Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Robert L. Mayer - 1988-06-22 (3)
i Ski . `• �y�r if O ! ` ry'/' I .•+r �v + ,r. r t e�"�n ',lL.�; `l'! _ .,," � '!� r 9+' I�r�,„ bn' J o .;�, �tl1 r �i ; '1 1 ' , !r ,t'.+\• r ,�• 1 a/ '�.,ry,',;;4r r. d I N' �4 .� 1''1 i lC5 f ��A1 �. r �,�1^1.•.Y `�'� J T t +' Y� ��' i.. L..` � t .I'•,' y � / t�+,�'14,'�,{f'•� LI 1• 1' /S r t'' i r !. [[ ',, ,` 7.1 •,rl in Y,'.•,I, ,F. y�Pl.Asyr. 1•r rr'•'a 1 1 Y•! ''• f r 1 1 /, T�y:,�YLn JI•.'� y, 1i �s �'1 i r !'1 / S1' ;l "YF: lr. ►1 11$ YQ,. M ► , �+ i 1.' . 1. rr 1 + � � 7� ',iM •' 1 .r _' tJ J + r �• ,',C y,i ' �y',�.'�J � ��+�_ �'�.\fy{ 'y'. �'1} 1�{. .' r�'L 1 .y (r •' (• V . , �,' tlS+�l-Fi'' '•_�!,'� •i %�,,T•�•..'�'.�4,.�t�.�fia�1L�} rr�w` iir1.•//S 111!T'r''1 A'/, P i .i,f��j 1 ,1 i r•• �, , r-!��1�•iC,����I Y'•, 1 €^+`9�, x�, `.Yr\ JN f r.. �t�•'^. Ii 4 '... , tl ,r, .I , +a•�,•. f •L',, •,'Jtr T.� , - ,:, 7 Y' 4'. i a _ t✓ .r r a 1� 1., ���r^r;, tL� a\n L ` Ir'!/1( + •r. 1 r _ .S-' , t,.i..t i,="I r „ ~I'� � •�,. �i� ,..r�! „ F�,,, r ,�+;+�i�+tk":rr'�Lr, � •;,C,:,�r"i.�li�� t T�'y ,I ,�,. r,•� � ,� !1 t + L1, 1r/ i•1 'I . �'• T.,. I. rti. h 'l]• • r .VI, f` r, M '�a'r p� a,l' rr• .% Ir ', •�•r1 1�, , •,. 1 ,', ',Vl�rr/ r t .,Y•',Rr. {`S ��q 1 Fht�q},��� {��7+af' ,r17'fry �• 7{�. t 1 e!1 !t 1f it .r. W• - .fir • 1 1 ,'i.''�Y'' .+ ti4,L�'a�'a .J��If.+r;1'T •/, �,\f°RCM�'!I•I'r� r i•T'}a�y_ ,bV.rt�.^M'+M� + 'r R ,J'', L .11. „•_ v r t� :r,•�L � _' 11.4Ir '1 ,��.1 a ,•.rr�:'�+'>.* t a/Aadh �• ��Ti�:�'t't yf.�� a + ', 'Y-•'fi•J�'it• ,.'`1! � ��1 r� a i� r `y �'• r '4:r + ar•',,. t 'j;:, /.. � •, ' 1• /Di+ rkl,/, � '.� 'P ��;' -jJ - f °'1• 1 i r ii Y. i.� � �.\ ';r r 1 r , iv,' I „r�' yeti". + '.� ''Y :l� ,�,y� /♦' fhJ S. 1 it,:Y J +' i i 'r'• r\1 p ,L �1 Y r , 'f}•yJ '• 'i, is L ll,�`\ '••� r 1 y •�' \ r .a � ,.'� 1 S f c��''_ I d'•y,.a'y' C . , � „r 1' I i ' � .r. •+ 'r � �' t' !� 1�.i 1 i �-S`: Ir• { r rY, 1• yr �` 4 ' r+J , r r /d, J, �\1 J. ti ,,t♦S,+ti J.!t � �'' h .i r �Enl `a' � ' :a t• t.IrIN ,'A•" •'4 1 � , I rr r I.Yi 4 ,11 L•r. '\ +' �l +�1,'�:�'• }' lV '1�,'a1p�.rK ,} :!, J >t ' , r /�. �' r 'I'}I,�'J� ,,, r' r •r x • , r ,�� f:•ay}��.!{'J'{•�4.,,'. K �. t •S7 !. C Y r,✓,i•• '� .t'•,�'I.yR,•,�; ,{„ d'l 's L., '�.•, {' 'lf�• f„• f :} Gw. t n:•,� �'i :"/' A rC *,t r �' yr,•'r.l, *.14• yr•,i''•j�r r1���.r ,t,� /' a y •' 'Iy �• • 1,err i'•�i" 1., 1 A r _r. ,r 7 � ' r.-r, , r• � ati• � � r:• u •�• y .1 ;0'j;( T ti. r, 'ryM•, - {':�•r• r�, ••1. ''rR'',,L'h r r ti. + �,'.', J: 1 `` t 1 •0 :r �: �'r r1" 'Y,, �t• ;.✓"}`�}y.I ,' '_i a,. +1 + + n ,•,r •R, y ltS.�, +' 'r � r . 'Vr, r ':I'r, t�r{gyp i r 4 a ,. 7' ' ;r trr+lf Ir. nr R}Slf'4C�,•, �}'y:. , '+ ` r, ;,_ 4 r' y I r•d !:. 1 1 •.C w� �' r - ' ••'/4. •:a �r �� 'f y�•• i.., ..s��'•.'(•.� ` q , 1, ' 1 � ,� Mil.+, .;yffld°'• ':�{`J �,•,L.`Ar T'?,.,,,YIIti^' ,4i - r rr ♦ �� � +1�::� 1rti ,r ��'r � 1 r,. .+. l i� !•r::.�I,S:r K,+� 1 ! ��. � �' •'�y!'I.r � 'r 1 y � _` �. rr,a'1 V,.� , ,;4- rl•1'';*°1R'.,��,., •F1M1 Li •L,�.Fr L,+• ', f Y � l',l'17:• r"� 1�.� t rK,'�� + ��jr� �.3a r , r .•'1• j+ ,• 7nu,�1 .p3 1 r � i 4}� � A `:\ .' 1 .; SS,` . `�, r '.jy9•ti 1�r,Y\''•'ii +•f Jr�•;a,�i yit.'•;, tL i :, ,,;�I_�1 hr:.L�. +.i�F�� .'�,�, t -,4.` } I+•:r• �•I•T' t i:1''q�,y',L _ �i1i;;3 r. Y.h•:r') �'7,' �� ,� �Ar`'• '1' r' •�\ ¢ �LL.�f'ff .f,�•Fr _f+'Si ti!,•i} r'k •'�P� 'rr„LJ ! •r Ir ��•�r ra•1 ^ s ;�;�,♦ , I' ♦ ".♦�L M r,�'�yl�l l�S�I�� ,�Y �,{y c. ✓/.'+r•• ',n �r ,..If., � I,'. >.',. ,,�;'L:t 41 �3� 1 ll��i.l_ A�1./7'� a .�•�.,�1+ r , f. , ;�'� �/ fr ,•!, ' •l� f ��4 'A� rtla:!�,IiY I ti``1 �J�. i'!,'" •�.�rr��, •L� '1 �;�' t �,r 1 rr y 9 +r: Y• -a i f7 J,. r .:: ,i" ` +a+�, r�y 1 Y� a1''•r A• 1,�.f•+� ',1�,1 �"'•'� 1' 7 •�•• L „ Y: ,1 � � .� '.ai tl �:•a Y"�.,'taA 1, !�. {r I•MKv I. Yj. ik / 1 '' � y`t, (. ,• t .+ • ,+ ••. J1� t 1 . M1'\ t\ 4 L ' ,�, r+ '4 �r r r,�l j�•,'.'' r�• r/ .a�-•,fur.'.;.c �' � `•, ~ 1,' ' �, 7, ' 1 1',,M• �. d.l��i av rti' �~a1`.wr' r Ja..��••-/,i' � � j!',�}{ � `�' '`' ,,+r\, rr µ 1-V.,.!{'�" .( 1,f! �+���t��t ,� Y V i ,,J ,(+• 1 ' T t 11 '� > 1� � 1 F,'� •� 'f•J, h1.f♦ 11T /�• j��S!r •y of \� v T1.l;i1, +►a F:•r '' 1 S: ' �.,r' r �R+a^7dlj'1Jr���\#' iLA � ' 1�'J' .M,' � r J 1✓• ��A, . '' 4,,�' a 1 4` `a '.�>#iJ +;• 1 1Y�'r •. J h +-4 i/ � 1..,, JrS � " 1. , r r 7 „ i59 Li1\I,.T; r r 1wL4 ' u '$ i'' ,T,. �y t r r' :'•Y ,� yi fn, 'd*,.<, .^r' •r+ r yr 1:, 'i', 1 t y►,'�'`.,M +�( 4N y n } i'r r. iq •,; �4.y �t 1' Y\' `C '.;tIr 't r'r 3' as +�> , r 4�,..Yh a r 1} k1•'.r J.l't �1: 1�i,,}�••'r. ! • •,1• ,h r�.4"�" y� ,', + Ss'.''. ,l '"�, r •Sn a fi'� a r• � ti r .i r�13.'• G•V: [ !� u',I.Z., Ir 1 ! 4 1 (, •,� ,'F,r,+. r•Iq x,�,[/ �vy'` 'r.�.Y• a r'r�I f. \, 33\ '- J'rt.:4 •Q��i 1 r� I, I` ,+ a'•' 1.l 1 f. ,.a M•�I.. y �,, I I••••'"�� r J ..•,� � y �r .r'(�,'�..1 {\Lk'1•,4.r}S , ��,�•'�. q rl•,!♦ .�) �' �� ,fC�'+'�. fr '. 1>' >_ r.l(•S•�w. HF>.. � Y•r't�. Y' I +��1 '! J.• yY , .hl� / "i A� Tr ' �'- �- `'h. .}iAy r 1';•r,^ 'k,.!,r rrr, ,�•✓L '�CI` t •,(y�,e.�' 's, ,.. �. hJr a j 4. .I * I r Zr• �y�+r' - ,i•�} �M^rr' f y' r .'�z+ T, ` .l ,/k rr u a•i� 11. ,rft. r•Lfl•, Y,�YS,a �r 1'r'l ,1; •'I rl'} ' ! ty, +'r +r •ln1�t '''F`v ";•.ijl• Vr -' +H• !+ 7 L ti :I' S�'T, •` ♦ ffFFll 1r LL y�r 44,,r l' r`1 I C ,'."'t/y`L ,��1 r4i 'r ),`L ,a�•'� -+ a,� •t j •t • .r. ,'. !2, w � i'',r:\ LrKr fir' / '`!1 is 1 Y 1 l.rb l/,;.,� ^'.5:,17�+,' . r '��• +( ,1 �Y,k1� i r r'�r /` r �r ' •� " J} r 4:.rA •r• I V+..Ai ri'I ( fn,�,�ff TJ,''�.j� dW J, I M` r � ,4 i 1, ' 6 /-•,• + \ "f `J r•,'�; L•,1, to •!,°F.ICi`•,'" �:,' + +I is it+,14 /f.{r!•.r.7 �J AC7 t .��!•I�, �1�r�lj_ ���•}` rr•♦f�hA� r �A�1 + _,+�r 7 r,�,r -rw�.3 .�, rf I,V Y. \ 11� T , ,� 1'•�1•..' �'.: :1•„�+,��' ' . � a►+ 1+ �,r4 'f d � '4 I' . 2Z 1 �Ir+ ,1 ,. 4 r 1 Y`.1 .f�y jl r +l �• .i P. , , .,r " , .-r•'C. F 1 • .�' N �y OlF'� .� .•�a .,1. 7r L .a C� j.�,:'i � rl!'�. '�;��7,.,1 t J \ ''r 1 r , . 4 <1 .•►r ,. 1'. t •.'col ykt• (('G IFa;,, t•' „+, \ 'L 9r' pa r,,p dA'-,1`• q!!� V, ,f'r r ♦1;�. + \ ' •,•Ir ar�l,t \11 ' ; , 41,'4• , y�yiy-i' {/:LI, ',�r�,,d�+/ r '� il,a��, I y � •�� � •.`a!, 'L.k�,"#� {-j ^� ° , .', �rr �"�y J �) +♦ -� 1 ' w4t, ;+' ,-r•�f,h. �Lri'L. 1`S�+ 'htyjT,i a ,Y {./i, 'It''r 'I t'. �y 'F ,d'•` r, .+I ri J ,r, .'� 1 . '}' '+ fa:,' i+'' - l r, 'l i •,M41 .ury'�w a: •'i ���I.• �JS(,,I'}• kf�T,1�� 'C P •1 rir `...•- • ' `r 'Sa i .T 1 'r t '�' t( � ';,frp 1 7�• �J.;a•1 'M1'v i Jr ► 1 .;i (,� :� rt,J '/.S t A +� rlll' {' .YY' �% � �r fi '•♦ � r' x' :1, � t..r l�\! ,� y I. r_. , ' .�.., 7v/ '!'//G 1 � w+r1 1' �.,lw I � r f- • ,7l•, I, F'• 4j ilF S�Y.t�y' fi♦!i�'4 C� J. r � r�'r .�1 ,�A/. n rr, hr' ''',-•Y,r:i�.t' i n • .'•Ft w-^'1• �•,•�, is r •1•J. ( ! � �'J' 1 r,n. ♦�a�i t r'sA4�' '1+4 t1 r �'.. ,ur tr:._� � '. .,', / tr',: 1 r ) ( ++Nk'd 1 :�Y 1 I` I r- 7 1 ,�T o'V �. 7 + �+5 • _ J -' �.. , t a - n I r �(n t ' I � '1` b �A 1� 7 ^y.fJ 1 + r 1 K�I,� .D _ r, 7.YA ,I': • r ,•'.� •Sa'1F�w�iihl•� rtEi, r Ss.i 'L'i 1 l,_T t .,� 1 , 1, r S ! J is r: ( y�, rTJSjy�kr a + \ .ti�4}i•� 1,,,',�: aA Lc ;+• 1( .T. r, �, .'ti .n,��r,�f,,�.'• ' ,/r'/+ t � +,rA� rq r ,.1 ,- r , , r a + ,r t a� �, • S IL.��ux. h ,,�fp, •l�t fi 5�. 3' r „ r �1 r� J_.' J !, + ,,, f i, , -1� 1♦ �Cr}a � r... . ,� �, +Q`•, n,�l��.,J.yl -„ w'r' � \✓�1i rau nrl ♦. �. ;,'` ' ..1 ArY.� l,tt�t, ' (( � ►��4.�r F,4 �r.y rr 1 "1 ( . ^Y . _ i r .+�\L Y ''r L r { r ':J• ,. ',., ',• 1 .a ! 74 F,' J•..}y,a I\, 4er�14 a{�.,rr , ^'1/�� �,•R �'1•'Tf, 4y 1 ,rl r «Il +, 'y n, • �,:4. .^ ,1+'SV' .,� a ♦` I t �rt Aj r`'dr'� 1r yt( , r(�.. , i`!, .y 1 r r �' , �.. , •, riF' v n l IA;1'w r,• �yka -1 4 '` / i i l.• f r 4''' j '}A,�*�yy �� `y1 '�,'� i'!` (A•1�' + ,♦ry '' r 1, i� • Ir f .,b• (»fi L��T� c' . r s�• , � J ",•r �1;: �, 1 \ '>.r ' ' L ' 1� r , ,.f 1 T -.. 1 L. .JJr� 1 •/` F s+' • �,�1 C;� ++ 1.��;,vrr•1�V+f... ' h T'++ r iydr ,� I �' r I�e.'ty1• ` t ' �'A 41 •a 'y�d�'�r1I 1 1{it L •1••I 1•S sr �r'jr��.ter, `t Al`'.;/' 1.'1f r�,�,YJf3.. ,.,..�.� t r r: ! ) •, ,- , D�1 ,; : •• � ', w 1 h j1.'�3�'•.t cr , ,,�yy.. r � •r'. F' + .:b q Jvtiry.+ +,� �.+..M! i� r( IJ ,f'.kt�'' , (, I, ,�/ * ( ✓a rl )/j :, ,t ,ti' I 7 +', � i h•r0;. .,y• � •• •'�'.%�. A 1� •:• .}�,f ++r raJ.�i v;: r .w ..�� �/e � f (!kr'� r •'J4 s� �,Lv `'.w+ha �f r .,Ir.1:,;{i;,/., ' . a r.. •r!•.J:, A ` •r q S�-tt �'+ :7r'SA:aJ\.ri rEi 1y7y�''+ jj •"1 r'T+q . ��� 1 f •,.i 1 IY�♦:iAr� R • / rM L,'j'-rf Iq"�''! S•.+Y �1 r •r, •� ✓.Y��b ��. t�t' "' I. 1 ai+h �l r . .J' R�i I M\!t• rL..R +`51' � '' � + ' q\' 7�{ '1' r7'�, I!. lr7,rn,;. j� �ag,�,�.,'.+y 1 �,`,t♦ •'�' ••�=�`^C�1�'l��.i'biJwy� r, L i-J 1,'•, C S ! ••,: i' +t '�+ ri7,Y rl �,�" tT b`',.,�r :ray+.�!�}lid.,^.W�nJyil�7�1�'� iir�'•.t ri4 *rf, 'ij� ,.45'Ll �• x• 47.' T,��'. •i,•i,,Li, r :s.• ,�'a +•y , , 4 , ' ' r r �. ,,.' .w '�'F'4 J'kl nti Y +y �•, 1' y• : a 7 a, rl�I J� r. 1 f.I''u '+ 1 r t { <+.,.r ti'.,1. ,�rr, � �. a" 1�/,�,,Y , ,r.JJ .. 1Y•���+r a `r'♦ ?.1 -�1 ..; r., 1�1 }' 'ry \ I;' ,. +.+1: ,r'+•' P" d+/��1, ��' ��irq � �V ;1. Y� L57.1 � .Ir r / „ • ,rr.:,,i., t i-' i .l 1 14'.'�+„71!h n,`�r�p��11 Y I. 1 n y. y A t.•,•;-�7JJ r ',+ W i , ',. r. ' / '`t`' + 1•i5 1' '' 1v rQ'+.,��"�• r IyR.'.� 7Sl:.��.�\�, .2,�,.;�' Fi.�u r'/ h it r.�.. � 1� � VS '1. r �i J �)v bi:���lT a �fi� .� 'f �, 1 „� �, �'{S 1�{ t'.: �«•d ( i", /L (+' '.. 7 �, � %Y�`�a y� L �r fl/7-. ii �;1+,9�L, ! ,'.1, / ti�',�r l'1 r it ♦/`1 r( r}/,.y'x �,,' �at•ry ,!t�S iJt�A' +r, ir4�4:1 �Tr'';�, tiFV t'l1Yr t r} 'SD 1 Jar ti1p��v r •1J};�• .� r .'ti�� .r n�r•y�[. ;.�a,•r,,•d �' h. �' �' t.''(•r.1W - r.;'�t?r.l,f.:✓7♦ . . 1 .', r1•• , 1LK� ,rW;.! 1+7 ., rAWj,'.. Tv }��, '� r ' ` ,�•' .. J•g c.A�q .ri � ' ; � ' r .. 1'� l+I+a 'q��r �• �• Jr t�1,iL r� r tit + � ����41 1" •' A� , '�, ;i 'M( r^1 I jP'� ,'�''� � r t Ih7 '� .' r 7�' }.r 111•. �'• • .11�1'+f+ 4°j'�` r✓,' �r r�''"+• Tom. - Y U '� � < !h*,l/r _ �',�,`�r• ,,'. x ry,� �-�V;f`�/ ,q;.,t t ��` /, 4 '•'fL•�L�'_,rrt} Y `�i r , 'r ''4: •!'4 C 41•"'J' isltPr '+ M1'r,�+T j4/'�,' �t,+t. r` , } 1 I i 3 THE 1 ROafiRT M R RPORATION r' I i September 9, 1988 Mr. Paul Cook City Administrator/ Bacecut'we Director City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Dear Paul: f .Pursuant to Section 206 of the Disposition and Development Agreement by and between Huntington Beach Redevel182 ment en and Kobe:t L Mayor Trust of 1982, The Robert L Mayer Trust of seeksapproval of Hilton Inns Inc. as the Friiachisor for the Phase I hotel at The Waterfront #ltia letter serves to oatiisfy St tion 601 of the Disposition and Development t in which the developer has selected Hilten Inns, Inc, as the hotel IrariC ' rand is now seeking to obtain Agency approval. We would appreciate if you would sei J us a letter of approval for our files. We wish also to remind you that pursuant to Section 705 of the Disposition and Development Agreement, the request for approval of Hilton Hutels as the hotel franchisor is deemed approved unless rejecte►:' by the agency (or its Executive. D►iree`or) within 30 days from receipt of this request, To aid you mi our decision, I have enclosed a copy of the Hilton Hotel Corporation's 1987 annual report, first quarter report for 1988, Hilton Travel Directory and a brochure, Inv+e Vwnt Davrrrfn11W With Hilton for your review. Sincerel. , Q t Li Stepp IL Bone Eutive Director SK`Bhno end. cc Doug Lai Belle Deputy Ci Administrator/ Directorove.1maomic Redevelopment �No ort Cana>�r Drive. Suite I= N&wpat Powxh. Coi,kyn.o 926.5f&-%80 (714) 759-6097 a 1 1 M I • _ KeyserMarstonAssociateslr1c, Richard L.. Hotti 500 South Grand Avenue,Suitc 1480 Calvin E.Hollis,II Los Ang0cs,Culifarnin 90071 21.1!622.8095 Fax 2l.1/h22.52W SAT!DIEGO 619!942.0)u"0 Heinz A. Schilling SAN FRANCISCO 415/198.20$0 RECEIVED Timothy ,.Kelly A. Ifirry V(,.yser Kate Eade Funk AUG 2 3 Robel 1.Wetmore Michael Cenlor, pErHNlntEfV) �, Denise E,Conley )MMUNITY DEy9LGNVkrw7 August 22, lees Mr . Douglas Lei. Salle Deputy City' Administrator City of Huntin?ten Beach 2000 Main. Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 Dear Mr. Le Belle As a par..; of ..the.- Summary, 'Report prepared . for. the Waterfront commercial/r6sident:ial project pursuant to Section • .33433 of, the Califoriii� �11.ealth� And Safety Code, -KMA ,.detrermined'. •the, net costs' to :tlie - Huniaagton``Beech Redevelopment. Agency , aseocsat,ed witrli relocat- _'inq the Drxftw od,� Mobilehome Park-- residents . This , '+,naly ei 8", con Aidered the costa to be incurred to develop a - new ribbileliome. park, as well', aa the: relocation benefits to be prodded to".. rrh Driftwood residents . Thegr costs were offset by the rental incort♦ to be gen�-. erated .to the A.gsricy from the new mobilehome park. WThd net costs were estimated rat • $7 . 7 million, in present value terms . The asiJuimption used to estimate the rente.l inc -_met+ from th;e new mob3.le' orne park was that the 'Igeacy would receive re—hts of S350 per space per month in the fir:�i.:, year of operation, aace.la,ting at 6% per annum thereafter . ,The vacancy allowance was se-;' at 3$ , and the operating expenses were estimated at 35% of gross income: Subse- quently, the Agency agreed to :ix the rents in the fir.gt year at $208 per space pei' month. TFese rents would then escalate at 6% annually. lioweve=, the spacers would be master leased to the mobf lehomet association on a triple net basis . Thus, the Ageoncy,•` will not incur operating expenses , nor will there be any loss of income to tho Agency due to vacant spaces. R Q prepared a revised Cash flaw analysis bused on the alteration in the echievable rent level . This cash flow projection is Presented in Table 1 . `While the cost estimates remain the same, the rOhEEI income generated by the project is etubstaritia;lly decreased. However, given the fact: that the Agency will incur nG ,f 1 Mr. Dougleis LG Beal le August 221 1988 V&ge 2 operating expenses or losses due to vacancies, the not income gen- 6rated is' actually slightly higher than originally projected. Thus , the net costs are reduced to $7 . 6 million, a reduction bf $100, 000 . According to the terms of the Waterfront project DDA, the develops" must loan the. Agency . $4. 5 million of these costs . This leaves $3. 1 million to be funded from other redevelopinont project area readurces yPledee do not, hesitate to call if ' you require 'additional informa- Yours very truly, ' !EYSKR HAR9T.69 ASSOCIATES, INC. r Kathle' en H: Hand 8b346 . HTH 14056 . 0006 i�t18�lIL TII?a.7 - m vim III NK IflKum an ' - - mmu Mg. L4741m Ili!I I£II 3 TUN 3 WAR A I Ais S 1=Ji 6 TfAl 7 T-FAI 1 T'FA1 I Ill 10 TFU it Im im 1"I i713 1"; M4 Im 1"1 1"7 JrA l"t III!! ml f tM!I 31L swim . fET I11F�� 11 m I A.I WflNL tlS.tN ANIr m* 3,III M K 31 1,111,1l1 9l.tfO,III Allrw 1 21J O 1 ,I1e out=1s am will !!".K I i WINK 73,010 Ull t'Ll m 36,t'II� cA?t ram 1cl,f ?at=m Minn l,t1DI,I8E Kismui1 TO a PAR nmK 1 i wum 23,OIi Mg 11 701,Si01 KLK TM WWI Uff Mg 1A WRONK iSI116 15,i01 TGW 3MUSSE rWErJIN ftVi I I I nNKL I,101 F%. x 11 5C,000 Ami11M KINMKE 2II,III will ION KVRMW MIS WILUK KVRNKKT I9 CM KVa M10R- I2e,01E PAKK t1;lE JMff i,7UAS 111AL CIS ".322,190 ".M,m SO 19 i0 11 30 11 t0 Stl 11M11E DXM AD MARS - PW ZICK 1"l1 IK (2) 1+7,II1 t217.0 I106.7I0 1431.190 14S6,9m 1191,3w SS13,4w 1514,200 :S761m i611,Suv 10611w US) Aumms (3) 41,40 . i71= � in ]UK I8 U&I.M ti0L,700 1133,1K $454,918 t1u,300 $313,1110 1511,210 457a.101 16.007,UM KT IiE11C1 Cris Ii,327.I01 1I,I15,110 (pump) (town) (1156,7N) (104,3M) U513.1fl0, (1SlA.200) (iS71,2001 i=9.00 sm) m ous 1 a 9T,S71,t101- - _- IN11=Ion low - �.. RMOM "Imlow _.... PUBUC NOVICE - � t2*i h. Ca1Efo!'n1l8, t0 Coicter a act u rs a Leese The agreement providwfor the dispwftkn of " purww to ft agency leasing to th*AssocWien the prennises raft a to View Estates 1 and ii. De Lions of the site nm be tound in the ice" COUNCRi a it fflW. • AQENCY -C PMs of the blaster Lease Agrrser wnt are on file for iubft inspecda m VER _ AGREEMENT siid cWying for the tat of duplication at the offime of the City Cia k OtyF 3 - %MEN '�' OF of iixtjngtonr-Befth, 2� 0 Main Strwt, Hun ton fit,, Cs� om:a, EACH bMween the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:03 p.m., Monday through Friday, HUWrNWON Bexclusive r•f hoilday a. DPW I WOOD 6 .�.�ON � trustee#ed N►sons may submit written comments addr�eemd to the City ASSCleric of the Qty of Huntington Beach, Post office B+ox 190, Huntington OCEANVEW ESTATES beach, Caistornia, 92648, pfior to th,hour of 5:00 p.m. o.. September 16, #Gotft&of a JOW PUW hewft by the City Councl! of Huntington ®each At the tuna and place rioted above, ati persons interested in U-m above e Ow �ioR�et Aga of the City of HunNnoton Beach on a matter msy appear and be ho d. r._L, ar t betrw-t the- City of Hwntis oen Beach - - -. DINNiSwoad lUio eowners'-Amodt.lian far. nnie Donn VWw Estates. Co Nrockwkv,, City hwk, Cki.r of Huntington ': wW Ctc;. of the ijsdeveit�:.. ;tt ley of the City of FOurnt�ttn t3�ch NOTIM >$ HEiZW GIVEN' that' ilia City Council of tine City of Hurl! n� BMCh and the evel e�r op�ait Cy of th3 City Cf Hit- dated August 22, 1988 * Beach WE hoid ibc a #oft pub hwrbV on Ssptemr 19, 1888, at pm.. In the Council C Mrnbim City Hall. 2QOEt Main Stte+Bt, f'ubiisherd grange Coast Daily Pilot August 24, 1988 W133 fj LP"Gosy Oil i R Aumwjzoti puh liP AdvrrUMmonts Cl al! kings inChrdinq puW notices b, 06i rrs of Iris Superior Cpurt of Orange county. C►ll►fe,rnis. Number A•6214, dated 22 5e13tern13er. 1981, &Pd A•142;3 1. dalsd i I June. 063 } STATE OF CALIFORI`YA ' Crnirty of Orange P&vbW rv,,,K. AOrN AV 9~1d VV a.