Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
North of Pier Parking Structure - Bolsa Chica State Beach Ge
L� RH91-30 REQUE > FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION 1991 dLe.� ��- 1 'Date May 2$, Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Submitted by: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrat Prepared by: Robert J. Franz, Deputy City Administrator/Administrative Se c } Subject: Consideration of Alternative Uses for $10.2 Million in COP Funds now ed for the North of the Pier Parking Structure/Main-Pifer Redevelopment Project Area Consistent with Council Policy? [X] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Based on recent communication with the Public Works Department, the north of the pier parking structure is no longer needed to satisfy replacement parking requirements for the Pacific Coast Highway expansion. Approximately $10.2 million in Certificate of Participation (COP) debt proceeds are reserved for the north of the pier parking structure. RECOMMENDATION- 1. Cancel the north of the pier parking structure project. 2. Authorize the Director of Public Works to send a 30-day cancellation notice to International Parking Design Corporation, thereby canceling the $759,000 north of the pier parking structure design contract. i t^ applt,0 y Qa 14 -. a Uo4$`S� 3. Direct staff to fund the Pierside Restaurants projeI so'lely from redevelopment funds. 4. Direct staff to provide a citywide prioritized capital improvement list for City Council review by August 19, 1991. The CIP list will be used by Council to consider options and alternatives for allocation of the $10.2 million in COP proceeds. ANALYSIS: North of Pier Parking Structure Project: The Coastal Commission staff has indicated that the North of the Pier Parking Structure Project will no longer be necessary for mitigation of the 521 parking stalls to be removed from Pacific Coast Highway as a result of the widening project . This is because of the development of the 830 stall Main Promenade Parking Structure and the new parking lot to be constructed along the top of the bluffs between IIth Street and Golden West. This will gain an additional 300-550 stalls. The City contracted with International Parking Design (IPD) for the north of the pier parking structure. IPD has completed the conceptual design and was asked to delay development of the final plans. The city has spent approximately $125,000 thus far, of the $759,000 fee. There is a clause in the contract with IPD that would allow the City to cancel the project at this point, without penalty. That would leave approximately $634,000 unexpended. No 5/85 LQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Certificate of Participation Debt: The city issued $35.3 million in Certificates of Participation (COP) Debt in 1986 and 1989 for the purpose of building two parking structures in the downtown Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area, and to retire outstanding prior debt. The cost of the debt to the General Fund is as follows: General Fund Debt Issue Amount of Debt Cost Per Year 1986 COP Issue $20,000,000 $ 1,525,000 1989 COP Issue 15,300,000 ,1 07,E 000 Total: 135.3,00.000 S2.fiQO.QQQ The proceeds from the above described 1986 and 1988 COP debt were used for the following purposes: Allocation of Use of Proceeds Amount Annual Debt Service Comments Payoff Old Debt (Civic Center) $ 7,700,000 $ 854,000 Old Debt Service Main Promenade Pkg Structure 17,400,000 846,000 Increased Debt Service Unused Proceeds 10,200,000 900,000 Increased Debt Service Total: $35.300.000 $2.600.000 When the 1986 and 1989 COP Debt Issues were approved by the City Council, staff projected General Fund parking revenue that would be used in future years to offset the new General Fund annual debt service costs described above. As indicated above, of the $2.6 million annual debt service, $1,746,000 is increased costs. Parking revenues were projected to increase gradually and totally offset this new cost in the General Fund by the 1997/98. Attached to this report is the current updated parking revenue projections for the Main Promenade parking structure. That attachment shows that the portion of the new annual debt service cost that is related to the Main Promenade parking structure will require a General Fund subsidy through the year 1997/98. Parking revenues do not cover the $900,000 debt service for the remaining unused $10.2 million of unused proceeds. This $900,000 cost continues to be an annual General Fund expense. If the parking structure north of the pier is not constructed and, therefore, does not generate revenue to pay this $900,000 annual debt service, the cost will continue to be paid out of other General Revenue sources such as sales tax, property tax and utility tax. Funding Plan for Main-Pier Redevelopment Projects: The proposed downtown redevelopment projects identified as Abdelmuti Development Company and Pierside Restaurants will be funded with the remaining balance of Main-Pier Redevelopment funds. 2 9023r EQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION Abdelmuti Development Company will require $4,810,000 to cover the building construction loan of $3 million, potential business interruption losses of $1,560,000 and offsite improvements of $250,000. Sources of funds for the $4,810,000 include Main-Pier unencumbered funds of $1,530,000, redevelopment bond proceeds of $2,045,000 and payment by Robert J. Koury as land sales proceeds of $1,235,000. Pierside Restaurants will require $3,000,000 to cover underground parking costs. If Pierside Restaurants does not gain approval from the voters in November, the relocation and new construction of Maxwells and other improvements to Pier Plaza and the parking lots would also require an estimated $3,000,000. The source of funds is the repayment of the $3,000,000 Abdelmuti Development Company construction loan. Options for Use of $10.2 Million in COP Proceeds: The $10.2 million in unused COP proceeds is costing the General Fund $900,000 per year (see above analysis); therefore, any of the city's unfunded capital improvement projects could be eligible for consideration when allocating the $10.2 milion in unused COP proceeds if the north of the pier parking structure is not constructed. The most current citywide unfunded CIP list is from fiscal year 1989/90, and lists over $100 million in unfunded projects in priority order. Staff's recommendation is to update the unfunded CIP priority list by receiving input from all departments, and schedule a study session for City Council review of the priority list in late August. As the City Council may recall, the proposed budget for 1991/92 proposes a loan of up to $5 million of the unused $10.2 million of COP proceeds to the Library Service Fund for the library expansion project construction costs that will be incurred in 1991/92. This loan would then be repaid in 1992/93 by the issuance of new COP debt to repay the amount loaned from the prior COP debt. The library expansion project has been proposed and approved with new revenues to pay the increased debt service. These new revenues are intended to 1) pay interest on the amounts loaned from prior COP debt proceeds, and 2) pay increased debt service and other increased operating costs once the library expansion project is completed and new COPS are issued. If the City Council were to decide to utilize a portion of the $10.2 million of unused proceeds for permanent financing of the library expansion project, then the new revenues from the Library Project would be used to pay a portion of the $900,000 annual debt service on the unused proceeds. When the CIP priority list is reviewed in August, this option will be further reviewed and analyzed for the City Council. FUNDING SOURCE: . None required as a result of this action. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS• . Construct the north of the pier parking structure project as originally planned. MTUBAK/MJG:sd 3 9023r EXHIBIT I MAIN PROMENADE PARKING STRUCTURE CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS - SUMMARY (830 parking spaces) ANNUAL CUMULATIVE FISCAL REVENUE EXPENSE SURPLUS OR FUNDS YEAR TOTAL TOTAL DEFICIT AVAILABLE (NOTE 1) (NOTE 2) 1990/91 $45, 000 $929,000 -884, 000 -884, 000 1991/92 300,000 1, 011, 000 -711, 000 -1, 595, 000 1992/93 300,000 1, 017, 200 -717,200 -2 , 312,200 1993/94 375, 000 1, 023, 648 -648, 648 -2 , 960,848 1994/95 450, 000 1, 030, 354 -580, 354 -3, 541,202 1995/96 720, 000 1, 037, 328 -317,328 -3,858, 530 1996/97 900, 000 1,044,581 -144,581 -4, 003, 111 1997/98 1,260, 000 1, 052, 124 207,876 -3,795, 236 1998/99 1,470, 000 1, 059,969 410, 031 -3, 385, 205 1999/00 1,575,000 1, 068, 128 506,872 -2 , 878, 333 2000/01 1, 800, 000 1, 076, 613 723, 387 -2, 154,947 2001/02 1, 800, 000 1, 085,438 714,562 -1,440, 384 2002/03 1, 800, 000 1, 094, 615 705, 385 -735, 000 2003/04 2,250, 000 1, 104, 160 1, 145, 840 410, 840 2004/05 2, 250, 000 1, 114, 086 1, 135, 914 1,546, 754 2005/06 2,700, 000 1, 124,410 1, 575, 590 3 , 122, 344 2006/07 2,700, 000 1, 135, 146 1, 564,854 4, 687, 198 2007/08 3 , 150, 000 1, 146, 312 2, 003 , 688 6, 690,886 2008/09 3 , 150, 000 1, 157,925 1,992,075 8, 682 ,961 2009/10 3 , 150, 000 1, 170, 002 1, 979, 998 10, 662, 959 2010/11 3, 600, 000 1, 182, 562 2,417,438 13 , 080, 398 2011/12 3, 600, 000 1, 195, 624 2 ,404, 376 15, 484,774 2012/13 3, 600, 000 1,209,209 2, 390,791 17, 875,565 2013/14 4, 500, 000 1, 223, 337 3,276, 663 21, 152,227 2014/15 4, 500, 000 1, 238, 031 3 , 261, 969 24,414, 196 2015/16 5,400, 000 1,253 , 312 4, 146, 688 28, 560,884 2016/17 5, 400, 000 1, 269,205 4, 130, 795 32, 691, 680 2017/18 6, 300, 000 1, 285,733 5, 014, 267 37,705, 947 2018/19 6, 300, 000 1, 302, 922 4, 997, 078 42 , 703, 025 2019/20 6, 300, 000 1, 320,799 4,979,201 47, 682 ,226 NOTES: 1. SEE EXHIBIT II FOR REVENUE DETAILS 2. SEE EXHIBIT III FOR EXPENDITURE DETAILS EXHIBIT II MAIN PROMENADE PARKING STRUCTURE CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS - REVENUES (830 parking spaces) ANNUAL FISCAL PROJECTED AVERAGE PARKING YEAR OCCUPANCY FEE REVENUE (NOTE 1&2) 1990/91 $4 $45, 000 1991/92 25% 4 300, 000 1992/93 25% 4 300, 000 1993/94 25% 5 375, 000 1994/95 30% 5 450, 000 1995/96 40% 6 720, 000 1996/97 50% 6 900, 000 1997/98 60% 7 1,260, 000 1998/99 70% 7 1, 470, 000 1999/00 75% 7 1, 575, 000 2000/01 75% 8 1, 800, 000 2001/02 75% 8 1,800, 000 2002/03 75% 8 1,800, 000 2003/04 75% 10 2,250, 000 2004/05 75% 10 2,250, 000 2005/06 75% 12 2, 700, 000 2006/07 75% 12 2 , 700, 000 2007/08 75% 14 3, 150, 000 2008/09 75% 14 3 , 150, 000 2009/10 75% 14 3 , 150, 000 2010/11 75% 16 3, 600, 000 2011/12 75% 16 3 , 600, 000 2012/13 75% 16 3 , 600, 000 2013/14 75% 20 4, 500, 000 2014/15 75% 20 4, 500, 000 2015/16 75% 24 5,400, 000 2016/17 75% 24 5,400, 000 2017/18 75% 28 6, 300, 000 2018/19 75% 28 6, 300, 000 2019/20 75% 28 6, 300, 000 NOTES: 1. Parking fees are assumed to double every 10 years (fees have doubled every 6-7 years since 1968) 2 . Average fee equals the average revenue produced by each car based on hourly parking fees. EXHIBIT III MAIN PROMENADE PARKING STRUCTURE CASH FLOW PROJECTIONS - EXPENDITURES (830 parking spaces) FISCAL MAINT./ DEBT YEAR OPERATIONS SERVICE TOTAL 1990/91 $83, 000 $846, 000 $929, 000 1991/92 165, 000 $846, 000 1, 011, 000 1992/93 171,200 $846, 000 1, 017, 200 1993/94 177, 648 $846, 000 1, 023, 648 1994/95 184, 354 $846, 000 1, 030, 354 1995/96 191, 328 $846, 000 1, 037, 328 1996/97 198,581 $846, 000 1, 044, 581 1997/98 206, 124 $846, 000 1, 052 , 124 1998/99 213 ,969 $846, 000 1, 059, 969 1999/00 222 , 128 $846, 000 1, 068, 128 2000/01 230, 613 $846, 000 1, 076, 613 2001/02 239, 438 $846, 000 1, 085,438 2002/03 248, 615 $846, 000 1, 094, 615 2003/04 258, 160 $846, 000 1, 104, 160 2004/05 268, 086 $846, 000 1, 114, 086 2005/06 278,410 $846, 000 1, 124,410 2006/07 289, 146 $846, 000 1, 135, 146 2007/08 300, 312 $846, 000 1, 146, 312 2008/09 311,925 $846, 000 1, 157, 925 2009/10 324, 002 $846, 000 1, 170, 002 2010/11 336,562 $846, 000 1, 182 , 562 2011/12 349, 624 $846, 000 1, 195, 624 2012/13 363 , 209 $846, 000 1,209, 209 2013/14 377, 337 $846, 000 1,223 , 337 2014/15 392, 031 $846, 000 1,238, 031 2015/16 407, 312 $846, 000 1,253, 312 2016/17 423 , 205 $846, 000 1,269,205 2017/18 439,733 $846, 000 1,285,733 2018/19 456,922 $846, 000 1, 302, 922 2019/20 474,799 $846, 000 1, 320, 799 i DECLARATION OF APPRAISER Declarant is a real estate appraiser who has been appraising property in Southern California for more than 39 years . The work includes large amounts of lands directly abut- ting the ocean and its bays and harbors. He has been permitted to testify many times as an expert on property values in the Orange County Superior Court, and in other courts. A brief out- line of his experience is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" . Declarant has investigated and considered ocean front sales in this immediate vicinity and elswhere along the coast , and inland sales abutting the subject property and its vicinity in Huntington Beach. He has inspected the property from which rights are proposed to be acquired and the neighborhood of said property. He has investigated and considered the present and prospective uses, if any, for the interest in the property pro- posed to be acquired . He has examined and considered matters relating to title , as well as maps , diagrams , ordinances and other matters he considered relevant to the formation of opinions of use and value . He has made an appraisal of the property and opines that the value of the interest is $ 10, 000. 00. He has prepared the "Summary of the Basis for Ap- praisal Opinion" attached as Exhibit "B" . I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing i8 true and correct. Executed on February 26, 1986, at La Ca ada, California. /e — c4f- E. R. Metcalfe .r' E. R. METCALFE SUMMARY OF EXPERIENCE E. R. Metcalfe is an appraiser, valuation consultant, and investment and fi— nancial analyst, with offices in the La Canada area of Los Angeles. He has been engaged in valuations since 1946. His work covers much of the United States, although the largest portion of his activities is in the west— ern states. A native of Los Angeles, he received his education in the public schools there and at the University of California, Berkeley, where his major was Civil Engineering. His early work, before entering appraisal activities, was in engineering and construction. He served as an officer of the Corps of Engineers for more than three years of active duty and more than 14 years of reserve service. He has been permitted to testify as an expert on the valuation of real and personal property, businesses and stocks , goodwill, engineering matters, zoning issues, financial feasibility, operational and financial elements of airports, damages from various causes, and other subjects, on more than 200 occasions. He has also served under court appointment as appraiser, valuation advisor, survey officer, receiver of office building property, referee and umpire. Some of the courts have been the U.S. Tax Court in Philadelphia (with refer-ence to properties in the Wm. duPont Estate) and in Los Angeles (with reference to properties of Watson Land Company), the U.S. Court of Claims, the U.S. District or Bankruptcy Courts (Boise, Dallas, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco and Santa Barbara), the Ohio Court of Common Pleas (Cincinnati), the District Courts of Nevada in several counties, and the Superior Courts of California (in Alameda, Imperial, Kern , Los Angeles, Monterey, Orange, Placer, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Sonoma, Tulare and Ventura counties), as well as other forums. He has been very active in eminent domain matters for both condemnees and condemnors, and especially in larger matters (including a case which resulted in a jury verdict of $ 14,350,000 for property owned by the Walter E. Disney interests, which is believed to be one of the largest cases of record in the world until 1983). An engagement which was active from 1977 to 1980 was as consultant to, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Sunnyvale for their major central city project. A 1979 to 1980 assignment was for the Irwindale Redevelopment Agency in their acquisition of large areas of industrial property for redevelopment to newer forms of industrial usage and to business parks. E. R. Metcalfe Page 2 Summary of Experience A 1981 matter was the negotiated settlement in excess of $ 7,000,000 for 40 acres of land at McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas, the land being taken from the Estate of Howard R. Hughes, Jr. Some of his recent assignments, other than condemnation, include: the es— timation of damages to a major office building resulting from the breach by the City of Cincinnati of a contract to connect up the Formica Building to the Skywalk system; an estimate made for the State of California's Santa Monica Mountains Comprehensive Planning Commission