequate notification was not given in order to permit the District to provide testimony for the Planning Commission' s consideration on (a) the adequacy of the environmental documentation; and (b) the impact of the developments on the District, and the consideration of mitigation measures. This letter is intended to be placed into the public files on these . development applications, and I would request appropriate consideration. Sincerely, C04 ITY SZUPP ASSOCIATES, INC. A t mbk/mlb enclosure cc: Dr. Duane Dishno Huntington Beach City School District Ms. Connie Brockway; City Clerk City Of Huntington Beach M-11' ze',. ?i,.'Cie: i Community Syster�s Assa"fF!vs "'" ��I February 26, 1992 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND HAND DELIVERED Ms . Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 " t RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision I of February 19, 1992 Acceptance and Approval of : i Zone Change No. 90-16 , Tentative Tract No. 14296 Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37 Accompanying Negative Declaration Huntington Beach City School District I i Dear Ms . Brockway: i 1 On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District ( "District" ) , our firm has been authorized to file an appeal to the 1 February 19, 1992 decision of the Planning Commission relating to the above-stated application ( "Application" ) and actions . The District is in receipt of the Agenda dated February 19, 1992, on this action. We note that the Planning Commission' s action was "approved" , and that the Notice of Action states : "In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is not applicable. " (emphasis added) i We note also that Section 9880 of the Municipal Code of the City of Huntington Beach provides an appeal procedure on "any decision, determination or requirement of the Planning Commission" . Section 9880 states : i "9880 Aral by Applicant or Interested Parties . Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten ( 10) days after such decision or determination or requirement is made. Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem himself aggrieved. " 730 EL CAMINO WAY ^ SUITE 200 - TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838.9900 - FAX(714)838-9998 ,�� �— — ---- - -- - --i 7r Comrnonih,-Syslemsksso.rf.-s.In. There appears to be a contradiction between the date of appeal as set forth in the Notice of Action, and the provisions of Section 9880 . In order to preserve any and all of the District ' s remedies, and so as to ensure that the District has taken all administrative steps to protect its interests, this appeal to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby filed in accordance with Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, on the above- stated Application. It is the District ' s position that new residential development within the City of Huntington Beach will generate new students, which has financial and operational implications on the District . Although infill development may appear to have less of an effect on the school district than large master planned developments within the City, the cumulative effect of infill development as a result of land use amendments which increase the intensity of land use in the community, has significant implications on the District ' s ability to maintain the quality and continuity of the education services which are desired in the community. The District contends that the Planning Commission ' s actions, and the Application, failed to address the issues raised by the District, as follows : 1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines; 2 ) The application is not in compliance with the Huntington Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended through July, 1990 ; 3 ) The use of a Negative Declaration on this application is inadequate in that the application will result in specific project, and cumulative, impacts on the school district which are unmitigated; and 4 ) The District was inadequately noticed of the preparation of the Negative Declaration, and the conduction of public hearings by the Planning Commission on January 27 , 1992 and February 19, 1992 . The detailed discussion to support the District ' s contentions are set forth herein. It is the District ' s conclusion that the application as proposed, and the findings of the Staff Report, do not comply with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the applicable provisions of the Government Code . Community Systems Associc(cs.Inc'---- Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 3 A) Notice of Negative Declaration and Public Hearing On May 17 , 1991 we sent a letter to Mr . Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator, requesting notice of all development activities within the District be transmitted to both the Huntington Beach City School District and Community Systems Associates, Inc . Neither the District nor CSA, Inc . has been regularly receiving notices of development projects within the District . The District did not participate in the public hearing due to the fact that it had been apprised of the scheduling of the public hearing only two (2) days prior to the hearing, and was not notified of prior activities relating to the preparation and consideration of the Negative Declaration. It is the District ' s conclusion that the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and as such we raise a concern with any Planning Commission approval of the application. Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines states : " (a) The Lead Agency shall provide a public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration. The noticed public review period shall be long enough to provide members of the public with sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the Negative Declaration is approved. (b) A copy of the notice with the proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project . (emphasis added) (c) Where one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency or a Trustee Agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, the Lead Agency shall send copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the state agencies . (d) When a Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period is approved by the State Clearinghouse . " Although the City gave notice and sent copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse, no notices and no _--------fir= _ ::d = r - I Communiy systemsAras.Inc. Mir Ms . ' Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 4 negative declaration were sent to the Huntington Beach City School District, which is a public agency with jurisdiction by law over the K-8 educational facilities and resources within the City of Huntington Beach, and whose resources are affected by the development of the subject properties . The "discussion" under Section 15073 states, in part : "The court decision in Plagamier v. City of San Jose, cites in the note, underscored the critical role of public review of a Negative Declaration. The opinion noted the lack of a clear requirement in the Guidelines addressing this point, but found that the requirement for public review was clearly implied by the Act . This section is necessary to fill the gap noted in Plaggmier and to provide a clear declaration of the requirement for public review. " By not providing the District with adequate notices and copies of the Negative Declaration, this action of the City precluded the District from being able to raise its concerns and objections relative to the finding that the projects would not create a significant environmental impact on the District . Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part : (b) Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process . The decision-making body shall approve the Negative Declaration decision-making if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment . " (emphasis added) Section 15002 (j ) states : " (j ) Public Involvement . Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with the project . (See : Sections 15073 , 15086, 15087 and 15088) . " (emphasis added) Although required under CEQA, the City did not solicit comments from the District, and as such the public review process was incomplete . i ------- rc Community Systems Auocialas.Inc. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 7 113 .4.2 . 6 Community Facilities To ensure a full range of community facilities that provide for the general public's health, safety and welfare, by: 1. Providing utility systems to meet projected demands. 2. Providing meeting centers for civic and other groups. 3 . Providing efficient, economical refuse disposal. 4. Encouraging the proper location and planning of facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care centers, well-baby clinics, etc. 5. Encouraging the location of municipal, county, state, federal, and other governmental facilities within or near the Civic Center. . . . " (emphasis added) Further, the Community Facilities element of the General Plan states, in part: " . . . . 3 .5. 6 Policies This section presents the City's policies regarding the provision of community facilities. Implementation of these policies will occur primarily through the implementation of the City's capital improvement program. Additional implementing actions will be required, however, such as preparation of feasibility studies, revision of standards, and increased coordination with other entities. " (emphasis added) 113.5. 6. 1 Adequacy of Facilities This Element has identified a number of deficiencies in the City's existing community facilities systems. Additional deficiencies may be expected to occur when the City is developed to ultimate buildout under the General Plan unless corrective actions are taken. The following policies state the City's intent to correct existing deficiencies where funding permits and to ensure that new development is that new development is ade�ately served. L Communrh,-Systems lssociatas,Inc. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 8 1. Promote the provision of adequate community facilities within the City of Huntington beach. 2. Pursue funding for projects to correct existing deficiencies in community facility systems. 3. Prior to issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the plan, at the time of occupancy. 4 . Prior to constructing new community facilities, consider the impact of those facilities on annual maintenance and operating costs and staffing requirements for maintenance. . . ." (emphasis added) The Applications do not comply with the General Plan. The District has provided information herein to the City which indicates that it is unable to meet the facility demands of these Applications. Therefore, it cannot be stated that an adequate level of community facilities, (i.e. , schools) is available or will be provided to meet the requirements of these Applications. Without specific requirements, the Applications are not in compliance with the General Plan. C. Necessity for Preparation of EIR The District contends that the implementation of the Applications will have a significant effect on the environment, as noted in the impact analysis set forth herein. We want to refer you to several provisions of Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines which support the District's position, as follows: " Section 15064. (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. ` (1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a Draft EIR. I Community Systems Associatas,Inc. —�lll:� Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 9 (2) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected. If the Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial. (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences. (1) Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant. (2) Secondary consequences are related more to effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself and may be several steps removed from the project in a chain of cause and effect. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate Commonly Sysitms issomta lo. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 10 population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. . . . (g) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on information in the record of the Lead Agency. (1) If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988) . Said another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Cal. 3d .68) . (2) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988) . (h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors• (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require preparation of an EIR. (2) If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. " (emphasis added) �_.�...__ ..�._._._.. �._..._•_,_ ___ --- •----••---. ___ _--- -- -- �- - ACC---)1� � �` - .: -...��..�.�. Commune"Sstams Ls;amis,h Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 11 It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard to the environmental effects of the Applications and the adequacy of prior environmental documentation. There is further disagreement among the Developer's expert and the District's expert, and therefore the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the effect shall be treated as significant, and an EIR shall be prepared. The District has suggested that the appropriate EIR for the environmental documentation is a Focused Environmental Impact Report. We therefore challenge and object to the consideration of the Negative Declarations, and request that further consideration of the Applications be delayed and deferred until a Focused Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, addressing the impacts of the Applications on the District, setting forth adequate and appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with Section 65996 of the Government Code. Please note that Section 65996 of the Government Code states: "The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined in Section 53080, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code. (f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. (g) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. Community Systems Associates,Inc... � Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 12 No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. " These mitigation measures were not considered in the deliberations by the Planning Commission, and should have been discussed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report, so as to ensure full and complete mitigation. The City has the obligation to ensure that the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA are complied with so as to protect the interests of the existing students and residents of the District, and the future students and residents anticipated to acquire homes and property within area. We therefore, again request that the proposed Negative Declarations be denied and that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared. D. Environmental Impact It is the Districts position that the Applications, and environmental documentation " for these projects are insufficient to ensure the mitigation of impacts upon the District. The District recommends that a Focused Environmental Impact Report be prepared. We feel that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be considered adequate, based upon the information we present herein. It is therefore the recommendation of the District that the City prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report which address the following items and issues: 1) the square footage of all proposed dwelling units by phase should be identified and a calculation of development fees should be provided; 2) the phasing of development should be identified; 3) the location of school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement patterns to school sites, bus routes, etc. , relevant to the development should be identified; 4) the designated schools that will be attended by students generated by the development should be Cemmeofh Systems im-OCIVos,in- Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 13 identified; 5) the District's existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities should be discussed; 6) the District's past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including facility utilization should be identified; 7) a complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes and potential conflicts with school pedestrian movement, school transportation, and busing activities; 8) a complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may effect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school areas; 9) a complete and comprehensive air quality analysis should be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within the District as a result of potential overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies; 10) the development's utilization impact on the District, including projected enrollments, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements, and traffic and noise impacts should be identified; 11) the development's fiscal impact on the District, including projected cost of land acquisition, school construction/reconstruction and other facilities should be identified; present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources should be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs should be identified; 12) appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures should be identified and evaluated, including but not limited to, a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as LE, � ---�l J Community Systems Associates•Inc. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 14 follows: (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Article 2 .5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code. (f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. (g) Chapter 4 .7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; 13) cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No's. 71 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be addressed. Other projects in the geographical area of the District and included in the cumulative analysis should be identified by development name, unit size, phasing and location; 14) unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed, particularly as they relate to quality, quantity, and present and future condition of the District's enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities, and administrative activities; 15) appropriate alternative projects should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein as No's. 1 through 14 should be determined; and 16) if a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District's development utilization and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation, should be identified and made available for public inspection. CemmeNiySystemsAssaNsfes,f Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 15 In order to substantiate our contentions, we hope that the following information is useful: 1) Student Generation A recent survey of various new developments in the community reflects yield factors, as follows: Grade Level Student Generation Factor K-5 . 1779 students/housing unit 6 .0305 students/housing unit 7-8 .0611 students/housing unit Total .2695 students/housing unit The total number of students generated by the projects approved by legislative action (i.e. general plan amendments, zone changes, etc. ) based on the factors described above is as follows: Grade Level Students Generated K-6 16. 0468 students 7-8 4.7047 students Total 20.7515 students The total number of students generated by the projects approved by non-legislative action (i.e. tentative tract maps without general plan amendments or zone changes) based on the factors described above is as follows: Grade Level Students Generated K-6 9.5864 students 7-8 2 .8106 students Total 12 . 3970 students 2) Projected Development Fees The current statutory development fees authorized to be collected by school districts are $1.58 per square foot for residential development, and $0.26 per square foot for non-residential. On January 22, 1992 the State Allocation Board increased the fees to $1.65 and $0.27. The District is currently in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report so to enable the increase in fees. Through an agreement with Huntington Beach Union High School District, the -- »= i Community sysfomslssocalas.lW Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 16 Huntington Beach City School District receives 61% of these fees. Based upon the current fee structure and an average unit size of 2,500 per housing unit, the total development fees to be collected by the District on the projects approved by legislative action are estimated to be $185,532. Based on the increased fees, the District would receive $193,751. The total development fees to be collected by the District on the projects approved by legislative action are estimated to be $110,837. Based on the increased fees, the District would receive $115,748. # of Current Increased Units Fee Fee i 1 Legislative 77 $185,532 $193,751 Non-Legislative 46 $110,837 $115,748 Total 123 $296,369 $309,499 3) Improvement & Land Costs As mentioned above, the Huntington Beach City School District is in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report, which is scheduled to be completed for public hearing on February 18th. Preliminary cost estimates from the Report are summarized in the following chart: K-6 per K-6 per 7-8 per 7-8 per Sq Ft Student Sq Ft Student Base Building $95.41 $5,629 $98.29 $7,863 Cost Other $68.73 54,055 $71.48 $5,719 Improvements Total $164.14 $9,684 5169.77 $13,582 Improvements i Land Cost $12,083 $20,226 Total Costs $21,767 $33,808 1 Community Systems associates,tnC. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 17 The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net building square footage of 35,400 square feet, based upon 59 square feet per student. A 750 student 7-8 grade school requires a net building square footage of 60,000 square feet, based upon 80 square feet per student. The State Department of Education provides a guideline for the size of a K-6 school site and a 7-8 school site. The requirement is 10 acres for K-6 and 21 acres net for 7-8. The estimates are based on a land cost of $720, 000 per acre and $50, 000 appraisal and closing costs per site. 4) Total Cost Revenue Surplus/Deficit Based upon the improvement and land costs to the District and the estimated development fee revenues, the following revenue surplus or deficit has been determined: Legislative Current Fees Increased Fees , K-6 Cost $349,291 $349,291 7-8 Cost S159,056 S195,056 Total Cost $508,347 $508,347 Development Fees $185,532 $193,751 Surplus (Deficit) (8322,816) ($314,596) Non-Legislative Current Fees Increased Fees K-6 Cost $208,667 $208,667 i i 7-8 Cost $95,021 $95,021 i Total Cost S303,688 $303,688 1 Development Fees $110,837 $115,748 �'Communlry Sysfemslssaciafes, .x7s!a - Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 18 Surplus (Deficit) ($192,851) ($187,940) As shown in the preceding charts, the state mandated development fees are insufficient to mitigate the impact on the District of these projects. Development fees are only a partial mitigation that will result in a total unmitigated impact of $515, 667, based on the current fees, or $502, 536, based on the increased fees. 5) Existing District Enrollment Capacity The District is and will continue to experience severe District facility capacity utilization. The following list sets forth the various open District schools, grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment as of October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1991. School Acreage 1990 1991 Capacity Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 10.1(±) 816 803 780 1502 Palm Avenue Huntington Beach Sowers Middle School (6-8) 17.3(+) 1,118 1,115 1,110 9300 Indianapolis Huntington Beach Smith School (K-5) 10.3(±) 694 693 690 770 17th Street Huntington Beach Perry School (K-5) 10.6(±) 558 559 540 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach Eader School (K-5) 13.0(+) 725 725 720 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach Kettler School (K-5) 12.8(±) 612 698 690 8750 Dorsett Drive Huntington Beach Hawes School (K-5) 10.6(±) 382 395 390 9682 Yellowstone Drive Huntington Beach Moffett School (K-5) 9.2(±) 654 693 690 8800 Burlcrest Avenue Huntington Beach Total 5,559 5,681 5,610 The student difference between enrollment and capacity is housed in special classrooms, laboratory, and other reconfigured areas. Community S;atams/ssocidtes.Inc. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 19 The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity: School Acreaqe Capacity LeBard School 10.8(+) 540 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.9Q) 690 9700 Levee Drive Huntington Beach (Leased to Private High School and Child Care Agency) Peterson School 9.6Q) 690 20661 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Coast Community College) Clapp School 5.8Q) 270 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 16.3Q) 960 21141 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach 6) Statewide School Financing crisis The City should note the condition of school capital facility financing in the State. There have been substantial changes in the resources available to school districts to finance capital facility requirements, and that information relative to the District's and State's capability to finance costs in excess of the present $1.58 per square foot of residential and $0.26 per square foot of non- residential, is of substantial importance to the successful implementation of mitigation of impacts. The State Legislature's adoption of AB 2926, the enabling legislation which established the authorization to impose developer fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, was adopted at a time when the Leroy F. Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State participation, which together would have adequately funded the mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development. The State's inability to meet its v! �. Community Systems Associates,Irc Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 20 obligation to fund the State School Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction bond issues to pass, has resulted in an impacted school district not having adequate funds to mitigate impact. Even accounting for the recent increases, development fees only address, at a maximum (depending on land costs) , 50% of the actual cost of impact mitigation. Further, there is an agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a sharing of collected development fees. The Huntington Beach City School District receives only 61% of development fees paid. 7) Legal Issues Concerning School Facilities The City should be apprised of various legal decisions since the adoption of AB 2926, the development fee legislation. On January 25, 1991, Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeals issued its decision in William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles, 91 Daily Journal DAR 1147 (2nd Dist. January 25, 1991) (hereinafter, "Hart") . The Court of Appeals in Hart considered and decided a number of the same issues that can be raised with regard to the applications. In particular, the Hart Court held: a) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App. 3d 1201, was correctly decided. Government Code Section 65996 does not apply to legislative land use decisions, and a local agency retains the authority to deny a general plan or a zone change on the basis of the inadequacy of school facilities. (Id. at 1148- 1150) . b) The Mira holding actually is "bolstered" by Stats. 1989, c. 1209. (Id. at 1149) . As noted by the Court (Id. at n.11) , the Legislature expressly stated in Section 34 of that statute that the slight change to the definition of "development project" in Government Code Section 65996 was "declaratory of existing law" . The Court further pointed out that the Legislature was presumed to have knowledge of Mira and to have Community Systems Associates.Inc. Q7e�y Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 21 amended the statute with Mira in mind. (Id. ) c) Government Code Section 65995(e) pre-empts only "the requirements for school facilities finance that a local agency will impose on a development project", not the legislation of land use policies such as the zoning ordinances at issue in that case and in Mira. (Id. at 1150) . d) The County's mistaken reliance upon "erroneous legal advice" that it had no authority to consider school impacts when acting on zone changes was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 1150) . e) The school district had the right to challenge i zoning changes approved without consideration of school impacts on the ground that they were inconsistent with the County's adopted general I plan provisions requiring adequate public I facilities. (Id. at 1150) . 1 f) The trial court should not have sustained the County's demurrer to the school district's petition without leave to amend since there was a reasonable possibility that the District could i amend the complaint to add allegations regarding the Mira decision's impact on the County's ' decision to grant the rezoning application. (Id. at 1148, 1150) . G On March 26, 1991, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued its decision in Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3648 (Fourth District, April 2, 1991) (hereinafter "Murrieta") . t The Court of Appeals in Murrieta considered and decided a number of issues. In particular, the Murrieta case held: i a) The County's authority to specify land use ` and development mitigation measures to address school impacts in connection with an amendment of its General Plan is not pre- empted by Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996. The County had argued that those statutes, which place a limit on the amount of school fees that can be imposed upon ' "development projects", prohibit the County CommuntNSystemsAssociahn,Inc . �lf� Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 22 from considering school impacts when making land use decisions and prohibit the County from requiring mitigation of those impacts. The Court of Appeal ruled that while Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 pre- empt the field of school facilities financing, they do not pre-empt the County's authority to mitigate school impacts through non-financial means such as denial of densities, and timing and phasing controls designed to assure that school facilities are provided. in conjunction with new development. b) Government Code Sections 65995-65996 apply only to "development projects" which the courts have historically classified as non- legislative in character, such as tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, and variances. Those sections do not apply to legislative land use decisions such as general plan amendments, zone changes, and specific plans. c) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App. 3d 1201, and the more recent decision in William S. Hart Union High School District V. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal.App. 3d 1612, were correctly decided. Both Mira and William S. Hart Union High School District also held that Government Code Sections 65995-65996 do not prohibit a local agency from taking school impacts into account in making legislative land use decisions. d) Legislative amendments to Government Code Sections 65995-65996 adopted in 1989 were declaratory of existing law and were not intended to abrogate the holding in Mira. e) Since the County was not pre-empted from considering school impacts in conjunction with its approval of the Southwest Area Community Plan ("SWAP") , the District stated a valid cause of action under CEQA by alleging that the County breached its mandatory duty to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report fully disclosing i^ GommuniF"sysL:ms,:ssosisi:s.lrc Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 23 all school impacts, by failing to adopt feasible mitigation measures which would reduce school impacts to a level of non- significance, and by failing to adopt an adequate "Statement of Overriding Considerations" explaining why the County decided to approve the SWAP in the face of the significant unmitigated school impacts. f) The provisions in the SWAP which authorized development causing unmitigated adverse impacts on the District's school facilities were inconsistent with other provisions in the County's General Plan that mandated provision of adequate public improvements and facilities, including schools, in conjunction with new development. The District therefore stated a valid claim that the County's General Plan was internally inconsistent and invalid under Government Code Section 65300. 5. The County filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to consider the Murrieta case. The Supreme Court rejected the petition, and the case was remanded back to the Superior Court, now pending action. The Court's decision as certified for publication is a precedent that applies State-wide and is binding on all trial courts in California. The Court of Appeal 's decision in the Murrieta case is an important logical extension of the previous rulings in Mira and Hart. For The first time since Government Code Section 65995-65996 were adopted in 1986, a court has ruled that a local land use agency not only has the authority to consider school impacts when considering legislative land use decisions, it has the duty to do so. The District acknowledges that the City does not have the authority to deny non-legislative applications on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities; however the City has the obligation to review and evaluate legislative applications, and may deny such application on the grounds of inadequate school facilities. lar Community Systems Gssocinles Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 24 i We would request and recommend that the environmental documentation provide an identification of all environmental impacts, both individually and cumulatively, identify mitigation measures, and set forth appropriate alternatives. Further, that the appropriate mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code be incorporated into the conditions of approval of any subsequent developments. It is the District's conclusion that the actions of the Planning Commission, and the recent approvals of the Planning Commission, will result in financial, operation and administrative impacts on the District. These impacts on the District are further set forth herein. In addition, all previous oral and written testimony and documentation submitted to the City on these Applications are incorporated herein by reference and supports the District's contentions. Pursuant to Section 9884, we hereby request that this appeal be heard by the City Council within 30 days of receipt of this let- ter and the enclosed fee of $200.00, by the City Clerk. If you desire additional information or seek additional substan- tiation of the District's appeal, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, CO UNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. M all pp P sident appeal cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Mr. Mike Adams City of Huntington Beach Mr. Howard Zelefski, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach Hbntitigtbn'Bdach City School District Zone Change No. 90-9 • Tentative Tract No. 14042 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.46 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 9 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 22,500 K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Student Generation Total 2.4255 $59,417 $21,686 $37,732 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Total 0.2695 Total 2.4255 $59,417 $22,646 $36,771 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntiingtbn Mach City School District Zone Change No. 90-11 Tentative Tract No. 14043 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.86 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 9 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 22,500 K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Student Generation Total 2.4255 $59,417 $21,686 $37,732 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Total 0.2695 Total 2.4255 $59,417 $22,646 $36,771 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntpngrori Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-15 Tentative Tract No. 14044 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.26 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 11 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 27,500 K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Student Generation Total 2.9645 $72,621 $26,505 $46,117 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Total 0.2695 Total 2.9645 $72,621 $27,679 $44,942 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Hunti'ngtbn Mach City School District Zone Change No. 90-12 Tentative Tract No. 14243 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.51 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 8 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 20,000 K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Student Generation Total 2.1560 $52,815 $19,276 $33,539 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Total 0.2695 Total 2.1560 $52,815 $20,130 $32,685 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 HunOngtbo Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-13 Tentative Tract No. 14244 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.89 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 13 Sq. Ft. @ 2500/HU 32,500 K-6 2.7092 $58,971 7-8 0.7943 $26,854 Student Generation Total 3.5035 $85,825 $31,324 $54,501 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.7092 $58,971 7-8 0.7943 $26,854 Total 0.2695 Total 3.5035 $85,825 $32,711 $53,114 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Hunti'ngtbn Beach CitySchool District Zone Change No. 90-16 Tentative Tract No. 14296 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.31 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 10 Sq. Ft. @ 2500/HU 25,000 K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Student Generation Total 2.6950 $66,019 $24,095 $41,924 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Total 0.2695 Total 2.6950 $66,019 $25,163 $40,857 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntifigtbl4 Bdach City School District Tentative Tract No. 14318 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.19 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 10 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 25,000 K-6 2.0840 S45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Student Generation Total 2.6950 $66,019 $24,095 $41,924 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Total 0.2695 Total 2.6950 $66,019 $25,163 $40,857 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntingtbrl Bach City School District Zone Change No. 90-8 Tentative Tract No. 14319 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.58 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 6 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 15,000 K-6 1.2504 $27,217 7-8 0.3666 $12,394 Student Generation Total 1.6170 $39,611 $14,457 $25,154 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.2504 $27,217 7-8 0.3666 $12,394 Total 0.2695 Total 1.6170 $39,611 $15,098 $24,514 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntitigtbrt•Bdach City School District Tentative Tract No. 14320 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.99 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 8 Sq. Ft. of 2500/HU 20,000 K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Student Generation Total 2.1560 $52,815 $19,276 $33,539 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Total 0.2695 Total 2.1560 $52,815 $20,130 $32,685 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntitigt6rt BAach City School District Tentative Tract No. 14321 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.57 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 7 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 17,500 K-6 1.4588 $31,754 7-8 0.4277 $14,460 Student Generation Total 1.8865 $46,213 $16,867 $29,347 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.4588 $31,754 7-8 0.4277 $14,460 Total 0.2695 Total 1.8865 $46,213 $17,614 $28,600 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntifigt64 Be%Ch City School District Tentative Tract No. 14326 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 4.56 Grade Students Total Total Unnmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 21 Sq. Ft. @ 2500/HU 52,500 K-6 4.3764 $95,261 7-8 1.2831 $43,379 Student Generation Total 5.6595 $138,640 $50,600 $88,041 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 4.3764 $95,261 7-8 1.2831 $43,379 Total 0.2695 Total 5.6595 $138,640 $52,841 $85,799 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 HuntiNt6n"Bdach City School District General Plan Amedment No. 90-7 Zone Change No. 90-8 Development Impact Analysis Tentative Tract No. 14319 Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.30 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 11 Sq. Ft. @ 2500/HU 27,500 K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Student Generation Total 2.9645 $72,621 $26,505 $46,117 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Total 0.2695 Total 2.9645 $72,621 $27,679 $44,942 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Hunti'hgtun B&ch City School District Total of Legislative Actions GPAs: 90-7 Development Impact Analysis ZCs: 90-8, 90-9, 90-11, 90-12, 90-13, 90-15, 90-16 Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Total Area (gross acres) 17.17 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Total Housing Units 77 Total Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 192,500 K-6 16.0468 $349,291 7-8 4.7047 $159,056 Student Generation Total 20.7515 $508,347 $185,532 $322,816 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 16.0468 $349,291 7-8 4.7047 $159,056 Total 0.2695 Total 20.7515 $508,347 $193,751 $314,596 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 ` 1 k Hunttmgror:?B4ach City School District Total of Non-Legislative Actions Development Impact Analysis TTs: 14318, 14320, 14321, 14326 Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Total Area (gross acres) 10.31 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Total Housing Units 46 Total Sq. Ft. @ 2500/HU 115,000 K-6 9.5864 $208,667 7-8 2.8106 $95,021 Student Generation Total 12.3970 $303,688 $110,837 $192,851 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 9.5864 $208,667 7-8 2.8106 $95,021 Total 0.2695 Total 12.3970 $303,688 $115,748 $187,940 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 ` CS 2.11,12 =IIII1 u ;- _ Community Systems Associates, Inc. February 7, 1992 _/0 i VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND HAND DELIVERED Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decisions of January 28, 1992 Acceptance and Approval of: a) Zone Change No. 90-9/Tentative Tract No. 14042/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-38 ; b) Zone Change No. 90-11/Tentative Tract No.14043/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-39 ; c) Zone Change No. 90-15/Tentative Tract No. 14044/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37 ; d) Zone Change No. 90-12/Tentative Tract No. 14243/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-40; e) Zone Change No. 90-13/Tentative Tract No. 14244/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-41; f) Zone Change No. 90-16/Tentative Tract No. 14296/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37; g) Tentative Tract No. 14318/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-46; h) Zone Change No. 90-8/Tentative Tract No. 14319; i) Tentative Tract No. 14320; - j ) Tentative Tract No. 14321/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-38; k) Tentative Tract No. 14326/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-43 ; 1) General Plan Amendment No. 90-7/Zone Change No. 90-14/Tentative Tract Map No. 14277/Code Amendment No. 91-7/Conditional Use Permit No. 91-46/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-3 ; & All Accompanying Negative Declarations Huntington Beach City School District Dear Ms. Brockway: On behalf of _ the Huntington Beach City School District ("District") , our firm has been authorized to file an appeal to the January 28, 1992 decisions of the Planning Commission relat- ing to the above-stated applications ("Applications") and actions. 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 • TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 L Community Systems Associates.Inc rJ Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 2 The District is in receipt of the Agenda dated January 28, 1992, on each of these actions. We note that the Planning Commission's actions were "approved", and that the Notices of Action state: "In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is not applicable. " (emphasis added) We note also that Section 9880 of the Municipal Code of the City of Huntington Beach provides an appeal procedure on "any deci- Sion, determination or requirement of the Planning Commission" . Section 9880 states: 119880 Appeal by Applicant or Interested Parties. Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after such decision or determination or requirement is made. Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem himself aggrieved. " There appears to be a contradiction between the date of appeal as set forth in the Notice of Action, and the provisions of Section 9880. In order to preserve any and all of the District's remedies, and so as to ensure that the District has taken all administrative steps to protect its interests, this appeal to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby filed in accordance with Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, on the above-stated Applications. The District contends that the Planning Commission's actions, and the Applications, failed to address the issues raised by the j District, as follows: 1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines; 2) The Applications are not in compliance with the Huntington Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended through July, 1990; 3) The use of Negative Declarations on these Applications is inadequate in that the Applications will result in specific project, and cumulative, impacts on the school district which is unmitigated; and Commumly Systems Associates,Inc.. =`-_ Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 3 4) The District was inadequately noticed of the preparation of the Negative Declaration, and the conduction of a public hearing of the Planning Commission on January 27, 1992. The detailed discussion to support the District's contentions are set forth herein. It is the District's conclusion that the Applications as proposed, and the findings of the Staff Report do not comply with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the applicable provisions of the Government Code. . A) Notice of Negative Declaration and Public Hearing On May 17, 1991 we sent a letter to Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator, with a copy to you requesting notice of all. development activities within the District be transmitted to both the - Huntington Beach City School District and Community Systems Associates, Inc. Neither the District nor CSA,- Inc. have been regularly receiving notices of development projects within -the District. As noted by the record of the public hearing, the District did not participate in the public hearings due to the fact that it had not been apprised of the scheduling of the public hearings or prior activities relating to the preparation and consideration of Negative Declarations. It is the District's conclusion that the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and as such we raise concern with the Planning Commission's approvals. Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines states: " (a) The Lead Agency shall provide . a public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration. The noticed public review period shall .be long enough to provide members of the public with sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the Negative Declaration is approved. i (b) A copy -of the notice with the proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency ' and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project. (emphasis added) . i �-- J.. Community Systems Associates.mcV=t — Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 4 (c) Where one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency or. a Trustee Agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, the Lead Agency shall send copies of the Negative Declaration to .the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the state agencies. (d) When a Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period is approved by the State Clearinghouse. " Although the City gave notice and sent copies of the Negative Declarations to the State Clearinghouse, no notices and no negative declarations were sent to the Huntington Beach City School District, which is a public agency with jurisdiction by law over the K-8 educational facilities and resources within the City of Huntington beach, and which resources are affected by the development of the subject properties. The "discussion" under Section 15073 states, in part: "The court decision in Plaggmier v. City of San Jose, cites in the note, underscored the critical role of public review of a Negative Declaration.. The opinion noted the lack of a clear requirement in the Guidelines addressing this point, but found that the requirement for public- review was clearly implied by the- Act. This j section is necessary to fill the gap noted in Plaggmier and to provide a clear declaration of the requirement for public review. " 4 By not providing the District with adequate notices and i copies of the Negative Declarations, this action of the City precluded the District from being able to raise its concerns j and objections relative to the finding that the projects 4 would not create a significant environmental impact on the District. Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: " . • • - b Prior to approving the project, the decision- making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the j proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall approve �LI Community Systems Associates.mc��=ir Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 5 .the Negative Declaration decision-making if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. " (emphasis added) Section 15002 (j) states: " (j ) Public Involvement. Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with the project. (See: Sections 15073, 15086, 15087 and 15088) . " (emphasis added) Although required under CEQA, the City did not solicit comments from the District, and as such the public review process was incomplete. Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "The purpose of review of EIR's and Negative Declarations includes: (a) Sharing expertise; (b) Disclosing agency analyses; (c) Checking for accuracy; (d) Detecting omissions; (e) Discovering public concerns; and (f) Soliciting counter proposals. " Further, Section 15207 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "If any public agency or person who is consulted with regard to an EIR or Negative Declaration fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the Lead Agency, it shall be assumed, without a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make. Although the Lead Agency may choose to respond to them. " (emphasis added) The fact of the matter is that the City did not provide a notice according to CEQA, and the District was not consulted on these issues. The purpose of review appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a difficult position of having to not pursue its further administrative remedies. Community Systems Assovates. -Mr•i ` Ms. Connie Brockway . February 7, 1992 Page 6 B) Non-Compliance with Huntington Beach General Plan Development in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Huntington Beach General Plan states: "A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like Huntington Beach: 1. Policy Determination - permits the evaluation of a definite set of policies to govern future development of the City, and a general design for the City. 2. Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects in terms of a definite framework for long-range development of the City. 3. Communication - permits the communication of the City's long-range policies to the business community and the public; encourages constructive debate and stimulates political action. 4 . Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning Commission and other advisory boards to make recommendations to the City Council concerning development of the City in a coherent, unified form. 5. Education - facilitates the education of government officials' and the community regarding the problems and opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic,- environmental, and social) . " The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies, in part: . . . . 3 .4.2.5 Housing To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach, by: 1. Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 2 . Providing an adequate level of community services, facilities, improvements, and maintenance in all areas of the City. " (emphasis added) �� �� =art Community Systems Associates.to Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 7 113.4 .2. 6 Community Facilities To ensure a full range of community facilities that provide for the general public's health, safety and welfare, by: 1. Providing utility systems to meet projected demands. 2 . Providing meeting centers for civic and other groups. 3 . Providing efficient, economical refuse disposal. 4. Encouraging the proper location and planning of facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care centers, well-baby clinics, etc. 5. Encouraging the location of municipal, county, state, federal, and other governmental facilities within or near the Civic Center. . . . " (emphasis added) Further, the Community Facilities element of the General Plan states, in part: . . . . 3 .5. 6 Policies This section presents the City's policies regarding the provision of community facilities. Implementation of these policies will occur primarily through the implementation of the City's capital improvement program. Additional implementing actions will be required, however, such as preparation of feasibility studies, revision of standards, and increased coordination with other entities. " (emphasis added) 113 .5. 6. 1 Adequacy of Facilities This Element has identified a number of deficiencies in the City's existing community facilities systems. Additional deficiencies may be expected to occur when the City is developed to ultimate buildout under the General Plan unless corrective actions are taken. The following policies state the City's intent to correct existing deficiencies where funding permits and to ensure that new development is adequately served. Community Systems Associates. • Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 8 1. Promote the provision of adequate community facilities within the City of Huntington beach. 2 . Pursue funding for projects to correct existing deficiencies in community facility systems. 3 . Prior to issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adequate services can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the plan, at the time of occupancy. 4 . Prior to constructing new community facilities, consider the impact of those facilities on annual maintenance and operating costs and staffing requirements for maintenance. . . . " (emphasis added) The Applications do not comply with the- General Plan. The District has provided information herein to the City which indicates that it is unable to meet the facility demands of these Applications. Therefore, it cannot be stated that an adequate level of community facilities, (i.e. , schools) is available or will be provided to meet the requirements of these Applications. Without specific requirements, the Applications are not in compliance with the General Plan. C. Necessity for Preparation of EIR The District contends that the implementation of the Applications will have a significant effect on the environment, as noted in the impact analysis set forth herein. We want to refer you to several provisions of Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines which support the District's position, as follows: " Section 15064. (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process. (1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a Draft EIR. Lommuniry Systems Associates.Inc -WWW • Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 9 (2) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project. (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected. If the Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial. (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences. (1) Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant. (2) Secondary 'consequences are related more to effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself and may be several steps removed from the project in a chain of cause and effect. For example, the .construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate Community Systems Associates.Inc _=ram • Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 10 population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. . . . (g) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on information in the record of the Lead Agency. (1) If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988) . Said another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the protect will not have a significant effect (No Oil , Inc. v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Cal. 3d 68) . (2) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative . Declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal.App. 3d 988) . (h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors• (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subject to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an, EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require preparation of an EIR. (2) If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. " (emphasis added) Inc..Communiry Systems Assoriaros. c �r— Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 11 It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard .to the environmental effects of the Applications and the adequacy of prior environmental documentation. There is further disagreement among the Developer's expert and the District's expert, and therefore the CEQA Guidelines suggest . that the effect shall be treated as significant, and an EIR shall be prepared. The District has suggested that the appropriate EIR for the environmental documentation is a Focused Environmental Impact Report. We therefore challenge and object to the consideration of the Negative Declarations, and request that further consideration of the Applications be delayed and deferred until a Focused Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, addressing the impacts of the Applications on the District, setting forth adequate and appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with Section 65996 of the Government Code. Please note that Section 65996 of the Government Code states: "The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined in Section 53080, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of .the Education Code. (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code. (f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code. (g) Chapter 4.7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code. Communityy ystems Associates.In:-r MW Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 12 No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with 'Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities. " These mitigation measures were not considered in the deliberations by the Planning Commission, and should have been discussed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report, so as to ensure full and complete mitigation. The City has the obligation to ensure that the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA are complied with so as to protect the interests of the existing students and residents of the District, and the future students and residents anticipated to acquire homes and property within area. We therefore, again request that the proposed Negative Declarations be denied and that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared.- D.