HomeMy WebLinkAboutProtect Coastal Huntington Beach - PCHB - Bill Garrisi - Jeff Smith - Pierside Pavilion, LLC - Joe Daichendt - 2013-04-26 •
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Interdepartmental Communication
TO: JOAN FLYNN, City Clerk
FROM: SCOTT FIELD, Assistant City Attorney
DATE: May 14, 2013
SUBJECT: Protect Coastal Huntington Beach v. City of Huntington Beach
Case No. 30-2012-00606587
Last year, the City was sued concerning the Pierside Pavilion Project, in a case known as
Protect Coastal Huntington Beach v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior
Court Case No. 30-2012-00606587. The case was resolved by way of a Settlement
Agreement between the Petitioners/Plaintiffs, the City, and Pierside Pavilion, LLC and
Joe Daichendt, the owners of the Project. Since the City was paying no money, and in
fact was reimbursed its litigation expenses by way of the Settlement Agreement, the City
Attorney signed the Agreement. (Attached.) A copy of the Settlement Agreement should
be kept in the permanent records of the City, preferably associated with the original
lawsuit filed in the Clerk's Office.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.
SCOTT FIELD
Assistant City Attorney
c: Jennifer McGrath
Michael Vigliotta
(without attachment)
96329.doc
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is dated for reference
purposes as of the 26th day of April, 2013 (the "Agreement Date"), and is made and
entered into by and among PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON BEACH, a non-profit
California public benefit corporation ("PCHB"), BILL GARRISI, an individual
("Garrisi"), JEFF SMITH, an individual ("Smith") (PCHB, Garrisi, and Smith sometimes
hereinafter being collectively referred to as "Petitioners"), CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, a California charter city ("City"), CITY COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH, the legislative body of the City of Huntington Beach ("City Council") (City and
City Council sometimes hereinafter being collectively referred to as "Huntington
Beach"), PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC, a California limited liability company
("Pierside"), and JOE DAICHENDT, an individual ("Daichendt"). PCHB, Garrisi,
Smith, City, City Council, Pierside, and Daichendt are sometimes hereinafter individually
referred to as a"Party" and collectively as the"Parties."
RECITALS
A. On September 17, 2012, the City Council approved Mitigated Negative
Declaration 11-007, Coastal Development Permit No. 11-012, Conditional Use Permit
No. 11-021, Entitlement Plan Amendment No. 11-007, and Variance No. 11-005 and the
City as Successor Agency to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency of the City of
Huntington Beach (the "Successor Agency") approved and the Successor Agency and
Pierside entered into that certain "Second Amendment to the Owner Participation
(Pierside Pavilion, LLC)" (such actions and agreement being collectively referred to
herein as the "Project Entitlements") which authorize an approximately 40,000 square
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -1-
foot expansion of the existing Pierside Pavilion development project (such expansion
project, including all of the terms, conditions, and mitigation measures relating thereto
which are the subject of the Project Entitlements being referred to herein as the"Project")
to be located at 300 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington Beach, California (the "Project
Site"). The Project Entitlements approve the Project site plan, floor plans, elevations, and
section elevations dated May 4, 2012, and revised building footprint and elevations
submitted on behalf of Pierside to City on September 17, 2012 (collectively, and as so
revised, the "Approved Site Plan"). Not by way of limitation of the foregoing, the
Project Entitlements and Approved Site Plan for the Project provide for enclosure within
the building on the Project Site of the outdoor patio currently occupied by the Black Bull
Chop House (300 Pacific Coast Highway, Space#112) and relocation/reorientation of the
outdoor patio area for said tenant/restaurant space to the portion of the Project Site facing
out toward Walnut(herein, collectively, the"Black Bull Chop House Improvements").
B. On October 19, 2012, Petitioners filed a Verified Petition for Writ of
Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief(the "Petition") in Orange
County Superior Court (Case No. 30-2012-00606587-CU-PT-CXC) (the "Action")
alleging that the City's approval of the Project violated various state and local laws and
regulations and was illegal, invalid, and unenforceable, and seeking a writ of mandate,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and attorney's fees and costs with respect thereto, all as
more particularly set forth and referred to in the Petition. Petitioners filed a Second
Amended Petition on December 6, 2012, naming Pierside Pavilion, LLC as a real party in
interest.
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -2-
C. Pierside is the owner of the Project Site, Pierside's agent applied to the
City for the Project Entitlements and processed said application on Pierside's behalf, and
Pierside is a real party in interest in the Action.
D. Daichendt is affiliated with Pierside and in that capacity is benefitted by a
settlement of this litigation and, accordingly, is also willing, in addition to Pierside, to
agree to be bound by the provisions of this Agreement pertaining to the payment of the
"Settlement Amount"referred to in Paragraph 1 below.
E. The Parties have determined that it is desirable and in their mutual best
interests to settle the Action and all of their disputes relating to the Project on the terms
and conditions set forth herein.
TERMS OF AGREEMENT
Based on the foregoing Recitals, which are incorporated into this Agreement by
this reference, and for good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is acknowledged by all Parties, Petitioners, Huntington Beach, Pierside, and
Daichendt agree as follows:
1. Settlement Amount. Pierside and Daichendt shall pay Petitioners and
Petitioners' legal counsel certain monies (Settlement Amount) in the amounts specified in
that certain separate confidential letter agreement between the Petitioners, Pierside, and
Daichendt dated April 26, 2013, pursuant to the terms set forth in that letter agreement,
the terms of which are incorporated herein by this reference as if set forth in full. Such
separate letter agreement, including the Settlement Amount(s) and the payment terms
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -3-
therein, shall remain confidential and shall not be included in the Court, City, or other
public records.
2. Covenant; Dismissal With Prejudice of the Action. Concurrently with
their execution and delivery of this Agreement, Pierside, Garrisi, and Smith shall each
execute (in recordable form) and deliver to Pierside's counsel that certain Agreement
Containing Covenants Affecting Real Property in the form attached hereto as Exhibit "A"
(the "Covenant"). Pierside shall cause the Covenant to be recorded against the Project
Site. Within five (5)business days after the later of(i) the date on which Pierside and/or
Daichendt pay the full Settlement Amount pursuant to Paragraph 1 and the separate
confidential letter agreement referred to therein and (ii) Pierside delivers evidence to
Petitioners that the Covenant has been recorded against the Project Site, Petitioners shall
file a dismissal with prejudice of the entire Action and promptly deliver a copy of said
dismissal with prejudice to City and Pierside.
3. Certain Ongoing Obligations of Pierside and Petitioners With Respect to
Project. Pierside and. Petitioners agree that the following specific obligations shall
survive the dismissal with prejudice of the Action. Such obligations shall not apply to or
be binding upon City or Daichendt:
A. Noise Monitoring. On or before July 1, 2013, Pierside, at its sole cost and
expense, shall acquire and deliver to Petitioners one (1) new, complete,
and assembled item of noise monitoring equipment to be owned by
Pierside but installed .by Petitioners at an outdoor location within Pier
Colony selected by Petitioners that faces the existing and future Project
building. The item of noise monitoring equipment shall be of a type that
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -4-
(i) is capable of monitoring noise levels generated from the portion of the
Project Site facing Pier Colony on a continuous basis, (ii) will record and
store decibel levels (but not the actual noise events) in a format that can be
retrieved and verified at a later date, and (iii) is suitable for placement in
an outdoor environment exposed to rain and the type of year-round
weather conditions to which it is likely to be exposed. Petitioners and
Pierside agree to cooperate in good faith to identify and mutually agree,
before June 1, 2013, on the precise type of noise monitoring equipment to
be acquired; provided, however, that if Petitioners and Pierside do not so
agree, Pierside shall have the authority to .select the item of noise
monitoring equipment to be obtained as long as it satisfies all three criteria
listed in the preceding sentence. If installation of the noise monitoring.
equipment at the location selected by Petitioners requires any permits or
approvals from City, the homeowners' association for Pier Colony, or any
other owner/occupant in Pier Colony, Petitioners shall be solely
responsible for obtaining such permits or approvals at their sole cost and
expense. In addition, Petitioners shall be solely responsible for the cost of
installing the noise monitoring equipment within Pier Colony and
providing any utility service to the noise monitoring equipment that is
required to enable it to properly function. Petitioners shall utilize the
noise monitoring equipment to monitor noise levels generated by activities
on and within the Project Site for compliance with the exterior noise
standards established in the City's noise control ordinance (Chapter 8.40)
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -5-
and in accordance with the procedures established by the City's noise
ordinance, as the same may be amended from time to time. Petitioners
shall provide access to the noise monitoring results to Pierside through a
password secured account that can be accessed online. For ten (10) years
after dismissal of prejudice of this Action, Pierside, at its sole cost and
expense, agrees to own, maintain, repair, and replace (with an equal or
better standard/quality of equipment), as reasonably necessary, the noise
monitoring equipment mutually agreed to be purchased. Should said
equipment be stolen or vandalized, Pierside shall not be obligated to
replace or repair such equipment. Pierside shall identify one or more
individual representative(s) and their corresponding telephone number(s)
that may be called and reached 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, to
notify Pierside of any violations of City's noise ordinance occurring on the
Project Site. Petitioners agree to make reasonable efforts to first address
violations of City's noise ordinance occurring on the Project Site through
use of the designated representative(s) before calling the City police or
filing noise complaints, and will urge other Pier Colony residents to do the
same by distributing the designated name(s) and telephone number(s).
B. As set forth in the Covenant, Pierside covenants. that the above-ground
portion of the southerly edge of the building on the Project Site facing the
Pier Colony residential project will not extend closer to the property line
with Pier Colony than is authorized by the Project Entitlements and the
Approved Site Plan, as depicted in the portion of the Approved Site Plan
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -6-
set forth in Attachment No. 3 to the Covenant. It is understood and agreed
that the Covenant will not apply to any of the following: (i) below-grade
improvements; (ii) awnings, signage, and minor architectural details that
may project from the exterior of the building; (iii) non-building
improvements and structures such as moveable carts and kiosks, benches
and seating areas, landscaping, and the like; and (iv) any construction City
may elect to undertake consistent with its public access easement between
the building on the Project Site and the building on the Pier Colony
property. Garrisi and Smith shall be solely responsible at their cost for
causing the Covenant to be recorded against their respective condominium
unit parcels within Pier Colony. In addition to the foregoing, Garrisi and
Smith shall have the right to cause the Covenant to be recorded against the
entire Pier Colony property and Pierside agrees to cooperate in executing
any supplemental documents that may be required in connection
therewith, at no cost or expense to Pierside.
C. Pierside shall cause the Black Bull Chop House Improvements referred to
in Recital A to be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions
of the Project Entitlements and Approved Site Plan.
4. No Opposition to Project. From and after the Parties' approval, execution,
and delivery of this Agreement and contingent upon Pierside's and Daichendt's
performance of their obligation to pay the Settlement Amount in accordance with
Paragraph 1, Petitioners covenant (i) to not administratively or judicially oppose, litigate,
sue, challenge, or otherwise contest the Project, the Project Entitlements, and/or any
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -7-
subsequent Project approvals that may be sought or obtained by Pierside with respect
thereto, including without limitation grading and excavation permits, encroachment
permits, building permits,occupancy permits, and the like, (ii) to not counsel others to,
directly or indirectly, initiate, aid, request, encourage, file, fund, or participate in any
administrative hearing, litigation, or other action related in any way to any aspect of the
approval, permitting, entitlement, implementation, development, construction, or
operation of the Project, the Project Entitlements, and/or any such subsequent Project
approvals that may be sought or obtained by Pierside, and (iii) to not state public
opposition to the Project, the Project Entitlements, and/or any such subsequent Project
approvals that may be sought or obtained by Pierside, including without limitation
comments to the news media or to public forums; provided, however, that Petitioners'
covenants in clauses (i)-(iii) shall not apply to the extent that Pierside requests future
changes in the Project or Project Entitlements and Petitioners reasonably determine that
such changes are either inconsistent with the express provisions set forth in Paragraphs
3.A-3.0 of this Agreement or such changes will result in an unmitigated significant
environmental impact on Petitioners.
5. Complete and Final Settlement; No Admission of Fault Liability, or
Damages. Petitioners, Pierside, and Daichendt agree that Pierside's and Daichendt's
payment of the Settlement Amount, Petitioners' filing of the dismissal with prejudice of
the Action, and Pierside's and Petitioners' ongoing performance of their respective
covenants set forth in Paragraphs 1-4 of this Agreement are intended to effectuate a
complete and final settlement of the Action and the Parties' dispute with respect to the
Project, the Project Entitlements, and all other disputes related to or arising out of any of
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/MM -g-
such matters. The Parties agree that this Agreement is a compromise of disputed claims
and that nothing contained herein shall be deemed or treated as an admission of fault or
liability of any kind by any Party.
6. Costs. Huntington Beach acknowledges that Petitioners previously paid to
City the sum of Three Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($3,500) to reimburse Huntington
Beach a portion of its costs incurred in assisting in preparation of the Administrative
Record in the Action and Pierside previously paid to City the sum of Six Thousand Two
Hundred Dollars ($6,200) to reimburse Huntington Beach the remaining amount of
attorney's fees and costs incurred by Huntington Beach with respect to the Action. City
shall be entitled to retain such payments. Except as expressly set forth in Paragraph 1
and this Paragraph 6, each of the Parties shall be responsible to bear its own costs and
attorney's fees with respect to the Action, including without limitation with respect to the
negotiation, preparation, and approval of this Agreement and the Administrative Record
in the Action.
7. Release Covenant Not to Sue and Mutual Indemnity. Each Party to this
Agreement hereby releases, disposes, and forever discharges each other Party, including
its officials, officers, managers, partners, directors, trustees, employees, agents,
representatives, attorneys, insurers, successors, and assigns, and each of them
(collectively, the "Released Parties") from and against any and all claims, complaints,
demands, causes of action, obligations, damages, costs, expenses, liens, attorneys' fees,
warranties, rights and liabilities of any nature whatsoever, whether known or unknown,
suspected or not suspected to exist, claimed or not claimed, that have arisen in
connection with the Action, the Project Entitlements, and the Project (collectively, the
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -9-
"Released Claims") and each Party covenants not to institute or maintain any
administrative or judicial proceeding against any of the Released Parties with respect to
any of the Released Claims; provided, however, that the Released Claims do not include
any of the obligations arising out of this Agreement or obligations that this Agreement
expressly provides shall survive the execution and delivery of this Agreement.
To the full extent of the foregoing release of the Released Claims, each Party also
expressly waives all "unknown claims" as against the Released Parties and expressly
waives its rights under Civil Code Section 1542, which reads as follows:
A general release does not extend to claims which the
creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his favor at the
time of executing the release, which if known by him must
have materially affected his settlement with the debtor.
Each Party hereby completely and unequivocally waives as against each of the Released
Parties the provisions of Civil Code Section 1542 as it applies to the Released Claims. In
this regard, each Party acknowledges that it may hereafter discover facts different from or
in addition to those facts which it now believes to be true with respect to the Released
Claims and the foregoing release shall be and remain effective in all respects
notwithstanding any such additional or different facts or said Party's belated discovery
thereof. Except as may be expressly set forth herein, no Party nor any of its agents has
made any statement, promise, or representation to any other Party regarding any fact
relied upon by any other Party in entering into this Agreement, and each Party expressly
acknowledges that it is not relying upon any such statement, promise, or representation in
entering into this Agreement. Each Party has made such investigation of the facts
112/029925-0001 _10-
5497150.5 a04/26/13
pertaining to this Agreement and of all other matters pertaining hereto as it deems
necessary.
Petitioners, on the one hand, and Pierside and Daichendt, on the other hand (each,
an "Indemnitor"), agree to indemnify, defend, and hold Harmless one another and the
Released Parties affiliated with such Party(ies) (herein, the "Indemnitees") from and
against any and all claims, liabilities, and losses for any type of damage whatever arising
out of any administrative action, arbitration or mediation proceeding, or litigation filed
against the Indemnitee(s) as a result.of the Indemnitor's breach of any of its obligations
set forth herein, including without limitation a breach of any of the Indemnitor's
representations and warranties set forth in Paragraph 8.A.
8. Miscellaneous.
A. In entering into this Agreement, each Party represents and warrants
to the other Parties that: (1) the description of such Party's status as an entity or individual
in the introductory paragraph of this Agreement is true and correct; (ii) he/she/it is the
owner of all of the rights attributed to such Party in this Agreement and he/she/it has not
assigned, transferred, or encumbered any of such rights to any third party; (iii) he/she/it
has the authority to enter into and perform his/her/its obligations set forth in this
Agreement; (iv) he/she/it has taken all actions necessary to approve and execute this
Agreement and no approvals of any third party are required to make this Agreement
binding and enforceable upon such Party; (v) the person(s) executing this Agreement on
behalf of such Party is (are) duly authorized to do so and no other person's signature is
required to make this Agreement binding and enforceable upon such Party; (vi) such
Party's entering into and performing its obligations set forth in this Agreement will not
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -1 1-
constitute a breach or default by such Party of its obligations to any third party; (vii) this
Agreement is binding and enforceable against such Party except to the extent of
limitations on creditor's rights due to general law, bankruptcy or insolvency, and/or the
equitable powers of the courts; (viii) such Party is not insolvent and is not the subject of
any voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy petition; and (ix) such Party has read all of the
terms of this Agreement, he/she/it understands and voluntarily accepts the terms of this
Agreement, and he/she/it has,discussed the terms and conditions of this Agreement with
his/her/its attorney or has had a full and fair opportunity to do so and has voluntarily
elected to forego the advice of legal counsel. In addition to the foregoing, Petitioners
Garrisi and Smith make each of the aforedescribed representations and warranties on
behalf of PCHB.
B. This Agreement shall be interpreted in a fair and objective manner,
based on the terms and conditions set forth herein. The Parties have participated jointly
in the negotiation and drafting of this Agreement. In the event of a dispute arising out of
the interpretation or enforcement of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be construed as
if drafted jointly by the Parties and no presumption or burden of proof shall arise favoring
or disfavoring any Party by virtue of the authorship of any of the provisions of this
Agreement.
C. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding of the Parties in
connection with the subject matter addressed herein and supersedes any prior discussions,
negotiations, and agreements relating thereto. No Party has made any statement,
representation, or warranty in connection with this Agreement that has been an
inducement for any other Party to enter into this Agreement, except as may be expressly
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -12-
set forth in this Agreement. It is expressly understood and agreed that this Agreement
may not be altered, amended, modified, or otherwise changed in any respect whatsoever
except by a writing duly executed by authorized representatives of the Parties hereto.
The Parties agree that they will make no claim at any time or place that this Agreement
has been orally altered or modified or otherwise changed by oral communication of any
kind or character.
D. This Agreement shall be governed by the internal laws of the State
of California, without regard to conflicts of law principles. Venue for any lawsuit arising
out of this Agreement shall be the County of Orange.
F. In the event any portion of this Agreement is deemed to be
unenforceable, or is in conflict with applicable law, the remainder of this Agreement shall
be enforced and shall remain in full force and effect, unless the unenforceable portion is a
material consideration to a Party to this Agreement.
G. In the event any litigation is filed arising out of this Agreement
between or among Petitioners, Pierside, and/or Daichendt, the prevailing party shall be
entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs in addition to whatever other relief to which
it may be entitled.
H. Except to the extent that the release and indemnity provisions set
forth in Paragraph 6 of this Agreement expressly benefit certain designated persons,
nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to create any third party beneficiary rights.
I. Each Party agrees to cooperate fully and to execute any and all
documents and to take all additional actions that may be necessary or reasonably
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -13-
appropriate to give full force and effect to the basic terms and intent of this Agreement,
and which are not inconsistent with its terms.
J. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts,
each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which together shall constitute one
and the same instrument.
K. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of
the Parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns.
L. All notices or communications delivered pursuant to this
Agreement shall be in writing and shall be sent or delivered to the Parties at the following
addresses: (i) notices to Petitioners shall be addressed as follows: Jeff Smith, 200 Pacific
Coast Highway #320, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, with copies to Bill Garrisi, 200
Pacific Coast Highway, #123, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, and Andrea K. Leisy, Esq.,
Remy Moose Manley, LLP, 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 210, Sacramento, CA 95814; (ii)
notices to Huntington Beach shall be addressed as follows: City of Huntington Beach,
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648, Attention: City Attorney; and (iii)
notices to Pierside and Daichendt shall be addressed as follows: Joe Daichendt, 1
Hammond Road, Ladera Ranch, CA 92694, with a copy to Jeffrey M. Oderman, Esq.,
Rutan &Tucker LLP, 611 Anton Boulevard, 14`h Floor, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. Any
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -14-
party may change its address for notice purposes by delivering notice of such change of
address in accordance with this Paragraph 8.L. Notices may be delivered in person, by
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or by reliable messenger or
overnight courier that provides a receipt confirming the date of delivery. Notices shall be
deemed to have been delivered on the date of receipt or, if the date of receipt is not a
business day, on the next business day.
