HomeMy WebLinkAbout3D/INTERNATIONAL, INC. MASTER PLAN FOR MAIN-PIER PROJECT AREA - 1986-05-19file Notes
� Office of the City CCerk
Huntington Beach, California
e �- eb e :'ii q Cf'f-o red
s tC-a v 7Y .
REQUEST FC REDEVELOPMENT / IENCY ACTION
Submitted to:
Submitted by:
Date
Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members
Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer 0 tv, I
Douglas N. LaBelle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelop
RH 87-12
February 20, 1987.,.y-�.�'
.� '1
:-Y
Prepared by:
MAIN -PIER REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
Subject:
Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency's consideration is the
Main -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan prepared by 3D/International. The plan
identifies subareas and makes specific recommendations for development within the
areas. Action for consideration is approval of the Master Plan for those subareas
where presently redevelopment projects have been proposed. Specifically, the area
generally bounded by Sixth Street, Palm Street, Lake Street, and the area across
Pacific Coast Highway from this area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that, after careful review and analysis of the information contained
in this report, the following separate actions be taken:
1. Adoption of Resolution No. In (Attachment 1) for the portions of the plan
which are within the Main -Pier Project area generally bounded by Sixth
Street, Palm Street, Lake Street, and the area encompassed by the
prolongation of Sixth Street and Lake Street seaward (identified as subareas
1, 5, and 6);
2. Direct staff to prepare an implementation plan which address each of the
items discussed in the 3D/I Master Plan report; and
3. Direct staff to forward a Request for Qualifications/Proposals for a master
developer to work with the area property owners and Agency in the
implementation of the Master Plan.
ANALYSIS:
On May 19, 1986 the Redevelopment Agency entered into a contract for architectural
and planning services with 3D/International, Inc. for the preparation of a Master Plan
for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
The contract called for the completion of eight tasks as outlined below:
e
1. Block -by -block analysis of the seven subareas in the Main -Pier Project Area.
2. Recommendation on land uses and development intensities.
f,43 cl-e
P10/1 /85
kH 87-12
February 20, 1987
Page Two
3. Development of a three dimensional base model.
4. Development of subarea base maps.
5. Prepare a recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario.
6. Prepare a comparison of recommended scenario with the Downtown Specific
Plan.
7. Recommendation on phasing of development projects.
8. Prepare design recommendations for public improvements.
The draft Master Plan document along with the model and maps has been completed.
The report identified some major issues which should be addressed and reflected in any
decisions which are made on the Main -Pier Redevelopment Plan. Among these issues
are the need to establish physical and economic redevelopment in the downtown area;
the need to create an identifiable "sense of place" in the downtown area; the need to
unify the direction of proposed developments; and the need to analyze traffic
congestion and parking problems.
The draft Master Plan recommended specific land uses and a range of development
intensity. The complete set of submittal materials was prepared by 313/I for the City
as a means to achieve workable and acceptable redevelopment projects for the
downtown area. Towards this end, the report recommends nine specific tasks. The
first recommendation relates to the adoption of the redevelopment Master Plan as a
basis for approving development proposals. Staff, in turn, recommends that the
portion of the Master Plan bounded by Sixth Street, Palm Street, Lake Street, and the
area across Pacific Coast Highway from the downtown (identified as Main Pier
Redevelopment Subareas 1, 5, & 6 - Attachment 3); be adopted as proposed in the plan.
Subarea I is the Main -Pier area which includes the area in which the Main -Pier
Phase 1 and 2 projects are located. The Master Plan recommendations are consistent
with the development proposals presently being negotiated.
Subarea 5 (the Downtown Core area) and Subarea 6 (the Town -Square area) propose a
mix of uses. The Town Square, Summerhill, and Lake Street projects have been
identified in Subarea 6 and the proposed parking and historic areas have been
identified in Subarea 5.
On October 27, 1986, the Agency adopted Resolution No. 131 which approved the
Master Plan and model as it pertained to the Main -Pier Phase I project and the three
downtown parking areas.
The adopted Master Plan will provide the Agency with an implementation tool that
will assist property owners, developers, and the Agency in the comprehensive
redevelopment of the downtown area. The next step toward implementing will be the
selection of a developer or developers interested in working with the Agency in order
to achieve the desired objectives.
.RH 87-12
February 20, 1987
Page Three
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Modify the areas recommended for adoption at this time.
2. Continue action pending receipt of additional information.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
�0I
1. Resolution No. .
2. 3D/I Recommendations.
3. Main -Pier subareas 1, 5, & 6 maps.
4. Main -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan, 3D/International - September, 1986.
5. Comparison of Downtown Specific Plan and Master Plan Subareas.
CWT/DLB/h1A:lp
30 58h
ATTACHMENT 2
3D/INTERNATIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Adoption of the redevelopment ]luster Plan as a basis for approving
development proposals.
2. City initiation of infrastructure improvements:
- Street relocation and widening
- Creation of boulevards and a landscaping program
- Creation of plain Street as a pedestrian zone
- Development of the community center park
- Development of the historic square (Old Town)
- Construction of city parking garages
3. Approval of: (a) Pierside; (b) Phase I; (c) Phase I1; (d)Town Square
4. Create and plan for a convention center to extend the visitor season and
enlarge the economic base of the area.
5. Create and plan for the Transportation Center to serve the downtown
community, beach users, and tourists.
6. Pursue the Cousteau Center as a major tourist destination.
7. Create community awareness, interest, and support by a public
relations/education campaign.
8. Perform additional studies:
(a) A specific market/economic study to determine and understand how to
better implement the plan and create a commercial/office market in the
area.
(b) The existing oil wells are an obstacle to development. Determine if
"unitization" is a feasible solution to the problem.
(c) Initiate a public relations/visitors bureau program to generate a broader
tourist interest in the area. Creating a "NAME" for the downtown area
is a critical part of this effort.
9. Sponsor competitions for the design of entry portals, gateways, fountains,
public plazas, and parks to generate public support and understanding of the
downtown redevelopment project.
i `•
`Y Ss
OD , ! i is .{.
s... . ........
.�
H
i-3
n
Lam]
z
H
PEW
Main —Pier Redevelopment Sub Areas
I
fM
ATTACHMENT NO. 5
COMPARISON OF THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE
MAIN -PIER REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN SUBAREAS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
In comparing the adopted development standards of the City's Downtown Specific Plan
with the proposed development scenario presented in the draft plain -Pier Redevelopment
Master Plan prepared by 3D/International it is important to note the difference between
districts and subareas. The districts (I thru 11) in the Downtown Specific Plan were
established to create separate but compatible base zones within the downtown area. The
subareas (1 thru 7) in the Alain -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan were established as
subareas of the Main -Pier Redevelopment Area Plan in order to establish potential project
areas.
The following comparison will focus on three of the seven redevelopment plan subareas
(1, 5, & 6) which contain five Downtown Specific Plan districts (3, 4, 5, 6, & W). The
comparison will review each of the three redevelopment subareas and identify any
potential conflicts with the specific plan district development standards.
SUBAREA 1•
Downtown Specific Plan Districts 3 be 10). The intent of the proposed master plan in this
subarea is in total compliance with the purpose adopted in the specific plan for Districts
3 & 10.
District 3
The specific plan calls for visitor -serving commercial activities which will serve the needs
of the surrounding community in providing an off-season clientele. Development should
Include large amounts of open space to further promote an open feeling and to provide
additional view opportunities. Residential and office space may also be allowed as long as
the required commercial is provided.
The development concept as represented in the Master PIan and model will raise an issue
with the following development standards:
4.5.01 Permitted Uses:
- Requires that projects on one full block or larger permit only up to 1/2 of the
total square footage for residential uses.
Issue: A greater degree of flexibility may be necessary on the first few projects
to be developed in this district.
The current market is stronger for residential uses than for office and
commercial. Provided that a project devotes the entire first floor and any areas
adjacent to second floor plazas for commercial the ratio of residential to
commercial square footage may not be all that significant. The overall merits,
benefits and design of large projects may be of a greater concern than stringent
adherence to the existing standard; therefore, the project needs to be
individually analyzed.
4-
s
4.5.05 Maximum Site Coverage:
- Requires that a maximum of 50 percent of the net area may be developed.
Issue: Can second floor open space in the form of public plazas be considered
exempt from the coverage calculation.
It an area is truly devoted to public open r-pace, open to the sky, and is proposed
for an elevation above the existing grade to permit subterranean parking should
that simply be counted as site coverage or can other consideration be given
based on the merits of the individual project design.
There is presently sufficient latitude through the special permit process for this
type of consideration on a project by project basis. The special permit may be
granted when a significantly greater benefit from the project can be provided
than would occur if all minimum requirements were met.
Conclusion:
Through proper implementation of the special permit provision the proposed Master PIan
for Subarea One can be achieved, therefore, an amendment to the Specific Plan would not
be necessary.
District 10:
The development plan as represented in the piaster Plan and model is intended to reflect
the Pierside Village project as conditionally approved. Proposed development on the up
coast side of the pier will be designed and submitted for review and approval in total
compliance with the District 10 standards.
As the Pierside Village plan is modified to reflect the conditions of approval imposed on
the project, the Master Plan and model will likewise be modified to reflect these changes.
SUBAREA 5:
(Downtown Specific Plan Districts 4 be 5). The intent of the proposed master plan in this
subarea is somewhat different from the adopted specific plan with respect to the districts
mandated mixed -use requirements.
District k:
The purpose of District 4 which flanks the downtown core is to provide a transition zone
from the existing residential areas to the commercial .Bain Street corridor. Mixes of uses
office, commercial, and residential are permitted.
The &.taster Plan presented by 313/International raises issue with the requirement of mixed
uses.
4.6.01 Permitted Uses:
Requires that residential uses not constitute more than two-thirds of the gross
square footage of any new development.
Issue: The proposed piaster Plan recommends that residential uses without a
forced mix of office or commercial space in each project be considered. A good
-2-
transition from a medium density residential area, which is characteristic of the
Townlot area to the west of the downtown core, to a highly commercial area can
be achieved with higher density residential projects.
As previously stated the current market is strong for residential development in
the downtown area. At the same time office and commercial market demand
may be more limited, therefore it should be concentrated along the Main -Street
corridor. By providing an opportunity for new residential in the downtown core,
the city will be building in a clientele for new and expanded office and
commercial uses in the downtown area.
Conclusion•
The special permit process may not be used for deviations from the permitted uses
standard; therefore, an amendment to the specific plan would be necessary to implement
this recommendation of the Master Plan.
District 5:
The purpose of District 5 is to re-establish the core as the downtown for the City by
creating a more urban atmosphere, encouraging relatively higher intensity development
with viable commercial, office, and residential uses.
The development plan as represented in the Master Plan and model raises no issues and
should be able to comply with all the District 5 development standards.
SUBAREA 6:
Downtown Specific Plan District 6). The intent of the proposed master plan in this
subarea is also somewhat different from the adcpted specific plan with respect to
mixed -use requirement.
District 6•
The purpose of District 6 is to provide a location for general purpose commercial
enterprises to serve surrounding residents. The district also calls for public facilities and
permits the development of office and residential uses. The intent is to establish a
mixed -use node which will anchor the inland end of the Main -Pier corridor.
The proposed master plan raises issue with the requirement of mixed uses as a
requirement of all development projects.
4.8.01 Permitted Uses:
- Requires that residential uses only be permitted as part of mixed use
development projects.
Issue: The Master Plan recommends that residential projects with minimal or no
commercial square footage included be considered.
The Master Plan identifies an area north of the Town -Square Project area
bounded by Main and Lake Streets and Palm Avenue as the area for general
retail activities. This shift in the year-round retail node up plain Street by one
block will then provide an opportunity for a greater concentration of residential
uses immediately adjacent to the downtown core, thus providing the Main Street
commercial with a built in clientele.
-3-
MN
V
Conclusion:
The special permit process may not be used for deviation from the permitted use
requirement which only allows residential uses in mixed use projects.
Both the original concept in the Downtown Specific Plan and the proposed Master Plan
address a valid concern for new general retail in the downtown area. One solution may be
to require that the first project to apply for development permits be required to prepare a
Master Plan for the entire district which adequately addresses all the issues and uses.
This approach may require an amendment to the Specific PIan
1074r
-4-
Huntington
Beach
Company
2110 Main Street, Huntington aeacn. California 92648-2499 (714) 960-4351
A. J. Work'
Vice 1 fe4i4em — Genial Managet
Honorable Sack Kelly, Mayor
Huntington Heath City Council
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
go�6�OVC
2 1987
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
March 2, 1987 Z /J �4Cu,• c I,i
fv
Subject: Blain -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan - (Item F-3c)
Mayor Kelly and Council Members:
The Huntington Beach Company has reviewed the Alain -Pier Redevelopment
Master Plan prepared by 3D/International as it relates to property owned by
the Company.
We are opposed to the proposed uses shown on the model in two areas:
1. Sub area 6 north of Acacia Avenue between Alain and Lake,
2. Sub area 3 which is bounded by Lake, Huntington, Atlanta and Pacific
Coast Highway.
The proposed uses in the 3D/International Plan are not In conformance with
local coastal plan and specific plan which was adopted by the City Council
after numerous public hearings. Additionally, the Huntington beach Company
does not feel the proposed uses are the best for its property. We have plans
to build 709 units on the Atlanta property which is in conformance with the
local coastal plan and specific plan approved by the City.
We seriously question the use of a conceptual plan, developed by planners, as
a basis for determining appropriate land uses. The plan appears to ignore the
market place, economic viability and developer expertise.
We request that the uses shown for the Huntington Beach Company property
be removed from the 3D/International Master Plan and _model.
cc: C. W. Thompson
a� CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 87_22
COUNCIL • ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION //
1ilfNilHC,TON /EACH .7 �� / � -%� V
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson dta' 13 1
City Council Members City Administrator " _A {l
Subject ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Date February 20, 1997 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS I (L/)"U"'t
MAIN•PIER PHASE II do LAKE STREET ��L�' f-V KFO
In response to questions posed by City Council/Redevelopment Agency Members at the
Regular Adjourned Meeting of Tuesday, February 17, 1987, the attached information is,
provided:
Copies of the two RFP's and related documents issued by the City/Redevelopment
Agency for Main -Pier Phase II and the Lake Street parcels (both in the Main -Pier
Redevelopment Project Area).
I hope this information will be of assistance to the City Council/Agency Members. The
proposals that were received as a result of these two RFP's have not been copied since it
appeared during the discussion that a primary focus was to understand the process that
had been followed previously. Additional detail can be provied as necessary. If you should
have any questions, we will be happy to respond.
sub
x
> ry1Q
arles '. Thompson
City Administrator
CWT/SVK:sar
Attachments
xc: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopment
Pat Spencer, Housing & Redevelopment Program Manager
Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner
Stephen V. Kohler, Principal Redevelopment Specialist
1046r
L A K E S T R E E T
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
REQUEST f-JR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ACTION
RH 86-17
Date —February 20. 1986
Submitted to:
Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members
�
Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer �_-V '
Submitted by:
Prepared by:
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelop me
Subject:
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATION/PROPOSALS - LAKE STREE PROPERTY
Consistent with Council Policy? J Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fundinq Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
J
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
In February of 1985 Request for Qualification/Proposals were solicited for the subject
property. Later in 1985 an Exclusive Right Agreement was prepared regarding this
property, but did not result in a successful disposition of the parcel. Therefore, at this
time staff is recommending that proposals once again be solicited for its disposition.
RECOM11JENDATION:
Approve the attached Request for Qualification/Proposals for the disposition of the
Lake Street property and authorize its distribution.
ANALYSIS:
The Lake Street property consists of approximately 2.41 acres on Lake Street between
Indianapolis and Frankfort Avenues in the Agency's Main -Pier Redevelopment Project
Area. The site is currently zoned Old Town Specific Plan District II Area and under this
zoning could accommodate approximately 82 multi -family rental units without benefit
of a density bonus. The site was originally acquired by the Redevelopment Agency from
the City of Huntington Beach in 1983.
In February 1985 the Agency approved the solicitation of statements of
qualification/proposals from developers interested in acquiring and developing this site.
Interviews of proponents were held in March of 1985. However, in June 1985 the
Redevelopment Agency voted to table consideration of the disposition of the parcel
until a future date.
As the Agency continues to move forward with the implementation of redevelopment
plans within the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area, it becomes more evident that
development of this site can provide a significant contribution to these initial efforts.
Disposition of the site at this 'time will provide the Redevelopment Agency with lease
revenue or sale proceeds which may be used to fund other improvements within the
project area. Development - of the site now will commence a tax increment revenue
stream as well. Unlike other proposed developments within the Main -Pier Project Area,
it is believed that upon disposition of this parcel it could be developed without any
financial assistance from the Redevelopment Agency.
R H 86-17
February 20, 1986
Page Two
Since disposition of the Lake Street property by the Redevelopment Agency would be a
revenue generating activity and substantially support the implementation efforts within
the project area it is recommended that the site be disposed of at this time.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Upon disposition of the site, income will become Agency revenue.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Do not approve the attached Request for Qualification/Proposals.
2. Recommend changes to the Request for Qualification/Proposals.
ATTACHMENTS:
Request for Qualification/Proposals with exhibits.
CWT/DLH/SVK:ajh
2019h
Request for Qualification/Proposals
Lake Street Parcels - Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency
The Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach is soliciting Statement of
Qualifications and Proposals from development firms interested in the development of
publicly owned parcels located on Lake Street between Indianapolis and Frankfort
Avenues within the Agency's Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The site Is 2.41
acres In size with approximate dimensions of $00 foot frontage on -Lake Street and a depth
of 132 feet. This site is within walking distance of the beach and the Municipal Pier and
Is composed of two currently unsubdivided parcels and a public right-of-way which will be
vacated.
The Redevelopment Agency will entertain proposals for the purchase of the site or the
long-term lease of the parcel (not to exceed 55 years). Additional information regarding
'the site Is as follows:
1. CURRENT ZONING: Old Town Specific Plan - District Two Area (potential 82
units without density bonus);
2. SITE LOCATION AND CONFIGURATION: See attached Site Plan and vicinity
map note development contraints shown on Site Plan);
3. BUILDING SITE CONDITION: Site is currently developed with an abandoned
Tire station and the site will be sold or leased in "as is" condition. Demolition
and removal of existing improvements including street paving within the
vacated right-of-way will be the responsibility of the selected developer.