► is vat ,n r ppnl w Ih 16 PMta CPU—•n ewe" I am a1 Cittxen of the United States and a resident of tha County atoresaid; i am over the age o. eightea.'l yemt. and not a party to or Interested in the below aamtitta~d matter. I am a principal clerk of the Orange Coast DAILY PILOT, with wh!ch is comainod the NEWS-PRESS, a newspaper of general C1retf101011, printed and publishal in the City of Costa Mesa, County of Change, .Stale of California, and that a Notice of Public Haaring j Ocean view Estates of which copy attached hereto is a true arid complete copy, was printed and.;wbiisherd in the Costa Mass, Newrp*tt Beach, Huntington S esach, Fountain Valley, Irvints, that Souih Coast communities and Laguna Beach issues of said newspaper for ene time �Edieti)Rltir7ie►bBtta wit the issues) of higvat Za t95g._..._ ._._. i98— 198___.,_ 19@_. — - - , tg8 I declare, under penslty of perjwy, thst the foregoing Is trrjb a►j correct, ' PatecutGd tM _._ AUsvf:t 26 at Costa Mom QWliornie. fNture� ' PROOF OF PUS" . ATION r f i DAILY PILOT PUBLISH DATE LEGAL NOTICE 5 ` � {� ORDINANCE NO. .2902_� ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , ADOPTING THE WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHEREAS , the Waterfront Froject and relat,d entitlements have been prepared; and The Waterfront Project falls under the provisions of the Downtown Spec;fic Plan; and The complexity and planned lone-term phased development of the project also dictate the need for a Development Agreement between the City and RLM Properties ; and A Waterfront Mastez Conceptual Plan and Development Agreement; have Leeo prepared and reviewed at a duly noticed public hearing held by the Planning Commission of the City Huntington Beach on June 22 , 1988 , and the City Council on Aug-ist 1.5 , 1.968 ; and City Council Resolution No . 5390 requires the adoption of an ordinance if the City Council approves the Development Agreement . NOW, V,EREFOREp the City Council of the City oL Huntington Beach does ordain as follows : 1 WON& r Section 1 . The Waterfront Master Conceptual Plan and Development kgreement : � (1 ) Are consistent with the nbjectivu , policies , general �- land uses and programs specified 191 the general plan and Downtown Spicific Plan; (2 ) Ar? compatible with the uses authorized in , and the regulations prescribed for , the land une district in which Ole � real property is located; 4 ( 3 ) Are in conformifty with public convenience , general welfare and good land use practice ; ( 4 ) Will not be detrimental to the health , safety and general welfare ; and , ( 5 ) Will not adversely affect the orderly development of property values . Section. 2 . Based on the above findings , the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach , hereby approves the Waterfront Master Conceptual Plan and Development Agreement by and between the City of Huntington Seach and Robert L . Mayer as trustee , attached -hereto and incorporated he,ein by this reference as Exhibit ".A " . Section .3 . This ordinance shall take effect thi'�ty days after_ its Passa.ge ., THE FULL TEXT OF THE ORDINANCE IS AVAILABLE J N THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ADOPTED by the City 'Council of the City of Huntington Beach at an i regul air' meeting held Monday,. October, 3 , ,$ �bY the � following ro 1 call vote: . AYES; Councilmer�bers: Kelly, Green, Erskine. Mays , Winchell NOES: C:ouncilawmb►ers: None ABSENT: Councilranbers: (Bannister b Finlay out of room) CI7Y Of HUNTSMIG9.'N BEACH Unnia Brockway City Clark 1 s_ - • I 1 t RESOLUTION NO. _ 1.400 i . A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA j ADOPTING THE WATERFRONT MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT .AGREEMENT l! WHEREAS, the Waterfront Project and relat-d entit] ements have Ifieen prepared; and The Waterfront Project falls under the provisions (,f the Downtown specific plan; and 'the 6hinplexity and planned long—term phased development of r the project also dictate the reed Far a Development Agreement between the City and R1,M Properties ; and # A Waterfront .Master ':o7ceptual Plan and Development Agreement have been prepared and reviewed at a duly noticed public hearing held Fy the planning Commision of the City of . Huntington Beach on June 22 , 1988 NOW THEREFORE -BE IT RESOLVED , that the Planning Commisssion of the City of Huntington Beach finds that the Waterfront Master Conceptual Plan and Development Agreement : ( 1) Are consistent with the objectives , policies, general land uses And programs specified in the general plan and bowntoirn Speuific Plan; ( 2 ) 'Ace compatible Nith the uses authorized .'.n, aiid the regulations prescribed fir , the land use, district in which the real property is located; (3) Are in conformity with public convenience, general 45 welfare and good land use practice; 1 rt WON& 1 ( 4 ) Will not be detrimental to the health , safety and,-- . �• general welfave ; ( 5 ) .Jill. nog adysersely affect the orderly development ^f property values . based or, the above findings, the Planning Commission of the City of Huntington Beach , hereby approves the Waterfront Master: Conceptual Plan and Development Agreement and recommend adaption by thf City Council . REG'ULARLY PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Coftimission of the City of Huntington Beach on the 22nd day of June , 1988 by the following roll call vote: AYES : NOES : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Mike Adams vietot Leipzig Pla; .ing Commission Secretacy Planning Commission Chairman APPROVED LS TO FORM: City Att ney blo 2 i, ti 14ITICATION MEAaUNES SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRObIVE TAL 1"ACT REPORT 10. 52-2 1 . The Waterfront project shall conforis. tr mitigation rrwasures included in the Downtown Specific Plan EIR 82-2 . 2 . 1�ubject to approval by the Departments of Community bevelopment and Public Wr,rks , the developer shall incorporate recorneridations provided by Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc . ( in their June 29 , 1984 limited geotechaicai invetstigaLion Job No . 2561.-60 , Log No. 4-6486 ) Into project designs , plans anO specifications for each phase of the; overall project . 3 . Prior to the issuance of grading permits for each project phase, a supplemental geotechnical investigation based on tt:e specific proposed design shall be performed to confirm subsurface conditions (liquefaction hazard :ones and ground- water levels) , and provide supplemental recommendations , as appropriate, for final design of each structure and for the proposed residW-ial development . 4 . Design provisions such as pile foundation s;=stems shall be required to permit structures to withstand 3iquef action without serious consequences . if significant liquefaction hazard zones are identified in the supplemental geotes:hnical investigation, the development plan shall be revised prior to issuance of building permits for each phase, to avoid these areas or the hazard shall be mitigated by densification of the liquefiable uoil or other recognized techniques , 5 . All structures shall be designed in accordance with the :seismic design provisions of the [Taiform Building Codes to promote safety in the event of are earthquake. 6 . If verified as being required by a gL&7A Pied soils engineer, existing fill materials and disturbed, loose soils shall be removed and replaced with competent material. For each phase, such reports shall be submitted to, and approved by, the City Engineer prior 'to issuance of grading permits : All. site praparation, excavation, and earthwork com9acti6n operations shall be performed under the observation and testing of soils engineer (;) . 4A_jt11 21etlan3s 7 . Subject to the approval of the Coastal Commission, and as agreed upon by City staff. and State Department of fish and Come staff, the amount of votland are. that shall be mitirfated for `:s . 6 acres . Planning CommisFi.on Resolutson No. 1397 Exhibit A t 1 8 . To mitigate for the loss of the on.-s .te wetlands , the applicant. shall prepare a d etallad restoration plan that complier with Coastal Act requirements and Department of Fish and Gaine criteria . Further discussions with the Cuas•cr. l Commission, DFG, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will ba necessary to determine the most appropriate restoration site, the type of wetland to be restored, the monitoring plan, ant' other considerations . 'These issues shall be clarified prior to Coas'Cal Commission review of a Coastal Develor:ne;n;, Permit for the .affected phase of the project . 9 . Full mitigation of the . 8 at :e site shall b.: completed prior to the subject wetland eit.e being altered by the proposed or.oject . No development permit for grading , construction or otherwise, shall be issued for the impacting phase until full mitigation has been accomplished . The mitigation measure(s) is subject to i:he approval of the City, the California Stage Department or Fish and Game and the California Coastal Commission. The restoration plan shall generally state when restoration work will commence and terminate, shall include rletai+ed diagrams drawn to scale showing any alteration to laatural l.andferms, end skull include a list of plant species to be used, as well as the method of plant introduction ( i . e . , seeding, natural succession , vegetative transplanting , etc . ) . This condition doers not preclude fulfillment of the mitigation requirement through the payment of an in lieu fee, consistent with the Coastal Commission ' s adopted wetlands guidelines and the Huntington Beach Local Coastal. Program . 10 . Prior to the alteration of the on-site wetland are:. , a coastal. development: permit shall be obtained froR, the California State Coastal Commission. 1 . Subsequent to Coastal Commission and Regional Water Quality Control Hoard apprrval of an appropriate wetlands mitigation plan:, end ;irior to the filling of the on-site wetland area, a 404 permit from the Corps of Engineers shall be obtained . Adjacent nt Ngtlands 12 . Prior to any alternation of the overall project site by, grading or filling activity, a hydrological analysis of the drainage pctterns affecting thy; on-site wetland area or adjacent wetland area shall be canducted by th3 developer. auch analyeie F.hall determina the drainage effects on the wetlands portion of the site . No devp'.op- ment, grading or alteration of the project site shall oc� A'r which affects the wetlands or adjacent wetlands without fully analyzing than affects on the on-site Eahibit .k -2- (O751d) wetland and adiacent wetlands . The developer shall provide evidence to the City and to the Department of Fist. and Game thPt the proweict ' 3 runoff man&& ament system wi11 deliver approximatnly the same amount of freshwater urban runoff to these wetlands as under existing conditions, and in approximately the same seasonal pattern , This 3vidence shall. include ( a) a hydrological analysis comparing the existing and post-project rater supply, and gib) drawing s and a description of the runoff conveyance system in sufficient detail for a qualified engineer ix Judga its adequacy . The State Department cf Fis;a znd Gi.ine shall be consulted regarding alteration of the drainage pattern of the .;ite which may affect the above-ment'_nned wetlands . The developer shall provide the Community Development Department with a written report sulbs- tan,tiz&ting compliance with this mitigation measur.a prior to submittal of grading plans or permit issuance for each phase. 13 . if the developer proposes to increase or decrease the water supply to the wetlands east of Beach Boulevard, or to change the seasonal pattern, the developer shall provide, in addition to the evidsnce required in mitigation measuro #12 , a biolo- gical analysis demonstrating that there would be no significant adverse impacts on the wetlands or asso::fat-ed wildlife . LAnd- Gs n 14 . The developer shall enhance the property fronting Pacific Coast Highway and Beach Boulevard with a 7raduated/meandering landscaped setback of not less than 25 fret for residential and 50 feet for commercial , from curbline , along 'the distance of the entire frontage. Such enhancements shall be depicted in the approved site plan for each commercial pease . The intent of this landscaped setback is to provide a visual. and aesthetic buffer for the property to the eist . , Apprcpriatn ?andzcaping amenities -.hall be included to the a�)proval of the Planning Director . 15 . Prior to the issu'.ance of building permits for Phase 1, the developer shall Screen the mobile homes at Pacific Mobil.ehome Park ( at the- western portion c; r the pruiect si.tc) by means of a siV foot high block wall (the length of which to be determined by further acoustical study) on ton of a one and one--half fiot high berm. Substantial mature landscaping shall Also be provided to t%e approval of the PlaAning Director . The purpose of this wall is for aesthetic screening and noise attenuation . 16 . The 3eveloper shall complete the site plan revis.7 process established within the Conditional Use Permit; regulations to ensure compatibility with all elements of. the C;ty"s Ganeral Plan and the Local Coastal Program established by the Coastal Commission. Rzhibit A �3- (0751d) 1 .n..b 1 Prior to t-ho Issuance, of a Corti,f-ic:at:e oi: Occupancy for each phase of the cernmercial portion of the Zi.•oiect , the developer shall provide st 'i'rans ortat-l -'M Sy:items blanagecvent. Flan to the C'o�nminity Devel.opmn^t Dlvect:or . At inini.nium, the p).an shall include the following : (:tie items, 17-23) r 17 . The provision, of: bus or shuttle services to regional activity cent— rs within the County shall be provided to hotel visitors . 18 . The provision of shuttle services t,.o locai activity centers , including -~lain Str :et and the City and St- te 1 beaches , shall be provided' to hotel visitors . 19 . The provit,ion of at-Grade at: elevated c.:osswalks to facilitate Vedast:rian access to beach amenities 20 . Employee use of public transportation shall be promoted. icy eel?inch but; passes on--site . 21 . The provision of taus shelters, benches and bus pockets near the proposed project , subjact to review by the Oranqe Couni.y Transportation District . 2: The provision of monitored or gated security facilities at all prr ject<: parki i-10 facilities t•o control use. 23 . The provision of a outhhound left tarn lane at- the intersection of Huntington Street./PCH to improve the flow of laft turning traffic . 24 . Prior to approval or subsequent phase beginning with phase 3 of the project, th Planning Co;rsnission shall Cazerminu the need to conduct a traffic study. This determination will be made in consideration of original technical assumptions and changed traffic or land use conditions . If an additional study i.3 required, the study shall include suntmer and nrn--summer peak hour conditions . The study shall be based on local cr.nditioris utilizing local statistics and recent traffic counts . The traffic analysis shall be used to determine if additional significant impacts exist which were not addressed in Final SFIR 82-2 . 25 . Prior to approval of each phase of tha project , the Planning Commission shall determine the noel to conduct a packing study. This derte:rminatitin will be made in consideration of the parking ration applied to previous phases and performance tr,-�rof .. It:hibit A _q_, (075id) i 26 .. Dust suppr:;ssion mea.ures , such as regular watering and eaxly paving of the road shall be implemented by the., project proponent at each phase to reduce emissions dlaring construction and grading . 27. All parking strucf:urets shall be ventilated, in conformance with the Uniforin Building Code standards , to reduce vehicle emission levels within the facility. They ventilation plan: shall be approved prior to I.ssilance of building permits for each parking structure . 28 . Prior to the issuance of Certificate ' s of Occupancy for each commercial development Phase, a Transportation System Management (TSM) plan, as approved by -lie r1anning Director, shall be implemented and shall the following components ; a . The pro-vision of bus or shuttle services to regional activity centers within the County for hotel visitors . b . The provision of shuttle services to local activity centers including Main ^t=eet and the City and Stage " beaches during the slimmer peak periods . C . The provision of at-grade crosswalks and elevated crossings to facilitate pedestrian access to beach amenities . d . A program to promote employee use of public transportation, including the sale of bus passes ors-site . e . They provision of bus shelters , benchas and bus pockets neap: the proposed project . 