M. As used in this Agreement, the term "business days" shall exclude
Saturdays, Sundays, and all holidays and other days on which Huntington Beach City
Hall is closed.
PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON
BEACH
DATED: April2�, 2013
By:
Its:
DATED: AprilV, 2013
BILL GARRISI
DATED: April' 2013
JE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
DATED: April_, 2013
By:
Its:
PIERSIDE PAVILION,LLC
DATED: April_, 2013
By:
Its:
112/029925-0001
5497150.3 a04/26/13 —15—
party may change its address for notice purposes by delivering notice of such change of
address in accordance with this Paragraph S.L. Notices may be delivered in person, by
certified mail. postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or by reliable messen--er or
overnight courier that provides a receipt confirming the date of delivery. Notices shall be
deemed to have been delivered on the date of receipt or, if the date of receipt is not a
business day, on the next business day.
M. As used in this Agreement, the term "business days" shall exclude
Saturdays, Sundays; and all holidays and other days on which Hunting-on Beach City
Hall is closed.
PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON
BEACH
DATED: April 2013
By:
Its:
DATED: April 2013
BILL GARRISI
DATED: April 201
JEFF SMITH
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
DATED: April-X� 2013
B . JENN F'ER MCGRATA-
Its: City Attorney fit`
PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC
DATED: April 2013
By:
Its:
112/029925-0001
54971503 a04/30/13 —1�—
party may change its address for notice purposes by delivering notice of such change of
address in accordance with this Paragraph 8.L. Notices may be delivered in person, by
certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or by reliable messenger or
overnight courier that provides a receipt confirming the date of delivery. Notices shall be
deemed to have been delivered on the date of receipt or, if the date of receipt is not a
business day, on the next business day.
M. As used in this Agreement, the term "business days" shall exclude
Saturdays, Sundays, and all holidays and other days on which Huntington Beach City
Hall is closed.
PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON
BEACH
DATED: April , 2013
By:
Its:
DATED: April 2013
BILL GARRISI
DATED: April 2013
JEFF SMITH
CITY OF HUNTINGTON
BEACH AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
DATED: April , 2013
By:
Its:
PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC
DATED: April,�e, 2013 �---� —�—'
By: t,e-,cjy
Its:-A ze- A e-
112/029925-0001
5497150.3 a04/26/13 -15-
DATED: April , 2013
JOE DAICHENDT
1 1 2/0299 2 5-000 1
5497150.3 a04/26/13 '16-
EXHIBIT "A"
AGREEMENT CONTAINING COVENANTS AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY
[See attached pages]
4971 0.5 a0401 EXHIBIT"A"
5497150.5 a04/26/13
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Pierside Pavilion, LLC
c/o Joe Daichendt
1 Hammond Road
Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
(Space Above This Line For Recorder's Use)
AGREEMENT CONTAINING COVENANTS AFFECTING
REAL PROPERTY
This Agreement Containing Covenants Affecting Real Property(the"Covenant") is dated
for reference purposes as of the 24th day of April, 2013, and is entered into by and between
PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC, a California limited liability company("Pierside"), and BILL
GARRISI, an individual ("Garrisi"), and JEFF SMITH, an individual ("Smith") (Garrisi and
Smith sometimes being collectively referred to herein as the"Pier Colony Owners"). Pierside,
Garrisi, and Smith are sometimes individually referred to herein as a "Party" and collectively as
the"Parties."
RECITALS:
A. Pierside is the fee owner of that certain real property commonly known as
Pierside Pavilion located at 300 Pacific Coast Highway, Huntington.Beach, CA 92648, and more
particularly described in Attachment No. 1 hereto (the"Pierside Pavilion Property").
B. Garrisi is the owner of the residential condominium unit located at 200 Pacific
Coast Highway#123, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (the "Garrisi Parcel"). Smith is the owner
of the residential condominium unit located at 200 Pacific Coast Highway#320, Huntington
Beach, CA 92648 (the "Smith Parcel"). The Garrisi Parcel and Smith Parcel are more
particularly described in Attachment No. 2 hereto. The Garrisi Parcel and Smith Parcel are
airspace parcels located within a residential condominium project commonly known as Pier
Colony.
C. The Pierside Pavilion Property and Pier Colony are adjoining properties.
D. Pierside, Garrisi, and Smith are parties to a Settlement Agreement of even date
herewith (the"Settlement Agreement") relating to a lawsuit filed by Garrisi, Smith, and a non-
profit public benefit corporation against the City of Huntington Beach and City Council of the
City of Huntington Beach(collectively, the "City") that arises out of the City's approval of an
expansion of the existing commercial development on the Pierside Pavilion Property. One of the
terms of the Settlement Agreement obligates Pierside, Garrisi, and Smith to execute(in
recordable form), deliver, and record this Covenant to restrict future development on the Pierside
Pavilion Property in favor of the Pier Colony Owners.
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13
COVENANTS:
For good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is
acknowledged by Pierside and the Pier Colony Owners, the Parties hereby agree as follows:
l. Restrictive Covenant Applicable to Pierside Property. From and after the
recordation of this Covenant, Pierside covenants that the above-ground portion of the southerly
edge of the building on the Pierside Pavilion Property facing Pier Colony will not extend or
project closer to the property line with Pier Colony than the building limit line depicted in
Attachment No. 3 hereto. It is understood and agreed that this Covenant shall not apply to any of
the following: (1) below-grade improvements; (ii) awnings, signage, and minor architectural
details that may project from the exterior of the building; (iii)non-building improvements and
structures such as moveable carts and kiosks, benches and seating areas, landscaping, and the
like; and(iv) any construction City may elect to undertake consistent with its public access
easement between the building on the Project Site and the building on the Pier Colony property.
This restrictive covenant does not convey any right to the Pier Colony Owners to occupy or use
any portion of the Pierside Pavilion Property.
2. Covenants Run With The Land. The terms and conditions of this Covenant
shall be appurtenant to and constitute covenants running with the land and shall burden the
Pierside Pavilion Property in favor and for the benefit of the Garrisi Parcel and the Smith Parcel
in accordance with the provisions of California Civil Code Section 1468. In addition, Garrisi
and Smith shall have the right to cause the Covenant to be recorded against the entire Pier
Colony property and Pierside agrees to cooperate in executing any supplemental documents that
may be required in connection therewith, at no cost or expense to Pierside, and in such event this
Covenant shall also benefit the balance of the Pier Colony property. This Covenant shall inure to
the benefit of and be binding upon the heirs, representatives, successors, and assigns of each of
the Parties.
3. Counterparts. This Covenant may be executed in counterparts and each such
counterpart is hereby declared to be an original; all, however, shall constitute but one and the
same agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this Covenant on or about the day
and year first above written.
112/029925-0001 _
5497150.5 a04/26/13 —�
PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC
DATED: AprilA 2013 2- '� q
By: 5 c e ,G�c"�
Its:
DATED: April , 2013
BILL GARRISI
DATED: April 2013
JEFF SMITH
112/029925-0001 _
5497150.3 a04/26/13 _3
PIERSIDE PAVILION, LLC
DATED: April_, 2013
By:
Its:
DATED: Apri�? 2013 -- —`�g
BILL GARRISI
DATED: Aprii(/�, 2013
JEFF S ti
112/029925-0001
5497150.3 a04/26/13
State of California )
County of Orange )
On l; 1 L . Z �`. 2 cv[ , before me
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(swhose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/s-he/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(i-es), and that by his/her/their signature(son the instrument
the person(s)-or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature l `— (Seal)
L.PESCARMONA
o COMM.#1987588
NOTARY PUBLIC CALIFORNIA 54 ORANGE COUNTY ro
State of California My Comm.expires Sep.6,2016 It
County of Orange )
On , before me, ,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
112/029925-0001
5497150.3 a04/26/13 _4_
State of California )
County of Orange )
On O n;x\ before me,?e' " _Q-1Qf4 CA ,
—�— _ (insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared Li", ),,, ,
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNES and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
�• PEDRO D. GARCIA
COMM...1967418 w
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA --i
ORANGE COUNTY [J
My Term Exp.Jan.23,2016
State of California )
County of Orange )
On Pall 2 1-7 D before me, -Feco-o -)D ctrC.,Q
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public,personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
PEDRO D. GARCIA
COMM...1967418 n
NOTARY PUBLIC-CALIFORNIA -j
III � ' ORANGE COUNTY W
My Term Exp.Jan.23,2016
112/029925-0001 —4—
5497150.3 a04/26/13
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
State of California )
County of Orange )
On , before me,
(insert name and title of the officer)
Notary Public, personally appeared
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s)whose name(s) is/are
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same
in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument
the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that
the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature (Seal)
112/029925-0001 _
5497150.3 a04/26/13 _5
ATTACHMENT NO. 1
Legal Description of Pierside Pavilion Property
That certain real property located in the City of Huntington Beach, County of
Orange, State of California, more particularly described as follows:
LOT 1 OF TRACT NO. 13722,AS SHOWN ON A MAP FILED IN BOOK 636,PAGES 38 TO
41 INCLUSIVE OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS,RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY,
CALIFORNIA.
EXCEPTING FROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND,AN UNDIVIDED ONE-HALF
INTEREST IN AND TO ALL OIL, OIL RIGHTS,MINERALS, MINERAL RIGHTS,
NATURAL GAS RIGHTS,AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS BY WHATSOEVER NAME
KNOWN,LOCATED WITHIN OR UNDER, AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM BETTY
HOLT WEAVER AND OTHERS,RECORDED AUGUST 15, 1985 AS DOCUMENT NO.
85-305251 IN OFFICIAL RECORDS OF ORANGE COUNTY.
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND,ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER
HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET,BUT WITHOUT THE
RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY,AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM AAFKE
ROMPLEMAN,A MARRIED WOMAN,RECORDED AUGUST 10, 1960 IN BOOK 5367,
PAGE 297 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND,ALL OIL,GAS,MINERALS AND
OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES LYING BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET, BUT
WITHOUT THE RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY,AS RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM
ELSIE M. BAKRE SMITH,A MARRIED WOMAN,RECORDED MARCH 14, 1961 IN
BOOK 5655, PAGE 693 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS.
ALSO EXCEPTING FROM A PORTION OF SAID LAND ALL OIL, GAS,
HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS BELOW A DEPTH OF 500 FEET FROM THE
SURFACE OF SAID LAND, WITHOUT, HOWEVER, ANY RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY
AS RESERVED BY CALIFORNIA RESORTS INTERNATIONAL, INC., IN A DEED
RECORDED MARCH 13, 1989 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 89-127442 OF OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -6
ATTACHMENT NO. 2
Legal Descriptions of the Smith and Garrisi Parcels
Smith Legal Description
A Condominium Comprised of
Parcel No.1:
An undivided 1113e interest in and to lot I of tract no. 13478,in the City of Huntington B,-=h,County of-Orange,State of
California,as per map reworded in book 636,pages)42 thra 44 ai miscellaneous reaps,Orange county,California.
Excepting therefrom units 101-132 inclusive,134450 inclusive,M9,`417,M29,M30,M40,M1 50,206,208,209,211,216-218,
inclusive,220,226,229-231 inclusive,233,239,240,245;250,3Q0-304 inclusive,306,307,309,311-317 inclusive,319,32Q,
322-326 inclusive, 328,329,332,334-337 inclusive,339,341-343 inclusive,345-350 inclusive,402,404,406,408,411,413,
415,416,41%418,420,422,424,426,436,439,443,445,447 and 449 as defined and delineated on the Condornini m Plan
recorded MAy 2,1990 as instrument no.90-231114 of Official Records.
Except tberefrom all oil,gas,n-daeral,and other hydrocarbons;as reservod and/or granted m the document(s)recorded September•
17, 197 i in book 9702,page(s)438,August 23,1973 in book 10967,pagc(s)60,August 15,1985 as instrunrcart no.85-305251,
Lune 14,1975 is book 11432,page(s)1742 and June 11,1959 in book 4752,page(s)467 all of Official Records.
Bxszpting therc6om exclusive right for all uses and purposes of parking spaces and lockr±rs together with the right to grant the
same to others as provided in the declaration(as defined below),over and across those portions of said lx4 defined herein on
the parking and locker plan recorded June 5,1990 as instrument no.90-299649,Official Records and amended October 1,1990
as instrument no.90-523655,Official Records.
Parcel No.2:
Utit 320 as shown and delineated on the above ref.d to Condominium Plan.
Parcel No.3:
An exclusive easement appurtenant to pals 1 and 2 above,for all uses and purposes of a balcony over and across that portion of
lot I of said tract no.1.3478 defined and delineated as"exclusive use common area"320B on the above-ref=mcd Condominium
Plan.
Parcel No.4:
An exclusive eas=ent appurtenant to parcels 1 Ord 2 above,for all uses and putposcs cif a storage space over and=oss.that
portion of lot 1 of said tract no. 13479 defined and delineated w"exclusive us,-common area"320E oa.the above-referenced
Coadorrdaiu,Plan.
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 -7
Garrisi Legal Description
Real property in the City of Huntington Beach, County of orange, State of California,
described as follows,
PARCEL NO. 1;
An undivided 1J130th interest in and to Lot 1 of Tract No. 13478,as per map
recorded in Book 636,Pages 42 thru 44 of Miscellaneous Maps,Orange County.
California..
EXCEPTING THERErROM units 101-132 inclusive,134-150 inclusive,M9,M17, M29,
M30, H40, M50,206, 208,209, 211, 216-218 inclusive, 220, 2261 229-231 inclusive,
233, 239, 240,245, 250,300-304 inclusive,306,307, 309,311-317 inclusive,319,
320,322-326 inclusive,328,329,332, 334-337 inclusive,339,341-343 inclusive,
345-350 inclusive,402,404,406,408,413,413,415,416,418,620,422,424,426,
436,439, 443,445,447 and 649,as defined and delineated on the Condominium Plan
recorded May 2, 1990 as Instrument No. 90-231114 of Official Records.
Excepting from a portion thereof all oil,.gas and other hydrocarbon substances and
minerals lying below a depth of 500 feet from the surface of said land, but without
the right of surface entry at any time upon said land or within the top 500 feet
thereof,for the purpose of exploring for,developing, producing,removing and
marketing said substances, as granted to Paul H. Maier and Heim Crawford and
Cecelia Hoefee and Anna Castig and Effie Nation and Laura Mullens by deed recorded
September 17,1971.in Book 9702, rage 433 of Official Records and as granted to:
Robert J. Bunn and Jane G. Bunn in Deed recorded August 23r 1973 in Kook 10867,
Page 60 of Official Records,
Also excepting from a portion thereof all rights,title and interest now belonging to or
hereinafter inuring to the lessors or their,successors or.assignees and to the lessees
or their successors or assignees in that certain community oil and gas lease,known
as'Original East Huntington Beach V Community Oil and Gas lease,dated August 21,
1954,executed by Ann�'Thomas as to said land and another as to`other land,as .
lessors,and Jack B. Crawford,as lessee,recorded December 1:5. 1956 in Book 2897,
Page 332 of Official Records.
Also excepting from a portion thereof all rights,title and interest now belonging to or
hereinafter inuring to the lessons or their successors or assignees and to the lessees
or their successors or assignees in those two certain community all and gas leases,
known as Tast Huntington Beach V Community Oil and Gas Lease,Counterpart A',
each dated August 21. 1954,executed by Ann Thomas as to said land and others as to
other land as lessors`and:Tack B.Crawford, as lessee, recorded March Z1,19551n
Book 3003,Page 251 of Official Records and April 1, 1955 in (look 3018, Page 40 of
Official Records.
Also excepting from a portion thereof all oil,gas,minerals lying below a depth or 500
feet from the surface thereof, but without the right of surface entry at any time upon
said land or within the top 500 feet thereof,for the purpose of exploiting for,
developing producing,removing and marketing said substances.
Also excepting from a portion thereof all rights,title and interest now belonging to or.
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 _g
hereinafter inuring to the lessors,or their.successors or assignees,,and to the lessees,
or their successors or assignees, in those two certain community oil and gas leases,
known as`East Huntington Beach V Community Oil and Gas Lease,Counterpart A',
each dated August 21, 1954,executed by Samuel L. Hancock as to said land,and by
others as to other land,as lessors,and by Jack B.Crawford,as lessee,recorded
March 21,1955 in Book 3003,Page 251 of Official Records of said County,and April
1, 1955 in Book 3018, Page 40 of Official Records of said County,as modified by an
instrument dated February 21. 1955,executed by Samuel L..Hancock and another,as
`lessors'and Jack S. Crawford,as`lessee y recorded March 21, 1955 In nook 3003;
Page 255 of Official Records.
Also excepting from a portion thereof, an undivided one-half interest in.and to all rail,
oil rights, minerals, mineral rights, natural gas rights,and other hydrocarbons by
whatsoever name known, located within or under said portion,as reserved in the
Deed from Betty Molt Weaver and others, recorded August 15,1905 as Instrument
No. 85-305251 in Official Records,records of Grange County.
Also excepting from a portion thereof all oil,gas,minerals,hydrocarbon and other
related substances in and under said real property,together with and any and all
royalties that my accrue from the same,as granted to Mabel Pierence Graham and
Edna Myrth Hopson in document recorded June 17, 1975 In Book 11432,Page 1742
of Official Records.
Also excepting from a portion thereof all crude oil, petroleum,gas, Brea,asphaltum
and all kindred substances and other minerals under and in said land,as reserved by
Bank of America in the Deed recorded June 11, 1959 In Book 4752,Page 467 of
Official Records.
PARCEL 2:
Unit 123 as shown and delineated on the above referred to Condominium Plan:
PARCEL 3:
An Exclusive right to use,appurtenant to Parcels i and 2 above,for all uses and
purposes of a parking space over and across that portion of Lot 1 of said Tract No.
1347S as created in the Declaration as defined below)and as shown on the Parking
and Locker Plan recorded June 5. 1990 as Instrument No. 90-299649,Official
Records subject to the right of the Board of Directors of she Huntington Pier Colony
Condominium Homeowners'Association to reassign such parking spaces as provided
in the Declaration. (as defined below). If the parking space is reassigned or
transferred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Declaration,then such
reassignment or transfer shall be reflected in future Grant Deeds.
PARCEL 4:
An exclusive easement appurtenant to Parcels 1 and 2 above,for all uses and
purposes of a Balcony over and across that portion of Lot 1 of said Tract No, 1.3478
defined and delineated as`Exclusive Use Common Area,'13 on the above-referenced
Condominium Plan.
PARCEL 5,
112/029925-0001
5497150.5 a04/26/13 _9
An exclusive easement appurtenant to Parcels 1 and 2 above,for all uses and .
purposes of a Storage Space ever and Across that portion of Lot I and said Tract NO' ..
13478 defined and del.neated as'Exclusive Use Common.Area/S-1.,S-2 on the .
above-referenced Condominium plan.
PARCEL 6;
An exclusive right to use, appurtenant to parcels Iand 2 above,for all uses and
purposes of a locker over and across that portion of Lot I and said Tract No. 1.a476 as,
created in the Declaration (as defined below)and as shown on the Parking and
Locker Plan recorded June 5, 1990 as Instrument No.90-299649, Official Records,
subject to the right of the Board of Directors of the Huntington pier colony.
Condominium Homeowners`Association to reassign such locker is reassigned or .
transferred pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Declaration.,then such
reassignment or transfer shall be reflected in future grant deeds.