4. FINANCING: Pending the outcome of federal tax reform legislation the
selected developer may be an eligible participant in tax exempt financing.
5. DEPOSIT: The Agency will require a non-refundable deposit at the initiation of
a 6 -day Exclusive Right to Negotiate Agreement. The amount of this deposit
will be $25,000 which may be applied to subsequent lease payments or purchase
price.
6. CONTENT OF PROPOSAL: Please see sample format for responses as attached.
Interested developers should submit an original and five (5) copies of their submission to:
Stephen Y. Kohler
Senior Community Development Specialist
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
(714)536-S542
THE DEADLINE FOR THE RECEIPT OF RESPONSES IS: FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1986,
4:00 P.M. TO 51R. KOHLER
0450H
SAMPLE
Lake Street Parcel Proposals
Huntington Beach Redeveloement Agency
FIRM NAME:
ADDRESS:
CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
Please attach Information. on firm's previous experience, financial. status, and local
references (references will be contacted). Include photos of -other projects containing
product type similar to that proposed.
If.to be Leasehold:
PROPOSED LEASE TERM:
PROPOSED LEASE PAYMENTS:
PROPOSED ADJUSTMENTS:
OR
PROPOSED PURCHASE PRICE:
DESCRIBE TERMS:
(include proposed length of escrow)
PROPOSED NO. OF UNITS:
PRODUCT TYPE:
(include rental or for sale, approximate unit size and bedroom mix, type of construction,
number of stories)
DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION: FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1986 4:00 P.M.
�� 0450H
r��rrrwrr� wow.. r rr w r�r r r rrr �rwrr w.rr �.wr rrwr r r rrr r�wwwdo
}..� . . iaa�IL. .. -� . .00 •.
n�•
y c; n
X: rn o
rTj
07
"; r s •� .4 ? �s"fir ��\ 1 ! I, � • � y�� i � o
AP AP
�_ r �■ LL
�ryy► , =wf`�..':t '�sti'. ' Lr•• ' 1• �' •} `. ' � y i i�: fit%•'t x3r lrt tt tYttrf{ct2r► 22!:.irnym.l!
` • ' r �' i � I• s �T i ! r�. � ,r g1��ss�l�f:reFri'r
ROW
l-_ --_ �trE�ttirlssirrt��W+ �
GI
b ra s �::t tn��Ifni
Fd Hir
:
J �. _ �. Q Lam.. � HEd H - ti. -.npMWcmvj1j1 1H
T+ r{,Ir.0 �\ pry ;j{ r Is. 1 — '�!� � .� f1=1111 ��[ I I ,lr I:►
PIMING _iA4ENSITY RES 1—fl RI§CTS CLE 915
ARTICLE 915
OYDTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS
(1912- - - , -9/85)
S.
9150
PURPOSE
S.
9151
SPECIFIC
PLAN BOUNDARY
S.
9151.1
AREA MAP
S.
9151.2
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
District One
District Two
S.
9152
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9153
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9154
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9155
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.1
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.2
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.3
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.4
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.4.1
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.4.1.1
Repealed
- (Ord
2780--9/85)
S.
9156.5
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.6
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.7
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/65)
S.
9156.8
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.9
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/65)
S.
9156.10
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.1i
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/65)
S.
9156.12
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.13
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9156.14
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9157
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S.
9158
Repealed
- (Ord
2780-9/85)
S. 9150 PURPOSE. The purpose of this article is to establish a specific
plan consisting of residential development provisions and
requirements to guide the orderly development and improvement of portions of
an area -identified as Oldtown. This plan is established to guide the
improvement of an area Which, by Its physical limitations relating to lot size
and vehicular access, should not be regulated by district standards applicable_
city -snide, but shall be subject to regulations contained in Article 913 of
this code.
S. 9151 SPECIFIC PLAN BOUNDARY. The property described herein is
Included in Oldtown Specific Plan and shall be subject to
development provisions and requirements set forth herein. Oldtown Specific
Plan encompasses that area shown on the map in Section 9151.1 except, that
property which Is zoned other than residential remains unchanged as a result
of this article. Furthermore, property containing oil or civic district
suffix zones 'shall retain such suffix zoning designations. Such zoning
districts shall continue to be shown on all official district maps and the
permitted uses and regulations pertaining to said districts shall continue to
govern.
(This article continues on the reverse side)
9/85
A
9151.1. AREA MAP.
}
Cf -E i
NZ
LEGEND
COMMERCIAL PROPERTY
Civic DISTRICT �•,
COMAINIED WITH OIL PRODUCTION
AWN
ti
S. 9151'.2 LEGAL DMCQIPTION. Precisely, oldtown Specific Plan
includes the real property described -as:
�. DISTRICT ONE
That portion of Section 11, Township 6 South, Range 11 West in the
Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange, State of
California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 14,
Miscellaneous !taps in the office of the County Recorder of said county,
described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerlines of Delaware Street and
Memphis Avenue as shown on a map of Watsons Addition, recorded in Book
3, page 39 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder
of said county-, thence easterly along said centerline of Memphis
Avenue to the intersection with the centerline of Florida Street as
shown on a map of Vista Del Mar Tract, recorded in Book 4, page 29 of
Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said
county; thence southerly along said centerline of Florida Street to
the intersection with the centerline of Indianapolis Avenue as shown on
said map of Vista Del liar Tract; thence easterly along said centerline
of Indianapolis Avenue to the intersection with the centerline of
Frankfort Avenue as shown on a map of Valley View Tract, recorded in
Book 5, page 11 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County
Recorder of said county; thence southwesterly and westerly along said
centerline of Frankfort Avenue to the intersection with the centerline
of Delaware Street as shown on a map of Vista Del Mar Tract in Book 4,
page 5 of miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of
,said county; thence southerly along said centerline of Delaware Street
�.- to the intersection with the centerline of Detroit Avenue as shown on
said map of Vista Del Mar Tract; thence westerly along said centerline
of Detroit Avenue into the intersection with the centerline of
California Street as shown on said map of Vista Del Mar Tract; thence
southerly along said centerline of California Street to the
intersection of the centerline of Chicago Avenue as shown on said map
of Vista Del Mar Tract; thence westerly along said centerline of
Chicago Avenue to the intersection with the centerline of Alabama
Avenue as shown on said map of Vista Del Mar Tract; thence northerly
along said centerline of Alabama Avenue to the intersection of Hartford
Avenue as shown on said map of Vista Del Mar Pratt; .thence westerly
along the centerline of Hartford Avenue to the east right -of -bray line
of the Southern pacific right-of-way as shown on said map of Vista Del
Mar Tract; thence northerly along said easterly line -of the railroad
to the intersection with the centerline of Memphis Avenue; thence
easterly along the centerline of Memphis Avenue to the true point of
beginninh.
Excepting therefrom the following:
Lots No. 19 and 20 of Block No. 605 of Vista Del Mar Tract as shown on
a map recorded in Book 4, page 5 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of
the County Recorder of said county.
Lots No. 1 and 2 of Block 604 of Vista Del Mar Tract as shown on a map
recorded in Book 4, page 5 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the
County Recorder of said county.
5/85
DISTRICT ONE (continue)
Lots No. 9 and 10 of Block No. 504 of Vista Del Mar Tract as shown on a
map recorded in Book 4, page 5 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of ~'
the County Recorder of said county.
DISTRICT TWO
That portion of Sections 2 and 11 of Township 6 South, Range 11 West in
the Rancho Las Bolsas, City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange,
State of California, as shown on a map recorded in Book 51, page 14,
Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county,
described as follows:
Beginning at the intersection of the centerline of Atlanta Avenue and
Lake Street, as shown on a map of Huntington Beach, recorded in Book 3,
page 36 of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of
said county; thence northerly along said centerline of Lake Street to
the intersection with the centerline of Seventeenth Street, as shown on
a map of Tract No. 12, recorded in Book 9, page 13 .of Miscellaneous
Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county; thence
easterly along said centerline of Seventeenth Street to the
intersection with the easterly right-of-way line of the Southern
Pacific Railroad right-of-way, as shown on said map of Tract No. 12;
thence• southerly along said east right-of-way line to the intersection
with the centerline of Wichita Avenue, as shown on a map of Vista Del
Mar Tract, recorded in Book 4, page 15 of Miscellaneous Maps in the
office of the County Recorder of said county; thence easterly along
said centerline of Wichita Avenue to the intersection with the
centerline of Huntington Street, as shown on said soap of Vista Del Mar ~
Tract; thence southerly along said centerline of Huntington Street to
the intersection with the centerline of Utica Avenue, as shown on said
map of Vista Del Mar Tract; thence easterly along said centerline of
Utica Avenue to the intersection with the centerline -of Delaware
Street, as shown on said map of Vista Del Mar Tract; thence southerly
along said centerline" of Delaware Street to the intersection with the
centerline of Memphis Avenue, as shown on a map of Watsons Addition,
recorded in Book 3, page 39.of Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the
County Recorder of said county; thence westerly along said centerline
of Memphis Avenue' to the before mentioned east line of the railroad
right-of-way, as shown on a map of Vista Del Mar Tract, recorded in
Book 4, page 3 of Miscellaneous Maps 'in the office of the County
Recorder of said county; thence southerly along the last mentioned -
easterly line to the centerline of Hartford Avenue as shown on a map of
Vista Del Mar Tract, recorded in Book 4, page 4 of Miscellaneous Maps
In the office of the County Recorder of said county; thence easterly
along the centerline of Hartford Avenue to the centerline of Alabama
Street, as shown on said last mentioned map of Vista Del Mar Tract;
thence southerly along the centerline of Alabama Street to the
centerline of Chicago Avenue, as shown on a map of Vista Del Mar
Tract, recorded in Book 4, pages 5 and 6 of Miscellaneous Maps in the
office of the County Recorder of said county; thence easterly along
the centerline _of Chicago Street to the centerline of California
Street, as shown on a map of Vista Del Mar Tract, recorded in Book 4,
page 5 of Miscellaneous Maps in the -office of the County Recorder of
said county; thence southerly 50 feet along
5/85
• PL►NZ 2 LPT_',T Y R L5IDFNUTj DISTRI4R5 �'- P..2151.1
DISTRICT TWO (continue)
the centerline of Cpi" ornia Street; thence south 89'17'21" west 30
.y feet; thence sot-th 25*38158" crest 158.62 feet to the south line of Lot
5 of Block 203, as shown on said last mentioned map of vista Del liar
Tract; thence south 89'18'10" west 54.66 feet along -the south like of
said Lot 5 to the southwest corner of said Lot 5; thence south
0*43124" east 138 feet to the centerline of Baltimore Avenue, as shown
on said last mentioned map of Vista Del Mar Tract; thence westerly
along the centerline of Baltimore Avenue to the northerly extension of
the west line of the east 1.00 feet of Block 103 of Vista. Del Mar
Tract, as shown on the last mentioned neap; thence southerly along said
last mentioned west line and its northerly and southerly extensions to
the centerline of Atlanta Avenue, as shown on said last mentioned map;
thence westerly along the centerline of Atlanta Avenue to the point of
beginning.
Excepting therefrom the following:
All of Tract No. 73 as shown on a map recorded in Book 10, page 21 of
Miscellaneous Maps in the office of the County Recorder of said county.
9/85
(7
B
Cfr V NTiNGTON BEACH
2000 MAID S"'Rye=E= CALIFORNIA 92648
OFFICE OF REDEVELOPMENT
March b, 1986
Dear interested Party:
The Redevelopment Agency of the city of Huntington Beach is soliciting Statements of
Qualifications and Bids to Purchase or Lease a 2.41 acre parcel which the Agency owns
within its Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The site is residentially zoned and
located within walking distance of the municipal pier and beach. Enclosed you will find
the Request for Qualifications with details of the site and with a vicinity map and zoning
ordinance attached.
The deadline for submission of Statements of Qualifications and Bids is:
FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1986
4:00 P.M.
FOURTH FLOOR
HUNTINGTON BEACH CIVIC CENTER
2000 MAIN STREET
HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648
Also enclosed you will find a format which suggests the minimum content of your
submission. If you sho d have any questions or require additional information, please do
not hesitate to c et a at the nu ber b low.
Very trul ours,
Stephen . Kohl
Sr. C muni evelopment Specialist
Enclosures
Telephone (714) 536-5582
MAIN -PIER PHASE II
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
REQUEST FO, REDEVELOPMENT ,,..AENCY ACTION''— W .
RH 85-41
Date a ug1 ct 19, 19 8 i
Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members
Submitted to:
Charles W. Thompson, Chief Executive Officer
Submitted by:
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redevelopmen
Prepared 5y:
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR A PORTION OF TH Ik
R
Sub;ect: SUBAREA OF THE MAIN -PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA
Consistent ,vith Council Policy? ',`< Yes ( ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the Redevelopment Agency's consideration is a request by staff to
solicit Request for Qualifications to selected developers for proposals regarding the
six -acre area bounded by Sixth Street, Walnut, Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway,
x:tnin the Nlain-Pier subarea.
RECOMMENDATION:
A-ithorize staff to prepare and distribute a "Request for Qualifications" proposal to
enter into a Exclusive Negotiating Agreement Nith interested developers for a portion
cf the !+lain -Pier subarea of the :lain -Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
ANALYSIS:
Cn AuT.-st :0, 1984, the Redevelopment Agency entered into an Exciusive Negotiating
A; eernent with Huntington Pacifica Development Group. This agreement WdS
subsequently extended for a 180-day period on November 19, 1984, and two additional
o0-day periods on May 18, 1985 and July 15, 1985.
This Exclusive Negotiating Agreement -mill terminate with the signing of a Disposition
and Development Agreement. The D.D.A., as drafted, does not include the entire
!,lain -Pier subarea; therefore, in order to continue xith the contig+ious planning process
throughout the redevelopment project area, staff is recommending that a new Request
fcr +,ualifications for d-eveleper proposals be distributed for the remainder of the
tilain-Pier subarea.
FUNDING SOURCE:
1. None at this time.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Continue action on the Request for Qualifications proposal to allow for additional
review time. ' r�
2. Direct staff to prepare an Exclusive Negotiating .agreement for a specific
developer.
3. Deny authorization to issue a Request for Quallfications at this time. }A
ATTACHMENTS. r p,•
' s J E�`r.r�
• r1__ I♦ A .....L P.... �1••nli Tina+inno �`5 .. � _, v. �.. ! a .. ._titl.'tr.a,.fi?Tis.i ,.
THE PR03ECT
The Project
The Huntington Beach Main -Pier Redevelt pim ttt Vrolve t Area ravers approximately- 336
gross acres of land and will become a regionally -oriented activity center expected to
include more than one: million sgimre feat of itttt•rre•late•d and interconnected eomn+ereial,
office, residential, at+d recreational activity cetite•rs when development is completed.
Regionally, the project is expecteO to he Os-e of the most comprehensively planned
community centers along the coast. It is inteiided to feature a full range of support
facilities, including retail stores and iihops, financial institutions, restaurants, -major
hotels, a public interest facility and residential.
Inasmuch as this site is intenced to enhance the city's economic base, highest priority will
be given to proposals that include revenue producing uses while Maintaining the high
quality development desirer. for this important regionally located site. A primary
consideration is securing tax dollars that will aisist the city in the provision of ongoing
services to the site and city in total. As such, proposals must consider the guarantee of
revenues to assure that this objective is met.
The Site
The Development Site is coif -prised of approximately E. gross acres of land bounden by
Pacific Coast Highway, 6th'Strect, %alnut Avenue, and Main Street. The property is
adjacent to the city's Municipal Pier and N?.ich.
The site is adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway, approximately live miles from the Sar.
Diego (405) Freeway. The location is strategic with respect to thy: city's downtown
redevelopment efforts and has a rommandirg yi#•:. and access to nine miles of public
beach. In addition, the site has easy aecrsi to the major coinmercidl, .industrial, and
transportation centers of Orange County. Lang beal.h Airport, John Wayne Airport,
Disneyland, Knotts Berry Farm. and the heart of recreational Orange County, are all
within a 20 minute drive from the sits•. nowxrw wn Los ,Angeles and Los Angeles
International Airport are approximately I (tour awa%.
The Huntington Beach downtown presently has dire-.-t access to the San Diego Freeway,
via Beach Boulevard. Enhanced access is anticipated with the t onstruction of a proposed
arterial to Beach Boulevard from the Downto%%n � vre that will provide direct access to
the project site; and the expansion of Pacific toast ifighway to six travel lanes from the
present four.
The site has more than 300 feet of frontage along Pacific Coast Highway, anc the average
daily traffic count on the highway is 33,000 vehicles, with traftic volume growing at a
steady rate per annum. A panoramic: viewsc:ape from the site extends to Catalina and the
Palos Verdes Peninsula. Present zoning (Huntington Beac-h Downtown Specific Plan) will
allow development up to eight stories in height. Surrounding land uses are predominantly
commercial with residential areas to the west . 'The entire downtown area is also subject
it) architectural design guidelines which have been adopted to establish a contemporary
mcditerranean theme for all development projects. In addition, the site has recently been
Included as part of a conceptual master plan prepared as part of an Exclusive Negotiating
Agreement with a developer on the site southeast of Main Streit (attached is a map and
Scope of Development).
To conclude, the Huntington Beach Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area is both
quantitatively and qualitatively a very highly desirable, visable and accessable location
that will support and sustain premium quality development.
k Agency Involvement In Overall Downtown Improvements
The city's Redevelopment Agency will be investing available tax increment funds, Housing
Community Development Block Grant funds. City General Funds, and miscellaneous other
funding to assist In the success of the downtown development. To this end, the city plans
for the construction of the following public improvements:
1. Full street improvements along Pacific Coast Highway to expand to six lanes, Alain
Street, Sixth Street, and Walnut Avenue, Including raised landscaped median islands
that will serve to facilitate the channelization of expected traffic and to enhance
the appearance of the property and surrounding area.
2. New traffic signals at key locations to serve the ultimate traffic demands of the
downtown area. Existing traffic signals will be upgraded to provide maximum
efficiency in traffic circulation throughout the area.