29 . For each development phase of the project a qualified paleontologist , listed with the County of Orange, scull attend the pre-grade meociting with the contractor, developer and City representative !:o ensure cooperation for the paleontological monitoring. 30 , For each development phase of the project a qualifi©d paleontologist , listed with the County of Orange, shall be retained to monitor grading to ;salvage any fossils exposed by construction activity. 31 . For each development phase of the project, if any archaeological or historical materials are found during grading or construction, all work shall cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist shall be contacted in order that the appropriate mitigation measures can be taken. 9zhibit A -5•- (0751d) Mi>f Ir 32 . For each development phase of the project, any fossils collected during grading of the P-roject shall oc ourated with an appropriate museum facility. 33 . All phases, of the project: shall conform t o mitigation measures specified in ETF 82•-2 . 34 . The Federal Emergency Manag,.:ment Agency ( FEMA) requires that devel.cl:ments w_Zhin the Spec? al. Flood Hazard Zon.- elevate any habitable areas of' dwelling unit to or abov:a the expected level of flooding for a 1.00-year event . 1-on-residential. habitable strfi.ctures must be elevated or flood proofed to FEMA standard, , The project shall comply with all mandated FEMA standards . Compliance shall be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for any }phase of the project . :35 . Far each phase, positive surface gradients shall be provided adjacent to all structures so as to direct surface water run--off and roof drainage away from foundations and slabs , toward suitable discharge facilities . pending of surface water shall not be allowed on pavements or adjacent to buildings . 36 . Prior to the issuance of a grading permit for any phase, a grading p" an shall, be submitted to and approved by the Department;s of Community Deg*-1opment and Public Works . S.i'3st The following measurer shall. be implemented unless noise analyses , performed by a registered acoustical engineer and approved by the Director of Community Development, determine that: the construction of all or some of they following measures is not warranted . 37 . Prig;; to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each commercial phase, and subject to approval of the Planning Director, a six foot masonry wall shall be constructed adjacent to existing and proposed residential properties along Walnut Avenue . Other sound attenuating design features subject to the approval of the Planning Director may be implemented in addition to the masonry wall . 38 . Prier to the issuance of bui..4- .g permits for auy residential phase, an acoustical assessment shall be conducted documenting that the proposed six foot sound w*Ils are adequate to reduce noise levels to 65dHA or Leas in private outdoor living areas ( i .e. patio areas ) of residence only. Additionally, tAhe assessment shall identify the measures necessary to insure that indoor noises levels will be 45dBA or Zees, as required by the California moi ne Insulation Standards . ltb1bit A w6w (0751d) .ww. 1 1 1 39 , Prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each residential phase, and subject; to the approval of the Planning Di rec t;o x , a six foot: masonry wall sl.a l l be constructed 3di i rant to proposcd issidentiai properties along Beach Boulevard. Other sound attenuating design Features may be constructed subject to the approval of the Planning Di. -oct.or . 40 . Priur to ;:he issuance of builel' ;ig pexrni.cc for any commercial phase: , an acoustical study shah be Prepared addressing the quest rooms in the hotel . The study shall Identify all ;neas'dres necessary to reduce noise levels i„ guest rooms to 4:dDA or less per the CaliEurnia Noise Insulation Standards . StttiinL•t to the approval of the Planning Dircc-tor, the recommended mitigation me4sures shall be incorporated into the project . 41. Prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each phase, a landscaped bean shall be constructed between the masonry wa13. and tha ccirb edge for noise �,ttenuatxon. 42 . Sweeping operations within all of the parking structures shall be restricted to daytime hours , between 7 : 00 a .m. and 8 : 00 p .m. , Monday through Saturday and 10 : 00 a .m. and 6 : 00 p . m. on Sundays . 43 . A textured parking surface , such as asphalt or textured concrete,, shall. be uJed in all of the parking structure to reduce tire squeal . Compliance with this condition shall be varified prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy Zor each parking structure . 44 . Design of the narking structure shall incorporate one of the following noise attenuation option; : 3 . Enclose the parking structure ' s side-wall parallel to t-hP residential area . b. Allow jpenings in the structure ' s sidewalls and place a masonry wall on the top level of the structure parallel to the residential areas . C. Incorporate other sound attenuating design features to the approval of the Planning Director . 45 . For each development phase that includes a parking structure# a minimum 130 foot separation between the residential and parking structure uses shall be maintained, or other sound Et:tenuati.ng design features may be incorporated to the approval of the Planning Director. All approved building plans shall reflect the 130 Foot separation. 111hibit A (0751d) .wr.► i •16 . All lighting 'ixtures ir.. the commercial portion of the project shall be directed so as to prevent "spillage" orit:o adjacent ie3ldential uses . 47 , The residential site: plan !,ill be modified to mz)ve or reorient the six ± units noted on 1! ., s 96 and 97 in the T)SEIR as being affected by shadows kor per:inds of more than four hours . 1' 1 c. .rvice &A� LSL+; " i (A. Water) 48 . The project shall conform to the City of Huntington Beach Water System - Design Criteria . In addition, separate water line shall be installed for each phase pro;ridinq a domes tic/potable water supply system and a landscape watering supply system. Compliance with this requirement shall be verified prior to the issuance of building permits for each phase. 49 . The following water conservation atensures for the internal use of water shall be incl Uded in the project : law flow shower t--eads and faucets ; low flush toilets ; insulation of hct water lines in. water recirculating systems ; compliance with water conservation provisions of the appropriate plumbing code; reduced water pressure . 50 . The following water conservation measures for the external use of water shall be included in the project : conservation designs utilizing low water demand landscaping (Xeriscape) ; berming to retain runoff for irrigation; utilization of drip irrigation where feasible; and irrig-Ming only during off peak hours ( late evening) . Additionally, any water oriented amenity within the project shall he so designed as to be a self- co stained natural or artifi.ci.zilly filtered system which reuses water internal to the system. 51 . Adequate water supply shall be provided to the site consistent with alternatives described in a letter dated October 20, 1987, City of Huntington Beach (Aopendix F) , pursuant to the DDA. (B . Gas and Electrical Utilities) 52 . Building construction shall comply with the Energy Conservation Standards get forth in Title 24 of the California Adminis- trative Code . 53 . The developer shall consult with the Southern California Gas Compa..y ftrtng the design phase to ensure efficient development }: and installation of natural gas facilities . Methods of energy i conservation techAiques that shall be considered include: fthibit A -8- (0751d) +mow, i a , Energy efficient con-Cept:s ir, building layouL, design arrd orientation, suchas the use of solar water :and space heating technologies . b. Comprehensive planning for landscaping to complement new structures and parking icts , thereby minimizing heating and coaling energy use . c;. walls , ceiling, floors , windows and hot water lives should :je insulated La prevent heat: loss or gain per Title 24 rec�ttlatinns •• (C. Fire) 54 . The pro jeet developer c;hall work, closPl-• with the City of: Huntington bleach Fire Department to ensure that adequate fine safety precr.utiors are implemented in the project . All site plans , flooz plans and elevations for each phase are subject to the review of the Fire Department . 55 . The project developper shall provide the full range of fire and life safety systems In all building; des recommended by the City of. Huntington Beach Fire Department . Thin provision will aid f in reducing the potential ioanpower required in a major emergency. (D. Felice) 56 . The developer shall work closely with the police department to ensure that adequ;ate security precautions are implemented in the project . Thzi provision of adequate security precautions shall include construction phases of the project. Such exec-irit"y shall include construction fences and private security ,patrol . Police nervices to the development shall be enhanced through the provision of adequate street lighting, clearly, marked street names and building numbers and ,security hardware . (E . Transit) 57 . S''.tei plans of the proposed project shall be forwarded to the OCTG as they become available for each phase. The plans will be reviewed in terms of their conformance to the OCTD Design Uidelinta lgr Bus Facilities . 58 . in order to ensure accessibility and available transit service for employees and patrons of this development , the following transit amenities shall be incorporated in this project as "proJeet betterments" and shall be the responsibility, of the developer . These measures will also -iraavide ir,::ent;ves for bug ridership and lessen impacts on air quality. Implementation of these resaxures shall be verified prior to the issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for each phase. Exhibi-t A -9- (0751d) a . The eXi 5tiLIg bvs strops shall be preserved or upgT aded, and bus turnouts provided , if dct:er;ained by the City Traffic Engineer and OCTD to be necessary ba;;ed on traffic volumes , spee6s and roadway cress sect:i onu . b. paved , handicapped cccessible passenger waiting areas, including a bus shelter, shall )e provided at each step c. If deemed necessary by the City Traffic Engineer and UC,'. D, the area adjacent to the turnouts must be able to accom- modate a passenger waiting area complete with a bus shelter and bench. d. . A paved, lighted and handicapped accessible pedestrian acre sway must bo provided between each stop and the project buildings (F. Oil Wells and Oil Product Pipeline) 59 . The project propoment shall comply with the most current California State Division of Oil and Gas standards and riquirement:s fo1, the roabandonment of the, seven on-site wells . 60 , If any abandoned or uxirecorded walls are uncovered or dam.a►led during excavation or gr3ding , remedial cementing operation may be required . If sucin damage occurs, the DOG ' s district office shall be consulted : 61 . Efforts shall be made to avoid building oven any abandoned well . If construction over an abandoned well i, unavoidable, a DOG approved gas venting system shall be placed over the well . The site plan and/or venting system shall be reviewed by the City' s Fire Department: . 62 . If after consulting with the owner of the underground gas/oil line located on-site, it has been "etermined that a conflict between the project and the undergiaund pipeline facility exists , the subj3ct pipeline (Exhibit Ft Addendum to Final FEIR 82- 2) shall be relocated under the Pacific Coast Highway/Beach Boulevard right-of-way area, or under the public parking lot area along the west side of Beac?: boulevard, or under the open space area in front of the proposed Waterfront project, whichever is most feasible. s-cio-Ec2namic zfearata 63 . A minimum of six months prior to the date that a specific phase of the pack will be closed, all affected tenants shall receive a written notice advising thorn of the definite date of closure. rf relocation assistance per the approved Relocation Assistance Plan has not been previously arranged with the affected tenants, the program ,shall be put into effect during this six month period. hibit A ..lp= (0751d) 64 . Consistent with program 13 . 5 . 2 . 5 of the City ' s Housing Elemclit of the General Pla:i , t:in applicant: an/or City staEl shall meet- ' with ttic: mobile. hoa �e park tern,nt;s and Couch owne s, tc explain conversion process; and relocation assistance . 65 . (:or:;�i. tF�rit with px��gram � . 5 . ? . t; of the Ko�a:.i::g tile.-ent , thy: City or Redevelopment Agency ,t 3l). as&- ist in relocation of persons affected by this re0evel opmeyt project . 66 . The developer shall comply with all aspects of Article 927 of. the Municipal Code, incly ling an approved Relocation As 4.st:ance Plan which shall include a Nobilehome Acquisition and Relocation Benef it-s Agreement executed by the Redevelorme;it: Age.njy , RLM Prorarties , Ltd . , and the Driftwood Beach Club Mobile Homeowners Association, Inc . - the Mobile Homw Overlay Zone, an ordinerce enacted to require rezoning on c:harige of use of a mobile h; r.e park to comply with certain requirements/standards prior to initiating s;tch a change in use (see Appendix Co.: a provisions of Article 927) . 67 . Prior to c:los3.nc, any portion of the mobilen,-'me. park, the Oeveloper shall provide a relocation coordinator who will provide general relocation assistance to all tenants with special: emphasis on assisting special needs groups identified in the SEIR . Availability of such a relocation assistance plan shall be to the approval of the City Council and shall be incorporated into the Relocation Assistance Program required by Article 927 of the Municipal Code . 68 . Per the provisions stipulated in the approved Relocation Assistance Plan., the developer shall pay the cost of relocating a mobile home Coach, when the age and condition of the coach allows feasible ro orati.on. MITIGAM99i MEASURE MEASURE5 APO PIED . Its ENVI,�,;'NMENJAL► IMPACT R P�R� ..L� gitp-10 gY.,. 3,o 11.S.._ d S e i s JC Ltx I. state law requiires soil studies be prepared prior to any construction in the Alquist Pri,olo Special Study Zone (see Figure 4a) . While the Specific Plan area is not included in this zone, geologic and soils studies shah, be required at the Director ' s discretion on a project by project basis . This will assure that new development be conditioned to mitigate for circumstances which actually exist at the proposed location. Depending on the results of these studies mitigating measures will be required, including but not limited to: buffers, special grading , special foundations , subdrains , drainage sweles , derwateri.ng devices, retaining walls, and landscaping of manufactured slopes : Exhibi` A -11- (0751d) 1, i .. i 1 � . The Special ?Ian contains landscape and open space r.equirerrant,s t it neat development: which will ensure that In most rases de.valopment will provide more vegetation thai: exists at present . The Coastal i:lement• contains a too',_-.cy which requires the, pren erxvati.cjn of e:Ki stung mature '►:.roes to the maximum el.tent feasible . This policy will be endorced within the Specific Plan area and will result in healthy matur3 trees being ►.ncorporated into the design ox projects. The potential. wetland olong Beach Boulevard is prole:ted by provisions in the Gpt:cific; Plan which require conservation easements to be placed on wetland areas . In the event that the watland in found by the California Department of fish and Game to be :severely degraded purstiant to Sections 30233 and 3n4ll of the Coastal Act, other restoration options may be implemented in conformance with the Coastal Commission' s "Statewide Interprel.Ave Guidelines for Wetlands and Other Wet V',nviresimentally Sensitive Habitat Areas . " 3 . Within the scope of the Specific Plan some mitigation :measures are possible. Mary of these measures have already been incorporated i.nt( lie Plan. They consist o " -;Yie proposed cul-de-sacs, the lanta-Change arterial, t 4alnuL Avenue extension and the PCH re-striping project , An ;additional alternative is the possibility- of creating a one-way street system along Walnut attd Olive Avenues , TRese streets could possibly tie connected by a ''couplet" into the Walnut Avenue extension. Such a system would probably not be needed until significant development occurs in the Plan area . Wh.,.le this option would reduce the congestion moving parallel to TECH, it would not relieve the traffic problems of Bea%,h Boulevard, Coldenwest and other north-south carriers , and viul-d requirs careful study to provide adequate initigations fc-r •.urrounding residential neighborhoods . 