of the damages for which the state and other public bodies would probably have been liable had they adopted a park plan for 208,000 acres of mountain lands. Others include acting as adviser to the court trustee in the 1980 sale for $ 12,000,000 cash of 2,700 acres in Orange County; adviser to the Bankruptcy Court in 1978 — 1981 'for the sale of a 10,000 acre ranch in California and Oregon and other properties in California totalling almost $ 20,000,000; and consultant regarding the financial damages to 27 schools of the San Diego Unified School District by reason of jet noises at Lindbergh International Airport. In 1982, he was involved in litigation concerning a large number of homes in the San Diego area damaged by land slides and in which the settlements and judgments totaled in excess of $ 10,000,000. Another 1982 project was a successful real property tax appeal in Los Angeles County involving more than $ 100,000,000 in assessed valuations for one owner. Others included valuation of Flying Tiger Lines world headquarters inside of Los Angeles International Airport; the valuation of about $ 40,000,000 worth of properties adjacent to the runways at McCarran International Airport, Las Vegas; and the negotiation of leases to E G & G, Inc., the contract operators of the Atomic Test Facilities, of $ 3,600,000 of improved aviation and industrial facilities at the same airport. His 1983 assignments included valuation of the Los Angeles Union Passenger Terminal in connection with its condemnation from the Santa Fe, Union Pacific and Southern Pacific railroads by the State of California and the City of Los Angeles. The verdict of the jury is believed to be the I argest such verdict in history. The verdict was returned in January, 1984, in the amount of $ 84,700,000. In addition , he is responsible for the , valuations of all real properties in the Estate of Howard Robard Hughes, Jr. in the states of Arizona, California and Nevada in connection with the United States Supreme Court case of "Texas versus California", and the negotiations with the state and federal taxing authorities. He is currently serving under court appointment as one of three disinterested appraisers evaluating a development corporation having a value of about $ 40,000,000 in the winding up of the corporation. E. R. Metcalfe Page 3 Summary of Experience Some of his 1984 (current) assignments include the valuation for the Coachella Valley Water District of much of the improved shoreline of the Salton Sea in connection with indundation claims, and also the valuation of about 650 acres under development in Palm Desert in connection with acquisition of a major flood control channel through the property; acting as a con sul tant to the City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power in the valuation aspects of their litigation involving the Mono Lake Basin; advising Home Savings & Loan of America in connection with the possible taking of one their offices in central Los Angeles for the Metro Rail project; advising the owners of the Agua Dulce Airport in connection with the pending acquisition of the facility by the Department of Aeronautics of the County of Los Angeles; valuation of the Spreckels Building and Theatre in downtown San Diego; valuation for the I.L.G.W.U. of their headquarters in Los Angeles; valuation of 32 homes for the San Bernardino County Flood Control District in connection with flood damage claims, etc. Mr . Metcalfe is a past member of 'such organizations as the Southland Water Committee; the Southern California Aviation Council , Inc. (the aviation advisory agency for the Southern California Association of Governments); the American Society of Appraisers, of which he was a founding charter member; the Association of Corporate Real Estate Executives; and others. He is currently a member of several organizations, including the National Association of Realtors, the Los Angeles Board of Realtors, the California Association of Realtors, the National Panel of Arbitrators of the American Arbitration Association, the Practicing Law Institute, the American Associ— ation of Airport Executives, and others. 06/84 SUMMARY OF THE BASIS FOR APPRAISAL OPINION REPORTED OWNER: Huntington Beach Company PROPERTY LOCATION: On or under the public beach , 82 ' southwest of Pacific Coast Highway and southeast of the Huntington Beach Pier . PROPERTY SIZE: The property is approximately 1 , 050 ' x 118' and 230 ' x 2501 , and has an estimated area of 181 , 400 square feet . PROPERTY INTEREST: The proposed acquisition is of the under- lying fee in land subject to an "easement for public , recreational , park and play- ground purposes and other uses appurtenant or incident thereto" as set forth in the deed dated January 15, 1932, and recorded as Document 3389 on February 15, 1932 at Book '532 , Page 437 , of the Official Records of Orange County. Oil and mineral rights are not affected by the proposed taking. PRESENT USE: No use is being made of the interest pro- posed to be acquired . HIGHEST AND BEST USE: No use other than speculation is available to the interest sought to be taken. DATE ACQUIRED: Prior to 1931 . No sale of the property or property interest proposed to be acquired was found to be relevant to current valuation. MARKET VALUE: of the required property interest proposed to be acquired is : $ 10 ,000 .00 SEVERANCE DAMAGES: There are to damages to the owners ' remaining property interest , which are comprised of oil and mineral rights . This summary is intended to be the basis of the amount offered as compensation and is presented in compliance with Federal and State law and has been derived from an appraisal prepared by E. R. Metcalfe which includes a consideration of supporting sales data and other documentation. Derivation of Values After Takings ( continued) SOUTH PORTION OF PROPERTY ---------------------------- E. Development Area, 1 . 62 acres or 70, 567 SF $ 4. 00 $ 282, 268 F. Recreational & Habitat 3. 98 ac. $ 2, 250 $ 8, 955 G. Open Space 33. 67 ac . $ 2, 250 $ 75 , 758 S. Total for South Portion $ 366, 981 Grand Total , After $ 726, 371 Rounded to $ 725,000 AC62J301/FM CTL 0004779 05-24-85 8:49 PM 1985-86 CITY/DISTRICT PARCEL LIST PAGE -206 DISTRICT NUMBER: 054A HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP TRA NAME AINO ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TPA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE 024-261-16 WOOD, CRAIG L 024-261-23 HANKINS, FRANK W 024-271-04 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 04-001 616 20TH ST 04-001 1604 ACACIA AVE 04-035 PROPERTY TAX, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 P 0 BOX 7611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 024-261-17 DUCHENE, EUGENE J 024-261-24 CASA PLAYA 024-281-01 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 04-001 3682 AQUARIUS ST 04-001 P 0 BOX 6348 04-034 HUNTTHGTN BC}i, CAL 9' 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 ORANGE , CA 92667 024-261-18 BROWN, JAMES R 024-261-27 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 024-281-02 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 04-001 311 ATLANTA AVE 04-001 P 0 BOX 190 04-035 HUNTINGTH BCH, CAL 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 024-261-19 BROWN, JAMES R 024-261-28 AYRES* DONALD B 024-281-03 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 04-001 311 ATLANTA AVE 04-001 P 0 BOX A 04-034 HUNTINGTN BCH, CAL 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH* CA 92648 024-261-20 BROWN, JAMES R 024-271-01 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 024-281-04 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 04-001 311 ATLANTA AVE 04-035 PROPERTY TAX 04-034 PROPERTY TAX HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 P 0 BOX, 7611 P 0 �:0X 7611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 SAN FR"NCISCO, CA 94 024-261-21 ROSADO, EDITH 024-271-02 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 024-281-05 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 04-001 5931 ORANGE AVE 04-035 PROPERTY TAX 04-035 PROPERTY TAX CYPRESS, CA 90630 P 0 BOX. 7611 P 0 BOX, 7611 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 SAN FRANC,ISCO, CA 94120 024-261-22 HANKINS, FRANK W 024-271-03 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 024-281-10 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 04-001 16C4 ACACIA AVE 04-035 PROPERTY TAX 04-035 CITY HALL HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 P 0 BOX.. 7611 HUNTINGTN BCH, CAL 92646 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 AC62J301/FM CTL 0004780 05-24-85 8:49 PM 1985-86 CITY/DISTRICT PARCEL LIST PAGE .207 DISTRICT NUMBER: 054A HUNTINGTON BEACH CITY PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP PARCEL NO/ OWNERS ZIP TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TRA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE TPA NAME AND ADDRESS CODE 024-281-12 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 024-301-04 LA CUESTA TRACT 7596 024-301-11 SCHORR, HENRY D 04-034 PROPERTY TAX DIV 04-001 DRAWER A 04-001 20901 COASTVIEW LN 225 BUSH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94120 024-281-13 HUNTINGTON BEACH CO 024-301-05 CROWLEY, JANET T 024-301-12 HENDERSON, ROY M 04-035 PROPERTY TAX. DIV 04-001 20961 COASTVIEW LN 04-001 20895 COASTVIEW LN 225 BUSH ST HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 920•+8 SAN FPANCISCO, CA 94120 024-291-11 FIRST AMERICAN TRUST CO 024-301-06 SHAHANDEH, AMIR H TR 024-301-13 JOLLY, DAVID J 04-001 PACIFIC TRAILER PARE: 04-001 11582 ARROYO AVE 04-001 20891 COASTVIEW LN 80 HUNTINGTON ST SANTA ANA, CA 92705 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTN BCH, CAL 92648 024-291-12 SURFSIDE VILLAS 024-301-07 KING, JACK C 024-301-14 WEBER, ROBERT J 04-001 5150 OVERLAND AVE 04-001 20941 COASTVIEW LN 04-001 20892 COASTVIEW LN CULVER CITY, CA 90230 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTCN BEACH, CA 92648 024-301-01 WHITE, JAMES S 024-301-08 SMITH, STILSON H 024-301-15 LA CUESTA TRACT 7596 04-001 20981 COASTVIEW LN 04-001 20935 COASTVIEW LN 04-001 DRA11c"R A HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 -HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 94 024-301-02 DUDDRIDGE , DAN E 024-301-09 KIYAN, HIRO 024-301-16 RAY, DEBORAH A 04-001 20975 COASTVIEW LN 04-001 20931 COASTVIEW LN 04-001 20902 COASTVIEW LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTCN BEACH, CA 92648 024-301-03 KAZEMI, EBRAHIM 024-301-10 REEVES, BARBARA K 024-301-17 FISHER, DOROTHY H 04-001 1416 APPLECROSS LN 04-001 20905 COASTVIEW LN 04-001 20912 COASTVIEW LN HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 MINUTES Council Chamber, Civic Center Huntington Beach, California Monday, April 25, 1988 A tape recording of this meeting is on file in the City Clerk' s Office The Deputy City Clerk opened the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at 6 p.m. ROLL CALL Present : None Absent : Kelly, Green , Finley, Erskine , Mays , Winchell , Bannister Due to the lack of a quorum of the City Council , the Deputy City Clerk declared the meeting adjourned to 7 p.m. . Mayor Erskine called the adjourned regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach to order at 7 p.m. JOINT MEETING OF AGENCY/COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Mayor Erskine announced that a joint meeting of the Redevelopment Agency, City Council and the Planning Commission had been called. � J COUNCIL /AGENCY ROLL CALL Present: Kelly, Green , Finley, Erskine , Mays , Winchell , Bannister Absent: None PLANNINQ COMMISSION ROLL CALL Present : Livengood , Ortega, Higgins , Slates , Silva, Bourguignon Absent: Leipzig PROCLAMATION - APRIL 24-30 - "AMERICAN HOME WEEK Mayor/Chairman Erskine presented a proclamation designation April 24-30 as "American Home Week" to Jan Shomaker, President of the Huntington Beach/Foun- tain Valley Board of Realtors and Debbie Ewing, Chairman of the American Home Week program. to accept. PRESENTATION - $18 000 CHECK TO SEARCH & RESCUE EXPLORER POST # 63 FROM RAY GUY.._.=AC.T_ION_BOATS Ray Guy, representing Action Boats , presented a check in the amount of $18,000 to Huntington Beach Search & Rescue Explorer Post #563. G0 Page 2 - Council Minutes 4/25/88 PUBLIC COMMENTS Lynn .Scbaag, Chris Craig and Jo Christian Craig addressed Council and stated their opposition to the Downtown Village Concept Plan and Support Parking Plan and stated their concern that they would lose their homes through eminent domain proceedings . ajanne Easterling, President of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, stated her concern that the documents to be considered at this Council meeting were available only 72 hours before the Council meeting. She stated she believed the docu- ments should be available five working days prior to the meeting. She requested the items on the agenda be tabled, or deferred to a later date, or that the items be limited to discussion only. NWIJe—KQtscb, 6_qD _Beas_1U, _Roger_od n�, Kai Weisser and Steve Pezman addressed Council and stated their support of the proposed Surfing Museum. Ms . Kotsch referred to the preliminary site analysis for a surfing museum she received from the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Department. LUty Council ) BID AWARDED - $300 000 LIABILITY INSURANCE COVERAGE ACCEPTED - AERO TRAILER RELQCATI9�L7 WEST COAST TRAILER MOVERS The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from the Chief of Police regarding the need to relocate the heliport trailer to a new pad location at an acceptable cost. The City Administrator presented a staff report. Following discussion between Council and the Deputy City Attorney Folger, a motion was made by Bannister, seconded by Kelly, to accept the bid of $1 , 151 by West Coast Trailer Movers and mover' s $300,000 liability insurance coverage for heliport trailer relocation . The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays , Winchell , Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None Redevelopment Agens y_L AGENCY APPROVED DOWNTOWN VILLAGE CONCEPT PLAN & SUPPORT PARKING PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA - REPORT REQUESTED RE REMOTE PARK- ING SITES/SHUTTLE BUSES - REPORT REQUESTED RE INCREASE PARKING REOUIREMENTS FOR CONDQMINIUMS IN DOWNTOWN AREA The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Admini- strator/Community Development recommending Redevelopment Agency approval of the Downtown Village Concept and Support Parking Plan . The Chief Executive Officer presented a staff report. The Deputy City Administrator/Community Development reviewed the history of downtown redevelopment efforts and explained the Downtown Village Concept Plan and Support Parking Plan for the downtown area. w Page 3 - Council Minul - 4/25/88 Mike Adams , Planning Director, explained the difference between the 3DI Plan and the Downtown Village Concept Plan. Discussion was held regarding the use of shuttle buses between parking facili- ties and the beach and downtown area and the need for a transit facility for the Orange County Transit District. The closure of 5th Street, realignment of 6th Street and returning Main Street to a two-way street were discussed. Dis- cussion was held regarding density in the Downtown Specific Plan and parking needs for the Cultural Center. Agency member Winchell suggested that two parking spaces plus one-half space for guest parking for each condominium unit was more realistic for this area and requested an assessment of the matter. A motion was made by Kelly, seconded by Erskine, that the Agency approve the Downtown Village Concept Plan and Support Parking Plan for the Downtown Area. Agency member Mays requested that when the report previously requested for information regarding possible increase of parking spaces for condominiums was returned to Council that the report include the information relative to the impact on future projects and requested that current projects in the City be reviewed to see if it was necessary to increase such parking. Following discussion , the motion was amended to include identification of potential remote parking sites and shuttle system to support the Downtown Vil- lage Concept. The motion, as amended , carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green, Finley, Erskine, Mays , Winchell , Bannister NOES: None ABSENT: None i RECESS - RECONVENE The Mayor/Chairman called a recess of Council /Agency at 8:55 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:05 p.m. (City Council /Redevelopment Agency PIERSIDE_ VILLAGE PARTNER CHANGE The City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer informed Council /Agency that Stan Blum had bought out Bryant Morris and would be acquiring another partner for the development of Pierside Village. (City Council/Redevelo ment Agency) NORTH OF THE PIER PARKING STRUCTURE CON- CEPT DESIGN - APPROVED ALTERNATIVE "E" LEAVING THIRD LEVEL AS AN OPTION BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH The Deputy City Clerk presented a communication from the Deputy City Admini- strator/Community Development requesting Council /Agency direction to prepare an application for a public parking structure north of the pier. Mike Adams, Planning Director, presented a staff report utilizing wall maps that illustrated alternative designs for the parking structure. by M Page 4 - Council Minutes 4/25/88 Following discussion, a motion was made by Mays , seconded by Kelly, to approve Alternative E with 850 parking spaces (includes overlay amendments).. and approving the surf museum. The motion failed by the following roll call tie vote: AYES: Kelly, Bannister, Mays NOES: Green, Finley, Winchell ABSTAIN: Erskine ABSENT: None A motion was made by Bannister, seconded by Kelly, to continue consideration of the north of the pier parking structure concept design at Bolsa Chica State Beach to May 16, 1988, The motion carried by the following roll call vote: Following discussion, the motion to continue was withdrawn. A motion was made by Bannister, seconded by Finley, to approve Alternative E leaving the third level as an option. The motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Kelly, Green , Finley, Mays , Bannister NOES: Winchell ABSTAIN: Erskine ABSENT: None AQURN_PLANNING C21R=N The Planning Commission adjourned to 6 p.m. , Monday, May 2, 1988 to meet jointly with the City Council . AUJQUg EE--: MUNCIL.IBEDEVELOPMENT AGENCY The Mayor/Chairman adjourned the regular meeting of the City Council and the regular meeting of the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach to 5:30 p.m, , Monday, May 2, 1988 1n Room B-8 in the Civic Center. Alicia M. Wentworth Clerk of the Redevelopment Agency and City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: BY Deputy City" ity lerk/ pu erk Alicia M. Wentworth City Clerk/Clerk Ul,MOor/Chai I rman Deputy City Clerk/Deputy Clerk 43 ST FOR CITY C( JNCIL/ ►�� T ApY�OVEDS PMENT A ENCY ACTION �,rY,oy�wwt Date Aril 25. 