3. A landscaped parkway along the entire arterial frontages of the property. The
unique design and appearance of this and other landscaped treatments will clearly
identify the Main -Pier area and will ultimately carry through onto private property.
Once established, the ongoing maintenance of this landscaped area will be the
responsibility of the developer.
4. To further enhance the appearance of the Brea, the existing overhead utility lines
will be removed and placed underground.
3. The city Is proposing to service the downtown area by a new transportation center
within the Core area. The future owners within the downtown area can be assured
that the existing surface streets will handle all vehicular and pedestrian traffic
which may be generated from the development since an extensive study has been
completed to determine traffic projections. The results of this study are
Incorporated Into the design of the street improvements adjacent to the site, thus
assuring all necessary rights -of -way are acquired to meet ultimate traffic demands.
6. A grade separated crossing is also proposed 3t Main Street to the city's beach and
pier area. This will be developed In conjunction with the currently proposed Pier
Side Village specialty retail development scheduled to start construction next year.
2.
PROPOSAL CONTENT
Proposal Content
Developers interested in the site are requested to submit the following information: -
1, Development Description and Physicai P am-ing:
A written statement des--ribing the project and preliminary site plan showing the
proposed development. A statement shall also he included which contains a schedule
and phasing of the proposed development.
2. Purchase Price 0•erms of Land Acquisition):
A written statement expresseu in dollars per iiet square toot as to the anticipated
purchase price in support of the project proposed, is required.
3. Economic Feasibilitv:
A major objective of the Agency, in terms of the Main -Pier project relates to its
long-term economic: benefit to the city. In order to provide for the long-term
viability of the project in terins of both municipal services for the project as well as
net project benefit to the total community, the generation of significant annual
revenue is critical to the city. In view of this. a financial pro forma is requested to
be submitted as part of the proposal.
4. Estimates for Project Costs: .
A ineasure to aid in cornparison of proposal-; is the expected rater of return or. the
project and comparable rates of return rec-eived for similar projects. A construction
pro forma should be provided. including estirnates on the following:
1. Cost pear square foot and total cost to build
2. Cost of tenant improvements including fixtures and equipment
3. Architecttir•.il. engineering, and other pre: -development costs
4. Other Censtrurcion related fees and financing costs
S. Developer's Financial Qualifications:
A Statement of the developer's qualifications and a finan6al statement is to be
submitted (format attachea).
j 6. Developer Experience:
The developer's previous relevant projel,t eaperient:e for a single project of this size
(including joint venture partners); photographs, brief description of projects (date,
location, concept, land uses, size, architectural features, .design of off -site
improvements, construction t-ost, role of development entity. etc-1
7. Organizational and 41dr1-1gCtnrnt Approai h:
Organizational and managenn•itt approach. and raly of each development partner an.!
ronsidtant. in tiv.• iniplvenrielaLion of tilt- devvlopmvilt. Identili.•dtian and role of
key individuals in th%' c!.•vcl.tl i.ient team. l.trehitect, 1.endsc.il%c JrehiteCt. engineers.
prnjec:t manager, .end otht•r%). mchiding tler.ir 1%WkV.rsund w(pericnre.
K. Miscellaneous Infurntatioti:
Any additional information that the developer wishes to submit may be attached in
the form of an appendix. Statements should he complete, but as brief as possible.
-4.
SELECTION PROCEDURE
Selection Procedure '
All proposals, including development concepts, are to be submitted to the Redevelopment
Office attention of: Mike Adams, Principal Redevelopment Planner, City of Huntington
Beach, 2000 Main Street, Post Office Box 190, Huntington Beach, California 92648, by •
5:00 P.M., Friday, December 2, 1983.
The Agency will then review all proposals received for the development of the site.
Review will consist of a scoring system based on the proposal content section. After
completion of this review, the following activities will be initiated:
1. The development proposals that most clearly meet the standards and expectations of
the Agency will be selected for a screening interview with representatives of the
Agency staff.
2. Based upon the screening interviews, developers may be requested to personally
present further detailed information determined necessary to' the Agency staff,
including architectural approach, specific amenities offered, and other precise
information as may be required.
3.. Agency staff will make the recommendation of a developer to the Redevelopment
Agency for final selection, and an Offer to Negotiate Exclusively will be acted upon
by the Agency to run for a period of 180 days.
4. A Disposition and Development Agreement will be negotiated between the Agency
and the developer during the period of exclusive negotiations. This agreement will
be subject to approval by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The
developer will design and construct the project in conformance with the Disposition
and Development Agreement, and the design for development.
Selection Criteria
Each proposal will be evaluated based on the developer's response to each element
outlined in this document, the proposal's compliance with the Alain -Pier Redevelopment
Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan and the following developer information:
Developer Experience
1. Major Developer of Projects Involving
a) Retail facilities and centers
b) Hotels
c) Recreation/entertainment uses with large open areas
d) Office buildings with related commercial complexes
e) Joint Public/Private Projects
2. Success in Comparable Undertakings Related to the Following:
a) Economic success (high occupancy, high quality tenants)
b) Overall architectural and landscape design themes
c) Successful operation In a coastal setting.
d) Mixed -use environment, ability to attract a diverse patronage.
e) Timeliness of performance In past projects
4.
v kl.�
3. Economic Benefit(s) of Other Projects to the Cities in Which They Were Built
a) Total annual sales tax generated
b) Other general purpose annual municipal revenues generated
c) Total number of new permanent and part-time jobs created
4. Financial Capability of Developer
a) Ability to raise equity/debt dollars, including current relationships with major
lenders and commercial tenants
3. The Individual Qualifications of the Development Team
a) Major projects
b) Joint/private projects
c) Financial capability
SELECTION SCHEDULE
The Schedule of Events as Anticipated in the Request for Proposals Process Is:
Agency issues Requests for Proposal October 22, 1983
Developer response due 5:00 P.M. December 2, 1985
Agency's review of proposals December, 1995
Preliminary interviews and requests for
any clarifications of materials. Possible
pre -selection of limited number of
developers December, 1983
Possible presentations to selection
committee and/or Agency committee January, 1986
Selection of developer and entering
Into exclusive negotiations. - February, 1986
Period of exclusive negotiations begins February, 1936
Execution of Disposition and Development
Agreement between Agency and developer August, 1986
3.
I
DEVELOPER STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS AND FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY '
Maln-Pier Redevelopment Subarea
Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency `
Developer's Statement of Qualifications
and Financial Responsibility:
(For Confidential Office Use of the Agency)
1. a. Name of Developer
b. Address and Zip Code of Developer
2. Is the Developer a• subsidiary of, or affiliated with, any other corporation or
corporations or firms?
If yes, list each such corporation or firm by name and address, specify its
relationship to the developer, and identify the officers and directors or trustees
common to the Developer and such other corporation or firm.
3. a. The financial condition of the Developer, as of December 31, 1984, or later, is as
reflected in the attached financial statement. (NOTE: Attach to this
statement an audited certified financial statement owing the assets and the
liabilities, including contingent liabilities, fully itemized in accordance with
accepted accounting standards and based on a proper audit. If the date of the
certified financial statement precedes the date of this submission by more than
six months, also attach an interim balance sheet not more than 60 years old).
4. If funds for the development of the land are to be obtained from sources other than
Developer's own funds, a statement of the Developer's plans for financing the
acquisition and development of the land is required.
3. Sources and amount of cash available to Developer to meet equity requirements of
the proposed undertaking:
a. In bank(s).
Name
Address Zip Code
Bank
Amount $
b. By loans from affiliated or associated corporations or firms:
t
Name
Address yip Code
Source
Amount $
f
G1
c. By sale of readily salable assets:
Mortgages
Description
Market Value $
Mortgages or Liens S
b. Names and Addresses of bank references:
Name
Address Zip Code
7. Has the developer or (if any) the parent corporation or any subsidiary or affiliatea
corporation of the Developer's officers or principal members, shareholders or.
. investors, or other interested parties been adjudged bankrupt, either voluntary or
involuntary, within the past 10 years? Yes No
If yes, give date, place, and under what name.
8. a. Undertakings, comparable to the proposed redevelopment work, which have
been completed by the developer or any of the principals of the Developer,
Including Identification and brief description of each project and date of
completion.
7.
b. If the Developer or any of the principals of the Developer has ever been an
employee, In a supervisory capacity, for construction contractor or builder on
undertakings comparable to the proposed redevelopment work, name of such
employee, name and address of employer, title of position, and brief description
of work.
0
9. If the Developer or a parent corporation, a subsidiary, an affiliate or a principal of
the Developer is to participate in the development of the land as a construction
contractor or builder.
a. Name and address of such contractor or builder:
b. Has such contractor or builder within the last 10 years ever failed to qualify as
a responsible bidder, refused to enter Into a contract after an award has been
made, or failed to complete a construction or redevelopment contract?
Yes N o
If yes, give date, place, under what name, and circumstances.
e.. Total amount of construction or development work performed by such
contractor of builder during the last three years: $
General description of such work.
7
d. Construction contracts or developments now being performed by such
contractor or builder: _
Identification
Contract or Development
Location
Date to be Completed
Amount $
e. Outstanding contract bids of such contractor or builder:
Awarding Agency
Amount S
Date Opened
10. Brief statement with respect to equipment, experience, financial capability, and
other resources available to such contractor or builder for the performance of the
work involved In the redevelopment of the land, specifying particularly the
qualifications of the personnel, the nature of the equipment, and the general
experience of the contractor.
11. a. Does any member of the developer's corporation/partnership have any known
relationship in connection with purchasing and implementing the project with
any member of the governing body of the Agency to which the accompanying
bid or proposal Is being made, or to any officer or employee of the Local Public
Agency who exercises any functions or responsibilities in connection -kith the
carrying out of the project under which the land covered by the Developer's
proposal is being made available: N es No
b. if yes, explain.
12. Statements and other evidence of the ci_veloper's qualifications and financial
responsibility (other than the financial statement referred to in Item 3a) are
attached hereto and hereby made a part hereof as follows.
8.
V
0
Certification
I (We) * certify that this Developer's
o Statement Qualifications and Financial Ikesponsibillty and the attached evidence of the
Developer's qualifications and financial responsibility, Including financial statements, are
true and correct to the best of my (our) knowledge and belief.
Datedt Dated:
Signature
Title
Address and Zip Code
Signature .
Title
Address and Zip Code
*If the Developer Is a corporation, this statement should be signed by the President and
Secretary of the corporation; if an individual, by such individual; if a partnership, by one
of the partners; If an entity not having a president and secretary, by one of its chief
officers having knowledge of the financial status and qualifications of the Developer.
0397H
9..
f*
0
l
r �rwwf��rrrrww�rr�i '11�.��I1 �• I�V�.•.
r � 1
1
t 1
r I %jr,
t it jZ
' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
COUNCIL - ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION CA 86-108
AL
HUNTING70N $EACH
To Honorable Mayor and From Charles W. Thompson
City Council Members City Administrator
Subject 3D/INTERNATIONAL Date October 17, 1986
MASTER PLAN
Attached you will find a draft of the Main -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan prepared by
3D/International. A Request for Agency Action has been scheduled for the
October 20, 1986 meeting on portions of the Master Plan.
At that meeting, 3D/International will be presenting, for your consideration, their
completed analyses, conclusions, and recommendations regarding the implementation of
the Master Plan on a short-term and long-term basis. The attached materials are being
sent to you for your review and information preparatory to consideration -of this item on
the 20th. Should you have any questions regarding the materials or the presentation
scheduled, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
Respesubmitted,
�r�
ar hon City Administrator
CWT/.kiA:sar
Attachments
2885h
:'wbmitted to:
Submitted by:
Prepared by:
Eubject
REWEST FOR
REDEVELOPMENT
CITY COb+4CiL/ .
AGENCY ACTION
RH $6-82
0
Honorable Mayor/Chairman and City Council/Redevelop
Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator/Chief Executi
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Redeve
DRAFT MAIN -PIER REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
PREPARED BY 3D/INTERNATIONAL
October 17, 1986
Consistent with Council Policy? N Yet E ] New Policy or Exception
mbers
Statement of Issue. Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Souroe, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
Transmitted for the City Council/Redevelopment Agency's consideration is the Draft
Main -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan prepared by 3D/International. This document is
intended to be a companion document to be reviewed in conjunction with the model.
The plan identifies subareas and makes specific recommendations for development
within the areas. Resolution No. 131 has been included for consideration which would
approve the Master Plan for those subareas where presently redevelopment projects
have been proposed. Specifically, the resolution addresses the area generally bounded
by Sixth Street, Palm Street, Lake Street, and the area across Pacific Coast Highway
from this area.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the following separate actions be taken:
1. Adoption of Resolution No. 131 for the pertions of the plan which are within
the plain -Pier Project area generally bounded by Sixth Street, Palm Street,
Lake Street, and the area encompassed by the prolongation of Sixth Street
and Lake Street seaward.
2. Direct staff to prepare an implementation plan which address each of the
items discussed in the 3D/I Master Plan report and to begin the preparation
of any recommended changes to the Downtown Specific Plan.
ANALYSIS:
On May 19, 1986 the Redevelopment Agency entered into a contract for architectural
and planning services with 3D/International, Inc. for the preparation of a Master Plan
for the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area.
The contract called for the completion of eight tasks as outlined below:
1. Block -by -block analysis of the seven subareas in the Main -Pier Project area
(Report Appendix separate submittal).
,..►' 2. Recommendation on land uses and development intensities (p. 28-42).
3. Development of a three dimensional base model (separate submittal).
RH 86-82 `
October 17, 1986
Page Two
4. Development of subarea base maps (separate submittal).
S. Prepare a recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario (p. 20-27).
6. Prepare a comparison of recommended scenario with the Downtown Specific
PIan (p. 44).
7. Recommendation on phasing of development projects (yet to be completed)•
8. Prepare design recommendations for public improvements (p. 7-17 to be
expanded).
The draft Master Plan document along with the model and maps address each of the
outlined tasks. The report identified some major issues which should be addressed and
reflected in any decisions which are made on the Main -Pier Redevelopment PIan.
Among these issues are the need to establish physical and economic redevelopment in
the downtown area; the need to create an Identifiable "sense of place" in the
downtown area; the need to unify the direction of proposed developments; and the
need to analyze traffic congestion and parking problems.
The draft Master Plan recommended specific land uses and a range of development
intensity. The complete set of submittal materials was prepared by 31311 for the City
as a means to achieve workable and acceptable redevelopment projects for the
downtown area. Towards this end the report recommends the establishment of nine
objectives (p. 2-3). The first of these objectives recommends the adoption of the
redevelopment Master Plan as a basis for approving development proposals. Staff
recommends that the portion of the Master Plan bounded by Sixth Street, Palm Street,
Lake Street, and the area across Pacific Coast Highway from the downtown (identified
as Main Pier Redevelopment Subareas 1, 5, do 6); be adopted as proposed in the plan.
Subarea 1 is the Main -Pier area which includes the area in which the Main -Pier
Phase 1 and 2 projects are located. The Master Plan recommendation are consistent
with the development proposals presently being negotiated.
Subarea S (the Downtown Core area) and Subarea 6 (the Town -Square area) propose a
mix of uses. The Town Square, Summerhill, and Lake Street projects have been
identified in Subarea 6 and the proposed parking and historic areas have been
identified in Subarea S.
The adopted Master Plan will provide the Agency with an implementation tool that
will assist property owners, developers, and Agency in a comprehensive redevelopment
of the downtown area.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
I. Modify the areas recommended for adoption at this time.
2. Continue action pending receipt of additional information.
A".Oi
RH 86-92 �1
October 17, 1986
Page Three
FUNDING SOURCE:
Not applicable.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution No. 131.
2. Subarea maps with proposed site plans.
3. Summary of the Draft Main -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan.
CWT/DLB/&iA:sar
z887h
REQUEST FOR'RED
�' C GD
9%
S7.sz e, w/ %, — _
PMENT AGENCY ACTION
RH 86-40
Date ---May 9, 1986
Honorable Cha' + an evelopment Agency +'.lembers'c'ubmitted to:
f
Charles W. iompson, City AdministratoriChief Executive OfficeC>1.1
Submitted by: �
Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Adrr:inistrator/Redevelopment-'" -
Frepared by: 1
CONSULTANT SELECTION AND APPROVAL OF AGREEMENT FOR THE
Subject: PREPARATION OF THE MAIN -PIER PRECISE USE PLAN
Consistent with Council Policv? Ui Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception
Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Fundinq Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments:
STATEMENT OF ISSUE:
At the Agency's meeting of March 17, 1986, it was your action to solicit proposals for
the selection of a consultant for a Precise Use Plan for the flair. -Pier Redevelopment
Project Area. Staff has interviewed five (5) arc hit eetual/planning firms to complete
said plan.
RECOX MENDATION:
Acnrove ar,0 a thorize the Chairman and Clerk to execute a contract
with 441 the completion of a Precise Use Plan for the %lain -Pier
RZedevele:pment Project area. in an amount not to exceed � O g�•/'�(� �f-�
ANALYSIS•
Following your authorization to obtain proposals, a staff committee interviewed fire (5)
firms regarding the completion of a specific use plan for those portions of the
%lain -Pier Redevelopment Project Area not covered by an Exclusive Agreement.
As a result of those interviews, additional information was requested from three (3) cf
the firms, and based upon that information our recommendation, as outlined above and
the agreement have been prepared for your consideration.
The scope of work will be completed within a period of three (3) months and will include
the completion of the following tasks:
RH 86-40
May 9, 1986
Page Two
TASKS
1. Block -by -block analysis for each of the seven subareas in %lain -Pier Redevelopment
Project Area (336 ac.);
2. Recommendation on land uses and development intensity with site specific projects;
3. Development of a three dimensional base model at l" = 50' scale upon which
individual development models can be placed;
4. Development of a block -by -block subarea base maps showing existing, proposed, and
recommended developments at I" = 30' scale;
5. Prepare recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario, based on current market
information and infrastructure constraints, including total amount of commercial
and office square footage, residential units, community facilities, and required
parking;
6. Prepare a comparison of the recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario with
the guidelines contained in the Downtown Specific Plan;
7. Prepare recommendation on phasing of development projects to achieve ultimate
development; and
8. Prepare design recommendations for streets, plazas, landscaping, and other public
improvements.