APN: 939-50-532
112/029925-0001 1 Q-
5497150.5 a04/26/13
i
WAUiUT AYEW E - --
I
_1
ADJACENT
W ' lull
ADJACENT Mt1*L�d85 QOS4[ti �w. U
r 1 I y: i BLeIIUWG
z
f d
VI
x� — • � �.�"��.. � rB�
.e
LU
y� `•� __ _ __ ...ram "R°'"� [ 'a'mww J i.1
NQY loN N N
PACIFICCGA5THL811WAY ••� "'•'"^�•�Pa••. CONS7�u g
.+
&IiElLAN6$GAP[PL4H ��;"'�,;; CV ti
d h
V
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
9 COUNTY OF ORANGE, CIVIL COMPLEX CENTER
10
11 PROTECT COASTAL HUNTINGTON ) CASE NO. 30-2012-00606587
BEACH, BILL GARRISI and JEFF SMITH
12 a California limited liability company, ) [JUDGE GAIL A. ANDLER,DEPT. CX101]
13 Petitioners/Plaintiffs, )
14 V. )
)
15 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, CITY )
COUNCIL OF HUNTINGTON BEACH; )
16 and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive )
17 Respondents/Defendants. )
18
19 MICHAEL ADAMS and MICHAEL C. )
Petition filed October 19, 2012
ADAMS ASSOCIATES, JOE DAICHENDT )
20 and THEORY R. PROPERTIES, LLC; )
and ROES 1 through 20, )
u Real Parties in Interest. )
22 )
23
24 I hereby certify that the attached is a true and correct transcript of the City of Huntington
25 City Council Meeting of September 17, 2012.
26
27 Dated: Febru .;/ , 2013
Robin Es anislau, Asst. City Clerk
2s
City of Huntington Beach
1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY COUNCIL TRANSCRIPT
2 Monday, September 17 , 2012, 6 : 00 PM
3 HUNTINGTON BEACH COUNCIL CHAMBERS
4 2000 MAIN STREET, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92648
5
6 MAYOR HANSEN: That takes us through the balance of the
7 consent calendar for this evening, moving us to Item No. 14 . Approval
8 of Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 11-007, Coastal Development
9 Permit 11-012, Conditional Use Permit 11-021, Entitlement Plan
10 Amendment No. 11-007 and Variance No. 11-005, which is an appeal of a
11 plan on commission denial. City Manager.
12 CITY MANAGER WILSON: Then we' ll start tonight' s discussion
13 with a presentation of the project by the planner, Ethan Edwards .
14 MR. EDWARDS: Thank you and good evening Mayor and Council
15 Members . The applicant is requesting approval to modify and expand
16 the existing Pierside Pavilion Development. Project site is located
17 at the northeast corner of PCH and Main Street. It ' s currently
18 developed with a four-story, 90-foot high, mixed-use building
19 consisting of approximately 89, 415 square feet of retail, restaurant,
20 and office uses and 296 parking spaces within two subterranean levels
21 with access from Walnut Avenue.
22 The site consists of one lot with an area of
23 approximately 76, 650 square feet. The project includes a mitigated
24 negative declaration, which analyze the potential environmental
25 impacts of the proposed project . CDP and CUP applications were
26 submitted to demo 400 square feet of the existing structure and
27 construction of a 400 . . . or connecting four story up to 90-foot
28
1
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 high, 27, 772 square-foot mixed use building, and 9, 401 square-foot
2 infill expansion by means of extending existing store fronts by
3 enclosing arcade areas within the existing footprint.
4 Retail area is proposed on the first level facing the
5 perimeter of the building and office space is proposed behind or
6 within the interior portions of the first level . Restaurant area is
7 proposed on the second level and additional office is proposed on the
8 third and fourth levels . Outdoor dining is proposed on the second
9 floor balcony and rooftop deck. The sale and consumption of alcoholic
10 beverages is proposed within the restaurant areas including the
11 outdoor dining areas and a request for shared parking is included.
12 Entitlement plan amendment application to amend the City Council-
13 approved retail cart locations within the sidewalk along Main and PCH
14 is also requested. Lastly, a variance to permit a maximum building
15 height of 68 feet, plus up to 90 feet for mechanical housing, in lieu
16 of a maximum of 45 feet is requested.
17 The primary issues reviewed during staff' s analysis
18 include the suggested modifications, consistency with the general
19 plan and local coastal program, compatibility with the surrounding
20 uses and the view corridor. Staff is suggesting the following
21 modifications to support the proposed project and in some instances
22 to ensure compliance with the General Plan and Downtown Specific
23 Plan, including design guidelines .
24 Require rooftop deck walls to be 42 inches in height,
25 rooftop mechanical equipment to be set back 15 feet from the exterior
26 edges of the building, requiring a full-height glass window at the
27
28
2
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 eastern elevation of the outdoor dining area located on the second
2 floor.
3 Require that the reference to the new office area on the
4 first floor plan be removed. Only visitor-serving commercial uses are
5 allowed anywhere on the ground floor.
6 Revise the proposed four-story elevation' s colors and
7 materials to address building mass issues and have the DRB review the
8 overall design.
9 Require the roof element of the eastern stairwell to
10 contrast with the existing building roof design.
11 Require that the use of the rooftop deck be prohibited
12 until a revised noise study is submitted that demonstrates compliance
13 with the City' s noise ordinance and the design of the deck is
14 compatible with the surrounding uses .
15 Revise the proposed car locations to comply with
16 Conditional Use Permit No. 10-17, conditions of approval and code
17 requirements for carts at Pierside.
18 Require that the maximum building height is decreased from
19 top of parapet height of 68 feet to 62, to match the height of the
20 existing building.
21 Restaurant uses with alcohol are proposed within the
22 second floor rooftop deck and infill restaurant areas . These areas
23 are subject to comply with the standardized conditions of approval
24 pursuant to City Council Resolution 11-06 . These standard conditions
25 pertain to limiting the scope of operations to ensure that any
26 proposed establishment functions primarily as a bona fide restaurant
27
28
3
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
I and to ensure that potential impacts to surrounding properties are
2 minimized.
3 Additionally, the Police Department suggests several
4 conditions of approval to ensure public safety such as limiting the
5 hours of outdoor dining to 10 : 00 pm within the second floor area and
6 rooftop deck of the four-story addition building. Requiring the
7 rooftop use to be in conjunction with the second floor restaurant
8 only and enhance surveillance and security.
9 A total of 530 parking spaces are required for the proposed
10 project and the existing development. The property currently shares
11 up to 300 of the 826 parking spaces within the adjacent city parking
12 structure located at 200 Main Street pursuant to prior entitlement
13 and an existing Owner Participation Agreement. A total of 296 parking
14 spaces will be provided on site within the existing subterranean
15 parking area, and a minimum of 234 parking spaces will be utilized
16 via shared parking within the adjacent municipal parking structure as
17 allowed per the Downtown Specific Plan.
18 Development was originally permitted in 1988 with a shared
19 parking concept that allowed a mix of uses including the former
20 theater use to be satisfied through a combination of on-site parking
21 and other public downtown parking. The current request will continue
22 to function similarly, however because the theater no longer exists
23 and the mix of uses include a significant office use allocation, the
24 total required parking is reduced and will not impact the downtown.
25 One new mitigation measure was identified, which is
26 proposed to address tree replacement requirements and is noted in the
27 environmental assessment. All applicable mitigation measures adopted
28
4
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 as part of the Downtown Specific Plan are applicable to this project
2 as well.
3 As proposed, the use does not comply with the General Plan
4 because the height of the roof deck walls exceed 42 inches and
5 therefore constitutes as a fifth story. However, with staff suggested
6 modification to lower the roof deck walls to 42 inches, the proposed
7 project will comply with the general plan and not exceed the four-
8 story maximum.
9 Downtown Specific Plan requires a visitor-serving
10 commercial uses are required for all ground floor square footage in
11 the District One Visitor-Serving Commercial Overlay. The submitted
12 plans indicate that new offices proposed on the ground floor. Staff
13 is suggesting a condition of approval that would require any
14 reference to new office area on the first floor be removed from the
15 plans .
16 All exterior mechanical equipment is required to be
17 screened from view on all sides and rooftop mechanical equipment is
18 required to be set back at minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges
19 of the building.
20 The plans show mechanical equipment with screening within
21 the minimum setback. Staff suggests the condition of approval to
22 require that all rooftop mechanical equipment and associated
23 screening be set back a minimum of 15 feet from the exterior edges of
24 the building.
25 Proposed project is subject to the Downtown Specific Plan
26 Design Guidelines, which provide the minimum qualitative design
27 expectations for the downtown. All development is required to comply
28
5
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 with the spirit and intent of the Design Guidelines where a
2 commercial mixed-use buildings are neighbors to residential buildings
3 or where infill buildings are being constructed. Consideration of
4 scale, detail, and materials is very important. The project was
5 reviewed by the City' s Design Review Board and the DRB made
6 recommendations to address the building' s size and scale to ensure
7 further compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood, however the
8 DRB took action on the project and recommended approval with only one
9 modification to change the roof element of the eastern stairwell to
10 contrast with the existing building roof design.
11 As a result, staff recommends that the Council condition
12 the project to revise the proposed four-story building and
13 elevations, colors and materials to address to building mass issues
14 which can be achieved by providing additional upper story setbacks
15 and prove architectural compatibility with the existing structure in
16 the adjacent buildings and overall Design Guidelines . Because this
17 will result in design and elevation changes, it is recommended that
18 the DRB review and provide recommendations to the Director.
19 As mentioned earlier, the new restaurant areas within the
20 fourth story addition include the second floor with outdoor patio
21 dining and a rooftop deck, the applicant provided a noise study that
22 concludes that impacts related to noise will be less than
23 significant, based on 8-foot screen and roof deck walls . Today, staff
24 received a revised noise study that includes the project with 42 inch
25 roof deck walls as suggested by staff. Although, not fully reviewed,
26 the conclusion of the report indicates compliance with the City' s
27 noise ordinance.
28
6
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Additionally and as mentioned earlier, restaurant uses with
2 alcohol are subject to the standard conditions of approval and the
3 Police Department suggests several suggestions of approval to ensure
4 public safety, reduced noise and provide enhanced security.
5 The applicant requests a variance to exceed the maximum
6 height of 45 feet. The project proposes four stories with the
7 building height of 68 feet, topped with roof deck walls and an
8 architectural tower up to 90 feet . The design intent is to match the
9 existing building height, and floor plates to allow more efficient
10 access and internal circulation. However, the existing fourth floor
11 top height exceeds the minimum required floor height and as such,
12 staff recommends a condition of approval to decrease the building
13 height from top of parapet of 68 feet to 62 feet. This would allow
14 for the proposed design intent to match floor plates and at the same
15 time, limit the extent of the variance request to exceed the maximum
16 height.
17 The applicant is' also requesting an amendment to CUP No.
18 10-17 approved by City Council in 2010, which permitted the
19 establishment and operation of 18 carts . The request is to replace
20 the previously approved layout with the current site plan dated May
21 4, 2012 . However, the current layout does not comply with the
22 approved conditions of approval that relate to customer queuing; 10-
23 foot wide clear passage areas adjacent to any customer queuing areas;
24 minimum 8-foot wide clear separation between carts; other
25 restrictions limiting the placement of carts . Staff suggests the
26 modification to amend the site plan showing the location of carts in
27 compliance with the conditions in code requirement set forth in CUP
28
7
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 No. 10-17, as approved by Council, to ensure compatibility with the
2 proposed expansion.
3 On August 14, the Planning Commission denied the project
4 due to concerns related to the public view corridor between Pier
5 Colony and Pierside Pavilion. This decision was appealed by Council
6 Member Carchio, to review the overall project including staff' s
7 issues and the applicant' s proposal.
8 The original conceptual site plan for Pierside Pavilion was
9 approved in 1988 . We have an exhibit on the wall, behind Council
10 Member Bohr that shows this conceptual site plan with the 40-foot
11 separation between the proposed conceptual Pierside Pavilion
12 development and Pier Colony, and on the bottom plan we have the
13 proposed site plan that shows how the 40-foot separation is
14 maintained.
15 The site plan, the one on top, depicted in approximately
16 45-foot wide separation between Pierside and Pier Colony, which was
17 in the location of the then proposed 3rd Street vacation. At the same
18 time this project was being considered, the City was in its final
19 phase of revising in the Downtown Specific Plan. The staff report
20 acknowledged there were revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan and
21 the project conformed with the proposed changes .
22 The only stipulation was that the project not take effect
23 until the revisions to the Downtown Specific Plan were approved by
24 City Council. This condition only limited when the permits take
25 effect and did not address the 40-foot separation. Therefore, by not
26 modifying the entitlement condition, staff concluded that the 40-foot
27
28
8
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 separation was contemplated and is consistent with both versions of
2 the Downtown Specific Plan, including the view corridor requirement.
3 The applicant was issued building permits and the project
4 was constructed as approved via the entitlements and conditions of
5 approval with approximately a 40-foot wide separation. The proposed
6 project maintains the existing width of approximately 40-feet and the
7 proposed square footage is within the maximum development threshold
8 analyzed in the Downtown Specific Plan, Program EIR adopted for the
9 October 2011 Downtown Specific Plan Update.
10 Staff recommends approval of the Mitigated Negative
11 Declaration because the project with mitigation will have no
12 significant environmental impacts and recommends approval of the CDP,
13 CUP, EPA and variance with modifications based on conformance with
14 the General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan and zoning ordinance and
15 that the development complies with all minimum standards with the
16 exception of the variance . That concludes my presentation. The
17 applicant and the applicant' s representatives and myself are
18 available to answer any questions . Thank you.
19 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you. Ethan, are there any questions for
20 staff at this time, before we open the public hearing? Council
21 Member Boardman?
22 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Thanks, I have one quick question.
23 I noticed in the staff report, the staff is recommending that the
24 first floor remain visitor-serving commercial but the applicant is
25 interested in office. Would we have to go back to the Coastal
26 Commission to change the LCP if there was a. different use allowed
27 other than visitor-serving commercial?
28
9
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 ETHAN EDWARDS : That would be correct .
2 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay. Thanks .
3 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you. Any further questions for staff
4 before I open the public hearing? Seeing none, we ' ll open the public
5 hearing. Are there speakers?
6 CITY CLERK FLYNN: We do have 24 speakers . Before they come
7 I would like to just read into the public record. Our supplemental
8 communications which were received after the packet was distributed
9 for Item No. 14; we have Communications from: Gary Baker, Barry Cole,
10 William and Bonnie Copeland, Bill Garrisi, Thomas McCann, Mark
11 Miller, R. and S . Stookey, Robert Mayer, Karen Jackle, Steve Daniel,
12 Jeffrey Oderman and Jeff Smith.
13 Our first eight speakers . The first speaker is Mr. Patrick
14 Winters, he will be speaking in behalf of the applicant and he will
15 have six minutes, he will go first. Mr. David Abu will then approach
16 the podium, Jeff Smith, Bill Garrisi, Tom McCann, Robert Bryant, Gary
17 Baker and Mike Meyer.
18 MR. WINTERS: Good evening Mayor, City Council Members . My
19 name is Patrick Winters . I'm with Nadel Architects, architects for
20 the project . I just want to make a brief presentation. I think I have
21 six minutes . Is that correct?
22 MAYOR HANSEN: Yes .
23 MR. WINTERS: The project, as you can see on the screen
24 here, it really is a continuation of the modernization theme that
25 started with a sort of a higher end office client Grupo Gallegos
26 moved into the rear portion of the building and as such, we have
27 really attempted, in this new renovation addition, to maximize the
28
10
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 ocean views, etcetera. It' s really a three-part composition: the old
2 building, the tower in between, and the new addition, so rather than
3 look at those pieces separately, they really work together as a
4 three-part collage. In terms of the old building, we are freshening
5 it up. In terms of the new building, we believe that it relates, it' s
6 sort of the DNA of some of the original design, but it takes a
7 strategically different approach, but it does relate according to
8 what I think is the spirit of the design guidelines, and then there' s
9 a new linkage which is the new tower that connects both, which will
10 be the new main entry and vertical circulation of the building.
11 I want to talk about the Specific Plan and all the work
12 we' ve put in to conform to this Specific Plan tonight. There' s two
13 parts to the Specific Plan: Book 1 is the plan itself, Book 2 is the
14 design guidelines and it goes to great lengths to differentiate
15 standards versus guidelines .
16 Standards are all the required things you need to have: the
17 zoning, the setback, the massing, etcetera. We believe, with the
18 exception of the height variance that is requested as part of the
19 application, we've met all the standards . I want to talk instead
20 about the guidelines tonight and these are not mandatory. They
21 encourage design quality, flexibility and creativity on the part of
22 the designers, and we've put a great deal of thought into this .
23 In terms of conforming to the specifics of the guidelines,
24 I just want to walk through a few slides that show some of the things
25 we've done. There are lots and lots of guidelines and I'm just going
26 to talk about a few of them.
27
28
11
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 For example, site layout: use recesses and building forms
2 to create small pedestrian plazas along the street. Well we have a
3 brand new paseo coming into the building in a big recess in a new
4 main entrance. The building really does not have a very good office
5 entry right now. This is going to improve that.
6 Views . Buildings should be designed to take advantage of
7 ocean views by providing windows, balconies, stairways, etcetera.
8 Essentially, we've created this new lighthouse ocean theme addition
9 which will complement the existing, but is really the small windows
10 on the existing do not provide superior office space and we ' re
11 attempting to upgrade that here.
12 Paving treatments . Special paving should be provided
13 adjacent to building entries or facades . All of this paving on PCH
14 and coming back along the inner portion there, on 3rdStreet.
15 Alignment is going to be new upgraded pavement.
16 Public open spaces . We have defined public open spaces
17 which include the recess, the main entry, and the balconies . This is
18 in addition to the open space on the corner of Main and PCH.
19 Massing. Step-back. We are not suggesting circles on the
20 building but all of those dots are talking about, there are a lot of
21 differentiation wall planes on this building, whether it' s
22 differentiations of 16 feet or 16 inches, or 8 inches or 10 inches,
23 this is not just a box, there' s a tremendous amount of in and out,
24 the windows are all recessed. That' s all very expensive to do, it' s
25 not cheap to do and we've got a long ways to try to do whether with
26 spandrels, recessed windows, projecting balconies, cantilevers,
27 etcetera. A lot of differentiation in the massing of this building.
28
12
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Proportion. Again, although superficially the addition does
2 not look the same, the proportions have been extracted in terms of
3 horizontal datum lines etcetera from the existing building. We've
4 been very careful about that.
5 Rhythm, as you can see, your design guidelines, talk about
6 a 25- to 30-foot vertical rhythm, that' s in the existing building,
7 it' s in the new addition, very very specifically.
8 Storefront should be open and inviting. We are moving the
9 existing ones out from the existing building. On the new building, of
10 course, we have a similar situation, with open, inviting storefronts .
11 Articulation, 360 degree architecture, as a whole collage,
12 every part of this building is articulated, there are no flat walls,
13 there are no undifferentiated sides in this building. Tower spires
14 become landmarks, we have 3 tower elements . I'm almost complete here .
15 We've incorporated the old building into the new. In terms
16 of the roof forms, they are extremely varied, when you look at them
17 on the elevation. Main entryway, again, extremely recessed, very
18 identifiable as to how do you get into the main office entry and
19 upper floors of this building. I'm sorry some of these slides are not
20 showing up so well. Recessed windows, we talked about.
21 Colors . Soft tones ranging from white to light pastels are
22 preferred, that' s what we have . Materials, materials on this building
23 include tile, includes the stone at the base of the plasters and
24 includes the roof materials, it includes the windows, it includes the
25 painted canopies and includes the awnings and several other things .
26
27
28
13
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Now, in conformance to the spirit of the guidelines, we are
2 going to go to Book 1 . It talks about implement development standards
3 and encourages development of unique architecture.
4 MAYOR HANSEN: Is that six minutes?
5 MR. WINTERS : This is the last slide. Due to those specified
6 architectural styles dictated and third, to provide opportunities for
7 broad interpretation of the architectural style, so we've, again, my
8 point, we've put a lot of thought into this and we appreciate your
9 time.
10 MAYOR HANSEN: Okay, thank you. I' d probably stay close, I'm
11 sure there' ll be questions after. Thank you. Next speaker, please.
12 MR. ABU: Mayor, Council members, good evening. My name is
13 David Abu and I'm a resident of Pier Colony and I worked in the
14 downtown area for over the past 22 years . I'm in opposition of the
15 Pierside expansion. Over the years I've witnessed the stunning growth
16 of our city. Everywhere I turn I see a number of new faces, new
17 visitors from different part of the country along with that
18 international travelers that seem to grow every year.
19 They are coming to see our crown jewel, which is our pier,
20 surf beaches and the weather. Can you imagine the residents of our
21 city and the visitors that come to our city walking down the pier and
22 the horror on their face, looking at the building that is being
23 proposed to be built tonight? This building, this big block of blocks
24 is an unattractive building, awkward and totally out of character
25 with the rest of our shoreline.
26 The Planning Commission that you appointed denied this
27 approval and if each Council Member truly studied the images of -this
28
14
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 project being proposed tonight, none of you would be in favor of. Not
2 only does the developer not live in our city, in his actions involves
3 to ram this project through with very little consideration to the
4 residents of Pier Colony.
5 That project was built as one, and when the city took away
6 the properties from the people that were on 3rd Street, they gave us a
7 view corridor, and that view corridor now will be gone, and again,
8 the city has taken away from many, to give to one.
9 If anybody doesn' t think there a parking problem in the
10 downtown Huntington Beach area, does not come down here quite a bit.