4 . Because the major source of air pollution in this project is the automobile, mitigation measures need to focus on reducing •;'ahieular trzffiv . The Specific Plan covers an area that is currently zoned In traditional commercial and residential designations . The new -3ning provides for mined use districts which allow combinations of residential, commercial and office uses in the same area . This is hoped to reduce out-oE-pruiect travel, as shopping , work and entertainment are provided within a convenient distance. The reduction of automobile trips will also reduce related emissions . �►hibit A -12- (0751d) w� 1. b . ether mitigation measures include encouraging the use of public transportation, bicycles and walking . Vie Specific plan outlines con►plot% bicycle and pedast•rian systems as well a5 recommending bus shelters and a transit layover area along pCH. f . Prior to construction on or nea- the midden site (ORA 1 . 49 as identified in 1.973 archaeological survey) , an archaeological survey ( record search) should be conducted by a arcfessional archaeologist to asst-os the significance of the site with recommendation: on have to protect any valuable resources . If ,leemed necessary by the archaeologist , a trained observer may- be required to be present during grading to ensure any significarit resources are protectcid . 7 . The present drainage system and its planned improvements should be sufficient to accommodate run-off due to new development . As project;; are built, the drainage fees assessed for the development will be used to implement. the master planned drainage inprovements . If additional facilities are needed for a specific project., they would be required as a condition of project %nproval . 8 . The Federal Emergency Management Agency has required the City to adopt Flood Plain Development Regulations. These regulations require that developments within the Special Flood Hazard Zone elevate any habitable areas of dwelling units one foot above the expected lavel of flooding which could occur in n 100 year storm. Commercial buildings need not be elevated but can instead be flood-proofed . The flooding levels are depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate Map . 9 . Development within noise impacted corridors can be shielded by sound barrier walls and bern►s, by special construction materials and techniques, end by eliminating building openings on the sides which face tovrard the noise source . Noise impacts from pumping units can be mitigated by replacing ball end plunger pumps with a less noisy type, or by constructing sound barrier either around the wells, or around the development . Tp.i ,se mitigation measures roan be applied to each development as • i.� is approved, so that specific localised problems can be met without imposing overly restrictive conditions on all development within the specific Man area . t hibit A (0751d) sill 10 . The plan ' S designed to prornote more; efficient usa or: energy . Many of the impacts of the Plan in terms of efficient: energy usage are %;ecidvdly positive. Nevertheless , new development will cor,,;,,ome additional energy. Specific energy-Conserving measures can be rcquir,-_.,u ;%t: the tine o1: development, Fapproval . The f ,.1.1owing measures could reduce energy consumption : a) Provisions for alternate forms of energy such as solar cDu1L1 be incorporated into projects . b) Passive solar energy measures could be incoporated into project design and siting . c) Reduced intensitive of residential and commercial development could also result in energy savir6gs . 11 . Most of the aesthetic impacts of the Plan are positive. Potential impact related to loss of views along the bluffs or to the siting or design of new build igs are addressed in the Plan, including : development standards that require wide, landscaped setbacks and gradiiat:ed height limits ; the creation and preservation of view cor Ad ors through staggered building anvalopes and breezeway requirements ; aevelopmetrt of a landscaped blufftcp; the restoration and protection of the municipal pier ; and the creation of ,parkways and landscaped medians . 12. At the ui.rector ' s direction, shadow studies wi.:l ' be required for buildings taller than six stories . Er 13 . Dep indting on the nature of future development, additional fire equipment a.,�. personne:l should he added . Public safety and fire protection considerations are reviewed before issuing permits for new higher density residential or office/commercial projects . Face 14 . Depending on the amount and nature of future development, additional police personnel and equipment to serve the Specific Plan area may ba needed . Zshibit X _14 - (0731d) •,vywr...,, ter. 1 SUPPLk141,NTAL" ENVIRONMENTAL KPACT P.EWRT ND. 82-2 STATEMN7 OF OVERRIozNG CONSIDEw-nmion The final Supplemental Environmental Impact Report 82--2 for the Wat-erf:roifr Development Project identifies certain unavoidable adverse significant environmental effrct:s . C_EQA Guidelines .5rction 15093 roquires the decision-maker to balance thn benefits of a proEused project against'; its unavoidable environmental csks in dcterirJr._ng whether i he project should be approved. f the decision-maker concludes that the benefits, of the project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects , the affects may be considered acceptable . Here, the City of Huntington Beach does find Lhat the be.iefit:s flowing to the City and its residents from the project outweigh the significant: adverso environmental effects which rerrain after the project ' s m-itigation measures are impleme.-ated . Primary amo,-.; such considerations are the elimination of bliqhted conditions existing in the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area , development of first-class tour.i.st/corrnerci.al and recreational facilities of benefiL tc the City and pers�ns throughout the region, and the project ' s furtherance of the Downtown Specific elan and Local Coastal Plan ' s objectives +.or increasing access to coastal and ocean amenities , Another important consideratior is tt_e significant amoun4 of revenue whicci will , esu' •` the city and the Redevelopment Agency from thy: pruj ect , wh.L,.-f: i:evenU%:: car. be used to improve service levels, construct capital facilities , provide adai.t:ional affordable houtoing, and for other important public purposes . The final EIR identifies four_ separate unavoidable adverse environmental impact~ . (fi= Section 5 . 0, Exhibit *K" to Addendum for F'inal Supplemental Impact Report 82 -2, dated May 121 1988 . ) These are : 1 , Euposure of additional people and structures to potential geologic hazards, including grounshaking , liquefaction , and soil sr-ttlement: . 2 . Increased energy consumption as a result of higher intensity development . 2 . Aecthestic and vier impacts , par'_Scularly from the public beach to the south of the project site, and along pacific coast Highway. 4 . Ste Tonal cumulative air 9 quality impacts as a result of the additional daily tripa generated by project cperetion, Planning commission Resolution 140. 1397 Exhibit R i Each of those. effects is lessened by the: mitigation meascirss suggested in the Supplemental EIR, which measures will be required and incorporated into the project . The reasons the City has O.tatermined that the remaining affects of �_-ach such impact is " acceptable" given olfse3:'ing project benefits is disru::,s e l below . 1 . The geologic study conducted by Irvine Soils Engineering, Inc. concludes that the site is suitable for the proposed devel.orment , provided that the conclusions and recommendations included therein are implemented into project.-designing construction . (kgja Appendix "B" , Page 3.0 . ) Such inclusion is a specific condition of approval of the project and the EIR. 'Thus , although the City doss recc7nize that the site bears some above-average seismic and soils risk, such risk, will be minimized by extra care in design and construction techniques . Of course, the entire City is .located within,. the Newport--Inglewood Fault Zone , ana to an extent all City residents are subject t.*j seismic risks in locating themselves near the City' s ocean amenities . Any development approved within the City therefore creates some degree of this type of environmental ef•fzct . In the General. Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, and Local Coastal Plan, the City and Coastal Commission have opted for a program designed to enhance and encourage use and enjoyment of the beach. Any project, allowing more people to choose such enjoyment of necessity allows more people to take the risks which are unforturiet,ely• inherent in the geologic makeup of the City' s location . Further , the daragers posed by such geologic hazards will be mitigated to a large s=tent by features incorporated into the project . For example, architectural design calls for construction of all major structures upon pilings, which will be grounded in denser sand layers . Further, design will Call for dewatering measures., such as basements and other structural modifications, to offset most; dangers posed by the relatively high groundwater table in the area . All str,Vcturest must conform to seismic safety requirements in the Uniform Building Cade . Most important, the ErR calls for supplemental investiy.*.i,ors for liquificastion, groundwater, and other specific hazards prior to final design for any ssspeuific phase of the ps:oject . Such investigations rc .,uire the indentification of hazards zones . Once identified, building on any such zones should be avoided., or if necessary, required to include the mitigating canstruction techniques detailed above. sshibit 3 -Z- (0715) .i rM1,r. Countervailing what geological ri.tks remain alter mitigarion are the benefits of eliminating the ezitcl:inq conditionts of blight: on the project site Lana replacing the aged, deteriorating, and subEtandard structures with new first-clasz commercial , recreational , a d residential facilities . Related to Lhe foregoing considerations is the fact that: the project will greatly enhance the public ' s opportunities for access to an"O recreationol opportunities in connection with the City' s prime ocean frontage. Without question, Vii.s ocean locality is ono of the premier benefit3 the City has to offer. . Th6 climate, wide sandy beach, water temperature , and w^ves characteristic of Huntington Beach have become a focal point not: only for City activity, but much of its cultural identity . ..n following the enhancement programs outlines in the General Plan, Downtoar,i Specific Plan, and Local Coastal Plan, i' the City has determined tliat the unrili;;igated risIc of incidence of seismic or geologic disturbances is outweighed ! by the daily enjo,.. went of the cobs+; by a broader portion of the population. 2 . Increased Energy Consumption. The project results in higher density use on the site than that w;,ich currently exists . As a result, energy use undoubtedly will increase . This incremental increase: of energy use is not expected to cauNe any serious impact . Local utilities hav-; ;indicated that the capacity does exist to serve the project . Utility providers arc currently aware of City growth anticipations , and are planrir_ri for ;.t . No existing utility provider ' s service capacities will be exceeded by the incremental increase caused by the project . Nevertheless , higher density will lead to more regional energy consumption, and increased levels of local services demand. Offsetting this will be the public benefits of tyie project refer3nced in paragraph 1 above . In addition, the project: will provide an influz of new residents , visitors , and businesses which will provide a broadeir customer base for , utility providers . As to other City services , the EIR does not identify any need For additional fi.ro staff or equipment , and the LIR identifies a need of only 1. 5 additional police services personnel . Tease impacts are offset by ',ha oignificant amount of revenues which wri 1 t .f low to the Ci ty and the Redevelopment • Agoncy from the project. A.-cording to a study done b' Laventhol h Horwath, Certified Public Accountants, dated 22hibit 19 ,.3 (0715) LU i November 11, 1957, summarized in Section 4 . 10 and included in s Exhibit L of the SEIR , the operation of the proposed development for the first 25 yeers of the Waterfront project i well generate an esti,, sited net revenue of One Hundred Twenty- one Million Eight hundred Twenty Three Thousand Dollars ($1.2.1 ,, 823 , 000 . 00) in ongoing takes end fees , after payment of all angoing general fund expenditures for added police, fire, public works and administrative expanses generated by the project . Included in these sums is some $10, 000 , 000 . 00 of affordable housing fund,: from the 20% set aside tin tax increment revenues , which can and must be utilized to increase ;.he community' s supply of decent and affor.d3bie housing . The City has determined that the public benefits referenced in Paragraph 1 above, tbr. availability of utility service* , and the opport.-nnity for an increased customer base , combined with the signit°icant revenues which flow to the City and the Redevelopment Agency from the project , adequately offswt a. .y incremental increase in energy usage . 3 . 41ew Tmgc . Because of the intensity and building height of the structures contemplated as part of the project , there will be some :impairment of certain views , along with increased density. Such impairment will be limited to certain inland viewpoints ; none: of the project is to be located on thAt coastal side of Pacific Coast FIighway, and ocean views from this major tnoLoughiare will be unaEfccted . Project design will still afford various inland view opportunities, and will maintain ocean visibility from much of the area surrounding the project site , including Pacific Coast Highway. III addition, erection of the hotel structures and portions of the residences will actually create new views and enhance the opportunities for enjoyment. of views from those sites . The City has determiners that elimination of current blighted Structures , and the fiscal effects of the project, including an anticipated rejuvenating effect on the downtown area, will outweigh any unmitigated impairment of views . Moreover , the opportunity for greater numbers of; visitors to come to the ocean area will in some resspectis enhance overall ocean view enjoyment:, which countervails the limited view impairment of certain uegments, from certain vantage points, surrounding the project, site . The 'lower denAty alternative in the EI'R (see Final EIIZ, Pa . 132--33) aould have soma► limited view-preserving effectr, but would not achieve the visitor-serving objectives of t'oe Downtown Specific pan or Lncal Coastal Plan to the Sams extent . Mursovar , such lower-scale deve'.opvienw would not produco the same level of public revenues achieved by the fthibit 2 -4- (073 5) 1 �r project as proposed , and w ,,uld entail many of the same environmental effects . On balanc,a, the City has determined that such a roJuced stale development would not provide the overall benefits of the proposed project . 4 . Air Quality. The project will result in regional air quality impacts . Impacts from construction are largely mitigated to a level of nonsigrificance . The regional. impact comes instead froc. daily trip generation from operation of the project . To the extent that regional air quality impacts are the result of auto or other vehicle emissions , mitigation measures for controlling such emissions are not within the jurisdiction of the City. Any measures in this regard would have to come from the California Air Resources Board or South Coast Air Quality Management District . To an extents, however, the City does have jurisdiction ever controlling the j intensity of land uses , from which daily tr:itis are generated . In this area of its jurisdiction, the City finds that the regio.aal incremental air quality impacts of the project are outweighed b) the elimination of blight, by Che replacement of aged, deteriorating, and su;)standard structures with new first-class commercial, recreational , and residential facilities , by enhancement of access to r:oaa;tal resources , and by increased City and Redevelopment Agiancy reverues from the project . 'rhi_s finding is made lock th recognition that mitigation measures have been required to the project to ease air quality in-pacts , including ventilation can stationary emission sources and a transportation. Moreover , the cormerr.:ial. portion of the planned project is a destination-oriented complex, which should minimize the need for visitor trips once vi ,itorrr are at the center . Further, locating residential uses close to surrounding employment centers can help to ameliorate the eristtng housing-- Jobs imbalance in Orange County and minimize tho number of miles workers commute to places of, employment,, thereby offsetting t.o some extent traffic and regional air quality concerns . Additional design features to enhance pedestrian aceesnibility, and the proximity of commercial, facilities to ttc� hotel and residential uses , will also serve to decrease the number of trips generated . Given t}.e many public benefits from the project r ,ferenced above, the City has determined that the adverse regional air quality impacts are acceptable. 