When completed, the use plan will provide an implementation tool that will assist
individual property owners, developers, and the Agency, in expediting our
redevelopment efforts within the Main -Pier Project Area.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. Defer the selection of a consultant at this time.
2. Modify the scope of work to be performed.
FUNDING SOURCE:
Loan from the city's General Fund; Fiscal Impact Statement attached.
ATTACHMENTS!
1. Consultant Agreement.
2. Proposers responses.
CWT/DLBdp
2453h
r
Ha0iouseman
& Company, Inc.
Ted L. Bellmont
Michael N. Bellmont
July 24, 1986
Mr. Mike Adams
Principal Redevelopment Planner
City of Huntington Beach, Ca
2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, Calif 92648
Re: 3D/International, Inc.
Dear Mr. Adams:
Vl
vouRkWfl=e nOtpl�a!l+11
AGEW
G E
2001 Kirby, Suite 900 - Houston, Texss 77019-6033
713-522.2703
sllilg 70
Ft �GY�y>�D
COIAMOK� p 410.0 LtCS
At the request of our insured, 3D/International, Inc. we are
enclosing Certificate of Insurance evidencing the coverages
they have in force.
Should you have any questions, please advise.
Sincerely,
HAL HOUSEMAN S COMPANY, INC.
(Mrs.)Marian Trent
MT:Me
encl.
cc: Ms. Nancy Landry
3D/International, Inc.
of
Insurance.
��yry ATIE HOLDER.
THIS cERTIFICATE DOIS
NAME JIM ADDRESS OF AGENCY
HAL HOUSEMAN & COMPANY* INC.
COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGES
2001 Kirby Drive, Suite 900
Houston, Texas 77019-6033
may A AMERICAN GENERAL FIRE & CASUALT
(713) 522-2703
COMPAN" B MARYLAND CASUALTY COMPANY
LETTER
NAME All ADDRESS Of INSURED
C+
3D/INTERNATIONAL, INC.,coup
Lp" CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY
3D/ INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
190D West Loop South,
COMPANY D
LETTER
Houston$ Texas 77027
cOwl E
LETTER
Ttas is do call "I gWvtos at insural kstad txla.l aYe been Issued to V.e thsuraa amad itroYe lod ir2 to torce it thts ttfft NWWItn4t&1l *MY fiQurrerrtent Will Or L)Or.dRiOn
of arty'onvact or Other document with nrspefl to which this oartnccate may be, Issued or may pertain, the insurance sftordad by the poscies Oestribed herein is sub)eCt to @I! the
terms. enkrs.ons and conditions of such policies.
P
Limits of LiabilityIn housan
s 1
EACH
OCCURRENCE
+L;.GR[GATE
LDETTER�
TYPE Or INSURANCE
POLICY NUMBER
I XPlR�lgN DATE
GENERAL LIABILCiV
TEXAS
BODILY INJURY
1 500,
s 500,
A
ER COMPREHENSIVE rORM
12PREMISE5—OPERATION$
TMP 58756550
12-1-86
I'll
S 100 F
S 100,
❑ ExM� � AND coLLAPSE
OUT OF STATE
11 "1149ERGROUND HAZARD
GL 18771218
12-1-86
❑ PRODuCTS'COMPLETED
I�]] OPERATIONS HAZARD
CON'. RACTUA,
BODILY INJURY AND
PROPERTY DAMAS(
S
L1i INSURANCE
BRDAD FORV PROPERTY
COMBINED
>;
DAMAGE
�INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
PEPSONAL INJURY
PERSONA. INJI,IRr
�
AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
TEXAS
BODILY Il ua*
PERSON,
>♦ 500
A
FXX COMPREMEll FOR+
GL 27477892
12-1-86
IEA4N
817%YINJUR"
r
s Soo,
ER o" ED
OUT OF STATE12
tEA=++ AO nDENT,
PRCPEPANE
s
B
""
.
CA 52923639
12-1-86
B.7CIi. INJURY AND
PROPERTY DAMAGE
s
N,N DwNED
s
, t'E�RNEr
EXCESS LIABILITY
B
UMBRELLA FORM
UB 67980622
12-1-86
BOCILV AND
:5,000,
100.
❑ OTHER IMAM UMBRELLA
PRCPERTVERT. DAM MAGE
COMBINED
FCRsr
wORKERS'COMPENsATi
ERAS & OUT OF STATE
STATUTORY
B
and
12-1-86
>j 100,000
TC6 22234322
EMPLOVERS'LIABILITY
er„Am"„t.
OTHER
Professional
$5,000,000 Limit
C
litl�
fAlability
AAE 822 23 87
7-7-87
$250,000 Deductible
XSCRIPTIDN OF 0PERATIDNs4Or_ATIONSNEMIClES
Cancellation: Should any of the above described policies be Cancelled before the expiration date thereof. the issuing com-
pany will endeavor to mail _10_ days written notice to the below named certificate holder. but failure to
mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the Company.
NAME A+4DADORESS Or CERrgF CAT E WXDER.
7 — 2 2 — 8 6 mt
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIF. DATE cssucn
2000 Main Street,
HAL HOUSEMAN & COMPANY, INC.
Huntington Beach, Calif. 92648
Attn: Mike Adams
AUTHORIZED REPRESS"TATME
l 25 (1.79)
Ram
V
30 international
It' It
May 19, 1986
hr. . Eike Arians
Pr incilzl Redevelopment Planner
Office of Redevelopment
City of Huntington Leach
200 Hain Street
Huntington Beach, CA. 92648
Dear Mr. Ada=
111"o 11.1.611.. K' I R, I 0.u91.rb4
Pd.•' x Aft l.'rtl ho U.apt u6!
Fhe..'.�srsl I rw1,�I•� �
I ..�:: i.q.• ArO L,rc
114A) VM sl 1 u f, `: A.Ir-
44 11!t1fl AAlu
w:4•. U.41 rig!
has l]I t I NJ
We at, vety pleave6 to be includvd in the final selectiorl process
for the master planning cervices of the Huntington Beach dc;wntown
arty.
In accordance with your requests we are responding with an
estimated time and cost for the completion of the eight tasks
outlined in your letter of may 15, 1986. Iieace refer to the
enclosed breakdown. In come caLeL. the time frames of the tasks
overlap. We feel confident that the work can be accomplished
within the 60 to 90-day period that you have suggested.
We Lave based the estimated cost on a time and material fee: as
indicated in the proposed agreement. Since the exact scope of
work within each task is difficult to determine at this stage, we
have indicated a range: of probable cost for Moth labor and
reimbursable expenses.
The: model at a 1"=501 scale, would Q limitv4 to Areas 1, 3, 5 and
6. It is our assumption that you will rant this to be a "permanent"
model that will therefore need to be Fruduce[d by a professional
model builder. (In contrast to the ir,-house, paper model that we
produced for the Phase II Redevelopment scheme) .
We estimate that a model of this Aze would cost between $30,000
and $40,000, depending upon the level of detail, number of
modular sections, covers, stands, etc,
We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to Submit thin' proposal
for your consideration, and let me emphasize that we would really
like to work with you on this project.
Please call me if there is any additional information that I can
provide.
Sincer 1
G. Norman Hoover, FAIA
Director of Architecture and Planning
cc: Douglas N. LaBelle
30 International
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN AREA
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
kotimated Costs
Task 'mt�,, Labor Reinibursables
1
2
Weer.s
$ c -
11,000
$1, 500 -
$2,000
2
2
Weeks
$11 -
140000
$3,000 -
$5,000
3
(Base Model -
A::suuied to
Le a separate
sub -contract)*
4
2
Weeks
$ 7 -
8,000
$2,000 -
$2,500
5
3
Weeks
$ g -
12,000
$1,000 --
$1,500
6
1
Sleek
$ 2 -
3,000
$ 250 -
$ 500
7
1
Sleek
$ 2 -
3,000
$ 250 -
$ 300
8
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3
weeks
$10 -
13,000
$2,000 -
$3,000
SUB-TOTAL
10
- 12 Weeks
$49 -
64,000
$10,000 -
$14,000
3
(4 I -leeks)
S 2 -
3,000
$30,000 -
$40,000*
TOTAL
10 - 12 Weeks $51 - 67,000 $40,000 - $54,000
I
PR:NC (PALS
1 r-
KLAGES CARTER VAIL
2 F r R T E R S
May 15, 1986
Mr. Mike Adams,
Principal Redevelopment Planner
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, California 92648
Subject: Huntington Beach Downtown Area
Mr. Adams,
V
RECEIVED
MAY 16 1986
HOUSING AMID
COM"U"ITY DEVELOPMENT
ASSCOATES We are most pleased to have beer, requested to submit our proposal
for professional services relative to master planning of the
Huntington Beach downtown area.
We propose to prov ide al I requI red documents and sery Ices out i ned
Aco+.=oRATON In the document entitled, "Tasks" for a not -to -exceed amount of
$126,458.00 based on the attached summary.
Thank you for the opportunity of sLbmitting our proposal; we are
extremely excited about ,joining the City of Huntington Beach in
he devel opment of what 1 s certal n to be a hi ghly successf ul
project and look forward to your favorable reply.
TER VAIL AND PARTNERS
L. Vail, AIA
Principal
sn
Enclosure
Arcr• ;ec : re P a^^ ra !r e, J , 31$8 .4 ,1 •per. Lxz C },> C'JS'd Vasa. Ca bIs a =+-a 714/641-019'
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN AREA MASTER PLANNING
COSY SUMMARY
Classification
Hourly Rate
P.
90
P.A.
80
DES.
60
S.T.
48
TECH.
38
CL.
23
TASK
TOTALS FEE
Task 1
56
80
-
-
-
-
136 b 11,440
Task II
40
10
-
-
-
16
66 $ 4,768
Task III
10
40
10
180
-
-
240 $ 13,340
Task IV
15
200
120
-
160
-
495 $ 30,630
Task V
120
200
10
-
-
40
370 $ 28,320
Task VI
35
60
200
-
-
-
295 $ 19,950
Task ViI
25
40
40
-
-
-
105 $ 7,850
Task VIII
24
10
24
-
20
-
78 $ 5,160
Reimbursables
$ 5,000
TOTAL
325
1 640
404
180
1 180
1 56
1,785 $126.458
Principal ........... $90.00 Senior Technical ... $48.00
Project Architect...$80.00 Technical .......... $38.00
Designer ............ $60.00 Clercial........... $34.00
C
7
NJ
McLarand,
V squeZ &
May 19, 1986
Mr. Mike Adams
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Adams:
We are pleased to be considered for the masterplanning services of the
Huntington Beach Downtown area. As you know, we have for the past
several years maintained a high interest in working with the City and feel
confident we can provide you with the prompt professional service
required to meet your schedule.
We have assembled a well -qualified team of experts to assist our firm in
the planning process. This team leadership will include myself as
Principal -in -Charge as well as Ken Nilmeier, Associate and Senior
Planner. Other team members will include the respected landscape
architectural firm of Fong & Associates and the civil engineering firm of
'Malden & Associates.
For your consideration I have enclosed our proposed scope of work along
with our fee schedule. We feel this proposal will provide the City of
Huntington Beach with the expertise and thoroughness required to develop
the downtown plan.
If you have any additional question, please contact me. We appreciate
this opportunity to propose our services to you and respectfully request
your thoughtful consideration.
S incerely,
McLARAND, VAS QUEZ & PARTNERS, INC.
(� � 0
Ernesto asquez,
Partner
EMVlajk
Enclosures
Arcrirecture & Plsnninq
L
McLarand.
-Vasquez &
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN AREA
PROPOSED PLANNING SERVICES
May 19, 1966
TASK 1: Block by block analysis for each of the seven sub -areas in Main
Pier Re Project Area (336 acres).
a. Determine the influence of each block area as it relates to
existing oil production.
b. Identify buildings of historical significance.
C. Provide an environmental evaluation of each block area.
Completed 5 Weeks
TASK 2: Recommendation on land uses and development intensity with
site specific projects. W&P will develop schematic concepts of each
area including:
a. Land use and circulation patterns.
b. Recommendation of alternate usages.
C. Relationship to parking and importance of parking structures.
d. Influence of existing proposals to proposed land uses.
e. Site sections and sketches to illustrate proposed densities.
Completed 4 Weeks
TASK 3: Development of three-dimensional base model at I" = 50' scale
upon which development models can be placed.
a. Develop a base study model indicating existing and presently
proposed development.
b. Develop flexibility to accommodate new and proposed
development models.
Completion Concurrent With Design
TASK 4: Development of a block -by -block sub -area base map showing
existing, proposed and recommended development of a I" = 30' scale.
Q. Base maps to include realignment of streets.
b. Location of oil production facilities.
C. Location of historical buildings.
d. Location of City -proposed parking structures.
e. Location of existing proposed developments.
f. Flexibility to incorporate new proposed development.
Completed 2 Weeks
Architecture & Flonning
5.•'� 3CC
7 Jam.. b..
Huntington Beach Downtown Area
Proposed Planning Services -- page 2
TASK 5: Prepare recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario, based
on current market information and infrastrucure constraints, including
total amount of commercial and office square footage, residential units,
community facilities and required parking.
a. Develop site plan of known proposed redevelopment projects.
b. identify square footage of land usage including:
1) Residential development.
2) Commercial development.
3) Restaurant/entertainment.
4) Retail development.
5) Other uses.
Completed 6-8 Weeks
TASK 6: Prepare a comparison of recommended ultimate redevelopment
scenario with the guidelines contained in the Downtown Specific Plan.
a. Graphically illustrative proposed downtown plan to existing
Downtown Specific Plan including:
l) Parking.
2) Land use.
3) Building intensities.
Completed 2 Weeks
TASK 7: Prepare recommendation of phasing of development projects to
achieve ultimate development.
Completed I Week
TASK 3: Prepare design recorr. rnendat ions for streets, plazas,
landscaping, and other public improvements.
a. Develop conceptual studies of streetscapes.
b. Develop hardscape palette for streets and plazas.
c. Develop specific softscapes palette.
d. Define public improvements.
Completed 6 Weeks
maa;77
Vasquez &
HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN AREA
PROPOSED FEE
May 19, 1986
McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, Inc. will provide those services indicated
in the attached Proposed Planning Services on a time cnd material basis
i� as follows:
Principals' time at the fixed rate cf $125.00 per hour.
Associates' time at the fixed rate of $75.00 per hour.
Employees' time at three times their direct hourly wage.
MVB.P proposes to work on an allotment basis and will not exceed that
allotment without prior approval from the City. This allotment is not to
be construed as a guaranteed maximum. The proposed hourly allotment is
as follows:
Task 1
$ 26,000
Task 2
$ 10,400
Task 3
$ 25,000
Task 4
$ 35,500
Task 5
$ 20,800
Task 6
$ 5,200
Task 7
$ 2,600
Task 8
$ 31,200
Anticipated Contingency
I5 000
Total Allotment $153,900
MV&P will be pleased to provide a complete contractural agreement if we
are selected for this project.
Architecture 3 Planning
_ r
q"vrx
rASK
vi I►
vn II
VIII 11
? 3 4. 5 6 7 R G 1n 11 12 13 i.A�. iv iv 17 1�
c
11 T CITY%.hF HUNTINGTON BF. oCH
,�•� `s'f , INTER -DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION .
,To CONNIE BROCKWAY From ARTHUR DE LA LOZA
V City Clerk Deputy City Attorney
Subject INSURANCE CERTIFICATES: Date October 8, 1986
3D/INTERNATIONAL AND
STV Engineers
The cancellation clause on each of these certificates needs
to be amended.
hDL:ps
r
t r
L�-
1110'?
e
SAW AND ADMSS Or s4EUCT 1 11
UZ MOUSMU i COKPUT, MOC.
COUPANIES Ats•FORMC COYERAGES
2001 Zirby Drive, Suite 900
Baas too, Taws 7701"433
MN A knucu GmmuLL
rim i GiSmm
UTTI* $ sumimm Caster
Ccw n
1713) 522-2703
SAW A.0 ADOWSS of WSUWo
3D/ 1NTZ1"T10UL,r INC.,
�R� C OWTIN=AL CLSOJ
M Compan
3D/«rrZ&RM-09AL CMULTAM& ZRC.
1900 rest L.oap tooth,
� � • D
Houston* Tax" 77027
'
CO;t E
Tf.s Is w iv io " oolcws d waun m rsi.d DO . hrm b.W, wure to tn.."'W 14, So " WC .ti on kP it bra tPN O-",5U-dWV " r9W.W V W%t, ON i at =WWK. n
CO " DXIIPW a CIAO oocvrIrlt Ul" FOSOWi 10 W%IM tun *WVP tff mry IN / 1uW or n►rr OWMm. Ow rlt.l W%V @f%xV D by Dti pefto" o.su+ew Il.nrn .s Subm-, W P• Dr
:
PM
Llnwts D Liabi
In housan s l 1
EA: «
OCCURvENCE
AG'.aEGAT(
r7LR'
r,rrE Of w.SURANCE
R7lICr NiHreER
EXP*A K)ft DATE
GENERAL LIA91LM
-
TTYAS
BODILr Iwurrr
s sao,
1 5000
_o.IPsrE«c4sN( `O`"'
T" 59756550
12-1-16
Au{wtSts-op'ERATIOKS
PROWEwryDM AGE
f lace
S 1000
E■pLOSX)h AMC COLLAPSE
- 0y. MMTZ _ ,it
.Iu1AC
�uNOERGROUND MAZARD
r.i
GL 18771214
12-1-i6
P9QVUC-S t0WPL ETEC
r-�1 OPERATIpNS NA &RV
BCDI:r INA W, ANC
I • oI+TaAGfu4 04SURANCE
PVOCWRWVDAMAGE
i
t
603AC rafm PRpPER►r
=Wai M
F DAMAGE
1'y-NDE°E40W C3NTQA:-OAS
at-soNAL Ih1URr
P{Ir53wA. Inx,a.
f
I AUTOMOBILE LIABILMY
110'41U1 I
1 ),-I
ZL .71477692
7477692
1 SVif,
:3•APQE •tySIVE COWSODIL•
IMJURV i t
�wI.E�
ouT or vuTa
a i' «IRE^
G 52923639
12-1-86
PpOPEW'.DAM A:.E I 0+
SWLI Ih R1Rr AND t
pgons VDAwaJE f
I
111 �1'^-0Wftf:
A
:�R•M{{ 6
EXCESS LIANUTY
4
i
Uh 67990422
12-1096
936+;rRUURrAN0
�AQad,
20.
l_..: uMBRELLA sO+a+
PROP(DA.�.AGE
Im
S
❑ 07NEI+TNAN UMBRELLA
COMBINED
vjRM
WORKERS'O�REN5ATIOIV
12-1-tf
STATUTORY
= Z 2,3 32�
EMPLOYOW LIABILITY
= a�.,c�s,,.•
sots"Whal
ss,aoo,o00 Licit
1tiC
ability
AU 822 23 87
7-7-87
;250,000 Dodsctiblo
DESCA FOW Or Mf ATION&%QCAT
CaromWon: Should any of the above desl3oed policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing com-
pany will endeavor to mail days written notice to the below named Certificate holder. but failure to
mail such notice shall impose no obligation or Liability of any kind upon the Company.
laM CLI.Tr.