11 It' s a massive problem and it needs to be addressed before any.
I n-I Jeu.,�L
12 project is completed. The developer states that he can pay annua
13 parking fees for fictitious parking spaces that do not exist and that
14 parking needs to be addressed and it needs to be addressed now. If
15 anybody who was down there for the Summer Festival this year, it was
16 a total nightmare . The people had no idea where to go, the traffic
17 was dodging in and out, the skateboarders were going almost in-
18 between every car, the bikes, it' s amazing nobody got seriously
19 injured, but no one knew where to go.
20 Everybody that came in my office, their first question was,
21 "Where do I park?" With this proposal, the additional cars with
22 Pacific City coming on board, we are going to have a major, major
23 problem.
24 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you, sir.
25 MR. ABU: In consideration, I would like you to consider the
26 values of the residents of Pier Colony because they will be severely
27 hurt by this project. Thank you.
28
15
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you for your comments . Next speaker,
2 please. Yes, there' s really no order at this point so whoever is
3 prepared to go, just let' s populate both podiums to keep efficiency.
4 MR. SMITH: Good evening, Mr. Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of
5 the Council. My name is Jeff Smith and I'm an 8-year home owner at
6 Pier Colony. Tonight, I 'd like to show you evidence of the proposed
7 Pierside expansion, that violates city code and the original use
8 permits of the development.
9 What I have to show you will demonstrate that a 60-foot
10 view corridor requirement exists between Pier Colony and Pierside
11 Pavilion buildings. The proposed expansion will bring Pierside
12 Pavilion buildings within 40 feet of Pier Colony.
13 In 1988, Conditional Use Permit 88-7, for the Pierside
14 Project, was approved, but would not go into effect until 1988 DTSP
15 was finalized. Exhibited here is a city letter stating this fact as
16 well as an excerpt, from the Planning Commission meeting on April 5,
17 1988 . Part of that Pierside Project included vacating 3rd Street
18 between PCH and Walnut, further 1988 DTSP: "Any street is vacated in
19 this area must provide a view corridor of no less than the width of
20 the former street. " 3rd Street is and was 60 feet wide. This section
21 of the 1988 DTSP is referenced here .
22 To provide further proof that such a view corridor exists
23 and that requirement is written in the law, note that both City
24 Council and Planning Commission meetings in 1988 upheld the view
25 corridor language in DTSP.
26 In this case it is clear that a view corridor shall exist
27 in place of the vacated 3rd Street. Even the plans for the new
28
16
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Pierside Expansion Project acknowledged this view corridor in the
2 width of 60 feet, however, in the most recent set of plans that have
3 been submitted, as part of your information package, the 60 foot view
4 corridor notation has been removed from those plans and deemed a
5 mistake.
6 It is suspicious to me that someone can draw in specific
7 width view corridor to follow city law and then call the notation a
8 mistake and remove it from the subsequent plans, both before and
9 after plans are noted here.
10 The evidence that 3rd Street is and was 60 feet wide is
11 extremely clear. On this slide you' ll see a Record of Survey, a
12 Google Earth measurement and an original track map from 1904 that
13 will show that all the streets being 60 feet wide.
14 Even the circulation element from the HB General Plan shows
15 the street widths includes sidewalks, curbs and roadways . Sorry,
16 these are out of order. If more evidence is needed on the intended
17 street width language, we can reference back to interdepartmental
18 communications from 1988, regarding the environmental impacts of the
19 project.
20 The Assistant Planner at the time said that the view
21 corridor should be maintained along existent right-of-ways and under
22 the City definition of right-of-way, thoroughfare shall include that
23 adjacent public easements . Again, the total width of 3rd Street
24 includes the roadway and the sidewalks and it' s 60 feet.
25 Finally, if any conflict or doubt remains, we can reference
26 back to the Huntington Beach Coastal Element. Under General Resource
27 Protection Policy shown here you' ll find the following framework for
28
17
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 interpretation if conflicts related to coastal resources arise and a
2 view corridor is considered a coastal resource.
3 In summary, there was a mistake made on the view corridor
4 requirement for this project in 1988 and the existing stairwells are
5 in violation of city code. If this project is approved as is, we' ll
6 be compounding a mistake that was made 24 years ago. Please, only
7 consider a project that fully complies with the law and let' s work
8 together to design a project that is mutually beneficial to all .
9 Thank you.
10 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you.
11 [APPLAUSE]
12 MR. GARRISI: Hi, my name is Bill Garrisi, I'm a resident at
13 Pier Colony. I've done a pretty substantial amount of research both
14 into this proposed project as well the documentation surrounding the
15 original Pierside Pavilion Pier Colony Redevelopment Project.
16 You've already heard from Jeff Smith discussing some of the
17 details regarding the issue of 3rd Street vacation. We've raised many
18 of these issues with staff and they rebutted them in the documents
19 submitted prior to this meeting, as well as some of the stuff that we
20 heard earlier today.
21 After reading through the staff rebuttals, I've identified
22 three major points that were raised regarding that particular issue.
23 These are: no view corridor requirement existed prior to the
24 development, the original Conditional Use Permit approval was
25 contingent upon the acceptance of the 1988 DTSP, they deemed that to
26 be procedure, not a necessity and that any potential view corridor
27 would be 40 feet wide and not 60 feet.
28
18
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 The requirement of the view corridor, if you actually look
2 back at the original project, the original project was contingent
3 upon approval of the 1988 DTSP. The 1984 DTSP, which is one
4 immediately prior to that, specifically did not allow residential
5 uses south of Main street.
6 The project could not have been built if they had followed
7 the original DTSP, they had to wait for the ' 88 one to start up. The
8 1988 DTSP was modified to allow residential in District 3 but also
9 required that multi-block consolidations maintain view corridors
10 along any vacated streets between Walnut and PCH.
11 This view corridor requirement was discussed concurrently
12 with the addition of residential to D3 . Had the intent been to simply
13 get the project approved and off the ground, they could've just set
14 up a variant or could've just requested a variance and tried to get
15 residential allowed by doing that rather than modifying the DTSP.
16 In the early planning stages, it was noted that a view
17 corridor will be maintained along the vacated 3rd Street. Discussion
18 of this issue was raised as early as February of 1988, well in
19 advance of the public comment period. Attachment 7 for these meeting
20 notes seen behind you actually shows the original conditional of use
21 permit. This is actually, the writing on it is actually something
22 current.
23 That is not what the original Conditional Use Permit had
24 written on it. This is part of a larger document showing the
25 conditions of approval before the proposed project. On that same
26 document, it specifically says that the number of units in the
27 condominium project should be reduced from 160 to 130, that' s a 200
28
19
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 reduction in size, in order to create a greater separation of the
2 residential from the commercial portions of the project, increase and
3 provide greater view opportunities .
4 There is the original document. With the view corridor. I
5 go back and forth between a bunch of different things, on exactly how
6 a street is defined, but basically, street line is defined as the
7 boundary line between a street and an adjacent property. That' s 60
8 feet. You see it over here.
9 MAYOR HANSEN: You just need to wrap up.
10 MR. GARRISI : All right, it shows that it' s are 60 feet
11 there, 60 feet there . Summary, the project could not have been built
12 if they hadn' t started with the 1988 DTSP.
13 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you, sir.
14 MR. MCCANN: Thank you, gentlemen. Ladies . It' s a pleasure
15 to be here and to address the City Council, Mayor Hansen and Council
16 Members . My name is Tom McCann, I own and live with my wife Carol on
17 the North side of the Pier Colony on the 4th floor. Our balconies face
18 Pierside Pavilion. First, a picture of the project as it exists today
19 and as you note, there a nice area here that' s very airy and open to
20 the public and a lot of pedestrian traffic goes through there. We
21 have here on the right, there' s Pier Colony and you can see our new
22 paint job which is consistent with the city parking garage which we
23 try to upgrade and spend about $300, 000 doing this with new
24 landscaping.
25 There are 36 residences here, facing Pierside Pavilion and
26 notice that these residences have some pretty good views across here
27
28
20
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 because the structure that I will show you in a minute, sort of
2 dominates this thing and the views are gone, pretty much.
3 The Fire Department access with the proposed Pierside
4 Pavilion modification is addressed in attachment 4 . 12 on page 76, of
5 the 201 page Pierside Pavilion Staff Report. Fire lanes . The Fire
6 Department review of the plan included a site visit and evaluation of
7 the fire lanes called down in the plan.
8 Fire Protection Analyst Joe Morelli writes, `Fire lane is
9 shown as shown 24 . 5 feet on the plan with the actual width currently
10 provided to 17 feet clear. The rooftop deck would make the proposed
11 structure the highest at the property. The proposed four-story
12 structure with the rooftop deck will hinder the Fire Department' s
13 aerial ladder access to the existing four story structure Southside,
14 which would make prompt rescue difficult and will lessen the
15 probability of finding a fire in upper stories from the exterior. "
16 For those of us who live in a four story structure,
17 Southside, i.e. Pier Colony, on the third and fourth floors facing
18 Pierside Pavilion, this is a very serious issue. None of us want to
19 be toasted. This is that corridor we've been talking about. Notice
20 these stairwells, that are no longer existent, no longer used, stick
21 out into it and on the right hand side this is fairly consistent with
22 the side, on this side of Walnut Street, but in any case, the
23 original construction was an error to the Downtown Specific Plan.
24 Here is a rendering produced by the developer of the modifications
25 proposed. The views of the residences are severely compromised, the
26 public property has been eliminated. The fire lane is not wide enough
27 to accommodate a ladder truck and I quote Mr. Daichendt in
28
21
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 yesterday' s Orange County Register, "We have always designed the
2 project with Pier Colony in mind. " We have no evidence that' s the
3 case.
4 MR. BAKER: Mr. Mayor, Council Members, staff, great
5 citizens of Huntington Beach, first, I' d like to thank you for this
6 opportunity to speak to you this evening. Let me thank you for your
7 service to our community. I know that your job is very difficult and
8 sometimes, maybe, we take you for granted, but we do appreciate your
9 efforts and your work.
10 I' d also like to thank you immensely for your very wise
11 decision in your selection of your appointed Planning Commissioners .
12 In my short experience, I found them to be extremely professional and
13 very thorough in their investigation of this Pierside Pavilion
14 Expansion.
15 My name is Gary Baker. I'm a resident and owner at Pierside
16 at Pier Colony.
17 There seems to be several questions here that have come up
18 on and on and on. We have' the view corridor on whether it' s 40, 50,
19 or 60 feet wide as 3rd Street was. There' s a noise study that was
20 conducted on off-season in a different piece of property. Thefire
21 lane and its safe distances, a fourth-story rescue would be difficult
22 according to the fire department.
23 Upper-story setbacks, that' s certainly an issue because
24 everybody had to conform to that. Pier Colony had to conform so did
25 Pierside Pavilion on these original plans . Parking, a study was done
26 in 1988 and really has not been updated in today' s time. It was done
27
28
22
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 for theatre and not for office space parking. Another issue that
2 really needs to be addressed a little further than it is currently.
3 Public view. We' re taking away the public view with some of
4 these new buildings that we' re looking at here in front of you. The
5 public open space, the only thing that I really see and according to
6 the plan is there is going to be a lot of maybe second tier for the
7 office building, but the public actually is going to lose a lot of
8 theirs. Building shadowing, I noticed that in the Pacific City, it
9 was requested that they do some shadowing effects . Shadowing was done
10 in two different seasons - one, summertime and one in wintertime
11 showing the difference that a four-story building will have on
12 surrounding areas . I see nothing like that was ever provided for this
13 type of development. Now, maybe, because they' ve already got it
14 existing, but if they' re going to move it that close, I would think
15 they should have some kind of shadowing effect that should be there .
16 There' s more of those things that come up.
17 Your Planning Commissioners have investigated and
18 researched as you knew they would when you appointed them, so trust
19 their judgment and deny this Pierside Pavilion Expansion. Where there
20 is this much smoke, there has to be a fire. I'm not convinced you' re
21 receiving all of the information needed as I believe your packet map
22 at 3-25-88, it shows a conceptually approved plan.
23 The American Land and Title Association Survey of July of
24 1988 clearly shows the 60-foot wide corridor that goes from 3rd Street
25 all the way down to Pacific Coast Highway. It was not a conceptually
26 approved plan. It was a survey of 1988 in July. We've been after this
27 sub-proposal.
28
23
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 They tell you everything that is really nothing, and
2 nothing of what is everything. Do not be fooled by what they are
3 saying. Please listen carefully and try to hear what they are not
4 saying to you. A half-truth is a deceptive statement that- include's
5 some elements of truth. The statement that might be partly true, the
6 statement may be totally true, but only part of the whole truth or it
7 may utilize some deceptive element. Please do not allow yourself to
8 compound this error of 1988, 1989. Thank you.
9 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you.
10 MR. BRYANT: Good evening and thank you for the opportunity
11 to let our voices be heard tonight. I've been a resident of Pier
12 Colony since 1999. My name is Rob Bryant.
13 I thought you'd be interested in seeing this photo which is
14 in front of Pierside Pavilion. It would appear that the developer
15 knew for several months how you were going to be voting tonight. What
16 gave them that idea? I can tell you it wasn' t the Planning
17 Commission.
18 Tell the developer to take down his sign. It' s premature.
19 Tell him to take down the sign because it' s arrogant and presumptive.
20 Tell him to take down the sign because you believe that an
21 independent environmental impact report is required prior to your
22 decision. Tell the developer that he can' t get away with constructing
23 a four-story, 90-foot high building with about 90, 000 square feet
24 destroying our view corridor in the process, without an environmental
25 impact report.
26 Tell him not on our watch. Tell him on behalf of all the
27 good citizens of Huntington Beach, who made you their elected
28
24
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 representatives, that you need the assurances of an environmental
2 impact report. Tell him that you need assurances that there will be
3 ample parking, and that safety and noise issues have been addressed
4 to your satisfaction.
5 Tell him not on my watch will the City .Council allow the
6 bright and breezy 3rd Street Corridor to be wiped out without due
7 process. Tell him to take his sign down, that you need more time to
8 learn the full and lasting impact this expansion will cause. After
9 all, what' s the rush?
10 There' s only been two public meetings and the good people
11 of Pier Colony who own the 35 units facing the Pavilion have only had
12 two months to marshal support to avoid this potential catastrophe .
13 That confounded sign has been up there longer than that.
14 We believe an environmental impact report will state the
15 obvious, that this expansion will only serve to increase what' s wrong
16 with the downtown area like far-too many alcohol-related crimes and
17 traffic issues, while decreasing or eliminating what makes the
18 downtown so great.
19 Tell him not on your watch, that you will not allow any
20 developer to so drastically change the spirit and letter of the
21 Downtown Specific Plan without due process . Let him know that you
22 won't abandon and ignore what your predecessors on prior City
23 Councils envisioned and implemented without an adequate review. Tell
24 him this Council wants assurances . The citizens of Huntington Beach
25 deserve assurances . Tell the developer to take down his sign and get
26 an environmental impact report, that you are a council with a
27 conscience and not a rubberstamp. Thank you for your consideration.
28
25
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 CITY CLERK FLYNN: The next eight speakers are Cecilia
2 Andrade-Havaianas, Tom Shields, Jonno Wells, Rudy Perez, Thomas
3 Mauriello, Debbie Cook, and Jerry Wheeler, and also Grace Winchell,
4 and I'd like to recall Mike Meyer.
5 MAYOR HANSEN: If you' re prepared, please go ahead.
6 MS. ANDRADE: Me?
7 MAYOR HANSEN: Yeah, sure .
8 MS . ANDRADE: Hello. Hi. My name is Cecilia Andrade. I'm
9 here to talk about I'm in favour of Pierside Pavilion. Why? First of
10 all, I'm the owner of Havaianas store . I'm one of the retailers of
11 Pierside Pavilion. I don' t know if you guys know, but Havaianas is
12 one of the most important and famous flip-flop brands in the world.
13 We have stores all over the world, and our first and only store in
14 the United States is located in the Pierside Pavilion. Why we chose
15 that location? Because it' s a strategic location, and the city is a
16 strategic city I think for this entire county.'
17 Why am I in favour of this project? Because definitely, it
18 will create a more sophisticated atmosphere and a more sophisticated
19 area, and it will attract different kinds of customers to this part
20 of downtown Huntington Beach.
21 Today, we have customers, we have visitors, but I think it
22 could attract other kind of visitors that today that do come to
23 Huntington Beach. This is the presentation. I don' t know if they can
24 move forward.
25 Yes . I just want to explain why because our customers, they
26 are a little bit different than the regular customers that come to
27 Huntington Beach. Can you pass please? Go ahead. Please see. First US
28
26
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 store. Go ahead. See, our locations of Havaianas all over the world
2 are located in sophisticated places . Today, we are suffering of that,
3 because we don' t have our customers there. Go ahead please.
4 Celebrities, we are having celebrities now. They' re coming
5 to Huntington Beach specifically to visit our store. With the
6 extension of Pierside Pavilion, definitely, we' d have more people
7 coming because it will attract more this kind of people. Go ahead
8 please . . . Go ahead. More. More. A little bit more. Next slide
9 please. I think we don' t have time to go. Move forward.
10 See, those are our customers, families, and people that
11 come to specifically for . . . They spend vacations here. Go ahead
12 please. Definitely, we' ll have a more attractive place for this kind
13 of tourists . It would attract new high end in business and their
14 employees and different kind of people that, today, they don' t come
15 to Huntington Beach, or they come and they don' t stay. They come.
16 They stay just a few hours and they leave for Fashion Island because
17 we don' t have attractions for them. I think we' d have more. That' s
18 it . Thank you.
19 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you. Yes sir.
20 MR. SHIELDS : I'm Tom Shields . I operate Spark. It' s
21 actually ground zero what we' re talking about. I 've got to tell you
22 I've been torn on this project for the whole time I've heard about it
23 as to whether or not it'd be good for me or not good for me. I've
24 come to the conclusion that, in the long run, this project will be
25 good for Spark, strictly because the plaza, as it stands now offers
26 nothing to Spark or that side of the building as far as foot traffic
27
28
27
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 or a draw off of PCH. PCH is where the action is . That' s where things
2 happen.
3 Being a second floor restaurant has always been a drawback.
4 Being a second floor restaurant that is as far South as anything else
5 in the city or at least downtown has been a drawback. My feeling is
6 that having some more retail and restaurants based south of me will
7 help my business . I mean this may be strictly selfish viewpoint on my
8 part, but that' s I guess my point. I know this is brief, more brief
9 than most, but that was my opinion.
10 MR. MAURIELLO: Good evening, Mayor, Council Members . My
11 name is Thomas Mauriello. I'm an attorney. I represent the Pier
12 Colony Home Owners Association. I submitted a letter about a week
13 ago. Fortunately for the Council, my comments tonight will be much
14 briefer, and I want to just hit a few general points that I think are
15 maybe helpful or useful to the Council.
16 The Pier Colony Home Owners Association does oppose this
17 project. We believe that, in addition to violating the Downtown
18 Specific Plan, violating the view corridor which we believe to be 60
19 feet,the project violates the California Environmental Quality Act as
20 proposed with this mitigated negative declaration. We believe that
21 the impacts are significant enough that an environmental impact
22 report is called for under CEQA, under the case law, under the
23 guidelines, under the statute.
24 CEQA has a very low threshold for requiring environmental
25 impact reports as many of you know. The standards as the so-called
26 fair argument standard, the issue is whether substantial evidence
27 supports a fair argument that there may be significant impacts .
28
28
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Substantial evidence meaning credible evidence, facts, not
2 speculation. Fair argument means a reasonable argument, not to a
3 certainty.
4 There may be, not shall be, may be significant impacts
5 means that there might be. In other words, we stand before you not
6 having to prove that the project is going to have significant impacts
7 in order to have the Council be required to prepare an EIR, but that
8 it may.
9 Legalities aside, that is an important legality because
10 that standard of review, as your Council can tell you is all
11 important in your decision today. Putting the legalities aside, there
12 are three main impacts that my client is concerned with - views,
13 aesthetics, and noise. Blocked views both from the vantage point of
14 windows and from the corridor is a significant impact under CEQA, and
15 it' s something that applies not only to the Pier Colony residences,
16 but to all visitors and citizens who are in that vicinity.
17 The aesthetics, having to do with this monolithic block
18 building filling out the corner. No matter what minor design tweaks
19 we can do on the fly, some of which we saw tonight, it doesn' t change
20 the footprint, it doesn' t change the scale or the shape and noise.
21 Although these impacts are more prevalent to my clients,
22 who happen to live next door, these are impacts that apply to all
23 citizens, residences, and visitors of the downtown area.
24 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you, sir.
25 MR. MAURIELLO: I would just ask that the Council consider
26 that compliance with the law in this case is also good planning.
27 Thank you very much.
28
29
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. WELLS : Good evening Mr. Mayor and Council . My name
2 is Jonno Wells . I'm the CEO of Surfline/Wavetrack. We are tenants of
3 Pierside, and we' re one of the first tenants in the building back in
4 the `90s . Since then, we've grown to over 50 employees . We' re on the
5 third floor, in office space . We've seen the building plans and we
6 wanted to speak for the things that we liked in what we saw.