- Environmental Impact It is the Districtes position that the Applications, and environmental ' documentation " for these .projects are insufficient to ensure the mitigation of impacts upon the District. The District recommends that a Focused Environmental Impact Report be .prepared. We feel that a mitigated negative ; declaration cannot be considered adequate, based upon the information we present herein. It is therefore the recommendation of the District that the City prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report which address the following items and issues: 1) the square footage of all proposed dwelling units by phase should be identified and a calculation of . development fees should be provided; 2) the phasing of development should be identified; 3) the location of school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement patterns. to school sites, bus routes, etc. , relevant to the development should be identified; 4) the designated schools that will be attended by students generated by the development should be u�Ai71AA iiI ZnI Lommunlry Systems Associates.Inc �t- %MW Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 13 identified; 5) the District's existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of existing schools, administrative, . and operation facilities should be discussed; 6) the District's past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including facility utilization should be identified; 7) a complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes and potential conflicts with school pedestrian movement, school transportation, and busing activities; 8) a complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may effect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school areas; 9) a, complete and comprehensive air quality analysis should be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within the District as a result of potential overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies; 10) the development's utilization impact on the District, including projected enrollments, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements, and traffic and noise impacts should be identified; 11) the development's fiscal impact on the District, including projected cost of land acquisition, school construction/reconstruction and other facilities should be identified; present and projected capital facility, -operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources should be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs should be identified; 12) appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures should be identified and evaluated, including but not limited to, a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as Community Systems Associates. "MW Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 14 follows: (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (c) " Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code. (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code. (f) Chapter 2.5 (commencing with . Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of -the Government Code. (g) Chapter 4 .7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; 13) cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No's. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be addressed. Other projects in the geographical area of the District and included in the cumulative analysis should be identified by development name, unit size, phasing and location; 14) unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed, particularly as they relate to quality, quantity, and present and future condition of the District's enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities, and administrative activities; 15) appropriate alternative projects should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein as No's. 1 through 14 should be determined; and 16) if a statement of overriding consideration is intended to . be used relative to the District's development utilization and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation, should be identified and made available for public inspection. • ' I j �:li'Ill�ia�Ra'=�Y�� IJ Community Systems Ass"I'ates,Inc. _=�_ • Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 15 In order to substantiate our contentions, we hope that the following information is useful: 1) Student Generation A recent survey of various new developments in the community reflects yield factors, as follows: Grade Level Student Generation Factor K-5 . 1779 students/housing unit 6 . 0305 students/housing unit 7-8 . 0611 students/housing unit Total .2695 students/housing unit The total number of students generated by the projects approved by legislative action (i.e. general plan amendments, zone changes, etc. ) based on the factors described above is as follows: Grade Level Students Generated K-6 16.0468 students 7-8 4 .7047 students Total 20.7515 students The total number of students generated by the projects approved by non-legislative action (i.e. tentative tract maps without general plan amendments or zone changes) based on the factors described above is as follows: Grade Level Students Generated K-6 9.5864 students 7-8 2 .8106 students Total 12 .3970 students 2) Projected Development Fees The current statutory development fees authorized to be collected by school districts are $1.58 per square foot for residential development, and $0.26 per square foot for non-residential. On January 22, 1992 the State Allocation Board increased -the fees to "$1. 65 and $0.27. The District is currently in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report so to enable the increase in fees. Through an agreement with Huntington Beach Union High School District, the Community Syslems Assoclales,lnc. !♦!t—� -M=W • Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 16 Huntington Beach City School District receives 61% of these fees. Based upon the current fee structure and an average unit size of 2,500 per housing unit, the total development fees to be collected by the District on the projects approved by legislative action are' estimated to be $185, 532 . Based on the increased fees, the District would receive $193,751. The total development fees to be collected by the District on the projects approved by legislative action are estimated to be $110,837. Based on the increased fees, the District would receive $115,748. # of Current Increased Units Fee Fee Legislative 77 $185,532 $193,751 Non-legislative 46 $110,837 $115,748 Total 123 $296,369 $309,499 3) Improvement & Land Costs As mentioned above, the Huntington Beach City School District is in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report, which . is scheduled to be completed for public hearing on February 18th. Preliminary cost estimates" from the Report are summarized in the following chart: K-6 per K-6 per 7-8 per 7-8 per Sq Ft Student Sq Ft Student Base Building $95.41 55,629 $98.29 $7,863 Cost Other $68.73 $4,055 571.48 $5,719 Improvements Total $164.14 $9,684 $169.77 $13,582 Improvements Land Cost $12,083 $20,226 Total Costs $21,767 $33,808 Community Systems Associates.Inc�l_—M (♦—� Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 17 The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school -requires a net building square footage of 35,400 square feet, based upon 59 square feet per student. A 750 student 7-8 grade school requires a net building square footage of 60,000 square feet, based upon 80 square feet per student. The State Department of Education provides a guideline for the size of a K-6 school site and a 7-8 school site. The requirement is 10 acres for K-6 and 21 acres net for 7-8. The estimates are based on a land cost of $720, 000 per acre and $50, 000 appraisal and closing costs per site. 4) Total Cost Revenue Surplus/Deficit Based upon the improvement and land costs to the District and the estimated development fee revenues, the following revenue surplus or deficit has been determined: Legislative Current Fees Increased Fees K-6 Cost $349,291 $349,291 7-8 Cost $159,056 $195,056 Total Cost $508,347 $508,347 Development Fees $185,532 $193,751 surplus (Deficit) ($322,816) ($314,596) Non-Legislative Current Fees - Increased Fees K-6 Cost $208,667 $208,667 7-8 Cost $95,021 $95,021 Total Cost $303,688 $303,688 Development Fees $110,837 $115,748 Community Systems Associates.Inc. _=ram Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 18 Surplus (Deficit) ($192,851) ($187,940) As shown in the preceding charts, the state mandated development fees are insufficient to mitigate the impact on the District of these projects. Development fees are only a partial mitigation that will result in a total unmitigated impact of $515, 667, based on the current fees, or $502,536, based on the increased fees. 5) Existing District Enrollment Capacity The District is and will continue to experience severe District facility capacity utilization. The following list sets forth the various open District schools, grade level,- estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment as of October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1991. School Acreage 1990 1991 Capacity Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 10.1(±) 816 803 780 1502 Palm Avenue Huntington Beach Sowers Middle School (6-8) 17.3(±) 1,118 1,115 1,110 9300 Indianapolis Huntington Beach Smith School (K-5) 10.3(±) 694 693 690 770 17th Street Huntington Beach Perry School (K-5) 10.6(±) 558 559 540 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach Eader School (K-5) 13.0(±) 725 725 720 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach Kettler School (K-5) 12.8(±) 612 698 690 8750 Dorsett Drive Huntington Beach Hawes School (K-5) 10.6(±) 382 395 390 9682 Yellowstone Drive Huntington Beach Moffett School (K-5) 9.2(±) 654 693 690 8800 Burlcrest Avenue' Huntington Beach Total 5,559 5,681 5,610 The student difference between enrollment and capacity is housed in special classrooms, .laboratory, and other reconfigured areas. 12. General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 L_Zone�Cl-range IV_d.90 Tentative Tract No. 14277 Conditional Use Permit No. 91-46 Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-36 and all accompanying Negative Declarations. Dear Ms. Brockway: This letter is to inform you that the Huntington Beach City School District, pending signature of a final school mitigation impact agreement, and based on the concept developed in the Holly Seacliff Agreement, will withdraw the appeals filed by Community Systems Associates on behalf of the District regarding the January 28, 1992 decisions of the Planning Commission related to the above stated applications and actions. The District also requests a rebate of all funds paid to the City for the appeals. Sincerely, Dr. Duane Dishno Superintendent cc: Michael Uberuaga, City of Huntington Beach Michael Adams, City of Huntington Beach Howard Zelefsky, City of Huntington Beach Tom Zanic, Seacliff Partners Craig Rise, Seacliff Partners - IT - 11 Community Systems Associates, Inc. i I March 27, 1992 I Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH s { 2000 Main Street j P.O. Box 190 0 C Huntington Beach, California 92648 "lo r- rn SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision �co _ v a Dear Ms. Brockway: On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District, per our request, enclosed you will find g Y P Y q Y � a check in the amount of$200.00 for the appeal of the Planning Commission decision, regarding 1 General Plan Amendment No. 90-7/Zone Change No. 90-14/Tentative Tract Map No. 14277/C.ode Amendment No. 91-7/Conditional Use Permit No. 91-46/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-36. Sincerely, COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASS CIATES, INC. I " E �. ,-I;. „�41, �. Lr;;Pp President 1 M BK/yt I Enclosure i 1092\appeal.1tr 3 i f� 730 EL CAMINO WAY SUITE 200 • TUSTIN.CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838-9900 FAX(714)838-9998 I CASH RECEIPT FOB CITy OF hUNTINQTON BEACh PO.BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92648 (714)536-5200 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY TREASURER-DONALD L.WATSON 30 9 DATE ISSUING DEPT. RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS 9 FOR 1- ( l� AMOUNT RECEIVED ❑ CASH [: '-tHECK $ 06 RECEIVED BY�Q Z �6-3 REVENUE TR FUND ACCOUNT DEPT. DIV. AMOUNT ARIrloilloo K q 0 61 vv EXPENSE FINANCE APPROVAL INITIAL TOTAL $ AMOUNT RECEI D F$ - 3090/51 30Niar92 001/10 $200.00 RAA7010OCK140 CAS Cl—!8701; R COPY COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOC. INC. DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THE ATTACHED CHECK 15 IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCRIBED BELOW. IF NOT CORRECT PLEASE NOTIFY US PROMPTLY, NO RECEIPT DESIRED, DELUXE FORM WVC-3 V-2 ' DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 1 03/92 On behalf of the Huntington Beach City SD *200.00* Appeal of Planning Commission decisions re: OPA 90-7/Zone Chg 90-14/Tentative Tract Map 14277 Code Amendment 9-7/Conditional Use Permit 91-46 Conditional Exception (Variance) 91-36 V-z 089Z6 V0'Nusni OOZ 3.Lins Aw ONIWVO 13 OEL' • 9* `)Z6 eTUJ0JTTe3 ` uaPag 11012uTaum4 06T xog ' 0' d uoeag u012uTlunH 30 AITO x.zaT0 ALTO ` AeMxoozg 0?uu00 ' Si i I SI II =1 ki III ir Community Systems Associates, Inc. -me I March 19, 1992 CERTIFIED MAIL Mr. Mike Adams Community Development Director & Secretary to the Planning Commission CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, California 92648 SUBJECT: Failure to Provide Notice to the HBCSD Dear Mr. Adams: On several previous occasions, the City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission has conducted public hearings on development applications, which if approved, would have a serious impact, individually and collectively, on the enrollment and financial conditions of the Huntington Beach City School District ("District'). After several public hearings, and upon becoming aware of the actions taken by the Planning Commission, we advised you in writing of our concern as to the District not having been previously notified of said public hearings, and being provided due and timely notice so that we could review the appropriate documents and provide constructive testimony at the public hearings. On March 17, 1992, the Planning Commission considered Conditional Use Permit No. 91-45, with Special Permits, TentativeTract Map No. 14135 Revised, Coastal Development Permit No. 91-26, and Negative Declaration No. 91-33. Neither the District nor our firm received notice of the public hearing. If it were not for the conscientiousness of the District staff, and concerns represented of the community, the District would have not known of this. matter going before the Planning Commission. It was not until late Monday afternoon, March 15, 1992, that the District picked up the Agenda and Staff Report from the City after becoming aware of this matter, which resulted in us having to enter written testimony into the record at the meeting. 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 - TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 Commun, Systems Assacnates fnc. =- Mr. Mike Adams March 19, 1992 Page 2 It is certainly inconsistent, that on the one hand, the City Staff has suggested that it wants to co- ordinate and cooperate with the District toward addressing school issues, but on the other hand, continues to fail to notify the District on these matters. On matters where we have, or will in the future, fail to attend a public hearing due to not having been notified, and where the applications will have an impact on the District, we will most likely be appealing the Planning Commission's decisions to the City Council. It is in everyones best interest to insure completeness during the Planning Commission process. Completeness in our minds includes notifying the District of the public hearings in a due and timely fashion. Therefore, once again we hereby request that due and timely notice be given to the District and ourselves on all public hearing items presented before the Planning Commission and the City Council. Addressing of such notices should be as follows: To District: Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Jerry Buchanan; Associate Superintendent 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648 To Consultant: Community Systems Associates, Inc. Mr. Marshall Krupp, President 730 El Camino Way Suite 200 Tustin, CA 92680 With all due respect, we sincerely request again, that the City assist us and the District in these matters and provide such notice. Community Systems Assocntes.ft. Mr. Mike Adams March 19, 1992 Page 3 Thank you for your assistance and consideration. Sincerely, COM UNITWSY7EMS ASSOCIATES, INC. r hall Kr President M BK/yt cc: Mayor Jim Silva City of Huntington Beach Mr. Mike Uberuaga, City Manager City of Huntington Beach . Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Ms. Jan Shomaker, Chairperson - Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Mr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Assistant Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District 1092Adams.ltr —AM= Community Systems Associates, Inc. wm� / February 11, 1992 Mr. Mike Adams Community Development Director CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Non-Receipt of Planning Commissions Public Hearing Notices: a) Zone Change No. 90-9/Tentative Tract No. 14042/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-38 ; b) Zone Change No. 90-11/Tentative Tract No. 14043/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-39; c) Zone Change No. 90-15/Tentative Tract No. 14044% Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37; d) Zone Change No. 90-12/Tentative Tract No. 14243/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-40; e) Zone Change No. 90-13/Tentative Tract No. 14244/ Conditional Exception . (Variance) No. 90-41; f) Zone Change No. 90-16/Tentative Tract No. 14296/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37 ; g) Tentative Tract No. 14318/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-46; h) Zone Change -No. 90-8/Tentative Trace No. 14319 . i) Tentative Tract No. 14320 j ) Tentative Tract No. 14321/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-38 ; k) Tentative Tract No. 14326/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. '90-43 ; 1) General Plan Amendment No. 90-7/Zone Change No. 90-14/Tentative Tract Mar No. 14277/code Amendment No. 91-7/Conditional Use Permit No. 91-46/Conditional Exception (Variance) No.90-3 ; And All Accompanying Negative Declarations Huntington Beach City School .District Dear Mr. Adams: On January 29, 1992 , we received from Or. Duane Dishno, copies of Notice of Public Hearings on Zone Change No. 90-8, Tentative Tract No. 14319, Tentative Tract No. 14320, and Tentative Tract No. 14318. Receipt of the Notices occurred after the Public Hearings conducted on January . 28, 1992 at 7 : 00 P.M. by the Planning Commission. 730 EL CAMINO WAY SUITE 200 TUSTIN.CALIFORNIA 92680 (714)838-9900 FAX(714)838-9998 Communihi sysiems ks-o,i;les.In,. J�l 1 Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 5 Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines states : "The purpose of review of EIR' s and Negative Declarations includes : (a) Sharing expertise; (b) Disclosing agency analyses; (c) Checking for accuracy; (d) Detecting omissions; (e) Discovering public concerns; and (f) Soliciting counter proposals . " Further, Section 15207 of the CEQA Guidelines states : " If any public agency or person who is consulted with regard to an EIR or Negative Declaration fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the Lead Agency, it shall be assumed, without a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make . Although the Lead Agency may choose to respond to them. " (emphasis added) The fact of the matter is that the City did not provide a notice according to CEQA, and the District was not consulted on these issues . The purpose of review appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a difficult position of having to not pursue its further administrative remedies . B) Non-Compliance with Huntington Beach General Plan Development in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Huntington Beach General Plan states : "A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like Huntington Beach: 1 . Policy Determination - permits the evaluation of a definite set of policies to govern future development of the City, and a general design for the City. 2 . Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects in terms of a definite framework for long-range development of the City. 3 . Communication - permits the communication of the City ' s long-range policies to the business CC Commumpl Systems Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 6 i community and the public; encourages constructive debate and stimulates political action. 4 . Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning Commission and other advisory boards to make recommendations to the City Council concerning development of the City in a coherent, unified form. 5 . Education - facilitates the education of government officials and the community regarding the problems and opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic, environmental, and social) . " The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies, in part : " . . . . 3 . 4 . 2 . 5 Housing To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach, by: 1 . Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 2 . Providing an adequate level of community services, facilities, improvements, and maintenance in all areas of the City. " (emphasis added) "3 . 4 . 2 . 6 Community Facilities To ensure a full range of community facilities that provide for the general public ' s health, safety and welfare, by: 1 . Providing utility systems to meet projected demands . 2 . Providing meeting centers for civic and other groups . 3 . Providing efficient, economical refuse disposal . 4 . Encouraging the proper location and planning of facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care centers, well-baby clinics, etc . i CommumpA SgI mslasocittts,In�—�vow Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 7 5 . Encouraging the location of municipal, county, state, federal, and other governmental facilities within or near the Civic Center. . . . " (emphasis added) Further, the Community Facilities element of the General Plan states, in part : " . . . . 3 . 5 . 6 Policies This section presents the City' s policies regarding the provision of community facilities . Implementation of these policies will occur primarily through the implementation of the City' s capital improvement program. Additional implementing actions will be required, however, such as preparation of feasibility studies, revision of standards, and increased coordination with other entities . " (emphasis added) "3 . 5 . 6 . 1 Adequacy of Facilities This Element has identified a number of deficiencies in the City ' s existing community facilities systems . Additional deficiencies may be expected to occur when the City is developed to ultimate buildout under the General Plan unless corrective actions are taken. The following policies state the City ' s intent to correct existing deficiencies where funding permits and to ensure that new development is adequately served. 1 . Promote the provision of adequate community facilities within the City of Huntington beach. 2 . Pursue funding for projects to correct existing deficiencies in community facility systems . 3 . Prior to issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adecuate services can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent consistent with policies contained in the�lan, atcontained in the�lan, at the time of time of occupancy. 4 . Prior to constructing new community facilities, consider the impact of those facilities on annual maintenance and operating costs and staffing requirements for maintenance . . . . " (emphasis added) Communiq Systems A MI—dates,tnc. _fit Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 8 The application does not comply with the General Plan. The District has provided information herein to the City which indicates that it is unable to meet the facility demands of this application. Therefore, it cannot be stated that an adequate level of community facilities, (i .e. , schools) is available or will be provided to meet the requirements of these application. Without specific requirements, the application are not in compliance with the General Plan. C . Necessity for Preparation of EIR The District contends that the implementation of the application will have a significant effect on the environment, as noted in the impact analysis set forth herein. Several provisions of Section 15064 of the CEQA Guidelines which support the District ' s position, as follows : Section 15064 . (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process . (1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a Draft EIR. (2 ) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project . (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful iudgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting . For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. D Community systems dssociates.Inc. AM 0--::- Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 9 I (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected. If the Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse . Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial . (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences . (1) Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant . (2 ) Secondary consequences are related more to effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself and may be several steps removed from the project in a chain of cause and effect . For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. . . . (g) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on information in the record of the Lead Agency. (1) If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988) . Said another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil, 1 Community systems Pssocfat�Inc Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 10 i Inc . v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Cal . 3d 68) . (2 ) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988) . (h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors : (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agencv shall consider the effect or effects subiect to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require preparation of an EIR. (2 ) If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. " (emphasis added) It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard to the environmental effects of the application and the adequacy of prior environmental documentation. There is further disagreement among the Developer ' s expert and the District ' s expert, and therefore the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the effect shall be treated as significant, and an EIR shall be prepared. The District has suggested that the appropriate EIR for the environmental documentation is a Focused Environmental Impact Report . We therefore challenge and object to the consideration of the Negative Declaration, and request that further consideration of the application be delayed and deferred until a Focused Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, addressing the impacts of the application on the District, setting forth adequate and appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with Section 65996 of the Government Code . Commun.-/Systems lsurocs. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26 , 1992 Page 11 Please note that Section 65996 of the Government Code states : "The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions for the approval of a development project, as defined in Section 53080, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code: (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327 ) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code . (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code . ( f) Chapter 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code . (g) Chapter 4 . 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code . No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities . " These mitigation measures should have been discussed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report, so as to ensure full and complete mitigation. The City has the obligation to ensure that the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA are complied with so as to protect the interests of the existing students and residents of the District, and the future students and residents anticipated to acquire homes and property within area . We therefore, again recruest that the proposed Negative Declaration be denied and that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Communihl Systems lasocdos,In. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 12 D. Environmental Impact It is the District ' s position that the application, and environmental documentation for this project are insufficient to ensure the mitigation of impacts upon the District. The District recommends that a Focused Environmental Impact Report be prepared. We feel that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be considered adequate, based upon the information we present herein. It is therefore the recommendation of the District that the City prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report which address the following items and issues : 1) the square footage of all proposed dwelling units by phase should be identified and a calculation of development fees should be provided; 2 ) the phasing of development should be identified; 3 ) the location of school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement patterns to school sites, bus routes, etc . , relevant to the development should be identified; 4) the designated schools that will be attended by students generated by the development should be identified; 5) the District ' s existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities should be discussed; 6) the District ' s past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including facility utilization should be identified; 7) a complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes and potential conflicts with school pedestrian movement, school transportation, and busing activities; 8) a complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may effect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school areas; 9) a complete and comprehensive air quality analysis should be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration �_- =Ma. -. Community Sistams Asturizlss.Irc. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 13 that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within the District as a result of potential overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies; 10) the development ' s utilization impact on the District, including projected enrollments, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements, and traffic and noise impacts should be identified; 11) the development ' s fiscal impact on the District, including projected cost of land acquisition, school construction/reconstruction and other facilities should be identified; present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources should be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs should be identified; 12) appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures should be identified and evaluated, including but not limited to, a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows : (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327 ) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code . (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code . ( f) Chapter 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code . (g) Chapter 4 . 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; 13 ) cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No ' s . 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be addressed. Other projects in the geographical area of the District and Communit,Systems kasoeiates,Inc- -wymw� Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 14 included in the cumulative analysis should be identified by development name, unit size, phasing and location; 14) unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed, particularly as they relate to quality, quantity, and present and future condition of the District ' s enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities, and administrative activities; 15) appropriate alternative projects should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein as No ' s . 1 through 14 should be determined; and 16) if a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District ' s development utilization and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation, should be identified and made available for public inspection . In order to substantiate our contentions, we hope that the following information is useful : 1) Student Generation A recent survey of various new developments in the community reflects yield factors, as follows : Grade Level Student Generation Factor K-5 . 1779 students/housing unit 6 . 0305 students/housing unit 7-8 . 0611 students/housing unit Total .2695 students/housing unit The total number of students that will be generated by the application based on the factors described above is as follows : Grade Level Students Generated K-6 2 . 0840 students 7-8 0 . 6110 students Total 2 . 6950 students 6ammanif"S;stams f4SOM.:s.Ms . Connie Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 15 2 ) Proiected Development Fees The current statutory development fees authorized to be collected by the Huntington Beach area school districts are $1 . 58 per square foot for residential development, and $0 .26 per square foot for non-residential . On January 22 , 1992 the State Allocation Board increased the maximum chargeable fees to $1 . 65 and $0 .27 . The District is currently in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report so to enable the increase in fees . Through an agreement with Huntington Beach Union High School District, the Huntington Beach City School District receives 61% of these fees . Based upon the current fee structure and an average unit size of 2 , 500 per housing unit, the total development fees to be collected by the District from the application is estimated to be $24, 095 . Based on the increased fees, the District would receive $25, 163 . # of Current Increased Units Fees Fees ZC 90-16/TT 14296 10 $24,095 $25, 163 3 ) Improvement & Land Costs As mentioned above, the Huntington Beach City School District is in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report, which was considered in public hearing on February 18th. Cost estimates from the Report are summarized in the following chart : 11 K-6 per K-6 per 7-8 per 7-8 per Sq Ft Student Sq Ft Student Base Building $95.41 $5, 629 $98.29 $7, 863 Cost r Other $68.73 $4,055 $71.48 $5,719 Improvements Total $164.14 $9, 684 $169.77 $13, 582 Improvements Land Cost $12,083 $20,226 Total Costs $21,767 $33, 808 i Community Systems Associates.Inc. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 16 The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net building square footage of 35, 400 square feet, based upon 59 square feet per student . A 750 student 7-8 grade school requires a net building square footage of 60, 000 square feet, based upon 80 square feet per student . The State Department of Education provides a guideline for the size of a K-6 school site and a 7-8 school site . The requirement is 10 acres for K-6 and 21 acres net for 7-8 . The estimates are based on a land cost of $720, 000 per acre and $50, 000 appraisal and closing costs per site . 4 ) Total Cost Revenue surplus/Deficit Based upon the improvement and land costs to the District and the estimated development fee revenues, the following revenue surplus or deficit has been determined: ZC 90-16/TT 14296 Current Fees Increased Fees K-6 Cost $45,362 $45,362 7-8 Cost $20, 657 $20, 657 Total Cost $66,019 $66,019 Development Fees $24,095 1 $25, 163 Surplus (Deficit) ($41,924) ($40,857) As shown in the preceding chart, the state mandated development fees are insufficient to mitigate the impact on the District of this application. Development fees are only a partial mitigation that will result in a total unmitigated impact of $41, 924, based on the current fees, or $40, 857 , based on the increased fees . It should be noted that the unmitigated impact resulting from this application may be mitigated through a number of non- financial methods such as development phasing, dedication of land or facilities, provision of interim facilites, etc . These mitigation measures should be explored in the environmental documentation. T, t Cammu*l S;alams lssacidas,1.MW Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 17 5 ) Existing District Enrollment CaDacitY The District is and will continue to experience severe District facility capacity utilization. The following list sets forth the various open District schools, grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment as of October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1991 . School Acrenae 1990 1991 Capacity Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 12.19(±) 816 803 780 1502 Palm Avenue Huntington Beach Sowers Middle School (6-8) 14.38(±) 1,118 1,115 1,110 9300 Indianapolis Huntington Beach Smith School (K-5) 8.31(±) 694 693 690 770 17th Street Huntington Beach Perry School (K-5) 10.62(±) 558 559 540 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach Eader School (K-5) 13.39(±) 725 725 720 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach Kettler School (K-5) 9.80(±) 612 698 690 8750 Dorsett Drive Huntington Beach Hawes School (K-5) 8.00(±) 382 395 390 9682 Yellowstone Drive Huntington Beach Moffett School (K-5) 7.56(*) 654 693 690 8800 Burlcrest Avenue Huntington Beach Total 5,559 5,681 5,610 The student difference between enrollment and capacity is housed in special classrooms, laboratory, and other reconfigured areas . The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity: 5,—h.4eJ. Acreage Capacity LeBard School 10.84(*) 540 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.72(±) 690 9700 Levee Drive Huntington Beach (Leased to Private High School and Child Care Agency) Peterson School 10.98(±) 690 20661 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Coast Community College) Community Systems Associates,Inc. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26 , 1992 Page 18 Clapp School 4.52(±) 270 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 14.95(+) 960 21141 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach 6) Statewide School Financing Crisis The City should note the condition of school capital facility financing in the State . There have been substantial changes in the resources available to school districts to finance capital facility requirements, and that information relative to the District ' s and State ' s capability to finance costs in excess of the present $1 . 65 per square foot of residential and $0 .27 per square foot of non-residential, is of substantial importance to the successful implementation of mitigation of impacts . The State Legislature ' s adoption of AB 2926, the enabling legislation which established the authorization to impose developer fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, was adopted at a time when the Leroy F . Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State participation, which together would have adequately funded the mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development . The State ' s inability to meet its obligation to fund the State School Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction bond issues to pass, has resulted in an impacted school district not having adequate funds to mitigate impact . Development fees only address, at a maximum (depending on land costs) , 50% of the actual cost of impact mitigation. Further, there is an agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a sharing of collected development fees . The Huntington Beach City School District receives only 61% of development fees paid. 7 ) Legal Issues Concerning School Facilities The City should be apprised of various legal decisions since the adoption of AB 2926, the development fee L_�, Commuriiy STVems Assurictes, �t— "MW I Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 19 legislation. On January 25, 1991, Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeals issued its decision in William S . Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles, 91 Daily Journal DAR 1147 (2nd Dist . January 25, 1991) (hereinafter, "Hart" ) . The Court of Appeals in Hart considered and decided a number of the same issues that can be raised with regard to the application. In particular, the Hart Court held: a) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego ( 1988) 205 Cal .App. 3d 1201, was correctly decided. Government Code Section 65996 does not apply to legislative land use decisions, and a local agency retains the authority to deny a general plan or a zone change on the basis of the inadequacy of school facilities . (Id. at 1148-1150) . b) The Mira holding actually is "bolstered" by Stats . 1989, c . 1209 . (Id. at 1149) . As noted by the Court (Id. at n. 11) , the Legislature expressly stated in Section 34 of that statute that the slight change to the definition of "development project" in Government Code Section 65996 was "declaratory of existing law" . The Court further pointed out that the Legislature was presumed to have knowledge of Mira and to have amended the statute with Mira in mind. (Id. ) c) Government Code Section 65995 (e) pre-empts only " the requirements for school facilities finance that a local agency will impose on a development project" , not the legislation of land use policies such as the zoning ordinances at issue in that case and in Mira. (Id. at 1150) . d) The County ' s mistaken reliance upon "erroneous legal advice" that it had no authority to consider school impacts when acting on zone changes was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 1150) . e) The school district had the right to challenge zoning changes approved without consideration of school impacts on the ground that they were inconsistent with 'the County ' s adopted general plan provisions requiring adequate public facilities . (Id. at 1150) . #� -- —_ -- - - -- C- ram ' t t Communiti Sysi ms Associatts.Inc W-71 Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 20 f) The trial court should not have sustained the County' s demurrer to the school district ' s petition without leave to amend since there was a reasonable possibility that the District could amend the complaint to add allegations regarding the Mira decision ' s impact on the County' s decision to grant the rezoning application. (Id. at 1148, 1150) . On March 26, 1991, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued its decision in Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3648 (Fourth District, April 2 , 1991) (hereinafter "Murrieta" ) . The Court of Appeals in Murrieta considered and decided a number of issues . In particular, the Murrieta case held: a) The County ' s authority to specify land use and development mitigation measures to address school impacts in connection with an amendment of its General Plan is not pre-empted by Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 . The County had argued that those statutes, which place a limit on the amount of school fees that can be imposed upon "development projects" , prohibit the County from considering school impacts when making land use decisions and prohibit the County from requiring mitigation of those impacts . The Court of Appeal ruled that while Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 pre-empt the field of school facilities financing, they do not pre-empt the County ' s authority to mitigate school impacts through non-financial means such as denial of densities, and timing and phasing controls designed to assure that school facilities are provided in conjunction with new development . b) Government Code Sections 65995-65996 apply only to "development projects" which the courts have historically classified as non- legislative in character, such as tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, and variances . Those sections do not apply to legislative land use decisions such as general plan amendments, zone changes, and specific plans . � �ftsaciatas,lnc. wrl�lAVT mmunity s Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 21 I c) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal .App.3d 1201, and the more recent decision in William S. Hart Union High School District V. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal .App.3d 1612, ' were correctly decided. Both Mira and William S . Hart Union High School District also held that Government Code Sections 65995-65996 do not prohibit a local agency from taking school impacts into account in making legislative land use decisions . i d) Legislative amendments to Government Code f Sections 65995-65996 adopted in 1989 were 1 declaratory of existing law and were . not intended to abrogate the holding in Mira. f e) Since the County was not pre-empted from j considering school impacts in conjunction with its approval of the Southwest Area Community Plan ( "SWAP" ) , the District stated a valid cause of action under CEQA by alleging that the County breached its mandatory duty to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact ; Report fully disclosing all school impacts, by ! failing to adopt feasible mitigation measures which would reduce school impacts to a level of non-significance, and by failing to adopt an adequate "Statement of Overriding Considerations" explaining why the County decided to approve the SWAP in the face of the significant unmitigated school impacts . f) The provisions in the SWAP which authorized development causing unmitigated adverse impacts on the District ' s school facilities were inconsistent with other provisions in the County ' s General Plan that mandated provision of adequate public improvements and facilities, including schools, in conjunction with new development . The District therefore stated a valid claim that the County ' s General ; Plan was internally inconsistent and invalid under Government Code Section 65300 . 5 . The County filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to consider the Murrieta case . The Supreme Court rejected the petition, and the case was remanded back to Community Systems Associates,Inc. �cW.+ Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 22 the Superior Court, now pending action. The Court ' s decision as certified for publication is a precedent that applies State-wide and is binding on all trial courts in California. The Court of Appeal ' s decision in the Murrieta case is an important logical extension of the previous rulings in Mira and Hart . For The first time since Government Code Section 65995-65996 were adopted in 1986, a court has ruled that a local land use agency not only has the authority to consider school impacts when considering legislative land use decisions, it has the duty to do so . The District acknowledges that the City does not have the authority to deny non-legislative applications on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities; however, the City has the obligation to review and evaluate legislative applications, and may deny such application on the grounds of inadequate school facilities . We would request and recommend that the environmental documentation provide an identification of all environmental impacts, both individually and cumulatively, identify mitigation measures, and set forth appropriate alternatives . Further, that the appropriate mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code be incorporated into the conditions of approval of any subsequent developments . It is the District ' s conclusion that the actions of the Planning Commission, and the recent approval by the Planning Commission, will result in financial, operation and administrative impacts on the District . These impacts on the District are further set forth herein. In addition, any and all previous oral and written testimony or documentation submitted to the City on this application is incorporated herein by reference to support the District ' s contentions . Pursuant to Section 9884, we hereby request that this appeal be heard by the City Council within 30 days of receipt of this letter and the enclosed fee of $200 . 00, by the City Clerk. L `\ Commonrhj Ssfams issocisfes,fr V��-- . Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 23 If you desire additional information or seek additional substan- tiation of the District ' s appeal, please feel free to contact our office . Sincerely, COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. QR_ C John C . Hutt Associate zc90-16 .hbc cc : Dr . Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr . Jerry Buchanan Assisstant Superintendent, Business Services Huntington Beach City School District Mr . Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Mr . Mike Adams, Director of Community Development City of Huntington Beach Mr . Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach Htmtingt n Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-16 Tentative Tract No. 14296 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.31 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 10 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 25,000 K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Student Generation Total 2.6950 $66,019 $24,095 $41,924 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Total 0.2695 Total 2.6950 $66,019 $25,163 S40,857 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 S9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 S13,582 S20,226 S33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/Sgft Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 II= ��- I■ ii� I 's uuaP CS? Community Systems Associates, Inc. February 26, 1992 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND HAND DELIVERED _ Ms . Connie Brockway, City Clerk s CITY. OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street fn . Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: . Appeal of Planning Commission Decision Y of February 19, 1992 Acceptance and Approval of: `= Zone Change No. 90-16 C. � T Tentative Tract No. 14296 Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37 Accompanying Negative Declaration Huntington Beach City School District_ Dear Ms . Brockway: On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District ( "District" ) , our firm has been authorized to file an appeal to the February 19, 1992 decision of the Planning Commission relating to the above-stated application ( "Application" ) and actions . The District is in receipt of the Agenda dated February 19, 1992 , on this action . We note that the Planning Commission' s action was "approved" , and that the Notice of Action states : "In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is not applicable . " (emphasis added) We note also that Section 9880 of the Municipal Code of the City of Huntington Beach provides an appeal procedure on "any decision, determination or requirement of the Planning Commission" . Section 9880 states : 119880 Appeal by Applicant or Interested Parties . Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after such decision or determination or requirement is made . Such notice, shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem himself aggrieved. " 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 • TUSTIN.CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 community Systems Assuociates.Inc- _= There appears to be a contradiction between the date of appeal as set forth in the Notice of Action, and the provisions of Section 9880 . In order to preserve any and all of the District ' s remedies, and so as to ensure that the District has taken all administrative steps to protect its interests, this appeal to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby filed in accordance with Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, on the above- stated Application. It is, the District ' s position that new residential development _ within the City of Huntington Beach will generate new students, which has financial and operational implications on the District . Although inf ill development may appear to have less of an effect on the school district than large master planned developments within the City, the cumulative effect of infill development as a result of land use amendments which increase the intensity of land use in the community, has significant implications on the District ' s ability - to maintain the aruality and continuity of the education services which are desired in the community. The District contends that the Planning Commission' s actions, and _ the. Application, failed to address the issues raised by the District, as follows : 1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative procedures and requirements of the California . Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines; .2) The application is not in compliance with the Huntington Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended through July, 1990; 3 ) The use of a Negative Declaration on this application is inadequate in that the application will result in specific project, and cumulative, impacts on the school district which are unmitigated; and 4) The District was inadequately noticed of the preparation of the Negative Declaration, and the conduction of public hearings by the Planning Commission on January 27 , 1992 and February 19, 1992 . The detailed discussion to support the District ' s contentions are set forth herein. It is the District ' s conclusion that the application as proposed, and the findings of the Staff Report, do not comply with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the applicable provisions of the Government Code . J L \ = Community Systems Assocutrs,Inc Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 3 A) Notice of Neaative Declaration and Public Hearing On May 17 , 1991 we sent a letter to Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator, requesting notice of all development activities within the District be transmitted to both the Huntington Beach City School District and Community Systems Associates, Inc . Neither the District nor CSA, Inc . has been regularly receiving notices of development projects within the District . The District did not participate in the public hearing due to the fact that it- had been apprised of the scheduling of the public hearing only two (2 ) days prior to the hearing, and was not notified of prior activities relating to the preparation and consideration of the Negative Declaration. It is the District ' s conclusion that the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and as such we raise a concern with any Planning Commission approval of the application. Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines states : " .(a) The Lead Agency shall provide a public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration. The noticed public review period shall be long enough to provide members of the public with sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the Negative Declaration is approved. (b) A copv of the notice with the proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project . (emphasis added) (c) Where one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency or a Trustee Agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, the Lead Agency shall send copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the state agencies . (d) When a Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period is approved by the State Clearinghouse . " Although the City gave notice and sent copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse, no notices and no Lnmmumty Systems Associates,ln\r'��Zt Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 4 negative declaration were sent to the Huntington Beach City School District, which is a public agency with jurisdiction by law over the K-8 educational facilities and resources within the City of Huntington Beach, and whose resources are affected by the development of the subject properties . The "discussion" under Section 15073 states, in part : "The court decision in Plagamier v. City of San Jose, cites in the note, underscored the critical role_ of public review of a Negative Declaration. The opinion noted the lack of a clear requirement. in the Guidelines addressing this point, but found that the requirement for public review was clearly implied by the Act . This section is necessary to fill the gap noted in Plaagmier and to provide a clear declaration of the requirement for public review. " By not providing the District with adequate notices and copies of the Negative Declaration, this action of the City precluded the District from being able to raise its concerns and objections relative to the finding that the projects would not create a significant environmental impact on the District. . Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part : (b) Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process . The decision-making body shall approve the Negative Declaration decision-making if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. " (emphasis added) Section 15002 (j ) states : Public Involvement . Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with the project . (See : Sections 15073 , 15086, 15087 and 15088) . " (emphasis added) Although required under CEQA, the City did not solicit comments from the District, and as such the public review process was incomplete . Community Systems Associates,Inc. w • �MP, Ms . Connie Brockway February 26 , 1992 Page 5 Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines states : "The purpose of review of EIR' s and Negative Declarations includes : (a) Sharing expertise; (b) Disclosing agency analyses; (c) Checking for accuracy; (d) Detecting omissions; (e) Discovering public concerns; and ( f) Soliciting counter proposals . " Further, Section 15207 of the CEQA Guidelines states : " If any public agency or person who is consulted with regard to an EIR or Negative Declaration fails to- comment within a reasonable time as specified by the Lead Agency, it shall be assumed, without a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make. Although the Lead Agency may choose to respond to them. " (emphasis added) - The fact of the matter is that the City did not provide a notice according to CEQA, and the District was not consulted on these issues . The purpose of review appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a difficult position of having to not pursue its further administrative remedies . B) Non-Compliance with Huntington Beach General Plan Development in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Huntington Beach General Plan states : "A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like Huntington Beach: 1 . Policy Determination - permits the evaluation of a definite set of policies to govern future development of the City, and a general design for the City. 2 . Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects in terms of a definite framework for long-range development of the City. 3 . Communication permits the communication of the City' s long-range policies to the business • Community Systems AsseCgles. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 6 community and the public; encourages constructive debate and stimulates political action. . 4 . ... Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning . Commission and other advisory boards to make recommendations to the City Council concerning development of the City in a coherent, unified form. 5'. Education - facilitates the education of government officials and the community regarding the problems and opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic, environmental, and social) . " . The LandUse Element of the General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies, in part : 8' . . . :3 . 4 .2 . 5 Housing To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups_ may reside in Huntington Beach, by: 1 . Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 2 . Providing an adequate level of community services, facilities, improvements, and maintenance in all areas of the City. " (emphasis added) "3 . 4 .2 . 6 Community Facilities To ensure a full range of community facilities that provide for the general public ' s health, safety and welfare, by: 1 . Providing utility systems to meet projected demands . 2 . Providing meeting centers for civic and other groups . 3 . Providing efficient, economical refuse disposal . 