1200. 1s 2 Su4mme
IIvetistr0taaa New&* Calif. 02644
0
rsro n n rn
ATWE
W.1ificate df
I
QXwod
NAM[ ARID AX4MSS W AGENCY-
EAL 'EMSE"x i co"A"t INC.'
COMpAPIIES AFFORDIMC COVERAGES
2001 JUrby Driw. Snits 900
Noustox, Texas 77019-6033
►EEF"Y /.Roi►i\rAiA PaAIW ii� Cam.
1713) 522-2703
MrANY
LEB �y�� CASUALTY Co"a"
TT[F
NAMC AND ADDRESS Or WSURED
3DANTUX ►T109AL, M. ,
C COSTIMMAL CASUM= COMPAry
3n/wrs"ATIaNAL amstrLu r m =c.
L[TTEFNY
ou
1900 best Loop Sth,
Lin�PNY
ficustoa, Texas 77027
COMPANY E
LLTT[P
This Is to ce" VW Fo' CMs of insurance Ustad Deb. hone been nsued to the assured narnW sbcwe sr4 are n force at this bffw. Notwithstanding any reawrornent term or cflrl'ton
of 0-7 contract or other domineer! brill respect to which fts orthcate may be Issued or may pr+tam% the insurance stlorded by"pol oescrrbed harem m cabled In aP. the
ternts. exclowns " conditions of such pok-ws_
CLETTERY
TYPE OF INSURANCt
POLICY NUMBER
ION DATE
EXPIRATION
m ntso )abash
n Thousands
1
AW.KGATE
OCCEEACH E
GENERAL LIABILITY
iEX" 4
WOrY INJURY
s soot
s 500,
A
COMPREHENSIVE FORM
" 5$756550
12-1-96
1000
loco
PWMrSES-0PERATKMIS
PROP( MDAM AGE
s
S
E;PLDSION AND COLLAPSE
OF, "KI_
t� HAZARD
DER UNDERGROUND HAZARD
GL 18771214
12-1-86
rL� PRODUCTSCOMPLETED
OPERATIONS HAZARD
BODILY INJUPYAND
-
CONTRACTUAL INSURANCE
PROPERTY DAMAGE
S
S
BROAD FORM PROPERTY
COMBINED
DAMAGE
INDEPENDENT CONTRACTORS
PERSONA, INJURY
PERSONAL INJURY
ALFTOMOSILE LIABILITY
SODILYI.JURY
S ,
A.
GL 27477692
12-2-66
(EACHPERSON)
Soo,
COMPREHENSIVE FORM
BODILY INJURY
=
OWNED
OUT OF STATE
(EACH ACCIDENT)
PROPERTYDAMAGE
s tooe
p
a7
HIRED
CA 52923631
12-2- 86
BODILY INJURY AND
, PROPERTY DAM AGE
t+
NON -OWNED
A
C(wPNEC
EXCESS LIABILITY
8
Db 67990622
12-i•6i •
BODILY INJURY AND
s,ocor
00.
lUMBRELLA FORM
PROPERTY DAMAGE
S
S
OTHER THAN UMBRELLA
COMBINED
FORM
8
WORKERS'COMPENSATION
I2-I-86
STATUTORY
TC3 2 23 32
ndd
S
EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY
R.[r.KCd.r+
zcte"fuhal
ss,000,oce Limit
sc:
ability
Ass 822 23 87
7-7--87
$2508000 Deductible
DESCRIPTION Of OPERATIONS&OCATIONSNENCUS
CanceRatlort: Should any of the above descfted policies be cancelled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing com-
pany will endeavor to mail days written notice to the below named certificate holder, but taiiure to
mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company.
zzmt cia"•
7-22""84ift
2000 XALLR street,-
.
Runtington 3"Cht, Calif. 92640 --
Atta l ike JA?jZs
..� ..
AUTHORIZED REPR;ESENTATP4
AC010 xs It•�y • - � -
. .
-%OWIITOWN SPECIFIC PLAID
4STERNATIVE L?EVELOPMEITP .2 (9dd4C
SCENARIOS �� /�erevai . f,-r%",7ir�/ _ riflfiL/!
T kit 911,0146
USE;
DOWNTOWN
EXISTING
PROJECTED SCOPE OF DEVELOPMENT
SPECIFIC
DEVELOPMENT
PLAN
(1986)
E.I.R.
E.I.R.
Downtown S.P.Update
Update
DISTRICT
3ax.Buildou
ModBuiified
Concept *
1985
1986
COMMERCIAL
1
15,000 sf
101,875 sf
55,378 sf
60,000 sf
50,000 sf
45,000 sf
HOTEL
-
-
-
-
-
54 rms.
RESIIENTIAL
150 units
2
10,000 SE
-
-
COMMERCIAL
HOTEL
45 rms.
-
-
-
-
-
RESICEITTIAL
150 units
1B23 units
870 units
1000 units
800 units
500 units
COMMERCIAL
3
86,000 sf
440,328 sf
150,545 sf
80,000 sf
50,000 sf
240,000 sf
HOTEL.
-
-
-
800 rms.
850 rms.
520 rms.
OFFICE:
-
440,328 sf
120,546 sf
20,000 sf
25,000 sf
-
RESICENTIAL
35 units
596 units
431 units
400 units
200 units
275 units
MULTI PURF.
-
- -
-
100,000 sf
-
-
CON
COMMERCIAL
4
-
273,368 sf
162,362 sf
50,000 sf
-
-
OFFICE
-
273,368 sf
194,194 sf
-
50,000 sf
-
RESIDENTIAL
50 units'
862 units
330 units
100 units
150 units
300 units
COMMERCIAL
5
111,000 sf
338,036 sf
268,324 sf
150,000 sf
75,000 sf
120,000 sf
OFFICE
35,000 sf
338,036 sf
268,324 sf
75,000 sf
50,000 sf
60,000 sf
RESIDENTIAL
50 units
640 units
204 units
200 units
109 units
200 units
COMMERCIAL
6
43,000 sf
542,404 sf
241,444 sf
130,000 sf
90,000 sf
83,000 sf
OFFICE
40,000 sf
-
-
75,000 sf
45,000 sf
40,000 sf
RESICENTIAL
20 units
497 units
497 units
200 units
375 units
450 units
COMMERCIAL
7
7,500 sf
575,863 sf
230,3,15 sf
50,000 sf
50,000 sf
25,000 sf
HOTEL
50 rms
-
-
400 rms
400 rms
200 rms
KUSECM
-
-
-
-
-
100,000 sf
RESIDENTIAL
$
159 units
1886 units
1886 units
1800 units
1600 units
1250 units
COMMERCIAL
9
-
250,000 sf
250,000 sf
50,000 sf
50,000 sf
80,000 sf
HOTEL
144 rms
400 rms
400 rms
400 rms
400 rms
800 rns
RESIDENTIAL
So units
-
-
-
-
-
COMMERCIAL
10
18,000 sf
-
-
75,000 sf
90,000 sf
105,000 sf
MUSEUM
-
-
-
-
100,000 sf
(incl.exist
COM:7E-RCIAI.
11
7,000 sf
-
-
25,000 sf
25,000 sf
25.000 sf
RESIDENTIAL
106 units
-
-
-
-
-
TWAL
CCMME:RCIAL
297,500 sf
2,521,874 s
11358,398 s
670,000 sf
480,000 sf
723,000 sf
HOTEI,
239 rms
-
-
1600 rms
1650 rms
1574 rms
RESIDENTIAL
650 units
6304 units
4361 units
3850 units
3234 units
2975 units
OFFIC:E
75,000 sf
1,051,732
583,064 s 1
170,000 sf
170,000 sf
100,000 sf
* Ncte: Represents a concept for development and does not reflect the
maximum total development for the districts.
ng )
N
Q
•
mkP4TVCT0ft KACH
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
COUNCI L
To Honorable Mayor and
City Council Members
Subject MAIN -PIER PRECISE USE
MASTER PLAN
CA 6-85
ADMINISTRATOR COMMUNICATION ,
g-� - �� �9dC • Co Un e u Vtl1
5 �� �i d .rr►� a�ai1 w �0 A. e.e v w
eV
From Charles W. Thompson, 'lZaAi tT
City Administrator lnQ
Date August 28, 1986
In May of this year, it was your action to retain 3D/International to prepare a Precise Use
Master Plan for the seven subareas of the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area. The
scope of their work includes:
I. Block -by -block analysis for each of the seven subareas in
Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area (336 ac);
2. Recommendation on land uses and development intensity with
site specific projects;
3. Development of a three dimensional base model at l" = 50' scale
upon which Individual development models can be placed;
4. Development of a block -by -block subarea base map showing
existing, proposed, and recommended developments at I" = 50'
scale;
S. Prepare recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario, based
on current market information and infrastructure constraints,
including total amount of commercial and office square
footage, residential units, community facilities, and required
parking;
6. Prepare a comparison of the recommended ultimate
redevelopment scenario with the guidelines contained in the
Downtown Specific Plan;
7. Prepare recommendation on phasing of development projects to
achieve ultimate developments; and
8. Prepare design recommendations for streets, plazas,
landscaping, and other public improvements.
The consultant is nearing completion of the plan and their final report. The plan is
tentatively scheduled .for presentation before the City Council and Planning Commission
on Thursday, September 11, with the completed report being submitted by the first of
October.
Staff reviewed the preliminary 100-scale land use model with the City Council/
Planning Commission Main -Pier committee on Thursday, August 21. As a result of that 1
review, it was felt that a presentation by staff to the City Council and Planning
Commission prior to finalizing the plan, would be appropriate, and this matter has
therefore been scheduled for a joint presentation at 5:30 PNI, prior to your September 2
City Council meeting.
Staff will be prepared to review the plan with the Council and the Planning Commission at
your meeting on September 2, and would welcome any comments and input that you may
have for transmittal to our consultants, preparatory to the completion of the final plan.
Res pe submitted,
Charles W. Thompson,
City Administrator
CWT:lp
2777h
xc: Planning Commissioners
F:
f
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH: AND 3D/INTERNATIONAL, INC.
CONSULTANTS FOR CONDUCTING THE MAIN -PIER
REDEVELOPMENT MASTER PLAN
/9fA
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this .d day
of 1986, by and between the AGENCY OF THE CITY OF
HUNTINGTON BEACH, hereinafter referred to as 'AGENCY," and
3D/INTERNATIONAL, Inc., hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT."
WHEREAS, THE CITY desires to engage the services of a
consultant to prepare a master plan for the seven subareas of
the Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area for the city of
Huntington Beach and CONSULTANT has been selected to perform
said services,
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by AGENCY and CONSULTANT as
follows:
1. WORK STATEMENT
CONSULTANT agrees to supervise and administer the
program set forth herein by the Agency for conducting the
Main -Pier Redevelopment Master Plan for the City and shall act
as the representative of the Agency in connection with the
research. The Consultant shall perform such work as identified
in Exhibit A of this Agreement to include the following.
1. Block -by -block analysis for each of the seven subareas in
Main -Pier Redevelopment Project Area (336 ac);
2. Recommendation on land uses and development intensity
with site specific projects;
3. Development of a three dimensional base model at 1" = 50'
scale upon which individual development models can be
placed;
4. Development of a block -by -block subarea base map showing
existing, proposed, and recommended developments at 1'
30' scale;
5. Prepare recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario,
based on current market information and infrastructure
constraints, including total amount of commercial
facilities, and required parking;
6. Prepare a comparison of the recommended ultimate
redevelopment scenario with the guidelines contained in
the Downtown Specific Plan;
7. Prepare recommendation on phasing of development projects
to achieve ultimate developnents; and
6. Prepare design recommendations for streets, plazas,
landscaping, and other public improvements.
CONSULTANT hereby designates Roger !lesser, who shall
represent it and be its primary contact and agent in all
consultations with the AGENCY during the performance of this
Agreement.
2. AGENCY STAFF ASSISTANCE
THE AGENCY shall assign a staff coordinator to work
directly with CONSULTANT in the prosecution of this Agreement.
2.
3. TIME OF PERFORMANCE.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement. The services
of the CONSULTANT are to commence as soon as practicable after
the execution of this Agreement and all tasks shall be completed
in four months from the date of this Agreement, unless agreed
otherwise by the parties. These times may be extended with the
written permission of the AGENCY. Consultant shall perform all
services to be performed in a timely manner as directed by the
AGENCY'S staff coordinator.
4. COMPENSATION.
In consideration of the performance of the services
described in Section 1 above, the AGENCY agrees to pay
CONSULTANT a fee FOR TIME AND FATERIALS AS STATED IN EXHIBIT
'B rovided that the total com ensation to be paid for the work
hereunder agreed upon shall in no case exceed the amount of
Ninety Thousand Dollars ($90,000).
5. METHOD OF PAYMENT.
The CONSULTANT shall submit to the AGENCY an invoice
for each payment due. Such invoice shall:
1) Reference this Agreement;
2) Describe the services performed;
3) Show the total amount of the payment due;
4) Include a certification by a principal member
of the CONSULTANT'S firm that the work has been
performed in accordance with the provisions of
this Agreement.
3.
r ■a1W�M
r
Upon submission of any such invoice, if the AGENCY
is satisfied that CONSULTANT is making satisfactory progress
toward completion of tasks in accordance with this Agreement,
the AGENCY shall promptly approve the invoice, in which event
payment shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of the
invoice by the AGENCY. Such approval shall not be unreasonably
withheld. If the AGENCY does not approve an invoice, the AGENCY
shall notify CONSULTANT in writing of the reasons for
non -approval, within seven (7) calendar days of receipt of the
invoice, and the schedule of performance set forth in Exhibit
"A" shall be suspended until the parties agree that past
performance by CONSULTANT is in, or has been brought into
compliance, or until this Agreement is terminated pursuant to
Section 12 hereof.
6. DISPOSITION OF DOCUMENTS.
CONSULTANT agrees that all materials prepared
hereunder, including all reports, plans, models, sketches, both
field and office notes, calculations, and other documents, shall
be turned over to the AGENCY upon termination of this
Agreement or upon completion of services, whichever shall occur
first. In the event this Agreement is terminated, said materials
may be used by AGENCY as it sees fit. Title to said materials
shall pass to the AGENCY upon paynent of fees determined to be
earned by CONSULTANT to the point of termination or completion
of the PROJECT, whichever is applicable. CONSULTANT shall be
entitled to retain copies of all data prepared hereunder.
4.
7. INDEMNIFICATION, DEFENSE, HOLD HARMLESS._
CONSULTANT hereby agrees to defend, indemnify and hold
harmless the CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, its officers, agents and
employees, from and against any and all liability, damages,
costs, losses, claims and expenses, however caused, resulting
directly or indirectly from or connected with CONSULTANT'S
performance of this Agreement (including, but not limited to
such liability, costs,
damage, loss, claim, or expense arising from the death or injury
to an agent or employee of CONSULTANT, subcontractor, if any, or
CITY, or the property of any agent or employee of CONSULTANT,
subcontractor, if any or CITY), regardless of the passive or
active negligence of CITY, except where such liability, damages,
costs, losses, claims or expenses are caused by the sole
negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY or any of its
agents or employees including negligent omissions or commissions
of the CITY, its agents or employees, in connection with
the general supervision or direction of the work to be performed
hereunder.
8. WORKER'S COMPENSATION.
CONSULTANT shall comply with all the provisions of the
Workers' Compensation Insurance and Safety Acts of the State of
California, the applicable provisions of Division 4 and 5 of the
California Labor Code and all amendments thereto; and all
similar state or federal acts or law applicable; and shall
indemnify, defend and hold harmless the CITY from and against
5.
all claims, demand, payments, suits, actions, proceedings and
judgments of every nature and description, including attorney's
fees and costs presented, brought or recovered against the CITY,
for or on account of any liability under any of said acts which
may be incurred by reason of any work to be performed by
CONSULTANT under this Agreement.
9. INSURANCE.
IN addition to the Workers' Compensation Insurance and
CONSULTANT'S covenant to indemnify the CITY, CONSULTANT shall
obtain and furnish to the CITY the following insurance policies
covering the activities pursuant to this Agreement:
A. General Liability Insurance. A policy of general
public liability insurance, including motor vehicle
coverage. Said policy shall indemnify CONSULTANT, its
officers, agents and employees, while acting within the
scope of their duties, against any and all claims of
arising out of or in connection with the PROJECT, and
shall provide coverage in not less than the following
amount: combined single limit bodily injury or
property damage of $500,000 per occurrence. Said
policy shall specifically provide that any other
insurance coverage which may be applicable to the
PROJECT shall be deemed excess coverage and that
CONSULTANT'S insurance shall be primary.
Certificates of insurance for said policies shall be
approved in writing by the City Attorney prior to the
6.
commencement of any work hereunder. All Certificates of
Insurance (and the policies of insurance or endorsements
thereof) shall provide that any such Certificates and policies
shall not be cancelled or modified without thirty (30) days'
prior written notice to the CITY.
11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR.
CONSULTANT is, and shall be, acting at all times in the
performance of this Agreement a: an independent contractor.