7 First of all, we need more office space. That' s a demand
8 that is on us as a growing business in the city. We'd like to see
9 better use of the vacant plaza space. While we enjoy the corridor
10 that exists there, the vacant plaza space attracts homeless, under-
11 aged drinkers that sit up and around the stairwells in all sorts of
12 times during the day and evening.
13 It lowers the desirability of the area for everyone. I
14 would think including the residents nearby that have homeless and
15 kids drinking and smoking in the open corridor areas . Someone reached
16 into our window the other day and grabbed the laptop, stole it from
17 our office because of the way the structure is designed. It' s
18 dangerous and a nuisance for after hours . It really doesn't . . . It' s
19 not a productive area at all, the way it' s structured now.
20 We look forward to new elevators that will get people in
21 and out of the building more smoothly and be more accommodating to
22 visitors and guests to get in and out of the businesses .
23 We believe investment in the building will improve the
24 downtown area and should increase revenue for the city. It sounded
25 like there were a number of needs for that in the earlier discussions
26 so that concludes my comments . Thank you.
27 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you.
28
30
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MS. WINCHELL: Hi. My name is Grace Winchell . I've been a
2 Huntington Beach resident for 43 years . I was a City Council member
3 from 1986 to 1994, during the time the Pierside Pavilion was approved
4 and built. I urge you to deny this project as currently proposed.
5 A little history. In 1986, downtown was just beginning to
6 be redeveloped. The two blocks that now make up Pier Colony and
7 Pierside Pavilion were some of the first to be redeveloped and were
8 considered key to setting the tone for the entire redevelopment plan.
9 Design guidelines, height restrictions, view corridors, adequate
10 parking, pedestrian-friendly walkways, public amenities, artistic
11 features, mix of uses, all these elements were considered very
12 carefully in an overall attempt to create an inviting, visitor-
13 friendly and vibrant downtown.
14 The city considered vacating the 60-foot wide 3rd Street
15 that existed between Pier Colony and the Pierside Pavilion, for with
16 consolidation, the block could provide enhanced visitor-serving
17 amenities .
18 After careful consideration of the potential impact on
19 traffic and pedestrian circulation and on the views, light, and air
20 movement for interior streets, the Council accepted the proposal for
21 vacating 3rd Street between PCH and Walnut, but only with the
22 condition that the 60-foot street vacation be preserved without
23 structures over 42 inches .
24 This was to be preserved for view, ocean breezes, light,
25 pedestrian walkways, and overall, visitor-serving ambiance. This
26 preservation was not to be temporary. There was no expiration date.
27
28
31
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 The public street was vacated for a specific purpose, an open space
2 corridor.
3 Today, the application before you proposes a major
4 encroachment onto the 60-foot vacated 3rd Street open space corridor,
5 making it a virtual alley. A variance in height above the existing
6 limit, an increase in square footage with office uses not commercial
7 or visitor-serving, a shared parking scheme that needs careful
8 scrutiny to protect the rest of the downtown businesses, a much
9 larger building footprint on the site increasing lot coverage. A
10 bulky, unpleasing design unlike the overall theme and design
11 guidelines for downtown, a decrease in public open space and fewer
12 public amenities, these applications should be denied as proposed.
13 For the benefit of all Huntington Beach residents, I urge
14 you to carefully maintain all the downtown view corridors, and you
15 can start with this 60-foot 3rd Street Corridor. Don' t change the
16 rules to the detriment of our Huntington' s Beach residents,
17 particularly the residents or Pier Colony which was built with views
18 and purchased with view value added. Stick with the principles,
19 conditions, and design elements of the original agreement regarding
20 this consolidated block. This is a discretionary action on your part.
21 Please represent the residents of Huntington Beach and deny
22 this proposal with findings that maintain the integrity of past
23 agreements for downtown specific plan and the coastal element. Just
24 say no and give firm and specific guidelines .
25 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you, Ms . Winchell.
26 MS. COOK: For the record, my name is Debbie Cook. I first
27 got involved in city politics on the heels of this project. I was not
28
32
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 a fan of redevelopment. I did not see the benefit of giving ten
2 ocean-front lots to the developer for $1 . I have never found any
3 redeeming qualities in pink stucco architecture. It had a night club
4 that was a nightmare for the Council and residents because of bad
5 design. It had a movie theatre that was doomed from the start because
6 of its location and the fact that half of its potential ticket buyers
7 were fish. It had a fountain that blocked street level retail. It had
8 a third and fourth floor that couldn' t be leased and ended up being
9 used as a warehouse for flip-flops and bikinis .
10 It had an ocean-front courtyard that was like a dangling
11 participle with no clear connection or purpose. In short, it was as
12 if someone had inadvertently printed the plans upside down and
13 backwards and then started construction.
14 The only thing that could have justified a fraction of the
15 massive amounts of public subsidies this project received was the
16 view corridor and access that was required in the right-of-way
17 created by the vacated 3rd Street, but we couldn' t even get that
18 right . Somehow, the staircases were built and view-obstructing walls
19 and landscaping encroached on both views and access .
20 For 22 years, every time I have driven past this project, I
21 have cursed those walls, the lack of vision demonstrated by the head
22 of planning and our failure to honor the soul of Downtown Huntington
23 Beach.
24 I never thought I would have an opportunity for a public
25 rant about this project. I never thought someone would come along and
26 propose to make Pierside even worse. This project, barely two decades
27 old should be bulldozed. Short of that, it should be studied for its
28
33
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 failures so that we don' t repeat them. Instead, what we see tonight
2 is a project that far exceeds the original 60o site coverage approved
3 in 1988, a project that ignores all the principles of good
4 neighbourliness and attempts to rewrite history and the promises that
5 were made in 1988 .
6 Public assets have always been sought after by private
7 speculators whether encroaching on a walkway, proposing projects and
8 parks and on beaches or acquiring land from vacated streets .
9 Developers will always ask for more.
10 I spent my political career watching as some play by the
11 rules and others hire lobbyists to revise history and redefine words .
12 I will never forget in 1990 how the former head of planning, Mike
13 Adams, wax-poetic about the newly approved Pierside restaurant
14 project for the ocean side of PCH.
15 For those who don' t remember, it was 57, 000 square feet
16 across PCH blocking the view from Pierside from the pier to the
17 lifeguard headquarters . He called it a new-view opportunity. Oh, the
18 irony. Had I not sued the Coastal Commission and won, the developer
19 of this project would have been a recipient of the type of new-view
20 opportunity his successor is trying to impose on his neighbours
21 today. Thank you.
22 [APPLAUSE]
23 MR. PEREZ : Mayor, City Council members, thank you for
24 allowing me the opportunity to speak this evening. My name is Rodi
25 Perez . I operate a kiosk on the corner of PCH and Main Street. I've
26 been selling sarongs and beach related items down there for the past
27 four years . Originally, I'm from Israel, and I moved here from
28
34
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Florida in 2008 . Surfing is my passion and Huntington Beach has a lot
2 of surfing and much more to offer. I decided to settle here and start
3 my business .
4 The kiosk has been a great opportunity for me to attract
5 the locals and a lot of the tourists with quality products along PCH.
6 I always try to improve my merchandise and the way it' s displayed. I
7 think it adds a lot to the downtown beach vibe.
8 The expansion would be really helpful for my business by
9 attracting more customers down PCH toward 2nd and 15t Street. More
10 people will be coming to Pierside Pavilion to shop, eat, and work in
11 the office space you' re going to have there.
12 I'm also very excited about the proposed bench and the palm
13 trees that they' re going to have there. I feel like it' s going to
14 create a bordered-like pedestrian walkway. It' s going to be a little
15 bit more safe because I see a lot of kids running around in the
16 street and the parents have got to chase them around so they don't go
17 into the road. I' ll feel safer myself from the passing cars . I think
18 it' s going to have a nicer look.
19 I look forward to the improvements this project will bring
20 to the area. I know that a new building will add more profit to the
21 surrounding businesses . I hope that you will approve this project.
22 Thank you very much for your time.
23 MR. WHEELER: Good evening Mr. Mayor, members of the
24 council. My name is Jerry Wheeler. I'm the president, CEO of the
25 Huntington, Beach Chamber of Commerce and also a resident here of
26 Huntington Beach. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the Pierside
27 Pavilion Expansion Project. This project takes an under-utilized
28
35
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 parcel of land in a prime location here in our Downtown Huntington
2 Beach and turns it into something that will bring new visitors to-
3 downtown, new employees to downtown, will generate additional
4 property tax revenue and additional sales tax revenue at a time when
5 every good penny we can raise without raising fees and tax rates will
6 certainly help the City' s bottom line .
7 It' s one more piece of an overall puzzle cementing
8 Huntington Beach as a true destination for shopping, dining, and
9 professional opportunities with approximately 36, 000 square feet of
10 additional retail, office and restaurant use .
11 The ground floor will provide new retail options that will
12 complement what already exists on the street. The second floor
13 provides a new high-end restaurant that will complement its neighbour
14 Spark, already a great addition to our downtown scene . Floors three
15 and four will create much needed professional office space, and we
16 understand tenants are already lining up for these opportunities .
17 Development does exist next to downtown residential
18 development. While it is consistent with the newly amended Downtown
19 Specific Plan, every effort, I understand, will be expanded to
20 address over time the concerns of their residential neighbours .
21 Perhaps the most important part of this equation is the
22 developer itself, Theory Properties . It' s a local family who is in
23 this for the long haul. They want happy tenants and happy neighbours
24 and will work to ensure that this indeed happens .
25 As an added bonus for this development is that the entire
26 building, the existing building, as well as the expansion will also
27 be receiving a facelift that will create a much more pedestrian-
28
36
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 friendly along PCH and provide more visibility for the retail stores
2 that are located on the first level.
3 Finally, this is about jobs, over 100 potentially new jobs
4 and good paying jobs as well . The development will blend retail
5 opportunities, a high end restaurant, but the meat of and the
6 development are the great jobs and new energy the available office
7 space will bring to the downtown experience.
8 Both Innocean and Grupo Gallegos are great examples of
9 blending professionals into a mixed use downtown environment . This
10 new expansion will only enhance this process that has already
11 successfully begun. We' re discussing improvements in our downtown
12 core here, not a quiet treeline suburb.
13 Anytime we have residents in the business community
14 cohabitating in the same place, there are bound to be concerns on
15 both sides . It' s understandable as both often have different needs,
16 but I urge you to allow this project to move forward and help it
17 become a case study for how business and residents can work together
18 to make a busy environment along one of the busiest highways around a
19 safe and respectful place to live, work, and play. Thank you.
20 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you.
21 CITY CLERK FLYNN: The final eight speakers are Mike
22 Sheldon, Robert Stookey, Linda Couey, Leila Marcos, Mark Bixby, Jeff
23 Oderman, Mike Adams and Joe Daichendt .
24 MR. SHELDON: Hi, good evening, Mayor Hansen, City Council
25 Members . I didn't get the memo on the dress code, I came straight
26 from AUI, coaching the U8 soccer so I apologize.
27
28
37
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 We currently have four stores in Huntington Beach. I'm from
2 Huntington Surf and Sport, and we hope to expand the current location
3 at the Pierside Pavilion. We see several areas where Huntington Surf
4 and Sport will benefit from the future expansion and the associated
5 improvements that would be done at the same time. We would like to
6 stress to the Council how much these improvements will allow us to
7 meet our future goals .
8 We are stoked about the renovations to the existing
9 building as Theory R. Properties is planning on reskinning the
10 building for a fresh new look for the Pierside Pavilion. They are
11 also going to push out all the retail space on the ground floor to
12 the dirt line so we will have more window exposure on PCH. We also
13 like the newly proposed low wall and benches separating the
14 pedestrian from the traffic that keep them safe as well .
15 We feel that all this focus on the project will attract
16 more customers to the area and keep the Pierside Pavilion building as
17 a landmark in Huntington Beach. Our company is what Surf City is all
18 about. We encourage you to approve this project. Together we can help
19 revitalize the downtown area. Thank you for your consideration.
20 MS . COUEY: Good evening Council, Mayor. My name is Linda D.
21 Couey. I'm a Huntington Beach resident, and I' ve been here for almost
22 30 years . Today, I'm speaking on behalf of Huntington Beach Tomorrow.
23 Huntington Beach Tomorrow' s mission is to promote and
24 maintain a high quality of life in our wonderful Huntington Beach. A
25 primary area of the HBT advocacy is to work to preserve open space,
26 especially keeping our beaches in the public domain. That applies to
27 all aspects of beach open space including our view corridors . Our
28
38
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 beaches and coast are valuable public assets for our community. We
2 must be vigilant against encroachment of any kind especially against
3 encroachment by a favoured few.
4 There are no great overriding considerations here. It does
5 not serve the greater public interest to subvert the law put in place
6 to retain the protection of public view corridors when public streets
7 are being vacated in order to consolidate multiple blocks into mega
8 projects .
9 While others will cite the details in opposition to this
10 proposal and have, to us, it' s very simple. We quote the late Peter
11 Douglas, "The coast is never saved. It is forever in the process of
12 being saved. Part of that is seeing that past obligations are
13 honoured."
14 Huntington Beach Tomorrow asks that this Council follow the
15 law on our past obligations and reject this proposed encroachment on
16 property that was meant to remain open to the public in perpetuity.
17 Thank you very much.
18 [APPLAUSE]
19 MS. MARCOS : Good evening. I own a unit in Pier Colony. I
20 purchased my unit back a couple of years ago. I invested a large
21 portion of my assets in purchase mainly to enjoy the partial view of
22 the pier and ocean. The sunlight and privacy of my living space was
23 also a big contributing factor to my purchase decision. I also
24 expected an increase in my value of my investment with time.
25 The proposed project if accepted would have a dramatic
26 impact on my living condition. All of the owners on the north side
27 and the side of the proposed project of the building will also be
28
39
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 negatively impacted. The increase in the new building size will
2 infringe our privacy and further depress our property value. My
3 partial view of the pier will be dramatically reduced.
4 Between the Mortgage Owner Association and property taxes,
5 I'm paying a large monthly payment specifically for this view and
6 privacy. Please give a thorough evaluation to your decision before
7 taking away the beauty of our building. Who will compensate us for
8 this drastic reduction in the value of our property if this project
9 is approved?
10 My unit will turn into a dark home due to the increase on
11 the new building height, resulting in the decrease of the incoming
12 sunlight. In addition, I'm losing my privacy. I do not want to
13 experience extreme noise all day and night from the outdoor patio,
14 the chimney effect of the underground garage that' s right under my
15 unit and increase in activity created by the new design.
16 Please give proper consideration to the life and safety of
17 the neighbour of this project . This huge project and its many
18 variances will affect the quality of life of those living in 200
19 Pacific Coast Highway in an extreme negative way. It will strip
20 current homeowner of many of the things which brought them to this
21 home to begin with. Thank you, that' s all.
22 [APPLAUSE]
23 VICE-CHAIR BIXBY: Hi. My name is Mark Bixby. I am the vice-
24 chair of the Planning Commission. Chairman Mantini asked me to come
25 down here tonight to say a few words on behalf of the Commission
26 majority opinion to deny the project.
27
28
40
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 The Commission was generally supportive of staff-suggested
2 modifications in so far as they went to make a non-compliant project
3 more compliant and better or compatible with the community, but what
4 led me to a motion to deny was the view corridor issue which has been
5 covered in great detail today by current speakers. I'm not even going
6 to try and talk to Debbie Cook because that' s not possible. Let me
7 just try to touch on some of the key details there.
8 The historical record is very clear on this . It' s as clear
9 as it gets . The Planning Commission explicitly voted to extend view
10 corridor protection to 3rd Street three weeks before they voted to
11 approve the Pierside Project on April 5 of 1988 . The Planning
12 Commission then demonstrated intent to preserve the 3rd Street view
13 corridor.
14 Now, staff has said a lot about intent of only preserving
15 40 feet of this while the demonstrated intent was to preserve the
16 full 60 . By making the project conditioned on the passage of the
17 DTSP, the actual language in the notice of action conditioned on the
18 entire set of changes . It didn' t say just a part that benefits our
19 project, it said the entire DTSP is contingent on being able for us
20 to go forward with Pierside.
21 It' s clear that the street vacation walls rules intended to
22 apply to Pierside which was approved after the DTSP was approved.
23 That action incurred the obligation to protect that view corridor in
24 perpetuity, and if you' d like modern standard of review to address
25 the view corridor, that' s also required to be protected by the
26 current Coastal Element Visual Resource Protection Policies of the
27
28
41
City Council Meeting 09-17-12
1 General Plan. It' s clear a view corridor exists that needs to be
2 preserved.
3 Now, I' d like to state, for the record, what it was that
4 actually brought us all here tonight. It was because on one of the
5 applicants own plans, somebody in the employee, of the applicant, had
6 written 60 feet view corridor and drew a line, and you see the new
7 building extending a great deal into the view corridor. Somebody on
8 the applicant' s team had reason to believe that the view corridor
9 obligation existed that might be a real interesting thing to ask the
10 applicant team when he' s up here following me .
11 The Planning Commission was standing on a solid ground when
12 we denied the project. I ask you to do the same because the view
13 corridor is simply not preserved by what' s proposed. Thank you.
14 [APPLAUSE]
15 MR. STOOKEY: Hi. My name is Robert Sookey. Mr. Mayor and
16 Council Members, I think you've heard a lot of the residents. You've
17 heard the logic and the fact. I don' t know how you can sit there and
18 deny all the facts and everything that has been presented to you. I
19 do want to just address something else.
20 If you just turn around and look at that picture, you've
21 seen it over here, you've seen it up here, is that the look that you
22 want for Huntington Beach? Is that the look that the Downtown is
23 really wanting?
24 That behemoth is going to be there and I think you as a
25 Council, when the citizens of Huntington Beach walk along and see
26 that building when it' s completed, they' re not going to like it.
27
28
42
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
I Who are they going to blame? You' re the people that are
2 going to okay this if you think that is the right thing to do, which
3 we are hoping you don't, listening to your own Planning Commission,
4 listening to all the facts and figures . You might want to think of
5 yourselves, too, when the public hates that building, because there ' s
6 nothing, there ' s absolutely nothing in that building to like.
7 I don't see how you can ever think that has anything to do
8 with how Huntington Beach should look. If you walk down Main Street,
9 if you look at the rest of the buildings, that building is nothing
10 like that. In fact, the meeting that we went to when the owners were
11 presenting this to us, they were proud of the fact that it didn't
12 look anything like the rest of Downtown. They want it to stand out
13 because then it will be different and people will want to come to it.
14 They don' t care about the rest of Huntington Beach.
15 Hopefully, you people should care about Huntington Beach and what the
16 overall look of what we want for Huntington Beach is . I. just came to
17 California. It was a lifetime dream I 've had my whole life to live in
18 California.
19 I chose Huntington Beach because of so many factors . One of
20 them, of course, is the property that I own, that I think will lose
21 value now, and all kinds of things . The other thing is just the
22 atmosphere. The Downtown. If you have been downtown, if you have
23 walked downtown at all in the summer, and you think this building is
24 now going to come closer to PCH, and I don't know about this guy in
25 his kiosk but I don't know where he' s going to be. I 'm glad he thinks
26 it' s a good thing because I don't where he ' s going to be when that
27 building comes closer and people are going up and down that. street
28
43
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 and they' re putting big cement things with palm trees there, blocking
2 other people from walking. I think it' s going to be a bad thing.
3 In the article on Sunday, if you look at that article about
4 this, the owner said, "I have the right to do this . " Well, I may have
5 the right to paint a huge, black swastika on my patio, but should I
6 do that? Thank you.
7 [APPLAUSE]
8 MR ODERMAN: Good evening, Mayor, members of the Council. My
9 name is Jeff Oderman with the law firm of Rutan & Tucker, I represent
10 the property owner and the applicant. I will address one issue which
11 is the so-called former 3rd Street view corridor issue that was the
12 one issue that the Planning Commission got hung up on.
13 The starting point for you in determining whether this
14 expansion project for Pierside Pavilion complies with the Downtown
15 Specific Plan is what' s on the ground now? What exists? How does this
16 proposed project change existing conditions? We' re not asking you to
17 approve or re-approve a project that was approved and built in 1988 .
18 We ' re asking you to approve an expansion project today.
19 While I went down, what does exist? You know very well what
20 exists . I walked down on Walnut Street and down the public walkway
21 about an hour before the meeting. There are staircases between the
22 building' s trash enclosure, a landscape structure over the entrance
23 to the subterranean parking garage, walls that step up on the side of
24 Pier Colony Project.
25 There- is no 60-foot public view corridor. There isn't, you
26 can' t see it. This project will not impact existing views . That's why
27 the speakers from Pier Colony are trying to take you back to 1988 .
