The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAppeal filed by Amigos De Downtown - Robert Bolen of Plannin CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN ST R E T CA L I FO R N I A 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY CITY CLERK Revised May 28, 1997 Mr. Mike Roberts J. T. Development 15272 Bolsa Chica Road Huntington Beach, CA 92649. Regarding: (City Council)Public Hearing-Appeal Filed By Amigos De Downtown-Robert Bolen,et al-To The Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39(R)with Special Permits-Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)-Tentative Tract Map No. 14352(R)-Negative Declaration No. 96-16- Third Block West-Plaza Almeria-Main Street-Olive Avenue-5th Street-Orange Avenue-Appeal Denied Dear Mr. Roberts: On April 7, 1997,the City Council approved the above referenced application and denied the appeal filed by Mr. Bolen, et al. Enclosed are the minutes of April 7, 1997, page numbers 843-851; Findings and Mitigation Measures for Negative Declaration No. 96-16; Findings and Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 90- 39 (R)with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R), Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R); and additional Finding for Approval No. 6 for Conditional Permit No. 90-39(R). If you have questions, please call the Community Development Department-536-5271. Sincerely, Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:mh Enclosures: Minutes of April 7, 1997, page numbers 843-851 Findings and Mitigation Measures for Negative Declaration No. 96-16 Findings and Conditions of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R), Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R). Additional Finding for Approval No. 6 for Conditional Permit No. 90-39(R). cc: Bob Bolen, Amigos de Downtown,P. 0. Box 69,Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Melanie Fallon, Community Development Department David Biggs,Economic Development Department g:\cbmemos\97cbmem\97-057cc (Telephone: 714-536.5227) �-3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON' BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA 92648 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY May 2, 1997 CITY CLERK Mr. Mike Roberts J. T. Development 15272 Bolsa Chica Road Huntington Beach, CA 92649 i Re: (City Council) Public Hearing Appeal Filed By Amigos De Downtown - Robert Bolen, et al -To The Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits - Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R) - Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) - Negative Declaration No. 96-16 -Third Block West - Plaza Almeria - Main Street - Olive Avenue - 5th Street - Orange Avenue -Appeal Denied Dear Mr. Roberts: On April 7, 1997, the City Council approved the above referenced application and denied the appeal filed by Mr. Bolen, et al. Enclosed are the minutes of April 7, 1997, page numbers 843-851, in which approval is stated. If you have questions, please call the Community Development Department - 536-5271. Sincerely, Connie Brockway City Clerk CB:cc Attachments: City Council minutes, page nos. 843-851 cc: Bob Bolen, Amigos de Downtown, P. 0. Box 69, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Melanie Fallon, Community Development Department David Biggs, Economic Development Department g Acbmemos\97cbmem\97-057cc (Telephone:714.536-5227) 0 041 197 - City Council/Redevelopment Aoncy Minutes - Page 13 A motion was made by Garofalo, second Dettloff, to: 1. Approve Code Amendment No. 96-2 by approving introduction of Ordinance No. 3350 (Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action from the Community Development Department dated April 7, 1997). The City Clerk read Ordinance No. 3350 by title - "An - Ordinance Of The City Of Huntington Beach Amending The Huntington Beach Ordinance Code By Amending The Holly-Seacliff Specific Plan. (Code Amendment No. 96-2)." and 2. Approve Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-3 by adopting Resolution No. 97-16 (Attachment No. 3 to the Request for Council Action from the Community Development Department dated April 7, 1997) - " A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Huntington Beach Adopting Local Coastal Program Amendment No. 96-3 (Code Amendment No. 96-2) And Requesting Its Certification By The California Coastal Commission." The motion made by Garofalo, second Dettloff, carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Green, Garofalo NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: Julien (CITY COUNCIL) PUBLIC HEARING - APPEAL FILED BY AMIGOS DE DOWNTOWN - ROBERT BOLEN, ET AL - TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R) WITH SPECIAL PERMITS - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (R) - TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352 (R) - -� NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-16 - THIRD BLOCK WEST - PLAZA ALMERIA - MAIN STREET - OLIVE AVENUE - 5TH STREET - ORANGE AVENUE -APPEAL DENIED (420.40) The Mayor announced that this was the meeting set for a public hearing to consider: APPELLANT: Amigos de Downtown (Robert Bolen, et al) APPLICANTS: Robert Hidey and City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency LOCATION: Downtown Huntington Beach on a full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue REQUEST: To permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development project. The project includes the following: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT WITH SPECIAL PERMITS - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: To permit the construction of a mixed use project consisting of a total of 41,000 square feet of leaseable floor area. The components of the project consist of approximately 15,000 square feet of retail, approximately 15,000 square feet of restaurant, approximately 11,000 square feet of office, and 45 two-story, two bedroom townhomes. The project includes 843 Page 14 - Council/Agee Minutes - 04/07/97 • . a request to permit shared residential guest and office parking spaces and as previously approved, to allow the residential square footage to exceed 50% of the commercial square footage. The project includes the following six special permit requests: 1. To permit portions of the four (4) story structure at a height of 54 feet to the midpoint of the roof in lieu of the maximum 45 feet allowed by code and to permit a height of 65 feet for roofline architectural treatment in lieu of the maximum of 55 feet, and 2. To permit portions of the ground floor building setbacks on Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue between zero (0) and five (5) feet in lieu of the minimum code required five (5) foot setback, and 3. To permit portions of the upper story setback along Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue between zero (0) and ten (10) feet in lieu of the code required average of an additional-ten (10) foot setback from the second story facade, and 4. To permit 3,235 square feet of public open space within the net site area in lieu of providing the code required 4,092 square feet of public open space within the net site area, and 5. To permit 2,235 square feet of public open space in a linear pattern along the street frontages in lieu of the minimum code required 1,000 square foot plaza within one centralized plaza area, and 6. To permit 15,600 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in lieu of the code required 20,735 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. TENTATIVE TRACT: To permit a one lot subdivision of a 1.88 acre parcel for condominium purposes and review the condominium plan for 50 commercial/residential lots and seven (7) lettered lots. NEGATIVE DECLARATION: To analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts associated with the development project described above. Communication received from Roger Anderson dated April 2, 1997 in opposition to the project as proposed, and a communication received from Paul Cook, Paul E. Cook And Associates, dated March 29, 1997 in support of the project Notice is hereby given that the above item is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R), filed on December 28, 1995 in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report, public hearing, City Council discussion, and action. The above item is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. 844 04/097 City Council/Redevelopment Oncy Minutes - Page 15 The Community Development Director presented a staff report. She referred to her memorandum dated April 7, 1997, Subject: Plaza Almeria Appeal that had been announced earlier in the meeting by the City Clerk. She informed Council that as part of the review process the city had hired one-of the most premier architects in the country to assist staff in critiquing this project. Associatb Planner JaneMadera.presented a;staff report..togetherwith a slide report on the '- issue. The report included responses to the issues-set forth in the appellant's letter of appeal. She responded to the communication from Rainbow Disposal addressed to Jane Madera, Associate Planner, dated April 3, 1997 responding to the applicant's request for change of conditions. Associate Planner Madera informed Council that the wording of Condition 17 (d) is recommended by staff to be revised to read "residential or commercial refuse collection may occur on Orange Avenue between 9:00 a.m. - 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday." Associate Planner Madera responded to Councilmember Sullivan's questions regarding angle parking as it pertains to city code and backup space for parking. Discussion was held regarding Councilmember Sullivan's concerns. She responded to street restriping plans, stating the reason for the restriping. Sidewalk dimensions were also reported on at the request of Councilmember Sullivan. The Community Development Director reported that decisions of the Design Review Board can be appealed to the Zoning Administrator. In response to Councilmember Sullivan's concerns, Planning Director Zelefsky reported that the Redevelopment Agency would be paying the in-lieu fee. Councilmember Harman presented questions regarding the sewer study conditions, stating the Public Works Department will have to approve it and the developer will have to pay for it. The Economic Development Director informed Council that the development agreement set forth this provision. The City Clerk announced that the following communications on this item had been provided to the City Council: Slide report from the Community Development Department dated April 7, 1997 regarding the Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of Plaza Almeria, Conditional Use Permit No. 90- 39(R) with Special Permits, Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R), Tentative Tract Map No. 14352(R), and Negative Declaration No. 96-6 Communication from William and Philomene Gallegos dated April 4, 1997 in opposition to the revisions to the previously approved plan for the development of the Almeria Project Communication from Mike Roberts, J. T. Development Company, LLC Executive Vice President/Member, dated April 7, 1997 regarding commercial trash collection and an additional project review of the Plaza Almeria Project 845 Page 16 - Council/AgenoMinutes - 04/07/97 Communication from Ron Shenkman, Rainbow Disposal Company, Inc. Senior Vice President, dated April 3, 1997 regarding waste disposal needs for the Plaza Almeria Project Legal notice as provided to the_ City Clerk's_Office by staff had been mailed, published and posted. rr:Mayor.�Bauer.decl:aredakte public hearing open. JOHN TILLOTSON, applicant, informed Council that virtually all of those persons responding to a Huntington Beach Independent article soliciting input on whether the project should be approved mostly responded favorably. He stated that he would ask Mr. Heidy, Architect, to present an overview of the project. ROBERT HEIDY, Architect, presented a report covering aspects of the design of the project, JERRY DOMINGUEZ, Regional Manager for Southern California Edison Company, informed Council that he believed this project was a tremendous use of the property. RON DAVIS stated that he opposed the project due to units fronting on Main Street which could be an "oil and water" component due to noise emitted from the vibrant, active, busy center. He requested that a residential component not be included in the project. ART AVILES spoke in support of the project, stating that he believed it will be a useful, very enhancing, beautiful area citing issues of needed revenue and housing. DOUG CAMPBELL expressed his opposition and requested the project be delayed until it can be made better. He referred to a model he had made showing that it is an open parking structure with no greenbelt. Discussion was held between Councilmember Harman and Mr. Campbell regarding what Mr. Campbell believes to be the difference between this proposed mixed use and the mixed use of the Town Square Project where Mr. Campbell resides. Mr. Campbell responded that he believed the difference in the areas relates to the setback on the residential portion. _.. _..SCO.TT. CAMPBELL.distribu.ted material to Council which he believed-shows that the building height is not compatible with the downtown as stated by the Planning Commission. Discussion was held between Mr. Campbell and Council regarding height dimensions. He requested that Council vote against the project and give the developer an opportunity to come back with a more compatible project on which he could still make money. In response to Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff, Mr. Campbell stated that their homeowners' association had met with the developer but that, according to staff, the changes agreed to by the developer could not be made. HEATHER GOODSELL stated her opposition to the proposed project due to the impact on her quality of life as a homeowner at Town Square. She gave reasons why she did not believe the project is compa!ible and stated that she believed it could be compatible if the modifications required by the association as set forth on Page 48 of the report are made. She spoke regarding the types of noises which she anticipates will disturb the residents. She requested that the developer be asked to modify the project. 846. 00/97 - City Council/Redevelopment lency Minutes - Page 17 ART HOPKINS, Town Square homeowner, spoke regarding the difficulty of sleeping due to bars emptying out and that this project, due to reasons including the project garage emptying out immediately across the street from his home and the parking lot having all open sides with car alarms going off, will increase the noise problem. He stated that he is not against the project being built there but that he believes a mixed use project must be built very carefully. He stated that he was very disturbed that someone in the Planning Division had caused a video to be copied of his testimony to the Planning Commission where he-had spoken-very • - _ :_ _-- negatively about what was in the report and sent to the city at which he works. He stated that he had been called in and spoken to. He stated he considers this a major violation of his civil rights and thinks it should be investigated. He stated he hopes the project is denied in its present form and more consideration given to mixed use. He stated that Mr. Tillotson was sued by the homeowners' associations of his previous two projects, Busas del Mar and Villa del Mar, for construction defects and presented copies of the lawsuits to Council. Councilmember Sullivan stated his demand for an investigation of Mr. Hopkins' charge to determine if it contains substance. Mayor Pro Tern Dettloff stated the reasons why she would like information on the subject now. Mayor Bauer stated that an investigation should be made using good personnel practices. Councilmember Garofalo stated that he did not need to know a name but would like to know if a city employee did, in fact, do what Mr. Hopkins has alleged. Deputy City Attorney Barron spoke regarding the legal aspects and the need to report to Council on this issue in an unheated manner. GERALD CATERINA stated that he believed the parking was refreshing from a parking aspect and from a good landscape planning viewpoint. JOYCE RIDDELL stated that the Chamber of Commerce supported the project and that their organization believes a good mixed use project will bring added revenue to the city. LORETTA WOLFE, Huntington Beach Tomorrow representative, addressed Council and stated opposition to the parking provisions of the plan. She informed Council that the city does not have specifications for a "parking court" which she believes is a dangerous method of parking. She stated that Huntington Beach Tomorrow had done a test of this type of parking provision and it did not work as the street is not big enough; that the cars would be hit on the other side and congestion would be caused. She spoke regarding other parking deficiencies which she believes exist. BOB WINCHELL, Huntington Beach Tomorrow representative, stated their opposition to the project due to compatiblity factors and that he believes hardship must be found. He stated that if variance hardship is not found, lawsuits may come; that in the past the city has been sued at least once and which he believes the city lost. He stated the need to adhere to the Specific Plan. He spoke regarding the perpendicular parking which will force cars into the lane of opposing traffic which is a hazard. Mr. Winchell stated that Council should have received a letter from Planning Commissioner Bob Biddle in the last few weeks enumerating different areas in which this project fails and needs to be revised. He stated that he hopes Council has looked at it and will consider it at this meeting. He requested that Council have the project redesignated to conform such things as the Downtown Specific Plan, safety considerations, height, bulk considerations and visual appearance. 847 Page 18 - Council/Ago Minutes - 04/07/97 JINX VARONA addressed Council in opposition to the project. He presented examples of noise impact which will tie up future city councils when residents attend meetings to complain and to request Council assistance. Mr. Varona requested that the project be delayed in order to fix problems so that city code enforcement and the Police Department do not expend time responding to the problems which he believes will occur as a result of the project. ED LAIRD addressed Council and stated his support for Fire Chief Dolder relative to comments made during the Public Comments section of the agenda. He then spoke in support of the project: Mr. Laird stated that he believed the reference to the lawsuits by the previous speaker was inappropriate as many people are sued and it is a way of life in Southern California. In reference to the public comment made regarding the video of the Planning Commission meeting being filmed and forwarded to the person's employer, Mr. Laird informed Council that he believed anyone could have filmed a portion of the Planning Commission meeting and placed it in the mail. MIKE ROBERTS, representing the developer, informed Council they had addressed some of the concerns of the neighbors regarding the project. He stated that people choose to live downtown as a way of life. He informed Council that it must be remembered that there is no perfect project. He requested that Council approve the additional condition whereby if the developer decides to downsize the project that the downsized proposal will not have to return to the City Council for approval. BOB BOLEN, appellant, stated that his business is directly across from the Plaza Almeria and that the plaza has been removed from the plan. He stated that the project will negatively affect his property and the property of his business neighbors. Mr. Bolen informed Council that in the Specific Plan there is no provision to share commercial parking with residential and read from the code. He distributed to Council the city code relative to angle and backup parking. He presented reasons why he does not believe the parking provisions meet code requirements. He stated the issues which he believed were not answered by staff. He stated that the Coastal Commission, as evidenced by a letter addressed to Herb Fauland, Senior Planner, in 1996, has similar questions as are in the letter of appeal under consideration at this meeting. Mr. Bolen stated he would distribute this letter to Council. He requested that if the project is approved that the residential element be removed from the Main Street area of the project; that Council may also require that the parking be removed from both sides of Main Street and wide sidewalks installed on both sides. He displayed a street sign to Council that was removed by city employees. He stated that when the city employees were asked why removal of the street sign was being done, they had replied that the city was readying the area for the project that was getting ready to start across the street. He informed Council that the sign removal prior to this public hearing demonstrated that it was a foregone conclusion that this project would be approved. RYAN RIECHES spoke regarding his support for the staff recommendation of approval for the project. There being no one present to speak further on the matter and there being no further protests filed, either oral or written, the hearing was closed by the Mayor. 848 04, 97 - City Council/Redevelopment #ncy Minutes - Page 19 Councilmember Sullivan spoke at length regarding the areas of the project to which he objected. He stated that he did not object to a project in that area; however, he was opposed to this particular project due to height provisions and lack of meeting code for open space requirements by not taking the open space from the project. He stated his concerns that in the = big units there is space that can be converted for another bedroom-which if only half of the unit :-.. stood it would require the-need for much:additional.parking:space. He requested information from staff as to the definition of a."parking=court'"and-Planning:Director Zelefsky responded. He stated reasons for his concern that once Fifth Street is turned into a parking court that the possibility of Main Street ever becoming a pedestrian mall lessens. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believed the perpendicular parking would be unworkable causing traffic to stop both ways and would be dangerous. He spoke regarding the fact that redevelopment parking provisions were supposed to be put on this project and now the provisions have not been put in place; that there is a recommendation not to do it at all. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believed the city was planning to "share" shared parking. Councilmember Sullivan stated that he believed there is a concern in the public that this project is an approved project prior to the hearing of this appeal. He stated that as much as a Council person likes an applicant on a personal level, a decision must be made on behalf of the city as a whole; that feeling sorry for the developer cannot influence decisions; that the Council must do the right thing. He stated his opinion that to do a project to pay bills is not a good reason; that this project would probably not be bad relative to financial aspects but would be bad for the community. Councilmember Sullivan stated reasons why he believes mixed use in this area should be rental residential, not home ownership. The Community Development Director responded to the differences between the project as presented at a past study session approximately six months ago. Planning Director Zelefsky responded to Councilmember Harman's questions regarding the street width, stating that 68 feet is not required, that if the 25 foot parking radius for residential projects is used, 59 feet is required and that it will meet the parking code required. Councilmember Harman asked if the environmental report had addressed the "shadow" effect on Mr. Bolen's buildings. Planning Director Zelefsky stated that he could check the back of the environmental documentation; that the architect may have done a "shadowing" study. Councilmember Green stated his support for the project, stating that he believes mixed use can work and cited the example of San Francisco. Mayor Pro Tem Dettloff stated that she believes that it has been forgotten that there is an approved project for the past six years on this site. She spoke regarding the background of the matter and stated reasons why she supports the project. She stated that based on facts including the issue that there is a good architect and there will be people wanting to buy homes that the project should be approved. Councilmember Garofalo spoke regarding the history of the downtown development and this proposed project. He stated that he does not believe downtown will ever work until people are living there which will make it a twelve-month viable area. He stated that there will be an impact to people who live there, but the way the downtown is now, there is an impact to all the residents of the area of the city financially. 849 Page 20 - Council/Ag* Minutes - 04/07/97 S Councilmember Garofalo asked the City Attorney if the city has any input in the development of CC&Rs relative to mixed use. Deputy City Attorney Barron replied that under the setting Councilmember Garofalo described, the city does not. .C.ouncilmember Garofalo:stated::that he.would.encourage.the.landowner or developer should - •--_this project_or..whatev.er,project is_:approvedao stron,g{y put.up,frgnt the language that would help�mitigate.future.concerns about the lifestyle there. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the parking code distributed by Mr. Bolen, and Planning Director Zelefsky stated that this diagram did not relate to the issue being discussed. He informed Council that the zoning code covered this provision. Councilmember Sullivan presented further questions on the issue and Planning Director Zelefsky reported. A motion was made by Green, second Garofalo, that Council approve the following actions: 1. Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-16 with findings and mitigation measures as set forth in Attachment No. 1 to the Request for Council Action from the Community Development Department, dated April 7, 1997. 2. Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits - Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R) - Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) with findings and conditions of approval as set forth in Attachment No. 1 of the Request for Council Action from the Community Development Department, dated April 7, 1997 with the following sixth Condition of Approval: Any future redesign of the project which reduces the total number of approved residential units and/or reduces the overall approved building height shall be compatible with the surrounding use and consistent with the Spanish Village/Mediterranean theme of the project. Any future reduction of approved residential units and/or overall building height shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board only. The review of the project shall be to ensure a design consistent with the approved architectural theme for the project. and 3. Approve Findings for Approval for Special Permits as set forth in the communication from the Community Development Director to the Mayor and City Councilmembers dated April 7, 1997, Subject: Plaza Almeria Appeal (announced earlier in the public hearing) and further that Condition 17 (d) be revised to read "residential or commercial refuse collection may occur on Orange Avenue between 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday." Mayor Bauer stated the reasons why he believed it is an excellent project, including the fact that it has been examined for close to seven years and that six months ago Council had a world renown architect basically tell us what we ought to do and that has been executed, and at that time Council did indicate to the project proponent that what was described by Mr. Von Tilberg, Architect, was an excellent project. He stated that the people who have voiced - objections at this meeting have had six months to voice their objections and that every single issue raised at this meeting has been addressed in a reasonable fashion. He stated that the . i 850 0411/97 - City Council/Redevelopment )ency Minutes - Page 21 project was decreased in number of living units and increases the amount of commercial retail. He spoke regarding the financial benefits of the project to the city. The motion made by Green, second Garofalo, carried by the following roll call vote: `'= AYES: Harman, Dettloff, Bauer, Green, NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: Julien I (CITY COUNCIL) PARKING ON INTREPID LANE - CITY ADMINISTRATOR INSTRUCTED TO MEET WITH COUNTY OF ORANGE PERSONNEL AT EARLIEST POSSIBLE TIME (560.40) The Public Works Director reported on a communication which had been distributed to the Gity Councilmembers during the Council meeting and which had been announced by the City Clerk earlier in the meeting. The communication was addressed to the Mayor and City Councilmembers from the Public Works Director, Subject: Parking Issues on Intrepid Lane (Item H-5 B). The Public Works Director's report included the history of the permit parking in this area. He informed Council that a Coastal Development Permit must be approved by the City Council which would be appealable to the Coastal Commission. He stated that staff has met with Coastal Commission staff and discussed the Coastal Commission staffs concerns which they have expressed relative to not being willing necessarily to recommend any limitation which would in any way limit coastal access. He stated as a result staff is seeking additional parking studies which may have been done by the county or state in that area in order to better ascertain a position prior to taking any recommendation to the City Council which might be ultimately appealed before the Coastal Commission. Mayor Bauer presented his understanding of the issue before the Council. A motion was made by Garofalo, second Green, to instruct the City Administrator or his representative to meet with County of Orange personnel at the earliest possible time. The motion carried unanimously with Councilmember Julien absent. (CITY COUNCIL) RECOGNITION OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH HUMAN RELATIONS TASK FORCE MEMBERS - DESIGNATION OF THE TASK FORCE AS A CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH COMMITTEE - INTERIM APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS - APPROVED (110.20) The City Council considered a communication from the Deputy City Administrator/Public Information Officer regarding the Human Relations Task Force Committee and related issues. The City Clerk was requested to correct the spelling of a member's name to read "Charles Thomas" rather than "Charles Thompson." The foregoing instrument is a correct copy of the original on file in this office. Attest ------------------------ .. - •• . ................. lerk City C and Ex-off icio rk of the City Council of the Ci -ty of lun.+ingto;- Beach, Cal. 851 \' T CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 7, 1997 PLAZA ALMERIA/THIRD BLOCK WEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS : 1. The applicant has proposed six special permits consisting of requests to exceed maximum height, encroach into ground floor building setbacks, encroach into upper story setbacks, decrease the required public open space, provide an alternate location for public open space, and decrease common recreational open space. As specified in the Downtown Specific Plan, special permits may be approved if they result in significantly greater benefits to the project than would be provided if all the minimum requirements were met. In addition, the special permits and design of the project: a. Promote better living environments; and b. Provided better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout, and design; and c. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and d. Be consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment; and e. Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act; and f. Comply with State and Federal Law. 2. Special Permit No. 1 to exceed maximum building height complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the extra height is requested only for nine out of the eleven units proposed along Main Street above the office spaces. The units at the two comers of the project at Main and Olive and at Main and Orange have been scaled back so that the special permit for height is only needed in the middle of the Main Street frontage. Scaling back the units at the corners of the project allows for varied architectural design and interesting movement from the outside to center of the project. Special Permits - CUP No. 90-39 (R) April 7, 1997 Page Two The desired tiered effect can be achieved by allowing the middle portion of the building at a 54 foot height. This special permit also includes a request to permit portions of the building's roof line architectural treatment at a height of 65 feet in lieu of the maximum 55 feet allowed by code. The additional height for roof line treatment is proposed for the central tower structure on the Main Street frontage. By allowing the tower with an additional 10 feet, the tower will serve its purpose of a focal and anchoring point at the mid-plaza level. 3. Special Permit No. 2 to encroach into ground floor setbacks on Main Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue complies with all of the above findings for special permits because a commercial frontage effect on Olive and Orange Avenues can be better achieved if the building wall is designed at a zero setback in some areas. In addition, by allowing a closer setback on the street level, the project can create additional movement in the building wall between the street level commercial and the office and residential units above. 4. Special Permit No. 3 to encroach into the upper story setbacks complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the building design does achieve interesting and creative movement in the building's facade. In addition, in order to focus the scale of the building to the pedestrian eye level, a condition of approval has been included to require more architectural features on the ground floor building facade on all sides of the project. Additional architectural features should focus especially on incorporating awnings or eyebrows above windows, additional arches and pop-outs, and redesigning the parking garage ventilation arches to be more unobtrusive and to match the elements in the residential units on the third and fourth floors. 5. Special Permit No. 4 to reduce the amount of public open space complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the project will be redesigned so that the minimum building setback on Main Street will be six (6) feet and additional open space (an approximate 10 foot by 28 foot area for outdoor dining) will be provided in front of the restaurant on the east side of the project. This recommendation has been added as a condition of approval. In addition, a condition has been included to require that Plaza Almeria permanently provide elements of public art. This unique condition of approval will serve to unify the project's open space, provide for interesting aesthetic detail, improve the quality of the public open space, and implement a goal of the General Plan. Implementation of these conditions of approval will result in additional quality public open space provided within the net site area and meet the provisions for support of the special permit. i Special Permits - CUP No. 90-39 (R) April 7, 1997 Page Three 6. Special Permit No. 5 to provide the open space in a linear fashion along Main Street instead of in one centralized area complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the public improvement plan enables the applicant to utilize the public right-of-way to create a unique, stylized, and special plaza area thus meet the goals and policies of the Pedestrian Overlay General Plan Land Use designation on the site. The unique plaza area and use of the public right-of-way for open space will also allow outdoor dining to be provided immediately adjacent to the building wall thereby reducing conflicts with pedestrians, diners, and servers. In addition, the increased open space discussed and required in Special Permit No. 4 above will result in lessening the impact of this special permit request. 7. Special Permit No. 5 to reduce the amount of common residential open space complies with all of the above findings for special permits because while the public open space does not meet the minimum size or dimensions, the private open space has been designed so that it is almost double the amount of private open space required by code. The project is providing 10,205 square feet of private open space when only 5,400 square feet is required. w ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R) WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30(RL TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352 (R) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-16 1. The Negative Declaration No. 96-16 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty (20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 90-30 (R), Coastal Development Permit No. 90- 39 (R) and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R). 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for(CUP, CDP, TT), will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The existing storm drain in Olive Avenue shall be extended from Main Street to Fifth Street, removing the half round drain pipe. The existing storm drain in Main Street shall be extended to the north side of Orange Avenue, removing the half round drain pipe. 2. Fire protection shall include a separate fire service and shall be capable of providing 4,000 gallons/minute above the domestic water service. The developer shall abandon the existing eight inch water main within the alley between Main and Fifth Street, from the connection points at Orange Avenue to the north and Olive Avenue to the south. The developer shall design and construct water mains within Olive Avenue and Fifth Street. The water main within Fifth Street shall be twelve inches in diameter. The water main within Olive Avenue shall be eight inches in diameter from the existing point of connection at Main Street to approximately the (existing) alley between Main and Fifth Streets, increasing to twelve inches in diameter to the proposed twelve inch water main within Fifth Street. The twelve inch portion of the proposed water main within Olive Avenue shall connect to the existing twelve inch tap in the existing twenty inch water transmission main at approximately the location where the alley between Main and Fifth Streets intersect with Olive Avenue. .43 _1_ I 3. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed no lower than the highest residential unit to minimize potential odor impacts to the townhomes. 4. An acoustical analysis report,prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, shall be completed prior to submittal of building permits. The noise study shall address potential noise impacts to the residential units from adjacent commercial and restaurant uses, refuse collection, parking garage, trash chutes, delivery, restaurant venting/shafts, and other project related noise sources. The acoustical analysis shall include recommendations for building materials and design of the units to reduce exterior noise standards to below 60 dB (A) and interior noise standards to below 45 dB (A). FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R): 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the mixed use commercial, office and residential project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed the project will provide adequate public plaza area, open air commercial amenities, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide sufficient parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of several elements of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed with a Spanish Village/Mediterranean theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and with the conditions of approval imposed the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other downtown development. 3. The proposed mixed use project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located, except for the six special permits that have been requested. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of MV-F6/25-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical- 2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Goal L UI: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. -2- i b. Goal L U2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the School Districts prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigation's to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project approval by the permitting City authority. Appropriate mitigation may include, but not be limited to, use of existing facilities or surplus sites, construction of new facilities, payment of fees, and reduction of densities. c. Goal L U7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. d. Objective LU7.1: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that (a) provides for the housing, commercial, employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and future residents, (b)provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding sub-region, (c) captures visitor and tourist activity, and(d) provides open space and aesthetic "relief' from urban development. e. Goal L U9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. f. Goal LUll: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use. g. Objective ED].1: Enhance the City's market potential in terms of retail, office, industrial, and visitor serving activity. This would allow Huntington Beach to provide for retail, office, and industrial opportunities that serve the current and projected population and enhance sales and occupancy tax revenue. h. Goal ED3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. i. Policy ED3.2.2: Encourage mixed use (retail/office/residential) structures in the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. j. Policv LU15.2.2: Require that structures located in the pedestrian overlay zone be sited and designed to enhance pedestrian activity along the sidewalks in consideration of the guidelines noted in the general plan. 15 -3- 5. In accordance with a court finding for this site,this revised conditional use permit complies with the permitted uses standards contained in District 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan. The court reaffirmed the City's decision of March 4, 1991,to analyze the maximum commercial to residential square footage ratios on a District 5 wide basis. The revised project's proposed residential square footage exceeds the maximum 50% residential to 50% commercial square footage ratio on this site only. Therefore, the revised project is in compliance with the ratio standard for the District and is site specific. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (R): 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 90-39 (R) for the development project, as proposed or as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for the six special permits requested and approved concurrently. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL-TENTATIVE MAP NO. 14352 (R)LI 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) for a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of MV-F6/25-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code except for the six special permits requested and approved concurrently with this application. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The site is relatively flat and is situated on an entire block. The existing alley will be vacated in association with this project and dedications for street widening purposes will be made. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. /6 -4- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39(Rl: 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated January 22, 1997, shall be resubmitted to the Department of Community Development and be subject to a comprehensive plan check to reflect the following modifications: a. All site plans, floor plans, and building elevations shall be completely dimensioned and all non-obvious building elements, features, and characteristics shall be clearly labeled. Special attention shall be paid to clearly labeling architectural features on the elevations and additional architectural treatment shall be provided on the ground floor building facade on all sides of the project. Additional features should focus on awnings or eyebrows above windows, additional arches and pop-outs, and redesigning the parking garage ventilation arches to be more unobtrusive and to match the elements in the residential units on the third and fourth floors. All architectural features as currently proposed on upper floors shall be included on building permit plans. Each sheet of plans shall include a scale. b. All elevations shall be completely labeled with proposed colors and materials. c. In order to increase open space along Main Street and create an enhanced pedestrian thoroughfare, all structures more than forty-two (42) inches in height, except architectural features such as non-habitable floor area, staricases, a tower element, an entry vestibule, and the rounded turrets at the corners of Main and Olive and Main and Orange, shall be set back a minimum of six(6) feet from the front property line on Main Street. Other architectural features may encroach into this minimum six (6) foot setback subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. d. In order to provide more open space along Main Street and minimize the extent of the special permit, an approximately ten(10) foot wide by twenty-eight (28) foot long area for outdoor dining/plaza shall be provided within the net site area immediately in front of the 6,525 square foot restaurant along Main Street near the south side of the project. e. In order to create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation along 5th Street, the top plate of the parking garage shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet from highest adjacent curb and the entire elevation along 5th Street shall be revised to minimize the vertical mass by including special and unique architectural features to screen the ventilation openings of the parking garage and to match elements of the residential units on the third and fourth floors; these revisions shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. f. All structures more than forty-two (42) inches in height shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line on 5th Street. g. Pavers or a similar stamped concrete treatment shall be incorporated on all four sides of the project and shall be designed to differentiate between the public and private right-of- way. The use of decorative pavers shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works. / 7 -5- I h. In order to avoid an institutional atmosphere and stark appearance of the pedestrian hallway between the parking garage and the plaza area on Main Street, the interior design of the corridor shall incorporate innovative design elements and have appropriate lighting subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. i. All levels of the parking garage shall be revised to depict all necessary support columns and/or walls. Columns may only be placed within three feet of the front or the rear of a parking stall. The width of all parking spaces adjacent to a wall more than forty-two (42) inches in height shall be increased by three feet for a total clear parking stall width of twelve feet. j. Parking Space No. 52 shall be physically separated from the residential car wash area on Parking Level 2 by a wall or other screening method. This space and space No. 49 on the same level shall be increased by three (3) feet in width. k. The entrance to the residential parking garage shall be redesigned so that both the entrance and exit is completely secured from vehicular and pedestrian traffic and accommodates guest access via a telephone access system. Design of the security gate system shall be subject to approval of the Director of Public Works, Director of Community Development, and Design Review Board. 1. The two commercial trash enclosure areas shall be redesigned to include a mat wash down area which drains directly to the sewer system. in. The public telephones depicted on Parking Level Minus 1 shall be deleted. n. The two rooms labeled"T"between the mechanical equipment rooms and trash rooms on both the north and south side of the project shall be defined on the site plan for consideration of being included in the final design of the project by the Community Development Director. o. Ramp slopes in the parking garage shall be redesigned to meet the maximum slope permitted by code. Transition ramps which are also used as back-up space for parking stalls shall have a maximum slope of 5 percent. The maximum slope for transition ramps with no adjacent parking spaces shall be 10 percent. A ramp used for ingress and egress to a public street shall have a transition section at least 16 feet long and a maximum slope of 5 percent. (Code Requirement) p. One parking stall shall be restriped for a turn around space for vehicles entering the project from Olive Avenue and traveling north on the main parking level. Restripe either parking stall No. 1 or parking stall No. 89 on the Main Level as a turnaround space. This turnaround space shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum number of required parking spaces. /S -6- I q. A public art element shall be integrated and be in a publicly accessible place within the Plaza Almeria project. Public art shall include art of: 1) Artistic excellence and innovation, 2) Appropriate to the design of the project, 3) Reflective of the community's cultural identity, (ecology, history, society). A public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Community Development Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final inspection. r. The transformers on the north side of the project that are encroaching into the minimum five (5) foot exterior yard setback shall be screened from view by any combination of the following: 1) sink the transformers into the ground and construct a low screen wall, 2) utilize special architectural treatments, 3)utilize creative landscape treatments, or 4) any other screening method approved by Community Development and Public Works Directors. s. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) t. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view by landscaping or an alternate approved method subject to the Community Development Director's review. (Code Requirement) u. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) v. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. / 9 w. Outdoor lighting shall be included and energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. Lighting shall also be included on all levels of the parking structure and shall include lighting in all pedestrian pathways and over vehicle parking areas. An indoor and outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. x. Plans shall be amended to reflect the revised project description for 15,000 square feet of commercial, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, and 11,000 square feet of office. y. Parking tabulations on the cover shall be amended to reflect 284 required parking spaces. z. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed no lower than the highest residential unit to minimize potential odor impacts to the townhomes. Any external venting or mechanical equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to submittal of building permits. aa. The Redevelopment Agency shall pursue relocating the bus stop from its current location on Orange Avenue at the northwest corner of the site to the east side of Main Street just north of Orange Avenue. If the applicant is unsuccessful in relocating the bus stop, then an alternate location for loading and unloading shall be subject to review.and approval of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director and if necessary, by the Planning Commission. Provision of the on-street loading zone shall not result in the loss of any on-street parking spaces. bb. The first and second floor facades shall be redesigned to accommodate appropriate signage. In addition, a planned sign program establishing a colors, materials, and sign theme for the entire site shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The planned sign program shall include guidelines and criteria for all tenants, directional signs, parking level signs, elevators, staircases, ingress and egress signs, etc. cc. The public plaza area shall be designed so that 30% of the area is landscaped, the entire plaza has textured paving, a visual feature such as a fountain, information kiosk, pond, sculpture, etc., is included, public seating is provided, and a maximum of 50% of plaza area on private property may be used for commercial activities. dd. The common residential open space area shall include a combination of the following (or similar) amenities throughout the open space area: barbecues, an outdoor fireplace, seating areas, shade structure, etc. These open space amenities shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 2. Any change in type of use and/or square footage which would increase the number of required parking spaces shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. � o -8- 3. Any restaurant use (greater than 12 seats) shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 4. Any outdoor dining use shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. All outdoor dining shall be located adjacent to the buildings and the restaurant uses they serve. As a result,the pedestrian corridor/access way shall be located along the eastern, southern, and northern edges of the project boundaries. 5. Any proposed alcohol sales shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 6. No basement area shall be permitted without the approval of the Community Development Director. 7. The proposed public improvements along Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue shall be maintained by the property owner through a License Agreement between the Public Works Department and the property owner. The License Agreement and associated insurance requirements shall be reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the public improvement plan. 8. A minimum ten (10) foot wide public access way be maintained on all four sides of the project by the property owner through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & R's) and a License and Maintenance Agreement. Both documents shall be approved as to form and content by the City Attorney's Office. 9. The cost of relocating any on-street parking meter and re-striping on-street parking spaces shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. All restriping and parking meter relocation shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department and there shall be no net loss of public parking spaces or parking meters. 10. All public improvements including but not limited to special pavers and concrete, landscaping, lighting, etc. that are not consistent with standard Public Works plans previously approved by the City Council shall be subject to review and approval of the City Council through an amendment to the Main Street Improvement Plan. 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday - Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Construction hours along with a contact name and phone number shall be clearly posted on all four sides of the site. 12. Prior to of submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). z � -9- b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plan and the processing fee to the Planning Division for addressing purposes. c. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD). d. An acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be completed prior to submittal of building permits. The noise study shall address potential noise impacts to the new residential units and to adjacent properties from new on-site commercial and restaurant uses, refuse collection, parking garage, trash chutes, delivery, restaurant venting/shafts, and other project related noise sources. The acoustical analysis shall include recommendations for building materials and design of the new residential units to reduce exterior noise standards to below 60 dB (A) and interior noise standards to below 45 dB (A). e. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations, retaining walls, streets, utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) f. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) g. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. h. A planned sign program for all signage shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Said program shall be approved prior to the first sign request. i. Prior to submittal of building permits, the final design, including but not limited to colors, materials, architectural elements, and landscape plans, shall be subject to a second review and approval by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the DRB approved plans during the plan check process, then a subsequent review and approval by the DRB will be required prior to issuance of building permits. .Z 2 -10- 13. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. A grading plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PV ) b. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. (PW) c. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a"Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. e. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. The developer shall design and construct the drainage system required to serve the development. f. A sewer study shall be submitted for Public Works approval. The developer shall design and construct the sewer system required to serve the development. Additional off-site sewer main construction and/or slip lining may be required depending on the results of the sewer study. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1.for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community Development. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. .23 -11- The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1) with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) c. A street improvement plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PW) d. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. (PW) e. The developer shall submit a separate utility plan showing water system improvements, including service connections to each building, fire hydrant, valves, backflow devices and other appurtenances in accordance with applicable U.P.C., City ordinances, Public Works Standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by the Public Works Water Division and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to any construction. (PW) f. A Parking Management Plan (PMP) consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The PMP shall consist of a full size (18 inch by 24 inch)plan of the parking structure, a written narrative, and a written policy for all building tenants and employees. The plan shall detail those areas designated for employee parking and the written policy shall specify that all employees shall park on site at Plaza Almeria in a specified area. The written policy shall outline a plan for validated parking in the structure for patrons of Plaza Almeria. The validation program shall be the same as the validation program provided at the City's parking structure. The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC&R's for the project. (Code Requirement) g. The Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. (Code Requirement) h. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The construction plan shall identify a staging area and street closures and shall be subject review and approval by the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Police Department, and Fire Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. -12- i. Submit gated entryway (access control devices) plans to the Department of Community Development. The gated entryway shall comply with Fire Department Standard No. 403. Prior to the installation of any gates, such plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. j. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Division. k. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map by more than one (1) foot unless approved by the City Engineer. 1. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval. in. Prior to issuance of building permits for any model homes or temporary sales office, the applicant shall obtain approval of a Temporary Use Permit through the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator. 15. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%)by weight for construction equipment; -d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 16. Prior to final building permit inspection and approval of the first residential unit(or commencement of use), the following shall be completed: a. The 18 parking spaces previously required on this site for the Townsquare project shall be either: 1) Provided at an off-site location; or -13- 2) Be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu parking fee subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process; or 3) An entitlement plan amendment to delete or revise the 18 parking spaces condition of approval of the Townsquare project shall be applied for to the Planning Commission. b. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality Management District and submit a copy to Department of Community Development. c. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein, including: 1) Landscaping; 2) Construct full improvements as required on 5th Street, Main Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue, per Public Works requirements (PV). 3) Signing, striping, and street lighting shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Public Works Standards. 4) Drainage flows from adjacent properties shall not be obstructed. Flows shall be accommodated per Public Works Department requirements. 5) The developer shall submit a separate water utility plan at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet, showing water system improvements for the proposed development. All water improvements shall be designed and installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's Standard Plans, Specifications and Design Criteria. 6) Each of the proposed retail buildings shall have a separate domestic water service sized per the UPC (minimum size one-inch). This service shall include backflow protection per Standard Plan No. 609 with the backflow device located within a landscape area and screened from view. The proposed retail building located on the southerly portion of the proposed project shall have the water meters located on Olive Avenue. The proposed retail building located on the northerly portion of the proposed project shall have the water meters located on Orange Avenue. 7) All residential units of the proposed project shall be served water from a single water meter, sized per the UPC. This meter shall be located on Fifth Street near the intersection of Orange Avenue and Fifth Street. The water service shall include backflow protection per Standard Plan No. 609, with the backflow devises located within a landscaped area and screened from view. 8) Fire protection shall include a separate fire service per Standard Plan No. 618, sized per the Fire Department Requirements, located on Fifth Street near the intersection of Fifth Street and Olive Avenue. The water service shall include backflow protection per Standard Plan No. 609, with the backflow device located within a landscaped area and screened from view. 26 -14- 9) Landscape irrigation shall consist of at least one - two inch meter assembly per Standard Plan No. 603-B and backflow device per Standard Plan No. 609, located per the City of Huntington Beach Landscape Architect. 10)The developer shall abandon the existing eight inch water main within the alley between Main and Fifth Streets, from the connection points at Orange Avenue to the north and Olive Avenue to the south. 1'1)The developer shall design and construct water mains within Olive Avenue and Fifth Street. The water main within Fifth Street shall be twelve inches in diameter. The water main within Olive Avenue shall be eight inches in diameter from the existing point of connection at Main Street to approximately the (existing) alley between Main and Fifth Streets, increasing to twelve inches in diameter to the proposed twelve inch water main within Fifth Street. 12)The twelve inch portion of the proposed water main within Olive Avenue shall connect to the existing twelve inch tap in the existing twenty inch water transmission main in Olive Avenue. This existing tap is located in the Olive Avenue transmission main at approximately the location, where the alley between Main Street and Fifth Street intersect with Olive Avenue. 13)All existing overhead utilities to the first pole off-site, less than 66 KV, shall be undergrounded. 14)The existing storm drain in Walnut Ave. or Main St. shall be extended to the intersection of Fifth St. and Olive Ave., removing the half round drain pipe on all four corners. 1.5)The existing storm drain in Main Street shall be extended north as needed to accommodate site drainage. 16)The existing sewer main located within the existing alley shall be rerouted around the project. 17)Trash storage areas and mat wash down area shall drain into the sewer. 18)No combustible construction shall occur without the approved water system installed. 19)Fire extinguishers will be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. (FD) 027 -15- 20)A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: a) manual pulls; b) water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection; c) 24 hour supervision; d) smoke detectors; e) annunciation; f) audible alarm; and g) graphic display;(FD) 21)Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD) 22)Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be sized a minimum of six (6) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half(1-1/2) inches. (FD) 23)Exit signs and exit path markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Low level exit signs will be included. (FD) 24)On-site fire hydrants (4) shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department and shall be installed prior to combustible construction. (FD) 25)An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. (FD) 26)A Class III wet standpipe system (combination) will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. (FD) 27)Elevators will be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum six (6) foot, eight(8) inches wide by four(4) foot, three (3) inches deep with minimum of 42 inch opening. (FD) 28)Security gates will be designed to comply with City Specification#402. (FD) 29)Submit to the Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification#426. (FD) �8 -16- 30)Soils issue and leaking tank at Main and Olive. There is hydrocarbon contamination located at Main and Olive. All project soils must meet City Soil Specification#431- 92. (FD) 31)Water supply shall be capable of providing 4,000 gallons/minute above domestic for required fire flow. (FD) d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Community Development Department. e. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. f. The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) 17. The use shall comply with the following: a. There shall be no excessive noise generating uses, such as, restaurants and live entertainment,permitted in the office spaces on the second floor. b. Service roads and fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) c. Commercial loading/unloading activities may occur on Orange Avenue only between the hours of 7:00 AM - 8:00 PM. d. No residential or commercial refuse collection may occur on Orange Avenue at any time. e. Commercial loading/unloading activities and residential and commercial refuse collection may occur on Olive Avenue at any time. f. Residential refuse collection is the only activity permitted on 5th Street. 18. This Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, and returned to the Planning Division. 19. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. ZI -17- INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS• 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall not become effective until the ten ► day appeal period has elapsed. i F 4 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No.,90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R), pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees adopted in the "upcoming" Water Division Financial Master Plan. (PW) 5. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 6. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 7. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Department of Community Development prior to occupying the building. 8. Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map by the City. 9. State-mandated school impact fees in an amount negotiated with the appropriate school districts shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 10. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 11. All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, a building permit shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development. �p -18- 12. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 14352 (R): 1. The-tentative map received and dated January 27, 1997, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final map for approval by the City Council, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Community Development. The plan may allow the Redevelopment Agency to meet the requirement to provide for a minimum 15 percent of the housing units (7 units total) as affordable either on-site or at an off-site location. The Redevelopment Agency may elect to rehabilitate off-site units in the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area. A minimum of 40%of the 7 affordable units (minimum of 3 units) shall be affordable to families of very low income for a period of thirty years through recorded covenants. The remaining 4 units shall be affordable to families of low and moderate income level (average 80% of Orange County median) for a period of thirty years. Said plan shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The affordable units shall be completely rehabilitated, and available to the public, prior to final building permit approval (occupancy) of the first home in Plaza Almeria. b. At least 60 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted -_to the Department of Community Development and approved by the City Attorney. The 'CC&Rs shall reflect the Parking Management Plan and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. In addition, the CC&R's should include a disclosure regarding the mixed use nature of the project and this information shall be available in the sales office and advertising literature. All potential residents should be required to sign a waiver or disclosure form that it is understood that Plaza Almeria is a mixed use project and that uses such as, restaurant, live entertainment, and alcohol sales, etc. may be established on the ground floor of the building. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. c. The residential parking spaces within the secured parking garage shall be divided by the condo plan so that each of the 45 residential units is assigned and purchases two of the parking spaces with the purchase of the townhome. d. The storage units provided within the residential parking garage shall be divided by the condo plan so that each of the 45 residential units is assigned and purchases at least one of the minimum 100 cubic feet of storage space with the purchase of the townhome. 3 � -19- 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. All vehicular access rights to Main Street, 5th Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. b. `The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. c. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9- 330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. d. The developer shall dedicate the following for street purposes: 1) Two and one half(2 1/2) feet off of Orange Avenue. 2) Four(4) feet off of Main Street. 3) The storm drain system and appurtenances within the public streets. e. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach: 1) The water system and appurtenances within the public streets. 2) The sewer system and appurtenances within the public streets. 3) The storm drain system and appurtenances within the public streets. f. The existing alley, between Olive and Orange Avenues, shall be vacated on the Final Map. g. The condominium plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. The condominium plan shall include a minimum of two (2) assigned parking spaces and one (1) minimum 100 cubic feet of assigned storage space for each of the 45 residential units. A copy of the final condo plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for inclusion in the file. 4. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise stated. a. Final design elevation of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map by more that one (1) foot unless approved by the City Engineer. 3Z -20- b. The final map shall be accepted and recorded. c. All common area improvements shall be completed by the developer. d. Signing, striping and street lighting shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Public Works Standards. e. Drainage flows from adjacent properties shall not be obstructed. Flows shall be accommodated per Public Works Standards. f. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. (G:MADERA:THIRD:FINDCOND) .33 -21- Plaza Almeria April 7, 1997 Page Two FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R): 6. Any future redesign of the project which reduces the total number of approved residential units and/or reduces the overall approved building height shall be compatible with the surrounding use and consistent with the Spanish Village/Mediterranean theme of the project. Any future reduction of approved residential units and/or overall building height shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board only. The review of the project shall be to ensure a design consistent with the approved architectural theme for the project. In addition, although the Planning Commission included findings for the six (6) special permits (as requested by the applicant and modified by staff) in their approval action on February 25, 1997, no written findings for approval were provided at that time. In order to complete the record for the project, staff suggests the City Council include the attached findings for approval of special permits. See attached findings. Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Plaza Almeria: ♦ Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits ♦ Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R) ♦ Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) ♦ Negative Declaration No. 96-6 Plaza Almeria ♦Appeal by: ❖Amigos De Downtown (Robert Bolen, et al) ♦ Request by, =' ❖J T Development r ❖City of Huntington Beach w " `o Redevelopment Agency -2- `- m 4/7/97 _ $s t i • Request for Construction of: ♦ 155000 square feet retail ♦ 15,000 square feet restaurant ♦ 11,000 square feet office ♦45 two-story, two-bedroom townhomes -3- Background (Third Block West): ♦ City Council approved 3/4/91: ❖10,000 square feet market ❖10,000 square feet retail ❖8,000 square feet office ❖68 - 1 and 2 bedroom condos 4/7/97 • Background: ♦Project revised and approved by Planning Commission 2/25/97 ❖Increase leasable space ❖Redesign type of residential units ❖Reflect demands of 1997 market place -5- Key Reasons for Appeal by Amigos De Downtown: ♦Development Standards ♦Parking Development Threshold - Downtown Specific Plan ♦Ratio of Commercial to Residential Square Footage 4/7/97 • Development Standards ♦ Special Permits to deviate from Downtown Specific Plan ❖Increased building height ❖Decreased setbacks (ground floor and upper story) ❖Decreased public open space ❖Alternate open space location ❖Decreased residential open space Special Permit Findings ♦ Provides better living environment ♦Utilizes better land planning techniques -8- 4/7/97 I • Special Permit Justification ♦Allows greater retail/residential ceiling height ♦ Varied architectural facade ♦Provides public art ♦ Caters to the pedestrian ♦ Creates residential character on 5th St. -9- Special Permit Justification (cont'd.) ♦Preserves on-street parking opportunities ♦Increases commercial base of downtown •Maximizes open air commercial activity * Offers entire street frontage as open space ♦Doubles common recreational area in private open space 4/7/97 • Parking ♦ On-site -*.-Meets DTPMP parking requirements (shares 11 of 23 guest/office spaces) ♦ On-street 4-Parking relocated from Main to 5th Street ❖No net loss of stalls or metered stalls ❖5th Street parking meets code Development Threshold - DTSP ♦ Office space exceeds office threshold ♦ Shift square footage from another category ♦ Continued monitoring of Downtown Parking Master Plan ♦Net square footage well below 500,000 square foot threshold -12- • 4/7/97 • Ratio of Commercial to Residential ♦ Residential may be maximum 50% of commercial ♦ 1991 approval permitted residential > 50% commercial ♦ 1991 approval analyzed the ratio on a district wide basis -13- Ratio of Commercial to Residential (cont'd.) ♦ The issue was challenged and upheld in court ♦ Other projects may apply for mixed-use ♦ District wide analysis only on this block 4/7/97 tx • 0 Recommendation ♦Deny appeal and uphold Planning Commission's approval ❖Unique mixed use with interesting architecture -*.-Code required parking -*.-Public plaza for pedestrians -*.-Pedestrian oriented design Recommendation (contd.) ❖Public art element ❖Complies with California Coastal Act ❖Consistent with Village Concept .............. .......... ..... .. ................. 4/7/97 • 4/7/97 r7- ROGER ANDERSON Telephone(714) 536-3636 419 MAIN STREET #88 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA.9264 April 2, 1997 City Council City of Huntington Beach Re: Third Block West - Plaza Almeria VJ. ¢—CJ N r� m p Dear Council Members: ir _- Because I am unable to attend your meeting on April 7th, I am, through this letter, vigorously opposing and will continue to oppose the Plaza Almeria project as approved with its "special permit" requests. In general, my objections concern the overall size and height of the entire project. To refer to a four story building that soars to 65 feet is offensive to the "Village Concept" we aspire to. The city and its citizens should not approve of any of the six specific "Special Permits" which create greater than maximum height, less than minimum set backs / open areas, and pinch parking. The existing high rise buildings at Main and PCH welcome visitors to Main Street and downtown. Surrounding buildings should taper immediately to a 30 foot height limit. I It is not too late to curtail the intensive development of our "Village". This City Council should not perpetuate the past sins of the 'Developers Council". Thank you for reading this letter, Sincerely, —Z&� 044,C�� Resident, Tax Payer, and Voter since 1961 I PAUL E. COOK AND ASSOCIATES onCIT CL�Rti HUNTiNGTON 3�CH U.!!F, APR i 1214 March 29, 1997 Ralph Bauer, Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: Third Block West Project, Plaza Almeria Dear Ralph, I urge you to support the Plaza Almeria project on the third block of Main Street at your meeting of April 7, 1997. This project was awarded to John Tillotson and his partners in 1989 after several competing proposals were received by the City for redeveloping this block of Main Street. The Tillotson proposal provided the highest quality project and the best terms for the City's Redevelopment Agency. The developers have worked very closely with City staff and the community to design a project that fits into the downtown's "village concept". It is time to give final approval to Plaza Almeria and allow construction'to begin on this important block of Main Street. Thank you for your support. Sincerely, Paul E. Cook 221 Main Street, Suite P Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 960-8298 Fax (714) 536-1333 4-137-1997 .3: 1?PH FROG-1 714 8956L� 1 P_ 1 DEVELOPMENT Fax: 374-1540 �r cl cl Jane yladera Associate Phumer City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92643 Subject: Phua Almeria Dear Jane: In light of discussions,which occurred last week, I am requesting clarification on two issues concerning the project. The first issue is in response to the letter from Ron She,kman of Rainbow Disposal Co., dated April 3. 1997, vidicating a complication with the Planning Commission restriction allowing commercial trash collection only from Olive Ave. We concur with Mr. Ron's statements and request that condition of approval No.17d be modified to pennit commercial trash collection.from both Olive and Orange Avenues. We would be amenable to limiting the hours of trash collection in order to be as compatible as possible with the neighboring residential project. The second concern is the intent of additional project review that will be necessary as the project proceeds through the final desi=n process. We are currently exploring options that may result in a reduction of the project intensity (a slight reduction in the number of residential units and a lowering of the overall building height on Maul Street). Our understanding is that any reduction un project intensity, providing that the project is still in compliance with the D_D_A_,will only be subject to further review by the Design Review Board_ ,additional City Council and/or Planning Colrnnission action xvdll not be necessary. Clarification of these items concurrent,-Kith the Conditional Use Permit Appeal Hearing would be greatly appreciated. Thank You, . X. G 19i -e Roberts i Exec_ V_P./ Member J.T. Development Compan.v, LLC L9".02 t TEL:714/896-8665 FAX:714/695-6321 1527Z Bvisia Chice,Road,Huntiagu n Brach.CA 92Ah49 APR-03 97 11:50 FROH:RHINEObJ W OSAL CO. 714-841-4660 Tf14?741540 FHGE:L32 5erving Orange County for Over 40 Years Rainbow Disposal Co. Inc. P.O. BOX 1026 • HUNTINGTON BEACH. CA 92647 PH: (714) a47-3581 FAX: (714) 841-4660 April 3. 1997 Zo Ms. Jane Madera, Associate Planner z City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 - Dear Jane: r- cc 7 Thank you for meeting with Joseph Waterworth. Safety Supervisor for Rainbow Disposal, and me regarding the waste disposal needs for the Plaza Ameria project. We have serious concerns about the conditions of approval that would prohibit trash pickup from occurring on Orange, They are as follows: (1) Public safety could be compromised since we would be leaving a heavy truck unattended for several minutes while two persons navigate rolling trash bins more than 250 feet through the building. (2) A three yard trash bin could weigh several hundred pounds or more. It is not practical or safe to roll them for 250 to 300 feet. Jane, some of the solutions we discussed during our meeting would seem to be more practical then the existing condition of approval restricting access from Orange. Rainbow Disposal wants to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. We will work cooperatively with the City and the Developer in making it work. We do not, however, want to compromise public health and safety. Once again, thank you for seeking our input. Sincerely, Ron Shenlunan Senior Vice President RS:sjj9710 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER (3 Huntington Beach,4-4-1997 City Council of Hungtington Beach XM, -V 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, Ca 92648 N cs-c:cy m "n1.t�r'C N c-� Ref: Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 [R] + r Dear Council Person, We wish to protest the revisions of the previously approved plan for the development of the "Almeria'project The heights of the structure,the setbacks,the public open spaces,the amount of commercial space, especially the parking,the number of residential units etc. all are pretty clearly defined in the specific plan for the downtown redevelopment area. The effort and the tax dollars that have been spent on the specific plan should, in itself,be reason enough for it to be respected and to make sure these guidelines will be used for this redevelopment area As do most residents of this city,we believe it is the duty of every city Council to protect the rights of the property owners that are already living in the area and to enforce the rules that have been brought into existence partly because of their investments in this area As property, owners,business owners, and residents in this area we resent turning 5th Street into a parking lot to meet the parking needs for the proposed development At the Planning Commissioners meeting that we attended on February 25, 1997, Staff claimed not to know how wide. 5th Street is and they did not know if there was much traffic. Such flagrant disinterest in the well-being of the taxpayers should at least be looked into by people such as you,who have been elected by those same taxpayers. We urge you to look into these revisions with care and trust you will take the appropriate action. Sinc re , r_w William G. and Philo&P. Gallieg? i10 5th Street, Hunt. Beach, Ca 92648. 1 f ' IL 1 BOTTUM & FELITON ORANGE COUNT`:'5I!PFp.ECR A Professional Law Corporation 2 JOHN R. FELITON, JR. Bar No. 056980 / DEC 0 44906, PAUL K. SCHRIEFFER(Bar No. 151358 / 3 ANDREA J. LANG (Bar No. 180386) ALAN sLA G 3200 Wilshire Boulevard 4 South Tower - 15th Floor Rv L.SSG Los Angeles, California 90010 5 Telephone: (213) 487-0402 6 Attorneys for Cross-Defendants AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 BRISAS DEL MAR CONDOMINIUM Case No. 757 605 ASSOCIATION, a California nonprofit mutual 12 benefit corporation, JUDGE WILLIAM F. McDONALD Department 20 ---J 13 Plaintiff, 14 -vs. 15 BEACHFRONT REAL ESTATE NOTICE OF TAKING DEMURRER Ur DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., et al., TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF ---- 16 MASTERSOUND SECURITY (� Defendants. SYSTEMS, INC. OFF CALENDAR O 17 18 AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS 19 20 21 TO ALL PARTIES HEREIN AND TO THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Demurrer of cross-defendant Automatic Fire 23 Sprinklers, Inc. ("AFS") to the entire cross-complaint filed against them by cross-defendant, 24 Mastersound Security Systems, Inc. ("Mastersound") previously set for hearing on December 25 6, 1996 at 1:30 p.m., in Department 20 of the above captioned court, has been taken off 26 calendar. 27 28 Bottum&Feliton,A.P.LC. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90010 �1 1 The Demurrer has been taken off calendar in light of the Request for Dismissal filed 2 by Mastersound as to their cross-complaint against AFS only. 3 4 Dated: December 4, 1996. 5 BOTTUM& FELITON 6 A Professional Law Corporation 7 8 9 10 C. Paul K. Schrieffer 11 Andrea J. Lang Attorney for cross-defendant 12 AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLERS, INC. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bottum&Felita%A.P.1-C. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90010 2 1 PROOF OF SERVICE 2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ,, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) 3 I am employed in the county aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years and not a 4 party to the within entitled action; my business address is 3200 Wilshire Boulevard, South Tower, Suite 1500, Los Angeles, California 90010. 5 On _December 4, 1996, I served the foreggoingg document(s) described as NOTICE OF 6 DEMURRER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT OF MASTERSOUND SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC. OFF CALENDAR by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes 7 address as follows: 8 --SEE ATTACHED SERVICE LIST-- 9 ( X) BY MAIL: I am "readily familiar" with the fmn's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be 10 deposited with the U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon I fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. ( ) BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered such envelope(s) by hand to the 12 office(s) of the addressee(s) marked with a ***. 13 ( ) BY FEDERAL EXPRESS: I caused said envelo e(s) to be sent by Federal 14 Express from our.offices in Los Angeles to the adpdress(es) marked with a I I i . (X ) BY TELECOPIER: In addition to the above service by mail, hand delivery or 15 Federal Express, I caused said document(s) to be transmitted by telecopier at 16 approximately 10:00 a.m. to the addressee(s) with fax numbers listed. 17 Executed on December 4, 1996 , at Los Angeles, California. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the 18 foregoing is true and correct. 19 /X/ STATE I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that 20 the foregoing is true and correct. 21 —7 FEDERAL I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, 22 and that I am em loyed in office of a member of the Bar of this Court at whose direction the service was made. 23 24 25 1 en 26 27 28 Bottum&Feliton,A.P.LC. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90010 1 SERVICE LIST I 2 3 David Orbach,Esq. John Karas,Esq. Maguire&Orbach James Brady,Esq. 4 10866 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 300 Demler,Armstrong&Rowland Los Angeles,California 90024-4311 4500 East Pacific Coast Highway,4th Floor 5 Long Beach,California 90804-3271 (310)470-2929 6 (310)474-4710 FAX (310)597-0029 (310)494-3958 FAX 7 Attorneys for plaintiff and- 8 Carrin A.Leaman,Esq. 9 Russell Arens,Esq. Brownwood,Rice&Zurawski Smith,Smith&Kring 625 The City Drive,Suite 210 10 38 Corporate Park,Suite 200 Orange,California 92868-4924 Irvine,California 92713-9782 11 (714)971-1422 (714)26I-7895 (714)971-0325 FAX 12 (714)261-7545 FAX Associated attorneys for defendant Western 1 Attorneys for Beachfront Construction Co. Insulation,Inc. 14 15 John M.Kremer,Esq. A.J.Pyka,Esq. Law Offices of John Kremer Kinkle,Rodiger&Spriggs 16 419 Main Street,Suite 127 837 North Ross Street Huntington Beach,California 92648-5199 P.O.Box 1558 17 Santa Ana,California 92702 (714)843-8262 18 (714)374-9533 FAX (714)835-9011 (714)667-7806 FAX 19 Attorneys for Joseph L.Hernandez dba The Louie Group,and Ned Olthoff Attorneys for defendant and cross-defendant 20 Perma Floors,Inc. 21 Jack Marlo,Esq. Leslie M.B. Cole,Esq. 22 Cooksey,Howard,Martin&Toolen Koletsky,Mancini&Feldman 535 Anton Boulevard, IOth Floor 3460 Wilshire Boulevard,8th Floor 23 Costa Mesa,California 92626-1947 Los Angeles,California 90010-2228 24 (714)431-1034 (213)427-2350 (714)431-1119 FAX (213)427-2366 25 Attorneys for defendants/cross-complainants Attorneys for defendant Permafloors,Inc. 26 Beachfront Real Estate Development,Inc.,Delaware II, John H.Tillotson,Jr.,Haydee V.Tillotson,Beachfront 27 Construction Company,Inc.,and Tillotson Enterprises 28 Bottum&Feliton,A.P.LC. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90010 2 i 1 Richard L.Boyer,Esq. Samuel A.Wyman,Esq. Butz,Lucas&Dunn Rick Ameal,Esq. 2 101 West Broadway,Suite 1700 Wolfe&Wyman San Diego,California 92101-8289 100 Broadway,West Tower,Suite 595 3 Long Beach,California 90802-4432 (619)233-4777 (310)437-5000 4 (619)231-0341 FAX (310)437-5300 FAX 5 Attorneys for B.D.B.,Inc. Attorneys for cross-complainant Master Sound Security Systems,Inc. 6 7 Mike Bartlett,Esq. Louis Brenes 22942 El Toro Road Breenes Drywall 8 Lake Forrest,California 92630 798 West Palmyra Orange,California 92668 9 (714)770-4425 10 Attorneys for cross-defendant Bottomly Integrated Coatings Enterprises 2899 East Coronado Street,#E 11 Anaheim,California 92806 12 Gerald A.Kurland,Esq. M&M Weatherstrip 13 JAMS/ENDISPUTE 6390 La Valle Paltrada 500 North State College Boulevard,Suite 600 Rancho Santa Fe,California 14 Orange,California 92668 15 (714)939-1300 Hatch Insulation (714)939-8718 FAX 105 South Crescent Bay Drive,Suite E 16 Laguna Beach,California 92652 Discovery referee/mediator 17 Risa C.Dauer,Esq. 18 Koletsky,Mancini&Feldman Michael J. Baker,Esq. 3460 Wilshire Boulevard. 8th Floor 19 4199 Campus Drive,Suite 550 Los Angeles,California 90010-2228 P.O. Box 5986 20 Irvine,California 92616-5986 (213)427-2350 (213)427-2366 FAX 21 (714)509-6555 (714)509-6554 fax Attorneys for cross-defendant and cross- 22 complainant Ricks Heating and Air Conditioning Attorney for John Tillotson,Jr. 23 Foresight Commercial Painting 24 3187 East Airway Costa Mesa,California 92626 25 I 26 RMG Engineering,Inc. 2501 Wigwam,Suite 415 27 Henderson,Nevada 89014 28 Bottum&Feliton,AP.LC. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90010 3 • 1 Southern California Door&Trim Attention:Eric Melvedt 77369 Blackfoot Drive Whitmont Legal Copying,Inc. 2 Palm Desert,California 92211 695 Town Center Drive. Suite 610 Costa Mesa,California 92626 3 Rudy Rodriguez Document depository 4 14172 Bowen Street Garden Grove,California 92843 5 Coby N.Keller,Esq. (714)636-7705 Keller,Weber&Dobrott 6 (714)636-4691 FAX 19900 MacArthur Boulevard,8th Floor Irvine,California 92612-2445 7 In pro per (714)553-0450 8 Jeff Stockley,Esq. Attorneys for cross-defendant Earth Research 9 Koletsky,Mancini&Feldman Associates,Inc.(Doe 3) 3460 Wilshire Boulevard,Suite 800 10 Los Angeles,California 90010-2228 11 (213)427-2350 (213)427-2366 FAX 12 Attorneys for cross-defendant Ramco 13 14 James J. Orland,Esq. Howard,Moss,Loveder,Strickroth&Walker 15 Post Office Box 11985 Santa Ana,California 92711-1985 16 - Street Address- 17 Suite 800,Lincoln Town Center 2677 North Main Street 18 Santa Ana,California 92705 19 (714)542-6300 (714)542-6987 FAX 20 Attorneys for cross-defendant and cross- 21 complainant Nationalwide Plastering 22 Brad Adler,Esq. 23 Harrington,Foxx,Dubrow&Canter 1100 Town&Country Road,Suite 1020 24 Orange,California 92668 25 (714)973-4565 (714)973-7923 FAX 26 Attorneys for cross-defendant and cross- 27 complainant Orange County Inn 28 Bottum&Feliton,A.P.LC. 3200 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles,CA 90010 4 I STRONG & MORALES E D 6 Kathleen D. Strong, Bar #137610 ORANGE n, � L 2 Tomas Morales, Bar #146578 2356 Moore Street, Suite 205 3 San Diego, California 92110 ,��nS DEC 2 8 1995 Telephone: (619) 294-2400 �JQ ALAN&ATM,BesWMOfkerftrk Attorneys for PlalntlffRECEIVEDFROM 5 AND MADE A PART OF THE RECOR AT TH. BY A HOi.LAMp f COUNCIL MEETING OF �f� OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 6 CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK, / - 7 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE hch 11 BRISAS DEL MAR CONDOMINIUM ) CASE NO. 5 6 0 .5 cm ASSOCIATION, Xa California non- ) CO cb12 profit mutual benefit ) p corporation, ) E 13 ) CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS E Plaintiff, ) (OCSC Rule 456) 1 14 v. ) 15 BEACHFRONT REAL ESTATE ) DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. ,%a ) COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF 16 California corporation; ) IMPLIED WARRANTIES, STRICT DELAWARE II,. -a California ) LIABILITY, NEGLIGENCE AND .7 limited partnership;- JOHN H. ) BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY a TILLOTSON, JR. ,'- an individual; ) 6 8 HAYDEE V. TILLOTSON, an ) JUDGE WILLIAM F. McDONALU ¢ u� � fir, individual; BEACHFRONT ) s 9 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY;-tea ) DEPT. 20 F- N 5 o 01 1,i California corporation; -� 0 TILLOTSON ENTERPRISES,- a ) California business and DOES 1 ) a u 1 through 100, Inclusive, ) U w 2 Defendants. ) cn w (n 3 Plaintiff requests trial by jury and alleges: m c � N ., U- j 6 m .au� � FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY) �l 1. Plaintiff BRISAS DEL MAR CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION 28 1 (hereinafter '.'ASSOCIATION") is a non-profit mutual benefit 2 corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws 3 of the State of California having its principal place of business 4 in Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. 5 6 2 . Defendants are as follows. On information and belief 7 plaintiff alleges: 8 9 2 . 1 BEACHFRONT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. is, 10 and at all times herein mentioned was, a California Corporation 11 organized and existing under the laws of California, and doing 12 business in Orange County, California as a real estate builder 13 and/or developer of mass-produced properties for sale to the 14 general public. 15 16 2 . 2 DELAWARE II is, and at all times herein mentioned 17 was, a California Limited Partnership organized and existing under 18 the laws of California, and doing business in Orange County, 19 California as a real estate builder and/or developer of mass- 20 produced properties for sale to the general public. 21 22 2 . 3 JOHN H. TILLOTSON, JR. is, and at all times herein 23 mentioned was, an individual residing in Orange County, California, 24 and is, and at all times herein mentioned was, doing business as a 25 real estate builder and/or developer of mass-produced properties 26 for sale to the general public and is the successor-in-interest of 27 and an alter ego to the declarant of the project. 28 2 T • C' 1 2 .4 HAYDEE V. TILLOTSON is, and at all times herein 2 mentioned was, an individual residing in Orange County, California, 3 and is, and at all times herein mentioned was, doing business as a 4 real estate builder and/or developer of mass-produced properties 5 for sale to the general public and is the successor-in-interest of 6 and an alter ego to the declarant of the project. 7 g 2 .4 BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. is and at all 9 times herein mentioned was, a California corporation organized and 10 existing under the laws of California, and doing business in Orange it County, California as a real estate builder and/or developer of 12 mass-produced properties for sale to the general public and is the 13 successor-in-interest of and an alter ego to the declarant of the 14 project. 15 16 2 . 5 TILLOTSON ENTERPRISES is, and at all times herein 17 mentioned was, a California business organized and existing under 18 the laws of California, and doing business in Orange County, 19 California as a real estate builder and/or developer of mass- 20 produced properties for sale to the general public and is the 21 successor-in-interest of and an alter ego to the declarant of the 22 project. 23 24 2. 6 Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and 25 thereon alleges, that there is such a unity of interest and 26 ownership that the individuality and separateness of these 27 Defendants has ceased, that to adhere to the fiction of the 28 separate existence of the named Defendants would sanction a fraud 3 1 and promote injustice, that the •named Defendants are the alter egos 2 of each other, that assets have been co-mingled and diverted to 3 each other, that the corporate and limited partnership Defendants 4 are and have been inadequately capitalized, that the assets of the 5 Defendants have been transferred to other entities and third 6 parties to defeat the claims of creditors, including potential 7 judgment creditors like the plaintiff herein. 8 9 2 .7 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and 10 capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, 11 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 12 and therefore sues those defendants by such fictitious names. 13 Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and 14 capacities when ascertained. DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are 15 responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and 16 plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by 17 such occurrences. 18 19 2 .8 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of the alter 20 egos to the named Defendants and therefore sues those defendants by 21 the fictitious names DOES 1 through 30. Plaintiff will amend this 22 Complaint to allege the true names of DOES 1 through 30 when 23 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon 24 alleges, that one or more of the individuals dominating and 25 controlling named Defendants dominated and controlled DOES 1 26 through 30, that there is such a unity of interest and ownership 27 that the individuality and separateness of the named Defendants and 28 DOES 1 through 30 has ceased, that to adhere to the fiction of the 4 1 separate existence of the named Defendants and DOES 1 through 30 2 would sanction a fraud and promote injustice, that DOES 1 through 3 30 are the alter egos of the named Defendants, that assets of the 4 named Defendants have been diverted to the use of DOES 1 through 5 30, that the named Defendants are and have been inadequately 6 capitalized, that the assets of the named Defendants have been 7 transferred to other entities and third parties to defeat the 8 claims of creditors, including potential judgment creditors like 9 the plaintiff herein. 10 it 2 .9 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of the 12 successor in interest to the named Defendants and therefore sues 13 those defendants by the fictitious names DOES 1 through 15. 