CONSULTANT shall secure at its expense, and be responsible for
any and all payments of all taxes, social security, state
disability insurance compensation, unemployment compensation and
other payroll deductions for CONSULTANT and its officers, agents
and employees and all business licenses, if any, in connection
with the services to be performed hereunder.
12. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT.
All work required hereunder shall be performed in a
good workmanlike manner. The AGENCY may terminate CONSULTANT'S
services hereunder at any time with or without cause, and
whether or not PROJECT is fully completed. Any termination of
this Agreement by the AGENCY shall be made in writing through
the Chief Executive Officer/City Administrator, notice of which
shall be delivered to CONSULTANT as provided in Section 16
herein.
13. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING.
This Agreement is a personal service contract and the
supervisory work hereunder shall not be delegated by CONSULTANT
to any other person or entity without the consent of the AGENCY.
7.
14. COPYRIGHTS/PATENTS.
CONSULTANT shall not apply for a patent or copyright on
any item or material produced as a result of this Agreement,
as set forth in 41 CFR 1-9-1.
15. AGENCY EMPLOYEES AND OFFICIALS.
CONSULTANT shall employ no CITY official nor any
regular CITY employee in the work performed pursuant to this
Agreement. In accordance with California Government Code
Sections 1090 et seq., but subject to the exceptions therein set
forth, no CITY official or employee shall be financially
interested in nor derive any financial benefit, either directly
or indirectly,
from this Agreement.
16. NOTICES.
Any notices or special instructions required to be
given in writing under this Agreement shall be given either by
personal delivery to CONSULTANT'S Principal (as designated in
Section 1 hereinabove) or to the AGENCY'S staff coordinator, as
the situation shall warrant, or by enclosing the same in a
sealed envelope, postage prepaid, and depositing the same in the
United States Postal Services, addressed as follows:
TO CITY:
Mr. Mike Adams
Principal Redevelopment Planner
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, Ca 92648
8.
TO CONSULTANT:
Rodger Messer
3D/International, Inc.
Architecture Division
1900 West Loop South, 1200
Houston, Texas 77027-3292
17. FNTIRETY.
The foregoing, and Exhibits *A* and "B" attached
hereto, set forth the entire Agreement between the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this
Agreement to be executed by and through their authorized
officers the day, month and year first above written.
CONSUL
G. NOPMM MOVER, FAIA
Senior Vice President
name/title
F B� •AIA
Senior Vice rFSi not
name/title
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
Agency Special Co}t peel/
4TIATED AND APP&OVED:
y City Administratordevelopment
APPROVED:
Chie xecutive Officer/
City Administrator
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Chairperson
TTEST • ���
Agency Clerk g
APPROVED AS TO FORM: 3�
4 - dan�-
Agency Counsel
0
9.
Ir„) EXHIBIT "A"
TTUVE
1. Block -by -block analysis for each of the seven subareas in
Main --Pier Redevelopment Project Area (336 ac.). Visual inspection
will be made of subareas 11 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. Comments will be
recorded on hew the current uhe relates to its intended use. This
is not a survey to determine incorrect uses or violations.
2. Recommendation on land uses and development intensity with site
specific projects. This will be based on existing market studiest
the specific plan, current development proposals, and consultation
with city staff.
3. Development of a three dimensional base model at 1" = 50' scale
upon which individual development models can be placed. Model to
include subareas 1, 3, 5 and 6 only. Buildings to represent the
proposed level of development density and will be simplified
block representations which can be replaced (by others) with
detailed models as projects are approved. The base model will
include some color or detail to indicate treatment of special
urban spaces. The model will be a working tool to enhance
understanding of development proposals. It will include a
base, but not special covers or stands,
4. Development of block -by -block subarea base maps showing existing,
proposed, and recommended developments at 1" = 50' scale. These
drawings are renderings which indicate urban uses. They are not
plats showing meets and bounds or utilities.
5. Prepare recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario, based on
current market information and infrastructure constraints,
including total amount of commercial and office square footage,
residential units, community facilities and required parking.
Suggest other possible uses as appropriate.
6. Prepare a comparison of the recommended ultimate redevelopment
scenario with the guidelines contained in the Downtown Specific
Plan. Recommend amendments where appropriate.
7. Prepare recommendation on phasing of development projects to
achieve ultimate development, and will include suggestions as to
where the next development should be.
8. Prepare design recommendations for streets, plazas, landscaping,
and other public improvements. This scope will refine and develop
work done to date for the city. 3D/I shall identify locations for
features and Identify generic materials. These diagrams will
provide design direction and shall include a possible Pacific
Coast Highway underpass and locations of proposed overpasses.
3D/I will not produce a brochure or planning document. Materials
described above will be suitable for reproduction in an 8-1/2 x 11
format.
•
EXHIBIT "I3"
untington
Beach Downtown
Area
MASTER PLAN UPDATE
Estimated
Cost and Time
W
Total
1
2
$ 81000 $
11500
$ 9,500
2
2
10,000
3,000
13,000
3
4
29,500
2,500
32,000
4
2
7,000
2,000
9,000
5
3
91000
1,000
10,000
6
1
2,000
250
2,500
7
1
2,000
250
2,500
8
3
10,000
21,000
12,000
TOTAL 12 Weeks $ 77,500 $ 12,500 $ 901000
I
Lr
i
4r
1.
L
11I
L
1
L
L
Main —Pier Redevelopment Master Plan
City of Huntington Beach, California
3D/Intern ational
September 1986
{ r E" " " •i,,a pl„ , m IIIII17f •w �o n i
`. III hill"",.�lq;y'�Nwr+lnll�nlIq�IIIbu�IwA«+�NNW VI iw.'."lad:
nriP�PP�rw■1111 1wrrrlr—1 p!PIP 0a "ilyrlP!rr rr4usl11INPOIN
Ylp I�u �� �i��'t�r�������l4P,1*In�•�rll �Bi�a7gP�Tt"������ 1 � � �Ilii hip �w�t �� L■ 'Ir � I■"4f�1 a14,r pl
ypµi a'I Lp" q ,� ,pGhl" qP"Vd^wNrj..hw pdu", hIwPrlreUh81J'ipl"lmipr%iulPl'�����u��Nr1p ",' "�I'�g'9`4?M1ig1'wma11
'41 i�ii I�i �iP 1� n ",Nip'�n"^tlu lal M%P I'�,, 91ihoJ�,�� p ,41G'SJI��'7g4
i
I
Irl�h "I:I ILLtrrrrl .a,. wtrirrrrr
dI wb
a�
Inn 11rr�r
myr I,ulp: @ �lll Mr..,ml wpp%nNilrl�llllplli'IiIIIIG4'pllBgpYlplgp%'nrrl'llp4auRW
FCWslit M.,,
�IMIR
.n n
■ ■■■ ♦■u■ .. � ���■ +� PII. N II ii� i 1!■ � I �, II r •YI � ■ � ry ff � h 1.,.,
I
ppm
I�yw� ■:P i
i � IV' �,, I tti hu�' 1 �'■mrl"n� "mm phn!I�V�°"� I�WI m uauwrm�paPwmmiwaurwPldup�llll%i
P MAP yy NI 'iN k Y� 1PWY
M y�
gloom
11
i
1 Ad , OM
Vo
M
ail
u
dnG
Ihm p�
oil";na Illy 'mV�'d�'llllll IUIIC p," 19*111111 4 ""
RAW
Till
mm
gyp
h�lVl "Illlil4"II
p IM1
'I�III Ir
P u
The Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency commissioned 3D/International to study
and make recommendations concerning the re -development of the Main Pier
Redevelopment Project area (downtown Huntington Beach) and the Downtown Specific
Plan. This area consists of approximately 336 acres and extends from Beach Boulevard
along Pacific Coast Highway to the Main Street Pier and continues along Pacific Coast
Highway to Goldenwest Boulevard. 3D/International was asked to complete 8 inter-
related tasks which culminated in a master plan recommendation. These tasks were:
1. A block -by -block analysis of each of the seven sub -areas in the Main Pier
Redevelopment area.
2. Recommendations on land uses and redevelopment intensity with site
specific projects.
3. Development of a three-dimensional base model at V-50' scale, upon
which individual development models can be placed.
4. Development of a block -by -block sub -area base map showing existing,
proposed, and recommended developments.
5. Prepare a recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario, based on current
market information and infrastructure constraints, including total amount
of commercial and office square footages, residential units, community
facilities, and required parking.
6. Prepare a comparison of the recommended ultimate redevelopment scenario
with the guidelines contained in the Downtown specific plan.
7. Prepare a recommendation on phasing of the redevelopment projects to
achieve ultimate development.
8. Prepare design recommendations for streets, plazas, landscaping, and other
public improvements.
During the planning process, the 3D/I Team has worked closely with the City of
Huntington Beach Redevelopment staff, administration, and department heads; attended
City Council and Planning Commission work sessions; and listened to the concerns of
citizen groups, developers and their consultants. Through this process, we have
identified some major issues which should be addressed in a Master Plan, and we have
reached several conclusions.
1. There is a real need for physi:al and economic redevelopment in the
downtown area of Huntington Beach surrounding Main Street and the Pier.
2. There is a need to create an identifiable place where redevelopment can
occur. The creation of a "sense of place" is critical to the success of
redevelopment.
6
3. There are a number of separate development proposals in process. There is
a need for a unifying direction to facilitate these developments moving
forward in a coordinated manner in order to enhance each other and the
w+ downtown area.
4. There is a need to renew a sense of community for downtown Huntington
Beach, and a need to create an integrated and unified downtown district
as a desirable place for people to live, work, shop and visit.
5. The Downtown Specific Plan is a compilation of zoning ordinances. It is
not a master plan or a development guide, and will not, on its own accord
create or help to create a unified downtown for the City of Huntington
Beach.
6. Therc is a traffic congestion problem and a parking problem that the city
needs to solve within the redevelopment effort.
7. There is a need to synthesize as many ideas and development proposals as
j possible, with economic reality, in order to achieve a realistic, workable
and acceptable redevelopment plan for the City of Huntington Beach.
8. The thriving economy of Southern California will create development
pressure that Huntington Beach will not be able to resist. This master plan
study is an attempt to set up a planning framework to positively channel
these development forces to create an outstanding place to live, work, and
visit along the Pacific Coast.
The Design Team and City Redevelopment Agency staff and administration have, over
the past months, synthesized the existing constraints, ongoing proposals, individual
concerns, and sound urban design principles in an effort to create a redevelopment
t.+ scenario for the main -pier area. The Team has developed a number of concepts which
can guide the redevelopment effort. These urban design concepts arc a framework of
F "Big Ideas" which should not change over time and arc not design specific.
The Master Plan is a more specific set of ideas that recommends specific land uses, and
a range of development intensity. The Master Plan also suggests building heights and set
backs, as well as a scenario for hardscape improvements, landscaping, and street lighting.
The intent of these recommendations is to create a quality urban space and a "sense of
place" in the main -pier redevelopment area, (downtown Huntington Beach). Developing
' a vital sense of place is critical to the success of the redevelopment effort.
W
The 3D/International Planning Team offers these recommendations along with the
i conceptual diagrams, illustrative plans and diagrams, redevelopment scenario, and the 3
dimensional model of the downtown area to the City of Huntington Beach as a means to
achieve the workable and acceptable redevelopment of downtown Huntington Beach.
f 1. Adoption of the redevelopment Master Plan as a basis for approving
+.. development proposals.
2
11
I'
W
2.
City initiation of infrastructure improvements:
Street relocation and widening
Creation of boulevards and a landscaping program
Creation of Main street as a pedestrian zone
+
Development of the community center park
Development of the historic square (Old Town)
Construction of city parking garages
3.
Approval of.
Pierside
Phase 1
Phase 2
+�+
Townsquare
4.
Create and plan for a convention center to extend the visitor season and
enlarge the economic base of the area.
S.
Create and plan for the Transportation Center to serve the downtown
community, beach users, and tourists.
6.
Pursue the Cousteau Center as a major tourist destination.
7.
Create community awareness, interest, and support by a public
relations/education campaign.
8.
Perform additional studies:
a. A specific market/economic study to determine and understand how
to better implement the plan and create a commercial/office market
in the area.
t~.
b. The existing oil wells are an obstacle to development. Determine if
"unitization" is a feasible solution to the problem.
C. Initiate a public relations/visitors bureau program to generate a
broader tourist interest in the area. Creating a "NAME" for the
downtown area is a critical part of this effort.
9. Sponsor competitions for the design of entry portals, gateways, fountains,
public plazas and parks to generate public support and understanding of
the downtown redevelopment project.
L
L
L
3
L
�1
I
Li
Ili
L
1
L
1
I.
rI
Ll
id
j
it
Urban Design Concepts
L
ER
I[t111 O `�
Flif
16.2
- - x%+t". �^a�•_ +- ��aa. `. .`�Z�� � �4I� � 'v4�'%; `"FAY i
HUNTR49MN BEACH MASTER PLAN
r
=Ell
Irv.,
F�j I P
"d
it If 90.11' fit
Its
L
�s
P.+G 1 FIG G CA5T /f7C,tfWAr
L
e�
4
r
A(AI-Al
WIN-i
Jai
W
V
t9
LPrimary and Secondary Streets
0
\0v
s,
is —ti
f51��Wf�4K s�t�N6! �•�1=,� �y��� � Jr : �� � UL7-711
81-V1~G MP h►'1Ke VKF?7C.41L %r• - R P�(pMEN/!'2?� - -_
n
a
Primary and Secondary Pedestrian `Nays
Is 7
1W
AW
IN
0 1=1
PA C, 10 tc, C, OAST
L Reinforce The Identifiable Edges Of The Redevelopment Area
P90V106 A rRANS1170IJ
Zq/,/F, je;,VrWr-v" rMe C-,X)e .,nlv6;
PES106jVr7AL G0MMVN1ryAjVL2
NEW C01"MC-A-CM4.. OEV6%,012
10
L
Reinforce The Identifiable Edges Of Downtown Huntington Beach
F,
L
�1 Sh
1 •• •ram/'�r.`ti� t .ice; ; ���_ l'/
` � - - � .. � � _r. �ryrl Mom... r' l,r ram.+!•
Establish Gateways Into The Redevelopment Area
Create Portals To The Beach
L 9
ME eA&W 6 8VAOf+ ACCC-55 RD"
HAI., rnr,- pc mNnli r, tc Se ��fNSFoR��n
11VM #4 86AC-H PRo/Nr:rN4V67 AS A \
CelmmJAvol7 of Me 6WOVhG PYC&FP }
tap Pik A" NIKC-/MDklX6:
SpSGi�L IGl6HT/NG, p�fV1N6,`'
�y/ =r: �' �y-. ram, ;,t�•i f .,
. ,
�-ILD 1
h ��• 3
� 1 t - { + S � r !-LJ « {wti-rv'r .,.rr s. s•��rr' a..
' Redevelop
L As Beach
f'
�r
Ir
L
it
and Improve The Existing Access Road
Promenade
/ / 7/7 /
�lb
/77757-
Preserve Remaining Beach Land For Recreational Use
10
ICI
r
r
r
r
r
t
F
r
F
r
HiKS + W K E 1'R IL.
d.`�r����t� aye � � 1,•%� ��'�`.`,'s,
Rielt'oR I GI 5 '
rTw�_
Public Park Space
PV &GI G PAM AT CONV.
CENTSK P'-NO Ar COVSjVft
CCN ISIK
'fit-f
J-1 '
- ++ '9 V ..� � _ter ~ _-' v .y •'�
vJ
.`
V
,, Landscaped Boulevards
iw
•
A.
CT
jtt�--'.?. �,j.'.,, •tip•,% J', y
ib
Lx
--+•—..#�--++q�t�'•L\. �
�siy —•+�i'�="•- r�'_r '��.•'
.-. _ . -y • - r� : 'r� r- �_ (nnS;} Fes+-.: r, -afi _ ` 11 �....�-
r _ n RRw LF
1w1/
F
I., Main Street and Pier Are The Focus For Redevelopment
r�
�� � � r� is :_ � ' •
��
E
w v'? :`�� n v.
I�r
.. 1- r `� a -yak a '• •�.i/' - �'�{ ti.�l.
~ � � ..-.� � d "� - lr � r,
� r� r fir. � 1^
�
• _''�` '�'.•�'�� i es
��r
+
w`
f
La
E
L
Establish Anchors For Redevelopment
12
Lr
Lr
1�ir1 YbRl1D66 ���.�
pgp*ygj t VNG?R PA4fi
4 flviAl N 5-M%,7-
Create Pedestrian Links Across Pacific Coast Hwy.
tflytaglG SOV/#'Rs gPoRt T10h cewry
L,
CONVeAnIon C
.. .��
Ya - ...
New Land Uses
13
r--7 r .. _ i - - f -
.:y
E
J
E - f.. ` E_- f
0
Ul
v
I �,v�;�;3.;dI� irii�rini Brai�iji� t;•�r.�•'�� ;�. .
� jt1 '�,G r-r•-%CIS �T �e.��r }•�x'rn,�j'3'r��^.y /� 'f(�!' c.7• ,s' ,',�;..
Tip �. i•�s,.,:. an ...hrii y�• .t?r� "•e: s:
7nw
oc�ns�v w�sr �cvn
1 ?J,
'T f TRE�t'
a
IVTINBtbYj
4 ,
0� r.•
- fir7
pe-
f
t.
s
G�2 T8 PALoM OhVf NV6S A1q WWIDV.A"MO M8101AVS
.AWNS ' PRIMMY PM'O 5+ GOMa T STi290mrP. _
OMPWA l?h MMW7TRW wltn+ bRICK PAVI N6,
W" DRICK PAVOV .sl1"wAVKISb
1r
• -•SST", ;'y�- ��1.'.rrJYf�s+Cr:i��
t
T*7�P J
IIII r
W'M'P- r 'tYT�'TrN
Downtown Streetscape -
L
16
1
�r
6m
it
it
� C�ow41MV N 11'1' CE1v�-R PPtizK
Pourvl-Prl N I t�12N1I N US OF F5V61op12),AcN M*IN COST
Q
L
�ouNt"�I N
.� oRIeNmo mA-m �5R
P P21GK PAV I N G
c/,VRSFRO Nr tb 5nUi RO NT
BEET 't" eC6
AC49P.-rr 9melpr U ORT I NU
sTRw " r-U RN I1URS
6eAC+t AMR MAIS9
+STS-�* 100wN 1Z I cy
1
L
IAIN'rklN` pub LAO ACC>�
ouett hwN SQU&gr1
GoghmsRof k/ ply
AuN6 oRkNC?6 cAwr
y R
}
' FftZr,' S VAR
COLID TOWN
17
r
?6oeM jPM U Nb ER pA�0
Q159S1ac
Main Street
Pedestrian Plaza
L
L Land Use Recommendation
L
L
66
r r c - - r- . r- - r— r - r — r - E*
1 1 1 E 1 1 1
�--
HUNTING" REACH MASTER PLAN
R t i
a s s s s �, s c_ t_ c. t _ i k i IL
ED
ELQ M-0 "LIJ
._ aaao . _ a 0 a �L�i as Loco A �O.