28
44
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 They want to roll the clock back a quarter of a century and ask you
2 to create a view that doesn't exist and was never intended.
3 It so happens I was the attorney for the applicant for this
4 project in 1988 . I have some history with this project. What was the
5 City' s intent in 1988? It was exactly what you see. The City' s intent
6 is best reflected in the City' s action. It approved the project that
7 exists today. It was not a mistake.
8 The plans that were submitted to the Planning Commission,
9 the Pier Colony people have proved their case. They show that a 40-
10 foot wide corridor was intended. The Planning Commission considered
11 the language in the Specific Plan at the very same meeting that they
12 approved that they approved this project and the view corridor wasn't
13 even raised as an issue. There were many conditions and changes that
14 were required to be made and none of them related to separation or
15 setback between the buildings or view corridor.
16 The language in the Specific Plan at that time talked about
17 the corridor being the width of the former street. Well, I think of
18 the width of the street as being curb to curb. After 1988, I don't
19 know when or how long, but at some point after 1988, the Specific
20 Plan was changed to say that the view corridor should be measured by
21 the width of the former right-of-way. There was a reason for the
22 change. Before that, it was curb to curb and afterward, it was
23 changed to the right-of-way.
24 We think what the Commission approved in 1988 is, was legal
25 and what the City Council should review is the project that' s before
26 you now, not what was back in 1988 .
27 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you, Mr. Oderman. Thank you.
28
45
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. ADAMS : Evening Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council.
2 My name is Mike Adams, representing the project this evening. I, too
3 will take you back a little bit to the time when the Downtown
4 Specific Plan was first discussed back in the early ' 80s .
5 The site on the drawing above Councilman Bohr actually
6 reflects a project that was never built. It showed a plaza area on
7 Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway, that went into an interior
8 courtyard that then popped out onto the side paseo.
9 The reason for that at the time was that the 130 units, and
10 at that time it was in 160 unit condominium project was anticipated
11 to be a hotel . The hotel project did not work. The idea that the
12 hotel could be there, shops along the paseo, interconnecting the
13 Pacific Coast Highway and crossing was the original master plan.
14 The developer convinced us, the Council at that time, that
15 let ' s not pursue the hotel, let ' s pursue a condo project. The 160
16 unit condo project was born. That didn't fly for a number of reasons,
17 knocked down to 130 units . Through that process, the corridor was
18 discussed. The idea of keeping the right-of-way in place was
19 discussed. It was actually knocked down to the area between curb to
20 curb saying that because of the area above 3rd Street with the trees
21 and so forth, that was not a visual corridor of the full right-of-
22 way, the full visual corridor truly only was between the curb lines .
23 That ' s how the 40-foot number came about.
24 Going back to just the last couple of years, the Downtown
25 Specific Plan went through the couple of years through of a lot of
26 discussion. If the view corridor issue had been an important issue it
27 should have been brought at that time throughout the Downtown. Pasecs
28
46
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 were introduced at that time. The idea that paseos need to be part of
2 all major projects, that you connect one block to the next with a
3 pedestrian walkway. That was what was considered important with this
4 last go around the Downtown Specific Plan. Views were not considered
5 important.
6 The idea was that how do we rejuvenate the Downtown area
7 into getting more economic return into the Downtown? That was the
8 reason for the reroute of the Downtown Specific Plan. This was the
9 exact kind of project that was envisioned. The theater project just
10 didn't work in this location. The idea of the plaza area below the
11 theaters was for gathering for pre-shows and so forth. There could be
12 all kinds of shops there. People could have dinner or go for the
13 movies . Once the movie theater leaves, there' s the plaza area at the
14 bottom that is not necessary any longer. It needed to be re-looked at
15 for reuse and this is the proposed reuse .
16 As far as the design issues, is a contemporary design. The
17 last project was built by a committee of a bunch of citizens and
18 Council members that had changed continuously until what you see was
19 built . The current contemporary approach is more modern and it picks
20 up a lot of line work from the former design. Again, refer back to
21 your professionals which is the Design Review Board. They reviewed
22 this project twice and they approved it. Thank you.
23 MR. DAICHENDT: Mr. Mayor Hansen, members of the Council, my
24 name is Joe Daichendt applicant for the project. The project before
25 you will host an expansion to Huntington Surf and Sport, an expansion
26 to Havaianas, Subway, Stuffed to create new locations for new
27 retailers . This will create a new restaurant with the best ocean view
28
47
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 in Orange County and finally an expansion of Grupo Gallegos and
2 Surfline.
3 Tonight we have heard a number of Pier Colony residents
4 argue view that there is a public view corridor that should exist. I
5 don't completely disagree . In the proposed expansion, the space
6 between the Pier Colony retaining wall and the last column line of
7 Pierside will see improvements to the public view. The space I 've
8 defined is 1000 on my parcel .
9 The space I 've defined is being improved so that someone
10 standing in Walnut or driving down to 3rd Street will able to now see
11 the ocean. The same is not true on the Pier Colony property as that
12 property has a retaining wall. When standing on Walnut or driving
13 down 3rd Street, you cannot enjoy an ocean view.
14 My final comment about the subject and alleged public view
15 corridor is in the word, "public" . All the comments from neighbouring
16 private property owners tonight are asking for private views to be
17 awarded by some taking or grabbing and from another private property
18 owner.
19 These requests of you, while numerous, are not right to
20 ask. As a property owner, I've continually invested and taken steps
21 to take Downtown Huntington Beach the right direction. After losing
22 the movie theaters, I took a chance and invested millions in the
23 worst recession of most of our lifetimes, and brought downtown HB the
24 world renowned Grupo Gallegos, the largest Hispanic advertising
25 agency in the US, a hundred plus employees with 300 of staff fully
26 relocated and buying homes in HB.
27
28
48
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Just recently we had the grand opening of Stuffed and
2 competitor Chipotle and prior to that we opened up the first US
3 location of Havaianas . The project before you is supported by many
4 groups and individuals . I have additional letters of support for your
5 review from business owners on Main Street, businesses at Pierside,
6 hotel and property owners who want to see the downtown thrive all
7 year long and not just in the summer.
8 In closing I want to address two final items . The Planning
9 staff has worked hard on this project; I'm very appreciative of their
10 time. Scott, Herb, Ethan and many others, have invested a lot of
11 time. We have been successful in coming to an agreement on 95% of
12 this project, and the following handout entails the remaining items
13 I' d like to ask that you take action on tonight.
14 Lastly, in conversation with Council members, I felt that a
15 majority were not completely satisfied with the massing. In a call
16 with Councilman Devin Dwyer, he asked that I consider additional
17 changes to help the overall design. I have gone ahead and
18 incorporated those changes and others and they' re there for your
19 review.
20 These changes include bringing more traditional wedding
21 cakes step-back on the fourth floor and further improvements to the
22 view at Pier Colony. This is my second preference. Ultimately, the
23 decision here is yours . Thank your time, I'm available for any other
24 questions?
25 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you, Mr. Daichendt. I think Council
26 Member Boardman has a question.
27
28
49
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Yes . You heard my Planning
2 Commissioner, Mark Bixby earlier, indicated that on drawings that you
3 submitted, or your employees submitted, that they had drawn in a 60-
4 foot view corridor, and so I was wondering, if there' s no history or
5 there ' s supposed to be a 60 foot view corridor, why would plans that
6 you submit, have it indicated?
7 MR. DAICHENDT: Great question. We've always maintained that
8 there is no view corridor. The reason the dash line shown the 60 feet
9 is on there is that was request from staff. We complied, but
10 ultimately, we didn't feel there is any meaning into it.
11 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay. Thank you.
12 MAYOR HANSEN: Are there any additional speakers that wish
13 to address the Council before the public hearing is closed? I see
14 none? I will close the public hearing.
15 MAYOR HANSEN: Mr. Daichendt and staff, I guess as we' re
16 handing out this material, I' ll leave it to your discretion who' s to
17 come forward, but we have a list of six amendments or modifications
18 that are brought forth, who'd be most appropriate, maybe to give a
19 brief outline of what the proposal would be?
20 JOE DAICHENDT: Briefly on the six items, number one, remove
21 the suggested modifications being set back of rooftop mechanical
22 equipment and all associated screenings . This has numerous benefits
23 for not only the screening of the equipment, but also for noise and
24 sound barriers to our neighbors at Pier Colony.
25 The same is true of number two. Number three amend the
26 suggested modification regarding another DRB review placing
27 director' s review, and the reason why I'm asking that is we' ve been
28
50
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 to the DRB three times . The second option that you are reviewing now
2 is minor, and I believe that a director' s review would be more than,
3 would be able to resolve that.
4 We are asking for the same hours of operation as Spark, the
5 variance on the height is exactly what we proposed, and the revised
6 and approved cart locations per the submitted plan is number six.
7 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you. Council Member Boardman.
8 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay, let' s see. On the handout
9 that just came out, number one is to remove the suggested
10 modification on any setback of rooftop mechanical equipment and all
11 associated screening. I'm a little confused about what that means .
12 Does that mean to remove the screening, remove the setback of the
13 mechanical equipment?
14 MR. EDWARDS: I guess I need to defer to the applicant on
15 this particular one. I'm not sure if these modifications pertain to
16 the revised plans . I guess I would need clarification on that, or do
17 they pertain to the existing proposed plans .
18 MR. DAICHENDT: They would apply to both.
19 MR. EDWARDS : Okay.
20 MR. DAICHENDT: We' re looking to have the mechanical
21 screening equipment, just not the 10-foot setback from the edge of
22 the building. We want to cover all the mechanicals fully and screen
23 it from sight.
24 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Has there been any kind of noise
25 study done to analyze how noisy that equipment would be?
26 MR. DAICHENDT: There has . There' s three different
27 variations I guess of the project, depending upon what you ultimately
28
51
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 choose, and all three variations have a noise study. We've gone
2 through great lengths in all three of those and they are with the
3 staff.
4 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Are they within the City' s limits
5 in decibels?
6 MR. DAICHENDT: Yes, I believe they' re well within the
7 limits .
8 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay. The restaurant hours, that' s
9 pretty clear. I'm a little confused now about number five . Could you
10 kind of go into a little bit more detail there?
11 MR. DAICHENDT: Absolutely. Number five is exactly what' s on
12 those drawings, to the inch. In staff' s presentation, they were
13 requesting six-foot reduction of the overall building. We' re just
14 asking it right. I believe it' s roughly six feet. Is that correct?
15 MR. EDWARDS : Six feet.
16 MR. DAICHENDT: Six feet. We' re asking that the six feet
17 remain.
18 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay.
19 MR. DAICHENDT: I think that' s a more complicated way of
20 saying the same thing.
21 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Thanks . I think that clears up
22 many questions in my mind I've had about the handout you've just
23 passed out.
24 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Carchio.
25 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: I have questions for staff.
26 MAYOR HANSEN: I'm sorry.
27
28
52
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay, so, does anyone know how
2 tall the Pier Colony building is? It would be immediately adjacent to
3 the extension. What' s the height on the condominium building?
4 Mr. Hess: We don' t have that information available at this
5 time.
6 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay. Well, there are graphics
7 down here showing that the condominium building' s basically dwarfed
8 by the size of the proposed building and I wanted to make sure if
9 those were to scale or accurate and ... Not sure? Okay.
10 I've wanted to ask a little from the Fire Chief. There were
11 some comments made about concerns the Fire Department had regarding
12 access in that area, if this building was constructed, to access the
13 fourth floor in case there was a fire with the condominiums .
14 FIRE CHIEF: Yeah. I think I' ll ask our Fire Marshall to
15 come down and address those. While he' s making his way down, the
16 width of that fire department access originally would have been 24
17 feet. We measured it this week. It is 17 feet currently, with the
18 planters and things that are there at the time. Obviously, adding
19 another building would somewhat restrict our access . However, the
20 current building is sprinklered. The new building will actually have
21 to meet high-rise standards which will include additional fire pump,
22 pressurized stairwells, and other protection features in the new
23 building as well . Now, I' ll ask the Fire Marshal to talk a little bit
24 about that access .
25 FIRE MARSHALL: Thank you, chief. Honourable Mayor and
26 Council Members, as the Chief has indicated, Fire staff has
27 extensively looked at this project from the inception including a
28
53
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 detailed plan check in several site visits. I was actually down there
2 and viewed the fire lane as well. As stated on the original plans
3 before you, on the wall back there, it' s at 24 feet, however
4 currently it' s actually 17 feet and that' s primarily attributed to
5 the fact that there are several portable planters there, as well as
6 some lights, so there are a couple of options there as indicated in
7 the Fire Department plant checker notes .
8 The building will meet high-rise requirements, although
9 another possible fix would be to simply just remove those planters
10 and the lights that are obstructing the view. Quite frankly, this
11 fire lane will and can assist our Fire Department_ access, however
12 it' s quite common that fire departments access the corner of the
13 buildings and wouldn' t necessarily put the fire apparatus in between
14 the two structures so as much as that fire lane is on the plans I
15 would normally access the building from the corners of the building.
16 In addition to that, we have full access to both Pierside
17 Colony as well the proposed project from three' sides of the building,
18 so we do have pretty good access and with that, I' d be happy to
19 answer any other questions you may have .
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay, no, I just want to hear from
21 you about access for both the condominiums and protection of the
22 residences, as well as the workers and the proposed building.
23 FIRE MARSHALL: Thank you.
24 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: You feel confident that, with the
25 sprinkling and with the standards this new building would meet, that
26 you could safely both for fire personnel, access the building with a
27 17-foot corridor between the two?
28
54
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 FIRE MARSHALL: Absolutely, and keep in mind too, that when
2 you get structures that tall, even within our own community, other
3 than that, it goes beyond the standard ladder truck access, that' s
4 why we have high-rise standards, that' s why the building standards
5 are more stringent, there' s fire pumps that protect not only that
6 building, but buildings adjacent to them, in this case, Pierside
7 Pavilion, the condos across the way there.
8 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay. I guess I have a question
9 for staff now, about the 60-foot width of the view corridor that
10 appeared on the applicant' s plans to begin with. The applicant said
11 that it was there because of something staff had recommended or said,
12 so what' s the source of the 60 feet?
13 MR. EDWARDS: One of the original plan check comments was to
14 show a view corridor on the plans . We didn't have to stipulate the
15 width or anything like that, we just said, "Can you show that in the
16 plans?"
17 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Show the view corridor and they
18 came up with 60 feet?
19 MR. EDWARDS : That' s correct.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: The applicant came up with 60
21 feet?
22 ME. EDWARDS: That' s correct.
23 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay. I' ll save some of my other
24 questions .
25 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Carchio.
26 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Joe, if I can ask a question here.
27 On your handout here, on number six, can you give us an idea of how
28
55
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 the positioning of the, with the new location, how the positioning of
2 the carts is going to be.
3 MR. DAICHENDT : Sure .
4 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: I think some folks had some
5 concerns about that.
6 MR. DAICHENDT: Yes, the area of greatest concern is on PCH,
7 so we paid special attention in there and there' s actually a low seat
8 wall, that now, if you are familiar with the shops along PCH at
9 Pierside, they have an interesting dilemma where the doors open up at
10 about two feet, then you hit the column line, then you hit planters,
11 then you hit trees and now you' re pushed out towards traffic when you
12 are walking and the carts currently are approved against the
13 building, which further pushes out the pedestrian traffic. What we
14 are looking to do is get rid of the step and the grade, create a seat
15 wall on PCH and tuck the carts into the seat wall, so there' s an
16 actual physical barrier, so one, it is safer and there' s a perception
17 that people can walk down being engaged with shops on both sides and
18 not feel like they are right next to traffic as they do today. A
19 nicer paseo feel as well as a safer element with the seating wall.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: So, is that going to take any
21 public space on the walkway?
22 MR. DAICHENDT: There will be more walkway on that project
23 than there is today. The carts will be oriented differently and the
24 landscaping will be consolidated into the seat wall .
25 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Now are the carts going to change
26 on Main Street?
27
28
56
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. DAICHENDT : No, they don't change on Main Street.
2 Correction, there' s essentially four approved today. I believe it was
3 about two years ago. The Council was gracious enough to approve four
4 and the idea was to come back and look at six months or a year,
5 ultimately we just never followed up on that.
6 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Because you were going to make some
7 changes in front of the building also?
8 MR. DAICHENDT: We would just add two more, so that they
9 would wrap the big . . . I forgot the name of those palms, but the
10 thicker palms that are on Main Street.
11 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Okay, thank you.
12 MR. DAICHENDT: Thank you.
13 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: The other question I have is for
14 staff. I noticed in one of the, I don't know if it' s Scott or not. In
15 one of the photographs, it showed a retaining wall along side of the
16 Pier Colony; was that retaining wall put in there when the Pier
17 Colony was built or was that retaining wall that separates the homes,
18 the property line for the homes . Was that added later on? Are they
19 patios from the outside part of the homes for the condominiums?
20 MR. EDWARDS : Is the landscape area, patio areas?
21 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Yes .
22 MR. EDWARDS : I'm not sure about that. However, the
23 landscape areas where constructed as part of the original building.
24 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: With the original building?
25 MR. EDWARDS : Correct.
26 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Okay, thank you. I' ll have some
27 other questions later. Thanks.
28
57
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Shaw.
2 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW: Hi, yes, we just received these new
3 plans . If someone from the developer could tell us how these plans
4 differ from the original. Please, go over that with us .
5 MR. DAICHENDT: Yes, the " changes are minor in the overall
6 footprint, with a couple of caveats that along PCH, the building
7 actually angles to make it more friendly on the pedestrian level. As
8 it applies to the wedding cake or step-backs, you' ll see more
9 variations . The building will pull back quicker and will have steps
10 at every level .
11 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW: Does that include the Pierside Colony
12 side?
13 MR. DAICHENDT: On the alley side, it remains the same .
14 There are eyebrows and some different elements of variations, but
15 that remains the same. We keep ...
16 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW: They will change the sides of the
17 Pierside Colony.
18 MR. DAICHENDT: That' s correct, but views will be improved
19 with the multiple step-backs or wedding cake.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW: Will there be step-backs on every
21 level or all the way around?
22 MR. DAICHENDT: Just on the PCH facing side, correct.
23 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: I got some questions for staff. We've
24 been going back and forth over this definition of street width versus
25 right-of-way and kind of the timeline as well, because it sounds like
26 there' s either a timeline that the home owners are putting forward,
27 that should've been incorporated or is this grandfathered under a
28
58
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 different view corridor, because of the definition and when did that
2 change?
3 MR. HESS: Looking back at the records, because the project
4 planner Mr. Edwards and myself did go through and looked as much at
5 the history as we could and actually, Mr. Bixby helped fill in some
6 of the gaps in terms of actions on the code amendment as well as the
7 timing for the project, because, as Mr. Bixby indicated, the Planning
8 Commission reviewed the code amendment at the same time or three
9 weeks before the Planning Commission acted on this, he is correct in
10 that the Planning Commission was fully aware that there should be
11 some separation as required by this specific plan.
12 I do have the original specific plan that we reviewed, this
13 Pierside Pavilion by, and at the time it said it shall dedicate a
14 view corridor or maintain a view corridor equivalent to the street to
15 be vacated.
16 It did not say ultimate right-of-way, there is not
17 definition of street. Is that 40 feet curb to curb? Is it 60 feet
18 from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk, do you add landscaping?
19 There was no definition, so it was up to the Planning Commission to
20 decide what should be that ultimate width to comply with the intent
21 of the view corridor.
22 The conceptual plan that was approved behind Council
23 Member Bohr is the conceptually approved plan. That, as you know,
24 some of you who have been on the Planning Commission before, when you
25 approve a conceptual plan, the setbacks and everything aren' t always
26 delineated on the plan, but that' s basically what the intent of the
27
28
59
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 approval is and if it was a concern by the commission, they would
2 have said, "Modify the separation to 60 feet. "
3 That is given by an example, if you look at the conditions
4 of approval, from back to 1988, there were other provisions required
5 like: the Commission had a concern that the separation of the
6 condominiums to that 40 foot separation should be raised up 8 feet,
7 because they were concerned about the noise; so you would have some
8 buffering of the landscaping in that area, but that was a condition
9 by the Planning Commission, so it was up to the Commission to decide
10 how to define the intended view corridor.
11 Now, our last revision to the Specific Plan last year, does
12 say ultimate right-of-way, and it is very clear. If we vacate any
13 more streets, they must meet ultimate right-of-way, so that means
14 from back of sidewalk to back of sidewalk.