6/159/065580--0001/O05 Exhib: t B -5- 10715) 5 r 1 mom CITY OF HUNTINGTO �l111 BEACHJ U fV �� G l�bd INTER-DEMATMBNT COMMUNICATION REDDFIOPMEMT • From � To Mayor Erskinr and Planning Commissionor�. City Council Members Livengood, Ortega , Leipzig Subject WATERFRONT PROJECT Data June 27 , 1988 MINORITY REPORT On .Tune 22 , 1988, tho Planning Coamissi.on approved the Waterfront Masten Plan and Development Agreement by a vote of 6 to J . The, Commissioners agreed thal: a minority report rerould be submitted concerning thre.: items in the agreement . The }project overall has mane ;positive features but the project, as designed , has very serious deficiencies which detract frorn its benefit: to the community. This minority report is a request that the City Council modify the Development Agreement in three areas , ( 1) pe s jd2 n � P g n s i t Density allowed in the>. Development Agreement/Master Plan for the residential part of the project is the highest possible (equivalent to R4 ) without a density bonus , out of keeping with the neighboring Seaside development immediately to the north and other projects approved for the area . The table below compares Waterfront density with o`.her projects in Huntington Beach . e C D-emi-ty A-r g a T-g-U-1 Jun a Pacific stanch .12 du/ac 46 . 9 ac 562' du Town Square 24 du/ac 3 . 7 ac 89 du Breakers 45 du/ac 7 . 5 ac 34,0 du Seabridge (Beach/Adams) :5 du/ar, 46 . 0 ac 600 du Seaside (Atlanta/beach) 15 du/ac 35 . 0 ac 525 du Waterfront (Plan) 3G du/ac 25 . 0 ac 875 du Wateyrf zont (R3) 25 du/ac 24 . 0 ac 600 du Waterfront.-. (R2) 15 du/ac 24 . 0 ac 360 du The high density of the project may adversely impact traffic on Walnut and Beach Boulevard and in the Downtown Area and is not needed to support the visitor-serving commercial usi.3 provided in the Waterfront project . NNW&, i • NATn".ONT PROJECT MINORITY REPORT June 27, 1988 Pate Two �Gor�hnATrah We recommend R2 or R3 residential density s t and a rde be the l inil t set for residential in the Dov(.-Iopment Agreement . We also encourage a variety of housing types be proposed similar to tha Pacific Ranch project but also including single family homes . (1) Parkincl The staff report on the Development Agreement indicates that insufficient parking is planned for the tot - 1 Projects and for four out flf six of the project phases (Phas�:s 31 4 , 5 and 6 ) . The Minority believes that Phases 1 and 2 are also deficient . i ( a) Each phase of the project must fully meet: it S. own parking demand. ( b) Any deficiency ;shish may occur in Please 1 must be re-medied bar expanding the number o; parking spaces in Phase 2 and not be allowed to be made up in any subsequent phasa . (c) Tandem parking neods to be evaluated for two years after completion of phase 1 before additional tandem parking is per:ni.tted in subsequent phases . This study should be part of the study conditioned in the Prase 1 project and all subsequent entitlement parking study conditions . The overall FAR of 1 .4 for the complete Waterfront Project is actually very high even though it does riot approach the ceiling of 3 . 5 envisioned in the Downtown Specific flan . Phase 4 of Waterfront has a particularly high FAR of 4 . 1 . T1�_o following table compares Waterfront with other projects . Huntington Center. 0 .32 Cha rtrer Centre 0 . 55 H. S , Holiday Inn 1 .4 Waterfront (All 6 phases ) 1 .4 Waterfront (Phase 4) 4 . 1 MR • M, '.� i 1 7 • 1 HATF-11 ROST PROJECT MINORITY REPORT June R , 19815 Pegs Tee REM ED&TIQN Reduce FAR for Phdoe A from 4 . 1 dawn to 3 . 5 . The project intensity in this phase is far in excess of any project within they City and is also out of Character with the other phases of the Waterfront- Master Plan . • - AttaMhed is a chart prepared by Community Development staff that provides a synopsis of the Master Plan . also attached irs a survey prepared by Commissioner Livengood and reviewed by staf! which provides a comparison of parking at comparable 'Hotels . The Minority suggests that the Council take they , important step: to improve the Waterfront Development Agre ment/Haster Plan . Respectfully submitted , Commissioner Tom Livengood Commissioner Victor. Leipzig Commissioner Geri Ortega TL :VL :GO/kla ( 0864d-•3-5) cc : Planning Commission Paul Cook , Doug oug La3elle i Mike Adams jo �•,�i �• �'�� •r ' +:i�' • ir. t '.��.� r�r .� r• ' 1 , yip G:. M,'7 � �''� � •�i� �,�!!�= ����.*�; •" ,7 ors rJY+. . • • • .J�'• •1•' yam, .. ;Jrt �.5 •44 •It •.' `r. :, •+ ',� f ��r�,.-�•- o. . .� 1•�' r a r'A`'i•i PHA 1 PHASE 2 PHASE 3 PKASF 4 PHASE 3 PHASE 6 Tha Sactionflssua SE R". grov. Rea. Prov. Req. Prov. RGq. arov. Req. Prov. R*q. grow. Raq. Prov. 4.11.G2 Mae. Parcel Sia. MA 3.56 ac NA 3.48 ac OVA 2.9 ac N4 1.22 zc NA 3.81 st NA 5.04 3[ No i�i 2Q.03 is No. of IWO Roams 300 Nona 590 250 NA 4W S4.ft. o` ftildings 256.00G sq.ft. 2K.000 sq.ft. 340.000 sq.ft. 250,660 sq.ft. 75.040 sq.ft. 410.000 :q.ft. 1.386.6W sq.ft. 4.11.0'3 Man. densitylir.tensity "A, 1.42 MIA 0.23 NA 3.31 NA 4. ! NA 0.51 NA 2.35 3.5 1 .4 by floor Area Ratio !.Il.G: fta. building height 14A 13 story NA 3 sto-�y NA 17 story NA 15 story NA 3 story NA 12 siory NA Various 4.11 .35 Mon. Sit• Coverage for buildings - Kazter Plan NA 41.9% NA 13.1% NA 45.1% ;*A 24.1% NA 42.5% 35% J 35% - Existing Code NA 52.2% NA 58% NA 43X NA 55.2% XA 35.6% HA 55% 35% 55.6% Ken. site coverage for NA 14% KA i.1% hA 4.1X NA 13.9M NA 33.9t NA 5.t-% 25% 17Z paring i accosswayrs 4.11.06 - front Yard Setback 5C ft. 50 ft. for all pha;es 4.11.07 - Side Yard Setback 20 ft. 20 f;. for all phases 4.11.08 - Rear Yard Setback 20 ft. 20 ft. fos• all i,.►nscs 4.11.10 Mn. Olen Space %A 35.7% Nil 98.9% NIA 42.1N NA 23% NA 38.1% NA 44.9% 25% 4S.4% Maw. Enclosed 9% 151E 9% Open Igace (Nax.) - 464 Parking 330 330 200 200 660 6C0 275 230 495 400 495 430 2455 2190 RrviseJ Jun* 22. 1968 _ (0M64d-2) t WATERFRONT PHASE 1 PHASE 3 PHASE 4 PHASE 6 Roams 3?Q 501G 250 400 Parking 330 b00 230 430 COMPARISONS: Four Seasons Irvine Hilton Embassy Westin South & Towers Suites Coast Plaza Airport Rooms 295 550 293 400 Parking 364 760 288 490 NOT'S: Every hotel contacted indicated that at peak times parking was nc�t adequate. The Four Seasons Hotel has to use valet parking for all parking since parking is so tight . The hotel has requested City approval to expand their parking . Torn Livengood - 6/21/88 (0864d-1) 1 1 STAFF RESPONSE TO M114ORITY REPORT SUBMXTTED BY PLANNING COMMISSIONERS On Juno 22, 1.9861 the Planning Commission approved the Waterfront Master Plan and Development Agreement by a vote of 6 to 0 , and agreed that a minority report would be submitted to the City Council regarding three issues. The followinU is staff ' s response to the Planning Commission ' s concerns relating to residential density, parking , and floor area ratio . 1 . Residential. Density The minority report expressed concern with the residential density of 35 units per grass acre (equivalent to R4 zoning) , and suggested that a lower density equivalent tc R3 or F: zoninq would be more appropriate . The Downtown Specific Plan District 8b allows a maximum density of 35 units per dross acre subject to approval of a Master Plan for the district , and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the Planning Commission. This density is consistent with the General Plan designation of High Density Residential for the situ The Downtown Specific: Plan envisions this type of development adjacent to the downtown commercial core as party of the population base r-icessary to create viable services in the area . The District ' s requirement for a Master Plan allows development that maximizes view opportunities , access to recreational facilities , and compatibility with a3jacent residential devel.opirGnt . The actual development standards of the district also sarve to buffer residences to the north from high intensity commercial development . All structures exceeding 35 feet in height (approximately three stories must be set bath a minimum of 100 feet front the northerly property) line of the site . The building layout and design are ,subject to approval by the Planning Corsuaission. Supplemental EIR 82-2 has shown that: there will be no significant adverse traffic impacts on Walnut Avenue or Beach Boulevard as a result of the propo.aed residential density. 2. Parking The Minority Report suggests that the parking for all the commercial phases is inadequate. The matrix attached to this RCA (Attachment No. 1) compares the proposed number of parking spaces with the number of spaces that would be requfxed for the scaled-down project as approved by the Planning Commission. The number of proposed spaces was obtained from RLM, Ltd . , while the number of required spaces is based on 1 , 1 space per hotel room, and 1 space per 200 square feet of health club and retail use. This project has been master planned in accordance with the Downtown Specific Plan . At each phase of development, the, Planning Commission has discretion over parking and other design features, and may impose additional Conditions of approval os necessary. A condition of approval of the I, Master Flan and Development Agzeement (Condition No . 25 of thfj STIR 82-2) states that , "Prior to approval of aach phase of tha project, the Planning Commission shall determine the need to conduct a parking study. This determination will be made in consideration of the parkitsq ratios applied to previous phases and performance thereof . " Thus , should an actual shortfall occur in any phase, the Planning Commission may address the Issue prior to commencement of subsequent phases . 3 . Floor Area Patio (FAR) The Mlaori.;y Iteport notes that overall project ' s Floor Area Ratio of 1 .4 is too ',. i.gh, and that Phase 4 Floor Area Ratio of 4 . 1 exceeds the maximum of 3 . 5 permitted by the Downtown Specific- Plan District 5 . It should be noted, however, that Section 4 . 11 . 03 of the Downtown Specific Plan states, "the Floor Area Ratio shall apply to the entire project prea . "r The Project FAR has , therefore , been calculated on a Master Plan basis rather than a phase--by-phase basis . Since the phases are inter--related, the divic Ion 7 * nes t between phases and the land Preas they encompass are desciiptive and i somewhat arbitrary. The Phase 4 boundary, for example, %7as drawn around the single towar, resulting in a small land area and a high FAR. The cumulative FAR figures shown in the letter from the Robert Mt:lrur Corporation to the City Council. dated July 26 , 1988 , present the actual relationship of builcing area to land area as each phase prog9ri,sses . The cumulative FAR by Phase 4 is 1 . 6, well below tho maximum 3 . 5 allowed . With regard to the FAR comparisons with other major projects presented in the minority report, the lower FARs reflect the large land area that is recIttired to aceomunodate surface parking . When underground parking structures are utilized, as in the Waterfront project, a smaller land area can be developed while still maintaining the required site coverage, setbacks , landscaping and open space . A higher FAR is the result . -.2- (10504) •I 1 now& "' r►�E r Rae�rzr RATION w Date: July 26, 1988 To: The Honorable John Erskine Nicrnkrs of the City Council From: The Robert ;Mayer Corporation Subject: The Waterfront Minority Report from Members of the Planning Commission ,4t our recent hearings before the Planning Commission, several questions ware raised about The, Waterfront and the prop )scd development agreement. These Concerns were previously forwarded to you in. a minority report prepared by three Planning Corrinussioners. In some cases (particularly %A,ith regard to parking), minor statistical errors occurred in the staff reports which lead to undue confusion. NVe are taking this opportunity to clarify the relevant facts and to present addition,,-.-I information ?n the hope: that th.; Council will benefit from a thorough discussion of these issue•. 1, r IU112E '���LY 77he 'Waterfront conceptual muster plan and development agreement anticipates the build-out of the residential portion of the project with a maxinium of 875 residential units. Pursuant to the Downtown Specific flan as adopted some five years ago, this area is zoned for 35 units per gross acre, or a total of 963 units. However, The Robert Mayer Corporation has already agreed to a reduction to 87.E units. There are sovicral issues to be considered when reviewing the residential easity: a Adjacent Nigh Intensity Commercial and Residential Uses: The residential portion of The Waterfront has the following su.rrourding land uses: South: The Waterfront commercial section including four hotels, a retail shopping center and a tennis and hcalih renter. West: District i Visitor Serving Commercial (mash F jk..R. 3.0) and [istrict 8-a High Density-Resieential (35 du/acre). t' onh: Mediium densit residential consisting of the Scaside townhom c tract .5 dulacre). East: Vacant, boat yard, and high density residential (45 du/acre) to the northeast (thy: "Breakers"). It is therefore clear that the site is in tie midst of high intensity land urea :�J l�ewatxr Ce-•* ���T 10 rrnl. 5,.;�te tQ yQ r 1 The Waterfront 3 Minority Report of the. Planning Commission July 26, 1Page and not conducive to lower density or single family use as suggested in the minority report. b. Existing Tuwnhomes to the North ( ,Seaside ) Buffered by The Wateitrorrt Realdentinl: The Waterfront residential forms an important buffer between the commcrcial portion of The Waterfront and the medium density housin existing to the north. Buffering high intensity commercial use with hi 9 density residentiil, transcending to medium density and then to singe family is common land planning approach that is also applied in the downtown Main Street area. C. Existing Townhomes to the Forth ( Seaside ) Protected by an Adjncert height Unit: Parallraph 4.10.09 of the Downtown Specific Flan 11mits the height of The Waterfront residential development to 35' withh, 109' of the: existing townhome.s to the north, thereby mitigating the ini act of the high density land use on the existing rrnedium density land use of the Seaside development. d, iExistirr.g Townhnmes to the North ( Seaside ) are Functionally Isolated from 'Me Waterfront: Due to the distant: and low elevation of the land, ocean views do not exist for the Seaside development and so it has bccn oriented inward with an internal water amenity. Further, Seaside's primary access and traffic flows arc off Atlanta Avenue. `,`Ialnut Avenue will" Ne, extended to Ec:aeh Wjulevard providing The Waterfront with all its access on a new and sr.parate street isolated from Seaside. 14 C_'on pmisons to PacifSe Ranch, Town Square and Stabridge are Misleading: It is our opinion that comparison to theFaeific Ranh and Town Square developments are misleadin,4 Ncause they are not located in the vichuty of The Waterfront and are subject to other surrounding land use concerns. ,also, the Stabcidge, project data shown in the minority report is actually the combined averag! of two separate project types, the Lakss project with its entry on Adams Avenue and the Seabnd$e project facing $each Boulevard. The Seabridge project located on Beach Boulevard is in fact approximately 36 units per net acre. A revised table in the manner shown in the minority report would be as follows: ftc& ImalVaill War�fiont (Plan►� 3�5 d�� 2�5.O�ac 873 du Breakers 45 dulac 7.5 ac 344 du Seabridge (Beach Blvd. 36 dulac; 9.5 ac 344 du Seaside (Atlanta/Beach) 15 dizfac 35.0 ac 525 du i 1 The Waterfront Minority Report of the Planning Commission July 26, 19K Page 3 L 'lie Densil.y Allotted Per the Dwimtown Specific Plan has lb:en In Effect for Five Years.