Ar
• s'
�^n ••li ��� �e ;f (rfY'��, % OAOO/ A O O�
��•� )re t!r 3 11,
• "7 5"Ir a ,•� `f r�rr g o Q
4A I
WIC ;.��
Ile
„w.��Yl1.a �ttitiwv►vl►i 44�
���LLLrrr��� _ _ __ f • ./l OO�l1\/ \ ,
IN
4
rl v � w� • •� . fF
x .nJI
P
O
>U
N
o MM
Ilil
il
I
IN
i
j1
1-
�N
id
■M
F
iN
L
1
�r
Id
lr
1
%r
L
RECOM.mENDED MAX.
RECOh1MENDED REVEL.
District 1
Commercial
45.000 SF (1)
45.000 SF (1)
1104el
54 Rms (1)
54 Rest (1)
Residential
DU
DU
District 2
Residential
500 DU (1)
500 DU (1)
District 3
Commercial
280.000 SF (3) (9)
1750 a
230.000 SF (3) (3) 1750 c
1101e1
700 Rm
600 Rm
Residential
275 DU
260 DU
District 4
Commercial
13.000 SF
90 a
13.000 SF LO e
Office
32,000 SF
15 c
32.000 SF 35 C
Residential
200 DU
150 DU
District 5
Commercial
130.000 SF
112$ c
173.000 SF 1030 c
Office
445.000 SF
1270 a
390.000 SF 1090 c
District 6
Commerical
60.000 SF (4)
160 c
35.000 /sf (4) 160 e
Office
360 DU
360 DU
District 7
Commercial
SF
SF
Hotel
600 Rm
S00 Rm
Museum
13.000 SF
100 a
120,000 SF 670 e
District 6A
Commercial
10.000 SF
63 0
5.000 SF e
Residential
169 DU
DU
Convention Cit.
230.000 SF
MO a
200.000 SF e
Oil Utilization
35 Pumps 35 Tanks
District $13
Residential
900 DU
900 DU (1)
District 9
Commercial
E0.000 SF (1)
90.000 SF 11)
Ho1e1
300 Rm (1)
$00 Ren (1)
Residential
DU
DU
District 10
Commercial
325.000 SF (7)
791 c
125.000 SF (7) 731 e
District 1 t
Commercial
10.000 SF
600 a (6)
7000 SF 600 a (6)
Residential
106 DU
106 DU
TOTAL
Commercial
803.000 SF
733.000 SF
Office
$07.000 SF
432.000 SF
Hotel
2154 Rm
1954 Rm
Residential
2E50 DU
2206 DU
Museum
180.000 SF
120.000 SF
Convention Cit.
280.000 SF
200.000 SF
Oil Utilization
35 Pumps 35 Tanks
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAR
COUNT
7320 c
6763 C
a W% - 5360 Care
a 90% - 5400 Cars
Redevelopment Scenario
Downtown Specific Plan Districts
21
r
lJ#
�1
�r
I
Ia
)
Id
i
'lei
L
I
181
led
Ir
led
i�
i"
RECOMMENDED NIAX. RECOMMENDED DEVEL.
District I
Commercial
45,000 SF (1)
Hotel
54 Rms (1)
Residential
DU
District 2
Residential
500 DU (1)
District 3
Commercial
280,000 SF (3) (8)
Hotel
700 Rm
Residential
275 DU
District 4
Commercial
13,000 SF
Office
32,000 SF
Residential
200 DU
District 5
Commercial
180,000 SF
Office
445,000 SF
District 6
Commerical
60,000 SF (4)
Office
360 DU
District 7
Commercial
SF
Hotel
600 Rm
Museum
11,000 SF
District SA
Commercial
10.000 SF
Residential
168 DU
Convention Cit.
280.000 SF
Oil Utilization
District 80
Residential
900 DU
District 9
Commercial
$0,000 SF (1)
Ilotel
800 Rm (1)
Residential
DU
District 10
Commercial
125,000 SF (7)
District 11
Commercial
10,000 SF
Residential
106 DU
TOTAL
Commercial
$03,000 SF
Office
507,000 SF
Hotel
2154 Rm
Residential
2850 DU
Museum
180.000 SF
Convention Ctr.
280.000 SF
Oil Utilization
TOTAL ESTIMATED CAR
COUNT
x 90% - 3860 Cars
1750 c
80 c
85 c
1125 c
127C c
16C c
10C. c
63 c
56C. c
731 c
600 c 16)
45,000 SF (1)
54 Rms (1)
DU
500 DU (1)
280,000 SF (3) (8)
600 Rm
260 DU
13,000 SF
32.000 Sr,
150 DU
173.000 St:
380,000 SF
55,000 /sf (4)
360 DU
Sf'
500 Rm
120,000 SF
5,000 SF
DU
200,000 SF
35 Pumps
900 DU (1)
$0,000 SF (1)
800 Rm (1)
DU
125.000 SF (7)
7000 SF
106 DU
1750 c
80 c
85 c
1080 c
1080 c
160 c
670 c
c
c
35 Tanks
781 c
600 c (6)
783,000 SF
432,000 SF
1954 Rm
2206 DU
120,000 SF
200,000 SF
35 Pumps 35 Tanks
7320 c 6768 C
x 80% - 5400 Can
Egonotes
1. Not included in 3D/I study numbers supplied by Redevelopment Agency Downtown
specific plan alternative development scenarios.
2. Based an existing condition 1986.
3. Includes 60 B+B @ (60) 625 + 20% - 45.000 GSF.
4. 2500 SF commercial along Orange contributing to in lieu parking load.
5. in lieu parking road (parking allowed off site by specific plan.
Commercial @ 6.25/1000
Office 6 11350
6. Beach Parking load_
7. Pier Side Development - 4/8/86 106,000 N Leasable SF
696 Parking
1.147 Parking
8. Phase 2 Development - 4/8/86 117,000 GSF Commercial
45,000 GSFB+B (60 B+B) 625 C 20%-45,000
GSF
260 Dwelling Units
688 Parking
L
22
L
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT
1
4W
�W
1.
c
L
L
L
L
L
L
L
L'
Total
Office
Commercial
Cars
1.
125,000 SF
125,000 SF
700
2.
162,000 SF
162,000 SF
1000
3.
106,000 SF
106,000 SF
650
4.
12,000 SF
12,000 SF
75
5.
96,000 SF
72,000 SF
24,000 SF
350
6.
109,000 SF
82,000 SF
27,000 SF
400
7.
93,000 SF
63,000 SF
30,000 SF
370
8.
45,000 SF
32,000 SF
13,000 SF
165
9.
106,000 SF
78,000 SF
28,000 SF
400
10.
34,000 SF
34,000 SF
200
11.
115,000 SF
85,000 SF
30,000 SF
430
12.
25,000 SF
25,000 SF
160
13.
30,000 SF
15,000 SF
15,000 SF
140
14.
5,000 SF
5,000 SF
30
I,063,000 SF
427,000 SF
636,000 SF
5100
i
t�zn n2S,�M-
16
GR
=L .'.� �?ji� .� �4 � "'F iy-.•: • ', r,•. _t� fit..
g CZ _ - �. •; ++
�:..a ■{ems. s� k=� � : ; � --. � i� •�-
s pip
` - ....
�...J %.:•' i� ter- 1 � _-� � •' �;�I � L•r,,.� ;.',�'�'"a v. •�~���: •
trw.wrr•w_ Yam'•..«+..,.,+.....�... ,...!!`tf•'.71`+.•.'rT!Y77.^. �'T'/`!.r.,niw.:Sti�1.:'a1r .\LstLS -: �+�Y:�
Downtown Redevelopment
Commercial and Office Space
23
u
L
4
L
�1
L
L
f i
f
Ll
t
�rl
L
Ll
61
�l
:mow;/ '•�, �,
41
ni4.Ci
�v� 4• �1 M y yr ` �✓esw� »t) • ,IS � , :.�` .'S•'J'.
yA_ ~ems ` l•:r"� � '9 t�-��,,C� \\ i, _,,{{ ^ chi -
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
1.
260 DU
2.
32 DU
3.
34 DU
4.
64 DU
5.
10 DU
6.
10 DU
7.
48 DU
8.
48 DU
9.
60 DU
10.
28 DU
11.
36 DU
12.
70 DU
13.
60 DU
14,
60 DU
15.
60 DU
16.
60 DU
17.
60 DU
18.
60 DU
1060 DU
_ �rl _ ii i ^ . +iP �S. � _ << • � •-cam .`'� " �\ w' 4.
sr� .•r.•. Olt
.�Q�� ' •i, r as
t.:i r� `psi. r� ••� - < <..
tom- „�� '1 �.4 : � �' •-•- ' ••t �� _ -
J
' rw- r
R�; tI
.'�r.- . /.�•- �-!!t t, Aa X v, 111%f / r•:� _ ? '- 1. :� -.r �. •'." . t:.�;++ •
--^�"t .w� -t -... ...r�--. r�s - .w .wr..'-• 7.'.r�•. sr.'== t 1 Z ^cr_--
�.,., r / 1 • ; - �Y�j 11 ' '\ \ `L .r, :: r •.'fy:i1'�ir4:y w .!L• :✓:.1 :1::t�
rrv«w w.sar,� wwr• � .� .., ra. �•r• r.,w •rY •��i'.L11it�r �4•.R• S ��•�
r:.....�.� ;...... ,.�.�..t.. �,�1:-tom N 7. ^7`:••`�'T,7 ., ._ ,, .tiv. _•. - ��_��_ -
.fir
Downtown Redevelopment
Residential Dwelling Units
24
i R
IV
M
I•J
r-
1
l�J
O
r
F- r r r
' :_ � I I � I�y,I ('�j_ � [[ 5'� ii ?� t i(I ,�►�lili�� f] a� (]' =�l�[[ 1 t�•i ,� �1��1�1(�4i i �'E, ��,, �::"•' r� .
I L�UWL. 0 nun; {T�. IG.-1 0 aOL1(-17Q' iCMQIbvma,�
4YL1lYA Li iY7RCLTWiR�[I7i'S i%:[iIi R7M[al=I• Lj'
cr_4�y•� � 1 p 4=fl (rr II� _. �'.- • � ,, f �; �f .. •. � ;f
,'� ....•.•.r„ !. ,..•••' .1:.�7+, •?,�?� I���]�i l' J I [] r:1Gi1J4tJ� i��>' ff, f f' , 1�. ' AF •, \•1
. i�. L. ,..fit 1 .#••R• S: ,r fyA .�iti •`a �,�1•♦ `�� i\o�*t ft• ;`ter, L` ,�a���l�
{ '. {.. I i� r' try . .L �r• .
,( Ll�I s
• yy u�u ti ,fr i .ip � ,M r � I �' �� /(�1.1 r }�' <<�N` � . ,'(r a ,•
i + � iii \ 'f 7. t fiJ'•i`! �;.\ •ti y 1 �� � k. y� .• r +_� `\\ � t',,'^ ,\ �,
4 [ fern r. rrn \fn �' rr�..'� �.r. .�t► rr
i ,a • ? 1:.. '��f 4 i .,—,.� ;• 1�.1� ,� 'f r�• W .f ``•�y' ? e. L?`I' �, ,rr•JJ
!.� '_ � 1�'�7r� •=�i� ' e��•tiy`,• l'% �t ham, f1 t' rt•" a/ �'( •,,�,/ r' �%� (v`!
. �' y ` ❑ 7� \ i I•� Lra:1sV f fl i'{•'(�> {�ib^f-r'1'r.' !<� �'� 7 �,
r it •.. C*
4
? :Y� F�!' t ... r'. : Y ,{�' ai1�•L �� r/f r. ` A�* f�(� f , !� •J�
;� °i tC� r •,'�1• ��il`?: G+� ,'i\L ,
I. / �J`•{ 'C7 �• ~�r �—J Pf�•�I �: '� rt '�.,r 7'r, t•� �,('�.. � J'I� n
'�1J { 1 ti I' . ��1.11.1 • y [.1 f= ,� /C'r' 1[ I : � `� t4l y"��✓��v` ice. � '\ Jt�r,� ••`�, � I .j � .� � L � _. rfY L� i� E' �`,G � � �f' ,f'r � r; ;�', `.',S�`�. (f) ,:d��..\•
�,'r1 :Y } ,�r� "r'rT-- �r� r� r <' V��t C\ � ��t�' �C`�•:' `�,•�c� '.
, id � ] ��,•% 1`l' � •• ffIr}} f tf rf • •fI•. _�.tr* r' nl.�v{ 7� .ram: �'•+•:> `�rr/� .
gn
mr,r .�.��.�4 ' 'J if L.`+. ✓ ; �i.`� .• 1 ,
Nra I♦ r: f. �,\9� •�r . ���� (�� 4f; (�� ��\ rG
r ' •' a r ,
V
�• 1l l r '
• :11
C
,... N W W W
o v000
X1 7d � 7d 7d
N
C
T
L
L
L
P
L
Ll
L
L
1, 46•, a
P-
C
CIVIC DEVELOPMENT
Museum 120,000 SF 670 Cars
Cony. Ctr. 200,000 SF 450 Cars
Community Ctr. 60,000 SF
del
z
!, g 6 - t .,;z "' 4. .
47
C -7
144,
17
r
F-- C
r
rT
:nF-t --3.L%L ZH:
4116"
6T-r,
dO
L =�, I -^—L—f , go 000. - 1-11 —
3 3
3
U
VV
\j
gcq-.Eg C-1-
Downtown ' Redevelopment
26
Civic Development
PARKING STRUCTURES
1. 130 cars/level a 4.5 levels
2. 130 cars/level @ 4.5 levels
3. 300 cars/level 5 levels
4. 300 cars/level @ 1.5 levels
5. 1150 cars
6
,�. 700 cars
7. 700 cars 100 cars avail. for retail
`•^n S. 600 cars - 400 cars avail. for retail
�•
^,t,s �� <
:
.� ; .A
Total Parking Spaces
Serving Downtown and
e ,�'�'�
j,'^
�.•� . �.•^• Y . `•;'
Beach Demand.
585 cars
585 cars
1500 cars
450 cars
1150 cars
700 cars
100 cars
400 cars
5500 Cars
N,
cy
4.
4.
f\S r
--= � i7o , se�cu.a� � +1 � �. r4i' � ``t -}- L ` V i' `• � r�,�' ' r,�'' ✓.
er
p i Y �Vr.r r`f ,► r ?' ?a�.'-�•�'r i,�{ �v^./'\•r 1 \'n�'rCM1,; `�,' � (�-
Kam' ;riWyw y�
_J' ff s�tll �L Jf• llt�/ /. AM ., r4.y' INf�l h f:: •�- T�cr-r �� �-� +r �•-I•
w++w• ,yam I - 1 1N �yfT 1..�- • • - ff.r Fii-i••!1• .i i.•ir•_ ` 1� { + rbt
bt
•- if
�.--. • 1 ,�-'fir __:T, I' I I V `� `:�'� �"� �'•,StiS+I.'.;rd'"t.1.•.vti�ti'V`S ..,.tiSSs51!
r I .
OFF
`�� Fes-•.
Downtown Redevelopment
Downtown Parking Structures
27
r, ir r- r r Ir
4 Pz
G
Main —Pier Redevelopment Sub Areas
F
1
16#
64
W
YA
I
�y
Lb
S PhGY
k
2N47 GeVFL
4,
2Nn L Vic►
PVC cr/ G P[.4zA
T%t:bl VW/ML.
Q
ME
N
L
Ac
L
q �7►F-R +ems. _ � raf.: r r;-f�T� ..r—..c.rm�
Gf/AL,N(lr ' _rim r . ;tii`t�'r ' "'4`i74'r�%'� � -�� • ` � +4rs'i�* i+o-.•-r�".�'
�i►'i77:3, "Y7►ri _.� y '_'--t I a=t-+
he Y
i�i a 1 i i� �1 i i� i s rrr
PYd►,!G A,5ef;M,54Y ^ 6R o VNV 4.5.
SEAcH PIAKkrtr&
P,5pesrR/,447V I"/joGs
P,AS;4c,t+ AAYjAH1" ��TVR
29
P�D�Sr!?/fHll ,$R/t716�
Sub Area One
Illustrative Plan
2 7toK165
r
r
6 SiDKIES AVE.
i2 StaKlfh MAX
6 sroRI;S AVM -
IS S'MRIVi NAA.
f i
or
• = �:
R r
is 41 � r IE
Sub Area One
Recommended Building Heights
30
--- 13- - ------
ZeAC.,,f Cj-h4A161A6 1"014,17765
(? /7th 5Meerj /q7"*h 5rXerT * 7��
SLoft)= tOP #OAR/<
PRESe,CV.4,770n OF ReMAININg' 661CH 4ANV P'O)Z jec"�AvonAe- aseS
Sub Area Two
Illustrative Plan
31
i
L
l.� _ ....._.__... _. , ..._....... _ .d...a_�---
�� OAIC 5faltr P�f1/lGLON'�
Aid
t'
yr
�r
s
j�
�r
Sub Area Two
Recommended Building Heights
�'' 3 2
I
lid
is$
114
LM
IN
�G
Gh
OAL uNIrIZAT7 on FAotwr-y
ORANA5 Sr.
rPo�r�rioN �� - { •• �� r�L�
C4WM Z
WA4MIr Sr.
cousr�a v
cs mp--
(MVS&M)
RY-1. GOA57- Hr" -
rr'�+r Ify�i�f
O
H-bML
ski
�—
E"1971N& "Itc #
Fs-01G/1165
PROPOW 4.1pr Gum SrAwon 5/1r
Sub Area Three.