19RA Submtted Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, City Administrator/Executive Director Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Communit Development Subject: NORTH OF THE PIER PARKING STRUCTURE CONCEPT DESIGN - BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH Consistent with Council Policy? ( ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Staff is seeking City Council/Agency direction to prepare an application for a public parking structure north of the pier. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council/Agency direct staff to prepare an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a north of the pier parking structure, to include a combination of surface parking a surf museum building and a passive park over a parking structure. ANALYSIS• On December 1, 1987, the California State Parks and Recreation Commission approved the city' s proposed amendment to the general plan for Bolsa Chica State Beach with modifications to the commercialization of the area. Following the State Commission' s action, staff began exploring alternative design solutions to mitigate the loss of on-street beach related parking due to current development activity and the widening of Pacific Coast Highway. On February 29, 1988, staff reviewed 15 alternative parking layouts for the Agency, each of which complied with the intent of the State Parks and Recreation Commission action. After review by the Agency, these alternatives were reduced to three for further consideration. (Alternatives A, B, & D) . Staff also introduced at the meeting of March 21, 1988 a new alternative (C) which proposed an extension of the linear park through the project area. PIO 4/84 The need for additional parking north of the pier has been identified for sometime. The north of the pier parking facility presently provides only 315 spaces. With the anticipated increase in popularity of this portion of the public beach and the downtown area, more public parking is necessary. However, although the need for parking is increasing, the supply of available parking is being reduced. The Pacific Coast Highway widening project will displace 300 on street parking spaces which must be replaced on a one for one basis . New residential development in the Townlot area adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway is also displacing beach parking from formerly vacant lots. These lots could accomodate approximately 800 parking spaces. These displaced parking spaces, in addition to the 315 spaces currently on the project site, indicate a present need for approximately 1,400 beach related parking spaces between Main Street and Goldenwest Street. In proposing a parking structure on the north side of the pier, staff has attempted to provide replacement for existing public parking which will and has been lost by various projects . The proposed parking structures may only accomodate a portion of the lost parking space, therefore, staff will continue to investigate the feasibility of developing surface parking on the oil service road between Eleventh Street and Goldenwest and on the bluff top area north of Goldenwest Street. Combined, these areas could contribute 500-600 additional parking spaces. Planning efforts for the Downtown Area of Huntington Beach have resulted in the identification of optional parking locations inland of Pacific Coast Highway. Parking facilities, including a parking structure in conjunction with retail development, is proposed to be located on Fifth Street, south of Orange Avenue, and on Third Street, south of Olive Avenue. The structure is planned to provide 800-1000 parking spaces and the parking facilities south of Orange will provide from 200-1000 spaces depending on project scope. It is conceivable that a percentage of spaces in these facilities could be utilized by beach goers. The inland location of the structures, however, is not conducive to beach-goer usage and may conflict with additional commercial parking demands. There are four other inland locations where parking structures could be sited. One site is on the southeast side of Lake Street. This site presently provides 296 parking spaces. As with the previous parking structure locations, however, this site is too remote to provide replacement parking between Goldenwest Street and the pier. Three additional alternative parking structure locations would be within Visitor-Serving Commercial nodes within the first block of Pacific Coast Highway as identified by the Downtown Specific Plan. Those sites are located between Goldenwest and 21st Streets, between 18th and 16th Streets, and between 9th and 8th Streets . RCA - 4/25/88 -2- (0191d) The alternatives presented on March 21, 1988 represented different approaches to solving the need for additional beach related public parking. At Agency direction, various aspects of each of the proposals have been combined to form a new alternative. This composite approach provides for an extension of the linear blufftop park area with additional landscaping fronting both Pacific Coast Highway and the ocean side of the structure. Surface parking combined with two levels of subterranean parking will provide an approximate total of 850 spaces. This alternative also accommodates the proposed surf museum and allows additional public open space in accordance with council direction. FUNDING SOURCE: There are several potential sources of funds for the construction of the north side parking structure. The sources of funding will be identified and recommended at the time of project entitlement. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Direct staff to explore other alternative design solutions. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Alternative design "E" for the north side parking structure. PEC/DLB/MA/SRH:kla RCA - 4/25/88 (0191d) 1 C ! 1 C C J I 11 T. 11 1 — ri 11ii�i�d VU l-elk 6 7ur p �V a d9 0 �ddvlJu;IVJJ�IJ t 1 'JUU ' � �� �•� 1 J�I�+�$tl` iu u�Vie J I [ �'19�8�9�U� f��9�� u:II�J�7Ju5��a � I r � �' �,�., ;j l___� a E A r 11 A C C E S S R o 1 U it, - t:hl f SITE_ PLAN NOk I tISIDE C0NCEPIL,I Al TI RNAIIVES E 110, Cltv of Ii ,skmd nn B=r- N rftr<e1t Sllrrr R:Lskmd iolal E..115 -15 V,-a of P,vk 30,-M SI LIP] March In, M8 Arcs of ee,�,nu If ' .�� .` ' .' 'L ^� . ' . . r . ' � / � � | ` ^ � ! --��-------'--- — — -------- � � ! � . ' | ` . �~~ | . |' | . / | Trm TflTuffn � LEVEL 14.5 PLAN Fl_r����j �� " � 4.0 m ~� NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES Client City of Huntington Beach Architect o/°~ m z.sk/"v *"u'""o. ,u"ne," March 30, 1988 .r +d+4•.un, .N'all.V.: ....w rx„ r LH r.. -. ,!'.`"f�_._1 - !n. ".lam.: j�`� "' bAGIKIG G�nST NIUHWa�' W4 Aizlc..l N G ��`�� �=vCs I SEC iloll's F-L-F—Z—I NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES Client City of Il1,nunglon Reech Architect Silver & TiskinJ Ardw-ts, Planners March 10, 1988 Page 2 - Counc !Agency Agenda - 4/25/88 E. (City Cou cil) ION Communication from Chief of Police regarding the need to relocate the heliport trailer to a new pad location at an acceptable cost . RA: Accept bid of $1 , 151 by west Coast Trailer Movers and mover ' s $300, 000 liability insurance coverage for heliport trailer relocation. 14 9 PIR O u -7 —O F. (Redevelopment Agency) STAU REPORT & RECQ MEPDATIONS REGARDING THE DOWNTOWN VILLAGE CONCEPT PLAN & SUPPORT PARKING PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA Communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Community Development recommending Redevelopment Agency approval of the Downtown Village concept and Support Parking Plan. RA: Staff recommends that the Agency approve the Downtown Village Concept Plan (Attachment #1) and Support Parking Plan (Attachments #3 & #4) for the Downtown Area . �� motion, at arn�rrd� mn a-mr-eve mempx Sir u � S�-vf c e C-o Vqrrovl ,'�rkin9 S� -S 7-D . garda �I /�t rt" r. U�lt1� �n�p�c� s p c ♦rlc/w r vt r-t t t /te a s P ro �� /ncr'eke 0, pArf1r1 rt r• aK aG reelew i�r f cor+ p J P1,e 6 0,,Amy p �. (City Council/RedevelenmCnt• Agency) NORTH OF THE PIER PARKING STRUCTURECONCEPT DESIGN - BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH Communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Community ?•S� - 9-Q s Development requesting Council/Agency direction to prepare an application for a public parking structure north of the pier . RA: Staff recommends that the City Council/Agency direct staff to prepare an application for a Conditional Use Permit for a north of the pier parking structure, to include a combination of surface parking and a passive park over a parking structure. Gyio>io�✓ ra i AWVe- i9AWMr/✓E 7 E' ,#R0A14 rD JP SPoc S -uLs� /LED 3 - 3-1 Frn/fy W1.*ell//- NQ,1(frSk�;,.e -ctbt�ain rXu1Cu� f ---- rI?Otivr► +V C 0>1ri r a e 41b .S/10 'rf— ZVI f flliP/1WA �01f0/1/ / 1Vt?etftr "E a ANo 1-1.4y, 3,1e �.�rEc .yf A.�/ 41�Tjey —,��s✓�� (ADJOURN PLANNING CONKISSION- 2 o �o(am,f ( /Crskin� -aisf��� CAD ,r- �v Mfee .)o,h r1V W,to »t i/ re X,.,twr pork 40. ADJOURNPI(ENT - Council/Agency to S- 30 p.m. RE: (Redevelopment Agency) Closed Session - Main-Pier Project Area (waterfront) (City Council) Study Session - Appeal to Planning Commission denial of ZC 87-16/ND 87-49 - Huntington Beach Co - NW Corner of Edwards/Garfield - Hearing closed on 3/21/88 and decision deferred to 6/20/88 ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, CITY CLERK (4/25/88) (2) REQUEST FO REDEVELOPMENT / aENCY ACTION ` n&�Iu31,:;�/f'� 7/ZJ PC March 21, 1988 61-119 h odlUv J0 rL,/'Date S t�%ul Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members �3 Submitted to: 'C ��� `�i���� / Paul E. Cook, Executive Director fV6 /v /oob -,a- v,c Submitted by: GtzGc ��l D Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Communit Prepared by: Development -� Subject: NORTH OF THE PIER PARKING STRUCTURE CONCEPT DESIGN - BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH Consistent with Council Policy? ( ] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE• Staff is seeking Agency direction in the preparation for the public parking structure north of the pier . RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Agency direct staff to prepare an application for a Conditional Use Permit on the north of the pier parking structure, to include a combination of surface parking and a passive park over a parking structure. ANALYSIS: On December 1, 1987, the California State Parks and Recreation Commission approved the city' s proposed amendment to the general plan for Bolsa Chica State Beach with modifications to the commercializ6tion of the area . Following the State Commission' s action, staff began exploring alternative design solutions to mitigate the loss of on-street beach related parking due to current development activity and the widening of Pacific Coast Highway. On February 29 , 1988 , staff reviewed 15 alternative parking layouts for the Agency, each of which complied with the intent of the State Parks and Recreation Commission action. After review by the Agency, these alternatives were reduced to three for further consideration. (Alternatives A, B, & D) . Staff has also introduced a new alternative (C) which proposes an extension of the linear park through the project area . P10/1/85 Four alternative designs have been prepared for Agency review. These include three basic alternative approaches . The first concept (Alternative A & B) would provide for all surface parking with no park area . The second approach (Alternative C) would introduce a continuation of the linear blufftop landscape area with a combination of surface and underground parking . The third concept would combine surface parking with a passive park area over a parking structure. Alternative A: Proposes approximately 330 surface parking spaces with landscaping approximately equal to that which is available today; however, no park area is proposed. Alternative B: Proposes approximately 430 surface parking spaces on three terraces with minimal landscaping, and no park area . Alternative C: Proposes approximately 570 parking spaces with two surface level terraces and one level below grade . This proposal introduces the concept of extending the linear blufftop landscape area toward the pier . Alternative D: Proposes approximately 925 parking spaces on three surface terraces with one and two levels below grade. This proposal will also allow for the development of an active or passive park area . All four alternatives propose direct access into the pier area and village at Main Street with the option of an interconnect on the surface or below grade to the proposed parking facilities north of the pier . In addition, all alternatives propose a grand stairway scheme to access the beach from Pacific Coast Highway. This stairway facility can also serve as an amphitheatre or other public gathering spots . All the alternatives can also accommodate a community facility structure of 8, 000 sq. ft . which could serve as a surf museum. These alternatives represent different approaches to solving the need for additional beach-related public parking . Many of the elements on these plans can be combined into other alternatives . Staff will be prepared at the meeting of March 21, 1988, to discuss these parking layout alternatives and make recommendations on the optimum proposal . FUNDING SOURCE: There are several potential sources of funds for the construction of the north side parking structure. The source of funding will be identified and recommended at the time of project entitlement . ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Direct staff to explore other alternative design solutions . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Alternative designs for the north side parking structure (to be forwarded under separate cover) . PEC/DLB/MA: kla RCA - 3/21/88 -2- (0191d) REQUEST FOP REDEVELOPMENT 'AGENCY ACTION March 21, 1988 Date Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted to: Paul E. Cook, Executive Director Submitted by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Communit Prepared by: Development Suti;^ct: NORTH OF THE PIER PARKING STRUCTURE CONCEPT DESIGN — BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH Consistent with Council Po!iev? [ ] Yes ( ) New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: STA=NT OF ISM: Staff is seeking Agency direction in the preparation for the public Larking structure north of the pier . RECOMMENDATIOP• Staff recommends that the Agency direct staff to prepare an application for a Conditional Use Permit on the north of the pier p.arkirg structure . to include a combination of surface park:..^.g and a :)ass * -.--- park over a parking structure. A,ALYSIS: Or. December 1 , 1987, the California State Parks and Recreation Cort.