15 Back then, 1985 to 1989, it just said "street" and that was
16 subject to the definition Planning Commission, when it meets the
17 intent. One of the findings of approval of the project says, "This
18 plan complies with the Specific Plan and the General Plan. "
19 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: This picture that we' re looking at
20 there, other than the blue marks, has it been altered in any way?
21 Somebody brought up that it may have been altered_
22 MR. HESS: Well the conceptual plan is conceptual . There
23 were two plans that the Planning Commission saw, it was a hotel plan
24 as well as a theater plan, but this is the conceptually approved
25 plan. Now, it has changed since that plan as it went through final
26 versions of the plan, so it has been modified since the conceptually
27 approved plan, but the 40 feet has always been maintained.
28
60
City Council Meeting 109-17-12
1 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Yeah, and my point is, it says, "40-
2 foot separation view corridor. " That wasn't added for tonight' s
3 visual.
4 MR. HESS : Oh, that was added for tonight, yes, we did. Just
5 like, we wanted to clarify that ' s the area or the separation. It did
6 not say, "view corridor." That' s why it' s in parentheses, but there
7 was that distance between the condominiums and the retail component,
8 of 40 feet.
9 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: You' re just trying to show us the
10 scale of ...
11 Mr. Hess : I 'm actually showing you that' s the conceptually
12 approved plan, so that ' s what is used to go by, for development of
13 the site . Then the bottom exhibit depicts how the addition that ' s
14 being proposed doesn' t encroach into that 50-foot view corridor. I
15 mean 40-foot view corridor.
16 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: We ' re going to start a whole other
17 rumor.
18 MR. HESS : That' s another one, yeah. Well we have some
19 streets that are 50 and 52 and 80 feet, so ...
20 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: You've had a couple of minutes to see
21 this cake layering that I had spoken to Joe about. With that in mind,
22 I know we talked earlier about the glass walls on the roof deck.
23 Actually, because of our code it specifies that it should be 42
24 inches high, but it seems to me, for all people involved, the glass
25 walls would be best at eight foot high.
26
27
28
61
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Does the cake layering work to make that happen? Because
2 you had told me you were worried about a 15-foot setback. Are we
3 within that now, that we are setting back the building?
4 MR. HESS : I ' ll let Ethan add anything, but a preliminary
5 response would be that this revised plan does a lot better job in
6 buffering the rooftop deck to the residence next door, because the
7 majority of that upper floor deck is basically a solid wall encasing
8 the stairways going up to that deck, so that glass partition, if you
9 will, would only stretch about 11 feet of that upper deck, and we
10 could work with the applicant in redesigning how that glass wall
11 might be installed in that upper deck. It' s not much of an issue with
12 this revised layout.
13 Ethan, is there anything else to add?
14 MR. EDWARDS : No, I would just concur that it does get
15 closer to the intent of the design guidelines and to the wedding cake
16 effect that we 've been recommending all along, to the Design Review
17 Board, and I agree with Scott that we could work with the applicant
18 on the upper story deck walls.
19 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Then the other question was the
20 mechanical setbacks, because this building has multiple sides to it.
21 The mechanical equipment is actually aft of the forward structure,
22 but yet it' s on the building edge, and I can see why he would be
23 asking for a variance on that . It' s still hidden. Do you have any
24 problem with the way it ' s designed now?
25 Now that I 've gotten him to decrease that footage up there
26 on the fifth deck, if we push his mechanical in 15 feet, we 're making
27
28
62
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 it even that much smaller. I was able to get the footage off the
2 front, I 'd hate to make him give up the footage on the back.
3 MR. EDWARDS : Well I guess the intent of that 15-foot
4 setback is to provide additional screening, and not let it be viewed
5 from any public right-of-way, so as long as that ' s meeting the intent
6 of the code and still providing that, I think we can work with that.
7 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: What else are my questions here ... I
8 guess that ' s it for now, thank you.
9 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you. Council Member Bohr.
10 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. City Attorney,
11 are there any legal issues that you've heard tonight, that we feel we
12 need to address, or some accusations out there of environmental
13 issues and that kind of thing?
14 MS. MCGRATH: Well actually, Michael Vigliotta is here
15 because he did provide advice to the Planning Commission and we ' re
16 still comfortable with the position. Do you have something to add,
17 Michael?
18 MR. VIGLIOTTA: I don't have anything to add, I think we' re
19 comfortable with the legal position.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Great, thank you very much. I attended
21 the Planning Commission meeting for this project by chance and I just
22 want to clarify, it ' s interesting how it ' s been presented. There was
23 only four Planning Commissioners there that night, and there 's
24 actually a two-two tie, to move forward or to deny, and then
25 Chairwoman Mantini, out of an effort to just move forward, seeing
26 that this would come to us anyway, then switched her vote, so three-
27 one denial to come forward. Just to keep it ... it' s basically a tie.
28
63
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 It' s kind of old home week here, with former Mayor Grace
2 Winchell, one of my all-time favorites, then citizen-activist and now
3 former Mayor Debbie Cook in the back there, Room B8, Mike Adams was
4 Planning Director then, Jeff Oderman, who' s still the attorney for
5 the latest developer.
6 I was on staff actually, redevelopment staff, not planning,
7 don' t call me a planner, and I remember, we were pretty excited about
8 the project even though it was ... it remained to be seen. It was a 6-
9 Plex mann movie theater above Pepper' s Restaurant, a Mexican
10 restaurant with a Golden Bear night club, to bring back the Golden
11 Bear.
12 Johnny Rockets, which has come and gone, and gone over on
13 the Strand side, Blockbuster Movie Rental, when that was kind of new
14 and hip, you couldn't get to it just to run in and drop your video
15 off, unless you parked on PCH double, which is not a good idea.
16 HSS, which was the anchor tenant and has done great,
17 Huntington Surf and Sport, Aaron Pai and his staff do great work.
18 There was a big fountain, six, six and a half feet tall, so you
19 couldn' t see the doors, it cascaded down. They finally got rid of
20 that and put the statue of the Duke Kahanamoku and now the footprints
21 and handprints, and that' s a neat presentation they do every year
22 during the US Open of Surfing.
23 It' s a challenge, that was to become the first big spot as
24 we tried to do this visitor-serving commercial plan for Downtown
25 Huntington Beach. The idea was we had eight and a half miles then,
26 ten miles now of visitor-serving beach, but most people come for the
27 day, paid their $8, $10, $12 back then, buy a couple of hotdogs, a
28
64
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 couple of beverages and they leave. How do we capture and cover the
2 costs of maintaining the great beaches that we ' re lucky to have here,
3 and yet generate some income for the city as a whole?
4 We've slowly implemented of our plans since 1984, obviously
5 we have the Hyatt and the Hilton, which go a long way towards
6 producing almost $7 million in TOT, and in addition to people from
7 out of town paying that tax, most of us benefit, whether it's from a
8 non-profit fundraising event that we go to, weddings, lunches, don' t
9 want your in-laws staying with you, that' s a good place.
10 The hotels provide some great amenities . With Pacific City
11 and yet a third hotel at the Waterfront Resort, I think that 's all
12 great stuff in progress . I would agree with Ms . Cook, that this is a
13 bit of a lemon that the Daichendts, who bought it, I don' t know, a
14 decade - 12 years ago, something like that, have bought it, they
15 thought, with a great tenant movie theater, but see how the dynamics
16 of things change, right?
17 Now you have to have at least a 16-Plex theater with the
18 cascaded seats and movies starting basically every 15 minutes, so it
19 just doesn' t work. The theaters went away. They spent considerable
20 money and we haven' t had a chance to have an interest, and now most
21 of us toured recently. Grupo Gallegos did an impressive job of ... well
22 I guess the developer, did an impressive job of making these shell
23 for offices, spent a couple of million bucks and then Grupo Gallegos
24 came in and spent another couple of million dollars and have over 100
25 employees.
26 One of the challenges is how do we create this business-
27 serving commercial that ' s required by our Coastal Commission, and yet
28
65
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 our summer is about six to eight weeks long these days, as far as
2 kids being out of schools, the parents, people going to hotels . We' re
3 trying to get business conferences to come on a year-round basis, and
4 we need a certain amount of office components that can go to the
5 restaurants and the shops, make that work on a year-round basis,
6 because we don' t have high-density tall towers of residential, like
7 maybe Santa Monica or LA.
8 It' s always kind of a balancing act, and it' s interesting.
9 I used to live downtown, in Town Square, mixed-use projects for 15
10 years and you' re close to the action, and sometimes you' re too close
11 to the action. The folks that are here that are original owners tells
12 me there' s a love-hate relationship, that you love being by the
13 ocean, you bought there knowing it, and you haven' t moved or sold
14 even at the height of the market, a few years ago.
15 Understand we ' re all NIMBY' s to some extent, at least in
16 our own backyards . We have a couple of closed school sites now that
17 are looking to have single-family homes built in them, and the folks
18 are all up in arms . There are some single-family homes that have had
19 a community garden built next to them a year or two ago. "Oh my gosh,
20 are you kidding me?" It seems to me there' s almost nothing you can
21 build that doesn' t bother the folks that are next door.
22 The parking was addressed. This has been an ongoing thing
23 that ... we have 297 spaces and two levels below this, and I think it
24 was like 588 who were applied to this from the Main Street Promenade
25 for the movie theaters . That was part of the deal, redevelopment step
26 made to make this work. Now, they've got about half of those spaces
27 back to build and accommodate this phase.
28
66
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 One of the things we 've missed in downtown, in my opinion,
2 is we still don' t have enough great ocean view restaurants . I give
3 Tom credit, one of the best ones still is Spark. If you're near the
4 Hilton or Hyatt, you basically don't see the ... I mean you might see
5 the horizon view of the ocean but you don't see the pier, you don't
6 get those views .
7 I 'm looking for it hopefully, that this developer will
8 finally make that happen. A place that we all look forward to taken
9 advantage of. The sun goes down every single day last I checked, and
10 those sunsets over the pier will make that a strand that was another
11 thing they missed at the Shorebreak Hotel. Didn't take advantage of
12 that view in the sunset.
13 There ' s a couple of lights . Maybe I ' ll wait but I think
14 this is progress, again from what ... did the economics change over 25
15 years? When the time is appropriate, I ' ll make a motion.
16 MAYOR HANSEN: Thank you, Council Member Bohr. Council
17 Member Carchio?
18 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: I have to agree with Council Member
19 Bohr, that this is a real improvement in the area. Everybody, even
20 the folks sitting up there will agree that this space here is under-
21 utilized, and they can't be happy for what' s going on in that alley
22 around there. I had a business downtown, I know a lot of the people
23 that have businesses in that complex, and there ' s been problems in
24 that alley all along. There' s homeless people there, there ' s people
25 doing drugs there, a multitude of things that are going on.
26 The space is under-utilized. The project, every one of the
27 tenants that I 've checked with, that are in that building, think that
28
67
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
I this property owner is a good person, and he tries to make everybody
2 happy. I think, and I 'm pretty sure that he had meetings with all you
3 folks too.
4 AUDIENCE: No ! No.
5 FEMALE: He did not talk to us !
6 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Well then I guess I asked the wrong
7 question.
8 FEMALE: That whole project came to us on very short notice.
9 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Okay. Anyway, I 've checked with
10 most of the merchants in the Downtown area, and they are really happy
11 that this project is going to go forward, hopefully. It' s going to
12 increase business downtown, it' s going to increase our sales tax
13 revenue. The folks at Grupo Gallegos, I don't know if any of the
14 folks have had the opportunity to tour the Grupo Gallegos building,
15 but it' s just magnificent inside.
16 They treat their employees like very few companies do .
17 They've got a basketball court in there that 's as nice as the Staple
18 Center, they've got batting cages, they've got workout rooms, they've
19 got fitness centers and a lot of the employees bought homes here in
20 the Huntington Beach. They' re contributing, and as well as any of the
21 new tenants are going to contribute too.
22 If you have businesses and you have properties downtown,
23 it ' s going to increase your property, because a lot of the folks that
24 are going to be down there are going to be earning money, paying
25 more, we' ll get more sales tax revenues .
26 Then I heard one gentleman say that all the people don' t
27 like the building. I guess you' re just assuming that they're not
28
68
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 going to like the building. A lot of the people that I 've talked to
2 think it ' s a big improvement in the Downtown. They don' t like the
3 building the way it is now, but I think the building is going to be
4 hugely improved when this project is finished, if it gets approved
5 this evening.
6 I 'm really happy with what the applicant has done and has
7 showed us, and I ' ll be supporting the project.
8 MAYOR HANSEN: Mayor Pro Tem Dwyer.
9 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Yeah, I just hope that the maker of
10 the motion would accept the changes that the owners are willing to do
11 with the terracing. The applicant brought up something and I was
12 actually at the Planning Commission meeting and I thought it was a
13 bit of chaos, and from my understanding, I think the DRB meeting may
14 have been as well.
15 Because this now has to go through a process again, is
16 there a way ... I think the applicant talked about it actually being
17 done by Planning Director, or if it comes back to us, so that it
18 doesn't have to go through this chaos again.
19 For those of you that didn' t see it, we' re a seven-member
20 Planning Commission, two of them had to abstain, because of some
21 reason they were attached to the project or they'd taken donations,
22 one happened to be in a car accident so she wasn' t able to make it,
23 so we ended up with four Planning Commissioners, were actually at a
24 deadlock and then had to recess until they could decide how to
25 proceed.
26 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: And one resigned.
27
28
69
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Yeah, I guess that' s right, and one
2 Planning Commissioner resigned over it. I'd like to avoid all that.
3 What is the process from here, especially if we go with these new
4 drawings that do the layering.
5 MR. EDWARDS: Our current recommendation I think would
6 maintain and would be to ... since we' re changing the design elevations
7 and footprints somewhat, would be to go back to the Design Review
8 Board, with a focused review on these specific changes, with the
9 recommendation to the Director, for the final decision.
10 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Okay, and is that appealable to the
11 Planning Commission or appealable to us or at that point ... I don't
12 want to go through the whole ...
13 MR. HESS: I suppose if you eliminate the Design Review
14 Board recommendation, just say, "Subject to Director Approval, " then
15 it would not be appealable.
16 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Can it be appealable to us? I mean I
17 wouldn' t want to take our authority away, but I do want to try and
18 speed up the process .
19 MR. HESS: Yeah, I think if you send it back to DRB, then
20 that becomes discretionary, it comes back to me, that can be
21 appealed, but_ if you just state, "Staff Approval" then that' s not
22 appealable . If you want it to come back to you, then you would say,
23 "Design Review Board and back to the City Council. "
24 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Right.
25 MR. HESS: It' s your choice how you want the final
26 elevations to be reviewed.
27
28
70
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Yeah, I would think the Director at
2 this point, otherwise it' s just going to go through the whole chain
3 of events again.
4 MR. HESS: I do want to point out we just saw the plans
5 today for the first time, and the recommendations in the staff report
6 are up on the exhibit behind Council Member Boardman, and these
7 address many of the suggested changes, but not all of them. That ' s
8 what you want to consider when you make your motion.
9 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Did you wish to express the ones that
10 you have seen?
11 MR. EDWARDS: Well the primary design recommendations that
12 was different from what was recently submitted would be adjusting
13 massing on the east elevation facing Pier Colony, would include an
14 additional step-back on the fourth floor, as shown in the Recommended
15 Design Changes exhibit behind Council Member Boardman.
16 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: Well I guess that ' s for us to discuss .
17 I can't imagine that really affects it structurally, since the
18 staircase is right there.
19 MR. EDWARDS: The other somewhat major design change would
20 be staff' s recommendation regarding the variance to height. We are
21 asking or requesting a six foot reduction in what' s proposed.
22 MAYOR PRO TEM DWYER: I think we got that down, okay. Thank
23 you.
24 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Boardman?
25 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Thank you. I think in the Downtown
26 Specific Plan it says that 60o site coverage is allowed. Is that
27 right?
28
71
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. EDWARDS: That is correct.
2 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Okay, it seems to me this project
3 far exceeds that, so that's one issue I have with it. Tell me about
4 the loss of public open space as well . There was an issue brought up
5 about that. While I don' t think the open space is used very well, in
6 the original plan this was designed to be public open space, and is
7 that being mitigated or made up for in any way?
8 MR. HESS: When the Downtown Specific Plan had a
9 comprehensive of update in the last couple of years, it addressed
10 some of these issues, and Ethan is double-checking on the maximum
11 site coverage, to clarify, to answer your earlier question.
12 Also, it reduced the amount of public plaza area in each
13 one of the districts too, so it was a requirement to have a greater
14 area. This project is creating some carts and kiosks in the area, so
15 it' s complying with the new Specific Plan.
16 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: But we' re losing public open
17 space.
18 MR. HESS : Yes, you are reducing the amount of public open
19 space that was required under the former plan, with this plan. This
20 plan is consistent with the current Specific Plan, which had a
21 Program-Level EIR which looked at the difference between the old
22 Specific Plan and the new Specific Plan, and it addressed those
23 issues.
24 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: We' re being asked to approve a
25 height variance, there' s issues about the set-back from the property
26 line, the massing of the building on the site. If developers would
27 come to us with projects that complied with the Specific Plan, it
28
72
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 would be a lot easier for everyone, I think, personally. We have
2 Specific Plans, we have guidelines, we have rules to help developers
3 design projects that it would be difficult to object to.
4 This incredibly tall building next to an existing
5 residential building, I have a real problem with. I have a problem
6 with the height variance. I don't think that this building is
7 consistent with other projects downtown that are built adjacent to
8 residences . I think we have to be sensitive to the fact that there
9 are residences next door now, that people paid a premium for to have
10 a view, and this building is going to impact that.
11 I think views are important. The views of the residences,
12 the views of the public are important to me . I also have a concern
13 about the rooftop restaurant and the impacts of noise to the
14 residences . When the residents bought their condo, they bought the
15 condo knowing that there would be existing uses next door, knowing
16 there was a movie theater, knowing that HSS was there and shops were
17 along PCH. They did not anticipate losing their views because of an
18 expansion, and I 'm glad that Grupo Gallegos is here, I 'm glad that we
19 have tenants on the third floor of that building, but also I have
20 heard ample evidence tonight that that corridor is supposed to be 60
21 feet.
22 I 've heard it from a former mayor, I 've heard it from our
23 staff that the applicant came to us with 60 feet on their documents,
24 so I 'm concerned about the loss of the 20 feet there. For those
25 reasons, while I think that there ' s no doubt the building could be
26 improved and there' s space that' s not being utilized, I just can't
27 support this iteration of the building.
28
73
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 [APPLAUSE]
2 MR. HESS : Council Member Boardman, just for the record, I
3 want to clarify. The current Specific Plan does not have a maximum
4 site coverage. The previous Specific Plan had 600, the new Specific
5 Plan does not have a maximum site coverage, so I want to make that
6 clarification. Thank you.
7 COUNCIL MEMBER BOARDMAN: Thanks.
8 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Shaw.
9 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW: The first thing I 'd like to say is
10 that I believe that the developer, since he ' s taken over the
11 building, I believe that he really does get what we ' re trying to do
12 downtown and the kind of businesses and other things that will go
13 into this building. I think he understands what we' re trying to do
14 downtown and he ' s trying to do that, but on the other hand I also
15 think that there was adequate proof presented tonight that this was
16 indeed supposed to be a 60-foot corridor there.
17 I don' t know how the staircases got built with the 40-foot
18 distance, but the rest of the building has 60 feet, and for a
19 building that' s been so heavily publicly subsidized, I think that
20 instead of calling people NIMBY' s we should respect that there is a
21 public benefit to having that 60-feet corridor, that 60-feet view
22 corridor. There' s a public benefit to that and I think that the
23 developer could design this building in a way that would respect
24 that, would give him more office space, more restaurant space and
25 still make everyone happy.
26 I think that what ' s been done is it' s all been pushed to
27 the edges and pushed as far as it can go and pushed as high .as it can
28
74
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 go and see what happens and see if we would bring it down. We're not
2 really bringing it down, we' re probably going to approve it. I
3 however think that that building ... when I first moved downtown, when
4" I first moved into the downtown community and the business community,
5 I owned my business in Plaza Almeria, and I know some people disagree
6 with me, but I think that' s one of the best buildings downtown, Plaza
7 Almeria, and I was very happy with it.
8 I would walk down 3rd Street, I used to live on 3rd Street
9 in a little green house, I used to rent that little house there, and
10 I used to walk down through this view corridor and I used to think,
11 "This is such a great place ." I know no one hardly uses it, but I
12 love walking down this corridor to get to the beach, instead of
13 walking down Main Street.
14 It was a great place, it was a great way to go, however the
15 first thing I did when I saw that building was like, "This is a crap
16 building ! Whoever designed this should be thrown out! " None of the
17 businesses on this side are going to ever prosper.
18 I see the need to change the design of the building, but I
19 do not see the need to change the view corridor. I also do not see
20 the need to mass the building so heavily, to make it so tall, so
21 wide, I do not understand that.