4 . Encouraging the proper location and planning of facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care centers, well-baby clinics, etc . �Li Community Systems Associates,Mc "Mi Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 7 5 . Encouraging the location of municipal, county, state, federal, and other governmental facilities within or near the Civic Center. . . . " (emphasis added) Further, the Community Facilities element of the General Plan states, in part: . . . .3 . 5 . 6 Policies This section presents the City' s policies regarding the provision of community facilities . Implementation of these policies will occur primarily through the implementation of the City' s capital improvement program. Additional implementing actions will be required, however, such as preparation of feasibility studies, revision of standards, and increased coordination with other entities . " (emphasis added) "3 . 5 . 6 . 1 Adequacy of Facilities This Element has identified a number of deficiencies in the City' s existing community facilities systems . Additional deficiencies maybe expected to occur when the City is developed to ultimate buildout under the General Plan unless corrective actions are taken. The following policies state the City' s intent to correct existing deficiencies where funding permits and to ensure that new development is adequately served. 1 . Promote the provision of adequate community facilities within the City of Huntington beach. 2 . Pursue funding for projects to correct existing deficiencies in community facility systems . 3 . Prior to issuance of a development entitlement the City shall make the finding that adequate services can be provided to serve the proposed development consistent with policies contained in the plan at the time of occupancy. 4 . - Prior to constructing new community facilities, consider the impact of those facilities on annual maintenance and operating costs and staffing requirements for maintenance. . . . " (emphasis added) so Lommuniry Systems Associates.Inc. =or r_ Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 8 The application does not comply with the General Plan. The District has provided information herein to the City which indicates' that. it is unable to meet the facility demands of this application. Therefore, it cannot be stated that an adequate level of community facilities, (i .e. , schools) is available or will be provided to meet. the requirements: of these application. Without specific requirements, the application are not in compliance with the General Plan. C. Necessity for Preparation of EIR The- District contends that the implementation of the application will have a significant effect on the environment, as noted in the impact analysis set forth herein. Several provisions of Section 15064 of the CEQA. Guidelines which support the District ' s position, as follows : Section 15064 . (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process . (1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a project may have a sianificant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a Draft EIR. (2 ) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project . (b) The determination of whether a project may have a sianificant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data. An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area. Community Systems Associates.Inc­ �MI Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 9 (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected. If the Lead Aaencv expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse. Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial . (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect .of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences . l) Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and - possible odors from operation of the plant . (2) Secondary consequences are related more to - effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself and may be several steps removed from the project in a chain of cause and effect . For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. . . (g) The decision as to whether a project may have one or more significant effects shall be based on information in the record of the Lead Agency. (1) If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the 'project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Havward, (1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988) . Said another way, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil , 4"11:4W.1 lee V..1 Community Systems Asson Inafes,fnc �r~' Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 10 Inc . v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Cal . 3d 68) . (2) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial-evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988) . (h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Aaencv shall be auided by the followina factors : (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subiect to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require preparation of an EIR. . (2) If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as sianificant and shall prepare an EIR. " (emphasis added) It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard to the environmental effects of the application and the adequacy of prior environmental documentation. There is further disagreement among the Developer ' s expert and the District ' s expert, and therefore the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the effect shall be treated as significant, and an EIR shall be prepared. The District has suggested that the appropriate EIR for the environmental documentation is a Focused Environmental Impact Report. We therefore challenge and object to the consideration of the Negative Declaration, and request that further consideration of. the application be delayed and deferred until a Focused Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, addressing the impacts of the application on the District, setting forth adequate and appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with Section 65996 of the Government Code . UC=:� STU • Lommumry Syslems Assotiales.InsV=�' Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 11 Please note that Section 65996 of the Government Code states : "The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of • mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions - for the -approval of a development project, as defined in Section 53080,. pursuant to. Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000), of the. Public Resources Code: .(a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327 ) of Chapter 3. of Part 23 of the Education Code. (e)- Section 53080 of the Government Code. (f) Chapter 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code . (g) Chapter 4 .7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code . No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities . " _These mitigation measures should have been discussed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report, so as to ensure full and complete mitigation. The City has the obligation to ensure that the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA are complied with so as to protect the interests of the existing students and residents of the District, and the future students and residents anticipated to acquire homes and property within area. We therefore, again request that the proposed Neaative Declaration be denied and that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared. AZINF Community Systems Associates.Inc mmw Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 12 D. Environmental Impact It. is the District ' s position that the application, and -environmental documentation for this project are insufficient to ensure the mitigation of impacts upon the District. The District recommends that a Focused Environmental Impact Report be prepared. We feel that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be _considered adequate, based upon the information we present herein. It is therefore the recommendation of the District that the City prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report which address the following items and issues : - 1) the square footage of all proposed dwelling units by phase should be identified and a calculation of development fees should be provided; 2 ) the phasing of development should be identified; 3) the location of school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement patterns to school sites, bus routes, etc . , relevant to the development should be identified; 4) the designated schools that will be attended by students generated by the development should be identified; 5) the District ' s existing conditions relative to the location, size, quality, and condition of existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities should be discussed; 6) the District ' s past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including facility utilization should be identified; 7) a complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes and potential conflicts with school pedestrian movement, school transportation, and busing activities; 8) a complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may effect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school areas; 9) a complete and comprehensive air quality analysis should be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration Community Systems Associates.Ina Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 13 that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within the District as a result of potential overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies; 10) the development ' s utilization impact on the District, including projected enrollments, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements, and traffic and noise impacts should be identified; 11) the development ' s fiscal impact on the District, including projected cost of land acquisition, school construction/reconstruction and other facilities should be identified; present and projected capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources should be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs should be identified; 12) appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures should be identified and evaluated, including but not limited to, a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows : (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code . (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code . ( f) Chapter 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code . . (g) Chapter 4 . 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; 13 ) cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No ' s . 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be addressed. Other projects in the geographical area of the District -and �` Gommumry--S- ystems AssOuales.Inca �= Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 14 included in the cumulative analysis should be identified by development name, unit size, phasing and location; 14) unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed, particularly as they relate to quality, quantity, and present and future condition of the District ' s enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities, and administrative activities; 15) appropriate alternative projects should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein as No ' s . 1 through 14 should be determined; and 16) if a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District ' s . development - utilization and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation, should be identified and made available for public inspection. - In order to substantiate our contentions, we hope that the following._information is useful : 1) Student Generation A recent survey of various new developments in the community reflects yield factors, as follows : Grade Level Student Generation Factor K-5 . 1779 students/housing unit 6 . 0305 students/housing unit 7-8 . 0611 students/housing unit Total .2695 students/housing unit The total number of students that will be generated by the application based on the factors described above is as follows : Grade Level Students Generated K-6 2 . 0840 students 7-8 0 . 6110 students Total 2 . 6950 students � l • Lanmum�ms Associates.Inc 0 -amp' Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 15 2) Proiected Development Fees The current statutory development -fees authorized to be collected by the Huntington Beach area school districts are $1 . 58 per square foot for residential development, and $0 .26 per square foot for non-residential . On January 22, 1992 the State Allocation Board increased the maximum chargeable fees to $1 . 65 and $0 .27 . The District is currently in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report so to enable the increase in . .fees . Through an agreement with Huntington Beach Union High- School District, the Huntington Beach City School District receives 61% of these fees . Based upon the current fee structure and an average unit size of 2, 500 per housing unit, the total development ..fees to be collected by the District from the application is estimated to be $24, 095 . Based on the increased fees, the District would receive $25, 163 . # of Current Increased Units Fees Fees ZC 90-16/TT 14296 10 1 . $24,095 $25, 163 3 ) Improvement & Land Costs As mentioned above, the Huntington Beach City School District is in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report, which was considered in public hearing on February 18th. Cost estimates from the Report are summarized in the following chart : K-6 per K-6 per 7-8 per 7-8 per Sq Ft Student Sq Ft Student Base Building $95.41 $5,629 $98.29 $7,863 Cost other $68.73 $4,055 $71.48 $5,719 Improvements Total $164.14 $9, 684 $169.77 $13, 582 Improvements Land Cost $12,083 $20,226 Total Costs $21,767 $33,808 Community Systems Assoc,Wes.Inc. _= Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page .16 The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net building square footage of 35, 400 : square feet, based upon 59 square feet per student.. A 750 student 7-8 grade school requires a net building square footage of 60, 000 square feet, based. upon 80 square feet per student . The State Department of Education provides a guideline for the size of a K-6 school site and a 7-8 school site. The requirement is 10 acres for K-6 and 21 acres net for 7-8 . The estimates are based on a land cost of $720, d00 per acre and $50, 000 appraisal and closing costs per site 4) Total Cost Revenue Surplus/Deficit Based upon the improvement and land costs to the District and the estimated development fee revenues, the following revenue surplus or deficit has been determined: ZC 90-16/TT 14296 Current Fees Increased Fees K-6 Cost $45,362 $45,362 7-8 Cost $20, 657 $20,657 Total Cost $66,019 $66,019 Development Fees $24,095 $25,163 Surplus (Deficit) ($41,924) ($40,857) As shown in the preceding chart, the state mandated development fees are insufficient to mitigate the impact on the District of this application. Development fees are only a partial mitigation that will result in a total unmitigated impact of $41, 924, based on the current fees, or $40, 857, based on the increased fees . It should be noted that the unmitigated impact resulting from this application may be mitigated through a number of non- financial methods such as development phasing, dedication of land or facilities, provision of interim facilities, etc . These mitigation measures should be explored in the environmental documentation. Cammuoiry Srslemt Attotialet.Inc. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 17 -5) Existing District Enrollment Cavacity The.' District is and will continue to experience- severe District facility capacity utilization: The following list sets forth the various open, District schools, , grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment as, of October 1, 1990 and October.. 1,- 1991 . School Acrea;,_ _ 1990 . 1991 CApacity Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 12.19(±) 816 803 780 1502 Palm Avenue Huntington Beach Sowers Middle School (6-8) 14.38(±) 11118. 1,115 1,110 9300 Indianapolis Huntington Beach Smith School (K-5) 8.31(±) 694 . 693 690 770 17th Street Huntington Beach Perry School (K-5) 10.62(±) 558 559 540 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach Eader School (K-5) 13.39(±) _ - _ 725 725 720 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach Kettler School (K-5) 9.80(±) 612 698 690. 8750 Dorsett Drive Huntington Beach - - - - Hawes School (K-5) 8.00(±) 382 395 390 9682 Yellowstone Drive Huntington Beach - - Moffett School (K-5) 7.56(±) 65d 693 690 8800 Burlcrest Avenue Huntington Beach Total 5.559 5,681 5.610 The student difference between enrollment and capacity is housed in special classrooms, laboratory, and other reconfigured areas . The following sets forth the closed or alternatively. used- District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity: School Acreage CARACity LeBard School 10.84(±) 540 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.72(±) 690 9700 Levee Drive Huntington Beach (Leased to Private High School and child Care Agency) Peterson School 10.98(±) 690 20661 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Coast Community College) /U Community Systems associates.IncV "M► Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 18 Clapp School 4.52(±) 270 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach _ (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 13.95(±) 960 21161 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach 6),,_-. .Statewide School Financing Crisis . ,.The City should note the condition of school capital facility financing in the State. There' have been substantial changes in the resources available to school districts to finance capital facility requirements, and that information relative to the District ' s and State ' s capability to finance costs in excess of the present $1 . 65 per square foot of residential and $0 .27 per square foot of non-residential, is of substantial importance to the successful implementation of mitigation of impacts . The State Legislature ' s adoption of AB 2926, the enabling legislation which established the authorization to impose developer fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, was adopted at a time when the Leroy F . Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its -obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State participation, which together would have adequately funded the mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development. The State ' s inability to meet its obligation to fund the State School Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction bond issues to pass, has resulted in an impacted school district not having adequate funds to mitigate impact . Development fees only address, at a maximum (depending on land costs) , 50% of the actual cost of impact mitigation. Further, there is an agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a sharing of collected development fees . The Huntington Beach City School District receives only 61% of development fees paid. 7 ) Legal Issues Concerning School Facilities The City should be apprised of various legal decisions since the adoption of AB 2926, the development fee Community Systems Associates,Inc. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 19 legislation. On January 25, 1991, Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeals issued its decision in William S . Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles, 91 Daily Journal DAR 1147 (2nd Dist . January 25, 1991) (hereinafter, "Hart" ) . The Court of Appeals in Hart considered and decided.. a number of the same issues that can be raised with regard to the application. In particular, the Hart Court held: a) Mira Development Corr). v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal .App.3d 1201, was correctly decided. Government Code Section 65996 does not apply to legislative land use decisions, and a local agency retains the authority to deny a general plan or a zone change on the basis of the inadequacy of school facilities . (Id. at 1148-1150) . b) The Mira holding actually is "bolstered" by Stats . 1989, c . 1209 . (Id. at 1149) . As noted by the Court Ud. at n. 11) , the Legislature expressly stated in Section_ 34 of that statute that the slight change to the definition of "development project" in Government Code Section 65996 was "declaratory of existing law" . The Court further. pointed out that the Legislature was presumed to have knowledge of Mira and to have amended the statute with Mira in mind. (Id. ) c) Government Code Section 65995 (e) pre-empts only "the requirements for. school facilities finance that a local agency will impose on a development project" , not the legislation of land use policies such as the zoning ordinances at issue in that case and in Mira. (Id. at 1150) . d) The County' s mistaken reliance upon "erroneous legal advice" that it had no authority to consider school impacts when acting on zone changes was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 1150) . e) The school district had the right to challenge zoning changes approved without consideration of school impacts on the ground that they were inconsistent with *the County' s adopted general plan provisions requiring adequate public facilities . (Id. at 1150) . Community Systems Associates.Inc. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 . Page 20 f) The trial court should not have sustained the County' s demurrer to the school district ' s petition without leave to amend since there was a reasonable possibility that the District could amend the complaint to add allegations regarding the Mira decision' s impact on the County' s decision to grant the rezoning application. (Id. at 1148, 1150) . 'bn' March ' 26, 1991 Division Two of the Fourth District Court . of Appeals issued its decision in Murrieta valley Unified- School District v. County of Riverside, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3648 (Fourth District, April 2, 1991) (hereinafter "Murrieta" ) . The Court of Appeals in Murrieta considered and decided a number of issues . In particular, the Murrieta case held: . a) The County' s authority to specify land_ use and development mitigation measures to address school impacts in connection with an amendment of its General Plan is not pre-empted by Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 . The County had argued that those statutes, which place a limit on the amount of school fees that can be imposed upon "development projects" , prohibit the County from considering school impacts when making land use decisions and prohibit the County from requiring mitigation of those impacts . The Court of Appeal ruled that while Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 pre-empt the field of school facilities financing, they do not pre-empt the County ' s authority to mitigate school impacts through non-financial means such as denial of densities, and timing and phasing controls designed to assure that school facilities are provided in conjunction with new development . b) Government Code Sections 65995-65996 apply only to "development projects" which the courts have historically classified as non- legislative in character, such as tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, and variances . Those sections do not apply to legislative land use decisions such as general plan amendments, zone changes, and specific plans . Lammunry Systems Assosialrs.Int. _�- ' Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 21 c) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal .App.3d 1201, and the more recent decision in William S. Hart Union High ..School District v. Rectional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, were correctly decided.. Both Mira and William S . Hart Union High School District also held that Government Code Sections 65995-65996 do not prohibit a - local agency from taking school impacts into account in making legislative land use decisions . d) Legislative amendments to Government Code Sections 65995-65996 adopted in 1989 were declaratory of existing law and were . not intended to abrogate the holding in Mira . ..e) - Since the County was not pre-empted from considering school impacts in conjunction with its- approval of the Southwest Area Community Plan ( "SWAP" ) , the District stated a valid cause of action under CEQA by alleging that the County breached its mandatory duty to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report fully disclosing all school impacts, by failing to adopt feasible mitigation measures which would reduce school impacts to a level of non-significance, and by failing to adopt an adequate "Statement of Overriding Considerations" explaining why the County decided to approve the SWAP in the face of the significant unmitigated school impacts . f) The provisions in the SWAP which authorized development causing unmitigated adverse impacts on the District ' s school facilities were inconsistent with other provisions in the County' s General Plan that mandated provision of adequate public improvements and facilities, including schools, in conjunction with new development . The District therefore stated a valid claim that the County ' s General Plan was internally inconsistent and invalid under Government Code Section 65300 . 5 . The County filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to consider the Murrieta case . The Supreme Court rejected the petition, and the case was remanded back to + CommunirySyslrms ssor�les.IncV�- f Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 22 - the Superior Court, now pending action. The Court ' s decision as certified for publication is a precedent that applies State-wide and is binding on all trial courts in California. The Court of Appeal ' s decision in the Murrieta case is an important logical extension of the previous rulings in Mira and Hart. For The first time since Government Code Section 65995-65996 were adopted in 1986, a court has ruled that a local land use agency not only has the authority to consider school impacts when considering legislative land use decisions, it has the duty to do so . The District acknowledges that the City does not have the authority to deny non-legislative applications on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities; however, the City has the obligation to review and evaluate legislative applications, and may deny such application on the grounds of inadequate school facilities . We would request and recommend that the environmental documentation . provide an identification of all environmental impacts, both individually and cumulatively, identify mitigation measures, and set forth appropriate alternatives . Further, that the appropriate mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code be incorporated into the conditions of approval of any subsequent developments . It is the District ' s conclusion that the actions of the Planning Commission, and the recent approval by the Planning Commission, will result in financial, operation and administrative impacts on the District . These impacts on the District are further set forth herein. In addition, any and all previous oral and written testimony or documentation submitted to the City on this application is incorporated herein by reference to support the District ' s contentions . Pursuant to Section 9884, we hereby request that this appeal be heard by the City Council within 30 days of receipt of this letter and the enclosed fee of $200 . 00, by the City Clerk. ,r!"'Pli CST..,, Communrry Systems Associates.Inc. _= Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 23 If you desire additional information or seek additional substan- tiation of the District ' s appeal, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. John C . Hutt . Associate zc90-16 .hbc cc : Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Jerry Buchanan Assisstant Superintendent, Business Services Huntington Beach City School District Mr . Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Mr . Mike Adams, Director of Community Development City of Huntington Beach Mr. Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach Huntingtoh'Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-16 Tentative Tract No. 14296 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.31 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 10 Sq. Ft. 9 2500/HU 25,000 K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Student Generation Total 2.6950 S66,019 $24,095 S41,924 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.0840 S45,362 7-8 0.6110 S20,657 Total 0.2695 Total 2.6950 $66,019 S25,163 S40,857 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 S9,684 S12,083 S21,767 7-8 $13,582 S20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 i =, ,=: ,T = 11((-i==ini:� , CS .I _ii„�6 Jr ir.l Community Systems Associates, Inc. February 26, 1992 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND HAND DELIVERED Ms . Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decision of February 19, 1992 Acceptance and Approval of : Zone Change No . 90-16 _ Tentative Tract No . 14296 Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37 Accompanying Negative Declaration Huntington Beach City School District Dear Ms . Brockway: On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District ( "District" ) , our firm has-been authorized to file an appeal to the February 19, 1992 decision of the Planning Commission relating to the above-stated application ( "Application" ) and actions . - The District is in receipt of the Agenda dated February 19, 1992 , on this action. We note that the Planning Commission' s action was "approved" , and that the Notice of Action states : "In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is not applicable . " (emphasis added) We note also that Section 9880 of the Municipal Code of the City of Huntington Beach provides an appeal procedure on "any decision, determination or requirement of the Planning Commission" . Section 9880 states : "9880 Appeal by Applicant or Interested Parties Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after such decision or determination or requirement is made . Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem himself aggrieved. " 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 • TUSTIN.CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 -JLi Community Syslems Associales.Inc There appears to be a contradiction between the date of appeal as set forth in the Notice of Action, and the provisions of Section 9880 . In order to preserve any and all of the District ' s remedies, and so as to ensure that the District has taken all administrative steps to protect its interests, this appeal to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby filed in accordance with Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, on the above- stated Application. It is the District ' s position that new residential development within the City of Huntington Beach will generate new students, which has financial and operational implications on the District . Although inf ill development may appear to have less of an effect on the school district than large master planned developments within the City, the cumulative effect of infill development as a result of land use amendments which increase the intensity of land use in the community, has significant implications on the District ' s ability to maintain the cruality and continuity of the education services which are desired in the community. The District contends that the Planning Commission ' s actions, and . the Application, failed to address the issues raised by the District, as " follows : 1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act .and the CEQA Guidelines ; 2 ) The application is not in compliance with the Huntington Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended through July, 1990; 3 ) The use of a Negative Declaration on this application is inadequate in that the application will result in specific project, and cumulative; impacts on the school district which are unmitigated; and 4) The District was inadequately noticed of the preparation of the Negative Declaration, and the conduction of public hearings by the Planning Commission on January 27 , 1992 and .February 19, 1992 . The detailed discussion to support the District ' s contentions are set forth herein. It is the District ' s conclusion that the application as proposed, and the findings of the Staff Report, do not comply with the applicable provisions of CEQA and . the CEQA Guidelines, and the applicable provisions of the Government Code . Fr Ll Community Systems Assotlites.lncV MW Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 3 A) Notice of Negative Declaration and Public Hearing On May 17 , 1991 we sent a letter to Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator, requesting notice of all development activities within the District be transmitted to both the Huntington Beach City School District and Community Systems Associates, Inc . Neither the District nor CSA, Inc . has been regularly receiving notices of development projects within the District . The District did not participate in the public hearing due to the fact that it had been apprised of the scheduling of the public hearing only two (2) days prior to the hearing, and was not notified of prior activities relating to the preparation and consideration of the Negative Declaration. It is the District ' s conclusion that the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and as such we raise a concern with any Planning Commission approval of the application. Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines states : " (a) The Lead Agency shall provide a public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration. The noticed public review period shall be long enough to provide members of the public with sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the Negative Declaration is approved. (b) A copv of the notice with the proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and every other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project . (emphasis added) (c) Where one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency or a Trustee Agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, the Lead Agency shall send copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the state agencies . (d) When a Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period is approved by the State Clearinghouse . " Although the City gave notice and sent copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse, no notices and no . 777 Community Systems Associates,Inc. a -"W Ms . Connie Brockway February 26 , 1992 Page 4 negative declaration were sent to the Huntington Beach City School District, which is a public agency with jurisdiction by law over the K-8 educational facilities and resources within the City of Huntington Beach, and whose resources are affected by the development of the subject properties . The "discussion" under Section 15073 states, in part : "The court decision in Plaggmier v. City of San Jose, cites in the note, underscored the critical role of public review of a Negative Declaration. The opinion noted the lack of a clear requirement in the Guidelines addressing this point, but found that the requirement for public review was clearly implied by the Act . This section is necessary to fill the gap noted in Plaggmier and to provide a clear declaration of the requirement for public review. " By not providing the District with adequate notices and copies of the Negative Declaration, this action of the City precluded the District from being able to raise its concerns and objections relative to the finding that the projects would not create a significant environmental impact on the District . Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part : (b) Prior to approving the project, the decision-making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process . The decision-making body shall approve the Negative Declaration decision-making if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment . " (emphasis added) Section 15002 (j ) states : " (j ) Public Involvement . Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with the project . (See : Sections 15073 , 15086, 15087 and 15088) . " (emphasis added) Although required under CEQA, the City did not solicit comments from the District, and as such the public review process was incomplete . 1 Community Systems Associates.Itic Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 5 Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines states : "The purpose of review of EIR ' s and Negative Declarations includes : (a) Sharing expertise; (b) Disclosing agency analyses; (c) Checking for accuracy; (d) Detecting omissions; (e) Discovering public concerns; and ( f) Soliciting counter proposals . " Further, Section 15207 of the CEQA Guidelines states : " If any public agency or -person who is consulted with regard to an EIR or Negative Declaration fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the Lead Agency, it shall be assumed, without a request for a specific extension of time, . that such agency or person has no comment to make . Although the Lead Agency .may choose to respond to them. " (emphasis added) The fact of the matter is that the City did not provide a notice according to CEQA, and the District was not consulted on these issues . The purpose of review appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a difficult position of having to not pursue its further administrative remedies . B) Non-Compliance with Huntington Beach General Plan Development in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Huntington Beach General Plan states : "A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like Huntington Beach: 1 . Policy Determination - permits the evaluation of a definite set of policies to govern future development of the City, and a general design for the City. 2 . Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects in terms of a definite framework for long-range development of the City. 3 . Communication .- permits the communication of the City ' s long-range policies to the business Community Systems Associates. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 6 community and the public; encourages constructive debate and stimulates political action. 4 . Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning Commission and other advisory boards to make recommendations to the City Council concerning development of the City in a coherent, unified form. 5 . Education - facilitates the education of government officials and the community regarding the problems and opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic, environmental, and social) . " The Land Use Element of the -General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies, in part : , . . . .3 . 4 .2 . 5 Housing To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach, by: 1 . Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 2 . Providing an adequate level of community services , facilities, improvements , and maintenance in all areas of the City. " (emphasis added) "3 . 4 .2 . 6 Community Facilities To ensure a full range of community facilities that provide for the general public ' s health, safety and welfare, by: 1 . Providing utility systems to meet -projected demands . 2 . Providing meeting - centers for civic and other groups . 3 . Providing efficient, economical refuse disposal . 4 . Encouraging the proper location and planning of facilities such as churches, nursing homes, day care centers, well-baby clinics, etc . Community Systems Associates.Inc-02 MW Ms . Connie Brockway February 26 , 1992 Page 7 5 . Encouraging the location of municipal, county, state, federal, and other governmental facilities within or near the Civic Center . . . . " (emphasis added) Further, the Community Facilities element of the General Plan states, in part : . . . . 3 . 5 . 6 Policies This section presents the City' s policies regarding the provision of community facilities . - Implementation of these policies will occur primarily through the implementation of the City ' s capital improvement program. Additional implementing -actions will be required, however, such as preparation of feasibility studies, revision of standards, and increased coordination with other entities . " (emphasis added) "3 . 5 . 6 . 1 Adequacy of Facilities This Element has identified a number of deficiencies in the City ' s existing community facilities systems . Additional deficiencies may be expected to occur when the City is developed to ultimate buildout under the General Plan unless corrective actions are taken. The following policies state the City ' s intent to correct existing deficiencies where funding permits and to ensure that new development is adecruately served. 1 . Promote the provision of adequate community facilities within the City of Huntington beach. 2 . Pursue funding for projects to correct existing deficiencies in community facility systems . 3 . Prior to issuance of a development entitlement, the City shall make the finding that adecruate services can be provided to serve the proposed development, consistent with policies contained in the plan, at the time of occupancy. 4 . Prior to constructing new community facilities, consider the impact of those facilities on annual maintenance and operating costs and staffing requirements for maintenance . . . . " (emphasis added) Community Systems Associates.Inc. c "M W Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 8 The application does not comply with the General Plan. The District has provided information herein to the City which indicates that it is unable to meet the facility demands of this application. Therefore, it cannot be stated that an adequate level of community facilities, (i .e . , schools) is available or will be provided to meet the requirements of these application. Without specific requirements, the application are not in compliance with the General Plan. C . Necessity for Preparation of EIR The District contends that the implementation of the application will have a significant effect on the environment, as noted in the impact analysis set forth herein. Several provisions of Section 15064 of the CEQA . Guidelines which support the District ' s position, as follows : " Section 15064 . (a) Determining whether a project may have a significant effect plays a critical role in the CEQA process . (1) When a Lead Agency determines that there is substantial evidence that a proiect may have a sianificant effect on the environment, the agency shall prepare a Draft EIR. (2) When a Final EIR identifies one or more significant effects, the Lead Agency and each responsible agency shall make a finding under Section 15091 for each significant effect and may need to make a statement of overriding considerations under Section 15093 for the project . (b) The determination of whether a project may have a significant effect on the environment calls for careful judgment on the part of the public agency involved, based to the extent possible on scientific and factual data . An ironclad definition of significant effect is not possible because the significance of an activity may vary with the setting. For example, an activity which may not be significant in an urban area may be significant in a rural area . Community Systems Associates,Inc Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 9 (c) In determining whether an effect will be adverse or beneficial, the Lead Agency shall consider the views held by members of the public in all areas affected. If the Lead Agency expects that there will be a substantial body of opinion that considers or will consider the effect to be adverse, the Lead Agency shall regard the effect as adverse . Before requiring the preparation of an EIR, the Lead Agency must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial . (d) In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider both primary or direct and secondary or indirect consequences . (1) Primary consequences are immediately related to the project such as the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and - possible odors from operation of the plant . (2 ) Secondary consequences are related more to effects of the primary consequences than to the project itself and may be several steps removed from the project in a chain of cause and effect . For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution. . . . (g) The decision as to whether a project may have one or' more significant effects shall be based on information in the record of the Lead Agency. (1) If the Lead Agency finds there is substantial evidence in the record that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR (Friends of B Street v. City of Havward, (1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988) . - Said another wax, if a Lead Agency is presented with a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare an EIR even though it may also be presented with other substantial evidence that the project will not have a significant effect (No Oil , Community Systems Associates. Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 10 Inc . v. City of Los Angeles, (1974) 13 Cal . 3d 68) . (2 ) If the Lead Agency finds there is no substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall prepare a Negative Declaration (Friends of B Street v. City of Hayward, (1980) 106 Cal .App. 3d 988) . (h) In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors . (1) If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects of a protect, the Lead Agency shall consider the effect or effects subiect to the controversy to be significant and shall prepare an EIR. Controversy unrelated to an environmental issue does not require preparation of an EIR. (2 ) If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the Lead Agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR. ° (emphasis added) It is clear that there is serious public controversy with regard to the environmental effects of the application and the adequacy of prior environmental documentation. There is further disagreement among the Developer ' s expert and the District ' s expert, and therefore the CEQA Guidelines suggest that the effect shall be treated as significant, and an EIR shall be prepared. The District has suggested that the appropriate EIR for the environmental documentation is a Focused Environmental Impact Report . We therefore challenge and object to the consideration of the Negative Declaration, and request that further consideration of the application be delayed and deferred until a Focused Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, addressing the impacts of the application on the District, setting forth adequate and appropriate mitigation measures in accordance with Section 65996 of the Government Code . Cammumty Systems Assauates.Inc =r Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 11 Please note that Section 65996 of the Government Code states : "The following provisions shall be the exclusive methods of mitigating environmental effects related to the adequacy of school facilities when considering the approval or the establishment of conditions - for the approval of a development project, as defined in Section 53080, pursuant to. Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code : (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the Education Code . (d) Article -2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327 ) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code . (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code . ( f) Chapter 2 . 5. (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code . (g) Chapter 4 . 7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code . No public agency shall, pursuant to Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code or Division 2 (commencing with Section 66410) of this code, deny approval of a project on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities . " These mitigation measures should have been discussed in a Focused Environmental Impact Report, so as to ensure full and complete mitigation. The - City has the obligation to ensure that the California Environmental Quality Act ( "CEQA" ) and the Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA are complied with so as to protect the interests of the existing students and residents of the District, and the future . students and residents anticipated to acquire homes and property within area. We therefore, attain recruest that the proposed Negative Declaration be denied and that a Supplemental Environmental Impact Report be prepared. CS� ;��� Community Systems Associates. "=i Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 12 D. Environmental Imppact It is the District ' s position that the application, and environmental documentation for this project are insufficient to ensure the mitigation of impacts upon the District. The District recommends that a Focused Environmental Impact Report be prepared. We feel that a mitigated negative declaration cannot be considered adequate, based upon the information we present herein. It is therefore the recommendation of the District that the City prepare a Focused Environmental Impact Report which address the following items and issues : 1) the square footage of all proposed dwelling units by phase should be identified and a calculation of development fees should be provided; 2 ) the phasing of development should be identified; 3 ) the location of school sites, school bus stops, student pedestrian movement patterns to school sites, bus routes, etc . , relevant to the development should be identified; 4) the designated schools that will be attended by students generated by the development should be identified; 5) the District ' s existing conditions relative to the location, size,. quality, and condition of existing schools, administrative, and operation facilities should be discussed; 6) the District ' s past and present enrollment trends, and present enrollment, including facility utilization should be identified; 7 ) a complete and comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared identifying vehicular movement and volumes and potential conflicts with school pedestrian movement, school transportation, and busing activities; 8) a complete and comprehensive noise analysis should be prepared identifying any noise sources and volumes which may effect school facilities, classrooms, and outdoor school areas; 9) a complete and comprehensive air quality analysis should be prepared identifying any air quality deterioration L, - Communiry Systems Assoccia(es.Inc. `MW Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 13 that would result from the transportation and busing of students to various schools within the District as a result of potential overcrowded conditions and the necessity to mitigate capital facility deficiencies; 10) the development ' s utilization impact on the District, including projected enrollments, projected space requirements, projected busing requirements, projected teacher/staffing requirements, and traffic and noise impacts should be identified; 11) the development ' s fiscal impact on the District, including projected cost of land acquisition, school construction/reconstruction and other facilities should be identified; -present and projected. capital facility, operations, maintenance, and personnel financing and funding sources should be analyzed; and personnel, operational, and maintenance costs should be identified; 12) appropriate and legal development utilization and fiscal impact mitigation measures should be identified and evaluated, including but, not limited to, a complete discussion and analysis of the mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code, as follows : (a) Chapter 22 (commencing with Section 17700) of Part 10 of the Education Code (b) Chapter 25 (commencing with Section 17785) of Part 10 of the Education Code. (c) Chapter 28 (commencing with Section 17870) of Part 10 of the 'Education Code . (d) Article 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 39327 ) of Chapter 3 of Part 23 of the Education Code . (e) Section 53080 of the Government Code : ( f) Chapter 2 . 5 (commencing with Section 53311) of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code . (g) Chapter 4 .7 (commencing with Section 65970) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code; 13 ) cumulative impacts on the District addressing item No ' s . 7 , 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 should. be addressed. Other projects in the geographical area of the District -and Community Systems Associates.lncV as� �t♦r, Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 14 included in the cumulative analysis should be identified by development name, unit size, phasing and location; 14) unavoidable development utilization and fiscal impacts on the District should be addressed, particularly as they relate to quality, quantity, and present and future condition of the District ' s enrollments, space utilization, curriculum, financial and fiscal condition, transportation, operational and maintenance activities, and administrative activities; 15) appropriate alternative projects should be considered and evaluated, and the items and issues set forth herein as No ' s . 1 through 14 should be determined; and 16) if a statement of overriding consideration is intended to be used relative to the District ' s' development utilization and fiscal impacts for unavoidable or unmitigated impacts, the text of the statement, along with quantitative and qualitative substantiation; should be identified and made available for public inspection. In order to substantiate our contentions, we hope that the following information is useful : 1) Student Generation A recent survey of various new developments in the community reflects yield factors, as follows : Grade Level Student Generation Factor K-5 . 1779 students/housing unit 6 . 0305 students/housing unit 7-8 . 0611 students/housing unit Total .2695 students/housing unit The total number of students that will be generated by the application based on the factors described above is as follows : . Grade Level Students Generated K-6 2 . 0840 students 7-8 0 . 6110 students Total 2 . 6950 students - Community Systems Associates.Inc. _=� Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 15 2 ) Proiected Development Fees The current statutory development fees authorized to be collected by the Huntington Beach area school districts are $1 . 58 per square foot for residential development, and $0 .26 per square foot for non-residential . On January 22, 1992 the State Allocation Board increased the maximum chargeable fees to $1 . 65 and $0 .27 . The District is currently in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report so to enable the increase in fees . Through an agreement with Huntington Beach Union High School District, the Huntington Beach City School District receives 61% of these fees . Based upon the current fee-structure and an average unit size of 2 , 500 per housing unit, the total. development fees to be collected by the District from the application is estimated to be $24, 095 . Based on the increased fees, the District would receive $25, 163 . # of Current Increased Units Fees Fees ZC 90-16/TT '14296 10 $24,095 $25, 163 3 ) Improvement & Land Costs As mentioned above, the Huntington Beach City School .District is in the process of updating its Development Fee Justification Report, which was considered in public _hearing on February 18th. Cost estimates from the Report are summarized in the following chart : K-6 per K-6 per 7-8 per 7-8 per Sq Ft Student Sq Ft Student Base Building $95.41 $5, 629 $98.29 $7, 863 Cost Other $68.73 $4,055 $71.48 $5,719 Improvements Total $164.14 $9, 684 $169.77 $13, 582 Improvements Land Cost $12,083 $20,226 Total Costs $21,767 $33, 808 Community Systems Associates.Inc Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 16 The accepted standard of projecting total improvement costs is by calculating costs per square foot of net school building area. A 600 student K-5 or K-6 grade school requires a net building square footage of 35, 400 square feet, based upon 59 square .feet per student . A 750 student 7-8 grade school requires a net building square footage of 60, 000 square feet, based upon 80 square feet per student . The State Department of Education provides a guideline for the size of a K-6 school site and a 7-8 school site . The requirement is 10 acres for K-6 and 21 acres net for 7-8 . The estimates are based on a land cost of $720, 000 per acre and $50, 000 appraisal and closing costs per site . 4) Total Cost Revenue Surplus/Deficit Based upon the improvement and land costs to the District and the estimated development fee revenues, the following revenue surplus or deficit has been determined: ZC 90-16/TT 14296 Current Fees Increased Fees K-6 Cost $45,362 $45, 362 7-8 Cost $20, 657 $20, 657 Total Cost $66,019 $66,019 Development Fees $24,095 $25,163 Surplus (Deficit) - ($41,924) ($40, 857) As shown in the preceding chart, the state mandated development fees are insufficient to mitigate the impact on the District of this application. Development fees are only a partial mitigation that will result in a total unmitigated impact of $41, 924, based on the current fees, or $40, 857, based on the increased fees . It should be noted that the unmitigated impact resulting. from this application may be mitigated through a number of non- financial methods such as development -phasing, dedication of land or facilities, provision of interim facilites, etc . These mitigation measures should be explored in the environmental documentation. Community Systems Associates.Inc. ONE--, Ms .Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 17 5) Existing District Enrollment Capacity The District is and will continue to experience severe District facility capacity utilization. The following list sets forth the various open District schools, grade level, estimated acreage, their capacity, and enrollment as of October 1, 1990 and October 1, 1991 . School Acreage _ 1990 1991 CCdpacity Dwyer Middle School (6-8) 12.19(±) 816 803 780 1502 Palm Avenue Huntington Beach Sowers Middle School (6-8) 14.38(±) 11118 1,115 1.110 9300 Indianapolis Huntington Beach Smith School (K-5) 8.31(2:) 694 693 690 770 17th Street Huntington Beach Perry School (K-5) 10.62(±) 558 559 540 19231 Harding Lane Huntington Beach Eader School (K-5) 13.39(±) 725 725 720 9291 Banning Avenue Huntington Beach - - Ketcler School (K-5) 9.80(±) 612 698 690 8750 Dorsett Drive Huntington Beach - - Hawes School (K-5) 8.00(±) 382 395 390 9682 Yellowstone Drive Huntington Beach Moffett School (K-5) 7.56(:t) 654 693 690 8800 Burlcrest Avenue Huntington Beach , Total 5,559 5,681 5,610 The student difference between enrollment and capacity is housed in special classrooms, laboratory, and other reconfigured areas . The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity: School Acreage capacity LeBard School 10.84(±) 540 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.72(±) 690 9700 Levee Drive Huntington Beach (Leased to Private High School and Child Care Agency) Peterson School 10.98(±) 690 20661 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Coast Community college) i I Community Systems Associates.InrV=t ' Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 18 Clapp School 4.52(±) 270 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach _ (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 14.95(±) 960 21141 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach 6) Statewide School Financing Crisis The City should note the condition of school capital facility financing in the State. There have been substantial changes in the resources available to school districts to finance capital facility requirements, and that information relative to the District ' s and State ' s capability to finance costs in excess of the present $1 . 65 per square foot of residential and $0 .27 per square foot of non-residential, is of substantial importance to the successful implementation of mitigation of impacts . The State Legislature ' s adoption of AB 2926, the enabling legislation which established the authorization to impose developer fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government Code, was adopted at a time when the Leroy F . Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State participation, which together would have adequately funded the mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development . The State ' s inability to meet its obligation to fund the State School Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction bond issues to pass, has resulted in an impacted school district not having adequate funds to mitigate impact . Development fees only address, at a maximum . (depending on land costs) , 50% of the actual cost of impact mitigation. Further, there is an agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a sharing of collected development fees . The Huntington Beach City School District receives - only 61% of development fees paid. 7 ) Legal Issues Concerning School Facilities The City should be apprised of various legal decisions since the adoption of AB 2926, the development fee cog-, Systems Atsociafes.Inc. `=� Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 19 legislation. On January 25, 1991, Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeals issued its decision in William S . Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles, 91 Daily Journal DAR 1147 (2nd Dist . January 25, 1991) (hereinafter, "Hart" ) . The Court of Appeals in Hart considered and decided a number of the same issues that can be raised with regard to the application. In particular, the Hart Court held: a) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal .App. 3d 1201, was correctly decided. Government Code Section 65996 does not apply to legislative land use decisions, and a local agency retains the authority to deny a general plan or a zone change on the basis of the inadequacy of school facilities . (Id. at 1148-1150) . . b) The Mira holding actually is "bolstered" by Stats . 1989, c . 1209 . (Id. at 1149) . As noted by the Court (Id. at n. 11) , the Legislature expressly stated in Section 34 of that statute that the slight change to the definition of "development project" in Government Code Section 65996 was "declaratory of existing law" . The Court further pointed out that the Legislature was presumed to have knowledge of Mira and to have amended the statute with Mira in mind. (Id. ) c) Government Code Section 65995 (e) pre-empts only " the requirements for school facilities finance that a local agency will impose on a development project" , not the legislation of land use policies such as the zoning ordinances at issue in that case and in Mira . (Id. at 1150) . d) The County ' s mistaken reliance upon "erroneous legal advice" that it had no authority to consider school impacts when acting on zone changes was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 1150) . e) The school district had the right to' challenge zoning changes approved without consideration of school impacts on the ground that they were inconsistent with *the County' s adopted general plan provisions requiring adequate public facilities . (Id. at 1150) . 5� 1A,I U.1 ,; 9rI Jso Community Systems Associates, �W Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 20 f) The trial court should not have sustained the County' s demurrer to the school district ' s petition without leave to amend since there was a reasonable possibility that the District could amend the complaint to add allegations regarding the Mira decision ' s impact on the County' s decision to grant the rezoning application. (Id. at 1148, 1150) . On March 26, 1991, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued its decision in Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3648 (Fourth District, April 2 , 1991) (hereinafter "Murrieta" ) . The Court of Appeals in Murrieta considered and decided a number of issues . In particular, the Murrieta case held: - a) The County '.s authority to specify land use and development mitigation measures to address school impacts in connection with an amendment of its General Plan is not pre-empted by Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 . The County had argued that those statutes, which place a limit on the amount of school fees that can be imposed upon "development projects" , prohibit the County from considering school impacts when making land use decisions and prohibit the County from requiring mitigation of those impacts . The Court of Appeal ruled that while Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 pre-empt the field of school facilities financing, they do not pre-empt the County ' s authority to mitigate school impacts through non-financial means such as denial of densities, and timing and phasing controls designed to assure that school facilities are provided in conjunction with new development . b) Government Code Sections 65995-65996 apply only to. "development projects" which the courts have historically classified as non- legislative in character, such as tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, and variances . Those- sections do not apply to legislative land use decisions such as general plan amendments, zone changes, and specific plans . '' 12I u �— Community Systems Associates.Inc. =� Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 21 c) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal .App.3d 1201, and the more recent decision in William S . Hart Union High School District V. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal .App.3d 1612, ' were .correctly decided- Both Mira and William S . Hart Union High School District also held that Government Code Sections 65995-65996 do not prohibit a local agency from taking school impacts into account in making legislative land use decisions . d) Legislative amendments to Government Code Sections 65995-65996 adopted in 1989 were declaratory of existing law and were . not intended to abrogate the holding in Mira. e) Since the County was . not pre-empted from considering school impacts in conjunction with its approval of the Southwest Area Community Plan ( "SWAP" ) , the District stated a valid cause of action under CEQA by alleging that the County breached its mandatory duty to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report fully disclosing all school impacts, by failing to adopt feasible mitigation measures which would reduce school impacts to a level of non-significance, and by failing to adopt an adequate "Statement of Overriding Considerations" explaining why the County decided to approve the SWAP in the face of the significant unmitigated school impacts . f) The provisions in the SWAP which authorized development causing unmitigated adverse impacts . on the District ' s school facilities were inconsistent with other provisions in the County' s General Plan that mandated provision of adequate public improvements and facilities, including schools, in conjunction with new development . The District therefore stated a valid claim that the County ' s General Plan was internally inconsistent 'and invalid under Government Code Section 65300 . 5 . The County filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to consider the Murrieta case . The Supreme Court rejected the petition, and the case was remanded back to Community Systems Associates.Inc. `= Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 22 the Superior Court, now pending action. The Court decision as certified for publication is a precedent that applies State-wide and is binding on all trial courts in California. The Court of Appeal ' s decision in the Murrieta case is an important logical extension of the previous rulings in Mira and Hart . For The first time since Government Code Section 65995-65996 were adopted in 1986, a court has ruled that a local land use agency not only has the authority to consider school impacts when considering legislative land use decisions, it has the duty to do so . The District acknowledges that the City does not have the authority to deny non-legislative applications on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities; however, the City has the obligation to review and evaluate legislative applications, and may deny such application on the grounds of inadequate school facilities . We would request and recommend that the environmental documentation . provide an identification of all environmental impacts, both individually and cumulatively, identify mitigation measures, and set forth appropriate alternatives . Further, that the appropriate mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code be incorporated into the conditions of approval of any subsequent developments . It is the District' s conclusion that the actions of the Planning Commission, and the recent approval by the Planning Commission, will result in financial, operation and administrative impacts on the District . These impacts on the District are further set forth herein. In addition, any and all previous oral and written testimony or documentation submitted to the City on this application is incorporated herein by reference to support the District ' s contentions . Pursuant to Section 9884, we hereby request that this appeal be heard by the City Council within 30 days of receipt of this letter and the enclosed fee of $200 . 00, by the City Clerk. Commumty Systems Associates.tnc`--= Ms . Connie Brockway February 26, 1992 Page 23 If you desire additional information or seek additional substan- tiation of the District ' s appeal, please feel free to contact our office . Sincerely, COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. Qjz- C John C . Hutt Associate zc90-16 .hbc cc : Dr . Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr . Jerry Buchanan Assisstant Superintendent, Business Services Huntington Beach City School District Mr . Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator City of Huntington Beach Mr . Mike Adams, Director of Community Development City of Huntington Beach Mr . Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach Huntington Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-16 Tentative Tract No. 14296 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.31 Grade Students Total Total Urmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 10 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 25,000 K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 S20,657 Student Generation Total 2.6950 $66,019 S24,095 S41,924 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.0840 S45,362 7-8 — 0.6110 S20,657 Total 0.2695 Total 2.6950 $66,019 S25,163 S40,857 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 S9,684 $12,083 S21,767 7-8 S13,582 S20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current S0.9638 Increased $1.0065 CsiI II= A= 4 nu 1f— Community Systems Associates, Inc. —MM YEARS, OF * March 23, 1992 Mr. Robert Franklin Associate Planner CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street P.O. Box 190 C.M z Huntington Beach, California 92648 p o -+", -<npx r-, r SUBJECT:. Recession of Appeals to z ;KCV Holly - Seacliff Specific Plan Appeal of Planning Commission Decisions: N a) Acceptance as Adequate the Addendum to Final Environmentsl Impact Report No. 89-1 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1450; I b) Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 91-2 by adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. 1451; and c) Approval of Zone Change No. 90-10 and Code Amendment No. 90-10 Dear Mr. Franklin: On March 8, 1992, on behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District ("District), we filed an appeal with the City Council of the Planning Commission's decisions of October 29, 1991, on the above stated applications. Pursuant to the Districts position, the District stated at the City Council meeting of February 10, 1992, that the District would rescind its appeal if a condition was incorporated into the Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan that required a School Facilities Impact Mitigation and Reinbursement Agreement as a condition of approval for any subdivision, tentative tract, or parcel map within the Specific Plan area. We note that the City Council did on March 16, 1992, approve the Specific Plan language that addresses the District's request, and that the following language was incorporated into the Specific Plan: 730 EL CAMINO WAY SUITE 200 • TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 - (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 Community Systems Asson�tes.Inc. "M V, "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 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 School District." We further note that on April 6, 1992, the City Council intends to adopt Ordinance No. 3128. As such, upon adoption of Ordinance No. 3128, the District will hereby, rescind its previously applied appeal on said above applications, consistent with the Districts public hearing testimony before the City Council. If you have any questions or wish additional information, please do not hesitate to contact our office. Sincerely, C MMUNITY MS ASSOCIATES, INC. *shall B. rnt MBK/yt CC: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Jerry Buchanan, Assistant Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Mike Adams, Community Development Director City of Huntington Beach Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach C:\CSA1hbc I.Itr Cf1MMUHITY SYSTEMS ASSOC., INC. DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THE ATTACHED CHECK 16 IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCRIBED BELOW. IF NOT CORRECT PLEA6E NOTIFY US PROMPTLY. NO RECEIPT DESIRED. DELUXE FORM WVC-3 V-2 DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 03/92 On behalf of the Huntington Beach City SD *600.00* Appeal of Planning Commission decisions re: 1 . Tentative Tract 14318 2. Tentative Tract 14320 3. Tentative Tract 14321 *4. Tentative Tract 14326 *NOTE: Appeal of Tentative Tract 14326 was V-2 filed February 7, 1992, check number 5116. L DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOC.. INC. THE ATTACHED CHECK 18 IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCRIBED BELOW- IF NOT CORRECT PLEA6E NOTIFY US PROMPTLY. NO RECEIPT DESIRED. DELUXE FORM WVC-3 V-2 DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT 03/92 On behalf of the Huntington Beach City SD *11200. 00 Appeal of Planning Commission decisions re:' 1 . - Zone Change 90-9 -4. Zone Change 90-12 2. Zone Change 90-11 5. Zone Change 90-13 3. Zone Change 90-15 6. Zone Change 90-B %t2 CASH RECEIPT /i CIT-Y of huNTiNc,ToN beAch P.O.fe Box 711 gay HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92648 HlRMP1GTON TEACH CITY TREASURER—DONALD l WATSON DATE � ISSUING DEPT. RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS /�F /413� :AMOUNT RECEIVED' .0 CASH z [].C�ECK RECEIVED BY • / 2 2 1/ ZVIC"�REVEMJE---X, VTR I 7,FUND - - ACCOUNT T' ;DEFT. ': >DIY.:r; _ A�AO(lNi• ^d�� 616 FINANCE APPROVAL wITIAL TOTAL $ 1 (ICJ c }T� AMOUNT RECEIVED Fs �tl J 3060i6 26(lir92 3b(:V•t G AA7V i I)OCK 140 IrASH 635092 ISSUING DEPARTMENT CASH RECEIPT r ,, CITY OF hUNTINCzTON t3EACh P.O.BOX 711 VHUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 9264E (714)536-5200 HUNTINGTON!EACH CITY TREASURER—DONALD L WATSON DATE A72- ISSUING DEPT. RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS ' > ) �`. FOa �i�-�_ ZC 9U - 9� ZL° 9l�-//, •ZC 9��-�� COUNT REC�VED CASHt '� CHECK g RECEIVED 8Y REVE7rUEx eTRn -.FUND 4%/1CCOUNL. -EIEPL.•q �:E„V ra L7:7►*4M/OUNF:r�«-�•-xc Sums FINANCE APPROVAL WITIAL TOTAL $ IC.,D• -- �l: AMOUNT RECEIVED -jvS0,t zd:(l x ?2: "I•Iv 9ttO0.4:G �AA7410)0.14+; CAB 635091 ISSUING DEPARTME '1 o - __AGENDA r : HUNTINGTON BEACH 00 PLANNING COMMISSION 'A� \�(4 TLJE SDAY JANUARY 28, 1922 STUDY SESSION - 5:39 PM (STUDY SESSION ITEMS/SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS/AGENDA REVIEW) DIVISION 9 REWRITE gEGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM Council Chambers - Civic Center Huntington Beach, California PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - (4 MINUTES PER PERSON, NO DONATING Or TIME TO OTHERS) Anyone wishing to speak must fill out and submit a form to speak prior to Oral Communication or Public Hearing items. No action can be taken by the Planning Commission on this date, unless agendized. B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS - PROCEDURE: Staff Report, Commission Discussion, Public Hearing, Action B-1 ZONE:jjj,� NO 90-9/TENTATIVE TRAC:C NO, 14042/CONDITIONAL FXCF-PJJON (VARIANCE) NO. 90-38: - Applicant: Pacific Coast ��J�• Homes -Change existing zoning from R4-01 to R1; Subdivide a ii 2.46 acre parcel into nine (9) lots; and reduce two (2) lot frontages from required 45 feet to 20 feet and 30 feet. LOCATION: South side of Evening Hill Drive approximately 800 feet west of Surfdale Drive. B-2 '-_:i_6 E CHANG_E�`NO,;§0-11/TENTATIVE TRACT NO,_14043/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-39: - Applicant: Pacific Coast n Homes - Change existing zoning from R4-01 and ROS to R1; Subdivide a 1.86 acre parcel into nine (9) lots; and reduce four (4) lot frontages from required 45 feet to 20 feet, 27 feet and 30 feet. LOCATION: west side of Goldenwest Street approximately 250 feet south of Little Harbor Lane. • f. f AGENDA (Continued) B-3 j9-1,5/TENTATIVE TB,CT NO, 14044ZCQNDITIONAL EXCEPTION [VARIANCE{,) NO, 90-37: - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes - Change existing zoning from OP-01-CD to Rl; Subdivide a 2.26 acre parcel into eleven (11) lots; and reduce two (2) lot frontages from required 45 feet to 20 feet and 25 feet. LOCATION: South side of Garden Circle approximately 150 feet east of Surfdale Drive. B-4 ZONE CHANGE- NO. Q�1.2/Z�LTATIVF Tg� T tto. 144a's/CQNDITIONAL EXCEP11ON (VARIANCE) NOL 90-40: - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes - Change existing zoning from R2-PD-01-CZ to RZ-CZ; Subdivide a 1.51 acre parcel into eight (8) lots; and Reduce 6 lot frontages from required 45 feet to 20 feet, 30 feet, 35 feet and 40 feet . LQCATION: North side of Palm Avenue approximately 150 feet east of Cherryhill Drive B-5 ZONEA GE NO. 90=13ITENT,ATzVE TRACT NO, 14244/CONDITIONAL r EXCEQTIQN (VAEIA*CE� NO, 40-41: - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes -Change existing zoning from R4-01 and ROS-0 to Rl; Subdivide a 2.89 acre parcel into 13 lots and exceed the maximum 550 front cul-de-sac. LOCKION: Terminus of Island Bay Lane B-6 Z I F TRACT NO. 296/COPID ONAL pplic t: Pacific C ast ome - C a ge a is in z ninje � o R4- 1, ROS and 2- 1 to � ,,Ro ; u di i e a .3 acr p ri to ots; nd red ce f ur ( ) lot fr nta es f om rt d 4 f et o 2 fee 25 f et, 5 fee d an 3 fe tNo t side o Law n r ve a ox' ately 0 fe west of vening ill Dr' B-7 TEENIATIVE TRACT NO 143 8/COND IO AL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 90-46 : - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes - Subdivide a A�p2. 19 acre parcel into 10 lots 'and reduce four (4) lot frontages from the required 45 feet to 20 feet, 25 feet and 30 feet. L ATION: South side of Loma Avenue approximately 500 feet west of 14th Street. B-8 ,. Q� ° CIiA E NOx'k 9 84T£NTATrVE TRACT NO 14319 : - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes - Change existing zoning from C1-01 to R1 and subdivide a 1.58 acre parcel into six (6) lots . LOCATION: Northwest corner of Palm Avenue and 17th Street PC Agenda - 1/28/92 (2096d) • .. Pic° . ��'J --- -• � r !. r AGENDA (Continued) �w B-9� TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 14320: - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes n Subdivide a 1.99 acre parcel into eight (a) lots. LOCATION: Southwest corner of 17th Street and Adams Avenue. B-10 TENTATIVE TRACT NO 14321/CONDITIONAL• EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO, 91-38: - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes Subdivide a 1.57 acre parcel into seven (7) lots and exceed maximum 550 foot cul-de-sac length. LOCATION: Approximately 1,000 feet west of the 17th Street and Adams Avenue intersection. B-11 TENTATIVE TRACT N0, 14326/CONDI7,IONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANC`) N0. 90-43 : - Applicant: Pacific Coast Horses Subdivide a 4 .56 acre parcel into 21 lots -and reduce four (4) lot frontages from required 45 feet to 20 feet and 30 feet. LOCATION: Northeast corner of Palm Avenu and Goldenwest Street B-12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO, 90-7/ZONE CHANGE NO. 90-14/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO, 14277/CODE AMENDMENT NO, 91-7/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 91 46/CONDITIONAL EXCEPTION (VARIANCE) NO. 91-36: - Applicant: Pacific Coast Homes D M: To redesignate 2 .30 acres from Open Space Recreation to lr Planned Community. Z_C: To rezone 1.96 acres from R4-01 (High Density Residential-Oil Production) to Seacliff Specific Plan; 0.39 acres from ROS-0 (Recreation Open Space-oil Production) to Seacliff Specific Plan; and 0.94 acres from Seacliff Specific Plan to ROS-0 (Recreation Open Space-Oil Production) TTM/CUP: To subdivide 2.30 acres into 11 lots. CA: To amend Section 9300(d) Seacliff Soec�jf_ic Plan of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code to incorporate the subject property into the Seacliff Specific Plan. U: To allow a variance to exceed maximum cul-de-sac length by 250 feet (800 feet in lieu of maximum 550 feet) . LOCATION: Approximately 100 feet south of the intersection of Doral Drive and Morningside Drive, adjacent to the Seacliff Golf Course . C. CONSENT C.At _NDAR D. NOS-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS E. DISCUSSION ITEMS PC Agenda - 1/28/92+ (2096d) t 1B CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH rn G m z TO: Connie Brockway �rn City Clerk y;�mm FROM: Mike Adams, Director Community Development r SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE ISLAND TENTATIVE TRACTS N DATE: February 13, 1992 Based on a review of the appeal letter dated February 7, 1992, be advised that there is no need for an appeal for the eight (8) zone changes since they will automatically go to City Council . If the appellant chooses to appeal all of the separate tentative tracts, an appeal fee for each tentative tract is required. Also, public hearing mailing labels must accompany the appeals to Tentative Tracts 14318, 14320, 14321 and 14326. MA: lp (2334d) CASH RECEIPT t t+` [COE CITY OF huNriNC;ToN MAch / P.O.BOX 711 HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92648 I (714)5383200 i HUNTINCTON BEACH CITY TREASURER-DONALD L.WATSON ! DATE ISSUING DEPT. RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS f - I 1ti o� to FOR Z _ - i O AMOUNT REC6VED ❑ CASH CHECK S OL oe a, RECEIVED BY REVENUE TR FUND ACCOUNT ' DEPT. ^-DIV AMOUNT z c d l>l�- O Lu J Q EXPENSE L FINANCE APPROVAL N W INMAL TOTAL $ AMOUNT RECEIVED o 0 Y Q O LL 624170 6 2 4 17 O CUSTOMER COPY COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. S 116 730 EL CAMINO WAY, STE. 200 714-838-9900 COMMUNITY BANK TUSTIN. CA 92680 - IM SOUTH STATE COLLEGE 8LVD. ANAHEIK CA MW 16-347= Feb 7 19_92 1 •.' PAY **200*DOLLARS*AND*00*CENTS** DOLLARS $ *200:00* r _ To City Clerk THE ORDER City of Huntington beach - OF 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 11600SLL611' : L22203470: 07 2026220 COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOC., INC. DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THE ATT.c"EO CHECK IS IN PAYMENT OF ITEMS DESCRIBED BELOW. IF NOT CORRECT PLEASE NOTIFY US PROMP'LY. NO RECEIPT DESIRED. DELUXE FORM WVC3 V-2 DATE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT J 02/92 On behalf of the Huntington beach City School District *200.00* Appeal of Planning Commission decisions, Jan 28, 1992 - Acceptance & Approval of: ZC 90-9/TT 14042/CE 90-38, ZC 90-11/TT 14043/CE 90-39, " ZC 90-15/TT 14044/CE 90-37, ZC 90-12/TT 14243/CE 90-40 ZC 90-13/TT 14244/CE 90-41 , ZC 90-16/ TT 14296/CE 90-37 TT 143IB/[ ZC 90-8/TT 14319, TT 14320, TT 14321/CE 90-38, TT 14326 CE 90-4: ,* - GPA 90-7/ZC 90-14/TTM 14277/Code Amend 91-7/CUR 91-46/C 90-3 and all accompanying Negative Declarations ws '�• r I � 2 a (!=r. [I= I■ 117�� =ICI€"t i I Community Systems Associates, Inc. �r— i !fit®' February 7, 1992 1 VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND HAND DELIVERED I I Ms. Connie Brockway, City Clerk CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 RE: Appeal of Planning Commission Decisions of January 28, 1992 Acceptance and Approval of: a) Zone Change No. 90-9/Tentative Tract No. 14042/ I Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-38 ; b) Zone Change No. 90-11/Tentative Tract No.14043/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-39; c) Zone Change No. 90-15/Tentative Tract No. 14044/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37; d) Zone Change No. 90-12/Tentative Tract No. 14243/ - Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-40; c e) Zone Change No. 90-13/Tentative Tract No. 14244/ Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-41; -'' Cl) C1 f) Zone Change No. 90-16/Tentative Tract No. 14296/ rn Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-37 ; c) -rn g) Tentative Tract No. 14318/Conditional Exception To (Variance) No. 90-46; —�-"- h) Zone Change No. 90-8/Tentative Tract No. 14319; �o i) Tentative Tract No. 14320; ^� j ) Tentative Tract No. 14321/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-38; I k) Tentative Tract No. 14326/Conditional Exception I (Variance) No. 90-43 ; 1) General Plan Amendment No. 90-7/Zone Change No. 90-14/Tentative Tract Map No. 14277/Code Amendment No. 91-7/Conditional Use Permit No. 91-46/Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 90-3 ; & All Accompanying Negative Declarations Huntington Beach City School District G Dear Ms. Brockway: On behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District ("District") , our firm has been authorized to file an appeal to the January 28, 1992 decisions of the Planning Commission relat- ing to the above-stated applications ("Applications") and actions. 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 • TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 • (714)838-9900 • FAX(714)838-9998 Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 2 The District is in receipt of the Agenda dated January 28, 1992, on each of these actions. We note that the Planning Commission's actions were "approved", and that the Notices of Action state: "In your case, the last day for filing an appeal and paying the filing fee is not applicable. " (emphasis added) We note also that Section 9880 of the Municipal Code of the City of Huntington Beach provides an appeal procedure on "any deci- sion, determination or requirement of the Planning Commission". Section 9880 states: 119880 Appeal by Applicant or Interested Parties. Appeal may be made to the City Council from any decision, determination or requirements of the Planning Commission by filing notice thereof in writing with the City Clerk within ten (10) days after such decision or determination or requirement is made. Such notice shall set forth in detail the action and grounds by and upon which the applicant or interested party deem himself aggrieved. " There appears to be a contradiction between the date of appeal as set forth in the Notice of Action, and the provisions of Section 9880. In order to preserve any and all of the District's remedies, and so as to ensure that the District has taken all administrative steps to protect its interests, this appeal to the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is hereby filed in accordance with Section 9880 of the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, on the above-stated Applications. The District contends that the Planning Commission's actions, and the Applications, failed to address the issues raised by the District, as follows: 1) The City has failed to comply with the administrative procedures and requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines; 2) The Applications are not in compliance with the Huntington Beach General Plan adopted December, 1976 and amended through July, 1990; 3) The use of Negative Declarations on these Applications is inadequate in that the Applications will result in specific project, and cumulative, impacts on the school district which is unmitigated; and Cammuniiy S;atems Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 3 4) The District was inadequately noticed of the preparation of the Negative Declaration, and the conduction of a public hearing of the Planning Commission on January 27, 1992. The detailed discussion to support the District's contentions are set forth herein. It is the District's conclusion that the Applications as proposed, and the findings of the Staff Report do not comply with the applicable provisions of CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, and the applicable provisions of the Government Code. A) Notice of Negative Declaration and Public Hearing On May 17, 1991 we sent a letter to Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator, with a copy to you requesting notice of all development activities within the District be transmitted to both the Huntington Beach City School District and Community Systems Associates, Inc. Neither the District nor CSA, Inc. have been regularly receiving notices of development projects within the District. As noted by the record of the public hearing, the District did not participate in the public hearings due to the fact that it had not been apprised of the scheduling of the public hearings or prior activities relating to the preparation and consideration of Negative Declarations. It is the District's conclusion that the City failed to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act, and as such we raise concern with the Planning Commission's approvals. Section 15073 of the CEQA Guidelines states: " (a) The Lead Agency shall provide a public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration. The noticed public review period shall be long enough to provide members of the public with sufficient time to respond to the proposed finding before the Negative Declaration is approved. (b) A copy of the notice with the proposed Negative Declaration shall be sent to every Responsible Agency and Trustee Agency concerned with the project and ever other public agency with jurisdiction by law over resources affected by the project. (emphasis added) COmmunih/SYMMS ASSOC131:5,111C. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 4 (c) Where one or more state agencies will be a Responsible Agency or a Trustee Agency or will exercise jurisdiction by law over natural resources affected by the project, the Lead Agency shall send copies of the Negative Declaration to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to the state agencies. (d) When a Negative Declaration is submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by state agencies, the public review period is approved by the State Clearinghouse. " Although the City gave notice and sent copies of the Negative Declarations to the State Clearinghouse, no notices ; and no negative declarations were sent to the Huntington ; Beach City School District, which is a public agency with jurisdiction by law over the K-8 educational facilities and resources within the City of Huntington beach, and which resources are affected by the development of the subject properties. The "discussion" under Section 15073 states, in part: "The court decision in Plaggmier v. City of San Jose, cites in the note, underscored the critical role of public review of a Negative Declaration. The opinion noted the lack of a clear requirement in the Guidelines addressing this point, but found that the requirement for public review was clearly implied by the Act. This section is necessary to fill the gap noted in Plaggmier and to provide a clear declaration of the requirement for public review. " By not providing the District with adequate notices and copies of the Negative Declarations, this action of the City precluded the District from being able to raise its concerns and objections relative to the finding that the projects would not create a significant environmental impact on the District. Section 15074 of the CEQA Guidelines states, in part: ' n ' (b) Prior to approving the project, the decision- making body of the Lead Agency shall consider the proposed Negative Declaration together with any comments received during the public review process. The decision-making body shall approve Community Systems lasociafoa,1I Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 5 the Negative Declaration decision-making if it finds on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. " (emphasis added) Section 15002 (j) states: " (j) Public Involvement. Under CEQA, an agency must solicit and respond to comments from the public and other agencies concerned with the project. (See: Sections 15073, 15086, 15087 and 15088) . " (emphasis added) Although required under CEQA, the City did not solicit comments from the District, and as such the public review process was incomplete. Section 15200 of the CEQA Guidelines states: ' I "The purpose of review of EIR's and Negative Declarations includes: (a) Sharing expertise; ` (b) Disclosing agency analyses; (c) Checking for accuracy; (d) Detecting omissions; (e) Discovering public concerns; and (f) Soliciting counter proposals. " Further, Section 15207 of the CEQA Guidelines states: "If any public agency or person who is consulted with regard to an EIR or Negative Declaration fails to comment within a reasonable time as specified by the Lead Agency, it shall be assumed, without a request for a specific extension of time, that such agency or person has no comment to make. Although the Lead Agency may choose to respond to them. " (emphasis added) ' i The fact of the matter is that the City did not provide a notice according to CEQA, and the District was not consulted on these issues. The purpose of review appears to have been avoided and has placed the District in a difficult position of having to not pursue its further administrative remedies. Community Systems associates. Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 6 B) Non-Compliance with Huntington Beach General Plan Development in the City of Huntington Beach is required to comply with the Huntington Beach General Plan. The Huntington Beach General Plan states: "A General Plan has five basic uses for a community like Huntington Beach: 1. Policy Determination - permits the evaluation of a definite set of policies to govern future development of the City, and a general design for the City. 2. Policy Effectuation - provides for the evaluation of specific projects in terms of a definite framework for long-range development of the City. 3. Communication - permits the communication of the City's long-range policies to the business community and the public; encourages constructive debate and stimulates political action. 4 . Conveyance of Advice - allows the City Planning Commission and other advisory boards to make recommendations to the City Council concerning development of the City in a coherent, unified form. 5. Education - facilitates the education of government officials and the community regarding the problems and opportunities of Huntington Beach (physical, economic, environmental, and social) . " The Land Use Element of the General Plan sets forth the following goals and policies, in part: " . . . . 3 .4.2.5 Housing To provide and maintain a quality living environment so that members of all economic, social, and ethnic groups may reside in Huntington Beach, by: 1. Providing a variety of housing types in all areas of the City. 2. Providing an adequate level of community services, facilities, improvements, and maintenance in all areas of the City." (emphasis added) ' CE( JI _ - Community Systems ASSUnares.Inc • Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 19 The following sets forth the closed or alternatively used District schools, estimated acreage, and capacity: School Acreage Capacity LeBard School 10.8Q) 540 20451 Craimer Lane Huntington Beach (Currently District Office) Burke School 7.9(+) 690 9700 Levee Drive Huntington Beach (Leased to Private High School and Child Care Agency) Peterson School 9.6Q) 690 20661 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Coast Community College) Clapp School 5.8Q) 270 20581 Farnsworth Lane Huntington Beach (Leased to Orange County Department of Education) Gisler School (Closed) 16.3(±) 960 21141 Strathmoor Lane Huntington Beach I 6) Statewide School Financing crisis The City should note the condition of school capital facility financing in the State. There .have been substantial changes in the resources available to school districts to finance capital facility requirements, and that information relative to the District's and State's capability to finance costs in excess of the present $1.58 per square foot of residential and $0.26 per square foot of non- residential, is of substantial importance to the successful implementation of mitigation of impacts. The State Legislature's adoption of AB 2926, the enabling legislation which established the authorization to impose - developer fees pursuant to Section 65995 of the Government- Code, was adopted at a time when the _ Leroy F. Green State School Building Lease-Purchase Law had adequate funding to enable the State to meet its obligation to fund 50% of the cost of school construction. The amount of the imposed development fees assumed this State participation, which together would have adequately funded the mitigation required to accommodate the impact of development. The State's inability to meet its Community Systems Associates.Inc Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 20 obligation to fund the State School Building Fund, and the failure of Statewide school construction bond issues to pass, has resulted in an impacted school district not having adequate funds to mitigate impact. Even accounting for the recent increases, development fees only address, at a maximum (depending on land costs) , 50% of the actual cost of impact mitigation. Further, there is an agreement between the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City School District which provides a sharing of collected development fees. The Huntington Beach City School District receives only 61% of development fees paid. 7) Legal Issues Concerning school Facilities The City should be apprised of various legal decisions _since the adoption of AB 2926, the development fee legislation. On January 25, 1991, Division Three of the Second District Court of Appeals issued its decision in William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles, 91 Daily Journal DAR 1147 (2nd Dist. January 25, 1991) (hereinafter, "Hart") . The Court of Appeals in Hart considered and decided a number of the same issues that . can be raised with regard to the applications. In particular, the Hart Court held: a) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App. 3d 1201, was correctly decided. Government Code Section 65996 does not apply to legislative land use decisions, and a local agency retains the authority to deny a general plan or a zone change on the basis of the inadequacy of school facilities. (Id. at 1148- 1150) . b) The Mira holding actually is "bolstered" by Stats. 1989, c. 1209. (Id. at 1149) . As noted by the Court (Id. at n.11) , the Legislature expressly stated in Section 34 of that statute that the slight change to the definition of "development project" in Government Code Section 65996 was "declaratory of existing law". The Court further pointed out that the Legislature was presumed to have knowledge of Mira and to have �aiSb:ll�i=�f.a=461 Community Systems Assocates./or. -M=i Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 21 amended the statute with Mira in mind. (Id. ) c) Government Code Section 65995(e) pre-empts only "the requirements for school facilities finance that a local agency will impose on a development project" , not the legislation of land use policies such as the zoning ordinances at issue in that case and in Mira. (Id. at 1150) . d) The County's mistaken reliance upon "erroneous legal advice" that it had no authority to consider school impacts when acting on zone changes was an abuse of discretion. (Id. at 1150) . e) The school district had the right to challenge zoning changes approved without consideration of school impacts on the ground that they were inconsistent with the County's adopted general plan provisions requiring adequate public facilities. (Id. at 1150) . f) The trial court should not have sustained the County's demurrer to the school district's petition without leave to amend since there was a reasonable possibility that the District could amend the complaint to add allegations regarding the Mira decision's impact on the County's decision to grant the rezoning application. (Id. at 1148, 1150) . On March 26, 1991, Division Two of the Fourth District Court of Appeals issued its decision in Murrieta Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, 91 Daily Journal DAR 3648 (Fourth District, April 2, 1991) (hereinafter "Murrieta") . The Court of Appeals in Murrieta considered and decided a number of issues. In particular, the Murrieta case held: a) The County's authority . to specify land use and development mitigation measures to address school impacts in connection with an amendment of its General Plan is not pre- empted by Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996. The County had argued that those statutes, which place a limit on the amount of school fees that can be imposed upon "development projects", prohibit the County Communily5yslems Associates.Inc '"St ' Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 22 from considering school impacts when making land use decisions and prohibit the County from requiring mitigation of those impacts. The Court of Appeal ruled that while Government Code Sections 65995 and 65996 pre- empt the field of school facilities financing, they do not pre-empt the County's authority to mitigate school impacts through non-financial means such as denial of densities, and timing and phasing controls designed to assure that school facilities are provided- in conjunction with new development. b) Government Code Sections 65995-65996 apply only to "development projects" which the courts have historically classified as non- legislative in character, such as tentative tract maps, conditional use permits, and variances. Those sections do not apply to legislative land use decisions such as general plan amendments, zone changes, and specific plans. c) Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego (1988) 205 Cal.App. 3d 1201, and the more recent decision in William S. Hart Union High School District V. Regional Planning Commission of the County of Los Angeles (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, were correctly decided. Both Mira and William S. Hart Union High School District also held that Government Code Sections 65995-65996 do not prohibit a local agency from taking school impacts into account in making legislative land use decisions. d) Legislative amendments to Government Code Sections 65995-65996 adopted in 1989 were declaratory of existing law and were not intended to abrogate the holding in Mira. e) Since the County was not pre-empted from considering school impacts in conjunction with its approval of the Southwest Area Community Plan ("SWAP") , the District stated a valid cause of action under CEQA by alleging that the County breached its mandatory duty to prepare an adequate Environmental Impact Report fully disclosing Lj Community Systems AC:Essociates, amp, Ms.Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 23 all school impacts, by failing to adopt feasible mitigation measures which would reduce school impacts to a level of non- significance, and by failing to adopt an adequate "Statement of Overriding Considerations" explaining why the County decided to approve the SWAP in the face of the significant unmitigated school impacts. f) The provisions in the SWAP which authorized development causing unmitigated adverse impacts on the District's school facilities were inconsistent with other provisions in the County's General Plan that mandated provision of adequate public improvements and facilities, including schools, in conjunction with new development.. The District therefore stated a valid claim that the County's General Plan was internally inconsistent and invalid under Government Code Section _ 65300. 5. The County filed a petition with the California Supreme Court to consider the Murrieta case. The Supreme Court rejected the petition, and the case was remanded back to the Superior Court, now pending action. The Court's decision as certified for publication is a precedent that applies State-wide and - is binding on all trial courts in California. The Court of Appeal 's decision in the Murrieta case is an important logical extension of the previous rulings in Mira and Hart. For The first time since Government Code Section 65995-65996 were adopted in 1986, a court has ruled that a local land use agency not only has the authority to consider school impacts when considering legislative land use decisions, - it has the duty to do so. The -District acknowledges that the City does not have the authority to deny non-legislative applications on the basis of the adequacy of school facilities; . however the City has the obligation to review and evaluate legislative applications, and may deny such application on the grounds of inadequate school facilities. i C5 Community Systems Associates.Inc. - �MW Ms. Connie Brockway February 7, 1992 Page 24 We would request and recommend that the environmental .documentation provide an identification of all environmental impacts, both individually and cumulatively, identify mitigation measures, and set forth appropriate alternatives. Further, that the appropriate mitigation measures set forth in Section 65996 of the Government Code be incorporated into the conditions of approval of any subsequent developments. It is the District's conclusion that the actions of the Planning Commission, and the recent approvals of the Planning Commission, will result in financial, operation and administrative impacts on the District. These impacts on the District are further set forth herein. In addition, all previous oral and written testimony and documentation submitted to the City on these Applications are incorporated herein by reference and supports the District's contentions. Pursuant to Section 9884, we hereby request that this appeal be heard by the City Council within 30 days of receipt of this let- ter and the enclosed fee of $200. 00, by the City Clerk. If you desire additional information or seek additional substan- tiation of the District's appeal, please feel free to contact our office. Sincerely, CO UNITY SYSTEMS ASSOCIATES, INC. M all pp P sident appeal cc: Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent Huntington Beach City School District Mr. Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator. City of Huntington Beach Mr. Mike Adams City of Huntington Beach Mr. Howard Zelefski, Planning Director City of Huntington Beach 'Huntington Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-9 ' Tentative Tract No. 14042 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.46 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 9 Sq. Ft, @ 2500/HU 22,500 K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Student Generation Total 2.4255 $59,417 $21,686 $37,732 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Total 0.2695 Total 2.4255 $59,417 $22,646 $36,771 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 I f Huntington Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-11 Tentative Tract No. 14043 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.86 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 9 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 22,500 K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Student Generation Total 2.4255 $59,417 $21,686 $37,732 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.8756 $40,826 7-8 0.5499 $18,591 Total 0.2695 Total 2.4255 $59,417 $22,646 $36,771 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-15 Tentative Tract No. 14044 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.26 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 11 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 27,500 K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Student Generation Total 2.9645 $72,621 $26,505 $46,117 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Total 0.2695 Total 2.9645 $72,621 $27,679 $44,942 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-12 Tentative Tract No. 14243 • Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.51 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 8 Sq. Ft. is 2500/HU 20,000 K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Student Generation Total 2.1560 $52,815 $19,276 $33,539 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Total 0.2695 Total 2.1560 $52,815 $20,130 $32,685 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-13 Tentative Tract No. 14244 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.89 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 13 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 32,500 K-6 2.7092 $58,971 7-8 0.7943 $26,854 Student Generation Total 3.5035 $85,825 $31,324 $54,501 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.7092 $58,971 7-8 0.7943 $26,854 Total 0.2695 Total 3.5035 $85,825 $32,711 $53,114 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington &sach City School District Zone Change No. 90-16 Tentative Tract No. 14296 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.31 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 10 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 25,000 K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Student Generation Total 2.6950 $66,019 $24,095 $41,924 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Total 0.2695 Total 2.6950 $66,019 $25,163 $40,857 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District ' Tentative Tract No. 14318 -� Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.19 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 10 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 25,000 K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Student Generation Total 2.6950 $66,019 $24,095 $41,924 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.0840 $45,362 7-8 0.6110 $20,657 Total 0.2695 Total 2.6950 $66,019 $25,163 $40,857 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District Zone Change No. 90-8 • Tentative Tract No. 14319 4 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.58 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 6 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 15,000 K-6 1.2504 $27,217 7-8 0.3666 $12,394 Student Generation Total 1.6170 $39,611 $14,457 $25,154 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.2504 $27,217 7-8 0.3666 $12,394 Total 0.2695 Total 1.6170 $39,611 $15,098 $24,514 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/Sgft Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Bnach City School District • Tentative Tract No. 14320 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.99 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 8 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 20,000 K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Student Generation Total 2.1560 $52,815 $19,276 $33,539 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.6672 $36,290 7-8 0.4888 $16,525 Total 0.2695 Total 2.1560 $52,815 $20,130 $32,685 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District Tentative Tract No. 14321 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 1.57 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 7 Sq. Ft. of 2500/HU 17,500 K-6 1.4588 $31,754 7-8 0.4277 $14,460 Student Generation Total 1.8865 $46,213 $16,867 $29,347 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 1.4588 $31,754 7-8 0.4277 $14,460 Total 0.2695 Total 1.8865 $46,213 $17,614 $28,600 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 I Huntington Beach City School District • Tentative Tract No. 14326 Development Impact Analysis Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 4.56 Grade Students Total Total unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 21 Sq. Ft. @ 2500/HU 52,500 K-6 4.3764 $95,261 7-8 1.2831 $43,379 Student Generation Total 5.6595 $138,640 $50,600 $88,041 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 4.3764 $95,261 7-8 1.2831 $43,379 Total 0.2695 Total 5.6595 $138,640 $52,841 $85,799 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District General Plan Amedment No. 90-7 Zone Change No. 90-8 Development Impact Analysis Tentative Tract No. 14319 Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Area (gross acres) 2.30 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Housing Units 11 Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 27,500 K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Student Generation Total 2.9645 $72,621 $26,505 $46,117 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 2.2924 $49,899 7-8 0.6721 $22,722 Total 0.2695 Total 2.9645 $72,621 $27,679 $44,942 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Beach City School District Total of Legislative Actions GPAs: 90-7 Development Impact Analysis ZCs: 90-8, 90-9, 90-11, 90-12, 90-13, 90-15, 90-16 Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Total Area (gross acres) 17.17 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Total Housing Units 77 Total Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 192,500 K-6 16.0468 $349,291 7-8 4.7047 $159,056 Student Generation Total 20.7515 $508,347 $185,532 $322,816 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 16.0468 $349,291 7-8 4.7047 $159,056 Total 0.2695 Total 20.7515 $508,347 $193,751 $314,596 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/Sgft Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 Huntington Bbach City School District Total of Non-Legislative Actions r Development Impact Analysis TTs: 14318, 14320, 14321, 14326 c Demographics Total Impact (at current fee rate) Total Area (gross acres) 10.31 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact Total Housing Units 46 Total Sq. Ft. a 2500/HU 115,000 K-6 9.5864 $208,667 7-8 2.8106 $95,021 Student Generation Total 12.3970 $303,688 $110,837 $192,851 Grade Residential Level (Student/HU) Total Impact (at increased fee rate) K-5 0.1779 Grade Students Total Total Unmitigated 6 0.0305 Level Generated Cost Revenue Impact 7-8 0.0611 Spec Ed inc. above K-6 9.5864 $208,667 7-8 2.8106 $95,021 Total 0.2695 Total 12.3970 $303,688 $115,748 $187,940 Cost Improvement Land Total Grade Cost per Cost per Cost per Level Student Student Student K-6 $9,684 $12,083 $21,767 7-8 $13,582 $20,226 $33,808 Revenue Development Fee Fee/SgFt Current $0.9638 Increased $1.0065 — - CERTIFIED U.S.P©STtaGE 5 252'' 844 � ob0 i( f, c• FE8—7192 ; MAIL -� M5522 0 � I I 1 ' 1 I 0 � ..... 1 Community NSystemsssociates,Inc. 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 • TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 I I Lis. Connie Brockw y Cl-TY OF A0'MNGi0' RACE 2000 Main Scc2et ifuntingcon Beach CA 92648 I III i t ,III, \ t t q II I I, Ij . I Community Systems Associates,Inc. F7 730 EL CAMINO WAY • SUITE 200 • TUSTIN,CALIFORNIA 92680 I I CITY Or i-iUNTINGTON BEACH MS . CONNIE BROCKWAY , CITY CLSAK I 2000 MAIN ST . HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA O2648 �I d I'. { I tim CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Lo-l" 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK June 18, 1992 Marshall B. Krupp Community Systems Association 730 El Camino Way, #200 Tustin, CA 92680 Dear Mr. Krupp: Enclosed is a refund check #194578 in the amount of $2,400. The appeal by Community Systems Associates, Inc. on behalf of the Huntington Beach City School District was withdrawn due to the approval of a final school mitigation impact agreement based on the concept developed in the Holly Seacliff Agreement. Also enclosed is check #5222 from Community Systems Associates, Inc. in the amount of $200. This check was received in our office April 17, 1992 but was never processed. If you have any questions, please contact me at 536-5227. Sincerely yours, Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk CB:me Enclosures 1 125 K (Telephone:71 a-536-5227) 00000h2 00, 00 '001' 2 <SIV101 I I' i 00600+1Z 0000 0000012 SIC 10OH3S 9H LZ1950 Z6-90-SO ,LNnCIA 1*13N 1NnoosiO 1Nnovi`d SSObo I 838vynN'O'd 31da 9V9Z6 VO 'HOV39 N0IEJN11NnH 06L XOB 'O'd HDV39 NOIDNIINNH JO AJID w COMMUNITY SYSTEMS ASSOC., INC- DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT THE ATTACHED CHECK I IN PAYMENT B ITEMS DESCRIBED ELOW, IF NOT CORRECT PLEASE S IN US PROMPTLY, NO RECEIPT DESIRED. DELUXE FORM WVC-3 V-2 \ DATE DESCRIPTION AMQUNT 04/92 On behalf of the Huntington beach City SD *2100. Ott* / Appeal of Planning Commission decision I Negative Declar ation 92-3 Pl 418i qg gopmi tptam Resolution 1468 GME 311V7 •H in;10HI1Nf1H J0 J,11;l uu10 A110 03AI3038 V-2 Acet.#R-AA—CK-140-7-02-00 >� REQ.NO. DEPARTMENT USE 1 I 10 4, 2, 7, 9, 21 1 1 I 1 I I LJ HL- I Q 1 6 7 Acc't No. 12 M M D D Y Y M M D D Y Y 25 78 80 13 18 19 24 �) Date Required M • HUNTINGtON BEA(H MATERIAL Requested by Office of the City Clerk Approval REQUISITION Approved by Contacted For additional information call Mae Phone PURCHASING x5227 Phone DATE 4/27/92 — #142336 VENDOR # P.O. E Community Systems Association H • N on behalf of A.B. School District D 730 E1 Camino Way #200 P R Tustin, CA 92680 T O F.O.B. Destination Delivery within Confirm Plus Frt. Prepay& Add: Terms: days QUANTITY UNIT DESCRIPTION Refund 0Jdr .Receipt Nos. 624170 — 2/7/92 — $200 635013 — 2/26/92 200 635091 — 3/26 92 —4,200 635092 — 3/26/92 600 635098 — 3/30/92 200 $2,400 $2,400 i TOTAL $ 2,400 REQ. NO. AMOUNT REQ. NO. AMOUNT REQ. NO. AMOUNT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DATA PROCESSING ;, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK April 17, 1992 This document delivered today by Marshall Krupp is received in the City Clerk's Office for the record however it will not be set for appeal before the City Council pursuant to the City Attorney's memorandum dated April 16, 1992. Connie Brockway, CMC City Clerk ,el 112 5 K (Telephone:714-536-5227) HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane P.O.Box 71 Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)964-8888 O BOARD OF TRUSTEES 70 _ April 23, 1992 `.. Brian Garland n President - 1 rn Shirley Carey L9 -'n m Clerk J� c3- G1) ran Robert Mann, Ed. D. F V A Member Ms. Connie Brockway City Clerk Gary Nelson, D D.S.Member City of Huntington Beach v 2000 Main Street Karen O'Bric Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Member Re: ADMINISTRATION 1. Zone Change No. 90-9 Tentative Tract No. 14042 Dane A. Dishno, Ed. D Conditional Exception Variance No. 90-38 Superintendent p (Variance) Alan Rasmussen, Ed- D. Assistant Superintendent 2. Zone Change No. 90-11 Personnel/Educational Tentative Tract No. 14043 Services Conditional Exception (Variance)No. 90-39 Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent Business Services 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. 90-46 Ms. Connie Brockway Page 2 8. Zone 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. 90-43 12. General Plan Amendment No. 90-7 Zone Change NO. 90-14 Tentative Tract No. 14277 Conditional Use Permit No. 91-46 Conditional Exception (Variance) No. 91-36 and all accompanying Negative Declarations. Dear Ms. Brockway: This letter is to inform you that the Huntington Beach City School District has approved a final school mitigation impact agreement,based on the concept developed in the Holly Seacliff Agreement. We withdraw the appeals filed by Community Systems Associates, Inc. on behalf of the District regarding the January 28, 1992 decisions of the Planning Commission related to the above stated applications and actions. Attached is a copy of the agreement. The District has also reached a final agreement on Surfcrest North,Tentative Tract No. 14135,Assessor's Parcel No. 23-181-14, in the event that it receives final approval. The District also requests a rebate of all funds paid to the City for the appeals. Sincerely, Jerry Buchanan Assistant Superintendent Business Services Attachment cc: Michael Uberuaga, City of Huntington Beach Michael Adams, City of Huntington Beach Howard Zelefsky, City of Huntington Beach Tom Zanic, Seacliff Partners Craig Rice, Seacliff Partners Dr. Duane Dishno, Superintendent,HBCSD HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT 20451 Craimer Lane, P.O.Box 7L 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. 2. School fees paid by Seacliff for these properties shall be increased 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 the 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 ' � C( �t;lt - ' President, B and of Education Clerk, Boa d of Educatior� 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 i EXHIBIT A Islands projects consist of- 1. 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.90-46 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 It. 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.91-46 Conditional Exception(Variance)No.91-36 and all accompanying Negative Declarations 13. Existing lots in the Seactiff 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 EXHIBIT B 1. Description of Surfcrest North,Tentative Tract No. 14135: 'Assessor's Parcel No. 23-181-14 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT Ms . Connie Brockway City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street O Huntington Beach, CA 92648 20451 CRAIMER LANK • P.O. BOX 71 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92"S