- This High Density designation which has been apprcjvcd by the Coastal Comrnission is the result of extensive d%:iberations and public clearings. The designation is consistent with the City's General Plan, U mstal Element and Housing Element m well ns the Southern California A. iation of Goverrimcnt's growth forecasts. further, it has been a central issue in the land paantlirxg and economic negotiations between the City's staff and The Robert Mayer Corporation leading to the proposed project. g, Ile Allotted Derl,lEy .Suppcirts Revitalization of Main Street: As stated in paragraph, 3.2.4 of the Downtown Specific Plan regarding the High Density designation ort District #8, "New Residential Development adjacent to the Downtown Commercial core will provide the proposed commercial uses with i-he popidation b(ue necessory to create viable services." A. decrease in density sir-uply reduce.. the opportunity for a succk.ssful revitalization cf ?Awn .,trcct. h. The Allntmd Density Sltpporis ille Retail Plaza Planned for The Wateriroot: The retail plaza planned for The Waterfront's commercial portion is an !TnVurtant component in the destination i.;scrt concept. However, a vibe-nt ret;til plaza vrill depend on both hotel visitors are. the adjacent residential as & customer base. A decrease in the densive will simply decrease the opportunity for a successful retail plaza, which In turn wilt affect the; hotels at The Watcrfrotnt. L 'Me Allotted Density Maldrt U s View Opportunities and Access to Recreational Amenities: As encouraged by state coastal licy, the high density provides an increased access to coastal recreation. Further, i.,e commercial site plan has been designed to provide view opportuniti,:s from the upper doors of the residential a.Fsuming a high density land plan. J. All EnvironrnenW1 lnipa+cti Assatlated with Ile Project Have 11een Analyzed and h iitlgated: The Commission acted unanimously to approve what_ may be the, most evensivt envf6-onmental rc�iew of a protect ra.Hunthigton Beach. Some 50 mitigating conditions are included in the en,i-onmental documentation to reduce nearly all eavuionmental nave-ts tc a level of non-significance. It should also be noted that several reduced-density scenarios were studied as altmatives in the Sur icmental Environmental Impact Report and it was aancluded that n lEr-antonvizoamcowirnarovem tit muld roull from i The Waterftont 4 ` N inorJ- -Report of the Planning Commission , July 2t, .91K Page 4 L Traffic Impacts have beat Analyzed F.densively ar,:l Levels of Service on Surrounding Strects and Intersectlons will Operate at Acceptable �vels; Extremely conservative assumptions were used in the City's traffic study; 1wficJ2 V dy M=Pliga Actual Qndilio Full build-out of the downtov, it. The Council significantly down- area pursuant to the 1987 Down- zoned portions of the :ore urea to town Specific Plan, including Pier- the "Village concept". side Village. One way traffic on Main Street. Main Street has bceti returacd to two-way traffic, reducing flows orl Lake Street. E 1,600 hotel roonis. 1,450 fwtel roams wc:•e approved. Traffic generation rate of 10.5 Traffic generation rate of 6.0 tripsJroor,Vdav, a rate applicable: tripslroom/day, a rate proven by to airport-type 1►otcis ii` motcls. past stud::.s of resort hotels, a 437o reduction. Together with the rc- duction its the total number of rooms, thf-J Mw11 i2 4 is hg, taten�f), c €d! 99,000 square feci of retail 75,OUG square feet of retail sho - shopping. ping was approved, a 24 zj reduction. 894 residential units. 875 residential units were approved. 'r;raffic eneration rates for a ten- A. tennis and health center lit;% 9 nis an health center with lh courts and a 25,000 sT ciubhovse tenjnis courts and a 40,000 s.f. facility was approved. clubhouse facility. An extremely conservative, worst- A.condition of approval was added case, comprehensive Traffic analy- by the Planning Commission re- sin sufficient for the bu;ld•out of qui rinr; sup - the entire Waterfront project. sus as eachplemental traffic analphme of the project resented for C.onditicr►al Use ,t emit approval. summer pciQ traffic conditions determined that even in su,s is r aaeptalAc kw1s arc w"rlcncxd during the. peak.A.M. and peak P.M. wtckday hou m 1 A I r The Waterfront i.linority Report oaf the flAaning Commission t J illy 26, .'.'i�3` , Page 5 2. WARN 'The subjcct (If is a coMPIC:., and durinf.; tilt; Cc:-aimissi.on's dch,'kn atior,: dierl,- viere scveral is�u:�s aiw cm cept, di&cussc d requiring clarification. A. .china the Parking Rk,quirertacuts o1 the Sepr r;-!-n 'U ies In n hotel �s I,11151e;flint,;: The City's parl_;ng ordinance -:uriendy prc,idcs a parking ,cr{uir1in1:nt Of 1.1 space per hotel ruon: which is already an acc:-.imulatirn of the V;:rious Mes within a normal hotr.l mch as ri sta,:Arants, mec.tin,-7 rooms and ba.lccwm (1`-pically, first-class guost roonas by themselves Deed about 0.4 spaces px:r Loom, and the demand of th;. other uses: are than fi_ctored in to add up to 1.1 total spaces p!:r rooni.) Motive%,cr, when studying certain mixed- ;i;c prail;crs, t; c t=oniriu.•;sioi: tins rtiviously an,ilyz�;d the paib�ing cic;niand of each use in such pro;eets srp rat���y. Therefore, staff also provided statistics its if each sub-usL in the hotel (guest roams, rc st.atirants, lounges, m. eetin,g roorri;, ballroom) was a separate function vnrelaied to the others, r sulting l in an unusually high ;lieo,i;tical parking requircinient. In actual p;ac..ticc., and surely as you have expericcicea in yc,ur oval travels many ncopl(� aticnding rnectings are alsoucsrs of the hotel i,nd will also diet. a'. the restaurant and erfor cocl:!ails at the letinge, ctc., all the while; using; only one r-;rMng spice (assuming the), arrived by car, note; that many of the guests at fist ..sass hotols arc in tradei groups using buses). As a result, the tu.al peak demand for hotels of the wpe ,.)Ianved for The Wa:(:rfi-ant reaches 1.1 spaces p,-,,r room (equal ;o the existing, code ; ;:ad t.iat oaaurs at 3:00 p.m. U. 10:00 p.m., whert rooms, rc.:;tau.a*:ts and �6111roonis are in full use. The projcct a y de,igned provides 1.1 total pa;kin,,, spaces per room. 1), Ttae Waterfront Meets Mt Code.v .and the 'T;ahulation Attached to the Minority 1Rep)rt Reflects a Larger Project than that Approved. The minority repor': of Zhe Commission attached a page of a staff report that to indicate that the project was under-patkeo. Actually, that tabulation calculated the numlicr of spaces that would be required of a Iarger scale project but did not show the actual requirement of T'lie Waterfront as approved. Ergicct De r-ltwl ' S qil .ual�c Anrcwed 1,600 hovel rooms; 1,450 rooms 40r000 M. tennis A health center 25,OM s.f. tennie & health center 99,000 s.f. rctai'. shopping plaza 75.000 st rclail shopping plaza Parking Requircd: 2,455 spaces Parking Required: "arking Nmidcd: 2,143 spaces Parking Provided: 2.190 spaces As a.bg scen- the 1trgkil Demand tc rdh; M4 pArking Slanda[da. 1, 1 r f V The Waterfront Minority Re of the Planning Conuflission July 74, 198K Pap 6 C. Addltlonai, Extensive Studies Were Provided: At the request of the Commission, an extensive analysis of hotel parking needs was provided by the City'sconsultaats who prepared the gEIR. Their report coverin other resort projects in C�alsfarnia and elsewhere, as well as particular low prep rties sug•,gested by the Commission, focum-A on what is actually ayovid 6y-other i ties for similar ppro'ecta and what is actually experiencen operations. That study concluded!that a puking rate of, 1.1 spaces per hotel rooni (inclusive of meeting space, restaurants and lounges Included in the hotel) is sufficient. This :s cxactly what the City s existing code requires for hotels. d. Back-Up Parking Can be Provided: With regard to the Phase 1 Hilton hotel,'nit Robert Mayer Corporation has arced to .a parking sur fey during actual operations and, to rovide additional parking (on-site surface as an interim and :n FFase 2 permanently) i( the need was shown by the su:vey. This commitment was incorporstled as a condition of appr oval of the project. L Reciprocal Parking In Future Phases is an Additional Advantage: A positive feature not often discussed in the study of The iYaterLont's commercial master plan is the fact that because this is an integrated, m all asteFr- lanned project, the parking of each phase of the project is closely interrelated. . with several physical inter-connections and reciprocal arrangements well be maintained. In actual operation, aU hotels, retail;'and recreational uses will not often experience peals conditions at the day or time. As a result, I unusual excess demand is experienced with a special event.at one facility,valet parking staff will cally have the, opportunity to solve the rroblem with the under-utilized pa available at a neighboring facili :e advantaee__of this master-olann�d 12run10*14 that U1s� .I L dgyel ? ents do ryc�. E Important Land Planning Considerations: Lastauncil thiee very important land-planning issues should be uneerstood by the when considering parking at The Waterfront: L Ng 1trocpa�ng„�y. lted.• Pursuant to a condition of approval of the projCCt, no parking :s >al,owed on Walnut Avenue; further, thefuture residential units will be within a private community with its own off-street parking. Therefore, all parking will be effectively self- contained. 2. L1�11.Q' • �_1� what cultEa . Da VVatcrf:a t2►tld..t�_.. in a ors nl th �nsig jy�me-&r • s=ctures -., dcstr 'ng the beauty of the open space provided by a Waterfront util�'ng underground parking. 3. Euildiat &=a. 1m=igs1Lv unfeasiblg. The significant quo .... The Waterfront Minority Report of the Planning Commission JUN 26t 19K page 7 excess goat would force a reduction of public areas such as meetipt space and restaurants, as well as fewer public recreational amenities and less site landscaping. In conclusion, the Parking planned for 'The Waterfront meets or exceeds the City's parking ordinances and it is the oplaion of Moth The Robert Mayer Co ration and the City's own consultants that the parking planned is fully sufficient. 3. FLQQ3 AREA RATIQ At the Planning Commission hearing there was discussion regarding the FAR of the Phase 4 All-Suite hotel and it was suUested that this phase is "out-of-character" with the rest of the project. l-Iawever, The Waterfront's phases are not a series of isolated, unrelated projects--instead they are integrated together to work as a whole, as required by the Downtown Spedfe Plan. e. Deftnldon of FAR The floor area ratio as used in the Downtown Specific Plaa is the useable floor area (excluding parking) divided by the land area (arom acres not exceeriin 1.5% above the net acres). As an example, if yam': have a 100,000 sq. ft. bwiding on a 50,000 gross sq. ft. lot, you have an FAR of 2.0. FAR is an indicator of land use intensity but is a rough planning tool at best, since it is so general in nature and is ,misleading when companngg,projectn with above grade and tw.low grade parking. The FAR allowed in District #9 is 3.5 and the approval Commercial Master plan for The Waterfront provides an FAR of 1.4 (including the Phase 4 All-Suite Hotel), less than one-half the allowed FA-R. b. Concept of The 'Waterfront as a Master-Planned, Integrated Development As required by the Downtown Specific Plan, a comprehensive tnaster plan for the crummercial portion of The Waterfront has been provided. Eursuant � � tatistics ,Arr, cal=rut d ongegple as s. Yvfast importantly, the overall master plan has been created as an interrelated, integrated development, not as isolated phases. 'There will be no fences separating the phases and the public will be encouraged to move throughout the project via the Pacific Promenade Park, a linear park with a botanical theme running the length of Pacific Coast Highway. If individual pha ses were subject to individual restrictions, the, purpose of a master plan would be defeated and a large scale recreational amenity would be impossible. e. Phasing is for Descriptive Purposes Only end Phasc Specific FAR Calculations Are Arbitrary: ` Phasing is provided, primarily for inforinatioual purpcmcs, and to help describe the progression of constniction. 'le mint,nty report's concern over f � The Waterfront Minority Report of the Planning Comission July 26, 1 P m age 3 FAR focuses upon the Phan-S :iIc data without eonddering the total context of each phase within the larger total development. Particular' with Phase 04, the geographic phase �oundary was conveniently raw�t surrounding the tower, resulting in a small land area and a hi FA►R. However, the phase boundary could just as easily have been drawn to encompass more of the driveways and walkaways between it and the next Phase *5 and the FAU:?. would therefore drop dramatically. Clearly, the FAR is not a valid indicator when applied on an isolated phase in an integrated, master-planned development. d. Phase 4 Is in Character with The Waterfront: The Phase 4 All-!.. i=._ Hotel is ►onsistent in height, bulk, and architect:iral style with the oth(n,hotels in the project. it is an wtegral component of the project and is appropriately sized for reasonable aperat:sg efficiency and the anticipated market demand. It is compatible with both the adjacent phases and the project as a whole. to Comparisons to Huntington Center and Charter Center are Misleading: The minority report shows comparisons to Huntington Center and Charter Center, projects which utilize extensive surface and above grade parking. As a result, the projects contain tittle in the way-of landscaped or p�ublic recreational facilities bur utilize a large amount o► land Plea resulting.irY low FAR numbers. At The Waterfront most parking is underneath the buildings and therefore leis land is required for surface parking and more land w available for landscaped open space and recreational amenities (55%).. By using underground'parking, The Waterfront is simply, more land-efficient and provides a dramiitically higher amount of high-quality landscaped public oppeen space and recreational facilities than either Charter C.entrc or Huntington Center. E Cumulative FAR Is a Better Description of Phased Development: When considering the individual phases of The Waterfronts the meaningful way to consider the FAR is to look at what the cmmulativr, FAR is as each phase is added to ti:e total development. As can be seen, considering Phase 4 in conftnation with the prcceding Phases ] through 3 gives an entirely different picture. Cumulative PhglC EAR 1 1.4 1-2 0.8 1-2-3 1.2 1.2-3-4 1.6 1-2-3-4-5 1.3 1.4 i amp& 1 ' ; hr. "a Waterfront ' Minotity Report of the Planning Commission July 241 page 9 g. Ali EaAm meutal Immets Assodat@d'with 1M* Project Have Bm A W*%W quad bgdg • As stAed previously, the environmental Lmpact of the project hae been scrutiaixed ire�exmpptional detail and nearly all environmental impacts will be �miti&ated to a level of non-significance. It was also concluded in the Supplemental Environmental Impact Report that no :i nificant enWronmen' tal improvement would occur from a lowering of intensity. Further, traffic was analyzed under extrem6ly conservative, worst-caw wt.narios and acceptable levels of service of surrounding streets was still maintained. Given these facts, it is our opinion that the coneern over the PAR in Phase 04 is unwarranted. Many of the concerns and recommendations of the minori report are already 3roject requirements appurtenant to the Downtown Specii 1'fan (D.S.P.), the upplemental Environmental Im��ppact Report (SEIR 82-2) or the Phase 1 Conditional Use Pernut'(Ph�ase 1 COP), as follows: MigarilyReport C,bjcera ,tin&RaQuiccwenzsr&nditigas Residential Density. A Master Conceptual Site: Plan for the residential de' velopmcnt shall be approved the Planning mmissiun. (D.S.P. 4.10.02) The residential development shall be subject to a Conditicnal Use Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission (D.S.P, 4.10.01) Maximum building height of 50 ft. (D.S.P. 4.10.04) Maximum ,1�ufiding height of 35 ft. within IOG . From the existing Sea- side townho_,.e ►3eveloprment to the north. (D.S.P. 4.10.09) Maximum site coverage of 50%d (D.S.P. 4.10.05) Minimum front, side, and rear yard setbacks of 20 ft. (D.S.P. 4.10.06,7& 8) Prior to the approval of each phase, the Planning commission shall de- termine the need to conduct •a traffic sr.udy. (SUR 922% #24) l r t 1 t .. The Waterfront Minority Re of the Plannipg Commission MY 2,bv INK P Se 10 ndiligns Each phmr meet its own perking It is the intent dU the developer that demand. each �bl ase meet its owo parking errand. Each phase shell be subject to a Con- ditional Use Permit to be approved the Piannin Commission. (a,S. . 4.10.01 & 4.1 Prior to approval of each phase= the Pia commission shall determine • the n� to conduct a parking study. (SEIR 82+2 #25) Any parking deficiency which may A arking survey of actual operations oLur in Phase 1 inust be remedied of Phase I. shall be conductd. Any by expanding the number of deficienccy sha11 be remedied byy .p'aces m phase 2 and sot be al- adding additional parkin to phase 2 lowed to be made up in any subse. with $ physical connection between quent phase. Phase 1 and 2 providing reciprocal access. (Phase 1 CUP #12 . Tandem parking. The parking survey to be conducted for the Phase 1 Hotel shall include an analysis of the self and valet parking system (the valet operation uses the tandem spaces), (Phase 1 CUP #12). PAR for Phase 4. The floor area ratio shall apply to the entire project area. (D.S.P. 4�.11.03) Each phase shall be subject to a Con- ditional Use Permit to be approved by the Planning Commission. (D.S.P. 4.10.01 & 4.1 g.01) Prior to the approval of each phase, the Planning Commission shall de- termine the seed to conduct a traffic study. (SEIR '2.2-2, #24) ti Tt watedrant ' .« Mlgarity RC of the Planning Comrabsion +'•' July 26, 19 of I I in caneh ian, it our opinion that there are no deficiencies in The Waterfront development agreement or master plan which detract from its benefit to the community. !' Sed an the foregoing discuxsiott, It L out opinion that the concerns expressed in the minorPy. report have already bran provided for Its the comprehensive Supplerneti•:al Environmental Impact Report and the project's conditions of approval. 