14 Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names of 15 DOES 1 through 15 when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and 16 believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 15 succeeded to 17 the residential development interests of the named Defendants is herein. 19 20 3 . Defendants were the agents, employees, representatives, 21 alter egos and successors-in interest of each other in doing the 22 things herein alleged and in so doing were acting within the scope 23 of their respective authorities as such agents, employees, 24 representatives, alter egos and successors-in-interest and as such 25 are jointly and severally liable to plaintiff. 26 27 4. Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants were 28 engaged in the construction, development, marketing, improvement 5 0C 1 and sale of a 44-unit common interest subdivision located within 2 the city of Huntington Beach in Orange County, California, known as 3 the BRISAS DEL MAR CONDOMINIUMS ("the Project") in approximately 4 1988 and thereafter. Defendants were the owners of the Project and 5 all property related thereto prior to the sale of units at the 6 Project. 7 8 5. Defendants filed with the Office of the County Recorder 9 of Orange County a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 10 Restrictions. " Said Declaration, as amended from time to time 11 thereafter, provided, in part, expressly and by implication, that 12 defendants on behalf of themselves and their successors in interest 13 would transfer and grant to plaintiff ASSOCIATION, through its 14 Board of Directors, certain rights, duties, and powers to preserve, 15 maintain and repair common facilities and other features at the 16 project and all of the powers necessary to carry out said grant, 17 including the right, duty, and power to retain counsel and file 18 whatever legal proceedings it deems necessary to enforce said 19 rights, obligations, and powers, including this action. Plaintiff 20 has requisite "standing" to bring this action pursuant to Code of 21 Civil Procedure Section 383 with respect to common areas and common 22 facilities which the Association is obliged to maintain, as well as 23 damage to the separate interests which the Association is obliged 24 to maintain or to repair, and also damage to separate interests 25 which arise out of or is integrally related to damage to the common 26 areas or separate interests which the Association is obligated to 27 maintain or to repair. 28 6 1 6. The Declaration provides that each owner of a unit at the 2 Project is a member of plaintiff. 3 4 7. Defendants were and are now merchants, sellers, builders, 5 developers, and mass producers with respect to each of the units 6 and common areas of the Project. Defendants sold, transferred, or 7 otherwise conveyed each unit and common area to the ASSOCIATION and 8 to its members from approximately 1993 and thereafter. 9 10 8. Defendants at the times and places of said sales 11 impliedly warranted that said units and common areas were of 12 merchantable quality. 13 14 9. The units and common areas of the Project at all material 15 times after construction were not of merchantable quality but in 16 fact have failed as set forth hereinafter in this Complaint. 17' 18 10. The Project has and is experiencing the following 19 construction failures and deficiencies: 20 21 10. 1 The weather and water-exposed surfaces of the 22 buildings have failed, including the roof systems, decks, 23 balconies, windows and window systems, door systems, and flashings, 24 allowing water intrusion and causing damages; 25 26 10.2 Wall systems were improperly selected, 27 designed, installed and constructed, resulting in inadequate 28 drainage, cracking, deflections and water damage; 7 1 10. 3 Drainage systems at the Project have been 2 improperly selected, designed, manufactured and developed, 3 including the design and construction of gutter and drain systems, 4 resulting in inadequate drainage from exterior surfaces, ponding of 5 water and water intrusion into walls; 6 7 10.4 Stucco and lath systems were improperly 8 designed, selected, installed and prepared, resulting in cracking, 9 water damage and deterioration; 10 11 10.5 Garage doors were improperly selected, designed 12 and constructed, resulting in warping, cracking, delamination, and 13 water damage; 14 15 10. 6 Window systems were improperly selected, 16 designed and constructed, resulting in corrosion, separations, 17 _leakage into buildings and walls and other water damage; 18 19 10.7 Electrical systems were improperly selected, 20 designed, constructed and wired, resulting in damaged fixtures, 21 improper and inadequate interior and exterior lighting, and other 22 faulty or dangerous conditions; 23 24 10.8 Plumbing and mechanical systems at the Project 25 have been improperly selected, designed and installed, including 26 inadequate and defective vents, plumbing systems, hot water and 27 space heaters, resulting in damages and leaks; 28 8 1 10.9 The framing and interior drywall systems were 2 improperly designed and constructed, resulting in cracking, 3 improperly anchored and installed shear wall connections, and other 4 damages; 5 6 10. 10 Structural support systems for floors, walls 7 and roofs were improperly selected, designed and constructed, 8 resulting in deflections, cracking and water intrusion through the 9 slabs, floors and walls, as well as unsafe conditions; 10 11 10. 11 Chimney and drywall systems were improperly 12 selected, designed, and constructed resulting in substandard and 13 inadequate fire protection, firewalls, unsafe conditions, and 14 damage; 15 16 10. 12 Fixtures were improperly selected and 17 _installed, resulting in chips, cracks and other damage; 18 19 10. 13 Exterior stair systems were improperly designed 20 and installed; and 21 22 10. 14 Exterior fences, masonry walls and posts were 23 inadequately designed and constructed, resulting in deterioration 24 and damage. 25 26 10. 15 Accoustical systems were inadequately designed 27 and constructed, resulting in excessive noise transmission between 28 units and other damage and improper conditions. 9 1 11. The construction elements set forth in paragraph 10 2 continue to fail, deteriorate, and degrade and the damages will 3 continue in the future. The Project may have additional failures 4 and deficiencies in ways and to extents not now precisely known, 5 and such additional failures will be included in this action by 6 amendment or by proof at trial. 7 8 12. As a proximate and direct result of the construction 9 failures alleged in paragraph 10, plaintiff has sustained and will 10 sustain damages as follows: 11 12 12 . 1 Repair costs in excess of $1, 000, 000; 13 14 12 .2 Architectural, engineering, construction, 15 professional and technical fees in excess of $150, 000; and 16 17 12 .3 Loss of use in an amount in excess of $100, 000. 18 19 Plaintiff requests leave of Court to amend this Complaint to 20 allege the exact amount of the damages when they are known, or at 21 time of trial according to proof. 22 23 13 . The failures and deficiencies described in paragraph 10 24 were not apparent by reasonable inspection at the time of sale of 25 the units of the Project, or at any time prior to approximately the 26 past two years. Those failures and deficiencies, as discovered 27 from time to time from approximately two years ago to the date this 28 Complaint was filed, would not have put a reasonable person on 10 1 notice of the full nature, extent and permanence of said failures 2 and deficiencies. The full extent and measure of said failures and 3 deficiencies are still unknown to plaintiff. 4 5 14 . Plaintiff has given notice to defendants of said 6 failures and deficiencies within a reasonable time of discovery. 7 8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR INTENDED PURPOSE) 10 11 15. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 14 . 12 13 16. Defendants knew or had reason to know that said units 14 and common areas of the Project would be used as a project of 15 single-family residences, and further knew or had reason to know: 16 17 16. 1 The weather and water-exposed surfaces, 18 including roof systems, decks, balconies, window and door systems 19 would be used to provide watertight and weather-secure living 20 units; 21 22 16.2 The wall systems would be used to provide safe, 23 watertight and structurally sound support for roofs and ceilings; 24 25 16. 3 The drainage systems would be used to provide 26 to carry away surface and subsurface water, and to eliminate or 27 prevent water from ponding and other water damage; 28 11 i 1 16.4 The stucco and lath systems would be used to 2 provide aesthetic weather, watertight and structurally sound 3 support for living and common areas; 4 5 16.5 Garage and doors would be used to provide 6 aesthetic, watertight and weathertight enclosures of living units 7 and common areas; 8 9 16. 6 Window systems would be used for aesthetic 10 weather and watertight protection of living units and common areas; 11 12 16.7 Electrical systems would be used for safe 13 illumination of living units, porches, decks and common areas; 14 15 16.8 Plumbing and mechanical systems would be used 16 to provide adequate clothes drying, space and water heating and 17 plumbing; 18 19 16. 9 The framing and interior drywall systems would 20 provide aesthetic and structurally sound support for living units 21 and common areas; 22 23 16. 10 Structural support systems for floors, walls 24 and roofs would be used to provide adequate, safe and watertight 25 structural support for living units and common areas; 26 27 16. 11 Chimney and drywall systems would provide 28 adequate fire safety; 12 1 16. 12 Fixtures would be properly designed and 2 constructed so they may be used in the manner they were intended to 3 be used; 4 5 16. 13 Exterior fences, masonry walls, posts and stair 6 rail systems would be provided for adequate support and safety; and 7 8 16. 14 Accoustical systems would be used to maintain 9 adequate soundproofing for the units. 10 11 Defendants further knew that the aforementioned 12 components would be incorporated into the units and common areas so 13 that the purchasers would enjoy watertight, stable, usable, secure 14 and otherwise habitable units and common areas. 15 16 17 . Defendants knew or had reason to know that the 17 purchasers would rely upon the skill and judgment of Defendants in 18 design, construction, development, manufacture, transfer and sale 19 of said units and common areas in providing components and property 20 fit for their particular purposes as described in paragraph 16. 21 22 18 . Defendants impliedly warranted that the aforementioned 23 components as designed, manufactured and installed at the Project 24 would be fit for the particular purposes as alleged above. 25 26 19. The units and common areas were not fit for said 27 purposes but in fact failed as alleged in paragraph 10 above. 28 13 1 20. As a proximate and direct result of the breach of such 2 implied warranties of fitness for the particular purposes, 3 plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in 4 _paragraph 12 above. 5 6 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 7 (STRICT LIABILITY) 8 9 21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 20. 10 11 22 . Defendants knew and intended that units and common 12 areas at the Project would be used for residential purposes and 13 knew and intended that the various component parts would be 14 incorporated so that the purchasers of units who would also use the 15 common areas at the Project would have watertight, stable, secure, 16 usable, and otherwise habitable units and common areas. 17 18 23 . Defendants knew that the units and common areas of the 19 Project, including its various components, would be purchased and 20 used by the owners without sufficient inspection to determine the 21 existence of any defects. 22 23 24 . The common areas and units are defective as follows: 24 25 24 . 1 The weather and water-exposed surfaces of the 26 buildings have failed, including the roof systems, decks, 27 balconies, windows and window systems, door systems, and flashings, 28 allowing water intrusion and causing damages; 14 1 24.2 Wall systems were improperly selected, 2 designed, installed and constructed, resulting in inadequate 3 drainage, cracking, deflections and water damage; 4 5 24. 3 Drainage systems at the Project has been 6 improperly designed, manufactured and developed, including the 7 design and construction of gutter and drain systems, resulting in 8 inadequate drainage, ponding of water and water intrusion into 9 walls, balconies and decks; 10 11 24.4 Stucco and lath systems were improperly 12 designed, selected, installed and prepared, resulting in water 13 damage and deterioration; 14 15 24.5 Garage doors were improperly selected, designed 16 and constructed, resulting in warping, cracking, delamination, and 17 water damage; 18 19 24 . 6 Window systems were improperly selected, 20 designed and constructed, resulting in corrosion, separations, 21 leakage into buildings and water damage; 22 23 24 .7 Electrical systems were improperly designed, 24 constructed and wired, resulting in improper and inadequate 25 interior and exterior lighting, and other faulty or dangerous 26 conditions; 27 28 24 .8 Plumbing and mechanical systems at the Project 15 I _ C I have been improperly selected, 'designed and installed, including 2 inadequate and defective clothes dryer vents, plumbing systems, hot 3 water and space heaters, resulting in damages and leaks; 4 5 24 .9 The framing and interior drywall systems were 6 improperly designed and constructed, resulting in cracking, 7 improperly anchored and installed shear wall connections, and other 8 damages; 9 10 24 . 10 Structural support systems for floors, walls 11 and roofs were improperly selected, designed and constructed, 12 resulting in deflections, cracking and water intrusion through the 13 slabs, floors and walls, as well as unsafe conditions; 14 15 24 . 11 Chimney and drywall systems were improperly 16 selected, designed, and constructed resulting in substandard and 17 inadequate fire protection, firewalls, unsafe conditions, and 18 damage; 19 20 24 . 12 Fixtures were improperly selected and 21 installed, resulting in chips, cracks and other damage; 22 23 24.13 Exterior stair systems were improperly designed 24 and installed; and 25 26 24. 14 Exterior fences, masonry walls and posts were 27 inadequately designed and constructed, resulting in deterioration 28 and damage. 16 1 24. 15 Accoustical systems were inadequately designed 2 and constructed to maintain proper soundproofing between units. 3 4 The above defects continue to deteriorate and damages will 5 continue. The Project, including the units and common areas, may 6 be additionally defective in ways and to extents not now, precisely 7 known, and such additional defects will be included in this action 8 by amendment or by proof at trial. 9 10 25. As a proximate and direct result of such defects, 11 plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in 12 paragraph 12 . 13 14 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 15 (NEGLIGENCE) 16 17 26. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 25. 18 19 27. Defendant negligently, carelessly, tortiously and 20 wrongfully failed to use reasonable care in the design, 21 manufacture, construction, installation and development of 22 (i) water and weather-exposed surfaces and systems, including roof 23 systems, decks, balconies, windows and doors; (ii) wall systems; 24 (iii) drainage systems; (iv) stucco and lath systems; (v) garage 25 doors; (vi) window systems; (vii) electrical systems; (viii) 26 plumbing and mechanical systems; (ix) framing and interior drywall 27 systems; (x) structural support systems; and (xi) fire protection 28 systems; (xii) fixtures; (xiii) exterior stair systems; (xiv) 17 �� - * C.. 1 exterior fences, masonry wall and post systems; and (xv) 2 accoustical systems. 3 4 28. The negligence of defendants proximately caused the 5 failures and defects alleged in paragraphs 10 and 24 . As a 6 consequence of the negligence of defendants, plaintiff has 7 sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in paragraph 12. a FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 10 29. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 28. 11 12 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon 13 alleges, that Defendants appointed themselves and their agents and 14 employees to serve as the initial members of the Board of Directors 15 for the Association. These agents and employees were appointed to 16 exercise dominion and control over the ASSOCIATION in order to 17 adopt actions and conduct in the interests of Defendants and 18 contrary to the best interest of the ASSOCIATION. 19 31. Defendants in their development of the ASSOCIATION's 20 budgets and reserve requirements, and their participation on the 21 initial Board of Directors had a fiduciary duty to serve in good 22 faith, in the best interests of the ASSOCIATION, using the care of 23 an ordinarily prudent person in similar circumstances as required 24 by California Corporations Code section 7231. 25 32. For the period when the Defendants, and their agents 26 and employees remained on the Board of Directors, Defendants 27 maintained control of the Board of Directors. Defendants utilized 28 this control to permit mismanagement or non-management of the 18 I ASSOCIATION during that period and directly benefitted the 2 developer's interests over the ASSOCIATION's and its homeowners' 3 interests. 4 33 . Defendants, in an attempt to secure sales, did 5 unreasonably and fraudulently contrive inadequate monthly budgets 6 by understating the true costs which unduly compromised Plaintiff 7 by misrepresenting maintenance expenses. By such mismanagement, 8 Defendants failed to serve the best interests of the ASSOCIATION. 9 34 . The ASSOCIATION is and has been prejudiced in its 10 ability to maintain the common areas, its members are and have been 11 misled into a false sense of security that the maintenance needs of 12 the project had been properly provided for. 13 35. Defendants, acting a both Board members and developers, 14 and with full knowledge of the true and necessary reserve 15 requirements of the ASSOCIATION, failed to fund and maintain an 16 adequate reserve account, thereby abandoning their responsibility 17 to the best interests of the ASSOCIATION for the developer's 18 interest in maximizing the profit from the sale of each unit. 19 36. As a direct and proximate result of such breaches of 20 fiduciary responsibility, the members of the ASSOCIATION and the 21 ASSOCIATION have sustained, and will sustain damages as alleged 22 below. 23 37. Defendants, in each of the aforementioned situations, 24 did fail in their fiduciary responsibilities to the ASSOCIATION. 25 By misrepresenting the estimated costs of repairs and maintenance 26 required by the project, by controlling the Board and compromising 27 its actions as a counterfeit representative of the ASSOCIATION's 28 interests, and by failing to adequately fund the necessary 19 1 reserves, Defendants breached their duties as fiduciaries and 2 thereby damaged Plaintiff in a sum as of yet unascertained. When 3 such sum has been ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of the 4 Court to amend this Complaint herein and insert the accurate 5 amount. 6 7 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 8 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- 9 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY) 10 11 -38 . Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 14. 12 13 39 . Plaintiff ASSOCIATION brings this action as a 14 representative suit on behalf of all individuals who presently own 15 one or more units at the Project. The persons in this class are so 16 numerous, consisting of over 50 individuals, that the joinder of 17 :all such persons is impractical and the disposition of their claim 18 in a representative suit is of benefit to the parties and to the 19 Court. 20 21 40. There are questions of fact and law common to each 22 member of said class, and the claims herein alleged by plaintiff 23 ASSOCIATION are representative of those claims which could be 24 alleged by each member of the class. The relief herein sought is 25 typical of the relief which could be prayed for as to each of the 26 members of the class. 27 28 41. The prosecution of separate actions by individual 20 to t 1 members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying 2 adjudications with respect to the individual members of the class 3 which would establish incompatible standards of conduct by the 4 parties opposing the class, and adjudication with respect to 5 individual members of the class as a practical matter would be 6 dispositive of the interests of other members not party to the 7 adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to a protect their interest. 9 10 42 . In connection with the development, construction, 11 manufacture, marketing and sale of the units and common areas, 12 defendants impliedly warranted that the Project units and common 13 areas would be of merchantable quality. The failures described in 14 paragraph 10 are breaches of the warranty of merchantability. As 15 a proximate and direct result of such breaches, the individuals who 16 presently own one or more units at the Project have sustained 17 damage as alleged above to their units and to the common areas, and 18 have further sustained loss of use and enjoyment of their homes and 19 common areas and may sustain damages in the form of moving expenses 20 and relocation expenses in connection with repair efforts, in 21 amounts not yet known but in excess of $100, 000. 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 21 1 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 2 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- 3 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS) 4 5 43 . Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1 through 20 and 39 6 through 41, inclusive. 7 - g 44 . In planning, designing, constructing, supervising, 9 building, developing, marketing and selling the units and common 10 areas to the members of the class, defendants impliedly warranted 11 that the Project, including the units and the common areas, would 12 be fit for the intended and particular purpose as a residential 13 community. 14 15 45. The failures alleged in paragraph 10 are breaches of 16 such implied warranties of fitness. As a proximate and direct 17 result of such breach of implied warranties of fitness, the members 18 of the class have sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in 19 paragraph 42 . 20 21 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- STRICT LIABILITY) 23 24 46. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 and 39 25 through 41, inclusive. 26 27 47. The units and common areas contain defects as alleged 28 in paragraph 24. As a proximate and direct result of the defects, 22 1 the members of the class have sustained and will sustain damages as 2 alleged in paragraph 42 . 3 4 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 5 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- NEGLIGENCE) 6 7 39. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, 8 and 39 through 41, inclusive. 9 10 40. In planning, designing, manufacturing, constructing, 11 supervising, building, developing, marketing and selling the 12 Project to the members of the class, defendants were under a duty 13 to exercise due care in connection with their activities. In 14 breach of such duty of care, defendants negligently and tortiously 15 planned, designed, manufactured, constructed, supervised, built, 16 developed, marketed and sold the Project so that it failed as 17 alleged in paragraph 10 and contained defects as alleged in 18 paragraph 24 . 19 20 41. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' 21 negligence, the members of the class have sustained and will 22 sustain damages as alleged in paragraph 42 . 23 24 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 25 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- 26 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES) 27 28 42 . Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive. 23 1 43 . Defendants did fail in their fiduciary responsibilities 2 to each member of the ASSOCIATION. By misrepresenting the 3 estimated costs of repairs and maintenance required by the project, 4 by controlling the Board and compromising its actions as a 5 counterfeit representative of the ASSOCIATION's interests, and by 6 failing to adequately fund the necessary reserves, Defendants 7 breached their duties as fiduciaries and thereby damaged Plaintiff 8 in a sum as of yet unascertained. When such sum has been 9 ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this 10 Complaint herein and insert the accurate amount. 11 12 PRAYER 13 14 Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants and each of 15 them, jointly and severally, as follows: 16 17 1. For compensatory damages in excess of $1, 250, 000 in 18 accordance with proof; 19 20 2 . For interest thereon at the maximum legal rate; 21 22 3 . For pre-judgment interest on all sums awarded at the 23 maximum legal rate; 24 25 4 . For the costs of suit; 26 27 5. For attorneys' fees; and 28 24 k 1 6. For such other and further relief as the court deems 2 proper and just. 3 4 DATED: December 27, 1995 STRONG & MORALES 5 6 By: Kath een trong 7 Attorney r Plaintiff BRISAS D MAR CONDOMINIUM 8 ASSOCIATION 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 25 ~ 1 STRONG & MORALES OAAIMGF L E D I Kathleen D. Strong, Bar #137610 �RCOUAT 2 Tomas Morales, Bar #146578 2356 Moore Street, Suite 205 JUN 1 91995 3 San Diego, California 92110SLI►TEA, Telephone: (619) 294-2400 Exseurp 4 (n 4 By M. DAVIS ork -' Attorneys for Plaintiff DEPUTY 0 5 RECEIVED FROM 1-.�lyLol�t�,.3 `Jti'jly AND MADE A PART Or ! NEC RD AT THE 4 COUNCIL MEETING r� _ C N 6 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK C E 7 f� 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 9 FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE 10 11 VILLAS DEL MAR HOMEOWNERS ) CASE NO. 746755 ASSOCIATION, a California non- ) JUDGE WILLIAM F. McDONALD 12 profit mutual benefit ) corporation, ) 13 ) CONSTRUCTION DEFECTS Plaintiff, ) (OCSC Rule 456) 14 v. ) ) 15 BEACHFRONT LAKE STREET, a ) California limited ) FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR 16 partnership; JOHN H. ) BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES, TILLOTSON, JR. , an individual; ) STRICT LIABILITY, AND 17 RICHARD JEFFREY, an ) NEGLIGENCE individual; BEACHFRONT'�w ) 18 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. , a ) California corporation; 171-11 ) 19 BEACHFRONT REAL ESTATE (L� ) DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. , a ) 20 California corporation; and ) f DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, ) 21 ) Defendants. ) 22 ) 23 Plaintiff requests trial by jury and alleges: 24 i 25 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 26 (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY) 27 1. Plaintiff VILLAS DEL MAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 28 (hereinafter "ASSOCIATION") is a non-profit mutual benefit S 1 corporation organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws 2 of the State of California having its principal place of business 3 in Huntington Beach, Orange County, California. 4 5 2 . Defendants are as follows. On information and belief 6 plaintiff alleges: 7 8 2 . 1 BEACHFRONT LAKE STREET is, and at all times herein 9 mentioned was, a California Limited Partnership organized and 10 existing under the laws of California, and doing business in Orange 11 County, California as a real estate builder and/or developer of 12 mass-produced properties for sale to the general public and as the 13 declarant of the project. 14 15 2 . 2 JOHN H. TILLOTSON, JR. is, and at all times herein 16 mentioned was, an individual residing in Orange County, California, 17 and is, and at all times herein mentioned was, doing business as a 18 general partner of BEACHFRONT LAKE STREET in Orange County, 19 California, the builder and declarant of the project. 20 21 2.3 RICHARD JEFFREY is, and at all times herein 22 mentioned was, an individual residing in California, and is, and at 23 all times herein mentioned was, doing business as a general partner 24 of BEACHFRONT LAKE STREET in Orange County, California, the builder 25 and declarant of the project. 26 27 2.4 BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. is and at all 28 times herein mentioned was, a California corporation organized and i 2 1 existing under the laws of California, and doing business in Orange 2 County, California as a real estate builder and/or developer of 3 mass-produced properties for sale to the general public and is the 4 -successor-in-interest of and an alter ego to the declarant of the 5 project. Plaintiff is further informed and believes, and thereon 6 alleges, that one or more of the individuals dominating and 7 controlling Defendant BEACHFRONT LAKE STREET dominated and 8 controlled BEACHFRONT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. , that there is 9 such a unity of interest and ownership that the individuality and 10 separateness of these two Defendants has ceased, that to adhere to 11 the fiction of the separate existence of the named Defendants would 12 sanction a fraud and promote injustice, that the two corporations 13 are the alter egos of each other, that assets of the two have been 14 co-mingled and diverted to each other, that the Defendants are and 15 have been inadequately capitalized, that the assets of the 16 Defendants have been transferred to other entities and third 17 parties to defeat the claims of creditors, including potential 18 judgment creditors like the plaintiff herein. 19 20 2 . 5 BEACHFRONT REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC. is 21 and at all times herein mentioned was, a California corporation 22 organized and existing under the laws of California, and doing 23 business in Orange County, California as a real estate builder 24 and/or developer of mass-produced properties for sale to the 25 general public and is the successor-in-interest of and an alter ego 26 to the declarant of the project. Plaintiff is further informed and 27 believes, and thereon alleges, that one or more of the individuals 28 dominating and controlling Defendant ' BEACHFRONT LAKE STREET 3 1 dominated and controlled BEACHFRONT REAL ESTATE CONSTRUCTION 2 COMPANY, INC. , that there is such a unity of interest and ownership 3 that the individuality and separateness of these two Defendants has 4 ceased, that to adhere to the fiction of the separate existence of 5 the named Defendants would sanction a fraud and promote injustice, 6 that the two corporations are the alter egos of each other, that 7 assets of the two have been co-mingled and diverted to each other, a that the Defendants are and have been inadequately capitalized, 9 that the assets of the Defendants have been transferred to other 10 entities and third parties to defeat the claims of creditors, 11 including potential judgment creditors like the plaintiff herein. 12 13 2. 6 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names and 14 capacities of defendants sued herein as DOES 1 through 100, 15 inclusive, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, 16 and therefore sues those defendants by such fictitious names. 17 Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and 18 capacities when ascertained. DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are 19 responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged and 20 plaintiff's damages as herein alleged were proximately caused by 21 such occurrences. 22 23 2 .7 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of the alter 24 egos to the named Defendants and therefore sues those defendants by 25 the fictitious names DOES 1 through 30. Plaintiff will amend this 26 Complaint to allege the true names of DOES 1 through 30 when 27 ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon 28 alleges, that one or more of the individuals dominating and 4 1 controlling named Defendants dominated and controlled DOES 1 2 through 30, that there is such a unity of interest and ownership 3 that the individuality and separateness of the named Defendants and 4 DOES 1 through 30 has ceased, that to adhere to the fiction of the 5 separate existence of the named Defendants and DOES 1 through 30 6 would sanction a fraud and promote injustice, that DOES 1 through 7 30 are the alter egos of the named Defendants, that assets of the 8 named Defendants have been diverted to the use of DOES 1 through 9 30, that the named Defendants are and have been inadequately 10 capitalized, that the assets of the named Defendants have been 11 transferred to other entities and third parties to defeat the 12 claims of creditors, including potential judgment creditors like 13 the plaintiff herein. 14 15 2 .8 Plaintiff is unaware of the true names of the 16 successor in interest to the named Defendants and therefore sues 17 those defendants by the fictitious names DOES 1 through 15. 18 Plaintiff will amend this Complaint to allege the true names of 19 DOES 1 through 15 when ascertained. Plaintiff is informed and 20 believes, and thereon alleges, that DOES 1 through 15 succeeded to 21 the residential development interests of the named Defendants 22 herein. i 23 24 3 . Defendants were the agents, employees, representatives, 25 alter egos and successors-in interest of each other in doing the 26 things herein alleged and in so doing were acting within the scope 27 of their respective authorities as such agents, employees, 28 representatives, alter egos and successors-in-interest and as such 5 1 are jointly and severally liable to plaintiff. 2 3 4 . Plaintiff is informed and believes that defendants were 4 engaged in the construction, development, marketing, improvement 5 and sale of a 64-unit common interest subdivision located within 6 the city of Huntington Beach in Orange County, California, known as 7 VILLAS DEL MAR ("the Project") in approximately 1987 and 8 thereafter. Defendants were the owners of the Project and all 9 property related thereto at all times prior to the sale of units at 10 the Project. 11 12 5. Defendants filed with the Office of the County Recorder 13 of Orange County a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, and 14 Restrictions. " Said Declaration, as amended from time to time 15 thereafter, provided, in part, expressly and by implication, that 16 defendants on behalf of themselves and their successors in interest 17 would transfer and grant to plaintiff ASSOCIATION, through its 18 Board of Directors, certain rights, duties, and powers to preserve, 19 maintain and repair common facilities and other features at the 20 project and all of the powers necessary to carry out said grant, 21 including the right, duty, and power to retain counsel and file 22 whatever legal proceedings it deems necessary to enforce said 23 rights, obligations, and powers, including this action. Plaintiff 24 has requisite "standing" to bring this action pursuant to Code of 25 Civil Procedure Section 383 with respect to common areas and.common 26 facilities which the Association is obliged to maintain, as well as 27 damage to the separate interests which the Association is obliged 28 to maintain or to repair, and also damage to separate interests 6 i 1 which arise out of or is integrally related to damage to the common 2 areas or separate interests which the Association is obligated to 3 maintain or to repair. 4 5 6. The Declaration provides that each owner of a unit at the 6 Project is a member of plaintiff. 7 8 7. Defendants were and are now merchants, sellers, builders, 9 developers, and mass producers with respect to each of the units 10 and common areas of the Project. Defendants sold, transferred, or 11 otherwise conveyed each unit and common area to the ASSOCIATION and 12 to its members from approximately 1988 and thereafter. 13 14 8 . Defendants at the times and places of said sales 15 impliedly warranted that said units and common areas were of 16 merchantable quality. 17 18 9 . The units and common areas of the Project at all material 19 times after construction were not of merchantable quality but in 20 fact have failed as set forth hereinafter in this Complaint. 21 22 10. The Project has and is experiencing the following 23 construction failures and deficiencies: 24 25 10. 1 The weather and water-exposed surfaces of the 26 buildings have failed, including the roof systems, decks, 27 balconies, windows and window systems, door systems, and flashings, 28 allowing water intrusion and causing damages; 7 1 10.2 Wall systems were improperly selected, 2 designed, installed and constructed, resulting in inadequate 3 drainage, cracking, deflections and water damage; 4 5 10. 3 Drainage systems at the Project have been 6 improperly selected, designed, manufactured and developed, 7 including the design and construction of gutter and drain systems, 8 resulting in inadequate drainage from exterior surfaces, ponding of 9 water and water intrusion into walls; 10 11 10.4 Stucco and lath systems were improperly 12 designed, selected, installed and prepared, resulting in cracking, 13 water damage and deterioration; 14 15 10.5 Garage doors and meter doors were improperly 16 selected, designed and constructed, resulting in warping, cracking, 17 delamination, and water damage; 18 19 10. 6 Window systems were improperly selected, 20 designed and constructed, resulting in corrosion, separations, 21 leakage into buildings and walls and other water damage; 22 23 10.7 Electrical systems were improperly selected, 24 designed, constructed and wired, resulting in improper and 25 inadequate interior and exterior lighting, and other faulty or 26 dangerous conditions; 27 28 10.8 Plumbing and mechanical systems at the Project 8 1 have been improperly selected, designed and installed, including 2 inadequate and defective vents, plumbing systems, hot water and 3 space heaters, resulting in damages and leaks; 4 5 10.9 The framing and interior drywall systems were 6 improperly designed and constructed, resulting in cracking, 7 improperly anchored and installed shear wall connections, and other 8 damages; 9 10 10. 10 Structural support systems for floors, walls 11 and roofs were improperly selected, designed and constructed, 12 resulting in deflections, cracking and water intrusion through the 13 slabs, floors and walls, as well as unsafe conditions; 14 15 10. 11 Chimney and drywall systems were improperly 16 selected, designed, and constructed resulting in substandard and 17 inadequate fire protection, firewalls, unsafe conditions, and 18 damage; 19 20 10. 12 Fixtures were improperly selected and 21 installed, resulting in chips, cracks and other damage; 22 23 10. 13' Exterior stair systems were improperly designed 24 and installed; and 25 26 10. 14 Exterior fences, masonry walls and posts were 27 inadequately designed and constructed, resulting in deterioration 28 and damage. 9 1 11. The construction elements set forth in paragraph 10 2 continue to fail, deteriorate, and degrade and the damages will 3 continue in the future. The Project may have additional failures 4 and deficiencies in ways and to extents not now precisely known, 5 and such additional failures will be included in this action by 6 amendment or by proof at trial. 7 8 12 . As a proximate and direct result of the construction 9 failures alleged in paragraph 10, plaintiff has sustained and will 10 sustain damages as follows: 11 12 12 . 1 Repair costs in excess of $750, 000; 13 14 12 .2 Architectural, engineering, construction, 15 professional and technical fees in excess of $100, 000; and 16 17 12 . 3 Loss of use in an amount in excess of $50, 000. 18 19 Plaintiff requests leave of Court to amend this Complaint to 20 allege the exact amount of the damages when they are known, or at 21 time of trial according to proof. 22 23 13 . The failures and deficiencies described in paragraph 10 24 were not apparent by reasonable inspection at the time of sale of 25 the units of the Project, or at any time prior to approximately the 26 past three years. Those failures and deficiencies, as discovered 27 from time to time from approximately three years ago to the date 28 this Complaint was filed, would not have put a reasonable person on 10 1 notice of the full nature, extent and permanence of said failures 2 and deficiencies. The full extent and measure of said failures and 3 deficiencies are still unknown to plaintiff. 4 5 14. Plaintiff has given notice to defendants of said 6 failures and deficiencies within a reasonable time of discovery. 7 8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 9 (BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR INTENDED PURPOSE) 10 11 15. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 14. 12 13 16. Defendants knew or had reason to know that said units 14 and common areas of the Project would be used as a project of 15 single-family residences, and further knew or had reason to know: 16 17 16. 1 The weather and water-exposed surfaces, 18 including roof systems, decks, balconies, window and door systems 19 would be used to provide watertight and weather-secure living 20 units; 21 22 16.2 The wall systems would be used to provide safe, 23 watertight and structurally sound support for roofs and ceilings; 24 25 16. 3 The drainage systems would be used to provide 26 to carry away surface and subsurface water, and to eliminate or 27 prevent water from ponding and other water damage; 28 11 1 16.4 The stucco and lath systems would be used to 2 provide aesthetic weather, watertight and structurally sound 3 support for living and common areas; 4 5 16. 5 Garage and meter doors would be used to provide 6 aesthetic, watertight and weathertight enclosures of living units 7 and common areas; 8 9 16. 6 Window systems would be used for aesthetic 10 weather and watertight protection of living units and common areas; 11 12 16.7 Electrical systems would be used for safe 13 illumination of living units, porches, decks and common areas; 14 15 16. 8 Plumbing and mechanical systems would be used 16 to provide adequate clothes drying, space and water .heating and 17 plumbing; 18 19 16.9 The framing and interior drywall systems would 20 provide aesthetic and structurally sound support for living units 21 and common areas; 22 23 16. 10 Structural support systems for floors, walls 24 and roofs would be used to provide adequate, safe and watertight 25 structural support for living units and common areas; 26 27 16. 11 Chimney and drywall systems would provide I 2 8 adequate fire safety; 12 � l 1 16. 12 Fixtures would be properly designed and 2 constructed so they may be used in the manner they were intended to 3 be used; and 4 5 16. 13 Exterior fences, masonry walls, posts and stair 6 rail systems would be provided for adequate support and safety. 7 8 Defendants further knew that the aforementioned 9 components would be incorporated into the units and common areas so 10 that the purchasers would enjoy watertight, stable, usable, secure it and otherwise habitable units and common areas. 12 13 17 . Defendants knew or had reason to know that the 14 purchasers would rely upon the skill and judgment of Defendants in 15 design, construction, development, manufacture, transfer and sale 16 of said units and common areas in providing components and property 17 fit for their particular purposes as described in paragraph 16. 18 19 18. Defendants impliedly warranted that the aforementioned 20 components as designed, manufactured and installed at the Project 21 would be fit for the particular purposes as alleged above. 22 23 19 . The units and common areas were not fit for said 24 purposes but in fact failed as alleged in paragraph 10 above. 25 26 20. As a proximate and direct result of the breach of such 27 implied warranties of fitness for the particular purposes, 28 plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in 13 l 1 paragraph 12 above. 2 3 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (STRICT LIABILITY) 5 6 21. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 20. 7 8 22 . Defendants knew and. intended that units and common 9 areas at the Project would be used for residential purposes and 10 knew and intended that the various component parts would be it incorporated so that the purchasers of units who would also use the 12 common areas at the Project would have watertight, stable., secure, 13 usable, and otherwise habitable units and common areas. 14 15 23 . Defendants knew that the units and common areas of the 16 Project, including its various components, would be purchased and 17 used by the owners without sufficient inspection to determine the 18 existence of any defects. 19 20 24 . The common areas and units are defective as follows: 21 22 24. 1 The weather and water-exposed surfaces of the 23 buildings have failed, including the roof systems, decks, 24 balconies, windows and window systems, door systems, and flashings, 25 allowing water intrusion and causing damages; 26 27 24.2 Wall systems were improperly selected, 28 designed, installed and constructed, resulting in inadequate 14 1 drainage, cracking, deflections and water .damage; 2 3 24 . 3 Drainage systems at the Project has been 4 improperly designed, manufactured and developed, including the 5 design and construction of gutter and drain systems, resulting in 6 inadequate drainage, ponding of water and water intrusion into 7 walls, balconies and decks; 8 9 24.4 Stucco and lath systems were improperly 10 designed, selected, installed and prepared, resulting in water 11 damage and deterioration; 12 13 24.5 Garage doors and meter doors were improperly 14 selected, designed and constructed, resulting in warping, cracking, 15 delamination, and water damage; 16 17 24 . 6 Window systems were improperly selected, 18 designed and constructed, resulting in corrosion, separations, 19 leakage into buildings and water damage; 20 21 24.7 Electrical systems were improperly designed, 22 constructed and wired, resulting in improper and inadequate 23 interior and exterior lighting, and other faulty or dangerous 24 conditions; 25 26 24.8 Plumbing and mechanical systems at the Project 27 have been improperly selected, designed and installed, including 28 inadequate and defective clothes dryer vents, plumbing systems, hot 15 I water and space heaters, resulting in damages and leaks; 2 3 24 .9 The framing and interior drywall systems were 4 improperly designed and constructed, resulting in cracking, 5 improperly anchored and installed shear wall connections, and other 6 damages; 7 8 24. 10 structural support systems for floors, walls 9 and roofs were improperly selected, designed and constructed, 10 resulting in deflections, cracking and water intrusion through the 11 slabs, floors and walls, as well as unsafe conditions; 12 13 24. 11 Chimney and drywall systems were improperly 14 selected, designed, and constructed resulting in substandard and 15 inadequate fire protection, firewalls, unsafe conditions, and 16 damage; 17 18 24. 12 Fixtures were improperly selected and 19 installed, resulting in chips, cracks and other damage; 20 21 24. 13 Exterior stair systems were improperly designed 22 and installed; and 23 24 24.14 Exterior fences, masonry walls and posts were 25 inadequately designed and constructed, resulting in deterioration 26 and damage. 27 28 The above defects continue to deteriorate and damages will 16 1 continue. The Project, including the units and common areas, may 2 be additionally defective in ways and to extents not now precisely 3 known, and such additional defects will be included in this action 4 by amendment or by proof at trial. 5 6 25. As a proximate and direct result of such defects, 7 plaintiff has sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in a paragraph 12. 9 10 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (NEGLIGENCE) 12 13 26. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 25. 14 15 27. Defendant negligently, carelessly, tortiously and 16 wrongfully failed to use reasonable care in the design, 17 manufacture, construction, installation and development of i8 (i) water and weather-exposed surfaces and systems, including roof 19 systems, decks, balconies, windows and doors; (ii) wall systems; 20 (iii) drainage systems; (iv) stucco and lath systems; (v) garage 21 doors and meter doors; (vi) window systems; (vii) electrical 22 systems; (viii) plumbing and mechanical systems; (ix) framing and 23 interior drywall systems; (x) structural support systems; and (xi) 24 fire protection systems; (xii) fixtures; (xiii) exterior stair 25 systems; and (xiv) exterior fences, masonry wall and post systems. 26 27 28. The negligence of defendants proximately caused the 28 failures and defects alleged in paragraphs 10 and 24. As a 17 1 consequence of the negligence of defendants, plaintiff has 2 sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in paragraph 12 . 3 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION 4 (BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY) 5 29. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 28. 6 7 30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon 8 alleges, that Defendants appointed their agents and employees to 9 serve as the initial members of the Board of Directors for the 10 Association. These agents and employees were appointed to exercise 11 dominion and control over the ASSOCIATION in order to adopt actions 12 and conduct in the interests of Defendants and contrary to the best 13 interest of the ASSOCIATION. 14 31. Defendants in their development of the ASSOCIATION's 15 budgets and reserve requirements, and their participation on the 16 initial Board of Directors had a fiduciary duty to serve in good 17 faith, in the best interests of the ASSOCIATION, using the care of 18 an ordinarily prudent person in similar circumstances as required 19 by California Corporations Code section 7231. 20 . 32 . For the period when the Defendants, and their agents 21 and employees remained on the Board of Directors, Defendants 22 maintained control of the Board of Directors. Defendants utilized 23 this control to permit mismanagement or non-management of the 24 ASSOCIATION during that period and directly benefitted the 25 developer's interests over the ASSOCIATION's and its homeowners' 26 interests. 27 33 . Defendants, in an attempt to secure sales, did 28 unreasonably and fraudulently contrive inadequate monthly budgets 18 1 by understating the true costs which unduly compromised Plaintiff 2 by misrepresenting maintenance expenses. By such mismanagement, 3 Defendants failed to serve the best interests of the ASSOCIATION. 