^tission approved the city' s proposed amendment to the general plan for Bolsa Chica State Beach with modifications to the cornmercialization of the area . Following the State Commission' s action, staff began exploring alternative design solutions to mitigate the loss of on-street beach related parking due to current development activity and the widening of Pacific Coast Highway. On February 29 , 1988, staff reviewed 15 alternative parking layouts for the Agency, each of which complied with the intent of the State Parks and Recreation Commission action. After review by the Agency, these alternatives were reduced to three for further consideration. (alternatives A, B, & D) . Staff has also introduced a new alternative (C) which proposes an extension of the linear park through the project area . P10/i/es The need for additional parking north of the pier has been identified for sometime. The north of the pier parking facility presently provides only 315 spaces. With the anticipated increase in popularity of this portion of the public beach and the downtown area, more public parking is necessary. However, although the need for parking is increasing, the supply of available parking is being reduced. The Pacific Coast Highway widening project will displace 300 on street parking spaces which must be replaced on a one for one basis . New residential development in the Townlot area adjacent to Pacific Coast Highway is also displacing beach parking from formerly vacant lots . These lots could accomodate approximately 800 parking spaces . These displaced parking spaces, in addition with the 315 spaces currently on the project site, indicate a present need for approximately 1,400 beach related parking spaces between Main Street and Goldenwest Street . In proposing a parking structure on the north side of the pier, staff has attempted to provide replacement for existing public parking which will and have been lost by various projects . The proposed parking structures may only accomodate a portion of the lost parking space, therefore, staff will continue to investigate the feasibility of developing surface parking on the oil service between Eleventh Street and Goldenwest and on the bluff top area north of Goldenwest Street . Combined, these areas could contribute 500-600 additional parking spaces . Planning efforts for the Downtown Area of Huntington Beach have resulted in the identification of optional parking structure locations inland of Pacific Coast Highway. Downtown parking structures are proposed to be locate don Fifth Street south of Orange Avenue and on Third Street, south of Olive Avenue . Each structure is planned to provide 600-1000 parking spaces . It is conceivable that a percentage of spaces in these structures could be utilized by beach goers . The inland location of the, structures , however , is not conducive to beach-goer usege and may conflict with additional commercial parking demands . There are four other inland locations where parking structures could be sited . One site is on the southeast side of Lake Street . This site presently provides 296 parking spaces . As with the previous parking structure locations, however, this site is too remote to provide replacement parking between Goldenwest Street and the pier . Three additional alternative parking structure locations would be within Visitor-Serving Commercial nodes within the firtst block of Pacific Coast Highway as identified by the Downtown Specific Plan. As indicated on the attached map, those sites are located between Goldenwest and 21st Streets , between 18th and 16th Streets , and between 9th and 8th Streets . These properties are priveately owned, however, and are probable prohibitively expensive Adjacent property owners have also protested the use of these properties for beach parking due to concerns about noise and vandalism. Parking structures in these locations would also exacerbate problems with pedestrians crossing a widened Pacific Coast Highway. Four alternative designs have been prepared for Agency review. These include three basic alternative approaches . The first concept RCA - 3/21/88 -2- (0191d) (Alternative A & B) would provide for all surface parking with no park area . The second approach (Alternative C) would introduce a continuation of the linear blufftop landscape area with a combination of surface and underground parking. The third concept would combine surface parking with a passive park area over a parking structure. Alternative A: Proposes approximately 330 surface parking spaces with landscaping approximately equal to that which is available today; however, no park area is proposed . Alternative B: Proposes approximately 430 surface parking spaces on three terraces with minimal landscaping, and no park area . Alternative C: Proposes approximately 570 parking spaces with two surface level terraces and one level below grade. This proposal introduces the concept of extending the linear blufftop landscape area toward the pier . Alternative D: Proposes approximately 925 parking spaces on three surface terraces with one and two levels below grade. This proposal will also allow for the development of an active or passive park area . All four alternatives propose direct access into the pier area and v; llage at Main Street with the option of an interconnect on the surface o: Below grade to the proposed parking facilities north of the pier . In addition, all alternatives propose a grand stairway scheme to access the beach from Pacific Coast Highway. This stairway facility can also serve as an amphitheatre or other public gathering spots . All the alternatives can also accommodate a community facility structure of 8 , 000 sq . ft . which could serve as a surf museum. These alternatives represent different approaches to solving the need for additional beach-related public parking . Many of the elements on these plans can be combined into other alternatives . Staff will be prepared at the meeting of March 21, 1988 , to discuss these parking layout alternatives and make recommendations on the optimum proposal . FUNDING SOURCE: There are several potential sources of funds for the construction of the north side parking structure. The source of funding will be identified and recommended at the time of project entitlement . ALTERNATIVE ACTION• Direct staff to explore other alternative design solutions . ATTACHMENTS: 1 . Alternative designs for the north side parking structure. PEC/DLB/MA/SH: kla RCA - 3/21/88 -3- (0191d) i . •• —��*�- lii7li�fir�'rr�ir�'Iiri�iiiTi�����*���i1lil:yrl�lis�q;,��ri{;1 II 1111 �� `f' I. • rli?t"It 1 iit11,'j•"� ; i i�11111 Itll�lr!'� lil 1 I111 ! I Ili I � � ��® ,� l -- �i1 �o,Zii��i�;� ll.lt ' '. t�,�liiTT+�f `iTiITlliiil�i7Tr i !, IIIi � i ^�• o 1M Yr ------------- O > 1 A'i�'•�1�111",Ill�l1_�_��Il _ Il�irigt� ii illj �!"�19 � 1 1 I Ili ^ { / L�j sp Is Ps. • f N 1+� f f " 0 • • ate.��.�� .� J 1 SITE MAN t •�=M'J A1 NORitv;wr C(>NCEPI U,AI AL1iRNAIIVIS '�f/ Cl:.wl f�lr M IrNw+iw/,nw •...A ■rr A,,frt S�1•.+ L 7•+Nw• n.r An•,N, ►4wn.�" Imd G•{ Il0 1 w.Y• s1 P4 ..",sru.r+A It, /�111 Moo•1 tawl{fglwl {0,7M fI 1 i ifO iIr11IirIII11I 111 /IIli�rrlGrllr ,Irl I01011111111 11111111 �� t�Iti�trlrlr +In++r t� � I -_ �IEltl�i!tt11g+ IIIIEIItIIi' 1111 It � f" � JJJJ11l111!!11l111r I i IIIIIilllllllll �(,�. � I .� ilrllllilllJi 11111li11+(E \ 'rllrtll Tj i 1J111111111'tll11�1 Illillllll" ' Illilllillllllt nn ur . SITE PLAN • r r r NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL AtIFRNATIVFS 6 ' Cli.rrt C of • ArtMurt S11— L lkkind Althlitl., J •]L ►Isnntrt TOt�1 CNt A,** of Pork ]9.1,]11 Sf ►r•rrA 11, 1969 Ark• •1 t•wht•�iq ]S.]00 Sf 17 L i• ar �I' III .:;,. _ k• V -� �+'� ��!�ilif ,.,�ill, +tI I, I I ! ,�,��IUIIII�IVIlI fiEllglilllllill t II' II i IV �-�. d® ,r+a w• I I I 1NM br I� 1 '�I' s I! tl1 'Iillllllltlitlllliglq II 11 MA=A O if — 1 idl +Illllifllilllllllil{! II II Q O ' DYEN I c+ J • SITE PLAN E r NORTHSIDF CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES ' � (K.nt Ch► el NunUniren t.arA I A.rAtt.ct SIH•r 71r11n4 ArrMt.tta, ►lann.rf Total Kan f)i Mae of I., )•.7)f ff ".-Ol 11. love Ara•of tandacagfes � r----------'-----'-----'-------------�--------'----'-------------'--'----'--'--'---' I f V[VELvv PLAN � 'l��� l ' . - . 71 tra!tt^1!tt�►�at+aala�rlat� YJ' ;Ir1 till 111,1ria ;rilll{tls!111i lit it1111111 :�f�, K IIt11Agl1�' 11{ Igg1Q7=7-1111�11�', j (—' l rir{r{fir �, 1 ,• 1 SITE PLAN 1 • M r M i NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTIRNATIVES D C t:•n1 fhr n/�+un•:w•rnw ••aA �•.A.r•rf S11q• l 1•r1.wA ••r A•r.•H, �4nn•n Tell Cori S10 area of/.rL _ S1,T)S S) ►•.rrA 11, 1440 w.•a n11&w1.e*Pl.f . . $),ISO S< --'--------'----' :lq L - _ �r�^���_ --- -- - -----'---'-- ` LEVEL 14.5 pL*m ' U 11 MUM , -------'--'---' ' � | LEvELa5 pLmv | wonnmnE cn*(- /p/um A|UmwA//vn $."^ , i I I A I 4 YDyw�.ut 1 NORIIISIM CONC[PIOAL AtT[RN^1IV[S SECTIONS '+I A-Ana f-'v l ,. Crr� nl IIVnl.n�inw �.�.h � l •d..r t furl and •u A.r elu M�nn•.1 -ZJ 41�rtA 11, H�� r� .__... .._.--- _--� --- -- �..�.`r'._—_._•`__.__�._.��_�fir. -I/ot•1I14 GO+.Sf LM4H WA`( /ARK- �Rl TII�IG.11-{Q - -k==T!= 1 ` ie r a.l ! 3 � PY�!r►IL 40�.iT NI�NW�. mLi f D . NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES j SECTIONS r C1+•.r Chr Zoshin roe •oscA AuA4ea Silver L h1Y h1 McAir ecrr, ►lanne.r w�rcA 11. 1••• 1 March 11, 1984 Pies Side Development Huntington Beach SILVER i ZISRTND NORTUSIDR CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVBS - COST SUHKARY 1 A B C D Number of Care 770 426 S76 920 Cost of Parking Lot/Garage 1 600,000 1,200.000 4,285,000 11,000,000 Cost of Plata/Park 2 450,000 450,000 450,000 1,050,000 Cost of Surfing Museum 3 650,000 650,000 650,000 650,000 Cost of Landscaped Promenade - - 250,000 - Cost Per Car 1,620 2,620 7,440 11,950 1. Includes deceleration lanes, curb cuts, miscellaneous landscaping, drainage, ventil att_ —on (for enclosed conditions), lighting, vertical transportation, and public restrooms (e in Scheme 'A' which are existing to remain). 2. Includes Main Street entry drive and valet drop-off, hardscape plaza, planting, and stair. In Scheme 'D', also include volleyball oourts, •tapped seating, and bandsta — carousel. 1. Shell cost onlyi does not include interior partitioning, finiRhee, exhibits or mach ant cat system. Includes basic sprinkloring for atructure and code conforming restroomn. f .REQUEST FO: REDEVELOPMENT / ENCY ACTION APPROVED By CITI' CCaU~�NCIy 19 ate February 22 1988 CITY CLER Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redeve pmen embers Submitted by: Paul E. Cook, Executive Director ;6�� Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Develop Subject: NORTH OF THE PIER PARKING STRUCTURE CONCEPT DESIGN -BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH Consistent with Council Policy? DQ Yes [ ] New Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions, Attachments: Statement of Issue: Staff is seeking Agency direction in the preparation of a design concept for the public parking structure north of the pier. Recommendation: Staff recommends that the Agency direct staff to prepare an ap for a Co nal Use Permit onV th of the pier pa ture, to include a combina ian of surface parking and a passive par rking structure. �b�n�� Analysis: -1 u� , lV l� � cz�f.c�ri a � l -L -8 cl- On December 1, 1987, thetaltiornia State Parks and Recreation Commission approved the city's proposed amendment to the general plan for Bolsa Chica State Beach with modifications to the commercialization of the area. Following the State Commission's action, staff began exploring alternative design solutions to mitigate the loss of on-street beach related parking due to current development activity and the widening of Pacific Coast Highway. A number of alternative designs have been prepared for Agency review. These can be summarized in three basic alternative approaches. The first concept would provide for all surface parking with no park area and may or may not include a parking structure. The second approach would devote the entire surface area for park uses, all parking would be provided underground. The third, and staff recommended option, would combine surface parking with a passive park area over a parking structure. Staff will be prepared to review these alternatives with the Agency at the meeting of February 22, 1988. PI O/1/85 4 Funding Source: There are several potential sources of funds for the construction of the north side parking structure. The source of funding will be identified and recommended at the time of project entitlement. Alternative Action: Direct staff to explore other alternative design solutions. Attachments- 1. Alternative designs for the north side parking structure. PEC:DLB:MA/paj 3089a r o u u SECTION 7. � I II I .III it I '''Ilill111':l'j'I11;1I .II 1' '1 il 111 1: 1 i1ji 111111111111111 1 �li '•11,1 I�'j�ll I II �Ilii ,�1!1i111'111 '1 ',fl 'I;I,II Ij I �—�-��� ' I, 'I I'i' '!I•I r�"'`l1:��1111'!Illlj�'I', "!!II!!I {IIIIIllIi111111!II('.�'�'1, .� I Imo) L LEVEL 25 PLAN \ 0 60 U0 NO Project Limit NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES 1 -~ Area of Waterfront Park 10,00 S1 t Client City of Huntington Beach Total Cars 33 �r Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Approximate Cost s400,OC "• s1,ff Cost per Car December 25, 1987 ... 'tat e u u SECTION _�__-_- I! I I Illiillllllll III{fl II III 111111 — � ,Illlllllrlllil�l' I!.I'r�l•I'i!i�• .;i; III! ir' I�IIIIIIIII = ! '(�(+.'� �j i LEVEL 25 PLAN O I e •e 12e ue I r I.,i' �li'�)I��Illi Illilllll!,r II J 111111111111111 ! II 1 111111111.Irlll lrllflill 11111! 1 �, j II! 111 IIIII! IIIU I I!II I i II I nl ji111i111T11T11111T1 Q►{}{{{{}}{{{{{ii}j!?}?�}}}t}}{{}}fi}}{{}}{}}� - = �, } LEVEL 14.5 PLAN r I l ' .I I I III lii,l I•� �Illlllllllli III �I. t_ I 1 I II I lill I11 Illil!I I I 11,_!1i1111L1!1li�Jlll(� ll: I'' -Nfl lt}}{ ,— ---- � --\`� 'l'-i;liii�'' 1 ; I 1'�,'� I I��!�� 1 ?YTi�I ;�IT�TL I'I {I�i(Ililll111}{�}}I{11 I1i11114�NT'M LEVEL 5.5 PLAN I i k Project Limit NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES A 2 Client City o/ Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 54,000st. Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 789 Approximate Cost $6,000,000 December 25, 1987 Cost per Car $ 7,600, LL— SECTION -- ....� .. _ -� _ - ----- - .��; Q ,,,. •Kai.� � Ar � '��� � fi I; f ifi�f ff c Iilll ill Ifi fl Ililtllflil 1111 I i�l�i i fl fiil!i MTf I i I III JJJ r-n i L LEVEL 25 PLAN — 1 o aoluo Sao I ; t ��,__ I -•�T� ii,fii,ri fif�f ilf ilfil ii full+ __ �1�r;1,il;ri��inrrTil OiiiIIllIIIlilllilliNJlfIiIl!lIiIIlI{!!!f!D = �=°.�: ''` LEVEL 14.5 PLAN I.E ! it ,i ; t�LilItI1111fLLli111�- n IT}fI{ }f{}}}{}}}{{�I{�}{f�}f{}fI}I�f}f{++Iffl �I4}}}ffff�Ml } ----_-----�-__�/�J 11 Illu �1 ` I t l 11 l 1��11p �JTrUIF NPITJM �i�ll���rTliTl}�T14IH111 �i}111��IIiT��TTTIiO i LEVEL 5.5 PLAN i -- 1 i t . 1 i I Ilit ;I�i, _,J���i i �I�liii '•�i�.! �1 t__ i1i11 i li 1111�1 II!! Ili it lili 11 11111� illli I - 1 -, (11 lit lllllllllLII ii-III! �lil!!f(illill�ii�l�iIIt fli IIIIIIIIIR1 Irk}1-IfrMRIIH - ; �m�(11til,i�ii111ii_� �IIIIiII{ItII�IIIIIIII{4IIII�IIIIIIlI�I#{IIII� ' LEVEL -3.5 PLAN Project Limit NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES - ) D Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park" 54,OOOsf Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 1,22 Approximate Cost $9,400,00 December 25, 1987 Cost per Car S 7,70 �1 0 16 Sr SECTION �� ., '� �� �1,, _ ti CIF --._ � �. .rL.�.•.{ i LEVEL _25 PLAN 0 60 120 348 1 I i i 'l.�Il�Ill,il__, iI�,I� ,ll�llillll III _,J �li, 1 �' illlll 111 Ilil it „ I{ 11 II . Intl i� i , f LEVEL 14.5 PLAN I 1 I i i till 1 1 � I .II liltlt IVltlil III Ili III I illl Illliliilll �ti11I11tt;1 �tljll Chmr17MTITT11 r - LEVEL 5.5 PLAN i< project Limit i NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES .Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 112,0005f. Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 686 Approximate' Cost $6,400,000 December 25, 1987 Cost per Car $9,300 r 1 � ' ffff 1� SECTION r v N. r .1 LEVEL 25 PLAN i 0 60 t» 240 t i iI 1 I I VI i I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I f I I'l 11111111 i I I I I1 III (1�ll1 t1�111111t1 i1I I U I t I I I I I t I I I i I I I' 1 � _ ; . 1 r I LEVEL 14.5 PLAT � r , L-------------------------------------------------- I • _ � i � i 1 t = ��`� ��-Iffi�fl�ffffliif#f�l �4�ff�f}fE#ff-�4If�}�I ftffflff}}fN��}f� _ TrrTrztntm�r � HMI}fr�i�}}i�`flf�ff� ffi����lf�f-I-ff�ffff�fl ' + + 1F i LEVEL 5.5 PLAN ' 1 1 i i !++ + F t_ !Ili+ + I+++ ! !I 1 Itliiii 1 t t;l1, iii ir( l ;;{{ l j t p 1 i (1l11111ll1W III it11W11[? ill±iiFlil]iiiiiiiTiiillT} � IIIIIII Ii �i�II}}YII'l4iI �fIEf;1 .IL !!.1 T1TiTt 11111���tl �i�tiiti� ��T�I����fi����� i� I�� �� Jn l - Itill till I I 11M ME-11111111i LEVEL -3.5 PLAI Project timit 1 NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES �D Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 112,000sl Architect Silver At Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 1,10 Approximate Cost S 9,900,00 December 25,* 1987 Cost per Car i 9100 0- SECTION u 17 !=- LEVEL 25 PLAN 0 r0 130 t10 i -� I II t tit I lil �}!`lil llillllLli I11 BIJJIIJJJI11ii1}}}}flflil 11111IJillllllliii} 111 IMILILILL11lilill111 �. ��—"`�—'� Ill':1,111!tllL11111illilf (IlllLjtllil IIIIf - 1"I I r . LEVEL 14.5 PLAT` ..