'Wherefore, The Robert Mayer Corporation respectfully requests that no action be taken by the City Counr-il Ah regard to the minority report. Sincerely, r��•t The Robert-Mayer Corporation cc: Mr. Paul Cook Mr: Douglas M. IA&Ile r Mr. Michael Adams 1 i a i 1 .1 I 1 Illy il �• A11 1' ,,1111 +. REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION D BAMIMW Honorable Mayor and City Council hYs Paul E . Cook, City Administrator S PrWoad by: Douglas Le Belle, Di rector of Community Develop Sub)W: DRVRWPNM ACJMWONT AND CONNZBCIAL MASTER SITE THE WATERF RONT owulstwrt with Council Policy? $4 Yes [ ] Novo Polio► or fxoaption S�crnernt of Iwo, Recomrnandation, Analysis, Funding Source, .Aite Wvo Actions, Attechrtrent$s gX Tran mitted for your consideration is the Development Agreement betwe n the City of Huntington Beach and R144 Properties, Ltd./Hunting*on Beach Redevelopment Agency, for the Master Conceptual plan ou the Waterfront: project . RIgnI1ing Commission R!ecommnilatign .and Action gf June 22, 126FI: 09 NOTION BY SLATES AND SECOND BY SILVA, THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND COMMERCIAL MASTER SITE PLAN BY ADOPTING RESOLUTION NO. 1400 WITH FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, BY THE rOLLOWING VOTE: XLES: Slates, Silva, Livengood, Leipzig, nrtega, Higgins ORTEGA: Norse ASSENT: Kirkland ABSTAIN: pone EINDYSGS Of ApPhOVU: 1 . The Development Agreement and Commei.uial Faster Site Plan are consistent: with the objectives, policie$, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan , 2 . The Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site Plan are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the property is located. 1 . The Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site Plan are in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice. J Room t aim J , 4 . fte Development Agreement and Comerclal Master Site Plan will eot be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare. 5. The Development Agreement and Commercial Mentor Site Plan will riot adversely affect the orderly development of property values . UON8 OF MPH OVAL. 1. All Conditions of the Certified Supplemental EIR 82-2 adopted bl► the Planning Commission on June 8 , 1988 in Resolution 1397 , $Ball be incorporated in the Development Agreement . a. Thie Commercial Master Site Plan shall be amended as follows a . Chants and figures shall be amended to show; Phases 2 to be a maximum of 2 stories, and 25,000 square feet Phase 3 to be a maximum of 500 rooms, 15 stories and 140, 000 square feet Phase 5 to be a maximum of 75,000 square feet Phase 8 to be a maximum of 400 rooms, 9 stories, and 440 , 000 square feet 3 . The Development Agreement shall be amended as follows : a. Section )D. (2)a . (1) (e) on page 15 -- case 5:_. Separate ,DavelgRMgnt ParGel Ljos_j - shall read " . . .with approximately 75, 000 square feet of improvements . " 4 . A Mobilehome Acquisition and Relocation Agreement must be approved by the City Council ar..d executed by the Redevelopment Agency , RLM Properties, Ltd . and the Driftwood Heachelub Mobile Homeowners Association, Inc . In the event that the 4'1;ove portion are unable to finalize such a written agreement, The Waterfront project and all related approvals will not go forward without going back to the Planning Commission for full public rehearings as to all matters Considered by the Commission with regard to The Waterfront project . The As3oclation and its members shall be entitled to participate fully at the rehearings without prejudice. Plann%Staff =ndation Staff recommends that the City Council approve the Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site plan with the conditions of approval as presented. RCA - 8/15/88 -2- (1041d) I. � I Applicant : RLN Proportion B City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency The project site in located within the Downtown Specific Plan area and is bounded by Pacific Coast Highway on the South, Beach boulevard on tre east, Huntington Street on the wont, and the Downtown Specific Plan boundary on the nok•th. The proposed commercial/recreation portion of the Mtiistu Conceptual Plan is within District 9 (Mixed Use - Commrcial/Recreation) which permits sports and recreation facilities, hotels or motels, and supporting restaurants and shops . The residential portion of the Master Plan In located in District 8b (High Density Residential) , which permits permanently attached residential units at a maximum density of 35 units per groan acre. In both Districts, the goal is to encourage large, coordinated development that provides beach-oriented amenities to the general public and local residents. Kanter PlAirl The Master Conceptual Plan and Development Agreement propose an overall development plan for Districts 8b and 9, as required by the Downtown Specific Plan. Six commercial phases and three residential phases are proposed. The commercial phases are generally described an follows. Phase 1 is a 296 room first class., resort hotel located on approximately 3 . 58 net acres , and will include a restaurant, an entertainment lounge, meeting and ballroom facilities , and various �. guest services. Phase 2 is a tennis and recreation center located on approximately 3 . 48 net acres . This will feature tennis courts , a health club, pro shop, exercise, weight--lifting and fitness center which will be available to hotel guests and the public . Phase 3 will consist of a maximum 500 room first class conference hotel on approximately 2 . 9 acres which will contain restaurants , conference rooms # and meeting facilities . Phase 4 will be a maximum 250 room all suite hotel on approximately 1 . 2 acres . Phase 5 will consist of a maximum 75, A00 square foot retail--commercial center on approximately 3 . 81 acres which will contain restaurants , specialty retail shopping facilities and outdoor plaza areas . Phase 6 will be a maximum 400 room luxury resort hotel on approximately 5 .04 acres including restaurants, lounges , and guest services . The residential portion of the Master Conceptual plan is included for informational purposes only, and does not represent the proposed layout or desi.4;:. An with the commercial phases, each of the three j residential phases will be subject to a separate conditional use permit . A total of 875 units are proposed to be constructed . At this time, only the Commercial Master Site plan is presented for approval. The Development Agreement states that the developer is required to obtain Planning Commission approval of a Conceptual Site Plan for tho residential portion prior to approval of any conditional use permit for residential development . RCA - 8/13,/88 --3-• ( 1041d) F' m f •r �F.f i 1 r , The 'KnOter Plan has been ameeneed to reflect the Planning Cosnission' s action, as outlined in Condition of Approval No . 31 above. A minority report n: the Planning Commission was submitted to the City Council on June 27, 1988, expressing concerns as to residential density, parking, and floor area ratio . A copy of the mainority report is attached to this transmittal, along with a staff response and a letter from the Robert Mayer Corporation. DoZO 1QP=11tAg reeeeeienf j The purpose eaf a Development Agreement is to provide assurance to an applicant that he max proceed with a development in accordance with the City•s existing ruler , regulations , and official policies in force at the effective date of the Agreement. Such Agreements are intended to strengthan the planning process, encourage public participation in planning , and reduce the economic risks of development . The Clty may enter into Development Agreements pursuant to City Codacil Resolution No . 5390, which was adopted in 1984 under the authorit'� of Government Code Sections 65864-65869 .5 . The Development agreement specifies the permitted uses, the density and intensity of uses, the matimum bulk, height, and size of Commercial buildings, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes , location and design of public improvements, and term3 and conditions of development. The Commercial Master Site plan is an attachment to the Development Agreement, and presents graphically and in greater detail the parameters of the development described in the Agreement. The residential portion of the project is not described in detail by this Master Plan., However, the proposed number of residential units, their phasing, and timing of construction are not forth in the Development Agreement . A residential Master Site Flan will need to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to residential deeveelop ftnt . In return for allowing the developer to proceed with the projeec:t subject to existing policies and regulations, the developer is obligated to provide improvemnts as outlined by the Development Agreeanrent . in addition to the proposed buildings , -these include the provision of all landscaping, open space, dri•teeways, and other on-site improvements, the instAllation of Walnut Avenue and the "Spur" Street, including landscape,'• medians, traffic signalization, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street lights, bus benches, storm drains , utilities, parkway landscaping, and other right-of-way improvements . Additional improvements to be provided include at least one pedestrian overpass to the beach, extension of water and other utility lines to the site, street widening around the perimeter of the site, and re--abandonment of existing abaLdoreed oil wells on--aite. Additionally, the dove;oiler will maintain the landscaping and sidewalks behind the curb. RCA - 8/15/88 -4- (1041d) 1 . The Development Agreement provides that no Moratoriu'ws' or other ordinances, ,regulations', , rules, or: policies that limit or condition the rate, timing, or sequence of development shall apply to the project. This includes regulations that limit development based on Levels of Service for roadwayde capacities of roads , drainage or sewer facilities, or provision of emergency sorvice,s . This restriction Mould not apply. however, to now ordinances or regulations required for public health or safety purposes, or mandated by changes in Federal or State laws . The Agreement provifts for an annual review by the City in order to determine whether :.he developer is proceediaq in good faith . These procedures are seat forth in the Agreement and in City Council Resolution 5390 , The terms of the Agreement may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the City and Developer . The Development Agreement and Master Conceptual Plzen are covered by Bupplemantal Environmental Impact Report No . 82-2, which was approved by the Planning Commission on dune 8, 1988 . Prior to acti6n on the Development Agreement, Final SEIR 82-2 must be adopted and certified as adequate. r not applicable. The City Council may: 1 . Deny the Development Agreement and Master Commercial Site Flan with findings; 2 . Approve the Master Commercial Site plan with findings and conditions* end deny the Development Agreement . 8 1 . Zoning Consistency Matrix for each phase dated June 15 , 1988 2. Area map 3 . Planning Commission staff report dated June 22, 1938 4 . The Waterfront Master C_nceptual Plzen dated June 22 , 1988 S . Development Agreement dated July 25, 1988 6. Pl nning Commission Resolution No . 1400 adopting the Master Conceptual Plan and Development Agreement 7. SEIR 82--2 Mitigating Measures 8 . finority Report from planning Commission dated June 27, 1988 9 . Staff Response to Planning Commission Minority Report 10 . Letter from tha Robert Mayer Corporation dated July 26, 1988 in response to Planning Commission Minority Report W rSH:LP:gbm RCA - 8/15/88 -5- ( 1041d) i i ZOIM COMS1 M MR1 Se4tionllssw Phase 1 Phate 2 Phase 3 Pkasf 4 'base 5 P%&te 6 Total NAm. Prov. Req. Prov. Req. Pray. Req. Prov. ftq. laq. lrw. ftq. FVW. 4.11.02 Pia. Parcel Size NA1 3.58 u m 3.46 ac NA 2.2 ac St 1.22 ac M 3.81 ac U1t 5.04 me wa Me. 20-M ac 4..1.03 Nax. density/intensity NA 1.42 NA o.23 NA 3.31 NA 4.1 m 0.51 NA 2.36 3.5 1.4 by r:oor Area Rati O Building Area 1 56,= sf 25.0000 -sf 340.000 250.600 ��..':M'^ 440.000 1,30i,M No. of Rcae►s } 295 250 400 ` 4.11.04 Max. building height MR 13 story NA 2 story NA i5 story 44- 15 story Nk 3 story NA 9 story m war}aexr 4.11.0S Max. Site Cov3rage i for buildings i - ftsttr Plan W. 41 .9% NA 13.1% NA 50A w 4S.1% I NA 24.1% NA 42.E M 3W - Existing Code NA 52.2% NA 56% NA 63% Nil 50.21 NA 38.E N+t 559 3% 55.66 4&%. site coverage for NA 14% NA 1.1% NA 4.1% NA 13.9% MN 33," NA 5.80 296 12A parking a scces:rayt4 I 4.11.06 Front yard Setback 50 ft. 50 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11.07 Side Yard Setback 20 ft. 2G ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11.06 ►�- Rear Yard Setback 20 ft. 20 ft. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . _ . _ s. • 4.11.10 Alin. Open Ssace5 KA 35.73 NA 98.9% NA 42.1% NA 23% NA 38.1% Auk 44.97L 25S 49.45 - Mr. Enclosed 91 159 9% Open Space CHU.) . 960 •3 �. Parki ng6 330 334 i 2S 200 ( SSr 550 275 275 375 4oQ 440 440 2O'95 Y145 `- _ � r r = Lodams NA Aeons tnses era no mint um or Amiss =taMidi7*, now. ` ly obese or for the �street, as. 2 ilaxieao FAR for the entire district is 3.5. A1tAowjh son phases nay lndiiridrallg exceed 3.5._the project FAR is 1.7. 3 The Maxima 'it= Coverage for builAinos owar the orJre district is M. A dismsion of the Master Man v" of site coverage vs. rlsting code interpretation of site cover is Contained is, the body of the Flaming Cosission staff report dated Jaws 22. IM. 4 The Naximun Site for parking and accesswag: for the entire district is 25t. - 5 The minima opn spa-:: area for the entire district is 25% of the -#te area. A aanium of 151 of the open spats area nsg be enclosed- 6 'Requires" parking figurss are calculated an the basis of 1.1 spaces per reeve for hotels, vW 1 space per 208 sgwro feet for retail and � r health club uses. The fiqurfs do not accninnt for potential joint use of parking, rhich would reduce the ooerall rA6*r of spas nRAred. (0795a-6/1.5/88) F I , • 4 h I � i r - l - Y �► 1 , Ai AL • wI �• tips F Y • 1 . 1 huntington beach department of community development l�Ff TO: Planning Commi$$ion 72m: Community Development DATE: Jun^ 22, 1988 BD=CT: DEVELOPNEHT AGREFJMNT AND 14ASTER CONCEPTUAL PLAN THE WATERFRONT ,',4l,$. RLK Properties r, Ltd'. & Jam: Downtown Specific 097U: - City of Huntington Beach Plan Dist. 9 (ConsnerCiai Redevelopment Agency Recreation) and District 8b (High-Density Residential) REQUEST: Development Agreement between, City ag Huntington 9911 ,i Commercial/ Beach and RLK Properties, Support Recreation* High Ltd ./Redevelopment Agency, Density Residaut i a 1 for Masto ,r Conceptual Plan on Downtown Specific Plan EX1611MG._ Vuz: Huntingtom Districts Bound 9 - Beach Inn, Driftwood The Waterfront Mobilehome Park. W=ID " bounded by Pacific woast ACHE : 43 . 8 net acs"s Highway- on the south, Beach Blvd. on the east, Huntington St . on the west , & the Downtown Specific Plan boundary on the north. 2.0 SUGGESTED ACT109 A. prove the Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site Plan by adopting Resolution No. 1400 with findings and conditions of approval* The nester Conceptual flan and Development Agreement propose an overall development plan for Districts Rb and g , as required by the Downtown Specific Plan. Six commercial ,phases and three residential phaFes are proposed. The purpose of District 9 is to promote large, coordf.nated commercial development that is beach-oriented, and opAn to the public. This portion of the project is bounded by PaW.fic- Coast Highway on the south, Beach Soul.evard on the east , the Walnut Street ext3naion on the north, and Huntington Street on the west; it A•FrL143V , l L4- e�r / is divided into six phases, each of which will be subject to a CoAditional use permit . The phases consist of four hotels, one: redreat+dn Center, and one retail corrimerciel complex, which will be developed from #lost to east along Pacific Coast highway, from RuAtingtom Stre6t to Seach Boulevard . District 8b allows for high density residential development. A total of three residential ph&$*$ are proposed , with a planned total of 875 units . The associated Development Agreement establishes the rights and obligations of the City and the Developer. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential ZONE: R2-PD-C2-FF2 (Medium Density Residential-planned Development-Coastal Zone-Flood Plain LSD USE: Condominiums zal 09 SubiBct roperty: GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Visitor Serving Commercial , open Space Conservation ZONE: RA-0 (Residential Agriculture-Oil) and R4-28 (High Density Residential) LAND USE: Vacant,. Apartments SQUkh.�f 514 J OrAt raper v: GENERA. PLAN DESIGNATION: Open Space Recreation ZONE: Downtown Specific Plan District 11 (Beach Open Space) LAND USE: Beach Walt of 9uhi CC 2r022rty: GE MAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Visitor Serving Commercial, High Density Residential ZONS: Downtown Specific plan District 8 (High Density Residential) and District 7 (Visitor Serving Commercial) LAND USE: 1d RRY120 ]I STA�'U5 : The Development kgreement and Master Conceptual Plan are covered by Supplemental Environmental Impact Report No . 82-2, which was approved by the Planning Commission on June 8. 