4 34. The ASSOCIATION is and has been prejudiced in its 5 ability to maintain the common areas, its members are and have been 6 misled .into a false sense of security that the maintenance needs of 7 the project had been properly provided for. 8 35. Defendants, acting a both Board members and developers, 9 and with full knowledge of the true and necessary reserve 10 requirements of the ASSOCIATION, failed to fund and maintain an 11 adequate reserve account, thereby abandoning their responsibility 12 to the best interests of the ASSOCIATION for the developer's 13 interest in maximizing the profit from the sale of each unit. 14 36. As a direct and proximate result of such breaches of 15 fiduciary responsibility, the members of the ASSOCIATION and the 16 ASSOCIATION have sustained, and will sustain damages as alleged 17 below. 18 37. Defendants, in each of the aforementioned situations, 19 did fail. in their fiduciary responsibilities to the ASSOCIATION. 20 By intentionally and fraudulently misrepresenting the estimated 21 costs of repairs and maintenance required by the project, by 22 controlling the Board and compromising its actions as a counterfeit 23 representative of the ASSOCIATION's interests, and by intentionally 24 failing to adequately fund the necessary reserves, Defendants 25 breached their duties as fiduciaries and thereby damaged Plaintiff 26 in a sum as of yet unascertained. When such sum has been 27 ascertained, Plaintiff will seek leave of the Court to amend this 28 Complaint herein and insert the accurate amount. 19 1 2 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION 3 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- 4 IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY) 5 6 38 . Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 14. 7 8 39. Plaintiff ASSOCIATION brings this action as a 9 representative suit on behalf of all individuals who presently own 10 one or more units at the Project. The persons in this class are so 11 numerous, consisting of over 60 individuals, that the joinder of 12 all such persons is impractical and the disposition of their claim 13 in a representative suit is of benefit to the parties and to the 14 Court. 15 16 40. There are questions of fact and law common to each 17 member of said class, and the claims herein alleged by plaintiff 18 ASSOCIATION are representative of those claims which could be 19 alleged by each member of the class. The relief herein sought is 20 typical of the relief which could be prayed for as to each of the 21 members of the class. 22 23 41. The prosecution of separate actions by individual 24 members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or varying 25 adjudications with respect to the individual members of the class 26 which would establish incompatible standards of conduct by the 27 parties opposing the class, and adjudication with respect to 28 individual members of the class as a practical matter would be 20 1 dispositive of the interests of other members not party to the 2 adjudications or substantially impair or impede their ability to 3 protect their interest. 4 5 42 . In connection with the development, construction, 6 manufacture, marketing and sale of the units and common areas, 7 defendants impliedly warranted that the Project units and common g areas would be of merchantable quality. The failures described in 9 paragraph 10 are breaches of the warranty of merchantability. As 10 a proximate and direct result of such breaches, the individuals who 11 presently own one or more units at the Project have sustained 12 damage as alleged above to their units and to the common: areas, and 13 have further sustained loss of use and enjoyment of their homes and 14 common areas and may sustain damages in the form of moving expenses 15 and relocation expenses in connection with repair efforts, in 16 amounts not yet known but in excess of $50, 000. 17 18 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 19 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- 20 BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF FITNESS) 21 22 43 . Plaintiff realleges paragraph 1 through 20 and 39 23 through 41, inclusive. 24 25 44. In planning, designing, constructing, supervising, 26 building, developing, marketing and selling the units and common 27 areas to the members of the class, defendants impliedly warranted 28 that the Project, including the units and the common areas, would 21 1 be fit for the intended and particular purpose as a residential 2 community. 3 4 45. The failures alleged in paragraph 10 are breaches of 5 such implied warranties of fitness. As a proximate and direct 6 result of such breach of implied warranties of fitness, the members 7 of the class have sustained and will sustain damages as alleged in 8 paragraph 42. 9 10 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION 11 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- STRICT LIABILITY) 12 13 46. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 25 and 39 14 through 41, inclusive. 15 16 47 . The units and common areas contain defects as alleged 17 in paragraph 24. As a proximate and direct result of the defects, 18 the members of the class have sustained and will sustain damages as 19 alleged in paragraph 42 . 20 21 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION 22 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- NEGLIGENCE) 23 24 39. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 28, inclusive, 25 and 39 through 41, inclusive. 26 27 40. In planning, designing, manufacturing, constructing, 28 supervising, building, developing, marketing and selling the 22 1 Project to the members of the class, .defendants were under a duty 2 to exercise due care in connection with their activities. In 3 breach of such duty of care, defendants negligently and tortiously 4 planned, designed, manufactured, constructed, supervised, built, 5 developed, marketed and sold the Project so that it failed as 6 alleged in paragraph 10 and contained defects as alleged in 7 paragraph 24. 8 9 41. As a direct and proximate result of defendants' 10 negligence, the members of the class have sustained and will 11 sustain damages as alleged in paragraph 42 . 12 13 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION 14 (ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF MEMBERS -- 15 BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTIES) 16 17 42 . Plaintiff realleges paragraphs 1 through 41, inclusive. 18 19 43 . Defendants did fail in their fiduciary responsibilities 20 to each member of the ASSOCIATION. By intentionally and 21 fraudulently misrepresenting the estimated costs of repairs and 22 maintenance required by the project, by controlling the Board and 23 compromising its actions as a counterfeit representative of the 24 ASSOCIATION's interests, and by intentionally failing to adequately 25 fund the necessary reserves, Defendants breached their duties as 26 fiduciaries and thereby damaged Plaintiff in a sum as of yet 27 unascertained. When such sum has been ascertained, Plaintiff .will 28 seek leave of the Court to amend this Complaint herein and insert 23 1 the accurate amount. 2 3 PRAYER 4 5 Plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants and each of 6 them,. jointly and severally, as follows: 7 8 1. For compensatory damages in accordance with proof; 9 10 2 . For interest thereon at the maximum legal rate; 11 12 3 . For pre-judgment interest on all sums awarded at the 13 maximum legal rate; 14 15 4 . For the costs of suit; 16 17 5. For attorneys' fees; and 18 19 6. For such other and further relief as the court deems 20 proper and just. 21 22 DATED: June 13, 1995 STRONG & MORALES 23 24 By: _x Kathleen D. Strong 25 Attorneys for Plain(YMEOWNERS VILLAS DEL MAR 26 ASSOCIATION 27 28 24 i Council/Agency Meeting Held: n=ferred/Conti � G proved onditionally Approve ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature . G Council Meeting Date: April 7, 1997 Department ID Number: C7-1 5—l rSu/ /va-,v 'v o) x -` S�,�jCITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH �- ��rnm J J1t i'P ":oa REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION r SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS T SUBMITTED BY: MICHAEL T. UBERUAGA, City Administratora�-P PREPARED BY: MELANIE S. FALLON, Community Development Director _ SUBJECT: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/ Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 (Plaza Almeria-Third Block West) Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status, Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal by Amigos de Downtown (Robert Bolen, et al), of the Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/ Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16. This application represents a request by Robert Hidey Architect representing JT Development and the Redevelopment Agency to permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development on a full block in the downtown area. The appeal is based on numerous reasons but the primary objections are to the size, design, and code deviations of the proposed project. The Planning Commission approved the request and staff is recommending approval (Recommended Action) because the project will be compatible with other downtown development, the project meets the goal and objectives of the General Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, and the project conforms with the policies of the California Coastal Act. Funding Source: Not applicable. l REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 Recommended Action: PLANNING COMMISSION (AND STAFF) RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-16 with findings and mitigation measures (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)", and 2. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/ Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) with findings and conditions of approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1)." Planning Commission Action on February 11, 1997: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO CONTINUE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R) WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (R)/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352 (R)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-16, TO THE FEBRUARY 25, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, KERINS, SPEAKER, BIDDLE NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: TILLOTSON, INGLEE, HOLDEN MOTION PASSED Planning Commission Action on February 25, 1997: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SPEAKER, TO APPROVE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R) WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (R)/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352 (R)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-16, WITH FINDINGS AND AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: LIVENGOOD, KERINS, SPEAKER, CHAPMAN NOES: NONE ABSENT: BIDDLE ABSTAIN: TILLOTSON, INGLEE MOTION PASSED CD97-18.DOC -2- 03/25/97 5:11 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "(Appellant's Request) Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 with findings." 2. "Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicants: Robert Hidey, Robert Hidey Architects, 130 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach CA 92648 L cam.ation: 301 Main Street (Full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue) Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 represents a request by Robert Hidey Architects and the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development on a full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue in Downtown Huntington Beach. The project consists of 15,000 square feet of retail, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, 11,000 square feet of office, and 45 two-story, two-bedroom townhomes with six special permit requests for building height, ground floor setbacks, upper story setbacks, public open space size and location, and residential open space. A one lot subdivision for condominium purposes is also proposed to divide the property for the sale, lease, or finance of airspace. The condo plan includes common parking, landscaping, and public open space as well as establishes commercial, office, and residential lots. CD97-18.DOC -3- 03/25/97 5:11 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 B. BACKGROUND The City Council approved the Third Block West mixed use development on March 4, 1991. The approved project consisted of 28,000 square feet of commercial development and 68 residential condominiums and included a special permit to allow the transition ramps in the parking garage to exceed the maximum slope allowed. The commercial tenant space was approved on the ground floor facing Main Street and consisted of a 9,500 square foot market and 9,500 square feet of general retail. Office space, totaling 8,000 square feet, was approved on the second floor above the commercial. When the City Council acted on the project on an appeal, the action included a condition of approval to increase the retail space by 1,000 square feet for a total of 28,000 square feet. The residential units were designed as stacked flats above and behind the commercial space. Parking was provided for the project in a subterranean parking garage and included secured parking for the residential units. Revised Project The new name of the revised project is Plaza Almeria. The applicant has proposed this amendment to the original approval of the mixed use project in order to increase the leasable space, redesign the type of residential units, and change the architectural style of the project. The redesigned project includes an overhaul to the exterior architectural facade while maintaining the approved Spanish Village/ Mediterranean concept. The commercial portion of the project is now designed so that 11,000 square feet of retail and 15,000 square feet of restaurant are oriented toward Main Street with 11,000 square feet of office space above on the second floor. An additional 4,000 square feet of retail space faces Olive Avenue on the southwest corner of the site. Parking for the retail and restaurant uses is provided on the ground floor parking garage as well as in a subterranean level of parking. All of the parking is controlled with access gates and will be operated by ticket dispensers at the entrances and exits on Orange and Olive Avenues with a staffed exit gate and ticket booth on Orange Avenue. The only exit for commercial tenants, employees, and customers is the staffed exit on Orange Avenue. A major impetus for redesigning the project is the recognition of the new demands of the 1997 market place. One example of how the redesign reflects the demands of current retailers is to provide the commercial tenant spaces with greater ceiling heights. Other reasons the project was redesigned were to meet the City's goal of increasing commercial tenant space throughout the City and the fact that there does not appear to be a demand for a market in the downtown area. The applicant contacted numerous specialty market stores and was unsuccessful in securing any interest for a market at the site. CD97-18.DOC -4- 03/25/97 5:11 PM REQUEST FOR •Q R COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 The overall square footage of the residential units has been increased in order to reflect the anticipated 1997 market demand for more spacious units and redesigned from stacked flats to townhomes. The residential units range in size from 1,590 to 2,830 square feet and each unit is provided with private yard or balcony areas. Parking for the residents is provided in two secured levels of parking that are accessed from 5th Street and are above the commercial parking. One of the applicant's requests is to share 11 of the 23 required residential guest parking with all of the 11 office parking spaces provided on the commercial level. C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission first reviewed this revised project on February 11, 1997. At that meeting there were approximately eight (8) speakers who were opposed to the project's size, design, and density and requested additional information regarding the project. Approximately seven (7) people spoke in favor of the proposed project. The Planning Commission continued the project for two weeks in order to allow the applicant to meet with adjacent residents and other interested parties and address concerns raised by the Planning Commission. During the two week continuance the applicant met with adjacent property owners and interested parties on two different occasions to introduce and describe the proposed project. The Planning Commission held another public hearing on February 25, 1997. Approximately seven (7) people spoke in favor of the project and the majority of the previous speakers in opposition to the project requested some design changes (see Attachment.No. 3) but did not voice the same degree of opposition. The Planning Commission made some modifications to the conditions of approval and some minor modifications to the design and approved the project on February 25, 1997. D. APPEAL: An appeal has been filed by a group calling themselves Amigos de Downtown. The group prepared a lengthy letter outlining numerous reasons why the project was appealed. The entire letter of appeal is available for review in Attachment No. 2. The issues regarding the appeal are further discussed in the Analysis section of this report and include the following: • Development Standards • Parking • Development Threshold-Downtown Specific Plan • Ratio of Commercial to Residential Square Footage CD97-18.DOC -5- 03/25/97 5:11 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 E. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: This report has been organized to respond in summary to the appellant's reasons for appeal and therefore groups several issues of the appellant's letter by subject matter. Development Standards: First, the appellants state that the project does not comply with several provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan including height, open space, and setbacks. It is true that the proposed project does not comply with the strict provisions of the code regarding height, open space, and setbacks. However, the applicant requested and received approval of special permits to deviate from the development standards in these areas. The Downtown Specific Plan allows for special permits to be granted when the Planning Commission determines that significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were met. In this case, some of the special permits are justified (or off-set) by the public art that will be provided and that the project provides approximately twice the amount of required common recreational area in the form of private open space patios and balconies. In addition, some of the conditions of approval require amendments to the project which will minimize some of the special permits by providing more open space along Main Street, increasing the Main Street setback, eliminating all encroachments into the setback on 5th Street, and effectively screening mechanical equipment (transformers) that are within the setback on Orange Avenue. Parking: The appeal letter states that the project does not provide the code required parking on-site, that the project eliminates parking spaces on Main Street, and that the restriping of parking stalls on 5th Street are not the proper size as required by code. On-Site Parking: Parking for the mixed use project was calculated using the shared parking ratios as approved in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Parking is provided for residential and commercial uses within the subterranean and above ground parking structure with 11 spaces for residential guest and office parking being shared. A total of 284 parking spaces are required and the project is proposed with 276 parking spaces. By requesting to share the office parking spaces with residential guest parking spaces, all uses, including future restaurant uses, will be parked on-site. Staff supports the request to share 11 of the required 23 residential guest parking spaces because office uses and visitors to the residents typically arrive at different times. The 11 shared spaces plus 2 guest parking spaces (that are not shared) will be provided on the commercial level of parking with access from both Olive Avenue and Orange Avenue. The remainder of the required guest parking spaces (10 spaces) are provided within the secured residential parking levels with access from 5th Street. A visitor to the residential site will access the secured parking level by utilizing a telephone entry system. It is expected that peak operating hours for office uses CD97-18.DOC -6- 03/25/97 5:11 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT ON MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 will occur during the daytime while the majority of residential guests will arrive during the evening hours. The proposal to share guest with office spaces is a compatible use of parking at the site. It should be noted that Plaza Almeria goes further in meeting City parking standards than any other project in the Downtown. Staff received a letter from the applicant on February 6, 1997 that stated while not proposed at this time, parking has been provided within the site to support up to 15,000 square feet of restaurant. Since staff has not had an opportunity to analyze any restaurant uses on the site, a condition of approval has been added to require all future restaurant, outdoor dining, and alcohol uses to apply for separate conditional use permits subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. (See Condition of Approval No.'s 3, 4, and 5). On-Street Parking: The proposed project includes substantial improvements within the public right-of-way. The applicant is requesting to relocate all of the existing parking spaces on Main Street to 90 degree parking on 5th Street. The applicant then intends to provide paving and landscaping improvements within the public right-of-way in the location of the parking stalls. The improvements are proposed in a similar fashion to the.wide sidewalks and outdoor dining areas that are provided further south on Main Street in the first and second blocks. A total of 44 parking spaces currently exist on all four sides of the project. In order to maintain the 44 parking spaces and suffer no net loss of parking or parking meter revenue with the removal of stalls on Main Street, the applicant is proposing to restripe Olive and Orange Avenues as well. The 90 degree parking on the east side of 5th Street will be compatible with the existing angled parking on the west side of 5th Street because the proper back-up space (minimum 26 feet) for all stalls can be provided and the design of the project will function like a parking court. 5th Street currently dead ends into the Townsquare project on the north side of Orange Avenue and is not a heavily traveled street for through traffic. The City's Traffic Engineer has analyzed the proposed 90 degree parking and preliminarily approved the concept. The final design and all restriping of parking within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. As the code requires, all of the restriped parking stalls within the public right-of-way will be required to be full size stalls and will meet the proper back-up space. In this case, the proposed parking on 5th Street is depicted as an actual 17 foot long stall with 2 feet of overhang into the adjacent curb and sidewalk. In this way, the curb acts as a wheel stop and a second concrete bumper is not required. The 17 foot long stall with 2 feet of overhang meets the code requirements for stall size and is not considered a compact stall. It should be noted that the 90 degree parking along 5th Street can serve as a prototype to restripe and generate additional parking spaces if the remaining blocks to the south are restriped for 90 degree parking. CD97-18.DOC -7- 03/25/97 5:11 PM *QUEST FOR COUNCIL ACT41N MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 Some members of the public were concerned with loss of parking on the west side of Main Street and the potential impacts the loss will have for businesses on the east side of Main Street. Staff supports the relocation of parking from Main Street to the other sides of the project because no net loss of parking spaces will occur and the project is constructing code required parking on site. Staff supports the proposed design of relocating the Main Street parking to 5th Street because it affords a greater opportunity to create a large pedestrian oriented plaza in front of the Plaza Almeria project. By constructing public improvements where the parking spaces are currently located, any future proposed outdoor dining can be established against the building wall of the restaurant and pedestrians will still be provided with a substantial path through the plaza area. It is ideal to locate the outdoor dining immediately adjacent to the building wall so that food servers and diners are not in constant conflict and all activity can be centralized and controlled in several designated areas. The greater public plaza area can accomplish this goal in design of the open air activities. Develoment Threshold-Downtown Specific Plan: The appeal letter states that the project exceeds the thresholds of Office space as provided in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The appellants also state that although they understand that the development thresholds can be shifted among land use categories, staff has not identified which of the land use category will be amended to accommodate the additional office square footage. First it is important to provide some history regarding the suggested development thresholds for the Downtown core along Main Street. In June 1995, the revisions and the update to the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) commonly referred to as the "Village Concept" became effective. As part of the revisions, a shared parking concept was prepared for the core area of Main Street. The shared parking concept is commonly referred to as the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DTPMP). The DTPMP has suggested maximum development thresholds per use to ensure the proper mix of uses and the proper function of the shared parking concept. The maximum development threshold is 500,000 sq. ft. Within this threshold are suggested square footage thresholds for commercial/retail at a threshold of 250,000 square feet, an office threshold of 100,000 square feet, a restaurant threshold of 100,000 square feet, and a miscellaneous threshold of 50,000 square feet. These suggested thresholds were established to ensure that the shared parking concept would function properly based upon the proper mix of uses. One important factor of the DTPMP is the ability to shift square footage between land use categories. This allows the city to work within the overall development threshold of 500,000 sq. ft. The city needs to be aware that the balance that has been established by the thresholds for each land use category is critical to the success of the shared parking concept. Continued monitoring of the land uses and development activity is a key component of the DTPMP. CD97-18.DOC -8- 03/25/97 5:11 PM RQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 The following comparison chart indicates the threshold totals for the 1996 Annual Review of the DTPMP and the inclusion of the square footage of the proposed project: 1996 DTPMP Annual Review 1 . .. .. ....... ....... - ... _ ---- _ __.. . ....... ......... ......... ........ ......... ........... .... __..- (Occupied Totals) (;Third Block West) Threshold Restaurant 78,900 sq. ft (+15,000) 93,900 sq. ft. 100,000 sq. ft. Retail 122,400 sq. ft. (+15,000) 137,400 sq. ft. 250,000 sq. ft. Office 97,200 sq. ft. (+11,000) 108,200 sq. ft. 100,000 sq. ft. Miscellaneous 52,400 sq. ft. 52,400 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft. TOTALS 1350,900 SQ. FT. 391,900 SQ. FT. 600,000 SQ. FT. The 1996 square footage totals used in the annual review of the DTPMP includes occupancy levels of existing buildings and their associated square footage.- The 1997 totals reflect the new mix of uses proposed for Plaza Almeria and the revised totals for the DTPMP. As illustrated in the chart, the office square footage will exceed the 100,000 square foot threshold with the addition of Plaza Almeria office space. Through the continual monitoring of the DTPMP, it is anticipated that square footage will be shifted from the retail category (which has a substantial surplus of square footage) to the office category. In any case, the net increase of square footage proposed and existing is well beneath the 500,000 sq. ft. threshold established by the DTPMP. Ratio of Commercial to Residential Square Footage: The appeal letter states that the Plaza Almeria project "...steals commercial square footage from the rest of the blocks in District 5 and does not factually disclose how much and from which blocks that commercial square footage will be taken. This project also fails to disclose the fact that this in turn limits the amount and type of development that can be pursued by neighboring property owners in the district. We believe this constitutes an unlawful taking of property owners rights that may be challengable in a court of law." Consistent with the zoning requirements today, and at the time of project approval, the Downtown Specific Plan allows residential units only in conjunction with commercial uses in order to promote a core of retail development in the downtown area. One of the restrictions imposed on the residential development is that the square footage of residential uses may not exceed more than 50% of the square footage devoted to commercial uses. However, the project was approved in 1991 with the residential square footage in excess of the commercial square footage as the result of two key factors. First, when the project was presented to the Planning Commission in 1990, it included a 200 space City parking level that was counted as commercial square footage. Therefore, the residential and commercial square footage balanced on the site. When the project was presented to the City Council on CD97-18.DOC -9- 03/25/97 5:11 PM IQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 appeal, the City had eliminated the 200 space City parking level. In order to balance the overall square footage of residential to commercial, the City Council decided that the ratio of commercial to residential could be achieved on a district wide basis. The required 1:1 ratio of commercial to residential square footage was met by considering all existing uses and all projected uses within the entire District 5. The analysis included the statement that the methodology would not restrict other applicants within the District from applying for mixed use projects as allowed by Code on their own property. It should be noted that this methodology of allowing commercial to residential square footage ratios was challenged and upheld in a subsequent court decision. Litigation confirmed that the City Council's decision to analyze square footage on a district wide basis was legitimate. The revised project also proposes residential square footage that exceeds 50% of the commercial square footage. In concert with the 1991 approved project and the subsequent decision upheld in court, staff has analyzed the proposed project on a district wide basis. Analyzing the project using this methodology demonstrates that residential square footage in District 5 does not exceed 50% of commercial square footage in all of District 5. With the inclusion of the proposed 41,000 square feet of commercial and 82,940 square feet of residential for the Plaza Almeria project, District 5 currently supports approximately 196,773 square feet of commercial square feet and 164,464 square feet of residential square feet. These numbers for all of District 5 are staffs best estimates and were determined by a combination of a review of building permit records, a field survey, and estimates of square footage from aerial photographs. It should be noted that this method of computing commercial to residential square feet may only be applied to the Plaza Almeria project. While not excluding other projects from proposing mixed use development, this methodology also does not "use up" all the available residential square feet in the District. Since no other project will be analyzed using this methodology, the ratio of commercial to residential on a district wide basis is not be an issue with any future proposed project. This analysis in no way constitutes a taking since it does not preclude another property owner from proposing a mixed use development pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan. A finding for approval of the project to exceed the 1:1 ratio of residential to commercial is included in Attachment No. 1. F. SUMMARY Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of February 25, 1997. With the recommended conditions of approval, Plaza Almeria will be a unique mixed use project that presents an interesting architectural design which will serve to make the project a successful commercial and residential use on this important block in the downtown area. The project provides code required parking, provides a public plaza area on Main Street which will cater to the pedestrian, includes a public art element, complies with the policies of the California Coastal Act, and is consistent with the Village Concept. CD97-18.DOC -10- 03/25/97 5:11 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: April 7, 1997 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CD 97-18 Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently, Negative Declaration No. 96-16 (Attachment No. 11) was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 96- 16 for twenty (20) days commencing on Thursday, December 19, 1996 and ending on Tuesday, January 7, 1997. One written comment from the Environmental Board was received and a response has been included in Attachment No. 8. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number /Z 1. Findings and Conditions of Approval as approved by the Planning Commission on February 25, 1997 3 4'` 2. Appeal Letter from Amigos de Downtown dated March 7, 1997 ......... . ........ ....... . ........... 3. Letter from Steve Gogolab and Mark Nejera dated February 25, 1997 4. Letter from Tamlyn Hagemeister dated February 25, 1997 5. Memo re: Townsquare Parking Conditions of Approval dated February T ` 25, 1997 TR, 6. Letter from Rainbow Disposal dated November 22, 1996 7. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 25, 1997 _ 8. Response to Comment-Negative Declaration 96-16 84 ' 9. Memo from David Biggs to Melanie Fallon dated February 11, 1997 gb ; 10. Letter from J. David Winscott dated February 10, 1997 80 11. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 11, 1997 CD97-18.DOC -11- 03/25/97 5:11 PM PROOF OF PUBLICATION - C� O STATE OF CALIFORNIA) ) SS. County of Orange ) PUBLIC NOTICE onus between zero(0)and NOTICE IS HEREBY, NOTICE OF five (5) rat In Ileu of th. GIVEN that an Initlel anvi minimum code required torments! an for PUBLIC HEMINO: five foot�baca, the above Qom was P pro- I am a Citizen of the United States and a BEFORE THE portion- & To permit portio of ceased and completer! In CITY COUNCIL ` thr uppsr story setback accordance with the Call- res i d e n t of the County aforesaid; I am OF THE CITY OF along Maln Street. 011ve forma Quality AM Q was MUNTINOTON Avenue,5th Street,and Or- determined the above over the age of eighteen years, and not a BEACH ano•Avenue between zero gym'with n'��0n'would NOTICE IS HEREBY (0 and ten(10)feat In lieu riot havearty pnMcant err party to o r interested i n the below GIVEN that �, April 7, P th•-�• roquire �- vlronmental effects and entitled matter. l am a principal clerk of f '�''"7 P�"" a . of - ad It fdon l ten decthatlaration . mitigated mannegates. . (�0) foot setifaca from the declaration Is. warranted. Main Street Huntington end•�f•�•• Prior to acting on the ap- Beach,the City Col wW 4.To permit 3,235 square Pam,the City-Council must the H U NTI NGTO N BEACH INDEPENDENT a had a public hearing on fee of public open space review and ad on the nrqegp-. within the net site area In alive declaration.This.rnvl- ' the followtrp planning and lieu of ding the code ronmentel assessment b newspaper o general circulation, printed zoning Rem: on No d the City of Hun. APPEAL OF PLANNING required 4,092.square feet and published in the City of Huntington , COMMISSION'S AP- of public open space within tington Beach Community i PROVAL OF t'.OND1110NAL th•net site was. Development Depertmord,. 5.To permit 3A35 square 2000 4,M Street, and b Beach, County of Orange, State of i USE PERMIT NO.0039(R) of public open space available for public Inspect i WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ In a linear pettem along the lion and Commentby con' :. California, and that attached Notice is a COASTAL DEVELOPMENT street frontage. in lieu of tatting the Communfty Z PERMIT NO. 9030 (R)/ ��murn�e required �p� Department, or true and complete Co as was tinted ;-TENTATIVE TRACT MAP t000 square toot Plaza by b�p�ng (714) 538• f p/ p NO. 14352 (R)/ NEGATIVE within one contra Ized 637I. DECLARATION NO. 98-18 pI area ON FILE: A copy of the ! an published in the Huntington Beach HIRD BLOCK WESTla �T ALMERIA): egos 8. To pormlt t5,800 �uost on ills Fountain ValIe issues of said de Downtown c Robert :1de 'eat °t common ner'`'' °mr�'y residentlal open spew with 2treet, Hun- and ; newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: R'I�t Hd°`, acApplicants: 1 minimum di onc of Ington92M Beach, CalifInspect! y Hunt! on Redevel- 10 feet In lieu of the code 92848, for InaP.ctlon by requlred 20,735 square feet the public. A copy of the op Agency Request of common residential staff report will be available To permit a revision to a open spew with amini- to it teresw Peres at the pr�vlously approved mum dlmenslan of 20 feet. City Clerk's OMw after for development of a Tentative Tract: to permit April 3.1997. use commercial and real'• a one lot subdivision of a ALI- INTERESTED PER- dential development t.88 acre parcel for condo- SONS are Invited to attend March 27, 1997 proj0 t me project In- minlum purposes and to- said hearing and express dudes the followlnp: View the condominium plan opinions or submit ev4 CUP with Special PermlW .for 50 commercial/real- dome.for or against 1f» CDP:•To permit the corr dentlal lots and 7 lettered appllcatlon as outlined structlon of a robed use. lots. above.If you challenge tM project corrolatlng. a total Negative Declaration: to Of 41,000 square feet of erialYzo and mitigate the City Councit's action [it I declare under penalty a I t f that ' 1 able floor area. The, environmental lm. court, you may be limited P Y o perjury,)u r yr en ponents-of the project pacts associated with the to raising only those Issues the foregoing is true and correct. Consist of appro eIy dove!° ment project do- you or someone. else 15,000 uere foot a retell, mised at the public hear- approximately 15;000 •Lo ve' B there are an further Locatlon: Downtown Hun- �• y square feet of restaurant, tington. Beach on a full questions ppleas. call the approximately 1.1,000 block �� by Main Flouring Division at 538- square feet of office, and Street; Olive Avenue, 61h 5271 and refer to the 45 twoitoty, two-bedroom Street,and Orange Avenue above item. Direct your; Executed on March 27, 199 7 townhomes.The project in- Project Planriw.,arts Mad. n communications to� dudes a request to permitthe City Clerk. at Costa Mesa California. shared residential guest era r and office parking spares aim mat alias above Iteem !City CIt rl4 city of un•' and as previously ap- is located In the non- 'tington Beach, 2000 rod- d proved, to allow footage e age to 'appealable jurladldton of Main Street,2nd Floor, exceed 01_the C0� the Coastal Zone and In- Huntington Beach,Cal. merclal square tooup•- cludes Coastal Develop- Ifornla 92648 (714) The project Includes Be flied on December (� 85"227• following six Special perniR 1995, In conjunction with I . Published Huntington requests: the above. request The Beach-Fountaln Valley In- 1. To penult portions of CoaJmlt stal. Development Psr- dependent March 27,-1997 the-4 story atruchu. at a ng cwtsfsis of a o3a 35s helpht of 64 feet to the stair report,public hearing, — mldpolnt of the roof In Ilau CI Council dlacusslon Signature l of tfe maximum 45 fast al- lowed by code and to per- action.The above Rem ; Olt a he1gM of 85 feet for 1i not eppealaNlo to the rooflire architectural treat- Callfarrda CCooeaeettWW Commis i Iment In lieu of the maxi- •lorL ---J mum of 55 feet. 2. To permit portions of mnl the ground floor building / setbacks on Olive Avenue, Ath Street,and OrOrangs Av- T �Ctf k -Pu 6t LZU- 30)Soils issue and leaking tank at Main and Olive. There is hydrocarbon contamination located at Main and Olive. All project soils must meet City Soil Specification#431- 92. (FD) 31)Water supply shall be capable of providing 4,000 gallons/minute above domestic for required fire flow. (FD) d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Community Development Department. e. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. f. The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) 17. The use shall comply with the following: a. There shall be no excessive noise generating uses, such as, restaurants and live entertainment, permitted in the office spaces on the second floor. b. Service roads and fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) �c. Commercial loading/unloading activities may occur on Orange Avenue only between the �G hours of 7:00 AM - 8:00 PM. — � . 1 esidential or commercial refuse collection may occur on Orange Avenue ata�. �aa ommercialloading/unFoading-activi�iF nd-r�i entia a commerce co a nrn� occur on Olive Avenue at an time. c?& Y Y ,// f. Residential refuse collection is the only activity permitted on 5th Street. 18. This Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, and returned to the _ Planning Division. 19. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. Z`f -17- INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REEQUIREMENTS- a 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R), pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees adopted in the "upcoming" Water Division Financial Master Plan. (PV) 5. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 6. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PVC 7. A Certificate of Occupancy must.be issued by the Department of Community Development prior to occupying the building. 8. Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map by the City. 9. State-mandated school impact fees.in an amount negotiated with the appropriate school districts shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. _ 10. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 11. All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, a building permit shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development. Jo -18- CITY COUNCIL MEETING - APRIL 7, 1997 PLAZA ALMERIA/THIRD BLOCK WEST CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R) FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - SPECIAL PERMITS : 1. The applicant has proposed six special permits consisting of requests to exceed maximum height, encroach into ground floor building setbacks, encroach into upper story setbacks, decrease the required public open space, provide an alternate location for public open space, and decrease common recreational open space. As specified in the Downtown Specific Plan, special permits may be approved if they result in significantly greater benefits to the project than would be provided if all the minimum requirements were met. In addition, the special permits and design of the project: a. Promote better living environments; and b. Provided better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout, and design; and c. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and d. Be consistent with the objectives of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment; and e. Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act; and f. Comply with State and Federal Law. 2. Special Permit No. 1 to exceed maximum building height complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the extra height is requested only for nine out of the eleven units proposed along Main Street above the office spaces. The units at the two corners of the project at Main and Olive and at Main and Orange have been scaled back so that the special permit for height is only needed in the middle of the Main Street frontage. Scaling back the units at the corners of the project allows for varied architectural design and interesting movement from the outside to center of the project. Special Permits - CUP No. 90-39 (R) April 7, 1997 Page Two The desired tiered effect can be achieved by allowing the middle portion of the building .at a 54 foot height. This special permit also includes a request to permit portions of the -building's roof line architectural treatment at a height of 65 feet in lieu of the maximum 55 feet allowed by code. The additional height for roof line treatment is proposed for the central tower structure on the Main Street frontage. By allowing the tower with an additional 10 feet, the tower will serve its purpose of a focal and anchoring point at the mid-plaza level. 3. Special Permit No. 2 to encroach into ground floor setbacks on Main Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue complies with all of the above findings for special permits because a commercial frontage effect on Olive and Orange Avenues can be better achieved if the building wall is designed at a zero setback in some areas. In addition, by allowing a closer setback on the street level,the project can create additional movement in the building wall between the street level commercial and the office and residential units above. 4. Special Permit No. 3 to encroach into the upper story setbacks complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the building design does achieve interesting and creative movement in the building's facade. In addition, in order to focus the scale of the building to the pedestrian eye level, a condition of approval has been included to require more architectural features on the ground floor building facade on all sides of the project. Additional architectural features should focus especially on incorporating awnings or eyebrows above windows, additional arches and pop-outs, and redesigning the parking garage ventilation arches to be more unobtrusive and to match the elements in the residential units on the third and fourth floors. 5. Special Permit No. 4 to reduce the amount of public open space complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the project will be redesigned so that the minimum building setback on Main Street will be six(6) feet and additional open space (an approximate 10 foot by 28 foot area for outdoor dining) will be provided in front of the restaurant on the east side of the project. This recommendation has been added as a condition of approval. In addition, a condition has been included to require that Plaza Almeria permanently provide elements of public art, This unique condition of approval will serve to unify the project's open space, provide for interesting aesthetic detail, improve the quality of the public open space, and implement a goal of the General Plan. Implementation of these conditions of approval will result in additional quality public open space provided within the net site area and meet the provisions for support of the special permit. Special Permits - CUP No. 90-39 (R) April 7, 1997 Page Three 6. Special Permit No. 5 to provide the open space in a linear fashion along Main Street .instead of in one centralized area complies with all of the above findings for special permits because the public improvement plan enables the applicant to utilize the public right-of-way to create a unique, stylized, and special plaza area thus meet the goals and policies of the Pedestrian Overlay General Plan Land Use designation on the site. The unique plaza area and use of the public right-of-way for open space will also allow outdoor dining to be provided immediately adjacent to the building wall thereby reducing conflicts with pedestrians, diners, and servers. In addition, the increased open space discussed and required in Special Permit No. 4 above will result in lessening the impact of this special permit request. 7. Special Permit No. 5 to reduce the amount of common residential open space complies with all of the above findings for special permits because while the public open space does not meet the minimum size or dimensions, the private open space has been designed so that it is almost double the amount of private open space required by code. The project is providing 10,205 square feet of private open space when only 5,400 square feet is required. i ATTACHMENT NO. 1 FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R) WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/ COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO, 90-30(R)/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352 (R)/ r-� FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL -NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-16 1. The Negative Declaration No. 96-16 has been prepared in compliance with Article 6 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. It was advertised and available for a public comment period of twenty(20) days. Comments received during the comment period were considered by the Planning Commission prior to action on the Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit No. 90-30 (R), Coastal Development Permit No. 90- 39 (R) and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R). 2. Mitigation measures, incorporated into the attached conditions of approval, avoid or reduce the project's effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment will occur. 