------------------------------------- -----a i 1 i ,I 11 III ill--j I M 11 Ill-wilt I,Illit 1.--i'M Ill 11111i Ill Illt II I11 I 1 MM IM 0 Miiii.11iII 11 III V1IIIMI}Ill}IHd1 III1dI}fi}II-1II-I �ii41il1f}IIIII}?I?i�' i fllllll}Iffll�illlIll ll4111IIiIIIIN}il1IlPill I LEVEL 5.5 PLAN i Project dimlt NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES 4A Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 100,000sf. Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Gars 799 Approximate Cost S 7,600,000 December 25, 1907 Cost per Car f 9,500 ems• � '`�►�` tat- El.•!5-�-- - �� 0 74 1J L_ y� SECTION At 4. LEVEL 25 PLAr •a ,re �w , t , r i Lt�u� It .__�ufl_�L� ►tt� �!}�{' I��I��#I��1��fll ;II��'11#Ill} #f}}I Lu�wiulu�w� -u� (IJlLttt litflitl�,h' +-�L illIttttllll„ilt1 �t i _ I LEVEL 14.5 PLf T ilLillIM4111,s J-1111 111111111111111111111 Min V111IM11111111111111 i; 111111 LEVEL 5.5 PLAN s i tt t { i t H ! !i _ t , 711 m ,!1111111111w,10 1i;1il .! mlilt _ � i 1 i r 11 1 I Hi ,I i 11 It l i i t til'11'I'tj LEVEL -3.5 PLAN t` r, : ,E ' •Protect limit NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES Client City of Huntington,Beach y,. Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners 4B Area of Waterfront.nark 100,000si. 6ecem6er 25, 1987 Total Cars 1,117 Approximate Cost $10,500,000 $ 9,400 cost per Car cost t Fl.S.S 'ask" SMIM 0 /6 $1 SECTION wn Hfli'4i.I 1 HimiirIT+ITi��� LEVEL 25 PLAN p 60 1" 264 i r . ••.itr'1t.�J{{t:rr{{till{{ .rryyilli,ririrll._,Jatllll}l 1 1 ( li.lrfrt}}tf•r�llr;if li 111 ill �11• irlr) ti �Q111-ffffil 1 Il iifi{filil {i ii{lit{;i{{{i� `��i�ii l{�{i{1Ti7i �ltilillili{Ifllilil�l N tll. ���t tI I,i >< 1 11 tiltItj! 11 W-t 1 ti 1111 11111l11111111llitl+� i I LEVEL 14.5 PLAN L`------------------ -- -- -- 1 i i�l �+- ,�E �i ql.Ir art rri r Iriil�rl.rl, �r it Irl }M111I{flliti;Tlilliflliil`11 9i��I'd;tl;l�ll1l iiikllli1lllilil�� P111i" 1T' r;t,f:fi�s lii{{{il{Si1f{f lilt 11� i LEVEL 5.5 PLAN 1 it �l i i i ti1-- --Project limit 1. NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES 5A .Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 10,000sf. Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total,Cars 1,010 Approximate Cost $6,900,000 December 2s, 1,987 cost per Car S 6,800 a_ smJ 0 it, u SECTION • - I I litil 1 H �I11 �Iflf�ll�llllllm lltllll� 1 111 4 - _- "WITH �tl ff}4f4all H�114H1 •;' LLiI LEVEL 25 PLAN 0 610 120 7.0 t , III I1111 J11,111MIM lilt IlitI II Ili lilt MlillljI11 11111 11jil III IliI 11 �� �i4}}}f}-}}}{�}�f}�}}}}}f}}}I f{f�}41{IIIIINiII �I�fu�flfflfH}�}� 11111JJIIIJJJ1111L1-I�.111111 �11.1.11ll1-+t1W1111J111.1.1.�J.L1,F+ It � . ' t t ------------- -------------------- ------- ---- ----- _ I LEVEL 14.5 PLAN f: i I I I I I IIIL-Jill II I IIII III III 111111111111I III I 111 1 a4�!}ffllflll�rtflN}If}f}I}I �f!��,IIIII}If�l� �}}��r}I�flf�f�}f� i ULLL I Imill LEVEL 5.5 PLAN i i i . i i II U I11 illIM 1111, i 1111ILiMi;l II III 11 I I I 1 III 111 , III I II iplHil I I I I I I 1 11114till I III'lilt 111111 �� IIII,IIIII I I .I. Ili �lil Jill i LEVEL - 3.5 PLAN ` Project limit I 1.. NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES �Y 58 j Client City of Huntington Beach Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Area of Waterfront Park 10,OOOst, tt Pl R.± Total Cars 1,315 AM Approximate Cost 59,100,000 December 25, 1987 Cost per Car S 6,900 o a st SECTION ' I IL L LEVEL 25 PLAN 0 60 1" 240 r'r I I i I I I 1 LEVEL 14.5 PLAN 1------------------------------------'------------ ---_--- II . i i i II I H11 HIM 11 M I lit 1i 1 11i I i �, �f}}}ff�ffff}}fff�}{I! Ori�fllllllf f}NI{fff! }ff�{}f�fffNl�� P}{f{ffff-�ff�4f�f�ffl� i �f����f���}ff}flF'�Ilfffffff4ffffNffffff{f�ffl��Hf�ff�fEfff�' LEVEL 5.5 PLAN i Project Umit I i I i • i I NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 140,OOOsf. Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 746 Approximate Cost $ 8,000,000 December 25, 1987 Cost per Car !.10,70a ♦S n ~ SECTION Of l- LEVEL 25 PLAN o w do :+o t i r r- Ql' lAM_1_�.wllw- w 114111HIIIIIHM 11 IMI-111011f111 jai►,uilia�Lu1�1T ��,` ��-�'- +-ram i 1�i�i i L j►I i i i►��{,!lJ.l1 i►llt1.!i 1�- U��..,�LLL�L11111111111.iJ , ; LEVEL 14.5 PLAN L-------------------------------------------------------------- ' i I LEVEL 5.5 PLAN i f ' 1 oflim M I LJ10111 ill I tillIl 1 li M lull!! III ii i 1 ( i till. - t i I i t lt till Imillillfr I i .i 1 I 1 Ititit 1 '' LEVEL -3.5 PLAN i 1 i NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES6B S Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 140,000sf. Architect Silver & tiskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 1,061 Approximate Cost f 10,200,000 December 25, 1987 !Cost per Car $9,600 0 t♦ fI .05 t� SECTION :44F "�'� �✓�\ L LEVEL 25 PLAN 0 w i!0 2" LEVEL 14.5 PLAN ------------------- --- - - -- ---- --=----- -------- 1 - Ili it1 11�,�lltlliii� 1� � �wa{4I�f1 j( iVi! it i� till jI ! 1 � tti��yt(i( iilil !I'�ii .� QLUU'1i11E_H.-11��t�- I �ltiIT�� ItlTi�� r�r�'sir 1T It{IH' ii13J; i: :.r� 1 ,{ ril{till ►!ti �ff LEVEL 5.5 PLAN r t-------Proiect tImlt NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES _ 7A .Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 140,00W�°� Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total CAts 602 Approximate Cost t 71,100,000 December 25, 1987 Cost per Car # 11,800 SECTION 1 1 �,3f-_�-..- +��? ��lye y'�� .tk.� Ct)r�.,. �� •��l'� 1 ) LEVEL 15 PLAN i11���i n �111 a 111 ) i))o rir11111 I t i u i i'l i 11 atill M w l 1111111 Ill it 111rr w il• fl f m"Ill Ill 11111111111E111111(If M 111Illfill 1112 ------------ i LEVEL 14.5 PLAN L--------------------------------------- i h i li: 1 111 i1M111111 Il"li:14111'Iq--J sir 11f i1111_li 1 11' llfitit11 1111-11ih 1f11 ►1111 _ 1;11i ll [ i.1.1 , 11 1 �, �,-._,�v l � I��i :111�jifil ti it♦iTiliiTllTtiiTlti�� [l11 ii� �! ' Hit i1 11 i LEVEL 5.5 PLAN i i i i i11)n;11 i��,,_�1 II,Iil1111�1,:.�.1„n,;�_.�I.,,.Ils,�11tt1 Ir..1111�1111�(Iiin1ltnt,i�tll;ig11t11i1 1 " - 1 �f 111 ii t11+ 1 ti! 1 111 { Nlil.1`I tti-" til ZL11.-i 1111�r_l i+ } i 1 } 111 �,-_ ._ }11}11f4}#1111i,1,4 'L!,l14;ii, �aiiltilt ii 3 �TiiTTTTTTTTiTiTi� ��1 1 TI1i.1Ti1111Ti.1 ►i i ili) 1 l LEVEL 3.5 PLAN „r t n 1111 -- 11n11r 11u1 ,� 11 1 ,111. ; � � i . NORTHSI©E CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES7B Client City of Huntington Beach Area of WAtetft9nt Pate 140,000f. Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 1,04 Approximate Cost S 10,600.000 December 2S, 1987 Cost per Car S 10.300 ' � SECTION LEVEL 25 PLAN o w ,1lfa aw 1 , _. I i' 1 1111 II I 1 III r I lllLttll�ll��ui�:lUi�tD #� #"III#illi(lillllill# #I��"#IIII!1#;#�#� Ulil1i11J11i1tIJlil�Ul1::J ••``�- ��_- __--�. 3111ttlilllllllll;if:f:r1 IIiII111ii111111t11 LEVEL 14.5 PLAN --------------------------- --------------------------------------- i i 1;1' rrli .ill's";f,,i'Ill pp� 1 fl 11 f'itil,r l,l1r•+i1 I U rT -ri T. � i ..: ii ;:;..:,f1i► � i '1 1, ! f! ((f( � �t L '1 {i!l111k i� i►If1 t • ,�!;I�I+�f. 1 i!I' �r�1�r� ��, r ,i�f�lll���llll!�• I+�ti {11111111� �',.If��iill1I1�11�{�.r; i I .,�,t�'�4'���i�,��,,tlfilr��i�.;+►�I�iilfrl�l��tIl'f'�!I►l�lllllllll�ill`�'; { LEVEL 5,5 PLAN rolect limit ! NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES 8A City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 116,000st. Architect Silver & 2.fskind Architects, Planners Total Cars llas' • Approximate Cost $7,500,000 December 25, 1987 Cost per Car $9,300 • R Al dr. SECTION --_----------_——--- ---_- -------__----__- - - --_-- - - i -ZT. iF1 �IIIII t i II111 T'° �.-�• \_-'-t}''` � . 't L LEVEL 25 PLAN . 1 0 60 t)o ) 0 ANA W. r- Jill millIll[mmillil11 I I I II III 11 11 1 �ilI LlILIIII1ll111W}1I11 }}�II�IIIf�f}}f fllif f If! If}}11 1111LWW11W1Wj1L W1 4 pllllljlllljl111111111t1� �rl1t111111111{111 11 ' LEVEL 14.5 PLAN --------------------------------------------------------- i i i Illlt it l_i I II II 11,11 111 I I III II I 1 I 1 I I I III 1 I 1 i LEVEL 5.5 PLAN II 11 II I 'if! 1 ; I 1 i .. „{flliilll__lillll I,III Illli,lli Ill+i— +���il,; I!Illlllll;tll,tl!I:lil„I+,�IIIII�+I.,1:' �++ 11 _ 1 . •�'i 1'I' i!1' ill!' .p 'i 'I'I,,,I• ! II I!�I' •II I• •,• 1• II;,I!; 1111 1 • t 1 .t, Y , 1 • �� ,11 it II11111.,+. t•I �Iti1111f i1 i,i II111 111{,1 II11!ill,.1 Yfl 1 LEVEL -3.5 PLAN III I I + 11 I •!, -_ ,. ;I' '11:1�; I I Ilt �••1117 i Project litnit , NORTHSIDE CONCEPTUAL ALTERNATIVES 8B . Client City of Huntington Beach Area of Waterfront Park 116,000sf.'• Architect Silver & Ziskind Architects, Planners Total Cars 1,126 Approximate Cost f 10,000,000 7", December 25, 1987 •: Cost per Car f8,900 �I G ter ewr ti Sept. 8, 1987 #*/ S/AA m o gs Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Members Attn: City Clerk 2000 Main St. Huntington beach, CA 92648 Dear Mr. Mayor, Council and Planning Commission Members, I am writing to you regarding the bolsa Chica State Plan, which will soon be before you for review. I urge you to use extreme caution in approving any building north of the pier. I am particularly concerned that if a parking structure is built north of the pier, commercial establishments will be allowed on top of the structure, and the scenic beauty of this town will be destroyed. We must protect our beach and view from destruction. Please do not allow yourselves to give in to development, sacrificing what this city is all about. I urge you to dedicate the top of any parking structure north of the pier to a park, forever. If this parking structure were to be i foot below PCH, without building on top, none of the views would be destroyed. Huntington beach stands alone in southern California in showing concern for the beach, views and general protection of the environment. We must continue this position. Commercial development on the inland side of PCH is necessary to revitalize, but please allow this city to be the special place it is. Thank you for your consideration. Si rely, � Irene C. Briggs 602 8th St. Huntington beach, CA 92648 G� i 7- ?.e . OCONNOR Mailing Address: P.O. Box 4459/Long Beach, California 90804 k/T 2669 Myrtle Ave./Signal Hill, California 90806/(213) 426-8135 hh z / - Af/ September 2, 1987 n Hal Simmons D c/o City Clerk a For the Record m 2000 Main St. H.B. , CA 92648 90 0 Re: North Side of Huntington Beach Pier cQ Dear Mr. Simmons: It is in the best interests-...of the citizens of California that the top of all structures be kept one foot below the level of Pacific Coast Highway. By enforcing that minimal restriction private enterprise will be co-existing with public need. Obviously the tops of any structures should be designated �a city park or "view corridor" so that nothing on top of the buildings could protrude an interrupt the view. We live in Huntington Beach neighborhood where just such a compromise was worked out to the benefit of all. A walk down the main streets in Miami Beach or Waikiki will clearly show how an ocean front community can easily lose it's most valuable resource if it doesn't guard it jealously! Let's leave a view for our grand kids. . . . and the developers. Sincerely, Y�4-- William Halpin vmm:pw cc/ Conway Douglas M. Langevin Co-Director, Huntington Beach Cares 8196 Pawtucket Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (714) 960-5872 August 26 , 1987 Mr. George Dong Landscape Architect Department of Parks and Recreation P. O. BOX 2390 Sacramento, CA 95811 `" RE: North-of-the-Pier Bolsa Chica State Beach General Plan Dear George: Pursuant to our phone conversation of August 26th I am enclosing the following documents : A. General Plan - State Beach General Plan; B. Huntington Beach Planning Commission Agenda pages for August 4 , 1987 pertaining to above General Plan; C. Huntington Beach Planning Commission Action Agenda page for August 4 , 1987 with Instructions to Staff on General Plan; D. Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency page for July 6 , 1987 , Item E-3e - Pierside Village Phase II Authorization to Proceed; E. Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency page for July 27, 1987 , Item 2 - Reimbursement Agree- ment for the Design and Preparation of Construction documents for parking structure within the Main-Pier beach project area; F. Huntington Beach City Council Redevelopment Agency Agenda pages for August 24 , 1987 , Item F-3d - Author- ization for Request for Qualifications and proposals for Pierside Phase I and II Project Construction Management Consulting Service , and Item F-3e - Approval of Consultants and Reimbursement for the Design of Parking Structure within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area; f J Page 2 Mr. Dong Aug. 26, 87 G. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation Operating Agreement - Bolsa Chica State Beach, pages Index, 5 and 12, signed December 1, 1986 and approved January 13, 1987; H. State Beach General Plan, August, 1987, page 32 - Potential Concession Activities; I. City of Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan Draft, May, 1982, pages 93-95; and J. City of Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan (Sixth revision) , March, 1985, pages 31 and 115-117. I bring to your attention for your consideration: Item "A" is the only General Plan for the Bolsa Chica State Beach that has had a hearing of any kind, and as you note in items "B" and "C" , the hearing was, in reality, a study session for open comments and no vote or decision was made. Please also note that on Item "C" under action, the staff is directed to incorporate comments from the Commissioners into "further studies made of the area" . This was not done and no mention of a General Plan is made. Item "D" in the Huntington Beach Council/Redevelopment Agency Agenda (Item E-30shows the first action taken to let contracts for construc- tion of Pierside Phase IIon Bolsa Chica State Beach by the Huntington Beach City Council/Redevelopment Agency. Items "E" and "F" are further contracts entered into by the City for construction of Pierside Phase II on Bolsa Chica State Beach. All of these items would seem to violate the provisions of Item "G" , State Parks and Recreation Operating Agreement for Bolsa Chica State Beach, page 5, paragraph 7 which states : "7. CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS : City may, by its own forces or by contract, undertake projects for the development, construction, or improvement to said property. Plans and specifications for any such project shall be submitted to State as a State General Plan amendment for approval. No such project shall be commenced by City' s own forces or contracts awarded prior to State approval. " Especially noteworthy is that the City Council/Redevelopment Agency took action on Items "D" and "E" before a General Plan even existed { Page 3 Mr. Dong Aug. 26, 87 or a study session was held, and also took action on Item "F" before recieving a copy of the General Plan. Item "H' , potential concession activities, gives the City a "blank check" for the construction of another "concession facility near Goldenwest Street. Information received by us and confirmed by sources in City Hall causes us concern that plans are going for- ward today not only for a restaurant on the Pierside Phase II North-of-the-Pier parking structure, but also near Goldenwest Street as well. We can support concessions on wheels (temporary trailers) but no permanent structure adjacent to the pier or at the Goldenwest location are acceptable. Finally, Items "I" and "J" are included to show the scope of how the City Council/Redevelopment Agency plans have changed over the years. Item "I" was the first draft of the Downtown Specific Plan available, dated May, 1982, of which I enclose the section on District 10 - The Pier Area. Item "J" is the latest Downtown Specific Plan, which is the sixth revision, dated March, 1985. I enclose the Section on District 10, Pier Area. Please note the major changes in scope and purpose of District 10 over three years. Also note on page 31, paragraph 3 that Pierside Village does not conform to this plan. There has been no development in District 3 and further inland, therefore it is inappropriate that Pierside Village precede the inland development. It clearly states that inland development " . . . will directly determine the amount of revitalization which can occur to the pier and the beach-related commercial uses which can be accommodated. " Currently the City is moving forward with the South-of-the-Pier commercial shopping center with over 30% fast food outlets and three major restaurants. Now there is an attempt to expeditiously process (in one month' s time) through the City ' s public hearing process, Coastal Commission, and the State Department of Parks .and Recreation, a further ambitious plan to include additional possible large commercial and restaurant complexes. This plan will not only commercialize the beach and preempt our impending Main Street commercial redevelopment, but also constribute to the destruction of our greatest scenic and natural resource - our Pacific Ocean frontage. Since rel yours, 7 LU�,c,�;�� DOUG LANGEVIN DML:mt cc: Henry Agonia, Director Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach Planning Commission Tom Harman, President HB Tomorrow R , " KN 1'0: Do UG LAN VIAL w S IL M " All GENERAL PLAN STATE BEACH GENERAL PLAN by City of Huntington• Beach Development Services Department and 3arrett Consulting Group Inc . f � INTRODUCTION The pro _ct is known as the State Beach-City of Huntington Beach. =crmerly as a portion of the Bolsa Chica State Beach, the unit is 1ccated between the municipal pier and the northerly municie_; tcundaries. It is approximately 2. 