22 For those reasons, I will be voting no on this project.
23 [APPLAUSE]
24 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Harper.
25 COUNCIL MEMBER HARPER: Thank you very much. I do appreciate
26 the background and the perspective that Council Member Bohr had
27 brought up, going back to the 180s . I was one of those kids at
28
75
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 Huntington Beach High School who came out to the Mann Theater and
2 really enjoyed what had been started in downtown, but quickly
3 recognized that some things weren't working as well as they may have
4 been thought in practice.
5 You used to be able to hear the Pepper' s Golden Bear from
6 right under the movie theater at some point, and that became a
7 difficulty of incompatible uses . That corridor did change
8 significantly, because as you pointed out, it had been intended as a
9 space where people would be able to go out to after a concert, or be
10 able to line up prior to a concert. You' ll still see some remnants of
11 the queuing areas, that you' ll see at the House of Blues or at other
12 concert venues that were setup there, ticket booths, etcetera.
13 At this point now, they' re out of date. The building' s been
14 around for over two decades at this point, and for a building so
15 large, so prominent and so central to the important commercial
16 district of the city, it seems very obvious that at this point of
17 maturation, that this is the time for revisions to be able to respond
18 to what the market is looking for.
19 I listen to how Councilman Shaw is acknowledging that there
20 are developments that are happening in downtown. I hear a lot of
21 people calling for differences allowing for the ability to be able to
22 have different tenants and things that have been done like at the
23 Strand attracting Innocean Media, as well as here at Pierside
24 Pavilion being able to attract Grupo Gallegos .
25 It creates a very different dynamic in downtown, in terms
26 of being able to attract professionals, which makes for a very
27 different mix. It makes for people who aren' t just coming in on the
28
76
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 weekends, or on the evenings, but people who see Huntington Beach as
2 not only a place where they might live, but definitely a place where
3 they work along during the day in the downtown, which is something
4 that' s very different then what we've seen in the past.
5 I see a lot of this as a move in terms of responding to
6 what the market is asking for. In terms of what the demands are for
7 this area, and for what a lot of people are indeed asking for, I
8 don't see this as different or out of character with many of the
9 other structures that are in the area. Whether it be the Ocean View
10 Promenade, whether it be the Strand, whether it be Plaza Almeria.
11 It' s certainly even Pier Colony itself.
12 Each are large structures, that have been planned out and
13 been able to be planned and put together accordingly. With those into
14 consideration, and a lot of the discussion, which I think is
15 appropriate for a project of this nature, I' ll be supporting this .
16 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Carchio
17 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: I just wanted to make two points .
18 One, I heard Council Member Shaw had mentioned Plaza Almeria and how
19 satisfied he was with that, well, Plaza Almeria took 15 years to
20 build. There was a lot of people that didn't like that project
21 either.
22 The other question was for Joe, if you don' t mind. In some
23 of the discussions that I had with some of the residents that lived
24 there, they were quite concerned about the patio at Black Bull. I
25 just thought that it would be appropriate for you to explain to the
26 folks who are listening about the project, about the changes that are
27 going to be made there.
28
77
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. DAICHENDT: Absolutely. During the three resident
2 meetings with Pier Colony, that was something that was voiced
3 multiple times about Black Bull. Black Bull had a rough start. They
4 had a rough start with the Police Chief, with the landlord and with
5 the neighbors .
6 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: And themselves .
7 MR. DAICHENDT: And themselves . It created a lot of
8 heartburn for everybody. Ultimately that is something that we worked
9 with in overtime. We were able to remedy that. I call the Black Bull
10 my black eye.
11 In light of all the positive items that we've brought
12 forward in Pierside, many people remember me by that one item. If we
13 look at the last year and a half, we've worked to meet with the Chief
14 every six months, to work with Black Bull as an operator. Then part
15 of this application, we took the outdoor dining, that' s against Pier
16 Colony and in this alley, and we' re now enclosing that, and removing
17 that outdoor establishment and all the noise and potential problems
18 that may come with that.
19 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: The other part that somebody had
20 brought up about the noise that may come from the rooftop restaurant.
21 I understand that in your standard lease, you have the ability to
22 remove that tenant or change their lease arrangements if they get a
23 numerous amounts of complaints . If you could just relate the
24 situation with Curves, maybe they could understand that.
25 MR. DAICHENDT: Absolutely. Quiet enjoyment is a paragraph
26 that exists in all our leases . What Council Member Carchio is
27 referencing, is when Curves was open, it' s a workout establishment
28
78
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
I about 1, 000 square feet, with 8 to 12 stations and music that plays .
2 It' s primarily women that attend and they go around and work out at
3 this facility.
4 It' s a rather docile use. Ultimately, we did receive noise
5 complaints from Pier Colony residents, and we ended up having to shut
6 down that operation. We struggle to find this quasi visitor-serving
7 commercial for that side, to be a good neighbor. It certainly doesn' t
8 work out on the economics .
9 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: The only way you' re going to know
10 this is if the residents voice their opposition to whoever is in
11 there, and if there' s noise and loud music, if they would let you
12 know.
13 MR. DAICHENDT : We intend to never have those complaints
14 come, because we would want to address that from the start.
15 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Right.
16 MR. DAICHENDT: We have three different sound studies going,
17 we have looked at sound baffling, angles at how the noise travels .
18 We' re working in every way, from the operator we choose to the
19 structure we build, to resolve sound from the start .
20 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: In other words, they have to let
21 you know, they have to be proactive and let you know that there' s a
22 problem and you' ll take care of the problem.
23 MR. DAICHENDT: If there' s a problem, we' ll resolve it .
24 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Okay, thank you.
25 MR. DAICHENDT: Thank you.
26 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Shaw.
27
28
79
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW: I just want to clarify something that
2 was said earlier by Council Member Carchio about Blair Farley
3 resigning because of this project.
4 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: I didn't say that, I said he
5 resigned.
6 COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW: He did not resign because of this
7 project he resigned to spend more time with his family and his job
8 which is the challenge that we all have. I just want to set the
9 record straight. [inaudible 02 : 26 : 151
10 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Harper, you want to take
11 exceptions [inaudible 02 :26 : 35] .
12 COUNCIL MEMEBR HARPER: I didn't approve of that.
13 MAYOR HANSEN: Okay.
14 COUNCIL MEMEBR HARPER: That was a member of the previous
15 Council.
16 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Member Bohr.
17 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: All right, let me take a shot at this .
18 Staff, if you've not had a chance to look at the suggested
19 modifications, the one through six, speak now or forever hold your
20 peace .
21 MR. EDWARDS: Yes, yes we have. We have some comments on a
22 few of them if you' d like to hear that.
23 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Okay.
24 MR. EDWARDS: On number one, after reviewing the plans,
25 staff is okay with number one suggested modification. Number two,
26 staff is okay with that suggested modification. Number three, staff
27 is also okay with that, however, if the Council supports the proposed
28
80
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 design as resubmitted today, we would request that this design be
2 approved today and not necessarily go back to DRB or back to the
3 Director for review and approval.
4 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Okay.
5 MR. EDWARDS : Number four, then the restaurant hours of
6 operation. We do not agree with number four. It' s inconsistent with
7 the City Council resolution, which requires restaurants to close with
8 alcohol to close at midnight. Additionally, we have a recommendation
9 from the Police Department to close the outdoor dining patio areas on
10 the second floor restaurant and rooftop deck at 10 PM.
11 Number five, the variance, we still maintain that the
12 height should be reduced to top of parapet at 62 feet. Additionally,
13 number six, the Pierside Pavilion cart program that was approved in
14 2010 has several conditions of approval that talk about location of
15 carts . This originally went to the Zoning Administrator. It was
16 appealed to Planning Commission and wound up at City Council on
17 appeal. Because of public safety, visibility, pedestrian circulation
18 issues, several customer queuing area, minimum areas around the carts
19 were required, as well as ten foot clear passage areas where
20 pedestrian access along the sidewalks and minimum separation between
21 . portable carts and any other obstruction as shown.
22 I haven' t reviewed the cart design with the new plans, but
23 I imagine with these same conditions as approved by you in 2010, it
24 would probably net six or eight carts or so, as opposed to 18 as
25 requested.
26 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Mr. Daichendt, if you please? Let ' s
27 start from the bottom, let ' s go with the carts .
28
81
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. DAICHENDT: Sure.
2 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Can you explain what' s on your
3 submitted plan from what we approved last?
4 MR. DAICHENDT: Absolutely. Currently, there' s four on Main
5 Street, and we' re requesting six. On PCH, I don' t know the exact
6 count. Exists to-date somewhere around eight to ten that go along
7 PCH, and we' re requesting something similar.
8 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: There' s a plan that they have that has
9 that count?
10 MR. DAICHENDT: It is . This plan behind you and the new site
11 plan remains the same on either option A or option B.
12 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: On the second?
13 MR. DAICHENDT : On the first or second.
14 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: I know at one point, it was a public
15 safety about squad cars driving by those see-through. Chief, are you
16 okay with this suggested modification or . . .
17 POLICE CHIEF: I will answer that question, but before that,
18 when you get to the part about the upstairs dining and restaurant
19 hours, I would appreciate the opportunity to talk about them.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: We can do them both right now.
21 POLICE CHIEF: Joe sent me the diagram today for the carts,
22 and I have my staff go out and look at that diagram. We thought that
23 diagram looked fine to us . I know Planning has a concern about the
24 ones along PCH being placed in such close proximity to the highway
25 for fear that somebody might step into traffic or something, but I
26 think, if I heard Joe correctly, there is some sort of a barrier or
27 something between the sidewalk and the traffic light.
28
82
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. DAICHENDT: There is a seat wall.
2 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Okay. Thank you. Let' s go back to
3 number four which is proposing to match the hours of the Spark
4 Restaurant which is 1: 00 AM closure dining patios and 1:30 AM closure
5 of restaurant. That' s open to the condos now, as it exist?
6 MR. DAICHENDT: You' re correct. Even though the new
7 restaurant will be in closer proximity, there will be additional
8 sound barriers and items to reckon with the sound or to eliminate it.
9 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Okay. Chief?
10 POLICE CHIEF: Joe and I talked about this situation as
11 well. I spent several months of my life and lost several years of
12 life going through the Downtown Specific Plan update and coming up
13 with all of the various rules that was adopted by the City Council. I
14 think they were well thought out.
15 One of them was dining until midnight. I think that makes
16 sense . I think, after midnight, I'm not sure how much dining goes on.
17 I think it' s more drinking and less dining. I think that' s why we pu:
18 the midnight in there. Joe and I talked a lot about the rooftop patio
19 because the Police Department in the original documentation we sent
20 over said no rooftop patio.
21 I think the rooftop patio is something that has a great
22 potential for problems with the neighbours, and your Downtown
23 Resolution for 3rd and 5th Street, which is immediately adjacent to
24 residential areas, instead of midnight, your resolution set the time
25 of closure at 10 o' clock which is why we thought 10 o' clock would
26 work when it' s immediately adjacent to residential.
27
28
83
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 I know there have been sound studies, but I don' t have a
2 lot of confidence in sound studies when it comes to noise made
3 outside because I think wind and a lot of other environmental factors
4 impact how noise travels . Another condition we had for the outside
5 dining was that there would be no entertainment or dancing and that.
6 alcohol could only be served in conjunction with food service. It
7 wouldn' t be an outside bar. It would be an outside dining area. Now,
8 all those are recommendations from the Police Department, but I know
9 Joe has some comments that he would like to share in regard to those
10 things as well.
11 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Tell me, have you had any of these
12 challenges with Sparks?
13 POLICE CHIEF: Sparks has been absolutely no problem for us,
14 but as you know, when you condition this, those conditions go with
15 the property and they become attached to whatever tenant happens to
16 be in the building. We' re talking about 2012 with this property owner
17 and the planned tenant he might bring in. Those conditions will be
18 there in 2015, 2020, and forever after no matter what property owner
19 and what tenant are there.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: I guess I'm open to . . . I think our
21 resolution was that if you had to come in and not have to come to
22 City Council and then fit the core that that' s what you do and you' re
23 next to 5th Street, I think this is a little different situation here
24 on PCH. I guess I'm open to some compromise, but I think that our
25 resolution, and it' s our privy to do so, should be amended in this
26 case. Mr. Daichendt?
27
28
84
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
I MR. DAICHENDT: If I could comment, Council Member Bohr, I
2 agree with the Chief. The sound study is I don' t believe are the best
3 thing to go by because they can' t really think through every
4 eventuality. That 's why the hours we' re requesting were aligned with
5 Spark because we think there are quality operators, my favourite
6 restaurant in Downtown.
7 Again, this restaurant will be in closer proximity. It will
8 have additional sound barriers that Spark does not have today. That
9 will not only help Spark, not that there' s an issue but certainly the
10 new restaurant location. We' re looking for a calibre or product that
11 goes a notch up on Spark. We want a synergistic benefit. Speaking
12 with Tom and Bill, the owners of Spark, we talked about the synergy
13 of one restaurant' s very successful and the other is not, there would
14 be benefit of overflow.
15 The hope is not to have Spark isolated out there and not
16 put a restaurant that' s uninhibited with more restrictions .
17 Certainly, we don' t expect the use those hours every night of the
18 year, but we certainly want to extend the operator the flexibility to
19 be as successful as they can.
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Okay. I guess the last one is the
21 height. Staff may have the pitch for what I believe wants 62 . You
22 want to justify your recommendation?
23 MR. DAICHENDT: Yes. The height' s important I think to the
24 overall design primarily. If we look at the current structure, the
25 building will be shorter than what exists today. I think the height
26 is necessary, one - for what the space will be on the inside, for the
27
28
85
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 tenants looking at Grupo Gallegos new office space, but also for the
2 proportion of the structures .
3 I do want to stress the building is not taller, ultimately
4 it' s shorter on the definition of height. The Specific Plan, on a
5 sloped roof takes a mean elevation, on a flat roof it goes to the
6 parapet, but if you were to take an actual measuring tape up, the new
7 building ends up shorter even with the additional six feet.
8 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: I apologize. I was coming up with my
9 great compromise on the hours and I missed your answer. Please
10 repeat.
11 MR. DAICHENDT: Let me just summarize this quicker. The
12 height we' re requesting on the new structure is ultimately shorter
13 than what exists today on the existing so the expansion will be
14 shorter. Even with the additional six feet that we' re requesting, on
15 what' s shown on the plans behind you. We think it' s important for the
16 inside of the space, the leasability, the look.
17 The fourth floor, it' s typical to have a four-floor
18 penthouse office space be that next level or higher calibre. I do
19 want to say there' s a Grupo Gallegos is indicating that they' re going
20 to take the entire third floor. They very well may take both floors .
21 Currently, John Gallegos, the founder, has his actual office on
22 Walnut. I think he' d like to have one facing the ocean.
23 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Do these floor plates still line up
24 from one building to the other if you' re at 62?
25 MR. DAICHENDT: I'm sorry. I'm missing a big point on that.
26 To build a new building core, we have to match floor plates . The
27 importance of that is that the elevator, the gurney-rated elevator
28
86
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 for fire access and to avoid the sloping that would make the project
2 an impossibility. We matched floor plates of the existing structure.
3 We build a new building core with tandem elevators that work in
4 concert and efficiently.
5 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Staffing rebuttals so to speak today?
6 MR. EDWARDS: No additional rebuttal. However, I believe
7 with staff' s recommendation that at 62 feet the floor plates would
8 match, would allow that internal circulation as required and help
9 reduce the overall height and some of the massing issues that have
10 been raised.
11 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Is it correct that the overall height
12 will be less than the existing building or is it just at the cupola,
13 at the corner? I'm actually asking you, Ethan.
14 MR. EDWARDS: Can you please repeat that?
15 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Is the proposed height as modified
16 here, less than the existing building or the tallest part of the
17 existing building? Is that correct?
18 MR. EDWARDS: I don' t know. I'm not sure, to be honest with
19 you.
20 MR. DAICHENDT: Councilman Bohr, I can answer that question.
21 Per the Downtown Specific Plan, the definition of height as we
22 measure sloped roof, it means meets the same height for this Specific
23 Plan. If you were to pull a measuring tape out, if you could for a
24 building that tall, the building will end up being shorter.
25 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Okay. All right, let me give this a
26 shot and see a staff of your following: Both City Clerk and now will
27 be closely and Scott and Ethan. If I were to make a motion staff
28
87
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 recommendation for approval with the modified design, suggested
2 modifications one, two, three, five and six, with four amended as
3 follows : propose that Sunday through Thursday, the patio closes at 11
4 and the restaurant closes at midnight, Friday and Saturday the patio
5 closes at midnight and the restaurant closes at 1 : 00 am and there' s a
6 one year review to City Council from the time they open to make sure
7 that we've got the right tenant, that' s doing the right job of
8 operating that in those hours, does that motion cover everything?
9 COUNCIL MEMBER DWYER: If I may? Staff actually recommended
10 on three that it be done tonight not that it go . . .
11 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Oh, You' re right. Yeah, that' s fine.
12 Sure.
13 MR. DAICHENDT : Thank you.
14 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Actually, they want to disapprove the
15 plan as submitted, and so three will be eliminated, correct?
16 MR. DAICHENDT: Correct.
17 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Is there anything else to add?
18 POLICE CHIEF: Would you consider the restriction on
19 entertainment on the patio and alcohol in conjunction with food
20 service or two recommendations that we had? Not the patio, but the
21 rooftop.
22 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: That there' s no entertainment or just
23 small food being served of food served at same . . . consistent?
24 POLICE CHIEF: No live entertainment or dancing, on the roof
25 and alcohol served only in conjunction with food service.
26 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: You want to speak, Mr. Daichendt?
27
28
88
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MR. DAICHENDT: Yes . The Chief and I spoke about this, and
2 I'm in agreement with the food being served with the alcohol. No
3 issue there for the type of operation that we want to bring. I would
4 ask that the entertainment be okay. It' s common for Spark to get a
5 wedding. These types of things now, if someone tries to do wedding on
6 a Saturday . . .
7 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: They have a guitar player every brunch
8 that we love. Can we get a little tighter on what entertainment is
9 for you, Chief?
10 MR. HESS : If I may I interrupt, Commissioner Bohr, there' s
11 no request for live entertainment with this application. It' s just
12 for alcohol sales .
13 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Does .that have to come in separately?
14 MR. HESS : Right. It'd had to come in separately.
15 Entertainment and dancing is a separate request. It wasn' t advertised
16 for tonight' s meeting.
17 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: All right. That' s my motion.
18 COUNCIL MEMBER CARCHIO: Could you read those hours of
19 operations?
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Sunday through Thursday, closing time
21 is midnight, patio can be open until 11 : 00 PM Friday and Saturday,
22 the patio can be open until 12 : 00 AM and then closing time is at 1 : 00
23 AM. One year review to the City Council from the time they open.
24 Which will probably be after they get an entertainment permit.
25 MAYOR HANSEN: I' ll second that.
26 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: The staff comfortable?
27
28
89
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
4
1 MR. HESS: Yeah. Again, just to clarify on the plans . You' re
2 approving the plans that were distributed tonight, the revisions to
3 the elevations?
4 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Right, correct.
5 MR. HESS: Just to clarify. Thank you.
6 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Madame City Clerk?
7 CITY CLERK FLYNN: [inaudible 02 : 44 : 15] verify was, I know
8 that you got the entertainment and dancing, what about the alcohol
9 only with food service, did that stay there or is that coming back?
10 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Yes, the alcohol I guess is moot . I'm
11 sorry. The entertainment is not a part of this at all, and, yes,
12 alcohol with food service was fine.
13 MAYOR HANSEN: It' s been moved and seconded. There are no
14 additional lights so let' s please vote.
15 CITY CLERK FLYNN: The motion passes five-two as amended.
16 Council Member Shaw and Boardman - No.
17 MAYOR HANSEN: Council Members, there' s sort of an add-on
18 item which is Item No. 19 on the Council agenda. It holds on to this
19 discussion and decision so . . .
20 COUNCIL MEMBER BOHR: Let' s talk it out. I motion to move
21 that forward.
22 MAYOR HANSEN: I just say we' ll move it forward without
23 objections, as long as there are no objections, we' ll move item
24 number 19 forward. Seeing none, we' ll take up item number 19.
25 MR. DAICHENDT: Thank you, members of the council.
26
27
28
90
City Council Meeting 1 09-17-12
1 MAYOR HANSEN: Motion to approve the recommended action for
2 19, seconded. Moved by Harper, seconded by Carchio. Any discussion? I
3 see none, please vote.
4 CITY CLERK FLYNN: Motion for item number 19 is passed five
5 to two. Shaw, Boardman - No.
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
91
City Council Meeting 109-17-12