3. There is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Planning Commission that the project, as mitigated through the conditions of approval for(CUP, CDP, TT), will have a significant effect on the environment. MITIGATION MEASURES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS: 1. The existing storm drain in Olive Avenue shall be extended from Main Street to Fifth Street, removing the half round drain pipe. The existing storm drain in Main Street shall be extended to the north side of Orange Avenue, removing the half round drain pipe. 2. Fire protection shall include a separate fire service and shall be capable of providing 4,000 gallons/minute above the domestic water service. The developer shall abandon the existing eight inch water main within the alley between Main and Fifth Street, from the connection points at Orange Avenue to the north and Olive Avenue to the south. The developer shall design and construct water mains within Olive Avenue and Fifth Street. The water main within Fifth Street shall be twelve inches in diameter. The water main within Olive Avenue shall be eight inches in diameter from the existing point of connection at Main Street to approximately the (existing) alley between Main and Fifth Streets, increasing to twelve inches in diameter to the proposed twelve inch water main within Fifth Street. The twelve inch portion of the proposed water main within Olive Avenue shall connect to the existing twelve inch tap in the existing twenty inch water transmission main at approximately the location where the alley between Main and Fifth Streets intersect with Olive Avenue. 13 -1- 3. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed no lower than the highest residential unit to minimize potential odor impacts to the townhomes. 4. An acoustical analysis report, prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, shall be completed prior to submittal of building permits. The noise study shall address potential noise impacts to the residential units from adjacent commercial and restaurant uses, refuse collection, parking garage, trash chutes, delivery, restaurant venting/shafts, and other project related noise sources. The acoustical analysis shall include recommendations for building materials and design of the units to reduce exterior noise standards to below 60 dB (A) and interior noise standards to below 45 dB (A). FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R): 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) for the establishment, maintenance and operation of the mixed use commercial, office and residential project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The project has been evaluated for compatibility with the surrounding neighborhood and with the conditions of approval imposed the project will provide adequate public plaza area, open air commercial amenities, be designed on a pedestrian scale and character, will provide sufficient parking to serve the uses on site, and will meet the goals and policies of several elements of the General Plan. 2. The conditional use permit will be compatible with surrounding uses because the project is designed with a Spanish Village/Mediterranean theme which is compatible with the Downtown Design Guidelines and with the conditions of approval imposed the project will provide architectural elements and features to enhance the pedestrian character and scale of the street scene surrounding the project. The project will provide public improvements to make the project compatible with other downtown development. 3. The proposed mixed use project will comply with the provisions of the base district and other applicable provisions in Titles 20-25 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision j Ordinance and any specific condition required for the proposed use in the district in which it would be located, except for the six special permits that have been requested. 4. The granting of the conditional use permit will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of MV-F6/25-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical- 2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: a. Goal LUl: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. -2- b. Goal L U2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the School Districts prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigation's to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities, prior to project approval by the permitting City authority. Appropriate mitigation may include, but not be limited to, use of existing facilities or surplus sites, construction of new facilities, payment of fees, and reduction of densities. c. Goal L U7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. ~d. Objective LU7.1: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that(a) provides for the housing, commercial, employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and future residents, (b)provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding sub-region, (c) captures visitor and tourist activity, and(d)provides open space and aesthetic "relief' from urban development. e. Goal L U9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. f Goal LUI1: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use. g. Objective ED].1: Enhance the City's market potential in terms of retail, office, industrial, and visitor serving activity. This would allow Huntington Beach to provide for retail, office, and industrial opportunities that serve the current and projected population and enhance sales and occupancy tax revenue. h. Goal ED3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. i. Policy ED3.2.2: Encourage mixed use (retail/office/residential) structures in the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. j. Policy LU15.2.2: Require that structures located in the pedestrian overlay zone be sited and designed to enhance pedestrian activity along the sidewalks in consideration of the guidelines noted in the general plan. I /5 -3- 5. In accordance with a court finding for this site,this revised conditional use permit complies with the permitted uses standards contained in District 5 of the Downtown Specific Plan. The court reaffirmed the City's decision of March 4, 1991, to analyze the maximum commercial to residential square footage ratios on a District 5 wide basis. The revised project's proposed residential square footage exceeds the maximum 50% residential to 50% commercial square footage ratio on this site only. Therefore, the revised project is in compliance with the ratio standard for the District and is site specific. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (R): 1. Coastal Development Permit No. 90-39 (R) for the development project, as proposed or as modified by conditions of approval, conforms with the General Plan, including the Local Coastal Program. 2. The project is consistent with the requirements of the CZ Overlay District, the base zoning district, as well as other applicable provisions of the Municipal Code except for the six special permits requested and approved concurrently. 3. At the time of occupancy the proposed development can be provided with infrastructure in a manner that is consistent with the Local Coastal Program. 4. The development conforms with the public access and public recreation policies of Chapter 3 of the California Coastal Act. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO. 14352 (R 1. Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) for a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element designation of MV-F6/25-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay) on the subject property, or any applicable specific plan, or other applicable provisions of this Code except for the six special permits requested and approved concurrently with this application. 2. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development. The site is relatively flat and is situated on an entire block. The existing alley will be vacated in association with this project and dedications for street widening purposes will be made. 3. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements will not cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. 4. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision unless alternative easements, for access or for use, will be provided. -4- CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 90-39(R): 1. The site plan, floor plans and elevations received and dated January 22, 1997, shall be resubmitted to the Department of Community Development and be subject to a comprehensive plan check to reflect the following modifications: a. All site plans, floor plans, and building elevations shall be completely dimensioned and all non-obvious building elements, features, and characteristics shall be clearly labeled. Special attention shall be paid to clearly labeling architectural features on the elevations and additional architectural treatment shall be provided on the ground floor building facade on all sides of the project. Additional features should focus on awnings or eyebrows above windows, additional arches and pop-outs, and redesigning the parking garage ventilation arches to be more unobtrusive and to match the elements in the residential units on the third and fourth floors. All architectural features as currently proposed on upper floors shall be included on building permit plans. Each sheet of plans shall include a scale. b. All elevations shall be completely labeled with proposed colors and materials. c. In order to increase open space along Main Street and create an enhanced pedestrian thoroughfare, all structures more than-forty-two (42) inches in height, except architectural features such as non-habitable floor area, staricases, a tower element, an entry vestibule, and the rounded turrets at the corners of Main and Olive and Main and Orange, shall be set back a minimum of six (6) feet from the front property line on Main Street. Other architectural features may encroach into this minimum six(6) foot setback subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. d. In order to provide more open space along Main Street and minimize the extent of the special permit, an approximately ten(10) foot wide by twenty-eight (28) foot long area for outdoor dining/plaza shall be provided within the net site area immediately in front of the 6,525 square foot restaurant along Main Street near the south side of the project. e. In order to create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation along 5th Street,the top plate of the parking garage shall not exceed eighteen (18) feet from highest adjacent curb and the entire elevation along 5th Street shall be revised to minimize the vertical mass by including special and unique architectural features to screen the ventilation openings of the parking garage and to match elements of the residential units on the third and fourth floors; these revisions shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. f. All structures more than forty-two (42) inches in height shall be setback a minimum of five (5) feet from the property line on 5th Street. g. Pavers or a similar stamped concrete treatment shall be incorporated on all four sides of the project and shall be designed to differentiate between the public and private right-of- way. The use of decorative pavers shall be subject to review and approval of the Director of Public Works. / 7 -5- h. In order to avoid an institutional atmosphere and stark appearance of the pedestrian hallway between the parking garage and the plaza area on Main Street, the interior design of the corridor shall incorporate innovative design elements and have appropriate lighting subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director. i. All levels of the parking garage shall be revised to depict all necessary support columns and/or walls. Columns may only be placed within three feet of the front or the rear of a parking stall. The width of all parking spaces adjacent to a wall more than forty-two (42) inches in height shall be increased by three feet for a total clear parking stall width of twelve feet. j. Parking Space No. 52 shall be physically separated from the residential car wash area on Parking Level 2 by a wall or other screening method. This space and space No. 49 on the same level shall be increased by three (3) feet in width. k. The entrance to the residential parking garage shall be redesigned so that both the entrance and exit is completely secured from vehicular and pedestrian traffic and accommodates guest access via a telephone access system. Design of the security gate system shall be subject to approval of the Director of Public Works, Director of Community Development, and Design Review Board. 1. The two commercial trash enclosure areas shall be redesigned to include a mat wash down area which drains directly to the sewer system. m. The public telephones depicted on Parking Level Minus 1 shall be deleted. n. The two rooms labeled"T"between the mechanical equipment rooms and trash rooms on both the north and south side of the project shall be defined on the site plan for consideration of being included in the final design of the project by the Community Development Director. o. Ramp slopes in the parking garage shall be redesigned to meet the maximum slope permitted by code. Transition ramps which are also used as back-up space for parking stalls shall have a maximum slope of 5 percent. The maximum slope for transition ramps with no adjacent parking spaces shall be 10 percent. A ramp used for ingress and egress to a public street shall have a transition section at least 16 feet long and a maximum slope of 5 percent. (Code Requirement) p. One parking stall shall be restriped for a turn around space for vehicles entering the project from Olive Avenue and traveling north on the main parking level. Restripe either parking stall No. 1 or parking stall No. 89 on the Main Level as a turnaround space. This turnaround space shall not be counted toward meeting the minimum number of required parking spaces. -6- q. A public art element shall be integrated and be in a publicly accessible place within the Plaza Almeria project. Public art shall include art of: 1) Artistic excellence and innovation, 2) Appropriate to the design of the project, 3) Reflective of the community's cultural identity, (ecology, history, society). A public art element shall be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board, the Community Development Director, and the Cultural Services Division Manager prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The public art shall be in place at the subject site prior to final inspection. r. The transformers on the north side of the project that are encroaching into the minimum five (5) foot exterior yard setback shall be screened from view by any combination of the following: 1) sink the transformers into the ground and construct a low screen wall, 2) utilize special architectural treatments, 3) utilize creative landscape treatments, or 4) any other screening method approved by Community Development and Public Works Directors. s. Parking lot striping detail shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (Code Requirement) t. Depict all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to back flow devices and Edison transformers on the site plan. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Backflow prevention devices shall be prohibited in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view by landscaping or an alternate approved method subject to the Community Development Director's review. (Code Requirement) u. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback 15 feet from the exterior edges of the building. Equipment to be screened includes, but is not limited to, heating, air conditioning, refrigeration equipment, plumbing lines, ductwork and transformers. Said screening shall be architecturally compatible with the building in terms of materials and colors. If screening is not designed specifically into the building, a rooftop mechanical equipment plan showing screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permit(s). (Code Requirement) v. Depict all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailbox facilities and similar items on the site plan and elevations. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally designed into the building to appear as part of the building. They shall be architecturally compatible with the building and non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. / 9 w. Outdoor lighting shall be included and energy saving lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be shown on the site plan and elevations. Lighting shall also be included on all levels of the parking structure and shall include lighting in all pedestrian pathways and over vehicle parking areas. An indoor and outdoor lighting plan shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. x. Plans shall be amended to reflect the revised project description for 15,000 square feet of commercial, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, and 11,000 square feet of office. y.. Parking tabulations on the cover shall be amended to reflect 284 required parking spaces. z. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed no lower than the highest.residential unit to minimize potential odor impacts to the townhomes. Any external venting or mechanical equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board prior to submittal of building permits. aa. The Redevelopment Agency shall pursue relocating the bus stop from its current location on Orange Avenue at the northwest corner of the site to the east side of Main Street just north of Orange Avenue. If the applicant is unsuccessful in relocating the bus stop, then an alternate location for loading and unloading shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director and Public Works Director and if necessary, by the Planning Commission. Provision of the on-street loading zone shall not result in the loss of any on-street parking spaces. bb. The first and second floor facades shall be redesigned to accommodate appropriate signage. In addition, a planned sign program establishing a colors, materials, and sign theme for the entire site shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits. The planned sign program shall include guidelines and criteria for all tenants, directional signs, parking level signs, elevators, staircases, ingress and egress signs, etc. cc. The public plaza area shall be designed so that 30% of the area is landscaped, the entire plaza has textured paving, a visual feature such as a fountain, information kiosk, pond, sculpture, etc., is included, public seating is provided, and a maximum of 50% of plaza area on private property may be used for commercial activities. dd. The common residential open space area shall include a combination of the following (or similar) amenities throughout the open space area: barbecues, an outdoor fireplace, seating areas, shade structure, etc. These open space amenities shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. 2. Any change in type of use and/or square footage which would increase the number of required parking spaces shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission. -8- 3. Any restaurant use (greater than 12 seats) shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 4. Any outdoor dining use shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. All outdoor dining shall be located adjacent to the buildings and the restaurant uses they serve. As a result, the pedestrian corridor/access way shall be located along the eastern, southern, and northern edges of the project boundaries. 5. Any proposed alcohol sales shall require the review and approval of a conditional use permit by the Planning Commission. 6. No basement area shall be permitted without the approval of the Community Development Director. 7. The proposed public improvements along Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue shall be maintained by the property owner through a License Agreement between the Public Works Department and the property owner. The License Agreement and associated insurance requirements shall be reviewed as to form and content by the City Attorney's Office prior to approval of the public improvement plan. 8. A minimum ten(10) foot wide public access way be maintained on all four sides of the project by the property owner through Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC & R's) and a License and Maintenance Agreement. Both documents shall be approved as to form and content by the City Attorney's Office. 9. The cost of relocating any on-street parking meter and re-striping on-street parking spaces shall be the sole responsibility of the property owner. All restriping and parking meter relocation shall be subject to review and approval of the Public Works Department and there shall be no net loss of public parking spaces or parking meters. 10. All public improvements including but not limited to special pavers and concrete, landscaping, lighting, etc. that are not consistent with standard Public Works plans previously approved by the City Council shall be subject to review and approval of the City Council through an amendment to the Main Street Improvement Plan. 11. Construction shall be limited to Monday -Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. Construction hours along with a contact name and phone number shall be clearly posted on all four sides of the site. 12. Prior to of submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a. Zoning entitlement conditions of approval shall be printed verbatim on the cover page of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing). -9- b. Submit three (3) copies of the site plan and floor plan and the processing fee to the Planning Division for addressing purposes. c. All Fire Department requirements shall be noted on the building plans. (FD). d. An acoustical analysis report, prepared by an acoustical engineer, shall be completed prior to submittal of building permits. The noise study shall address potential noise impacts to the new residential units and to adjacent properties from new on-site commercial and restaurant uses, refuse collection,parking garage, trash chutes, delivery; restaurant venting/shafts, and other project related noise sources. The acoustical analysis shall include recommendations for building materials and design of the new residential units to reduce exterior noise standards to below 60 dB (A) and interior noise standards to below 45 dB (A). e. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer and submitted with the building permit application. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding: grading, foundations,retaining walls, streets,utilities, and chemical and fill properties of underground items including buried pipe and concrete and the protection thereof. (Code Requirement) f. An engineering geologist shall be engaged to submit a report indicating the ground surface acceleration from earth movement for the subject property. All structures within this development shall be constructed in compliance with the g-factors as indicated by the geologist's report. Calculations for footings and structural members to withstand anticipated g-factors shall be submitted to the City for review prior to the issuance of building permits. (Code Requirement) g. Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers; natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities, water heaters and central heating units. h. A planned sign program for all signage shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development. Said program shall be approved prior to the first sign request. i. Prior to submittal of building permits, the final design, including but not limited to colors, materials, architectural elements, and landscape plans, shall be subject to a second review and approval by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to,the DRB approved plans during the plan check process,then a subsequent review and approval by the DRB will be required prior to issuance of building permits. ,2 2 -10- 13. Prior to issuance of grading permits,the following shall be completed: a. A grading plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PW) b. A plan for silt control for all water runoff from the property during construction and initial operation of the project may be required if deemed necessary by the Director of Public Works. (PW) c. In accordance with NPDES requirements, a"Water Quality Management Plan" shall be prepared by a Civil or Environmental Engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works for approval. d. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. e. Hydrology and hydraulic studies shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval. The developer shall design and construct the drainage system required to serve the development. f. A sewer study shall be submitted for Public Works approval. The developer shall design and construct the sewer system required to serve the development. Additional off-site sewer main construction and/or slip lining may be required depending on the results of the sewer study. 14. Prior to issuance of building permits,the following shall be completed: a. Submit copy of the revised site plan, floor plans and elevations pursuant to Condition No. 1 for review and approval and inclusion in the entitlement file to the Department of Community Development. b. A Landscape Construction Set must be submitted to the Department of Public Works and approved by the Departments of Public Works and Community Development. The Landscape Construction Set shall include a landscape plan prepared and signed by a State Licensed Landscape Architect which identifies the location, type, size and quantity of all existing plant materials to remain, existing plant materials to be removed and proposed plant materials; an irrigation plan; a grading plan; an approved site plan and a copy of the entitlement conditions of approval. .23 -11- The landscape plans shall be in conformance with Chapter 232 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and applicable Design Guidelines. Any existing mature trees that must be removed shall be replaced at a two to one ratio (2:1)with minimum 36 inch box trees and shall be incorporated into the project's landscape plan. (PW) (Code Requirement) c. A street improvement plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and approval. (PW) d. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works. (PW) e. The developer shall submit a separate utility plan showing water system improvements, including service connections to each building, fire hydrant, valves, backflow devices and other appurtenances in accordance with applicable U.P.C., City ordinances, Public Works Standards and Water Division design criteria. These plans shall be approved by the Public Works Water Division and the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to any construction. (PW) f. A Parking Management Plan(PMP) consistent with the Downtown Parking Master Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Community Development Director. The PMP shall consist of a full size (18 inch by 24 inch)plan of the parking structure, a written narrative, and a written policy for all building tenants and employees. The plan shall detail those areas designated for employee parking and the written policy shall specify that all employees shall park on site at Plaza Almeria in a specified area. The written policy shall outline a plan for validated parking in the structure for patrons of Plaza Almeria. The validation program shall be the same as the validation program provided at the City's parking structure. The Parking Management Plan shall be incorporated into the CC&R's for the project. (Code Requirement) g. The Final Map shall be accepted by the City Council, recorded with the Orange County Recorder and a copy filed with the Department of Community Development. (Code Requirement) h. An interim parking and building materials storage plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development to assure adequate parking and restroom facilities are available for employees, customers and contractors during the project's construction phase and that adjacent properties will not be impacted by their location. The construction plan shall identify a staging area and street closures and shall be subject review and approval by the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Police Department, and Fire Department. The applicant shall obtain any necessary encroachment permits from the Department of Public Works. -12- i. Submit gated entryway (access control devices) plans to the Department of Community Development. The gated entryway shall comply with Fire Department Standard No. 403. Prior to the installation of any gates, such plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development, Fire and Public Works Departments. j. An "Acceptance of Conditions" form shall be properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, recorded with County Recorder's Office, and returned to the Planning Division. k. Final design elevations of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map by more than one (1) foot unless approved by the City Engineer. 1. A Grading Plan, prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted for review and approval. in. Prior to issuance of building permits for any model homes or temporary sales office, the applicant shall obtain approval of a Temporary Use Permit through the City of Huntington Beach Zoning Administrator. 15. During construction, the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day; c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 16. Prior to final building permit inspection and approval of the first residential unit(or commencement of use), the following shall be completed: a. The 18 parking spaces previously required on this site for the Townsquare project shall be either: 1) Provided at an off-site location; or -13- 2) Be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu parking fee subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process; or 3) An entitlement plan amendment to delete or revise the 18 parking spaces condition of approval of the Townsquare project shall be applied for to the Planning Commission. b. The applicant shall obtain the necessary permits from the South Coast Air Quality ,Management District and submit a copy to Department of Community Development. c. All improvements to the property shall be completed in accordance with the approved plans and conditions of approval specified herein, including: 1) Landscaping; 2) Construct full improvements as required on 5th Street, Main Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue, per Public Works requirements (PW). 3) Signing, striping, and street lighting shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Public Works Standards. 4) Drainage flows from adjacent properties shall not be obstructed. Flows shall be accommodated per Public Works Department requirements. 5) The developer shall submit a separate water utility plan at a scale of one inch equals twenty feet, showing water system improvements for the proposed development. All water improvements shall be designed and installed per the City of Huntington Beach Water Division's Standard Plans, Specifications and Design Criteria, 6) Each of the proposed retail buildings shall have a separate domestic water service sized per the UPC (minimum size one-inch). This service shall include backflow protection per Standard Plan No. 609 with the backflow device located within a landscape area and screened from view. The proposed retail building located on the southerly portion of the proposed project shall have the water meters located on Olive Avenue. The proposed retail building located on the northerly portion of the proposed project shall have the water meters located on Orange Avenue. 7) All residential units of the proposed project shall be served water from a single water meter, sized per the UPC. This meter shall be located on Fifth Street near the intersection of Orange Avenue and Fifth Street. The water service shall include backflow protection per Standard Plan No. 609, with the backflow devises located within a landscaped area and screened from view. 8) Fire protection shall include a separate fire service per Standard Plan No. 618, sized per the Fire Department Requirements, located on Fifth Street near the intersection of Fifth Street and Olive Avenue. The water service shall include backflow protection per Standard Plan No. 609, with the backflow device located within a landscaped area and screened from view. 26 -14- 9) Landscape irrigation shall consist of at least one - two inch meter assembly per Standard Plan No. 603-B and backflow device per Standard Plan No. 609, located per the City of Huntington Beach Landscape Architect. 10)The developer shall abandon the existing eight inch water main within the alley between Main and Fifth Streets, from the connection points at Orange Avenue to the north and Olive Avenue to the south. 11)The developer shall design and construct water mains within Olive Avenue and Fifth Street. The water main within Fifth Street shall be twelve inches in diameter. The water main within Olive Avenue shall be eight inches in diameter from the existing point of connection at Main Street to approximately the (existing) alley between Main and Fifth Streets, increasing to twelve inches in diameter to the proposed twelve inch water main within Fifth Street. 12)The twelve inch portion of the proposed water main within Olive Avenue shall connect to the existing twelve inch tap in the existing twenty inch water transmission main in Olive Avenue. This existing tap is located in the Olive Avenue transmission main at approximately the location,where the alley between Main Street and Fifth Street intersect with Olive Avenue. 13)All existing overhead utilities to the first pole off-site, less than 66 KV, shall be undergrounded. 14)The existing storm drain in Walnut Ave. or Main St. shall be extended to the intersection of Fifth St. and Olive Ave., removing the half round drain pipe on all four corners. 15)The existing storm drain in Main Street shall be extended north as needed to accommodate site drainage. 16)The existing sewer main located within the existing alley shall be rerouted around the project. 17)Trash storage areas and mat wash down area shall drain into the sewer. 18)No combustible construction shall occur without the approved water system installed. 19)Fire extinguishers will be installed and located in areas to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Code Standards. (FD) ,2 7 -15- 20)A fire alarm system will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Fire Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. The system will provide the following: a) manual pulls; b) water flow, valve tamper and trouble detection; c) 24 hour supervision; d) smoke detectors; e) annunciation; f) audible alarm; and g) .graphic display;(FD) 21)Fire lanes will be designated and posted to comply with City Specification No. 415. (FD) 22)Address numbers will be installed to comply with City Specification No. 428. The size of the numbers will be sized a minimum of six(6) inches with a brush stroke of one and one-half(1-1/2) inches. (FD) 23)Exit signs and exit path markings will be provided in compliance with the Huntington Beach Fire Code and Title 24 of the California Administrative Code. Low level exit signs will be included. (FD) 24)On-site fire hydrants (4) shall be provided in number and at locations specified by the Fire Department and shall be installed prior to combustible construction. (FD) 25)An automatic fire sprinkler system shall be approved and installed pursuant to Fire Department regulations. (FD) 26)A Class III wet standpipe system(combination) will be installed to comply with Huntington Beach Fire Department and Uniform Building Code Standards. Shop drawings will be submitted to and approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. (FD) 27)Elevators will be sized to accommodate an ambulance gurney. Minimum six(6) foot, eight (8) inches wide by four(4) foot,three (3) inches deep with minimum of 42 inch opening. (FD) 28)Security gates will be designed to comply with City Specification#402. (FD) 29)Submit to the Fire Department for approval a Fire Protection Plan containing requirements of Fire Department Specification#426. (FD) -16- 30)Soils issue and leaking tank at Main and Olive. There is hydrocarbon contamination located at Main and Olive. All project soils must meet City Soil Specification#431- 92. (FD) 31)Water supply shall be capable of providing 4,000 gallons/minute above domestic for required fire flow. (FD) d. Compliance with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and verified by the Community Development Department. e. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. f. The project will comply will all provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Title 17.04.085 and City Specification No. 429 for new construction within the methane gas overlay districts. (FD) 17. The use shall comply with the following: a. There shall be no excessive noise generating uses, such as, restaurants and live entertainment, permitted in the office spaces on the second floor. b. Service roads and fire access lanes shall be maintained. If fire lane violations occur and the services of the Fire Department are required, the applicant will be liable for expenses incurred. (FD) c. Commercial loading/unloading activities may occur on Orange Avenue only between the hours of 7:00 AM - 8:00 PM. d. No residential or commercial refuse collection may occur on Orange Avenue at any time. e. Commercial loading/unloading activities and residential and commercial refuse collection may occur on Olive Avenue at any time. f. Residential refuse collection is the only activity permitted on 5th Street. 18. This Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall not become effective for any purpose until an "Acceptance of Conditions" form has been properly executed by the applicant and an authorized representative of the owner of the property, and returned to the Planning Division. 19. The Community Development Director ensures that all conditions of approval herein are complied with. The Community Development Director shall be notified in writing if any changes to the site plan, elevations and floor plans are proposed as a result of the plan check process. Building permits shall not be issued until the Community Development Director has reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's action and the conditions herein. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission may be required pursuant to the HBZSO. � 1 -17- INFORMATION ON SPECIFIC CODE REQUIREMENTS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall not become effective until the ten day appeal period has elapsed. 2. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No.90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) shall become null and void unless exercised within one year of the date of final approval or such extension of time as may be granted by the Director pursuant to a written request submitted to the Department of Community Development a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. 3. The Planning Commission reserves the right to revoke Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R), pursuant to a public hearing for revocation, if any violation of these conditions or the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance or Municipal Code occurs. 4.. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. The developer will be responsible for the payment of any additional fees adopted in the "upcoming" Water Division Financial Master Plan. (PW) 5. Traffic Impact Fees shall be paid prior to final inspection or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. (PW) 6. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work within the right-of-way. (PW) 7. A Certificate of Occupancy must be issued by the Department of Community Development prior to occupying the building. 8. Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to approval of the final map by the City. 9. State-mandated school impact fees in an amount negotiated with the appropriate school districts shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 10. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. 11. All signs shall conform to the HBZSO. Prior to installing any new signs, or changing sign faces, a building permit shall be obtained from the Department of Community Development. -18- 12. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of$38.00 for the posting of the Notice of Determination at the County of Orange Clerk's Office. The check shall be made out to the County of Orange and submitted to the Department of Community Development within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL - TENTATIVE MAP NO, 14352 (R�: 1. The tentative map received and dated January 27, 1997, shall be the approved layout. 2. Prior to submittal of the final map for approval by the City Council, the following shall be required: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement Plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Community Development. The plan may allow the Redevelopment Agency to meet the requirement to provide for a minimum 15 percent of the housing units (7 units total) as affordable either on-site or at an off-site location. The Redevelopment Agency may elect to rehabilitate off-site units in the Oakview Redevelopment Project Area. A minimum of 40% of the 7 affordable units (minimum of 3 units) shall be affordable to families of very low income for a period of thirty years through recorded covenants. The remaining 4 units shall be affordable to families of low and moderate income level (average 80% of Orange County median) for a period of thirty years. Said plan shall be executed prior to issuance of the first building permit for the tract. The affordable units shall be completely rehabilitated, and available to the public,prior to final building permit approval (occupancy) of the first home in Plaza Almeria. b. At least 60 days before City Council action on the final map, CC&Rs shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development and approved by the City Attorney. The -CC&Rs shall reflect the Parking Management Plan and maintenance of all walls and common landscape areas by the Homeowners' Association. In addition, the CC&R's should include a disclosure regarding the mixed use nature of the project and this information shall be available in the sales office and advertising literature. All potential residents should be required to sign a waiver or disclosure form that it is understood that Plaza Almeria is a mixed use project*and that uses such as, restaurant, live entertainment, and alcohol sales, etc. may be established on the ground floor of the building. The CC&Rs must be in recordable form prior to recordation of the map. c. The residential parking spaces within the secured parking garage shall be divided by the condo plan so that each of the 45 residential units is assigned and purchases two of the parking spaces with the purchase of the townhome. d. The storage units provided within the residential parking garage shall be divided by the condo plan so that each of the 45 residential units is assigned and purchases at least one of the minimum 100 cubic feet of storage space with the purchase of the townhome. 3 � -19- 3. The following conditions shall be completed prior to recordation of the final map unless otherwise stated. Bonding may be substituted for construction in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. (PW) a. All vehicular access rights to Main Street, 5th Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue shall be released and relinquished to the City of Huntington Beach except at locations approved by the Planning Commission. b. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall tie the boundary of the map into the Horizontal Control System established by the County Surveyor in a manner described in Sections 7-9-330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. c. The engineer or surveyor preparing the final map shall submit to the County Surveyor a digital-graphics file of said map in a manner described in Sections 7-9- 330 and 7-9-337 of the Orange County Subdivision Code and Orange County Subdivision Manual, Subarticle 18. d. The developer shall dedicate the following for street purposes: 1) Two and one half(2 1/2) feet off of Orange Avenue. 2) Four(4) feet off of Main Street. 3) The storm drain system and appurtenances within the public streets. e. The following shall be dedicated to the City of Huntington Beach: 1) The water system and appurtenances within the public streets. 2) The sewer system and appurtenances within the public streets. 3) The storm drain system and appurtenances within the public streets. f. The existing alley, between Olive and Orange Avenues, shall be vacated on the Final Map. g. The condominium plan shall be subject to review and approval of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. The condominium plan shall include a minimum of two (2) assigned parking spaces and one (1) minimum 100 cubic feet of assigned storage space for each of the 45 residential units. A copy of the final condo plan shall be submitted to the Department of Community Development for inclusion in the file. 4. The following conditions shall be completed prior to issuance of building permits unless otherwise stated. a. Final design elevation of grading shall not vary from elevations shown on the tentative map by more that one(1)foot unless approved by the City Engineer. 3Z -20- 0 0 b. The final map shall be accepted and recorded. c. All common area improvements shall be completed by the developer. d. Signing, striping and street lighting shall be designed and constructed in accordance with Public Works Standards. e. Drainage flows from adjacent properties shall not be obstructed. Flows shall be accommodated per Public Works Standards. f. On-site drainage shall not be directed to adjacent properties, but shall be handled by a Public Works approved method. (G:MADERA:THIRD:FINDCOND) .33 _21- 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , . INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION ---� - � • r4 =Cr HUNTINGTON BEACH Ln .tom r.qR TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Melanie S. Fallon, Community Development Director\_.�"'`_ VIA: Michael T. Uberuaga, City Administrator SUBJECT: PLAZA ALMERIA APPEAL DATE: April 7, 1997 As stated in the letter dated April 7, 1997 from JT Development, the applicant has requested clarifications regarding two conditions of approval for the Plaza Almeria project. The clarifications are necessary in order to fully address concerns regarding refuse collection and the method for future review of the approved plans. First, out of concern for noise impacts to the residents at Townsquare,the Planning Commission imposed a condition of approval to prohibit refuse collection on Orange Avenue. After meeting with representatives from Rainbow Disposal, it appears that this condition poses a hardship (see letter dated April 3, 1997 from Rainbow) for refuse collection at the site. Staff supports the request from JT Development to restrict the hours for refuse collection on Orange Avenue. The restricted hours would prohibit pick-up during the early morning and early afternoon hours. Staff suggests that the hours for refuse collection on Orange Avenue occur only between the hours of 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, Monday through Saturday. Second, the applicant has indicated that the approved conceptual plans may ultimately be redesigned during the final drawing and design stage. The redesign may decrease the number of residential units and decrease the height of the structure. Since the final design of the project has been conditioned to be reviewed by the Design Review Board prior to issuance of building permits, staff would consider these changes minor enough not to warrant additional public hearings by the Planning Commission or City Council. Staff suggest that the City Council make the following finding for the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R): Plaza Almeria April 7, 1997 Page Two FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R): 6. Any future redesign of the project which reduces the total number of approved residential units and/or reduces the overall approved building height shall be compatible with the surrounding use and consistent with the Spanish Village/Mediterranean theme of the project. Any future reduction of approved residential units and/or overall building height shall be subject to review and approval by the Design Review Board only. The review of the project shall be to ensure a design consistent with the approved architectural theme for the project. In addition, although the Planning Commission included findings for the six (6) special permits (as requested by the applicant and modified by staff) in their approval action on February 25, 1997, no written findings for approval were provided at that time. In order to complete the record for the project, staff suggests the City Council include the attached findings for approval of special permits. See attached findings. AMIGOS DE DOWNTOWN P.O.Box 69,Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714 960-8545 a c March 5, 1997 o z..:; n v thm nI 't Honorable Mayor& City Council r Attn. Connie Brockway, City Clerk T� 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit NO. 90-39 (R)/Coastal Development NO. 90-30 (R)/Tentative Tract Map NO. 14352 (R)Negative Declaration NO. 96-16 (Plaza Almeria-Third Block West) With Findings. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: We the undersigned businesspersons, property owners and residents of Huntington Beach are requesting this appeal for the following reasons: 1. This project, as proposed, exceeds the maximum residential square footage as allowed under the 1995 Downtown Specific Pl 2. This project, as proposed, exceeds the height limits as allowed under the 1995 Downtown Specific Plan. 3. This project, as proposed, does not provide the code required parking. 4. This project, as proposed, exceeds the threshold limits of Office Square Footage, as provided in the Downtown Parking Master Plan, by 8,200 square feet. 5. This project, as proposed, Eliminates 22 full size 9 X 19 parking spaces on Main Street. Staff tries to indicate these spaces are being replaced on 5th street with"Full Size Stalls"(see page 9, Par. 1 of the staff report dated Feb., 25, 1997). Upon a close examination of the proposed plan,the Parking Stalls on 5th Street are only 17 feet deep,set on a 90 degree angle and does not provide the 20 foot minimum drive. thru lane required by code. (The street, as measured, is only 55' wide curb to curb). We could not find a curb to curb street dimension for 5th street called out on the plan 6. The DTPMP`provides an allowance to shift square footage between land use categories throughout all the districts in the Downtown Area.. This project will cause the square footage of Office Space to exceed the threshold limits of 100,000 square feet by 8,200 square feet. ( see matrix,pg. 7 of the staff report dated February.25,1997). We are asking which Land Use Category(s) is/are being reduced? 