1988 . staff Report - 6/22/88 - -2- (0585d) - a .,..W&STAL STATUS: Batch phase of the proposed Master Conceptual plan for the Waterfront project Is. subject to a coastal development permit at the time of entitlem'at for that Phase. The project area is located within the Coastal -Zone under a non -appealable area. prior to approval of entitlements for each phase of development , the: Planning Commission must find that the concurrent Coastal development permit is in conformance with the Coastal dement of the General Plan by making the following .Findings : a. Lgad Ulj2 plan. That the development project proposed by the Coastal Development Program application conforms with the plans, policies , requirements and standards of the Coastal Element. b. laning RaguireMents . That the Coastal Development Program application is consistent with the CZ suffix, the base specific plan district , as well as other provisions of the Huntington Reach Ordinance Code applicable to the property. C. &Wguata Sggyices . That at the time of occupancy, the propon©d development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner consistent with the Certified Land Use Plan. d. California Qggt.al _Pak. That the development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 1 of the California Coastal Act . 5 . 0 REDEVV+� NT STATUS The subject site is within the Main-Fier Redevelopment Project area, and the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency is the co-applicant on the project. 7 - 0 ISSURG . The project site is located within the Downtown Specific Plan area. They propone commercial/recreation portion of the Mast:ar Conceptual Plan is within District g (Mixed Use - Commorcial/Recaceation) which Permits sports and recreation facilities, hotels or motels , and supporting ' resteurents and shops . The residential portion of the Master Plan is located in District 8b (High Density Cdsidential) , which permits permanently attached residential units at a maximum density of ' 35 units per gross acre. In both Districts, the goal is to encourage large, coordinated development that provides beach-oriented amenities tc, they general public and local residents . Master Plan The Master Conceptual plan and Development Agreement proposer an overall development plan for Districts 8b and 9 . as required by the Downtown Specific plan. Six commercial phases and three resider.,tial phases are proposed. The comnsnercial phases are generally described Staff Report - 6/22/88 --3-- (0885d) 6 as follows . Phase 1 is a 296 room first class resort hotel located on approximately 3 .58 net acres , and will include a restaurant, an entertainment lounge, meeting and ballroom facilities , and various guest services . Details of the Phase 1 project will be provided in the staff report for Conditional Use Permit No. 87-19 . Phase 2 is a ' tennis and recreation center located on approximately 3 .48 net t.rres. This will feature tennis courts, a health club, pro shop, eiiircise, weight-lifting and fitness center which will be available to hotel guests and the public . Phase 3 will consist of a planned maximum 500 room first class conference hotel on approximately 2. 9 acres which will contain restaurants, conference rooms , and meeting facilities . Phase 4 will be a planned maximum 250 room all suite hotel on approximately 1 . 2 acres . Phase 5 will consist of a planned maximum 75,000 square foot retail-commercial center on approximately 3 . 81 acres which will contain restaurantso specialty retail shopping facilities and outdoor plaza areas . phase 6 will be a planned maximum 400 room luxury resort hotel on approximately 5 . 04 acres including restaurants , lounges, and guest services . The residential portion of the Master Conceptual Plan is included for informational purposes only, and does not represent the proposed layout or design. As with the commercial phases , each of the three residential phases will be subject to a separate conditional use permit. A total of 875 units are proposed to be constructed . At this time, only the Commercial Master Site Plan is presented for approval . The Development Agreement states that the developer is required to obtain Planning Commission approval of a Conceptual Site Plan for the residential portion prior to approval of any conditional use permit for residential development . pWvelopMnt AgKonment The purpose of a Development Agreement is to provide assurance to an applicant that he may proceed with a development in accordance with 'Uhs Ci.ty' s existing rules , regulations , and official policies in fbree `.tit the effective date of the Agreement . Such Agreements are intended to strengthen the planning process, encourage public participation in planning , and reduces the economic risks of development . The City may enter into Development Agreements pursuant to City Council Resolution No . 5390, which was adopted in 1984 under the authority of Government Code Sections 65864-65869 . 5 . The Development agreement specifies the permitted uans, the density and intensity of uses, the maximum bulk, height , and size of commercial buildings, provisions for the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes , location and design of public improvements , and terms and conditions of development . The Commercial Master Bite plan is an attachment to the Development Agreement, and presents graphically and in greater detail the parameters of the development described in the Agreement . The residential portion of the project is not described in detail by this Master Plan. However, the proposed number of residential units , their phasing, and timing of construction are set Forth in the Development Agreement. A residential Master Site Plan will newel to be approved by the Planning Commission prior to residential development . Staff Report - 6/22/88 -4- (0585d) s t , 1 *Mir. f ,tr Y . 1 E In return for allowing the developer to proceed with the project subject to existing policies and regulations, the developer is obligated to provide improvements as outlined by the Development i AgLeement . In addition to the proposed buildings , these include the provision of all landscaping, open space, driveways, and other on-site immpxovements , the installation of Walnut Avenue and the "Spur" Streat, including landscaped medians, traffic signalisation, curbs, gutters, sidewalks , street lights, bus benches, storm drains , utilities , parkway landscaping, and other right-of-way improvements . Additional improvements to be provided include at least one pedestrian overpass to the beach, extension of water and other utility lines to the site, street widening around the perimeter of the site, and re-abandonment of existing abandoned oil wells on-site. AddLtionally, the developer will maintain the landscaping and sidewalks hehind the curb. The Development Agreement provides that no moratoriums or ether ordinances , regulations , rules, or policies that limit or condition the rate, timing, or sequence of development shall apply to the project . This includes regulations that limit Development based on Levels of Service for roadways, capacitiaes of roads , drainage, or sewer facilities, or provision of emergency services . . This restriction would not apply, however, to new ordinances or regulations required for public health or safety purposes , or mandated by changes in Federal or State laws. The Agreement provides for an annual review by the City in order to determine whether the developer is proceeding in good faith. These procedures are set forth in the Agreement and in City Council Resolution 5390 . The terms of the Agrtemefnt may be amended from time to time by mutual consent of the City and Developer. $s, 1 . Rarking The Davelopmeant Agreement states that parking for the project shall be required pursuant to applicable provisions of, they Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. This includes a ratio of 1. 1 spaces per guest roam for the Phases I hotel, and is intended to include guest rooms , lounges, meeting rooms, ballrooms, and guest-related retail . If the City determines that parking for Phase 1 is not adequate, the Developer agrees to curet the deficiency by providing additional parking (above Code) in subsequent phaaes . Parking for the other hotel phases can also be handled in this manner. 2 . Qjacing na d Livg Entertainment The Ordinance Code currently requires that dancing and live entertainment uses are subject to :planning Commission review and approval to assure compatibility with nearby uses , The Development Agreement would permit such uses subject to the City' s reasonable review of location, types of use, and other relevant, factors . Stiff report - 6/22/88 -5- (0585d) .60b 3 . Floor Area Ratio At the May 24, 1988, planning Commission study Session,. a question was raised regarding the definition of "Equivalent Floor Area patio" as used in the Draft Commercial Master Site Plan. The numbers presented were identical to those calculated using the Downtown Specific Plan' s definition of "Floor Area Ratio" ,(building area divided by site area) , and therefore, referen :es to Equivalent FAR have been ehangeu to FAR. 4 . fi� RW. IIYeraae Another issue raised at the Planning Commission Study Session corcerned site coverage as presented in the Draft Commercial Master 'Site Plan, particularly with regard to the phase 2 tennis and recreation canter. The applicant is requesting that the current interpretation of site coverage be modified in order to achieve underground parking entirely covered by betwed, landscaped areas Preece:ritly, the Downtown Specific Plan defines "Height" as the vertical distance above the highest adjacent street level. Consequently, when calculating site coverage, staff has included any structures which project above the curbline an coverage. The developer ' s proposal includes parking structure* which protect above the curbline, but are completely covered by buildings, landscaping, and other open space amenities . Thus, the developer . is requesting that only the actuil building area be counted as site coverage; all other underground parking areas that are covered by open and/or landscaped area would not be counted toward coverage. The statistics for Phase 2 have been revised to show the recreation center building, as site coverage. The teranis courts, although constructed over the parking structure above' the curbline, are shown as open space . As shown in the attached matrix, the site coverage calculation as currently interpreted Ihy staff is 55 . 6% of the site area . The site coverag' s calculation requested by the developer which includes only the actual building area is 35% . Staff suppc'irts the developers request for a revised calculation of site coverage because it allows for the major portion of the parking facilities to, be placed out of public view rather than in above-ground parking structures, resulting i :i a more aesthetically pleasing project . 5. *Slgkt 1[th" mitt active At the May 24 , 1988, Planning Commission Study Session, the Commission inquired about the potential impacts of the proposed Citizens ' Sensible Growth and Traffic Control Initiative on the Maccter plan project . At this time, it is difficult to predict with any accuracy the impacts of the initiative on development proposals, because a number of questions exist as to definitions , and the appropriate implementation of the requirements . As a starting point, howevesr# a rough comparison can be made between post-project condit;ons and the mandated levels of service required by the initiative using Supplemental environmental impact Report (SEIR) No . 82-2 . Staff Report - 6/:2/88 -8 - (0585d) 1 / ` ,r •ti, 1 ail • � . ./.•' '��! y. 1 ' The initiative would require that fire, paramedic, and police services respond to emergency calla within 5 minutes 05% of the time, and to non-emergency calls within 15 minutes 85% of the time. The Fire Department indicates that their response time is within these parameters for fire and paramedic services . The Police Department indicates that it can meet the emergency response times, but probably not those for non-emergency calls . It is not clear, however , whether the project would be impacted because the initiative specifies that "Adequate Service Levela" must be rahieved for services on which the project will have an adverse impact . SEIR 82-2 identifies no adverse impacts from the project on police, fire, or paramedic services, and the initiative itself offers no definition of such adverse impact . The initiative status that roadway capacities must be maintained at the "Standard Level of Service" for impacted intersections and links. Although it is not clear which methodology should be used to calculate the Level of Service, or ,how for from the Site the analysis must extend, a comparison cai!be made using SEIR 82-2 . The initiative mandates LOS C for links and LOS for intersections. The SEIR analyrsd peak hour traffic genera(P.ion for the Waterfront project, ar• lound that the intersect,ic�no' studied will operate at or abo•re ;SOS D. These intersectivsn�a are PCH/Huntington, PCH/Reach, PCH/Lake, PtH/Mai.n/Sixth, Huntington/Walnut, and Beach/Walnut . Although linka are not commonly studied, ( as in this case) , it can be surmised that links between intersections will operate at or above the LOS of the intersection, because levels at intersections are to some degree additive of the levels on roads contributing that intersection. Therefore, it appears that the project will probably comply with the initiative in this respect . With regard to flood control, tho initiative requires that *Adequate Service Levels" be maintained for flood control, Improvements to which the development contributes an adverse impact . SEIR 82-2 indicates that, although the site In In a Flood Hazard Zone, compliance With FEMA and City regulations will mitigate any hazards . Additionally, since the project will occur on previously developed lams, it is not anticipated that there will be significant quantities of additional run-off in the area . It appears that the project will comply with the initiative because there will, be no adverse effects on flood control facilities . With regard to parks , the initiative :could require that neighborhood and community parka meet State standards, which according to the City' s Department of Community Services, do not exist . The initiative does not define wAdequate Service Level" for regional parks, however , SEIR 52-2 identities no adverse park impacts from the proposal . Staff Report - 6/22/88 --"-- (05838) r Its suftoary, it is difficult to assess the potential impacts of the Initiative until decisions a;e made regarding terminology and -r Implementation. A preliminary analysis would indicate that the project would be feasible in the event of the initiativela passage . heif recommends that the Planning Crmission approve the Development Agreement and Commercial Haster Site Agreement plan subjdct to the Following findings and conditions of approval . 1 . The Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site Plan are consistent with the objectives , policies , general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicabl3 Specific Flan. 2 . The Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site Plan are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations pre3cribed ' for, the land use districts in which the property is located . 3 . The Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site Plan are in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice . 4 . The Development Agreement and Commercial Master Site plan will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and general welfare. S . The Development Agreement and Commercial Mastec Sit$ Plan will not adversely affect the orderly davelopment of property values . =DIT OHS or APPROAL 1 . A11 conditions of the Certified Supplemental EIK 62-2 adopted bir the Manning Commission on June a , 1988 in Resolution 1397, shall he incorporated in the Development Agreement . The Planning Commission may: 1. Deny tho Development Agreement and Master Conceptual Plan with findings, 2. Approve they Kanter Conceptual flan with Findings and conditions and deny the Development Agreement; 3 . Continua the Taster Conceptual plan and Development Agreement to a data uncertain and condition Conditional Use Permit Po. 88-19 for the Phase 1 hotel so that prior to issuances of building permits for Phase 1, a Master Plan shall be approved by the Planning Commission. d+taFf Report - 6!22/88 (05854) r: 1 . Zoning Consistancy Nstriz for each phase 20 Awee� trap 3 . master Conceptual PISS 4 , zkovdilopmint Agrea=nt 5 . Pla»s►Lot Co�a�a ssian Resolution No. 1400 adopting the Master Canaeptual plan and Development Agreement S . Pls�iAinq Commission Resolution No . 1397 adopting BZIR 22--2 7 , 831R 82-2 Mitigating Measures MA:l3 mptgbo •1 Staff Report - 6/22/08 THEWAT-. ERFFON .moo COMMERCLAL i ASTER S�"E PLAN Pursuant to Downtown Specific Plan Secdon 4.11.02 Y L 1 .A . Y • 11 ` w , �.. •^a. 1701 4p w �. j"ram i •�_ _~ 1��MW j ` _ '■ ` �'i ,. s� NEER— , s � , ° ce P F SL till d `t{��9! e9rl� � 58 tE � IL Ir t ir 2. p l �y 2.1 � rrt i e Li `�till iFe9 U� 11� fit , s , � � � • gig M � Ile i