3 minles in length and er_cc-^==-es approximately 100 acres. INTENT The primary use of the unit is recreation. It is utilized by both a local and regional population. The basic intent of the general development plan is to preserve and enhance this recreational usage. AREA DESCRIPTION The unit, for State Department of Parks and Recreation purposes , is a single entity. Its size and configuration does not permit a . p,y division into subunits for environmental , esthetic, recreational , or cultural analyses . However, the physical use and function of the unit has three distinct areas of emphasis . These areas are depicted on Figure 1. AREA I This area is between the municipal pier and the condominiums (approximately Seventh Street) . Currently this area consist of a parking lot ( 328 spaces) , a concessions stand (with restrooms) , a bicycle/pedestrian, asphalt path and the general beach area. The parking area takes access from Pacific Coast Highway (PCH) at the intersects-;n of PI-H and Fifth Street . The general development plan proposes to install a tri-level parking structure which will greatly increase the capacity of offstreet parking for beach users . The existing concession stand ( 72100Intro/Misc . 9 ) 1-1 7/29/87 � r � i y T11� ��,�'\,•f��r,1,/ r �,;lei i�I I ,��It`lt�i.ry>,./� �fLll`•�tll,t +1�,'>�11T�'�c ll oa afi�w rq , _. {r�lprliR(INi!I"Illi�!1liU nt i 4 1P!1C ES LInPjit fifIlllR11O - t1 l i i It Ilil Il��Ill i t + �4iiHr!!�!i1a!U11n+.U+IIU�!�mnU"!�I �Gtllli i, 6 BITE ' ' l I'1li4ii !,'�1I�iW !I Wil?{.I;� •' " '� (�. \\ a t'It�'�'' �hn mIP`rlUl rnii�all D Mtn $IilGl7ll �U(jir,IlU111 ` _"" j l I lII Q!�!"l ii1 .I,tmr�t WW1 11 1 1 Si Mfil I^ I!111 fiiM1'l!!1 G!.i:U" �Jj t CUItG1Ut�1 @GIII:11L1P 1:. A ('��' I g�1UIlU1111`4111 (r � I!I1919 ME UI�FIL ft dl "''I 0 —.,ffl'''gi1Tl�:(rrrrtf-a, GL1CIdl� �p�1 k'!T�T�T.111 '1�-' :�^ ����:�� ,�z ,,• -- flilil'1111U UUIICIII u',_.',1', UIUU dI!ll U111 t n Bic],1D fir, Lt 111!!ll!CI�I U I nr.,•,r*r1 10 f i .n ,r�np� _ . rl. 1 Pltrii tTri r 'Tom .ri1ENE` , x.I 4\ >lr�!;ttrl� rmT!'��!`'".�J• �;.•����j-, .. ',^,�� H C m fir... (T1 nil T.b11 fly " n1 cri rife .. " �� @ 7� c I'Glfl'Il f Ct711111`f{l Clit • �""11�1 l�!if�i�ut�r::rllaul!'.�•C'.It'1�•G1�� �,...•, /' :.�, F .�� r.r,`..� .t�,-� �> will be removed from its present location to within the parking structure_ New restroom facilities will be located in the structure . The top of the structure will be at the same approximat-a elevation of PCH. Recreational facilities providing for baske ha 1, volleyball, etc . will be placed on top of the structu.s. An eating establishment , similar to existing one south c= the pier (Maxwells) is proposed to be located near the pier. Currently, this area is within District 10 of the City of Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan. The aforementioned uses are consistent with the regulations that are established District 10. AREA II The area continues from the previously mentioned parking area northward to Goldenwest Street. It consists of a condominiums ; complex ( 106 units) ; `Z'a bluff top park with an asphalt bicycle/pedestrian trail , a service road, a series of oil pumps ( 18) and the general beach area. There are six (6 ) primary access points from PCH to the beach. There are temporary (chemical) restroom facilities adjacent to the base of these points of access . The general development plan does not propose any significant changes . Essentially, the only new facilities would be the placement of parking stalls between the existing service road and the bluff. ingress would occur at Goldenwest Street and ingress would occur at Ninth Street. Also, the tempoary restroom facilities would eventually be replaced with permanent structures adjacent to the points of access . Currently, the City of Huntington Beach and the oil companies are discussing . the potential removal of the oil wells. Additonally, City of Huntington Beach lifeguard stations will replace the existing State stations . (72100Intro/Misc . 9 ) 1-2 7/29/87 The City is considering the siting of a concession facility near Golden wesr Street . However, it is not known what form (mobile , temporary, or permanent) it will be. This are= is. within District 11 of the Downtown Specific Plan and the prcze-s-r�-d plan is consistent with -its regulations. AREA III This area extends from Goldenwest Street to the northerly municipal boundary. It is essentially unimproved consisting of an asphalt bicycle/pedestrian path adjacent to PCH. There is a service road which links a series of oil pumps (11 ) . This area is characterized by steep bluffs and a small amount of actual beach area. The proposed general development plan consists of an improved bicycle/pedestrian path--,to be relocated away from PCH and near the bluff edge. A protective railing will be placed between the path and the bluff edge . Portions of the mesa on top of the bluff will be utilized for parking in anticipation of the removal of onstreet parking along PCH. There is ample distance for egress and ingress points along PCH. Complementary landscaping will be placed along the path and throughout the parking areas . Although access to the beach is limited, this area provides uninterrupted vistas which will serve as an opportunity to be enhanced and preserved. Currently, this area is zoned SL-O-CZ , which is shoreline-oil-coastal zone. The proposed general plan is consistent with this zoning . ( 72100Intro/Misc . 9) 1-3 7/29/87 LT M $�' STUDY SESSION 6 : 00 PM - Room B-8 Au&. items tote Discusa2d "Resource Inventory and Development Plan for the Area North of the Pier" As part of the City' s new responsibility in operation of the State Beach area north of the pier, it is required that resource documentation (Resource Inventory) and a General Plan (Development Plan) be prepared for approval by the State. The Resource Inventory identifies and discusses all biological, geological and cultural resources associated with the Beach area . The General Plan is intended to identify the general location of passive and active recreational uses such as access points, bike trails, landscaping, vista areas, restrooms, parking, concession facilities and limited commercial development . Presentation: Hal Simmons/Barrett Consulting Group Dinner Will be Served at 5 :30 PM ^- Room B-8 PC Agenda (8744d) 1i a- CT a+ u� C-3 NOR H-CE-THE-PIER RESOURCE INVENTORY AND GENERAL PLAN (DF-"__,'--?NTENT. PLAN) As part __ t-he City' s new responsibility in operation of the State Beach are= =th of the pier, it is required that resource documentaZi=n (Reso�_ce Inventory) and a General Plan (Development Plan) be 7-eYared for approval by the State. The Resource Inventory i3entifi=s�=:d discusses all biological, geological and cultural resources =s--ciated wig: the Beach area. The General Plan is" _a end = icentify t-he general location of passive and active recreatic-= uses such as access points, bike trails, landscaping, vista areas, restrooms, parking, concession facilities and limited commercial development. 1 . Staff Report 2 . Public Hearing 3 . Commission Discussion 4 . Open the public hearing and take testimony on the attached draft Resource Inventory and General Plan for the North-of-the-Pier Area and direct staff to incorporate comments into the final plan. HS ACTION MOTION SECOND AYES NOES ABSENT ABSTAIN APPROVE) DENIED CONTINUED PC Agenda (8744d) C-3 NORTH '-THE-PIER RESOURCE INVENTORY AND GENERAL PLAN (DEV =-:V--- ITT PLAN) ` = As part of _-e- City' s new responsibility in operation of the State -, Beach area :=: or : e pier, it is required that resource documents,_== ReSoUrCe :.gentory) and a General Plan (Development Plan) -de -_ for ao-_oval by the State. The Resource Inventory identi=_rs ciscusses al! biological, geological and cultural resources _a_z.__a-ec w-Lh r:a Beach area. The General Plan is intended r= __e rify r:e :eneral location of passive and active, recreation�� ::ses such asaccess points, bike trails, landscaping, vista areas, restrooms, parking, concession facilities and limited commercial development . 1 . Staff Report 2 . Public Hearing 3 . Commission Discussion 4 . Open the public hearing and ta;;e test.Lmony on the attached draft Resource Inventory and General Plan for the North-of-the-Pier Area and direct staff to incorporate comments into the final plan. HS ACTION• - Presentation was made by Frank Hazelton from Barrett Consulting Group. Public nearing was opened and comments and suggestions were taken from interested citizens. Commissioners made comments and directed staff to incorporate their concerns into further studies made of the area. PC Agenda _ (8744d) Page 8 - Council 'genda - 7/6/87 s ` 1 E-3d. CITY COUNCIL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - PROPOSED SALE OF REAL PRCPERTY TALBERT BEACH REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA - JOINT PCBLIC HEARING CLOSED 5/4/87 WITH DECISION CONTINUED TO & R-Ebff= CIRCLE [T .z; Continue action on the proposed Disposition and COUNClitrr Development agreement between the City, the AGENT Redevelopment Agency and Redondo-Kovacs- Partners to ACTION 7/20/87. E-3e. PIERSIDE VILLAGE PHASE II AUTHORIZATION TO PROCEED Communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Community Development requesting authorization to proceed with negotiations with Bryant L. Morris Development Company for design and development on the north side of the City pier. RA: Staff recommends that after review and discussion of this request, the Agency take the following actions: 1. Direct staff to prepare a sublease agreement from the City to the Agency for the portions of Bolsa Chica State Beach included in the Pierside Village Phase II project . 2. Direct=. staff to prepare contract documents with 1, Bryant L. Morris Development Company for the construction and reimbursement of expenses for the non-commercial portions of Pierside Village Phase II . 3. Direct staff to prepare a sublease agreement with Bryant L. Morris and the Agency for the commercial portions of Pierside Village Phase II . REDEVELOPMENT 2%vEV4f ADJOURNMENT ( 8) ( 7/6/87) rays 7 - AyCllu Gl - // X. // 0/ Ilk M I, � ', RECONVENE REDEVI PMETN AGENCY 1. DEVELOPER PRESENTATION & STATUS REPORT - MAIN-PIER PHASE II CRARLES, RIVERS PROPERTIES GRIFFIN REALTY Presentation by the developer of a review of their conceptual si;e plan and development concept as well as a complete status report on their project efforts todate. r, `j,tn % try rn&4 by de vede po # 2. R=ASURSEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE DESIGN AND PREPARATION OF STRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR PARKING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE RUN-PIER BEACH PROJECT AREA - HUNTINGTON PACIFICA DEVELOPMENT GROUP Communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Community Development transmitting a Reimbursement Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Pacifica Development Group for the design and preparation of construction documents for parking structure td° be located north of the pier. RA: Approve and authorize execution of said reimbursement agreement between the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency and Huntington Pacifica Development Group. re#v^) 3. DEVELOPER SELECTION FOR TOWN SQUARE SUB-AREA OF MAIN-PIER REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA - MOLA DEVELOPMENT Communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Community Development regarding the selection of a developer for Town Square Sub-Area--of Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. RA: Authorize staff to commence negotiations for preparation of a Disposition and Development Agreement between the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Huntington Beach and Mola Development Corporation for construction of a portion of the Town Square subarea identified as Phase I, said documents to be completed within forty-five ( 45 ) days. R-PPRO J Et ADJOURNMENT - COUNCIL to Monday, August 3, at : rn R : Huntington Central Park Master Plan ADJOURNMENT - AGENCY to Monday, August 30 - ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, CITY CLERK ( 7/27/87) ( 5) :r7k M F Page #2 - Counci gdnda = 8/24/87 7 :00 P. M. - REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CALL REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO ORDER TO MEET JOINTLY ►� . THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENCY CALL: W_nchell, Mays, Finley, Kelly, Erskine, Green, Bannister PLANNING COMMISSION ROLL CALL: Livengood, Schumacher, Higgins, Pierce, Silva, Summerell, Leipzig 1 . DEVELOPER PRESENTATION & PROJECT STATUS REPORT SITE PLAN & RELATED M - PIER91DE VIELAGEH & I DISCUSSION OF VIEW CORRIDORS - CA -104 Communication from the City Administrator reviewing and _ _ clarifying the status of the Pierside Village Project . F-3d . (CONTINUED FROM 8/17/87) - AUTHORIZATION FOR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS & PROPOSALS RPR PIERSIDE PHASE I & II PROJECT CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT CONSULTING SERVICE Communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Community Development Director regarding the need, for the services of a consulting firm for the construction of the Pierside Village and parking structures on the south and north side of the pier . RA: .Authorize the Department of Community Development to prepare a Request for Qualifications and Proposals (RFQ&P) and seek proposals from qualified construction management firms to provide ccnstruct.ion management service and represent the City/Agency in all project construction related -:afters for the Pierside development . Pale #3- - Council .genda -' 8/24/87 F-3e . (CONTINUED FROM 8/17/87) - A.PPROVAL OF CONSULTANTS & F---11 !3URSNT FOR THE DESIGN OF PARKING STRUCTURE WITHIN THE bq�?*7-PIE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA I.unication from the DPW recommending the retention of =ans,=_ants relative to the design of a Parking Structure the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area. F: Approve the selection of Geosoils for soils investigation and Tait Engineers for civil engineering, authorize Huntington Pacifica to; bill us .for Agency 's portion of the work not to exceed $87,266 subject to the approval of the Agency Executive Director . F-3f. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AUTHORIZATION TO PROCESS ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE TOWN SQUARE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT - PHASE I - MOLA DEVELOPMENT Communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Community Development recommending that the Agency authorize the processing of the necessary entitlement for the Town Square Redevelopment Project without the consent of the property owners as provided for in S. 9801 .4 of the Huntington Beach Ordinance Code. RA: Authorize the processing of the necessary entitlements for the Mola Development Corporation Town Square Project . ADJOURN AGENCY TO p.m. on Tuesday, September 8, 1987. ADJOURN PLAti"+ING COMMISSION to ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, CITY CLERK r! r J;MM 11 G 11 1 1 STATE OF CALIFORNIA v DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 2 OPERATING AGREEMENT BOLSA CHICA STATE BEACH 3 4 5 I N D E X 6 --,aragraph Page 7 1. Term 2 2. Use of Premises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 3. Concessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4. Fees . . ' 3 9 5. Annual Reports 4 6. Beach Erosion Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 10 7. Construction of Improvements . . . . . . . . . 5 8. Title • . . . . . 6 11� 9. Eminent Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 10. Hold Harmless . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 12 11. Assignment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12. Notices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8� 131 13. Termination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 14. Real Property Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . 11 141 15. Nondiscrimination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 16. Limitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 15� 17. Paragraph Titles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 18. Contracts in Counterparts . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 161 Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Exhibit(s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 i 18! 19 20 21 22� 23, 24 - 25 26' 27 COURT PAPER f7ATr O/CALOPO11N/A STD. 113 .R[Y.0-721 95 347" r r I protection work wnich may be undertaken by STATE or the United States of 2 America , along or on said property, shall not, in any way, be construed as 3 cons titut ng a termination of this agreement or in any way affecting same . 4 5 STATE shah have the right to enter into agreements for such work 6 during Vie term hereof and to go upon said property or to authorize any 7 person, firm, or corporation to go upon said property for the purpose of such 8 construction , beach erosion protection or control work, or the doing of other 9 public work for the improvement or development of said property, -provided tK t 10 STATE shall give CITY 90-day written notice of its intention to do any of the 111 work herein mentioned before such work is undertaken. 12 , 1 13' 7. Construction of Improvements : CITY may, by its own forces or 14 ; by contract, undertake projects for the development , construction, or 15i � improvement to said property. Plans �an�71T, cations for any such project St ate . 16i shall be submitted to STATE as a/General Plan amendment for approval . No such } 17 project shall be commended by CITY'S own forces or contracts awarded prior to 18� STATE approval . 191 20; STATE has the right to disapprove such plans and s ecific i nd 21 bmittaV shall notify the-. CITY of its decision within 90 d_av ., Suchdevelopment , 22 construction, or improverry�t shall be in accordance with 5080.31 P.R.C. and STATE's Y'�''' 23; .,pith the/gener-al plan for the respective unit and any amendment thereof shall 24 be subject to prior approval in writing by STATE. 25 I 26 Pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5080.31(b) P.R.C. the STATE' 27 general plan shall be prepared by the CITY and shall be approved by the COURT PAPER STATT OP CAI-APO IIMIA E7D. 113 IRLV 0•72A .S LM 5 1 defines limit or describe the scope or intent of this contract or in any way 2 affec, this contract. 3 4 18_ Contracts in Counterparts: This contract is executed in 5 coup��ar*s each of which shall be deemed an original . 61 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this instrument upon 8 the date first hereinabove appearing. 9 10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION zz - 12 yl�'` .�-- ir _Z_ or 13 Attest: 14 ° 15. ALICIA M. WENTWORTH_ z.-•. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Clerk 16�� Aze'. - 17� Y: t Deputy City Clerk r Mayor T` - 19 Review nd Approved: Approved as to Form: e 2 21 Ci minis ra r City Attorney 4F ow -22 Initiated and Approved: FAPP epertrer, of Genera)Services 24 A C�V 25 • -D �j Director of Community Services � 26BY JIt.LA.`4 1. hi,v�X rr 27 Y-5791X N.•L Chw cftft.r COURT PAPER "Are*r CAUVO.MtA sm. 113 otry 0-72. 12 I TT-E M It H CONCESSION ELEMENT ? � Introduction The City __ Huntington Beach recognizes the need to provide support a=ncession facilities in order to serve the recreation ?opu_at _ It is the City's policy to contract concession opportuni-=--es which will enhance the visitor' s use , enjoyment and co nven zerrc. Existing Concession Activities Currently, the only concession activity is a small structure which serves fast food and accommodates restroom facilities . This structure is located on a pad in the beach area northerly adjacent to the pier . Potential Concession Activities The proposed general plan will relocate the existing concession building to the parking structure . In doing so , this area will be restored to sand and the parking structure will be designed to accommodate the concession building and restrooms . ,.dditionally, the City,. is currently pursuing an agreement that will locate another concession facility near Goldenwest Street . It is not known at this time whether this proposed facility will be permanent , temporary or mobile . Recommendations 1. The existing concession building should be relocated within the proposed parking structure . 2. An additional concession facility should be sited near Goldenwest Street . 72100ResE1 -32- (8/13/87) . S'11M I ORAFT DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN! - oes o o o� Od e 0 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES PLANNING DIVISION MAY, i 9$2 i 3 t 1 'i 2.3.190 DISTRICT #10: PIER-RELATED COMMERCIAL General Purpose. The pier commercial district is intended to provide for uses on and alongside the pier which will enhance and expand the public's use and enjoyment of this distinctive City focal point. Accordingly, uses are encouraged which capitalize on the views available from the pier and the unique recreational or educational opportunities it affords. At the same time, care must be exercised to insure that the major portion of the pier will remain accessible to the public at no charge, for strolling, fishing or observation. Boundaries. The district includes the pier itself and an area extending sixty 60 feet on either side of the existing pier. Also included in the district is a strip of land from Pacific Coast Highway to the sand, extending to the south of the pier four hundred (400) feet. See Figure 2.16. 2.3.191 Allowable Uses. All uses are conditional. Uses include restaurants, bait and tackle shops, beach rentals and beach-related retail sales, museums, aquariums or observational platforms and similar commercial uses or public recreation facilities. ,Rationale: Commercial uses are limited to those which are directly depenaen: Lmor, or which support pier-related activities such as fishing or si-ah�eeing. Opportunities exist for several different types of restaurant operaVar•.s ranging from wall-up, take-out windows to full dinner houses with bar service. Some 93 �o - �,i Mm LE �m�,m m m �m m m m m���000 M fll�ll1.11 II 'L� II[Ii l]1 TI L Mm PO LI LuT ULI 11 ��1�n�:.��� �\ ITRlIII �IQIIQ]�LhIIk7]+S§�11fI �l� Ill� bC ,� 11T' i][lY� 2J 99 [q m 19ni4] pT[ 'E9!� — — , C ' -- minor retail activities which cater to beach users could be accommodated. Such stores might carry suntan lotion, sunglasses, beach toys, bathing suits, surfing equipment and some sund y or drug items. However, commercial uses should not preclude activities especially suited to the pier, such as fishing and 'Vh stroIling or people-watching. 2.3.192 Height Limitations. Heights will be limited to twenty-five t25; feet and two 2 stories above the pier level, except for lifeguard towers c. cther facilities necessary for public safety. Rationale: The pier historically has had a low profile which emphasizes its long, low reach ' into the sea. The height limit insures that this character is retained while r allowing the flexibility needed to accommodate rela:.ed development. 2.3.193 Right-of-way and Public Walkways Required. Sufficient clear width shall be provided along the length of the pier for public access, emergency and service vehicles. In addition, public walkways generally six (6) feet in width, but in no case less than four (4) feet in width, shall be provided along the pier edge or along the outside of any new development. Rationale: Sufficient space for pedestrian and emergency and service vehicle access should be kept clear along the pier's length. Public access around all structures is required so that commercial activities do not prevent public use of the pier for its primary attractions which include views, open space and fishing. Y 2.3.194 Open Area Requirements. No more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the - area of the pier itself shall be covered by any building or roofed structure. Buildings or other roofed structures shall not be constructed along more than _ twenty-five percent (25%) of the perimeter of the pier. ' Rationale: At least 75 percent of the pier area and most of its perimeter should be left open for views and breezes and to ensure enough space for fishing. Visual access to the water is an important amenity which enhances all the commercial uses. This requirement for open area helps to ensure that pier users will be able to experience the sea and the shoreline as they visit the pier. 2.3.195 Parking. No additional parking shall be required for new structures unless Z their construction requires the removal of existing parking. If parking is z removed, it shall be replaced on a one-for-one basis by the construction of an additional level of parking on the City parking lot or the lot north of the pier. No parking surface may exceed the grade level of PCH. s? ,' Rationale: U` Very large public parking lots are already adiacent to the pin- district and C additional parking is unnecessary for the kinds and amount o= m. ercial uses Z= permitted here. However, if any existing public parking wo La be lost as a 01 result of new development, it must be replaced on a one-f or-one oasis. Z� 95 r j- ,��,� +►�y,�y��°�9i,�'��� 4 'fir 'fd 9��� Ii,�, 4 ' !fir! N�NN INS► �� rNNrN Nib �INIIININNrnRIIIl1! �llNnlnilllNll�1�N�1!!t!!hl! •II�NrN{NBArNNN �NN�HI rp r ;, NN�q � ��'NNr� � __ NNANN NNrNA NdNINI � � r"NNrN N{NINN NM�r NINM N� N� NININN IrAr �+!p� :I�� N�� ANN�N � 1�{i NMINN N�IIpN NNNNNI IMN NMIN MN�II w ■{= NINwN :: � � "���NN9� NY�N � M� NIINNN rfll�l NIA gNIIMN �Mlr :: 41. ILI NNU� p11N1 rwNNN IANI. �Alll dllAl � �IfM NNNNY Nei Will amp NlNAo NNE wMNNI NNNNN rpW11'ii�i 011rrn r urr IMINN MNNINI I�NINII I�pNN �IIM INS NNINNI ? tlnn{ • .. 3 ,,,,,,, , � -r , NNBAII NIIIIIN �if� rrr� � aarH - . � •,i;,rr � � i m�NN M�I(IN rNN� �Hula L. rorl • it rr 1r n oiiiri n n �.,�r NIII{IlHilill1iJIM E Dist-i=� Seven is a consolidated parcel under one ownership and is apnr*oxirnately 13 cross acres. District Seven should be master planned as a primaruy visitor-serving commercial project, which could be implemented over a t~um=er of phases. Hotel, motel, restaurant and specialty commercial would oe ary-orcpriate uses. Development in this District is not intended to compete wit; =-fte Downtown commercial core, therefore, major incentives for dev nt would nct oe necessary. The commercial uses in this District wril a t ae of a more seasonal variety with the District serving as a connecting link i;etween the Downtown area and District Nine. The Plan anticipates visitor-serving commercial can be accommodated with a 200-400 room hotel. District Ten includes the area on the ocean side of Pacific Coast Highway most suited for commercial development. This District includes the pier and the existing parking areas on either side, comprising approximately 15 gross acres. The visitor-serving commercial uses most appropriate for this District are beach-related and complementary to activities which occur around the pier, such as fishing, surfing and sun bathing. Additional parking in structures would also be appropriate provided that they do not extend above the level of Pacific Coast Highway and block views. This provision should still provide for the option of multi-level commercial activities in this District. The pier is a prime location for restaurants, which can take advantage of the panoramic views. Equally important as the new commercial activities which may be accommodated is to insure that the major emphasis in this District is public open space. The pier and beach area must remain accessible to the public for free recreational pursuits. District Ten is part of the pier-head node as described previously. This commercial/recreational activity node is of primary importance in the revitalization effort of the City. Development within this District will probably be initiated with City efforts. The extent and intensity of dvelopment in District Three and further inland will directly determine the amount of revitalization which can occur to the pier and the beach-related commercial uses which can be accommodated. In addition, the present amount of parking can be approximately doubled without obstructing views or drastically changing the overall character of the District. 3.2.4 Residential (High Density) The residential designation includes two Districts (District Two and Eight) exclusively for residential uses. D.sz ct Two extends from Goldenwest Street to 6th Street between Pacific Coast lHignway to Walnut Avenue. District Two is subdivided into numerous twenty-rive :ccz wide lots with very diverse ownerships encompassing approximately `:f gross acres. District Two is intended to develop as a continuation of the type and variety of residential development which exists in the adjacent Towrlot area. The development regulations should be similar and corzpatible with those in the Townlot area, with the exception that larger protects (one full block or more) should be provided with additional incentives to encourage lot consolidation. Consolidation of the numerous small lots which 31 J 4 J 4.12 DISTRICT #10: PIER-RELATED COMMERCIAL Purpose. This District is intended to provide for commercial uses on and alongside the pier which will enhance and expand the public's use and enjoyment of this area. Uses are encouraged which capitalize on the views available from the pier and the unique recreational or educational opportunities it affords. At the same time, care must be exercised to insure that the major portion of the pier will remain accessible to the public at no charge, for strolling, fishing or observation. Boundaries. District #10 includes the pier itself and an area extending sixty 60 feet on the northwest side and one hundred and twenty-five (125) feet on the southeast side of the existing pier. Also included in the District is a strip of land from PCH to the sand, extending southeast of the pier to Lake Street and northwest of the pier to Seventh Street. 115 4.12.01 Permitted Uses. The following uses maybe permitted in District #10 subject t appro-,%I of a Conditional Use Permit. A. Aquariums B. B ait and t ac isle s hops B eac h rent ale . Commercial uses or public recreation facilities(beach-related) M. Museums P. Perking lots that will not result in the loss of recreational sand area. Tiered parking j�*-,,permitted within the Downtown Specific Plan area on existing lots seaward of Pacific Coast Highway provided the parldng is designed so that the top of the structures including walls, etc., are located a minimum of one foot below the maximum height of the adjacent bluff. R. Restaurants(including fast food with take out windows) Retail sales(beach-related) Note: Only parking uses are permitted in this District northwest of Sixth Street. 4.12.02 Minimum Parcel Size. No minimum parcel size shall be required in this District. 4.12.03 Maximum Density/Int ensit No maximum density or intensity requirement shall be applied in this District 4.12.04 Maximum Height. The maximum building heights shall be twenty five (25) feet and no more than two stories above the pier level. Exception: The maximum building height on the pier(excluding the end of the pier cafe) and northwest of the pier shall be one (1) story. No maximum building height shall be required for lifeguard towers or other facilities necessary for public safety. No parking surface or structure shall exceed the adjacent elevation of PCH. 4.12.05 Maximum Site Coverage. No maximum site coverage shall be required. Exception: No more than twenty-five (25) percent of the pier shall be covered by any building or roofed structure. In addition, buildings or other roofed struc�-ores shall not be constructed along more than twenty-five (25) percent of the perimeter of the pier. 4.12.06 Setback (Front Yard). No minimum front yard setback shall be required. 4.12.07 Setback(Side Yard). No minimum side yard setback shalt be required. 4.12.08 Setback(Rear Yard). No minimum rear yard setback shall be required. 116 ,12.09 Setback°;�-oRer Story). No minimum upper story setback shall be required. 4.12.10 Open Sbace. Public open space and pedestrian access shall be major considersLxws of development in tNs District. All new development shall provide mfffriciert clear width along the length of the pier for public access, emergency and service vehicles. In addition, public walkways along the pier edge ar the perimeter of new development must be provided. 117 7- CO 1. Jo-Anne Jarvis 21132 Greenboro Ln. Mt Huntington Beach, Ca, 92646 (714) 960-2191 8-27-87 Hal Simmons c/o City Clerk 2000 Main St . Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 Dear Mr . Simmons: I would like to take the opportunity to make my feelings known regarding any construction on the norht side of the Huntington Beach pier. I feel strongly that every effort should be made to preserve the ocean views in this area, and that the top of any structure should be at least one foot below Pacific Coast ' Highway, and that the top of such structure (should it be built) should be used as a passive public park in keeping with the seaside resort aura. There should not be any consideration given to the idea of using this area for a parking lot . Sincerely, 0 -Anne Jarvis P7 AAINE a�tvMRS is 21,32 GJO2EEt�60RO t HllnI �� TIMTON BE, CA 92646 0....................... t 1 3 S t Hal Simmons c/o City Clerk 2000 Main St. { Huntington Beach, Ca. 92648 ` FOR THE RECORD 11,1 ItItt,l„11„l, till 9+ Sept. 8,1987 Mr. Henry Agonia, Director California Department of Parks *and Recreation / ' A/9//A0 1416 9th Street /„ 40 661/0 Sacramento, Ca 95814 Cw T Dear Mr. Agonia: / LOa� This letter will address questions surrounding the Bolsa Chica State Beach and the so called General Plan proposed by the City of Huntington Beach to manage this facility on a lease agreement. Certain City Officials and Council members past and present are attempting to force upon the citizens of Huntington Beach a shopping Center on the City Beach called Pierside Village. The latest extention of that so called Redevelop- ment plan is to extend the shopping center to the North side of the Pier (up coast side) and "redevelop" State Parkland with a restaurant and other facilities. The site is presently a State owned parking lot. I represent a citizens group called Huntington Beach Cares that is unilaterally opposed to commercial centers on the beach and question the need for redevelop- ment or development north of the Huntington Beach Pier. I- would like to make the following points regarding the City's plan: 1. I believe that the City of Huntington Beach may have violated California State Redevelopment law in not notifying the State that Parkland was being placed into redevelopment and stating what their' plans were. 2. The proposed restaurant and other projects will screen the last view of the historic Huntington Beach Pier from Pacific Coast Highway. The Coastal Commission has declared Pacific Coast Highway along this area of Orange County as a Protected scenic route. .3. When Pierside Phase I village is completed there will be in excess of 65 establishments that serve food and beverages withing a 3 block area of the pier/main intersection. 4. The parking structure proposed for the site will benefit the builder of Pierside and make up the shortfall in parking in Pierside Phase I,Ao the detriment of the beach users. 5. Pacific Coast Highway is being expanded from 4 to 6 lanes in 1988 and this is being accomplished by the removable of Street parking on P.C.H. On Labor Day nay wife and I took a tour of the area and found it entirely inadequate in Park- ing. The Beach lots, P.C.H. street parking, temporary lots and inland streets were jam-packed. g Jt page 2, Mr. Agonia 6. Commercial development of this parkland will create "traffic blight" on Pacific Coast Highway. This traffic problem will be overwhelming. Citizens will be discouraged from using Public and State Parkland. Cal-trans has estimated in their Environmental Impact Report (January 1986) that by the year 2000 the traffic will be operating at between level "D" and level "F" without either Pierside project! The Beaches and Parks of California must be protected from the onslaught of the vested interests in development. Our Coast line must be protected. The Ocean and Beaches are the one great natural resource of this city. Greed is prevalent everywhere. Your office must protect the average citizen from the abuses of greedy and powerful politicans. As I write this letter the City of Huntington Beach has not held Public Hearings on the Proposed General Plan for the Bolsa Chica State Beach. Huntington Beach Cares is concerned that our former City Adminstrator, Charles Thompson, has told the State of California that the Public has be noticed. This is not true. Please see attached newspaper articles from the Huntington Beach Independent. Thank you. We will see you at the Public Hearing! �• 444 C James A. Lane 637 Frankfort Ave. Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 Member, Steering Committee Huntington Beach Cares Members: Huntington Beach City Council Huntington Beach Planning Commission Huntington Beach Tomorrow Huntington Beach Cares Huntington Beach City Clerk Huntington Beach City Planner, Mr. Hal Simmons � - t2eai A-DM Richard M. Sax, M.D. 16322 Niantic Circle Huntington Beach CA 92649 August 10, 1987 City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Sir or Madam: I have enclosed a letter to Mayor Jack Kelly outlining my feelings regarding the Pierside Village project. Would you be so kind as to circulate copies of the enclosed letter to all members of the City Council. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard M. Sax, M.D. RicH"m M. Sex, M.D. 16322 NIANTIC CIRCLE HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA 92649 August 8, 1987 Mayor Jack Kelly, City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach CA 92648 Dear Mayor Kelly: I have written to the Planning Commission expressing my dislike for beach front development of the Pierside Village project. I would like the City Council to also be aware that many of us in the Huntington Beach community are opposed to any development of our beaches. Rather, I would recommend that a more logical approach to redevelopment woud be rehabilitation of Main Street and preservation of key build- ings which could embel.ish the history and local culture of the area. With plans now announced for a high density, mixed-use development known as The Waterfront, more than adequate overall development along Pacific Coast Highway is likely. More thought and discussion is needed before any decision about further development on our beaches is finalized. Sincerely, Richard M. Sax, M.D. I w OA"ar A Ve, M OU i -,4_M------ - - - &POZ.STire VDU rrO IivG�,C(l� _ _ T�,E F0440wIN6- - - -- - --- - T kO?!&A1V ---ice_ ��F, 11/NVrZ S. C A Shy NO ,C 6E4, 7"�,41V S/ e 46 )7- 46- 1V67-H ARE - f Al I 'Z July 31 1987 411 Sixth Street Huntington Beach California 92648 City Council Members c/o the City Clerk Huntington Beach City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California 92648 Subject : Pierside Village North side development Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council Members, We strongly believe Pierside Village should not be extended to the north side of the pier. The plan should remain with only parking on the north side of the pier. The widening of PCH and the development of Pierside Village will add to our already serious traffic congestion and parking displacement problems. Any additional loss of parking on the north side, is a loss we can not afford. The north side of the pier belongs to the state. The state established the purchase of this area by a bond issue for the peoples use. It should remain in tact for the people now and for future generations. Everyone should be able to view our beautiful beach on the north side of the pier to 7th Street without any visual interruption. Sinwer*lyl Mr. and Mrs. Wayne Wolfe REQUEST FOR . .EDEVELOPMENT AC CY ACT110N RH 87-54 Date July 6, 1987 Submitted to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator/Chief Executive OfficerG1S' Prepared by: Douglas N. La Belle, Deputy City Administrator/Community Deve o 9 Subject: PIERSIDE VILLAGE PHASE II AUTHORIZATION TO PROC .� cy Consistent with Council Policy? [ ] Yes [ j New Policy or Exception Giz Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative A ments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Agency consideration is a staff request for authorization to proceed with negotiations with Bryant L. Morris Development Company for design and development on the north side of the city pier (Pierside Village Phase II). RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that after review and discussion of this request, the Agency take the following actions: 1. Direct staff to prepare a sublease agreement from the city to the Agency for the portions of Bolsa Chica State Beach included in the Pierside Village Phase II project. 2. Direct staff to prepare contract documents with Bryant L. Morris Development Company for the construction and reimbursement of expenses for the non-commercial portions of Pierside Village Phase II. 3. Direct staff to prepare a sublease agreement with Bryant L. Morris and the Agency for the commercial portions of Pierside Village Phase II. ANALYSIS: To facilitate the implementation of the Pierside Village Phase II project for the development of parking, recreational, and commercial activities on the existing Bolsa Chica State Beach parking lot, staff is requesting authorization to negotiate with Bryant L. Morris Development Company for the preparation of design and construction documents and to negotiate a sublease of the proposed improvements. On February 1, 1987, the City assumed the responsibility for planning, development, operation, and maintenance of the portions of Bolsa Chica State Beach on the north side of the City Pier and extending north to the improved portions of Bolsa Chica State Beach. The planning for improvements to this area has begun with the Council's PIO/1/85 b ti authorization to retain Barrett Consultant for the preparation of a Resources Inventory Survey Report and with conceptual development plans prepared for the amended Pierside Village project. The proposed amendments to the conditionally approved plan are proposed by staff, working with the developer in an attempt to resolve the concerns and conditions expressed at the time of project approval. The modified development plans identified improvements for both the south and the north side of the pier for which the developer and staff are recommending concurrent construction. In seeking this Council direction, staff is recommending that a staff construction management team be formed to work with the developer in the process of selecting the various construction companies and various consultants in order to prepare the construction documents in a timely and efficient manner. This joint process will enable the project to proceed with little or no delays, so that construction can begin later this year. In order to facilitate these construction projects, staff is requesting authorization to enter into a form of Development Agreement for the proportional reimbursement to the developer for the actual cost of project design and construction which are part of the Agency obligation in conjunction with the improvements on the north side of the pier. All individual contracts to which the city or the Agency are a party will be brought back for separate review and authorization. FUNDING SOURCE: Project costs will be estimated as part of the consultant and contractor selection process. Funding for the Agency's portion of the project may be partially provided by the proceeds of Certificate of Participation Civic Center Improvement Corporation which were sold August, 1986. The bond sale provided the city with approximately $20,000,000 of which approximately $7,000,000 was used to retire the existing debt on the security (the Civic Center). Therefore, the net proceeds are approximately $12,000,000 with the removal of the former debt and cost of sale amounts subtracted. A portion of the net proceeds have been previously appropriated by the City Council for parking structure land acquisition in the second and third blocks of Main Street. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 1. Continue Item for further consideration to a subsequent Agency meeting. CW T/DLB/M A:lp 3270h A _NC1�� T10 REQUEST FOE�� �� T Q Date AtigLst 13, 19R7 Submit to: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administrator/Chief Executive Officer Prepared by: Paul E. Cook, Director of Public Works 46c Subject: Approval of Consultants and Reimbursement for the Design of a Parking Structure within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area Consistent with Council Policy? [Xl Yes [ ) Now Policy or Exception Statement of Issue, Recommendation, Analysis, Funding Source, Alternative Actions,Attachments: STATEMENT OF ISSUE: At your meeting of July 6th, the Agency directed staff to proceed with various action steps providing for the implementation of the Pierside Village project. At your meeting on August 3, 1987 you approved an agreement with Huntington Pacifica Development Group for design of a parking structure. Additional contracts must be authorized to facilitate the parking lot design as well as offsite improvements. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the selection of Geosoils for soils investigation and Tait Engineers for civil engineering, authorize Huntington Pacifica to bill as for our portion of the work not to exceed $87,266 subject to the approval of the Agency Executive Director. ANALYSIS: Since the approval of Pierside Village in December of 1986, the applicant has been working to meet the requirements of the City and Agency in terms of the conditions imposed upon their entitlement. The amended site plan approved by the Agency at the meeting of June 15, 1987, proposed the concurrent construction of improvement on both the south and north sides of the city pier. The developer is responsible for all improvements on the south side of the city pier, including all required parking for the commercial portions, and the Agency is responsible for the improvements on the north side of the pier, with the exception of any commercial development. To enable construction to proceed on schedule, for the total project, we have begun the actual design phase of the parking structure. To accomplish this, the Agency, on August 3, 1987, authorized Huntington Pacifica Development Group to proceed with design of the parking structure north of the pier. The Agency also authorized the reimbursement of up to $618,000 in design costs subject to the approval of the Agency Executive Director. The design work previously approved does not include soils investigation or off-site engineer. Working together, Redevelopment staff and Huntington Pacific Development Group received proposals and selected a soils firm and a civil engineer to do work on both the north and south sides of the pier. The Agency will be required to reimburse the developer for its share of the soils and engineering work. The agency's share of the soils work will be $47,266 and the agency's share of the offsite engineering work will be $40,300. PIO/1/85 4 � • Request for Redevelopment Agency Action - Approval of Consultants and Reimbursement for the Design of a Parking Structure within the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area August 13, 1987 Page 2 FUNDING SOURCE: Previously issued Certificates of Participation for parking structure land acquisition and construction, in an amount not to exceed $87,566. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Defer action on the approval of the contract at this time, pending further study which will delay the implementation schedule for the Pierside Village project. ATTACHMENTS: None PEC:LE:dw 1350g �/ y Al s',..�°rs i REQUE FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTS "' Date S� Submitted to: Honorable Mayor and City Council Submitted by: Charles W. Thompson, City Administi Prepared by: James W. Palin, Director, Developme__ LicLvice �oo c7 Subject: AUTHORIZATION FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR C N ULTANT FOR PREPARATION OF RESOURCE DOCUMENTATION FOR ORTH - THE PIER DEVELOPMENT AppgOVED SY GITY GOVNGLL Consistent with Council Policy? Y] Yes [ ] New Policy or Exce ion 1 Statement of Issue, Recommendation,Analysis, Funding Source,Alternati a Actions,A r;x STATEMENT OF ISSUE: As part of the City' s new responsibility in operation of the State Beach area north of the pier, it is necessary that a Development Plan be prepared for the area. No recreational development north of the pier can occur until the Development Plan is prepared. State guidelines for such plans require that detailed Resource Documentation be prepared as an initial step in the Development Plan process . Because of the scope of this undertaking and to assure that the Development Plan remains on schedule, it is recommended that an outside consulting firm prepare the Resource Documentation. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Department of Development Services to prepare a Request for Proposal for preparation of Resource Documentation for the North of the Pier beach area. ANALYSIS: State guidelines for Resource Documents require collecting of a great deal of technical data. Among the information which must be included are: topography, meteorology, hydrology, geology, soils, plant life, animal life, marine life, ecology, cultural resources, aesthetic resources and recreation resources. The City staff does not possess the technical expertise to prepare this type of information in a timely manner. It is, therefore, recommended that a consulting firm be retained to prepare the necessary resource documentation. FUNDING SOURCE: Budget account 101-593, Miscellaneous Contingency 40 PIO 5/85 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Do not authorize the Request for Proposals for preparation of Resource Documentation. The documentation may be prepared by staff, but this may delay preparation of a Development Plan for the North of the Pier beach area. ATTACHMENTS: None JWP:HS:kla RCA - 4/20/87 -2- (7822d)