7. We believe when this project is completed any new office space built thereafter in the Downtown, including the 8,200 additional office space that is proposed in this project,will be required to be parked to City Code and not the DTPMP as the parking code changes as the thresholds are met. 8. This project was originally approved in 1991 under the guidelines of the 1983 Downtown Specific Plan. In April 1995 a new Downtown Specific Plan "Village Concept"was adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. Since there is no provision in the 1995 Version of the Downtown Specific Plan for the use of all of District 5 to compute the square footage of commercial for the benefit of the residential square footage,we believe a new finding has to be made after a Public Hearing is held. 9. This project, as proposed, does not provide the necessary public open space as required in the 1995 DTSP. 10. This project, as proposed, does not provide the necessary setbacks on Main Street as required in the 1995 DTSP. 11. We believe this project, as proposed,will be detrimental to the value of other properties and improvements in the area. 12. The DTSP does not provide for the reservation of restaurant square footage as this project is asking. It is on a first come first serve basis due to the Threshold limits put on the Downtown by the DTPMP. 13. This project, as proposed, does not provide the necessary setbacks on 5th street as required by the 1995 DTSP. 14. This project, as proposed, does not provide the necessary setbacks on Olive Street as' required by the 1995 DTSP. 15. This project, as proposed, does not provide the required set backs on Orange Avenue, as required by the 1995 DTSP. 16. We do not believe this project conforms to the minimum onsite landscape requirements. 17. This project triggers parking requirements other than those allowed under the DTPMP. Because of this we believe this project is appealable to the California State Coastal Commission. 18. This project, as proposed, does not fit the intent of the "Village Concept"which provides for the downscaling of projects rather than the upscaling of projects. 19. This project, as proposed,STEALS commercial square footage from the rest of the blocks in District 5 and does not factually disclose how much and from which blocks that commercial square footage will be taken. This project also fails to disclose the fact that this in turn limits the amount and type of development that can be pursued by neighboring property owners in the district. We believe this constitutes an unlawful taking of property owners rights that may be challengable in a court of law. (we do not believe this issue was adjudicated in the previous lawsuit mentioned in the staff report). 20. Staff provided the Planning Commission with estimates of existing square footage use in District 5 ( see page 6 paragraph 1 of staff report). Due to the sensitive nature of this project, true and accurate numbers should be provided along with an accurate and updated parking space count. 21. Since this project is the "only project" in the downtown area that will be allowed to use the "district wide"method of computing the amount of commercial square footage to the amount of residential square footage ( see page 6, paragraph 1 of the staff report dated Feb., 25, 1997), we believe this to be discriminatory, unreasonable, without precedent and highly unethical. In addition, this method was never brought to a public hearing. We believe this matter should be brought to the attention of the public in the form of a public hearing. 22. We do not understand how the residential portion of this project can be considered a Town Home Project when there is only one (1) water meter proposed for the entire residential portion of the project. This more closely resembles a condominium project rather than a Town Home Project. 23. Architectural enhancement(s) or semantics cannot mitigate the problems that will be inherently a part of this project if residential units are allowed to be placed directly on Main Street( some with no set backs. There will be a constant battle between the hard working business people in the Downtown Area and the new residential property owners along Main Street. 24. We do not believe this is a revision to the old "approved project". A true revision would constitute perhaps up to a 10% change. This is a brand new project and should be made to conform to the 1995 DTSP as all other projects will be. 25. Certain Members of the Planning Staff orchestrated the meetings in which the 1995 DTSP was brought to life and subsequently adopted by the City of Huntington Beach. The height limits, the set backs,the limits placed on the amount of residential square footage vs the amount of commercial square footage,the parking requirements, the 1,000 square foot plazas, Public and Private Open Space, etc., were all recommended by staff despite the opposition presented by downtown property owners, who indicated that the new rules were too restrictive. Now those same members of the Planning Staff are the first ones who want to break the rules for this project and this project only (see page 6, paragraph 1 of the staff report dated Feb. 25, 1997). 26. WE NEED TO ASK OURSELVES WHY THIS PROJECT IS BEING PUSHED SO HARD? It's too big. It's too dense. It's too tight for the site. It is a misplaced project that is the size of a 2 block project. 27. Owners of PierSide/Town Square homes have indicated many concerns over this project as proposed. The development must be changed in order to mitigate their concerns. (See letter to Planning Commission dated February 25, 1997 which is of Public Record). 28. We the Businesspersons, Property Owners and Residents are concerned with the construction on Main Street. When will it start? How long will it last? How much of Main street will be torn up? Will it hurt business during the summer months when the businesses really need to do business? If so will the business owners be compensated? The construction of this project could be disruptive to the financial health of the Downtown Business Community if it is not managed properly. 29. Planning Commissioner and President of Huntington Beach Tomorrow, Bob Biddle, has many concerns, regarding the Plaza Almeria Project that he voiced to the Huntington Beach City Council in a letter dated March 4, 1997 30. We do not believe the property owners on the west side of 5th street have been properly notified as to how their property will be affected by the parking plan, as shown on the drawings, and the amount of traffic that will be generated in and out of this project. PETITION We the undersigned have read and support the appeal letter to the Mayor and City Council of Huntington Beach, dated March 5, 1997, regarding the Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit NO. 90-39 (R)/Coastal Development NO. 90-30 (R)/Tentative Tract Map NO. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration NO. 96-16 (Plaza Almeria-Third Block West) With Findings. lew 400'e_�! COD c? G &dtA-*q Is 4. •Date: February 25, 1997 \1To: Planning Commission City of Huntington Beach Re: Third Block West- Plaza Almeria Dear Commissions: The residents of Pierside Estates/Town Square,thank you for the continuation of the public hearing regarding the development of"Third Block West-Plaza Almeria". As you probably know our community is located immediately across Orange Avenue from the development. The continuation has allowed time for the first meeting,on Thursday, February 20, 1997, of our communities residents and the applicant to discuss the development. The meeting was very productive in voicing our concerns about the development. The items of greatest concern are as follows: la. The applicant agreed to provide adequate space for the relocation of the loading/unloading and trash removal from Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue. lb. The applicant agreed to relocate the entrance/exit to the parking structure from Orange Avenue to Olive Avenue. 2. The association is in favor of an increase in the building height limit to accommodate the clock tower (architectural treatment) proposed by the applicant,provided the height of the roofs of the entire project conform to the downtown specific code requirements. 3. The applicant agreed to eliminate the special permit request regarding setbacks for Orange Avenue and agreed to soften the ground floor and upper story setbacks along Orange Avenue. The association suggests that there should be a contingency to show a revised plan reflecting these changes. 4. The applicant shared with the association plans to reduce or eliminate some of the special permit requests (numbered 4,5,and 6 in the"Notice of Continued Public Hearing"). The association would like the opportunity to view the revised plans when available. 5. The applicant has agreed to eliminate or cover the open arches of the parking structure with tinted glass to minimize the impact of vehicular noises to the residents. 6. The association feels that ground level parking on Main Street is in highest demand,and any reduction will result in spill-over onto the surrounding residential streets. The applicant is agreeable to providing ground level parking on Main Street providing the city wants it. 7. The applicants has shared plans for increased parking on Fifth Street,the association wants to make sure that the street is wide enough to allow for these increased spaces so that they are useable and to code. In conclusion we are very appreciative to Mr. John Tillotson,Mike Roberts and Mike Adams for attending our homeowner association meeting. We are looking forward to the Planning Commission approval of the development subject to modifications that address our concerns. Steve Golgolab, Presi ent Mark A. Najera, President Pierside Estates H.O.A. Town Square Master H.O.A. �,. "3 � v February 25, 1997 Planning Commission City Of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Honorable Commission Members: I am writing to you today in support of the Plaza Almeria project in downtown Huntington Beach. I spoke at the last planning commission regarding the proposed variances. I was not able to come to the meeting this evening but do want to voice my support. As I mentioned I am an owner of a condominium in the Townsquare Community. Townsquare is located on the 4th block of Main street, consisting of approximately 73 condos and 16 town homes (the townhomes face Orange street side of the Plaza Almeria project). When my husband and I purchased our home we knew there were plans for a project on the 3rd block.Until a project is actually approved and started changes are bound to happen. When you buy in an area like Downtown there are things you have to realize will happen- noise from businesses, more traffic, buildings blocking views etc. You have trade-offs for these hindrances or you don't buy in these areas. I believe a quality project such as this will benefit our downtown area both economically and aesthetically. I have sat through a presentation and asked questions of the Builder. So I am aware of what they are asking for and I ask you to please grant the variance request this evening. Sincerely, Tamlyn Hagemeister �3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON MACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Jane Madera, Associate Planneryv VIA: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director DATE: February 25, 1997 SUBJECT: TOWNSQUARE PARKING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Staff recently received an inquiry regarding the exact wording of the previous conditions of approval regarding Townsquare parking. The Townsquare project was approved in 1990 and included a condition of approval to provide 18 parking spaces at a nearby location. The 18 parking spaces were required as part of the commercial parking provided at the site and although the spaces were to be within 500 feet of Townsquare, the Plaza Almeria location was not specified. The condition of approval on Conditional Use Permit No. 87-36 for the Townsquare project is as follows: 13. A total of 18 off-street parking spaces for commercial parking shall be identified in a parking structure or surface parking within 500 feet of the retail portion of the project prior to issuance of a building permit. Such parking shall be completed prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy." When the original Third Block West project was approved in March 1991, a condition of approval was included requiring the 18 parking spaces necessary for Townsquare within the site. The condition of approval in the original Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 for the Third Block West project is as follows: "23. Prior to occupancy,the applicant shall submit a Parking Management Plan to the Director of Community Development for review and approval. The plan shall include provisions for employee parking, fees, validation plan, provisions to allow for 18 spaces designated for Townsquare, and loading/unloading for grocery store patrons." Please see the Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 25, 1997 for more information on the options available to the Redevelopment Agency to satisfy the 18 parking spaces for Townsquare. , 7 NOV-29 96 09:05 FROM:RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. 714-841-4660 T0:7143741540 PAGE:02/02 Serving Orange County For Over 40 Years Rainbow Disposal Co. Inc. P.O. BOX 1026 - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 • PH: (714) 847-3581 FAX: (714) 841-4660 NOVEMBER 22, 1996 MR. MIKE ROBERTS, J.T. DEVELOPMENT 1 5272 BOLSA CHICA RD. HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92649 RE: PLAZA ALMERIA DEVELOPMENT - HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA DEAR MR. ROBERTS: THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH US AND REVIEWING THE BUILDING PLANS FOR THE PLAZA ALMERIA, 301 MAIN ST., PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THIRD BLOCK WEST, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WE FORESEE NO PROBLEMS IN HANDLING YOUR WASTE/RECYCLING NEEDS. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE OFF-STREET LEVELS ASSOCIATED WITH THE TRASH ROOMS AND BIN PICKUP. BECAUSE OF THE GENTLE GRADE AND PROXIMITY TO THE STREET, ROLLOUT OF. THE BINS WILL BE THE METHOD USED. WE RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMERCIAL TRASH ROOM AT THE NORTH END OF -THE PROJECT BE AT LEAST 40 FEET LONG. AS PER THE PLAN WE REVIEWED. ADDITIONALLY, WE SUGGEST THAT THE COMMERCIAL TRASH ROOM AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PROJECT BE INCREASED TO 50 FEET, IN LAND, TO HANDLE THE ANTICIPATED TRASH NEEDS OF THE LARGER COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES NEARBY. WE ESTIMATE YOU WILL NEED TWO (2) TIMES/WEEK PICKUP FOR THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND NEAR DAILY PICKUP FOR THE COMMERCIAL AREAS, TYPICAL OF SIMILAR DOWNTOWN PATRONS. WE APPRECIATE THE SEGREGATED COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL TRASH ROOMS AS THIS SIMPLIFIES DIFFERENT DAY PICKUPS AND OUR DRIVERS SCHEDULES. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR COMING TO RAINBOW DISPOSAL FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT. SINCERELY, JE:WELL PEEBLES SALES/SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE JP:sjJ961 B5 CC: aJANE MADERA, CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, PLANNING DEPARTMENT PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER 0 rwe *7 X. e.................................. ......................... . ....... . ....... ...................... ........................ ........... . ............ ......... ......................... ... .... .. .... ......................... ......... ....... . ....... ........ ......................... ................. ... .... ...... ... ........ ... ... ........ .... ... ...... ...... ....... .... ......................... ..... .........1 11 ............................ .-XXXXX::.............. ............ .......... . ................ TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Jane Madera, Associate Planne DATE: February 25, 1997 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (R)/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352 (R)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-16 (Plaza Almeria-Third Block West) (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 11, 1997 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) LOCATION: 301 Main Street(Full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for Planning Commission consideration is a request by the Robert Hidey Architects and the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development on a full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue in Downtown Huntington Beach. The project was continued from the February 11, 1997 Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant to meet with adjacent residents and other interested parties and address the concerns raised by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission continued the public hearing open to the February 25, 1997 meeting so that residents, applicants, and other interested parties could continue to participate in the public hearing process when the project is reviewed again. The project consists of 15,000 square feet of retail, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, 11,000 square feet of office, and 45 two-story, two-bedroom townhomes with six special permit requests for building height, ground floor setbacks, upper story setbacks,public open space size and location, and residential open space. A one lot subdivision for condominium purposes is also proposed to divide the property for the sale, lease, or finance of airspace. The condo plan includes common parking, landscaping, and public open space as well as establishes commercial, office, and residential lots. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 96-16/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Conditional Use Permit No. 90-3 9 (R) with Special Permits and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R), for the following reasons: * The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. * The proposed mixed use project will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties. mono . • With the modifications suggested by staff, additional open space will be provided along Main Street, the building elevations will include additional architectural treatment to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project, creative use of landscaping and textured pavement will create a unique and interesting public open space, and a public art element will be included in the project design. . With the modifications suggested by staff, the project design will create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation along 5th Street. • The proposed mixed use project is consistent with the MV-F6/25-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay) Land Use designation of the General Plan. • With the conditions imposed, the special permit requests to exceed maximum building height, encroach into ground floor and upper story setbacks, reduce public open space size and location, and reduce common residential open space will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-16 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 1); B. "Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)with findings (Attachment No. 1);" C. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." ANALYSIS: As discussed below, there were numerous issues regarding this project raised during the public hearing on February 11, 1997. Both the Planning Commission and members of the public requested additional information and analysis with regards to many issues in this unique mixed-use redevelopment project. The issues raised at the Planning Commission public hearing are further discussed in the Analysis section this report and include the following: • Comparison of 1991 Approved Project to 1997 Proposed Project • Why Has the Project Been Revised? • Ratio of Commercial to Residential Square Footage • Development Threshold in the Downtown Specific Plan • Public Improvements and Use of Public Right-of-Way for Open Space • Townsquare Parking Spaces • Plaza Almeria Parking • Parking on Main Street • Building Height • Floor Plans and Size of Units • Private Open Space • Compatibility-Noise, Odor, Circulation, Refuse Collection, Parking, Security • Community Meeting • Applicant's Request to Revise Two Conditions of Approval JD PC Staff Report-2/25/97 2 (97SR13c) Comparison of 1991 Approved Proiect to 1997 Proposed Proiect The City Council approved the Third Block West mixed use-development on March 4, 1991. The approved project consisted of 28,000 square feet of commercial development and 68 residential condominiums and included a special permit to allow the transition ramps in the parking garage to exceed the maximum slope allowed. The commercial tenant space was approved on the ground floor facing Main Street and consisted of a 9,500 square foot market and 9,500 square feet of general retail. Office space, totaling 8,000 square feet, was approved on the second floor above the commercial. When the City Council acted on the project on an appeal, the action included a condition of approval to increase the retail space by 1,000 square feet for a total of 28,000 square feet. The residential units were designed as stacked flats above and behind the commercial space. Parking was provided for the project in a subterranean parking garage and included secured parking for the residential units. The following matrix represents a comparison between the most notable features of the 1991 approved project and the 1997 proposed project: 1991 Approved Project 199bProposed Project .. .. Market 10,000 sq ft 0 sq ft Commercial 10,000 sq ft 15,000 sq ft Restaurant 0 sq ft 15,000 sq ft Uffice>; 8,000 sq ft 11,000 sq ft Total Comm! 28,000 sq ft 41,000 sq ft . Office Sq Ft.g, Number Of . 68 units 45 units Resid Unrts (8, 1-bedroom; 60, 2-bedroom) (45, 2-bedroom) Total Restd 67,200 sq. ft. 82,940 sq. ft. Square Ftg ......... _..........._...... .... -..........._...... Total Protect 95,200 sq ft 123,940 sq ft (28,740 sq ft more than Square Ftg 1991) Design Mediterranean Mediterranean (Spanish village) ✓/ PC Staff Report-2/25/97 3 (97SR13c) 1991 Approved Project 1996 Proposed Project . Par[cing Per DTPMP ratios: 132 req'd for retail/office 171 req'd for retail/restaurant/office 166 req'd for residential 113 req'd for residential (incl guest) 298 total req'd; 300 provided 284 total req'd; 276 provided (11 spaces requested to be shared) Common 16,800 square feet required 20,735 square feet required .. ....... OpenSpace 16,906 square feet proposed *15,600 square feet proposed ;Res�dent�al:: _. _. .. Private Open > Min. 60 sq ft for 1 bedroom units (8 Min. 120 sq. ft. each (Balconies Space units x 60sf=480 sq ft) proposed at min: 120 sf each; Yards Residenhat Min. 120 sq ft for 2 bedroom units (60 vary between 215 and 390 sq ft - units x 120sf-7,200 sq ft) Actual total private open (480 plus 7,200=7,680 sq ft Min. - space=10,205 sq ft) Actual total private open space N/A) Public Open 4,092 square feet min. required 4,092 square feet min. required Space 12,850 square feet proposed *3,235 square feet proposed *Indicates Special Permit Request H%v Has the Proiect Been Revised?: The applicant has proposed this amendment to the original approval of the mixed use project in order to increase the leasable space, redesign the type of residential units, and update the architectural style of the project. The-redesigned project includes an overhaul to the exterior architectural facade while maintaining the approved Spanish Village/Mediterranean concept. The commercial portion of the project is now designed so that 11,000 square feet of retail and up to 15,000 square feet of restaurant are oriented toward Main Street with 11,000 square feet of office space above on the second floor. An additional 4,000 square feet of retail space faces Olive Avenue on the southwest corner of the site. Parking for the retail and restaurant uses is provided on the ground floor parking garage as well as in a subterranean level of parking. All of the parking is controlled with access gates and will be operated by ticket dispensers at the entrances on Orange and Olive Avenues with a staffed exit gate and ticket booth on Orange Avenue. The only exit for commercial tenants, employees, and customers is the staffed exit on Orange Avenue. Please refer to the"Compatibility" section below for more information on the parking garage exit. 3Z PC Staff Report-2/25/97 4 (97SR13c) i • A major impetus of redesigning the project is the recognition of the new demands of the 1997 market place. One example of how the redesign reflects the demands of current retailers is to provide the commercial tenant spaces with greater ceiling heights. The redesigned project will increase commercial tenant space while recognizing there does not appear to be a demand for a market in the downtown area. The applicant contacted numerous specialty market stores and was unsuccessful in securing any interest for a market at the site. While decreasing the number of residential units from 68 to 45, the units are now all proposed as two bedroom, two story townhomes with common side walls as opposed to the previously approved stacked flats. Thirty-four of the 45 units have access directly from the second story level into the units while the remaining 11 townhomes are designed above the office space on the second floor facing Main Street. The 11 units proposed above the office space also gain access from the second level but the floor plan is designed so that a staircase leads directly to the living space above the offices. The entire residential portion of the project, including the parking, is secured with locked pedestrian and vehicular entrances. Guests or visitors of the residents may only access the residential podium level by a telephone access system at the elevators and staircases. The overall square footage of the residential units has been increased in order to reflect the anticipated market demand for more spacious units. The residential units range in size from 1,590 to 2,830 square feet and each unit is provided with private yard or balcony area. Additional discussion regarding the unit sizes is provided in the"Floor Plans and Size of Units" section below. Parking for the residents is provided in two secured levels of parking that are accessed from 5th Street and are above the commercial parking. One of the applicant's requests is to share 11 of the 23 required residential guest parking with all of the 11 office parking spaces provided on the commercial level. Ratio of Commercial to Residential Square Footaze: Consistent with the zoning requirements today, and at the time of project approval, the Downtown Specific Plan allows residential units only in conjunction with commercial uses in order to promote a core of retail development in the downtown area. One of the restrictions imposed on the residential development is that the square footage of residential uses may not exceed more than 50% of the square footage devoted to commercial uses. However, the project was approved in 1991 with the residential square footage in excess of the commercial square footage as the result of two key factors. First, when the project was presented to the Planning Commission in 1990, it included a 200 space City parking level that was counted as commercial square footage. Therefore, the residential and commercial square footage balanced on the site. When the project was presented to the City Council on appeal, the City had eliminated the 200 space City parking level. In order to balance the overall square footage of residential to commercial, the City Council decided that the ratio of commercial to residential could be achieved on a district wide basis. The required 1:1 ratio of commercial to residential square footage was met by considering all existing uses and all projected uses within the entire District 5. The analysis included the statement that the methodology would not restrict other applicants within the District from applying for mixed use projects as allowed by Code. It should be noted that this methodology of allowing commercial to residential square footage ratios was challenged and upheld in a subsequent court decision. Litigation confirmed that the City Council's decision to analyze square footage on a district wide basis was legitimate. .53 PC Staff Report-2/25/97 5 (97SR13c) The revised project also proposes residential square footage that exceeds 50% of the commercial square footage. In concert with the 1991 approved project and the subsequent decision upheld in court, staff has analyzed the proposed project on a district wide basis. Analyzing the project using this methodology demonstrates that residential square footage in District 5 does not exceed 50% of commercial square footage in all of District 5. With the inclusion of the proposed 41,000 square feet of commercial and 82,940:square feet of residential for the Plaza Almeria project, District 5 currently supports approximately 196,773 square feet of commercial square feet and 164,464 square feet of residential square feet. These numbers for all of District 5 are staff best estimates and were determined by a combination of a review of building permit records, a field survey, and estimates of square footage from aerial photographs. It should be noted that this method of computing commercial to residential square feet may only be applied to the Plaza Almeria project. While not excluding other projects from proposing mixed use development, this methodology also does not"use up" all the available residential square feet in the District. A finding for approval of the project to exceed the 1:1 ratio of residential to commercial has been included in Attachment No. 1. The Planning Commission raised the issue of whether this project is being granted a density bonus and whether there are any other projects in the City that are constructed at a similar density. This project does not include a density bonus. Density bonuses are defined as an increase in the number of residential units on a site in return for providing affordable housing. The density, or number of residential units allowed on this site is based on the size of the parcel. The current density limits the number of units on this 1.88 acre site to 25 units per acre; therefore 47 units are permitted and 45 units are proposed, the Plaza Almeria project falls below the allowable density at about 23 units per acre. There are numerous other projects within the City that are constructed at this proposed density. Since this revised project proposes 45 units, there is no need for the applicant to request a density bonus. Development Threshold-Downtown Specific Plan: Questions were raised by both the public and the Planning Commission regarding the overall development threshold (total square footage) for Downtown, the restaurant threshold, and a"restaurant study". First it is important to provide some history regarding the suggested development thresholds for the Downtown core along Main Street. In June 1995, the revisions and the update to the Downtown Specific Plan (DTSP) commonly referred to as the"Village Concept" became effective. As part of the revisions, a shared parking concept was prepared for the core area of Main St. (see Attachment No. 2). The shared parking concept is commonly referred to as the Downtown Parking Master Plan (DTPMP). The DTPMP has suggested maximum development thresholds per use to ensure the proper mix of uses and the proper function of the shared parking concept. The maximum development threshold is 500,000 sq. ft. Within this threshold are suggested square footage thresholds for commercial/retail at a threshold of 250,000 square feet, an office threshold of 100,000 square feet, a restaurant threshold of 100,000 square feet, and a miscellaneous threshold of 50,000 square feet. These suggested thresholds were established to ensure that the shared parking concept would function properly based upon the proper mix of uses. J PC Staff Report-2/25/97 6 (97SR13c) One important factor of the DTPMP is the ability to shift square footage between land use categories. This allows the city to work within the overall development threshold of 500,000 sq. ft. The city needs to be aware that the balance that has been established by the thresholds for each land use category is very important to the ability of the shared parking concept to work and function properly. Continued monitoring of the land uses and development activity is key to the success of the DTPMP. The following comparison chart indicates the threshold totals for the 1996 Annual Review of the DTPMP and the inclusion of the square footage of the proposed project: 1996 DTPMP Annual Review 1997 DTPMP with P1aza.Almeria DTPMP (Occupied Totals) (Third Block West) Threshold Restaurant 78,900 sq. ft +15,000 93,900 sq. ft. 100,000 sq. ft. Retail 122,400 sq. ft. +15,000 137,400 sq. ft. 250,000 sq. ft. Office 97,200 sq. ft. +11,000 108,200 sq. ft. 100,000 sq. ft. Miscellaneous 52,400 sq. ft. 52,400 sq. ft. 50,000 sq. ft. TOTALS 350,900 SQ. FT. 391,900.SQ. FT. 500,000 SQ. FT. The 1996 square footage totals used in the annual review of the DTPMP includes occupancy levels of existing buildings and their associated square footage. The 1997 totals reflect the new mix of uses proposed for Plaza Almeria and the revised totals for the DTPMP. The net increase of square footage proposed and existing is well beneath the 500,000 sq. ft. threshold established by the DTPMP. Public Improvements and Use of Public Right-of-Way for Open Space: The applicant proposes to make substantial public improvements on all four sides of the Plaza Almeria project. As described in Special Permit No.'s 4 and 5 in Attachment No. 6, the majority of public open space is designed within the public right-of-way. There are two issues in regards to the public improvements; first how the proposed paving, landscaping, lighting, and sidewalk improvements comply with the approved plans for street improvements in the Downtown, and second, how the City assures that the property owner is responsible for maintaining all special improvements within the public right-of-way. The proposed landscaping and pavement improvements do not match the existing approved plans for Main Street. In order for the developer to proceed with the proposed plans, the City Council will need to take action to permit the deviation similar to the approval action taken for the Oceanview Promenade improvements on the northwest corner of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Since most of the open air commercial activity takes place within the public right-of-way and the improvements will not be consistent with the existing approved plan, the property owner will be required to enter into a License and Maintenance agreement with the City. The license agreement will include requirements for insurance to hold the City harmless and contain specific details to ensure that the property owner permanently maintains the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the project. It should be noted that all outdoor dining will be subject to separate conditional use permit approval. If approved, the outdoor dining permits will also contain provisions to require license and lease agreements with the operators. 55 PC Staff Report-2/25/97 7 (97SR13c) Townsguare Parking: The 1991 approval of the mixed use project included a condition of approval to provide 18 parking spaces for the adjacent Townsquare mixed use project within the Plaza Almeria project. However, the Redevelopment Agency is now requesting that the requirement for Townsquare parking be deleted entirely from the Plaza Almeria conditions of approval. Since the 18 spaces is no longer proposed at this site but are still required as a condition of approval on Townsquare, the Agency has three options to comply with this previous condition as follows: Prior to Certificate Of Occupancy for Plaza Almeria, the following shall be completed: 1. The 18 parking spaces previously required on this site for the Townsquare project shall be provided at an off-site location, 2. The 18 parking spaces shall be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu parking fee subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process, 3. An entitlement plan amendment to delete or revise the condition of approval on the Townsquare project shall be applied for to the Planning Commission. Plaza Almeria Parking An inquiry was made at the Planning Commission meeting requesting staff to explain the parking ratios used for the Plaza Almeria retail, restaurant, and office parking. Parking for the mixed use project was calculated using the shared parking ratios as approved in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Parking is provided for residential and commercial uses within the subterranean and above ground parking structure with.11 spaces for residential guest and office parking being shared. A total of 284 parking spaces are required and the project is proposed with 276 parking spaces. Staff received a letter from the applicant on February 6, 1997 that stated while not proposed at this time, parking has been provided within the site to support up to 15,000 square feet of restaurant. Since staff has not had an opportunity to analyze any restaurant uses on the site, a condition of approval has been added to require all future restaurant, outdoor dining, and alcohol uses to apply for separate conditional use permits subject to review and approval of the Planning Commission. (See Condition of Approval No.'s 3, 4, and 5). By requesting to share the office parking spaces with residential guest parking spaces, all uses, including future restaurant uses, will be parked on-site. Staff supports the request to share 11 of the required 23 residential guest parking spaces because office uses and visitors to the residents typically arrive at different times. The 11 shared spaces plus 2 guest parking spaces (that are not shared)will be provided on the commercial level of parking with access from both Olive Avenue and Orange Avenue. The remainder of the required guest parking spaces (10 spaces) are provided within the secured residential parking levels with access from 5th Street. A visitor to the residential site will access the secured parking level by utilizing a telephone entry system. It is expected that peak operating hours for office uses will occur during the daytime while the majority of residential guests will arrive during the evening hours. The proposal to share guest with office spaces is a compatible use of parking at the site. 519 PC Staff Report-2/25/97 8 (97SR13c) In conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan staff has included a condition of approval to require the applicant to submit a Parking Management Plan prior to issuance of building permits. The Parking Management Plan shall include a policy for employees to park on site and a validation program that matches the validation offered at the City parking structure. The Plan shall also provide for a minimum of two (2) of the residential parking spaces to.be assigned to each of the 45 residential units. The parking spaces shall be designated by unit on the condominium plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be included in the CC & R's for the project and shall be distributed to all buyers and tenants of the site. Parking On Main Street: The proposed project includes substantial improvements within the public right-of-way. The applicant is requesting to relocate all of the existing parking spaces on Main Street to 90 degree parking on 5th Street. The applicant then intends to provide paving and landscaping improvements within the public right-of-way in the location of the parking stalls. The improvements are proposed in a similar fashion to the wide sidewalks and outdoor dining areas that are provided further south on Main Street in the first and second blocks. A total of 44 parking spaces currently exist on all four sides of the project. In order to maintain the 44 parking spaces and suffer no net loss of parking or parking meter revenue with the removal of stalls on Main Street, the applicant is proposing to restripe Olive and Orange Avenues as well. The 90 degree parking on the east side of 5th Street will be compatible with the existing angled parking on the west side of 5th Street because the proper back-up space for all stalls can be provided and the design of the project will function more like a parking lot than a street. 5th Street currently dead ends into the Townsquare project on the north side of Orange Avenue and is not a heavily traveled street for through traffic. The City's Traffic Engineer has analyzed the proposed 90 degree parking and preliminary approved the concept as no adverse traffic impacts are anticipated. The final design and al restriping of parking within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. As the code requires, all of the restriped parking stalls within the public right-of-way will be required to be full size stalls and to meet the proper back-up space. It should be noted that the 90 degree parking along 5th Street can serve as a prototype to restripe and generate additional parking spaces if the remaining blocks to the south are restriped for 90 degree parking. Some members of the public were concerned with loss of parking on the west side of Main Street and the potential impacts the loss will have for businesses on the east side of Main Street. Staff supports the relocation of parking from Main Street to the other sides of the project because no net loss of parking spaces will occur and the project is constructing code required parking (with a request to share 11 of the residential guest spaces with office spaces). Staff supports the proposed design of relocating the Main Street parking to 5th Street because it affords a greater opportunity to create a large pedestrian oriented plaza in front of the Plaza Almeria project. By constructing public improvements where the parking spaces are currently located, any future proposed outdoor dining can be established against the building wall of the restaurant and pedestrians will still be provided with a substantial path through the plaza area. It is ideal to locate the outdoor dining immediately adjacent to the building wall so that servers and diners are not in constant conflict and all activity can be centralized and controlled in several designated areas. The greater public plaza area can accomplish this goal in design of the open air activities. 57 PC Staff Report-2/25/97 9 (97SR13c) Building Height: Both the Planning Commission and some members of the public requested additional information regarding the proposed height of Plaza Almeria. The residential portion of the proposed structure is four stories above grade. However, the height of the building varies from its highest point along Main Street to the lowest point along 5th Street. Maximum building height in the downtown area is established by measuring from the sidewalk surrounding the property to a midpoint of the highest roof slope. The height of the building is 54 feet to midpoint of the roof of the residential units above the office space on Main Street, 41 feet, 6 inches to the midpoint of the roof of the units on the remainder of the site, and 64 feet to the top of the architectural (tower) element along Main Street. As demonstrated in the chart below, the proposed building height with a request for special permit to exceed maximum height in only a few areas along Main Street is compatible with other surrounding projects. The following comparison shows building heights for other multi-story projects in the immediate vicinity and additional discussion regarding height is provided under Special Permit No. 1 in Attachment No. 2. A) Plaza Almeria -54 feet to midpoint of roof of highest roof(units facing Main Street) - 41 ft, 6 in. to midpoint of roof of units on remainder of site - 64 feet to peak of highest peak of the tower(Main Street only) B) Town Square - 38 feet to the midpoint of the highest roof - 43 feet to the top of the highest peak of the roof C) Second Block Parking Structure - 3 5 feet to the midpoint of the highest roof - 45 feet to the midpoint of the towers - 60 feet to the top of the highest peak of the towers D) Pierside Pavilion - 63.5 feet to the midpoint of the highest roof - 71 feet to the top of the highest peak of the roof - 84.5 feet to the top of the highest tower E) Oceanview Promenade (Abdelmuti Project) - 67 feet to the highest peak of the fourth floor - 85 feet to the top of the highest peak of the clock tower F) Team Building (Starbuck's) - 30 feet to the highest peak of the second floor - 39 feet to highest peak of the second floor glass tower �g PC Staff Report-2/25/97 10 (97SR13c) An issue was raised at the Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 1997 with regards to the Village Concept of the Downtown Master Plan. It was questioned whether the Village Concept was designed to require all buildings to step down from the focal elements of the buildings located at the corners of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Staff has concluded that the Village Concept did include provisions to encourage a greater building height at the entryway to the Downtown from Pacific Coast Highway but the buildings were not required to gradually reduce in height block by block when moving north along Main Street. It is also important to note that the previous project was approved at a greater height than currently permitted in the Downtown Specific Plan. Before the Specific Plan was revised in June, 1995, this District allowed a six (6) story building height and the project was approved with five (5) stories and 58 feet to the highest peak of the structure. Floor Plans/Size of Units: One of the clarification requested at the recent Planning Commission meeting was an explanation of why the floor plans of the residential units are proposed between 1,590 square feet and 2,830 square feet and yet contain only two bedrooms. The concern is that the project layout may lend itself to conversion to additional bedrooms after project completion. The applicant has explained that the units proposed over the office tenant spaces facing Main Street are the larger units and contain an entry vestibule and storage area on the first level of approximately 400-500 square feet. The entry foyer leads directly up stairs to the living area on two levels above the office space. Because of the unique design of the units, some of the two bedroom units are quite large. The applicant has stated that no plumbing is provided into the foyer and the storage area is mostly contained beneath the stair case leading to the upper levels. (See Attachment No. 4). Private Open Space: As discussed in the Staff Report dated February 11, 1997, the applicant is requesting a special permit for a reduction in Common Residential Open Space. In the previous analysis, staff stated their support for a approval of the special permit was based on two factors. First, a recommended condition of approval to provide a variety of amenities for resident's use within the common residential area will increase the attractiveness and usability of the common area. The second reason to support the special permit is that the private open space provided for the project is approximately double the minimum private open space requirement. An inquiry at the Planning Commission requested more information on the sizes of the private open space areas. There are basically two types of private open space areas at the site; one is the balconies that are designed on the perimeter units and the other is the yard areas that are provided on the podium level for the interior units. Each two bedroom residential unit is required to be provided with a minimum of 120 square feet of private open space. The perimeter units have balconies that are all approximately 120 square feet each. The developer is able to provide almost double the total amount of private open space necessary for the units because the yard areas for the interior units vary between 215 square feet at the smallest yard and 390 square feet at the largest yard. (Please refer to the full size set of plans that has been included with the Planning Commission's packet). 