Illustrative Plan
33
3 Ceo KI ele.2
I
r i51bKlrh !'V PA.
-=--- - ---- -
Sub Area Three
Recommended Building Heights
34
60
4+
640
V
•
M
6OMVCNt'7UV G6NrLaA
t. a/O/N6 GO[.0 a /t Ems!
17 (o Re!;Iv6Mr1Ac- v,117*5
Sub Area Three Alternative Scheme
35
ido
•
it
u
140
1
kr
F
�r
10
iY
•,mil t • � f
, � 1
..+.�.��~ .'•fn7%/try .. . .... ... ..• .7. Yil.il•.... .u....r ::rii:r..•.................. r. •....••..••........
SUP ARVA
i�crri ttf15 Sruta)r
Sub Area Four
36
Illustrative Plan
•Y
L
it
C l r*e RARk a GvlgA#6
PESOBM7AR, DCWI-.
swGce r-hm,Lr
tt w/VHV VS{Si1
OAAW66
PE06G 'lZIA M
MAZA
pt1Mhxr Go/L m e-rcm! smee%/
'�tiytaal0
SQV��
(oe o towN)
Al (A-P FA M 1 LY
!-
R�Sldt r'I�L 10EV194.
OFF1 OG 6 PA c C-/
N
P^XX SAACS r
.v.�• e*R�..�.��.., � is-.r�' w
Z � ;.�■ ��"!tom
�..'
p -dt S"' �s • Y
,
� , 1
tin
R1Sr1N6
CaA1n?jqAc1&
z %J
4fPtM 6pAGO Anro 6.10010- t
37
Sub Area Five
Illustrative Plan
(pytOR
25eow� I
2 d.PpMR,eS I
5 C.40 let B5
149MMf
If STo9
&t%DRIOIa AVM
G CA91two VAM.
I % I JM1 r. 1
I
.L I�7„n1r`1
Sub Area Five
Recommended Building Heights
38
�j
it
6r
�r
jr
#lw
�w
k�
04/ve 4ve
w V�
■. V \
z r
IL
WA41VV7* AVE
L
0 4VvAM r&A 6GoGg PA -RISING OAXA06
L
it
L
L
Alternate Parking and Housing Scheme
`■l
Lk
�r
6
ba
Ir
L
lid
Ir
L
L.
stXscr APAKtM 6WrS
s r` 1Yt16H8O�oV O"MORCI e—
,Or
N. a
I
Ir
.0:10
?77WN SVVARC-
D6VVc.oPMONr
bsvEl aplflvvr
_._. 'IV i
ylar
lr crirt �
�t
Pv&lG pedsStR14-ry pe-AZA
Sub Area Six
Illustrative Plan
L
40
UP
168
L.
Lr
Lw
!Zqv .ILA
2 9rop.l6*
Sub Area Six
/Recommended Building Heights
41
r
r
r
'EX1917A10 eftPPIIV b COgeg
N6W &VIC 01N6 PAP,;
IN &JS17N6 R. Q W.
New 0116 t
MCC/ 1V GUTS
7-D CR&IIV Aleut
SI-ZPP/N
amrRANCz-
C-X paA,SIVC- eAA/DGCAPIN6 +
7rRM PLC /MN6 ALONG
56AGH 15OULEVARIO
yvIvim6 tan
,t5R50�XR5
Sub Area Seven
42 Illustrative Plan
" +rvrwuu l' mr ulWwwu✓awJiuril'iurYuJ wuLnr ,l i;dauwu.Jmd raLl.ni�ml.�4,uw�,.41ww^wa'Nw�hun«W� ,—..
112
ar„ I II 1•.l I ill I I I 4 u. y �" 9�
�I IIIII�I�
ry iiiiR Ihyl rUk r
I I. Ih. t
I "
Pz
nnarl
�ll+lwl� m iY r �5 . r ro nm � � nw"Lr.w.. ' ""�I IE 1 �+w�+rn :•mow r,l r.. II al Imy "" 4�IIi ""iir"
+ 1 I
l� k N qY
lo,
Nl II � IIII 11lit10
.�, �I IIII I�IIIII IIII: IIII "Jill
- A
elm„5 vh / I�np IlliIIIIIIP:' I,N.. r: III !�
F •,� r/ I,: 'IN;:: I I .L:e, 'H c IIII I �I� �'.
l ll i I L
�� IIVB, pGlflll
�N ul1 ���,�I�I' I u
�NIu,1 i
II I I I
� I
"tool
I�I�� Nh a tiV
� �Illal .��IVJI�l1 IIII II�uN7h �IIII4 Ali' I II h � III�4 d I,' III°, I e �
vhh y
04
4-j All
Jill
r
11,119I
I SIC I I rv" I I� —
p u m� �IiINl1° q .Alan
41�N nhr INM'tlYC ',li I r II`l h N. '. i�n �
Y �l q y I I I �I p Y W��n � �,� �G Ild I II � h'� � f I I II 1 m6C II Ibr 1
I 1.:��4�1 I �i� I � '��I����IIM �II I �P���I
R W fr A ,�# . a rtrw . Wwa xF ry i I halll�nwwwrryrv" Ilp� m '.g�; r , � x "".. � .III �wal I m �'�i 8 r � w %v � " .Ih " h I r r�l pp�« • y�,p ,
rm 4",mr rmmn�wllulP, dlA 1pVII :h* "ollr"u. n r N.q mrvmxllmxwormrmmmmnn Mlxlrywnxw .," n,:.. all �.n " "iN .'TIa.e Mt?,►,l wo w. i...d.w.ie �,:,,�+ a , .:I:�Ir. ,l.fd ► ,r 'V.m.
.I Ix oNJIrltPlrvx, ..,�
n I'� IIII Il �q rll lix lx IPIII� tl� ,:
9 i IN IIM �N ,.I it M II In tl rll �rvw I �,�:I IIII III N Ir ,, 114r r Iry rv1�"�"�'7fry'�Wi'h'N II��PI,,,
u; I 4
li 4 IIIII ,II �: 111 V Illl114�116VI �^
III 1 Elljll Id PI N� 1 m y �s;, a L. wl Ia ItlI! �!^"""1"'r'I
x 1i111 tlNI .III Il it Irlq �Iil IIII III ���Iy III a ill Ix w a pp I' II r Ii II II JAI Ili
Ix � J l I I h u a I ill m I I I I I l i � yyII I 'I pS �I
IlPlpI �P r'Ix �y�II�WrvY
pry NN
�Ll 4 III III El
n a Vh� � I i� H � w• I IIIII �' . d1 l ,_ . � R ,:,,� � �',I� .:�,i:�,,� ..
r 4 N.I:I N I. hpl d .ql'; Ill.11l x l IIIIH III III IIII 9, 11I ""�
I
I u Um I llI a i1 4R
IIIIY llpl a III�hINId IV NN q y xl ill �I �rvmro^
R Y III x i1111 ��1 II III p IIIII IIII I,rv. mx "x�llh�l'� ` ! IIII �� IIII" rI
IV I l I�I III ,.. Ix '"ROW.
III ,I
711 l 1 m I
i
� l"h, I �+11' III N4 4 � � III ��IhlgNhtiwlN hull INI I I k
IIIII II it Whm ' r'
i �'ryI�I y p ry�
lkldl�Y''�'P r .�i� �u ��I .�I WM71rvRtlIf9N u�awm�...''C�°{nlmmlMpN �: �: �: is �i uEiJIINIIII ��IItl��luNap �I :Irian III YgiF� ii.�i NII� IIIIH: i:�e:l I. "" �::��: �: fi I. Ii �i
Comparison With Downtown Specific Plan
;s&
L
PROJECTED SCOPE OF On-ELOP Ewr
i
trTE ODUNTOUN ECTITITO
SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT
L.I.A.
PLO [Togo)
E.t.w 14MIFIED
DONNTONu S.F.
MUTE
1POATE
PECO+IEIOED HAK.
RECDIOEWED DEV,
DISTRICT
wO1l.9uILDOUI 111100tOT
CONCEP"
legs
Is"
COM EICIAL 1 15,000 of
101,575 of 53,378 of
SO,000 of
50,D00 of
45.000 of
45.000 of (11
45.E of (1)
HOTEL —
— —
—
—
54 r-o
54 roe 111
54 rus (11
MA
RESIDENTIAL —
— 143 volts
150 unfle
—
—
Ou
Ou
CO-WArIAL 2 10.000 or
— —
—
—
-
-
HOTEL 45 M
— —
—
—
—
RESIDENTIAL ISO welt•
1023 units e70 "nits
IWO volt.
901 rnito
500 units
Boo Ou 11)
Sw Du (I
Isr
CO+eEtCIAL 3 911,000 of
440,329 of 15C.M of
BMW of
50.000 of
240,000 or
290.000 of 131 (91
MOW of 13) le)
HOTEL —
- —
900 rue
00 roe
520 rso
7DO roe
am roe
OFFICE —
440,029 of 120,54e of
10,000 of
25,000 of
—
IES1DENIIAL 35 units
See Nolte 431 white
AN omits
ROO volts
275 units
275 OU
280 DU
MATI PUFPOSE —
— —
100,000 of
—
—
COPMCIAL 4 —
273,3ti9 of 192,382 of
50,000 of
—
—
13.000 of
MOOD of
i
OFFICE -
273,305 of 104.184 of
—
50,OD0 of
—
32,900 of
32,000 of
RESIDENTIAL 50 units
9of welts 530 untie
100 volts
ISO units
200 unite
no Ou
ISO Du
COMM CIAL 5 III.= of
539,035 of 299.324 of
1150,000 or
75,000 of
120,OD0 or
190.000 of
173.000 of
OFFICE 35,D00 of
33g,039 of "1.324 of
76,000 of
SO,ODO of
00,000 of
448,000 of
300,001 of
RESIDENTIAL 50 units
940 mite 204 Tolle
SOO omits
109 volt.
200 units
I�
Y,y
COMNErCIAL 4 43.000 of
542,404 or 241.444 or
130,000 or
g0.0o0 or
$3.000 of
60,000 of 14)
155,000 of 14)
OFFICE 40,000 of
— -
75,000 of
45.D00 of'40,000
of
no Du
990 Ou
•
RESIDENTIAL 10 volts
dot caste 11 volts
ON "nits
$75 units
450 units
i
COPNERCIAL 7 75,000 of
575.083 or 230.M of
50,000 of
50.000 of
".000 of
ry
HOTEL 50 no
- -
AN rue
400 r-a
IN roe
No M
500 rue
puram -
— —
—
-
100.000 or
19.000 of
120.000 or
COMKA:IAL 9A —
— —
-
-
-
10.000 of
e,000 of
I
RESIDENTIAL —
— —
—
—
—
Ise oil
—
led
CONVE1ff. CTR. -
— —
—
-
-
290,DOO of
200,000 of
OIL UTIL.
35 Rips
S
RESIDENTIAL 99 ISO units
199e omits Ion units
Iwo wits
1000 colts
12M units
SOO DU
No Ou 111
COMMERCIAL 9 —
200,000 of 230,000 of
50.000 or
50.000 of
110.000 of
80,000 of 111
110,000 of (11
HOTEL 144 rso
400 too 400 M
400 r-s
JIM rea
SOO no
am two
WO rss
FEMENTIAL 50 units
— -
—
—
-
II '
W
"Ntfelk 10 10.000 of
- —
".am or
90,000 of
105,000 of
129.000 of 17)
M.ODO of [71
100.900 of
(feel. Well
n
CDHKPCIAL 11 7.D00 of
— —
25,000 of
25,000 of
2s.01'O of
10.000 of
7.ODD at
[
1{M
RESIDEnTIAL HOOF units
— —
-
—
—
106 9u
101 DU
TOTAL
I
Commilc AL M.SOO of
2.821,874 of 1,35e.399 or
971).M of
480■000 of
723.000 of
e03.000 of
M.001 or
HOTEL !39 Rra
— —
1900 M
1930 M
1574 Ries2154
M
1994 Ire
!
{ad
REMENTIAL 9g0 1MIto
03" units 463t Wits
am Untie
3M unit.
l9
IV" Melts
2500 Du
l2De all
OFFICE 75,000 of
1,052.732 or 593.064 of
170,000 of
170,000 of
100.000 of
507.000 at
432.000 of
Rt11" —
— -
—
—
—
1e0,000 or
120.000 of
CONVENT. CIR. —
— —
—
—
—
M.D00 or
VW,OW or
LOIL
Will- —
— —
-
-
-
—
30 Pwmo
FOOTNOTE9i
+ -
1. Not loolwded to MI study embers
supplied by Redevelopment Agency Oe.ntm.n
opeelfle Plan alternative doretopeent sconarloo.
2. Beoad an Existing condition 1996.
S. Includes 90 " 0 [90) 92S + In - 45.000 SSF.
1
A. 2SO0 V c.-vereld slorq Or"s
sentributlrq to In Lies parking
lend.
I -
5. Ie ties perking reed (parking shooed
off pits by specific plan.
w
Co-serel.l q B.25f1D00
office 9 11350
9. Beach Perking laud.
7. Pier Side Devalsp-ant — VVIG
105.000 R Leasable 9F
M Perking
1.147 Perking
B. Phave 2 Develep-ant — V9/B9
117,000 OF Cminorelal
45,000 118F5+e (80 0-91 e25
! M - Ae.t100 118E
M O.altlrq Units
M Parking
lad
+ New Represents a concept for development
and does hot reflect
the sexier totsL
development for the districts.
L
Development
Scenario
Comparison
44
�f
41
i �ew��CL
�9
ST M�+IN stkCGT 3`0ST.
Typical Section Specific Plan
` 95'
h
aI
MAIM STR6Fr7 3r°ST
afros, 4��Hrsrn*�arkt�s, �t5� /�a�irvs
8VIti,Ata5,6rc. ARC SCE& 6IVIA16 611us
Typical Section Recommendation
t
eaves 5rr$ 57.5'---------
30' 250' erg' 6909�, SM 130in56F V*AOR65
/YS7' 5115 86ropO SF
rt/C . Stock 06V6c.OPA1VMr-
MIFXC&Z"7' 26PAR (2.98 AC-q) 325►435SR
26 rA¢ (a% 00o SF) f/S", 2�K/j 3755E
W ON/7S1ACXG /06 dON/TS
507-, A'VIMVM ltsuvr rmc- VSE
AHX/ irVM Pkr'V1'v6 lt&C /T &LDS
A" 4/MVM 5/15 110E
SPAcS N
/o �Sr'
'BUG ApE+�v �',ews ( �
2 3'76 5F MAXIMVIN II&AVILY 26(85,oa0t15'
�
OG I Sti`Yo 122 1 SF r7
nS R N TS /05 UN/rs a u*y SF/rNjr 4VV)tAr#B
CaMMERcme, e6zl 1221Ia8sF
oF):VcFi 724224.SP
G &pCJ
m
oM AL y G Sp
95 Y
-15(o CA)Z CCUArr
,QsSI t7 �n//7/!L
(2}
OF�IC�
(I)
oN SI]'F 23 s
2a8
PErAit- (3) sib
i c4vr a sluNIr ( v5) , 6
fee C /•Sr t/H/r (Sa)
zeA 0 2 / vvrr (55)
3. (o.?$/looOSF 25e 2-Sr13 Afff
G
Maximum Allowed Full Block Development Specific Plan
k —
z
3n.sI
OL./VE
G:S{:
I
t
I
IE Ir MI*.
•• ••--1'VALN
DISMOr 5
GR09�7 gird 130,nogr 2•12PACAG
NVT SIM SOW sF
rt✓ZL &DC#k D,EVELOPMEJVitsPMmawJ
X• tXAry7 ' 7_.FM C (2•111 At >;65) 32r�.,y38
'36 V"I rS1ACf5 /0 D u�v1ls
M�4x1►s:vM 1{t�1ir�►x of 1`
/1t,4,r1mvm fl zo/N6 / r i' 5TCR185
M4TIM tali} C."AA-6
Pvsuc, cro? Snole-a- /0%Ovrewm) Sp
174� ODO SF R%OMmtwt)G j Vu441fr .
PGWOWtrATL 't 81000 5P
�/OIQ.UN/ 7 13�U sr 4Ni; �!trC�-
Go VN1 TS
c4"&oeq Ae, 9#1 coo sF
OFPIC6 72,000 sF
g rmt. ayr6005F
450 GAR cover
RO'SICEAM ,
too
CFPIcrr `7)
V 0
R�t�•K• cz �
1 O
I6 O
1. ovesrQ •51vN�rl6o)
I R S /5/ uNir t a t 8 �f
Uje 4 2/ vNir ( 2oj
2. !/3sysF
S �,.Zr//ooat>^; 25'70 +(`SrJlu�r�trtT
Recommended Development
Sim S17.51
4-
CO
C•
GRoss S1Tc 130, n5 sF 2.9 BA xrrs
N&'r SIT,& 64 ow Sp
FULL B!_ock DEVEGOELINt'amum"
if1�l.[ �t�VS/J�'Z.5Fr4Q (ZriB/4Git375) �FQ38SP
25AtR CAS�ar�osF)f 15% 2rIµi375SF
35 (.J 1151AC-AG
M70,4fulmvm Rr&Pc Vrrlx, c(t�
41AX11"VI J f&7,tA/" 11ry6&r G'
�1f5GnG Fjpp�/ SPACE �/O'� �G�TSIIr'1 fLS�OJf
q/, faoo Sf* RGG01►i1h F.�►�t? S1? /r1,4Xl1� vm �/�1 f y"
$a x. VNIrs
R sJoeNt1AL 8or000SF
SO UNI rS 0 /000 Sly/ vivlr
coMMdRGI}L 111IM6 Sf
OPPIc6 8317o0.5P
OrAll. 271 90 O SF
5TO CAR. COUNT
R E.S/l7�iVtyALU�
! 75
oFFrcg-
Sqo
I ga Q 15/ vN/s (rA)
28RA 2/ vvlr (so)
2. //35D Sp
3. G.25/ I&V SF ) 21 o &sl7lvit/1)f7'
Recommended Maximum Development