59 PC Staff Report-2/25/97 11 (97SR13c) Compatibility-Noise, Odor, Circulation, Refuse Collection, Parking, Security: Noise and Odor Compatibility between residential and the commercial/office uses is a major concern within a mixed use project. It is important to design the project so that noise, odor,traffic, refuse collection, parking, and security, etc., impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Through the joint efforts of the property owner, the architect, and City staff, Plaza Almeria has been continually revised and redesigned in order to achieve the best possible design to be compatible with the residential and commercial components of the project. Two of the recommended mitigation measures of Negative Declaration No. 96-16 are intended to minimize conflicts between the residential and commercial aspects of the project. One mitigation measure requires all restaurant ventilation and mechanical shafts to be no lower than the highest residential roof in order to separate potential odor sources as much as possible from the residents. Another mitigation measure requires that an acoustical engineer submit a report analyzing trash chutes, ventilation shafts, trash pick-up methods and routes, to mitigate all noise sources to the maximum extent possible. Through the mitigation measure, the property owner will be required to demonstrate the results and recommendations-of the noise study prior to submittal of any building permits. The types of commercial uses proposed within the mixed use project is also a concern to staff due to the close proximity to residential uses. In order to minimize potential impacts to the residential units staff recommends a condition of approval limiting the types of uses that will be allowed on the second floor where the office is currently designed. Since the Downtown Specific Plan does allow some commercial uses on second floors as long as parking can be met, staff recommends a condition of approval to prohibit noise generating uses, such as, restaurants and live entertainment on the second floor. In addition, staff recommends that a disclosure regarding the mixed use nature of the project be provided in the CC &R's. All potential residents should be required to sign a waiver or disclosure form that it is understood that Plaza Almeria is a mixed use project and that uses such as, restaurant, live entertainment, and alcohol sales, etc. may be established on the ground floor of the building. It is-a code requirement to design all aspects of the residential portion of a mixed use project so that the pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is secured. To this end, the applicant has included a separate residential parking garage with its own entrance and all pedestrian access points will be secured by locked gates, elevators, and staircases. Staff has determined, however, that the security of the residential access off of 5th Street should be improved to provide total security on both the entrance and exit to the site. A suggested condition of approval to redesign the residential gate has been included in this report. Circulation An inquiry raised at the Planning Commission meeting requested additional information on the compatibility between the vehicle exit from the parking structure on Orange Avenue-and the adjacent Townsquare residential project. One comment made during the public hearing indicated that Orange Avenue is a residential street. In actuality, Orange Avenue is designated as an Arterial in the Master Plan of Streets and Highways and is intended to serve more traffic and vehicle trips than a local residential street. The proposed exit from the parking structure onto Orange Avenue is compatible with the adjacent uses on the north side of Orange Avenue because directly across from the proposed exit is an existing retail bicycle store. Some members of the public were concerned that headlights from vehicles exiting Plaza 6 � PC Staff Report-2/25/97 12 (97SR13c) Almeria would shine into the townhomes at Townsquare. In order to determine where headlights from the exit will shine, staff measured the distance from the edge of Main Street to the Plaza Almeria exit and the distance from the edge of Main to the existing alley between Main Street and the closest residential property at Townsquare. The center of the proposed exit is 132.0 feet from the Main Street right-of-way. The eastern edge of the existing alley between the rear of the bike store and the Townsquare property line is 132.5 feet from the Main Street right-of-way. The result is that vehicles will be exiting the Plaza Almeria project on the east side (or exit side) of the proposed driveway and any headlights will shine either onto the bicycle store building or directly into the alley behind the store. No headlights are anticipated to shine into the Townsquare project because the Townsquare project is located further to the west of the proposed project. In fact, the entrance into the townhomes at Townsquare lines up with 5th Street. Refuse Collection As required by code, the residential and commercial tenants will be provided with separate refuse facilities to meet their needs. The residents will be able to send their trash to one of four collection points via trash chutes provided on the first level of residential units. The second floor office tenants will dispose of refuse in the same manner; via chutes to the main level parking garage. The ground floor tenants will access the refuse bins via an exit corridor at the rear of the commercial and restaurant suites. After collection in trash rooms on the main parking level and the first level of secured residential parking, Rainbow Disposal will roll the bins out into the street where the trash will be deposited in awaiting trash truck. The City has received a letter from Rainbow Disposal that the proposed method of trash collection and the number of bins provided for the project appear to be adequate at this time. Although expressly stated in Rainbow's letter, the applicant has indicated that Rainbow prefers to roll the bins into the right-of-way rather than entering the parking structure for pick-up. In order to be sure that the trash trucks can be accommodated on the street without serving as a impediment to traffic it is recommended that the project be conditioned to provide a loading/unloading area on Olive Avenue at the south east corner of the site. This recommended condition of approval ties into the condition to pursue relocation of the bus stop on Orange Avenue to the east side of Main Street, north of Orange Avenue. As stated in that recommendation, if the relocation of the bus stop is not successful, the loading/unloading area shall be located on Olive Avenue. Rainbow will need to conduct a second review and approval of the proposal prior to finalization of the design. Deliveries/Loadine Deliveries to the retail, restaurant, and office tenants are proposed to occur at a designated loading area on Orange Avenue at the northwest corner of the site. This area is currently designated as a bus stop, however, the conditions of approval include a requirement to pursue relocating the bus stop to the east side of Main Street just north of Orange Avenue. If the applicant is unsuccessful in relocating the bus stop, an alternate loading/delivery location shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and if necessary, by the Planning Commission. As discussed above, Orange 6r PC Staff Report-2/25/97 13 (97SR13c) Avenue is designated as an Arterial and can support the delivery location proposed at the northeast corner of the site. Staff does not anticipate conflicts between the delivery area and the Townsquare project because the delivery area is proposed directly across the street from the existing retail bicycle store on the north side of Orange Avenue. A turnout area will be constructed for the delivery location so that delivery activities do not conflict with traffic on Orange Avenue. Community Meeting: The developer of the project, JT Development Co., invited surrounding residents, property owners, Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, and City staff to a community meeting on Tuesday, February 18, 1997. The meeting was held at the Huntington Beach Art Center from 6:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The developer introduced the project, explained the history of the site, and described the proposed 41,000 square foot commercial and 45 residential unit project. Using the plans that have been submitted for staff and Planning Commission review, as well as numerous perspectives and sample landscape and architectural design boards, the developer then fielded questions from the audience. At the request of City staff, JT Development submitted a summary of the proposed meeting for inclusion in this staff report (see Attachment No. 5). Applicant's Request to Revise Two Conditions ofAnnroval. At the February 11, 1997 Planning Commission meeting the applicant's requested revisions to two conditions of approval regarding the Main Street setback and the maximum height of the parking structure on the 5th Street side of the project. Staff originally recommended in Conditions of Approval No. 1.c. and Le. that the plans be revised so that all structures more than 42 inches in height will be setback a minimum of six (6) feet from the property line on Main Street and that the maximum height of the top plate of the parking garage on 5th Street be no more than 15 feet from the top of the sidewalk. These conditions of approval were intended to increase public open space on Main Street and encourage the pedestrian character and scale on both Main Street and 5th Street. The applicant's request to amend the minimum six (6) foot setback on Main because they would like to have some of the architectural elements of the building such as the tower and the two cylindrical elements at the corners be able to encroach into the setback and be constructed at the property line. In discussing this issue with the applicant, staff has amended Condition of Approval No. 1.c. in Attachment No. 1 so that all structures with the exception of architectural features of the building would need to be setback a minimum of six(6) feet. The applicant's have stated that the maximum fifteen (15) foot height restriction for the parking garage on 5th Street will prohibit them from providing adequate ceiling heights for the commercial tenants on Main Street because the top level of the garage and the top level of the retail space must be identical for construction purposes. Staff is concerned that the height of the parking structure will be too massive and plain in design and will not encourage or emulate the desired pedestrian character and scale of 5th Street. As a compromise to meeting both the applicant's desire for greater ceiling height and staff desire to improve the aesthetic appearance of the 5th Street elevation, staff has amended Condition of Approval PC Staff Report-2/25/97 14 (97SR13c) No. Le. so that the 18 foot height may be achieved but only if the elevations are redesigned so that additional character and features are added to the building facade to create a pedestrian scale and reduce the vertical mass of the structure. The condition states the 18 foot height and additional architectural elements shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director. Pursuant to the condition of approval recommended.by the Design Review Board (DRB) the revised plans will also be reviewed by DRB prior to submittal for building permits. Please note that one additional condition of approval has been added since the February 11, 1997 Planning Commission public hearing. Condition of Approval No. 14.m. requires that any model home and sales . office complex be reviewed and approved by the Zoning Administrator through the Temporary Use Permit (TUP) process. The TUP allows staff and the Zoning Administrator to analyze parking, signage, aesthetics, and emergency access to the model homes since the remainder of the units are usually still under construction when marketing and sales of the project begins. Also, Condition of Approval No. 17.a. has been amended to prohibit to noise generating uses such as restaurants and live entertainment on the second floor in order to ensure compatibility between commercial and residential uses. All amendments to the conditions of approval that were distributed at the February 11, 1997, Planning Commission meeting have been highlighted in bold type in Attachment No. 1. SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 96-16/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R), for the mixed use Plaza Almeria for project the following reasons: • The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed mixed use project will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties. With the modifications suggested by staff, additional open space will be provided along Main Street, the building elevations will include additional architectural treatment to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project, creative use of landscaping and textured pavement will create a unique and interesting public open space, and a public art element will be included in the project design. • With the modifications suggested by staff, the project design will create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation along 5th Street. The proposed mixed use project is consistent with the MV-F6/25-sp-pd(Mixed Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay Land Use designation of the General Plan. • With the conditions imposed, the special permit requests to exceed maximum building height, encroach into ground floor and upper story setbacks, reduce public open space size and location, and reduce common residential open space will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. � 3 PC Staff Report-2/25/97 15 (97SR13c) ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90- 30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 with findings for denial. B. Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 and direct staff accordingly. ATTACHMENTS: 2. Downtown Parking Master Plan (DTPMP) Area Map 3. Letter from Michael C. Adams Associates dated February 14, 1997 4. Typical Floor Plan/Furnishing Illustration 5. Summary of February 18, 1997 Community Meeting from Mike Roberts, JT Development Co. SH:JM:kjl 44 PC Staff Report-2/25/97 16 (97SR13c) LEGEND PARKING MASTER PLAN AREA I A. Main Pier Two B. Pierside Pavilion/Pier Colony C. Second Block Rehab. D. H.B. Promenade E. Third Block West F. Post Office Block loeq AREA 2 ` F` G. Town Square ` s H. Forth Block East ti sf SFr Art Center Block - s � I P yG� ORANGE — —' — AVE. OLNE I AVE. WALNUT AVE. — — — ------------01 I .}:4.M.{ti::}:}}::•:}:i:::}}:L$i�?v ii'}::i: ::�(:l .%:'l.{2•:�ttit,F{S.:Lninirinl:�t: PA.QFfQ_COMT WY. ATTACHMENT NO.k6 (pM4STRkC0q 2-20-1997 2:58PM FROM 714 8956321 P_ 1 371� -rWo MICHAEL C. ADAMS ASSOCIATES 19771 Sea Canyon Circle Huntington Beach, CA 92648 February 14, 1997 Ms.Jane Madera, Associate Planner Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: PLAZA ALMERIA Dear Jane: In response to the comments received at the Planning Commission meeting on February 11, 1997. We will be prepared to discuss the following design options at the next meeting: • Maintaining parking on Main Street • Alternative public open space designs • Increased building setbacks • Alternative on-site circulation pattern • Alternative loading area options • Expanded parking opportunities We are always open to ideas which make the project better and willing to discuss all the project's features. To directly address some of the Commission's and staffs concerns we have prepared a design option for the Main Street facade which will provide 1,250 square feet of common open space in a central plaza.(25%greater thaethe minimum requirement),thereby eliminating the need for two Special Permits and the staff recommended condition of a minimum six foot front setback. We will also redesign the Olive and Orange Avenue elevations to eliminate the need for a sideyard incroachment Special Permit. Finally we are exploring design options which directly address the need for an upper story setback special permit. By the time the February 25'meeting we may also eliminate that request. 6 ATTACHMENT NO. 2-20-1997 2:59PM FROM 7-I A 8956321 P_ Ms. Jane Madera February 14,1997 City of Huntington Beach Page 2 The remaining Special Permits will still be necessary to accommodate the proposed unique project design. 1. Maximum Building Height The project is still requesting additional building height to allow for the commercial, office and residential suites to be designed competitively with other state-of-the art projects. Commercial tenants are demanding greater floor to ceiling height, and office and residential units with greater volumes demand higher rents and sales value. The current code of 45 feet cannot accommodate four stories of current market driven activities and demands. The buildings tower elements will require 20 additional feet,the living area will only require ten additional feet. We request that the staff recommended maximum building height of 15 feet for the parking structure, adjacent to 5"Street be measured next to the building rather than the top of curb, to allow landscape berming and/or planters to enhance the building facade. 2. Common Residential Open Space Creating the effect of a European Village,common open space amenities have been designed on a smaller,more intimate scale. A central open space area has been designer and will include a barbecue area, an outdoor fireplace,seating area, and a shade structure. In addition,a number of smaller open space areas have been designed adjacent to select units. The common open space reduction will be off-set with the private recreation/open space areas for each unit in excess of code requirements by a minimum of 50%. We look forward to the Planning Commission meeting on February 25"'and will be prepared to respond to any comrnents and/or adjust the project further to address all specific concerns. Sincerely, Mike Adams Consultant to the Plaza Almeria Team 7 ATTACHMENT �Q.3- z 2-14-1997 6:39PM FROM 71A 89SG321 • P_ ? FIRST FLOOR= } OPE_.1`i - u Fm �C1T��+er�1 • y c)Q LOFT01 NO i 0 . Nl PST�►2 i p r r DEN {`} fou I - THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR UNIT A 1950 S.F. ATTACHMENT NO. �g y- --- :24'- 24' Iv _ I \lX. ED YARD � L05Ej I • _ w � LOFT ci _ I ice.'-- LAWN Y BEDROOM up - L VIN cLO ET Pavll� _ I 'ROOM _0 z SECOND FLOOR . -� FIRST FLOOR �. UNIT B ;N 1675 S.F. 2-14-1997 6_40PM FROM 71A 8956321 P_ a 24, 1 24' `1 f `• � YAf2D . YARD SI VARY. Sm Levr:_ 2 FOR , YARD 51Zr5 AND LOC ATIONS - —•----sic s t� R � ' _ :1 m' L�51 BE O P 1 ,a SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR UNIT C 1590 S.F. 70 ATTACHMENT NO. 2-14-1997 6_41PM FROM 714 8956321 • P. 5 • 1 R GE FOYER FIRST FLOOR _-pia ~z- l __-� I 57E 0IV— �Q �' ► � ' closer G o! . 1 � I DCG dlN SECOND FLOOR UNIT 2 7 0 Nfkk H M E N T NO. gam, 71 2-1a-1997 6:a"1PM FROM 714 6956321 P. 6 TO FOYER. - n FIRST FLOOR: FN-rzy P�ELG�4' MASTER DEG 9 u nipe11L --- LAvr NO ei' To U-DsGT �� r— (7 9 � 0 - �l V IBEDR O Q 7� DEG'C LI\/NC / DfNIN SECOND FLOOR ' UNIT E - ' -- � 2760 S.F. ATTAGHM ENT NO. g .S - IUI YARD pl. YARD 5IM-5 VARY. 5EE LEVEL Z F.OR ` YARD SIZES AND LOCATION • J MA5MRWITE _""� ( • EXPAN510N 0 A AT UNIT&I A T R 0 ADDITIONAL ' 150 5F } J . M EG1A - - • � w G LOWTIv u OAti JT- - S�nRoo - m SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR • KNIT - 1820 S.F. 2-19-1997 3:01PM FROM 714 8OS6321 P. 1 DEV.ELOPMENr RECEIVED F E B 1 91997 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Via Fag: 714l374-1540 February 19, 1997 Jane Madera Associate Planner Community Development Third Floor 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: Community Meeting,re: Plaza Almeria Tuesday, February 18, 1997(,�)Art Center: 6 p.m.to 8 p.m. Dear Jane: Yesterday evening,the partners of JT Development Company hosted a meeting to share with its participants our plans for the Plaza Almeria project at Olive and Main in the Downtown and to answer questions about people's concerns and perceptions. Approximately 200 residents who live near the project site were invited. About 25 attended. Attached is a copy of the invitation and a list of those attendees who signed in. There are about 3 or 4 attendees who did not sign in. Herb Fauland,Jane Madera, Steve Kohler and David Biggs were present and represented the City's Planning Department. and Redevelopment Agency. John and Haydee Tillotson and Mike Adams and myself were on hand to represent JT Development Company. Renderings, plans and height comparison charts of the project along with `image' boards were prominently displayed on a wall and tables set up on the side of the meeting room. Early arrivals reviewed these and entered into one on one discussions with various members of the development team_ At 6.30 p.m. the meeting was called to order and John Tillotson opened with a brief discussion about the project and went on to address certain specific concerns brought up during the recent Planning Commission hearing on Plaza Almeria. He then turned the discussion over to Mike Adams who explained the overall concept of the A7ACHMENT TEL: 714/89S-8665 FAX:714VS95-6321 /'' 1.52.73 Bolsa Chica Road,Huntington Beach.CA 926+9 2-19-1997 3:02PM FROM 714 69S5321 P_ 2 Jane Madera Re: Community Meeting Plaza Almeria Page 2 project. Both Tillotson and Adams then responded to various questions from the attendees. Steve Kohler also spoke briefly about certain of the Agency's obligations in response to sonic: of the questions. Most of the questions had to do with height, setbacks, landscaping, parking, density, size and scope of the project, even some of the economics, and timing of offsite work and duration of construction. The question and answer period took up most of the time and we felt the majority of the attendees were satisfied with what they heard and they seemed to be more receptive to the project than they indicated during the Planning Commission hearing last week on February 11_ John invited the attendees to be present at the February 25th Planning Commission continuance of our project to speak in favor of the project. I feel both John Tillotson and Mike Adams did a very creditable presentation and handled the questions clearly and factually and dispelled many of the misconceptions people may have had_ As they were leaving,some of the attendees thanked us for bringing them up to date and expressed good wishes for a successful project. Some of those who had quite few questions did say they hoped the project will go forward_ All were invited to contact Lis anytime with any question they may have. All in all, we feel the meeting went very well. Sincerely, Mike Roberts J.T. Development Co. .LST-oi 3 A T TACHM ENT Flo.,S? 75 _ 2-19-1997 3-02PM FROM 714 89SG321 P. 3 -• A�� , PLEASE JOIN.US { Jbhn Tillotson acid Nlih Roberts of JT Developm 2 t will host a walla-through presentation of Plaza Almeria,the proposed project located downtown at Main and Olive Streets_ Aa informal discussion will follow.in which city staff will be available to help answer questions. '4-e would appreciate your'participation as we understand the impact of this project on our community and on your lifestyle. Brim your questions. Bring your concerns. Bring.your. neighbors and friends. DATE. ' Tue.day, February 18, 1997 TIME: 6:00 - 8:00 p.m LOCATION: Huntington Beach Art Center / j381v1ain 'treet Huntington Beach' Light refreshments will be served. . /i?i•;A-1...,;(:6G;r Rota //u.rAf a/hrur A-ai b. 9:%49 ' A:.rrh•rrlil/J.i/.•..:(7!i)xlS-1�5i_' r �1Lt:•l7/yl•��i5-n�?/ 76 ATTACHMENT NO. s 3 2-19-1997 3:02PM FROM 714 8956321 • P• a Rum( . - i - . t is ATTACHMENT NO. , Responses to Comments Negative Declaration No. 96-16 I. INTRODUCTION This document serves as the Response to Comments on the Negative Declaration No. 96-16. This document contains all information available in the public record related to the Negative Declaration as of Monday, January 13, 1997 and responds to comments in accordance with Section 15088 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) Guidelines. This document contains four sections. In addition to this Introduction,these sections are Public Participation and Review, Comments, Responses to Comments, and Appendix A. The Public Participation section outlines the methods the City of Huntington Beach has used to provide public review and solicit input on the Negative Declaration. The Comments section contains those written comments received from agencies, groups, organizations, and individuals as of Monday, January 13, 1997. The Response to Comments section contains individual responses to each comment. It is the intent of the City of Huntington Beach to include this document in the official public record related to the Negative Declaration. Based on the information contained in the public record the decision makers will be provided with an accurate and complete record of all information related to the environmental consequences of the project. II. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND REVIEW The City of Huntington Beach notified all responsible and interested agencies and interested groups, organizations, and individuals that a Negative Declaration had been prepared for the proposed project. The City also used several methods to solicit input during the review period for the preparation of the Negative Declaration. The following is a list of actions taken during the preparation, distribution, and review of the Negative Declaration. 1. An official twenty (20) day public review period for the Negative Declaration was established by the City. It began on Thursday, December 19, 1996 and ended on Tuesday, January 7, 1997. Public comment letters were accepted by the City of Huntington Beach through Monday,January 13, 1997. 2. Notice of the Negative Declaration was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on Thursday, December 19, 1996. mp 79 III. COMMENTS Copies of all written comments received as of Monday, January 13, 1997 are contained in appendix A of this document. All comments have been numbered and are listed on the following pages. All comments from letters received have been retyped verbatim in a comment-response format for clarity. Responses to Comments.for each comment which raised an environmental issue are contained in this document. IV. RESPONSE TO COMMENTS The Negative Declaration No. 96-16 was distributed to responsible agencies, interested groups, organizations, and individuals. The report was made available for public review and comment for a period of twenty days. The public review period for the Negative Declaration established by the City commenced on December 19, 1996. Copies of all documents received as of January 13, 1997 are contained in appendix A of this report. Comments have been numbered with responses correspondingly numbered. Responses are presented for each comment which raised a significant environmental issue. Several comments do not address the completeness or adequacy of the Negative Declaration, do not raise significant environmental issues, or request additional information. A substantive response to such comments is not appropriate within the context of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Such comments are responded to with a "comment acknowledged" reference. This indicates that the comment will be forwarded to all appropriate decision makers for their review and consideration. g Responses to Comments Negative Declaration No. 96-16 Plaza Almeria Mixed Use Project/Third Block West HBE - Comment: The Environmental Board reviewed Negative Declaration No. 96-9 (sic) at our regular meeting held January 9th 1997. Response: The comment consists of a description of the date of the Environmental Board review; no further written response is necessary. HBEB-2: Comment• It was felt that the changes would have a greater impact than what currently seems to be acknowledged. The issues of most concern are: the cumulative effect of traffic, safety,parking, noise, and the loss op open space. The committee felt that these issues were not adequately dealt with. Responsel The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. Please refer to HBEB-3 through HBEB-5 Responses below. HBEB-3: Comment: We request that the project be changed and reduced in scope so that the existing open space is not diminished;that traffic effects be diminished in consideration of the reality of the present and the future effects (PCH for example is already terrible) --that the land not just be mitigated by money payment(which will not solve the issue) and that the noise, which will increase as a result of developing this vacant land, be addressed presently so the mitigation can be addressed and reviewed before acceptance of the plan and not just left open for later analysis. Response: Although the project site is currently vacant it is not considered as open space in its present configuration or use. The site is enclosed by a chain link fence and was utilized in the recent past as a parking lot, the weekly Farmer's Market, and contained a bank building and office building that were demolished in the Summer of 1996. Therefore, no viable open space will be lost as a result of this project. St Traffic impacts that will occur as a result of this project are discussed under Section VI of the negative declaration. As stated in the discussion, a trip generation report was prepared by an outside consultant and the information was analyzed by the City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Division. The analysis concluded that when analyzing the project as part of the entire downtown project area, the project's overall contribution to vehicle trips is not expected to result in a drop in the level of service, and is not considered significant. It is not clear what the Environmental Board refers to with regards to the comment, "the land not just be mitigated by money payment(which will not solve the issue)." The comment may refer to payment of in-lieu Park and Recreation fees which are required on every residential project that does not include a park site. Payment of in-lieu fees is a code requirement and staff maintains that the conditions of approval adequately cover park and recreation issues. A mitigation measure has been included to address possible noise impacts from the new commercial units to the new residential units. Staff maintains that submittal of an acoustical analysis report is more appropriate after the final design of the commercial and office uses has been determined. That way, all potential noise sources can be identified and mitigated through the project design. HBEB-4: Comment: We do not feel that city codes should be relaxed, especially as this project will have significant effects on an acute and long term basis--aesthetics, noise,pollution, traffic, safety, etc. (Of interest is that one long term resident on the board stated that people in the community had thought that this particular area was designed to be a park, and now already having lost their park for a parking lot , would rather have that than a large, obstructive building). Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. Staff maintains that the project, with mitigation, will not have significant impacts on the environment as analyzed in the discussion sections of the negative declaration. It should be noted that although a member of the Board believes the block was designed as a park,the City has no record of a park ever considered for development on the site. HBEB-5: Comment: One way of solving these problems would be to decrease the commercial, by about 25%which, might bring the plan into code requirements and come closer to meeting community expectations. Response: The comment is acknowledged and will be forwarded to the appropriate decision makers for consideration prior to action on the proposed project. 01/10/1997 18:06 714646771 GALLUCCIO MD PAGE 01 REC JAN 1997 i}EP/SNtMr I "F January 10th. 1997 '�OMMUNITYDEVELOPMENI- The Environmental Board reviewed Negative Dec No. 96-9 at our regular meeting held January. 9th 1997 . It was felt that the changes would have a greater impact than what currently seems to be acknowledged. The issues :of most concern are: the cumulative effect of traffic, safety, :parking, noise, and the loss of open space. The committee felt that these issues were not adequately dealt with. we request that: the project be changed and reduced in scope so that the existing; open space is not diminished; that traffic effects be diminished in consideration of the reality of the present and the future effects (PCH for example is already terrible) --that the land not just be mitigated by money payment (which will not solve the issue) and that the noise, which will increase as a result of developing this vacant land, be addressed presently so the mitigationcan be addressed and reviewed before acceptance of the plan and not just left open for later analysis. we do not feel that city codes should be relaxed, especially, as this project will have significant effects on an acute and long term basis--aesthetics, noise, pollution, traffic, safety, etc. (Of interest is that one long term resident on the board stated that people in the communityhad thought that this particular area was designated to be a park, and now already having lost their park for a parking lot, would rather have that than a large, obstructive building. ) One way of solving these problems would be to decrease the commercial, by about 25%r which, might bring the plan into code requirements and come closer to meeting community expectations. Respectfully submitted by, Fred James Galluccio, M.D. , F.A.A.F.P. Associate Clinical Professor; U.C.I . Environmental Board Member, Huntington Beach 83 - -- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH RAC TE E I V D FEB 111997 1997 COMMDEPgRTMEN7 OF UNITY DEyE,O MENT To Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development From David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development Date February 11, 1997 SUBJECT Third Block West Affordable Housing Requirement Pursuant to Condition No. 2.a. of the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 14352(R), the Redevelopment Agency will comply with the affordable housing requirement by the rehabilitation of eight (8) apartment units located at 17422 and 17432 Queens Lane in the Oakview subarea of the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Project Area. All units will be covenanted for a minimum of thirty (30) years to be rented at affordable rents to households of very low income. Rehabilitation of four of the units is complete and the remaining units should be___ complete within 90 days. Therefore, this condition will be fulfilled prior to issuance of a building permit pursuant to the proposed Conditional Use Permit. It is my hope that this memo will suffice as the "Affordable Housing Agreement" referenced in the conditions of approval. I would appreciate the assistance of your staff in communicating this information to the Planning Commission as part of the presentation prior to tonight's public hearing. Thank you. If you have questions, please call. ` DCB:SVK:Ib 85 Winscott Companies Fax:714-374-2355 Feb 10 '97 14:55 P.02 .. - •_ " 210U bSaui Jri�'eG Suite:457,H�gwu Beach.Caliiorcri:t 9�615 712 372`'35� DNOD u1ii\TSCOTT WEALTM ACCUMMATTON AND)9I3SILVATroN _ February 10, 1997 TO: The City of Huntington Beach ATTN: The Planning Commission Bob Biddle Steve Holden Phil Inglee Ed Kerins Tom Livengood Fred Speaker RE: Plaza Almeria I want to encourage your support for the downtown project, Plata Almeria. . As a Huntington Beach resident since . 197.8 and a business owner here in town, I have been impressed with the scope and character of this project. I believe Plaza Almeria will be an asset to our overall downtown development plan. I thank you for all of. your hard work and diligence on behalf of the rest of us taxpaying residents. 0 Mos si.ncerplyr 1 r' J David Winscott /v Sccuritias offered&rough 1-David MmsectL Regismwd Representative UM Equity Products,Inc. MTL Egniry Products.Inc.1200 larro 81rd_Oak Brook IL WS (708)9904000.MMber NASD/SIPC g7 ............. ... ......................... ......... ....... :.:........................................ ..:................................:... ......:....... .....:::...P : ::.::.::::. ..: ............. ... .................................................................... .......... TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Planning Director BY: Jane Madera, Associate Planne DATE: February 11, 1997 SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39 (R)/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO. 90-30 (R)/TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352 (R)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 96-16 (Plaza Almeria-Third Block West) LOCATION: 301 Main Street (Full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Transmitted for-Planning Commission consideration is a request by the Robert Hidey Architects and the City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency to permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development on a full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue in Downtown Huntington Beach. The project consists of 15,000 square feet of retail, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, 11,000 square feet of office, and 45 two-story,two-bedroom townhomes with six special permit requests for building height, ground floor setbacks, upper story setbacks, public open space size and location, and residential open space. A one lot subdivision for condominium purposes is also proposed to divide the property for the sale, lease, or finance of airspace. The condo plan includes common parking, landscaping, and public open space as well as establishes commercial, office, and residential lots. Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 96-16/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R), for the following reasons: The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed mixed use project will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties. • With the modifications suggested by staff, additional open space will be provided along Main Street, the building elevations will include additional architectural treatment to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project, creative use of landscaping and textured pavement will create a unique and interesting public open space, and a public art element will be included in the project design. • With the modifications suggested by staff, the project design will create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation along 5th Street. The proposed mixed use project is consistent with the MV-F6/25-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay) Land Use designation of the General Plan. With the conditions imposed, the special permit requests to exceed maximum building height, encroach into ground floor and upper story setbacks, reduce public open space size and location, and reduce common residential open space will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. c�I RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve Negative Declaration No. 96-16 with findings and mitigation measures (Attachment No. 7); B. `.`-Approve Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R) with findings (Attachment No. 1);" C. "Approve Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R) with findings and suggested conditions of approval (Attachment No. 1)." 90 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 2 (97SR13) �Zaa CCKy�� a 3 F. w o- � Qv S Q (BOLSA U O z m MC FADDI N �y EDINGER I�IL WARNER . r SLATER �. TALBERT 9^ Q, s � ELLts o y GARFIELD rr YORKTOWN PROJECT LOCATION AD,M IANAPOLIS � DATLANTA IIAMB TON DDT BANNING D D D� D D CUP 90-39(R)/CDP 90-30(R)/ TT 14352(R)/ND 96-16 HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION q� GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANTS: Robert Hidey,Robert Hidey Architects, 130 Newport Center Drive, Suite 210, Newport Beach, CA 92660 City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach CA 92648 PROPERTY OWNER: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development on a full block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue in Downtown Huntington Beach. The project consists of 15,000 square feet of retail, 15,000 square feet of restaurant, 11,000 square feet of office, and 45 two-story,two-bedroom townhomes with six special permit requests for building height, ground floor setbacks, upper story setbacks,public open space size and location, and residential open space. A one lot subdivision for condominium purposes is also proposed to divide the property for the sale, lease, or finance of airspace. The condo plan includes common parking, landscaping, and public open space as well as establishes commercial, office, and residential lots. DATE ACCEPTED: January 22, 1997 SUBJECT PROPERTY AND SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATIONS: .. LOCATION GENERAL PLAN ,::ZONING LAND USE . Subject Property: MV-F6/25-sp-pd(Mixed Downtown Specific Plan- Vacant Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 District 5-Coastal Zone du/acre-specific plan- pedestrian overlay) North of Subject Same as above Downtown Specific Plan- Retail Bicycle Shop; Property District 6-Coastal Zone Townsquare Mixed (across Orange Use Project Avenue): East of Subject Same as above Downtown Specific Plan- East-Retail Property (across District 5-Coastal Zone West-Retail and Main Street) and Residential West(across 5th South-Retail Street) and South (across Olive Ave): 9Z PC Staff Report-2/11/96 3 (97SR13) PROJECT PROPOSAL: Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(Rl represents.a request for the following: A. To permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential project on a 1.88 net acre block in downtown Huntington Beach pursuant to Section 4.7.01 of the Downtown Specific Plan. The project originally consisted of 23,475 square feet of retail, 6,525 square feet of restaurant, 11,000 square feet of office, and 45 two-story, two-bedroom townhomes with six special permit requests.. After submittal of the latest plans, however,the applicant requested to revise the project description for a total of 15.000 square feet of commercial. 15.000 square feet of restaurant. 11.000 square feet of office and 45 townhomes. The project includes a request to permit shared residential guest and office parking spaces and as previously approved,to allow the residential square footage to exceed 50% of the commercial square footage. A one lot subdivision for condominium purposes is also proposed. Special Permits are requested for the following: 1. To permit portions of the 4 story structure at a height of 54 feet in lieu of the maximum 45 feet allowed by code and to permit a height of 65 feet for roof line architectural treatment in lieu of the maximum of 55 feet pursuant to Sections 4.7.04 and 4.2.04, respectively, of the Downtown Specific Plan. 2. To permit portions of the ground floor building setbacks on Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue to encroach into the minimum five (5) foot setback. The proposal includes encroachments that vary between zero (0) and five (5) feet in lieu of the minimum code required five (5) foot setback pursuant to Section 4.7.07 of the Downtown Specific Plan. 3. To permit portions of the upper story setback along Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue between zero (0) and ten (10) feet in lieu of the code required average of an additional ten (10) foot setback from the second story facade pursuant to Section 4.7.09 of the Downtown Specific Plan. 4. To permit 3,235 square feet of public open space plaza in lieu of the code required 4,092 square feet of public open space pursuant to Section 4.7.10 of the Downtown Specific Plan. 5. To permit 3,235 square feet of public open space in a linear pattern along the street frontages in lieu of the minimum code required 1,000 square foot plaza within one centralized plaza area pursuant to Section 4.7.10 of the Downtown Specific Plan. 6. To permit 15,600 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in lieu of the code required 20,735 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet pursuant to Section 4.2.11 of the Downtown Specific Plan. 93 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 4 (97SR13) Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 ( )is requested for the following: A. To permit a one lot subdivision for condominium purposes. The tentative map includes provisions for dedicating 4 feet of property along Main Street and 2.5 feet of property along Orange Avenue for street widening purposes as well as vacating the alley in the middle of the block. The condominium plan, which the engineer will submit to the Department of Real Estate,divides the property into lots for sale, lease, or financing. The condo plan will include common areas, including the parking and landscaping, which will be covered by CC &R's adopted on the property. Project History- The City Council approved the Third Block West mixed use development on March 4, 1991. The approved project consisted of 28,000 square feet of commercial development and 68 residential condominiums and included a special permit to allow the transition ramps in the parking garage to exceed the maximum slope allowed. The commercial tenant space was approved on the ground floor facing Main Street and consisted of a 9,500 square foot market and 9,500 square feet of general retail. Office space, totaling 8,000 square feet, was approved on the second floor above the commercial. When the City Council acted on the project on an appeal,the action included a condition of approval to increase the retail space by 1,000 square feet for a total of 28,000 square feet. The residential units were designed as stacked flats above and behind the commercial space. Parking was provided for the project in a subterranean parking garage and included secured parking for the residential units. Consistent with the zoning requirements today, and at the time of project approval,the Downtown Specific Plan allowed residential units only in conjunction with commercial uses in order to promote a core of retail development in the downtown area. One of the restrictions imposed on the residential development was that the square footage of residential uses could not exceed more than 50% of the square footage devoted to commercial uses. However, the City Council analyzed and balanced the overall residential and commercial square footage within District 5 as a whole. The required 1:1 ratio of commercial to residential square footage was met by considering all existing uses and all projected uses within the entire District 5. The analysis included the statement that the methodology would not restrict other applicants within the District from applying for mixed use projects as allowed by Code. It should be noted that this methodology of analyzing commercial to residential square footage ratios was challenged and upheld in a subsequent court decision. As indicated above,the project was ultimately approved by the City Council and included 67,200 square feet of residential and 28,000 square feet of commercial. Revised PrQject The new name of the revised project is Plaza Almeria. The applicant has proposed this amendment to the original approval of the mixed use project in order to increase the leasable space, redesign the type of residential units, and change the architectural style of the project. The redesigned project includes an overhaul to the exterior architectural facade while maintaining the approved Spanish Village/ Mediterranean concept. 94 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 5 (97SR13) 0 The commercial portion of the project is now designed so that 11,000 square feet of retail and 15,000 square feet of restaurant are oriented toward Main Street with 11,000 square feet of office space above on the second floor. An additional 4,000 square feet of retail space faces Olive Avenue on the southwest corner of the site. Parking for the retail and restaurant uses is provided on the ground floor parking garage as well as in a subterranean level of parking. All of the parking is controlled with access gates and will be operated by ticket dispensers at the entrances and exits on Orange and Olive Avenues with a staffed exit gate and ticket booth on Orange Avenue. The only exit for commercial tenants, employees, and customers is the staffed exit on Orange Avenue. A major impetus of redesigning the project is the recognition of the new demands of the 1997 market place. One example of how the redesign reflects the demands of current retailers is to provide the commercial tenant spaces with greater ceiling heights. Other reasons the project was redesigned.were meet the City's goal of increasing commercial tenant space throughout the City and the fact that there does not appear to be a demand for a market in the downtown area. The applicant contacted numerous specialty market stores and was unsuccessful in securing any interest for a market at the site. While decreasing the number of residential units from 68 to 45, the units are now all proposed as two bedroom,two story townhomes with common side walls as opposed to the previously approved stacked flats. Thirty-four of the 45 units are townhomes that have access directly from the second story level into the units while the remaining 11 townhomes are designed above the office space on the second floor facing Main Street. The 11 units proposed above the office space also gain access from the second level but the floor plan is designed so that a staircase leads directly to the living space above the offices. The entire residential portion of the project, including the parking, is secured with locked pedestrian and vehicular entrances. Guests or visitors of the residents may only access the residential podium level by a telephone access system at the elevators and staircases. The overall square footage of the residential units has been increased in order to reflect the anticipated 1997 market demand for more spacious units and redesigned from stacked flats to townhomes. The residential units range in size from 1,590 to 2,830 square feet and each unit is provided with private yard or balcony areas. Parking for the residents is provided in two secured levels of parking that are accessed from 5th Street and are above the commercial parking. One of the applicant's requests is to share 11 of the 23 required residential guest parking with all of the 11 office parking spaces provided on the commercial level. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed project is consistent with the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and the Land Use Element designation of MV-F6/25-sp-pd(Mixed Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan overlay-pedestrian overlay) on the subject property. Specifically, the mixed use project is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: 95 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 6 (97SR13) Goal LUI: Achieve development that maintains or improves the City's fiscal viability and reflects economic demands while maintaining and improving the quality of life for the current and future residents of Huntington Beach. Goal LU2.1.7: Ensure that development shall not occur without providing for adequate school facilities. Require that development impacts be reviewed by the City with the developer and with the School Districts prior to project review for determination of necessary mitigation's to school impacts. Require developers to meet with the appropriate school district with the intent to mitigate the impact on school facilities,prior to project approval by the permitting City authority. Appropriate mitigation may include, but not be limited to, use of existing facilities or surplus sites, construction of new facilities, payment of fees, and reduction of densities. Goal L U7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Objective LU71: Accommodate the development of a balance of land uses that(a)provides for the housing, commercial, employment, educational, cultural, entertainment, and recreation needs of existing and future residents, (b)provides employment opportunities for residents of the City and surrounding sub- region, (c) captures visitor and tourist activity, and(d)provides open space and aesthetic "relief' from urban development. Goal LU9: Achieve the development of a range of housing units that provides for the diverse economic, physical, and social needs of existing and future residents of Huntington Beach. Goal LUI1: Achieve the development of projects that enable residents to live in proximity to their jobs, commercial services, and entertainment, and reduce the need for automobile use. Objective EDL 1: Enhance the City's market potential in terms of retail, office, industrial, and visitor serving activity. This would allow Huntington Beach to provide for retail, office, and industrial opportunities that serve the current and projected population and enhance sales and occupancy tax revenue. Goal ED3: Enhance Huntington Beach's economic development potential through strategic land use planning and sound urban design practices. Policy ED3.2.2: Encourage mixed use (retail/office/residential) structures in the downtown area and at the visitor-serving nodes along Pacific Coast Highway. Policy LU15.2.2: Require that structures located in the pedestrian overlay zone be sited and designed to enhance pedestrian activity along the sidewalks in consideration of the guidelines noted in the general plan. 96 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 7 (97SR13) Zoning Compliance: This project is located in the Downtown Specific Plan District 5-Coastal Zone and complies with the requirements of that zone unless otherwise noted. The following is a zoning conformance matrix which compares the proposed project with the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan: SECTION ISSUE' � CODE EROVISION� PROP,OSED % y 4.2.02 Min. Floor area 2 bedroom 900 sq. ft. 1,590 sq. ft. to 2,830 sq. ft. 4.2.04 Additional Bldg Height *Exceeds max. height for roof a) 10 ft. for roof line,equip., line and architectural b) architectural treatment; treatment. Tower on Main 14 ft. for elevator Street is 10 feet above min. 4.2.06 Front Setback b) Surface/above grade Min. 10 ft. Min. 10 ft. parking c) Subterr. parking Dir. approval for side yards; Okay; front yard min. 5 ft. Min. 5 ft. 4.2.07 Side Yard Setback Parking lot Min. 10 ft. Min. 10 ft. 4.2.11 Open Space a) Common Residential Min. 25%Res. Floor Area= 20,735 sq. ft. * 15,600 sq. ft. Min. 20 ft. dimension * Min. 10 ft. dimension b) Private Residential 2 bedroom Min. 120 sq. ft.; balcony Min. 120 sq. ft. balcony Min. 6 ft. dimension Min. 6 ft. dimension 97 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 8 (97SR13) SECTIONx ISSUE a CODE PROVISION PROPOSED p 4.2.13 Parking Retail 1 sp/250 sq ft at 15,000 sq. ft 276 spaces provided . =60 spaces (includes a request to share.ll Restaurant 1 sp/150 at 15,000 sq. ft. residential guest spaces with =100 spaces 11 office spaces) Office 1 sp/1000 sq.ft. at 11,000 sf =11 spaces 2 Bdrm Residential 2 sp/unit at 45 units =90 spaces Residential Guest .5 sp/unit at 45 units =23 spaces Total=284 spaces required 4.2.15 Landscaping All setbacks and open space Condition of approval shall be permanently landscaped w/irrigation 4.2.17 Access Ways Min. 28 ft. width for Complies . c) residential 4.2.18 Lighting Lighting plan for pedestrian Condition of approval and vehicular ways req'd 4.2.19 Outside Storage Space Min. 100 cubic feet/unit Min. 100 cubic feet/unit 4.2.22 Refuse Collection Area Max. 200 ft. from resid. unit. No more than 200 ft. from Screened w/masonry wall unit Res. separate from comm'l. Enclosed Resid'1 and comm'1 separate 4.2.26 Bus Turnout On 1/2 block or more, Conditioned to pursue bus dedication for turnout req'd. turnout on west side of Main Street, north of Orange Ave. 4.2.28 Homeowner's Assoc. Shall be provided Conditioned 4.2.31 School Facilities School facilities impact Conditioned(Note: applicant mitigation and and school districts have reimbursement shall be req'd reached an agreement) 70 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 9 (97SR13) 4.2.33 Outdoor Dining Subject to separate CUP Conditioned 4.7.01 Permitted Uses c) -Ground floor Main St. Commercial Complies -Above lst floor Commercial, office Complies -Residential Only in conjunction Complies Restrictions w/commercial Max. 1/2 floor area of total As previously approved, project complies on a district wide basis Second story and above Complies Physical and acoustical Conditioned (mitigation separation from comm'l measure) On contiguous floors within Complies a single structure Separate pedestrian ingress Complies and egress Secured, designated parking Complies 4.7.02 Min. Parcel Size 2500 sq. ft. 81,892.8 sq. ft. (1.88 acres) Min. Lot Frontage 25 ft. 347 feet 4.7.03 Max Density/Intensity FAR 2.0=163,785 sq. ft. 123,940 sq. ft. 1 unit/1,742 sq. ft.=47 units 45 units 4.7.04 Max. Bldg Height 4 stories/45 feet * 4 stories/54 feet 4.7.06 Min. Setback Front-Main St. 5 ft. build to line Complies Front-5th St. 5 ft. setback Conditioned for 5 ft. min. 99 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 10 (97SR13) SECTION ISSUE f CODE PROVISION PROPOSED :.. .: z.. _ _ 4.7.07 Min. Setback Ext. Side (Olive and 5 ft. setback * Between 0 and 5 ft. Orange) 4.7.09 Min. Setback Covered portion of all Average of 10 feet from 2nd * Third and Fourth Residential stories above the 2nd story facade Levels do not average 10 ft. setback 4.7.10 Min. Open Space Common open space 5% of site=4,092 sq. Ft *3,235 sq. ft. Public Plaza -street level corner, face Complies Main *In linear pattern along Main -Min. 1,000 sq.ft. in one area Conditioned -30% landscaped Conditioned -Textured paving Conditioned -Visual Feature (fountain, info kiosk, etc) Conditioned -Public Seating Conditioned -Max 50% of plaza on private property as commercial uses *Special Permit request ** Conditional Use Permit Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the environmental assessment and determined that no significant impacts are anticipated as a result of the proposed project that could not be mitigated to a level of insignificance with proper design and engineering. Subsequently,Negative Declaration No. 96-16 (Attachment No. 7)was prepared with mitigation measures pursuant to Section 240.04 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and the provisions of the California Environment Quality Act(CEQA). AM PC Staff Report-2/11/96 11 (97SR13) i. The Department of Community Development advertised draft Negative Declaration No. 96-16 for twenty (20) days commencing on Thursday,December 19, 1996 and ending on Tuesday, January 7, 1997. One written comment from the Environmental Board was received and a response has been included with the attached Negative Declaration. Prior to any action on Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R), it is necessary for the Planning Commission to review and act on Negative Declaration No. 96-16. Staff, in its initial study of the project, is recommending that the negative declaration be approved with findings and mitigation measures. Coastal Status: The proposed project is within a non-appealable portion of the Coastal Zone. Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R) is being processed concurrently with Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)pursuant to Section 989.5 of the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program. The proposed project complies with the zoning code and Coastal Zone requirements, and will implement the following policies of the Coastal Element of the General Plan: • Protect, encourage and, where feasible, provide visitor-serving facilities in the Coastal Zone that are varied in type and price. • Improve the appearance of visually degraded areas. • Ensure that adequate parking is provided in all new development in the Coastal Zone. Redevelopment Status: The project is located in the Main-Pier Redevelopment Project Area of the City of Huntington Beach. The Redevelopment Agency is the property owner and co-applicant on the proposal and will be assuming the responsibility for meeting affordable housing requirements as required for the project. Design Review Board: The proposed project was submitted to the Design Review Board on December 19, 1996. The Board reviewed the colors, materials, design, and preliminary landscape plans for the mixed use project. The Board was informed of the special permit requests for height,upper story setbacks,reduced open space, and setbacks, and the request to texturize and use the public right-of-way for open space plaza area. Since the applicant only presented perspective drawings of the proposed project but no actual elevations, the Board expressed an interest in reviewing the final design details including paving, colors, materials, outdoor dining enclosures, tree specimens, and elevations. The Design Review Board recommended approval of the project with the following condition of approval: /D/ PC Staff Report-2/11/96 12 (97SR13) • • 1. Prior to submittal of building permits, the final design, including but not limited to colors, materials, architectural elements, and landscape plans, shall be subject to a second review and approval by the Design Review Board. If any changes are made to the DRB approved plans during the plan check process,then a subsequent review and approval by the DRB will be required prior to issuance of building permits. Subdivision Committee: The proposed one lot subdivision was reviewed by the Subdivision Committee on Friday, January 17, 1997. The Planning Division introduced the one lot subdivision and explained that the proposed condominium plan to divide the airspace into saleable and leaseable lots would be reviewed by the Department of Real Estate. The Subdivision Committee reviewed the recommended conditions of approval for the tentative map from the Planning Division, Public Works Department, and Fire Department. Two important considerations raised at the Subdivision Committee meeting were: 1. The residential parking spaces within the secured parking garage shall be illustrated by the condominium plan so that each of the 45 residential units is assigned two of the parking spaces with the purchase of the townhome. 2. The storage units provided within the residential parking garage shall be divided by the condo plan so that each of the 45 residential units is assigned at least one of the minimum 100 cubic feet of storage space with the purchase of the townhome. Other Departments Concerns: The.Departments of Public Works and Fire, and Building Division have recommended conditions which are incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police Department Crime Prevention Specialist has reviewed the project and recommended some conditions of approval to increase safety through lighting in the parking garage and around the project. These concerns have been incorporated into the conditions of approval. The Police Department also has recommended conditions of approval to discourage public seating, and thus loitering, within the plaza area of the project. However, this particular recommendation conflicts with the goals of the"Village Concept" and the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan which requires provision of public seating opportunities and therefore, the applicant has designed public seating into the plaza elements of the project. The Crime Prevention Specialist has indicated that certain features of the project such as decorative paving and interesting landscaping are positive ways to increase perceived ownership of the area and thus more control by people who belong in the area. - /D Z. PC Staff Report-2/11/96 13 (97SR13) • • ANALYSIS: As discussed below, there are numerous issues for analysis in this unique mixed-use redevelopment project. Plaza Almeria has been studied with regards to parking, compatibility, affordable housing, impacts to schools, inclusion of public art, building height,public improvements, and analysis of special permit requests. During an early stage of project design,staff and the applicant consulted with an outside architect, Johannes Van Tillburg, for assistance in developing the best possible mixed use project for the Plaza Almeria site. Mr. Van Tillburg is a renown architect experienced in the design of mixed use projects and he designed the Janss Court mixed use project at the Third Street Promenade in Santa Monica. Throughout the evolution of the project design, staff has kept the Planning Commission and City Council abreast of the status of the project at separate study sessions. Parkin Parking for the mixed use project was calculated using the shared parking ratios as approved in the Downtown Parking Master Plan. Parking is provided for residential and commercial uses within the subterranean and above ground parking structure with the concept of sharing parking for residential guest and office uses. As illustrated in the zoning conformance matrix above, a total of 284 parking spaces are required and the project is proposed with 276 parking spaces. However,the applicant has requested that eleven (11) of the twenty-three required residential guest spaces be shared with the eleven (11) spaces for office. Staff received a letter from the applicant on February 6, 1997 that stated the plans will be revised for a total of 15,000 square feet of restaurant. By requesting to share the office parking spaces with residential guest parking spaces, all uses, including future restaurant uses, will be parked on-site. Staff supports the request to share 11 of the required 23 residential guest parking spaces because office uses and visitors to the residents typically arrive at different times. It is expected that peak operating hours for office uses will occur during the daytime while the majority of residential guests will arrive during the evening hours. The proposal to share guest with office spaces is a compatible use of parking at the site. In conformance with the Downtown Specific Plan staff has included a condition of approval to require the applicant to submit a Parking Management Plan prior to issuance of building permits. The Parking Management Plan shall include a policy for employees to park on site and a validation program that matches the validation offered at the City parking structure. The Plan shall also provide for a minimum of two (2) of the residential parking spaces to assigned to each of the 45 residential units. In addition to the Parking Management Plan,the parking spaces shall be designated by unit on the condominium plan. The Parking Management Plan shall be included in the CC & R's for the project and shall be distributed to all buyers and tenants of the site. /03 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 14 (97SR13) The proposed project includes substantial improvements within the public right-of-way. The applicant is requesting to relocate all of the existing parking spaces on Main Street to 90 degree parking on 5th Street. The applicant then intends to provide paving and landscaping improvements within the public right-of- way in the location of the parking stalls. The improvements are proposed in a similar fashion to the wide sidewalks and outdoor dining areas that are provided further south on Main Street in the_first and second blocks. A total of 44 parking spaces currently exist on all four sides of the project. In order to maintain the 44 parking spaces and suffer no net loss of parking or parking meter revenue with the removal of stalls on Main Street, the applicant is proposing to restripe Olive and Orange Avenues as well. All restriping of parking within the public right-of-way shall be subject to review and approval of the City's Traffic Engineer. It should be noted that the 90 degree parking along 5th Street serve as a prototype to restripe and generate additional parking spaces if the remaining blocks to the south are restriped for 90 degree parking. School Impacts Pursuant to a policy of the new General Plan, the developer met with the Huntington Beach Union High School District and the Huntington Beach City Elementary School District with the intent to mitigate the project's potential impacts to school facilities prior to the public hearing. According to information from the High School District,the developer and the districts have recently negotiated an agreement and the developer will pay a certain amount in school fees prior to issuance of building permits for the project. Public Art The City of Huntington Beach has expressed an interest in promoting, encouraging, and requiring public art in new commercial development projects. In addition,the Urban Design Element of the General Plan stresses the inclusion of unique architectural elements at all City entrances, along major thoroughfares, and in core areas of the City. Since Main Street is considered the central corridor of the downtown area, inclusion of public art is recommended as a condition of approval for the mixed use commercial and residential project known as Plaza Almeria. Staff suggests that the public art be incorporated into the project in a publicly accessible place and in a permanent manner. The public art element should be subject to approval of the Community Development Director, the Cultural Services Manager, and the Design Review Board. Public Improvements The applicant proposes to make substantial public improvements on all four sides of the Plaza Almeria project. As described below in Special Permit No.'s 4 and 5, the majority of public open space is designed within the public right-of-way. There are two issues in regards to the public improvements; first how the proposed paving, landscaping, lighting, and sidewalk improvements comply with the approved plans for street improvements in the Downtown,and second,how the City assures that the property owner is responsible for maintaining all special improvements within the public right-of-way. The proposed landscaping and pavement improvements do not match the existing approved plans for Main Street. In order for the developer to proceed with the proposed plans, the City Council will need to take action to l0� PC Staff Report-2/11/96 15 (97SR13) permit the deviation similar to the approval action taken for the Oceanview Promenade improvements on the northwest corner of Main Street and Pacific Coast Highway. Since most of the open air commercial activity takes place within the public right-of-way and the improvements will not be consistent with the existing approved plan, the property owner will be required to enter into a Maintenance and License agreement with the City. The license agreement will include requirements for insurance to hold the City harmless and contain specific details to ensure that the property owner permanently maintains the public right-of-way immediately adjacent to the project. It should be noted that all outdoor dining will be subject to separate conditional use permit approval. If approved,the outdoor dining permits will also contain provisions to require license and lease agreements with the operators. Compatibility Compatibility between residential and the commercial/office uses is a major concerns within a mixed use project. It is important to design the project so that noise, odor,traffic,refuse collection, parking, and security, etc., impacts are mitigated to the greatest extent possible. Through the joint efforts of the property owner,the architect, and City staff, Plaza Almeria has been continually revised and redesigned in order to achieve the best possible design to compatibly mesh the residential and commercial components of the project. The design has evolved a number of times over the past year and has resulted in a project that will be both marketable and protect the interest of the future residents at the site. Two of the recommended mitigation measures of Negative Declaration No. 96-16 are intended to minimize conflicts between the residential and commercial aspects of the project. One mitigation measure requires all restaurant ventilation and mechanical shafts to be no lower than the highest residential roof in order to separate.potential odor sources as much as possible from the residents. Another mitigation measure requires that an acoustical engineer submit a report analyzing trash chutes, ventilation shafts,trash pick-up methods and routes,to mitigate all noise sources to the maximum extent possible. Through the mitigation measure, the property owner will be required to demonstrate the results and recommendations of the noise study prior to submittal of any building permits. The types of commercial uses proposed within the mixed use project is also a concern to staff due to the close proximity to residential uses. In order to minimize potential impacts to the residential units staff recommends a condition of approval limiting the types of uses that will be allowed on the second floor where the office is currently designed. Since the Downtown Specific Plan does allow some commercial uses on second floors as long as parking can be met, staff recommends a condition of approval to prohibit noise generating uses, such as, live entertainment on the second floor. In addition, staff recommends that a disclosure regarding the mixed use nature of the project be provided in the CC & R's. All potential residents should be required to sign a waiver or disclosure form that it is understood that Plaza Almeria is a mixed use project and that uses such as, restaurant, live entertainment, and alcohol sales, etc. may be established on the ground floor of the building. PC Staff Report-2/11/96 16 (97SR13) It is a code requirement to design all aspects of the residential portion of a mixed use project so that the pedestrian and vehicular access to the site is secured. To this end,the applicant has included a separate residential parking garage with its own entrance and all pedestrian access points will be secured by locked gates, elevators, and staircases. Staff has determined,however,that the security of the residential access off of 5th Street should be improved to provide total security on both the entrance and exit to the site. A suggested condition of approval to redesign the residential gate has been included in this report. As required by code, the residential and commercial tenants will be provided with separate refuse facilities to meet their needs. The residents will be able to send their trash to one of four collection points via trash chutes provided on the first level of residential units. The second floor office tenants will dispose of refuse in the same manner; via chutes to the main level parking garage. The ground floor tenants will access the refuse bins via an exit corridor at the rear of the commercial and restaurant suites. The City has received a letter from Rainbow Disposal that the proposed method of trash collection and the number of bins provided for the project appear to be adequate at this time. Rainbow will need to review and approve the proposal prior.to finalization of the design. Deliveries to the retail, restaurant, and office tenants are proposed to occur at a designated loading area on Orange Avenue at the northwest corner of the site. This area is currently designated as a bus stop, however, the conditions of approval include a requirement to pursue relocating the bus stop to the east side of Main Street just north of Orange Avenue. If the applicant is unsuccessful in relocating the bus stop, an alternate loading location shall be subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director and if necessary, by the Planning Commission. Affordable Housing The project is required to provide 15% of the total units for affordable housing because it is in a Redevelopment Project Area. In this case, 15% of 45 units equals 7 units. As co-applicant for the project the Redevelopment Agency intends to meet this code requirement by rehabilitating 8 off-site apartment units and offering the units as affordable to qualifying families for a 30 year period. Out of the total 7 units which are required as affordable for this site,40%or 3 units must be provided as affordable to families of very-low income. The remaining 60% of the affordable units or 4 units may be provided to families of low-moderate income. A condition of approval to require submittal of an Affordable Housing Plan has been included as a condition of approval. Townsquare Parking The 1991 approval of the mixed use project included a condition of approval to provided 18 parking spaces for the adjacent Townsquare mixed use project within the Plaza Almeria project. However, the Redevelopment Agency is now requesting that the requirement for Townsquare parking be deleted entirely from the Plaza Almeria conditions of approval. (See Attachment No. 5). Since the 18 spaces is no longer proposed at this site but are still required as a condition of approval on Townsquare, the Agency has three options to comply with this previous condition as follows: 106 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 17 (97SR13) Prior to Certificate Of Occupancy for Plaza Almeria,the following shall be completed: 1. The 18 parking spaces previously required on this site for the Townsquare project shall be provided at an off-site location, 2. The 18 parking spaces shall be satisfied by payment of an in-lieu parking fee subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission through the conditional use permit process, 3. An entitlement plan amendment to delete or revise the condition of approval on the Townsquare project shall be applied for to the Planning Commission. Building Height: The residential portion of the proposed structure is four stories above grade. However, the height of the building varies from its highest point along Main Street to the lowest point along 5th Street. The height of the building is 54 feet to midpoint of the roof of the residential units above the office space on Main Street, 41 feet, 6 inches to the midpoint of the roof of the units on the remainder of the site, and 64 feet to the top of the architectural (tower) element along Main Street as demonstrated in the chart below. The following comparison shows building heights for other multi-story projects in the immediate vicinity and additional discussion regarding height is provided under Special Permit No. 1 below. A) Town Square - 38 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 43 feet to the top of the highest peak B) Second Block Parking Structure - 35 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 45 feet to the average height of towers - 60 feet to the peak of the highest towers C) Pierside Pavilion - 63.5 feet to the highest average roof pitch - 71 feet to the top of the highest roof pitch - 84.5 feet to the top of the tower D) Oceanview Promenade (Abdelmuti Project) - 85 feet to the top of the clock tower - 67 feet to the peak of the fourth floor E) Team Building (Starbuck's) - 39 feet to peak of the second floor glass tower - 30 feet to top of second floor /Q 7 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 18 (97SR13) Special Permits As indicated above, the applicant has requested approval of six special permits. Section 4.1.02 of the Downtown Specific Plan allows the Planning Commission to grant special permits for deviations from the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. Special permits may be approved when the Planning Commission determines that significantly greater benefits from the project can be provided than would occur if all the minimum requirements were met. In addition, the Planning Commission must determine that the project and related special permits will also: . 1. Promote better living environments; and 2. Provide better land planning techniques with maximum use of aesthetically pleasing types of architecture, landscaping, site layout and design; and 3. Not be detrimental to the general health, welfare, safety and convenience of the neighborhood or City in general, nor detrimental or injurious to the value of property or improvements of the neighborhood or of the City in general; and 4. Be consistent with objective of the Downtown Specific Plan in achieving a development adapted to the terrain and compatible with the surrounding environment; and 5. Be consistent with the policies of the Coastal Element of the City's General Plan and the California Coastal Act; and 6. Comply with State and Federal law. Special Permit No. 1 is a request to permit portions of the 4 story structure at a greater height than allowed by code. The project is proposed with a building height of 54 feet to the midpoint of the roof for the residential units on the third and fourth floors above the office space facing Main Street. The maximum height allowed for these units is 45 feet to the midpoint of the roof. The applicant has indicated that the greater building height is necessary to allow for the commercial, office, and residential suites to be designed competitively with other state-of-the-art projects. Current trends by commercial retailers demand greater ceiling height and airspace volume to create a pleasing aesthetic environment and serve as mechanically functional space. Similarly, office tenants and residential buyers have consistently favored higher ceiling volumes. The applicant's written justification for special permits (Attachment No. 6) states that the current code of 45 feet cannot accommodate four stories of current market driven activities and demands. Staff supports the request for greater building height along the Main Street frontage because the extra height is requested only for nine out of the eleven units proposed along Main Street above the office spaces. The units at the two corners of the project at Main and Olive and at Main and Orange have been scaled back so that the special permit for height is only needed in the middle of the Main Street frontage. Scaling back the units at the corners of the project allows for varied architectural design and interesting movement from the outside to center of the project. The desired tiered effect can be achieved by allowing the middle portion of the building at a 54 foot height. /0ff PC Staff Report-2/11/96 19 (97SR13) This special permit also includes a request to permit portions of the building's roof line architectural treatment at a height of 65 feet in lieu of the maximum 55 feet allowed by code. The additional height for roof line treatment is proposed for the central tower structure on the Main Street frontage. By allowing the tower with an additional 10 feet,the tower will serve its purpose of a focal and anchoring point at the mid-plaza level. Staff supports this request for additional roof line height. Special Permit No. 2 is a request to permit portions of the ground floor building setbacks on Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue between zero (0) and five (5) feet in lieu of the minimum code required five (5) foot setback. The applicant's written justification states that a commercial frontage effect on Olive and Orange Avenues can be better achieved if the building wall is designed at a zero setback in some areas. In addition,the applicant indicates that by allowing a closer setback on the street level, the project can create additional movement in the building wall between the street level commercial and the office and residential units above. Staff supports this request for encroachment into the setback on Olive and Orange but does not support the request on 5th-Street. Staff can support the Olive and Orange encroachments into the minimum five foot setback because the overall request is very minimal. The reduced setback is mostly proposed on Olive and Orange between the former alley and Main Street. The only portion encroaching into the setback east of the former alley is the transformers on Orange Avenue. Staff recommends, however,that these transformers be screened from view through some creative architectural treatment or landscaping or by sinking the transformers below grade. In addition, staff agrees that the reduced setback on the ground floor allows for greater flexibility in design for the floors above. Although the encroachment into the five foot setback on 5th Street is only necessary for a small portion of the stairs leading to the residential level, staff does not support the encroachment along this sensitive frontage and recommends a condition of approval to amend the project and meet the minimum setback. The suggested conditions of approval and subsequent revisions to the plans will ensure that the project complies with the Pedestrian Overlay General Plan Land Use designation on the site. Special Permit No. 3 is a request to permit portions of the upper story setback along Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue between zero (0) and ten (10) feet in lieu of the code required average of an additional ten(10) foot setback from the second story facade. The applicant's written narrative justifies the request to deviate from upper story setbacks in select areas because some elements of the structure have been pulled forward while other areas have been setback from the building facade. Staff agrees that although the design deviates from the strict interpretation of the code,the building design does achieve interesting and creative movement in the building's facade. However, in order to focus the scale of the building to the pedestrian eye level, staff recommends a condition of approval to require more architectural features on the ground floor building facade on all sides of the project. Additional architectural features should focus especially on incorporating awnings or eyebrows above windows, additional arches and pop-outs, and redesigning the parking garage ventilation arches to be more unobtrusive and to match the elements in the residential units on the third and fourth floors. �0 9 PC Staff Report-2/11/96 20 (97SR13) Special Permit No. 4 is a request to permit 3,235 square feet of public open space within the net site area in lieu of providing the code required 4,092 square feet of public open space within the net site area. Staff is able to support this request to reduce the amount of public open space provided because the project will be redesigned so that the minimum building setback on Main Street will be six (6) feet and additional open space (an approximate 10 foot.by 28 foot area for outdoor dining) will be provided in front of the. restaurant on the east side of the project. This recommendation has been added as a condition of approval. In addition, staff recommends that Plaza Almeria permanently provide elements of public art. This unique condition of approval will serve to unify the project's open space,provide for interesting aesthetic detail, improve the quality of the public open space, and implement a goal of the General Plan. Implementation of these conditions of approval will result in additional quality public open space provided within the net site area and allow staff to support the request for special permit. Special Permit No. 5 is a request to permit 3,235 square feet of public open space in a linear pattern along the street frontages in lieu of the minimum code required 1,000 square foot plaza within one centralized plaza area. Although the proposed project does not comply with the strict interpretation of the code,the applicant has designed a unique open space plaza along the entire front of the project on Main Street. Part of the applicant's proposal includes a request to relocate and restripe the existing 44 on-street parking spaces on all four sides of the Plaza Almeria project. The parking spaces on Main Street will be relocated to 90 degree parking on 5th Street so that the public right of way on Main Street becomes part of the open space plaza area for the project. Minor restriping of the spaces along Orange and Olive Avenues will ensure that the new public parking plan does not result in the loss of any parking spaces that currently exist on the site. It should be noted that the on-street parking spaces will not count towards code required parking that must be provided on-site for the project. Staff supports the request to provide the open space in a linear fashion along Main Street instead of in one centralized area because the public improvement plan enables the applicant to utilize the public right-of-way to create a unique, stylized, and special plaza area thus_meet the goals and policies of the Pedestrian Overlay General Plan Land Use designation on the site. The unique plaza area and use of the public right-of-way for open space will also allow outdoor dining to be provided immediately adjacent to the building wall thereby reducing conflicts with pedestrians, diners, and servers. In addition, the increased open space discussed and required in Special Permit No. 4 above will result in lessening the impact of this special permit request. Special Permit No. 6 is a request to permit 15,600 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in lieu of the code required 20,735 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet. The applicant's narrative indicates that the common open space was purposefully designed on a smaller more intimate scale to achieve the effect of a European Village. Although a central open space area has been designed in the middle of the west side of the project,no amenities for use by the residents have been depicted on the site plan. Staff recommends a condition of approval to require the inclusion of a combination of amenities throughout the open space area, such as, barbecues, an outdoor fireplace, seating areas, shade structures, etc. While the public open space does not meet the minimum size or dimensions,the private open space has been designed so that it is almost double the amount of private open space required by code. Staff supports the request for a reduction in public open space for all the reasons above and because the project is providing 10,205 square feet of private open space when only 5,400 square feet is required. PC Staff Report-2/11/96 21 (97SR13) SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of Negative Declaration No. 96-16/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits and Tentative Tract Map No. 14352.(R), for the mixed use Plaza Almeria for project the following reasons: • The project will not be detrimental to the general health, welfare and safety to persons working or living in the area, nor detrimental to the value of the property or improvements in the area. • The proposed mixed use project will be compatible with the uses and structures on the adjacent surrounding properties. • With the modifications suggested by staff, additional open space will be provided along Main Street, the building elevations will include additional architectural treatment to enhance the aesthetic appearance of the project, creative use of landscaping and textured pavement will create a unique and interesting public open space, and a public art element will be included in the project design. • With the modifications suggested by staff, the project design will create a character and scale consistent with the pedestrian orientation along 5th Street. • The proposed mixed use project is consistent with the MV-F6/25-sp-pd (Mixed Use Vertical-2.0 FAR/25 du/acre-specific plan-pedestrian overlay Land Use designation of the General Plan. • With the conditions imposed, the special permit requests to exceed maximum building height, encroach into ground floor and upper story setbacks, reduce public open space size and location, and reduce common residential open space will not be materially detrimental to surrounding properties or residents. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. Deny Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R)with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 with findings for denial. B. Continue Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R)/Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)/Negative Declaration No. 96-16 and direct staff accordingly. PC Staff Report-2/11/96 22 (97SR13) ATTACHMENTS: 2. Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations dated January 24, 1997. 3. Tentative Tract Map No. 14352 (R)dated January 27, 1997 4. Narrative dated December 17, 1997 5. Memo from David Biggs to Melanie Fallon dated December 12, 1997 6. Letter from Michael C. Adams Associates dated February 6, 1997 7. Negative Declaration No. 96-16 (Includes Environmental Checklist Mitigation Measures, and Comment Letter from Huntington Beach Environmental Board) SH:JM:kjl PC Staff Report-2/11/96 23 (97SR13) RECEIVED SITE DATA JAN 2 419W COMMERCIAL TABULATION DEPARTMENT F MlWR NET SM Benr��OEDICAnOW bbiib"er OAOO A fAqV W+ COMMUNITY DEVEL P ENT � 21475 SP. Tat116 ces6IOATWR 0lr.OISTOCT S OS>®tab 0 5TA PAW 6721 Sr. C6F4w LAW LEY YACART.OHYJ: OFF" Dam Sr, RAra+R>9 Ppzpo'm TOTAL COMCICIAL ARIA 41000 sr. OOWTT, a OIL rm MY KR 24 OD.FOR IET ACRE . MAAOAM B0Lmo HDOOOT POR STORES I AS 1ST F"SfON95 CaOR CM SPACE of Of 01N0 Sr.•2075!or, 06m Sr.(APPROK SOR MSTS Uri CRITMA Rt �1M PllL1L OfBI SPACE 71 Q MT 4JTL 3277 Hi1fM PfOfel7Y lAlS PWA2 CPS SPACE 2 aWW WTS 40Q Sr. W Sr.mm R 4S W -5.400 Sr. W20S Sr, TOTAL OPIII vmz 2615!Sr. 25003 if. FLOOR AREA KATO 2.0.AIPTS 5l.•N5.T06 Sr. 121.1A0 Sr. 1 RESIDENTIAL TABULATION PARKING TABULATION tW YYPa DeV-nr 10M elm PMAATI"SPACE W. TOTAL SOARS PCOTA6a PAwm STRICTWE(sTRET LrAIJ OS(RETAIL! A 2 amwom 25 OATH POD Sr. DICK CIO Sr. S SAW Sr.fto Sr.orm PAmme L-WIL-I 0T(WAL 1 . B 2 aEDWO"23 BATH I679 SP. YAM CO N.MR 0 10,4E Sr.my Sr.Or b PAWAO LaAi 13 46(Ke510Q(TIAL) t c 2 OmROW u aM WO Sp. YARD rn Sr.MR 10 QAOO Sr.(2420 Sr.Omo Wa 2 WMWO H2 OAN 2105 Sr. DOCK 560 Sr. I Zvi Sr.moo Sr.orm PAWNS L&M 2 S2(Re5lVWAL) e 2 BmROOM 2 SATM 7W Sr. MOCK 220 SP. 1 1V0 Sr.12W Sr.QMO TOTAL rAJ KW SPACES PROADED, 216 P 2 BmR00M 23 BATH 1010 Sr. YAM, CW Sr.00L 2 9.740 Sr.00 Sr,0Pd1 a($TAW rARKak%' 44 PACES eMTOO M SPACES PROPOSED O 2 amROp1 20 BATH 1020 Sr. YAIID 25 Sr.1wL a 12DO Sr.M"O Sr.a" a 2 amRaOa 23 OATH MID Sr. YARD WV.MIL S S.Atl Sr.(AID Sp.omo PARKOK ply M 2 BEDROOM 25 SAW MO V. YARD WSr.ML 2 !SOD SF am Sr.a" DIAL, 41a00 Sr. J 2 RDR="20 OATH 2500 Sr. DICK 150 Sr. I 25a0 Sr.µW Sr.OPSSII K 2 BEDROOM 23 OATH ;DSO V. DOCK 100 Sr. 1 2m Sr.(160 sr,cma RITAIL. 44 SACaS(23.479 Sr.AT I SPACE Pelt a0 SPJ M 2 EWWOM 29 OATH IRS SP. DECK W Sr.Owl 1 LRS Sr.(w Sr.DPW RESTALAAMT, 44 SPACES(6125 AT I SPACE PM 00 SP) R 7 MW04 23 BATH 24"Sr. DOCK CW Sr. 1 1415 Sr.(00 Sr.—aw � OrPOCE: 0 SPAM MOW AT I SPACE PBL IDm SY) , D 2 OIDROOM 25 BATH INN Sr. OWA WSr. I 200 Sr.020 S.P.cmv _ P 2 aww=m 23 GATM .=10 Sr. O WK m Sr. I 20V Sr.a22 SP.OPBO TOTAL SOARED, W YACa(TO PROADm) a 2 SOROOM 2S OATH TMD Sr. VWK S00 Sr. I Ertl Sr.CM sr.CnW CIA 2 NOW"2S BATH 1T2o sr. PXK 215 Sr. I LT20 sr.an Sr.area RE5971DMAL� AS 04TS TOTAL 43 01440 Sr.00207 Sr.DPW TTW BTtOa112m 0 SFAV!S(2 SPACES MR DR R 49 WTS4 V SOa= .. 3 OIEST SPACES K 49 IMTS•a ME571 1 i TOTAL PANUMS RE209D, 256 SPACES a s 1 . 1 O 1 ■ t T R T D I.T. DEVELOPMENT LLC f naRD BLACK WE$r 1/10/97 1 FA zz Will P I � 7 rn VIEW FROM ORANGE AND MAW ALMEWA 0 J.T. DEVELOPMENT LLG N THPRD BLOCK WEST ivzsr% IBM 6 Ly � R 111��_. FEN 111'111111"'IIICllldd+�"G•111 •^� ti �T rn z VIEW FROM ORANGE AND MAW o Pr A7 A.LtfFRJA • 1 . r , o 9 T J.T. DEVELOPMENT LLC THIRD BLOCK WEST 11/25/96 ��.sra�s�a� wn,aa waa� r C� m z VIEW FROM OWE AND MAW O PLA7AiRin7 A • Gila ? e J.T. DEVE1.oPIVIFNT LLC N THIRD BLOCK NESTi�nsise l c � a , AD C� b L VIEW FROM FIFTH AND OLIVE EL e ' T w o o JT. DEVEIAPMEM' LLC. THIRD BLOCKK WEST It ii U`� 'ON 1N3V'4HPVIIV I I I � I , __---_—_—_—_—_—_ OLIVE AVENUE ^I_ yw rr r I I � ' �-'__'___________________,�� _______________� i I1 Y Y Y a Y • 1 • t � , 1 Y . a a i z+ q I v 1 • —� I i t NI t I= + rnl ro i rn' rn 6 ti �rn o � I � I-•' . I xr u.r r • a _ I , ' I I � + I + r I I, -I� II _—_—___ -- —_ .�_—_r r ORANGE AVENUE ^_^_ m , H � I Q � • a ----I--- -- --r-- - r----FIFTH STREET — — -----® --------- --- I !/♦ TO V 1 ♦ I ♦O ♦ �, f�iDB1IW. I Li ' DQR'f/E70T 1 1 _ I I 0 _ 1 I ----- r rea s 4000 SP. - 2 1. — — 0 T- W Z JL JL b `.L 1�1 =1 1 S 1�_L• JL �JL Jl b 1 �.. JL A.—� I> <I A ENTRY �►'� yr• w a irl .v r,r ri I w i y @/fRY/FJOY W • 71 ' O A F 'av —•N N 'N N N ,N __. t r n.71 Ira h IOC 1 I I 1 P I ' 1 �•. I m5T i i i I i i i i i i y t 6.425 SP. I I car cw I I II cow cw I } I -------------- 1 I , .� ar r it a v a ��— ---- I --- ---- -------- ----- -----�----- -- ---- I— K e -- ( MAIN STREET 1 -------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ! MAIN LEVEL ! COMQL UAL NGT MWREA "m spA St. GOY.ERGN_PAJWSNAR f N 31YTJ A, UMT; czs nNGLig2S I SN.�erD RC51DB4Y1.�L euesn ON ST92MT rAFMNO 44 SIACZ • I•.16' J.T. DEVELOPNOWL LLC. o r THM BLACK WEST vlor97 • r r / � r Ire ��II■i ■ >f+r`r• r r �.•u r ,,;u;rfd:tuterst�truuurftriutraterurUuxu��frs�6• Grt to.4i5 i t11J11:...L 1.•a WOMI 'ir ! \� .4tl1X:J?z47J1FJC71�d11G'Jh7JL'tN1R'. b4�E7$71f!+.CAI R/% � 1 9 i Jim KEN:� 1 - IV � el:alr e1.i� �i ■ !' t r ��!•�y��fir,•i t .Y�..11��. � �-� i 1��':;''!. of�liYtdT�J3i1NNFk'�HrAJ1BJHl� tt&T�f9 Hi®m®■1 �11■�■1 . . 4f1i�1t L 1. ♦' I L t i ----I ----------------------FIFTN-5TREET _^- --------------------}�. I i s rr yr t rr r I s fw n w• rw e a r , I ti t r; I ' �. z+w Rwe.nH.rrwr i T tW z! WI A W Wi 1 1 OI � Z• ��ran � � I I � ! � � ( � i � 1 ;r 14 .. iK I I 4 f I 1 I , I i I , I rn I MAIN STREET — 1 I +-� PARKING LEVEL is Fteuve nA(,rAm"S M SPACAM �Z D� rore,�Rn+veKnH,rARwr� wo SrAGPS �c a J.T. DEVELOPMENT LLC. e N THM BLACK WW MU411)�MI��•/�w� 'ON 1N3M,0 llt� —Z I � I i I I 1 OLIVE AVENUE 1 i i 1 1 ' I spy i c�; I j I , 1 I t T�FFI l F 1 1 � I - I ,.j y -4- rn I �I • � A � � _—_- r---_ I 1 y mi , IA ! li 1 j i I 1 1 i I � 1 1 , RER , I � 1 1 ---- ------- -------=-=------1_—_— y ORAN6E AVENUE z , m , � N s J. I ---- +I----------------------FIFTH STREET -—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- i 1 r +a v wr s• wr yr o v •' a'L 0. = tu B r _ I I > Up O IF C G1 c1 + I I I I jc R ----- -—-—- . --------------MAIN 5tREET ___._-----------------'--------- rn i L LEVEL 2 O D� AS R HOWst. � 49 ESIDI@1lAL VNIT3 a � rw• 0 JT.,DEVELOPMENT UC. 3 N TI�iD BUXK WEST. ■�srssw vs ��sa �oran...� FIFTH STREET Ix�s �• ----i----------------------------------------------------j 1 �;:•:ayt�:w lr .re s v. n.'a• sr mr sr a v , ;.il s #� -fy,%piy��.$ j -1rs_ � >^ x��R" f"`�� '• �ss ? �'r,- si�.� r Y,' 4�3d , ,.i �., :Q f �,Ci� �/val i4¢r nE x k � /a �� i6. �s� Y• v 1 r i :. ',a� „sP �f_ fP` �'. ai.� I '�.7:I.'s c4•,:. ��4x y J'i� +,� e B w wl B ' GI c c G Ni * I'y w < •F'�. ::_frrc%e::r_:., r_ _ .�,,f1,i�:= r"a�__" Y. 'C .y.="'ylst!>Y.•__ )!•.+.:_'"fir j'-r. _r_j'.w_. w .,tl., yy., : fr ]d r- ea' �• _:�.: :fr_•f.-12 Up _I I F _ '-1-:•r C f ..�.n c c c Nct _'•�is'�f'r2t�d'hsrraru'r .sue --" ��y/j �'y��s ,yam sa: _' ,. '�� ,."fi`�F7 's'✓s.'�° ` t'(wety K� .Ps3' w'>H".X , 1.Y. r I ;a'x,;.,,t w'r,;€.Y/ ,t 'rGd"s a• ri"' :� WTI .,: C M A A K �i O N A A J 8 ' ',{jk•• . 1 t , 4 , 1 III -_•--_-_ IIII IIIII �_------------------- ----------------------_�_- •,re MAIN STREET 1 ' R 1 � OPEN AREA LEVEL ...n...... 2 WMMO,OPEN AReA 194,00 Sr. `OSPPIRE9IONGTIAL UNITS a Iri�O'J ��--�y (APPIRox soar me.TS GITY GR lmAJ -G— a ¢,? r �IVATe oPeN AREA(YARD9J ia,e sr. t �•IY • .' 3� It 4 ! i _R T IT. D THIRD BLOCK WEST _ Ad v.. T 'ON 1N3VIHOVJ-id j I i AVENUE j I I i I I f m I , I ' � Iy n �T T ;I rn ED Q � ' 0 m A r in to x I I . I _ � I I � m i — ' ORAN6E AVENUE m — —-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—-—- - -—-—-—- -—- -—- i C7 � j h z 'ON 1NMHOV-4v 9 V i I . OLIVE AVENUE I 1 I I � I I I i 1 I i I I e I I I i i I i ■ Z� I I li 'z t I I I � I I f > I I I i I � � I I � � i I I � � I I 1 I ---'-I ----------------- r ( ORANC?— AVENUE ' m 4 1 I sssa. Aotp } lroRAse —— oa 1 M.VTER DEC t -y- DG7ROOM ��-1 fOYC. r ' _ r u 1.4 MASTEK 11 rAM1LV ( LOPf DIwHS I f p } -1 VIHO aeo�aoM 1 MA�r_e 1 EEDnooM I uv,w oc i } vecc vECK Lj~.i ow e FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR THIRD FLOOR .SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR UNIT E UNIT C UNIT A 2760 I P. 1!9O l.P. "so SP. EACH U107 WILL HAVE ACCE33 TO A M04MUM*0 CU FT EACH UMT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A NOOMUM 100 CU FT EACH UNIt WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A MINIMUM 100 CU FT STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL LS lTORAGE LOCKER ON PARKMO LEVEL tS STORA08 LOCKER ON PARKOIO LEVEL tS Y N., >. M•A+S'i CG II ITORAOE I 9 MASTER DECK MASER PMLr INwN i LDPr .'I II �F�"" uwae uwwS --�I CE..K DpRooM u~ SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR C7 UNIT F UNIT D UNIT B "to SP. me AF. 1875 S.F. EACH UNIT VftL HAVE ACCE78 TO A M U M 100 CU FT EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A MMXMLM 100 CU FT EACH UNIT WR.L HAVE ACCESS TO A IIEe ALM WO CU FT STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL tS STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKMO LEVEL tS :ACM LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL LS r R J.T. DEVELOPMENT, LLC. I` BLOCK WEST 1/10/97 .� � .001..�.IIOf i..nN.00 Pu.d•.a � N I I I f �iu.sr PECK r Y r Ili•AD LOrY SrpKppp LOrr t LT D, II Diww I II11 111 � �^+*�< rA.nlr LIVIwO Dlww! LWY YbTLQ � D� 9E;K �N�� LIVIM r wlt• yy THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR UNIT M UNIT J UNIT G 1925". 2300$A. U20 6). EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A MINIMUM 100 CU FT EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A MMWW 100 CU FT EACH UNIT PALL HAVE ACCESS TO A MINMUM 100 CU FT STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL LS STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKL0 LEVEL LS STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL LS t 2.' 2A• 2s• fill Ir {IIII tl -- 2D x u:su eE�nalDr+ II I ,.I rarcR Lnrr wMSLI e i rA'W r�.ntr 'LOI'T GAOOw uvlle 0~0 II II III T s II c'w.0 bepwo.+ Diww I .. LIVIM N.bTM C^�'1Y K NMLT MA1TL4 P—LY MTHIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR z UNIT N UNIT K UNIT H 247E sr. :uo ar. via If. z EACH UNIT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A MIND&W 10a CU FT EACH UNIT VNLL HAVE ACCESS TO A MRONUM 100 CU FT EACH LWT VALL,NAVE ACCESS TO A NOM IM WO CU FT 1 0 STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL LS STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL LS STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL 1.6 J.T. DEVELDPMWr. I.L.C. TMD BLOCK WEST i/io/s7 2 I __ I 0• S YAAO O'Gti 1� .FOrz� MA9TEIl S[9ROOM LIMN$ LLaL FAwLr Larr V . Diwno I it .,�� J—,3 PA Lr —sTz% I I eerRaen. uvlNe -+— I DEGK 1 I 1� NSECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR ^ UNIT Q UNIT O "mil rno s.P, 2040 S.F.EACH UNIT WILL NAVE ACCESS TO A MINIMUMW00 CU AA FT EACH MY WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A L04U 100 CU PT 3 7011AGE LOCKER ON PARKWO LEVEL tS 370PAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL tS I III IF UJL II 4 YA MAPWL4 II 4 M—LT fl I I DINUW9 Ll O 1aF1 J x _A araRow I •fir SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR THIRD FLOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR _ UNIT R UNIT P TTEG a.P. 304 0 s P. t Z EACH LIMIT WILL HAVE ACCESS TO A WOOD"VO CU FT EACH UNIT TILL NAVE ACCESS TO A LiRrNN 300 CU FT } O STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL LS STORAGE LOCKER ON PARKING LEVEL tS s w•.r.o- J.T. DEVELOPMENT, LLC. I r THIRD BLOCK WEST /1o/s7 A H a inkL I I v ` I 1 11 Ll I I 1 I I I I I I I I 1 I I I I 1 I 1 $ I I 5 #I 5 n I I { I , i I I l i Ib I i I I i 1 i yy - I ----- ------- - ---_• -t------- fifi ff ro I I I I CO /3 o ATTACHMENT N0. aq A o w U- ce a i VQQ oq /31 A7A HMEN i NO. Q ---- ,S sum avau U 4s o0� ®® � u moo 999999999 .05. 5 99 IN 9 9 oho 0 AM=sit" wim"AmCHU" hl U o o a o o n n o o I U Mgl:mmuVel, \ f UNIT BRJR m n NMI IM fm 9 Q W PARKIN 6 6 A R A 6 E COURTYARD F1.El+ATMM TWO STORY TOWMOME4 I I. w ® II i4 ® �� 1111 14111 11 f UNIT G 71 4_1 rn COMMERCIAL SPACE COURTYARD ELWATMM TIMM SWRY TOWNMMM 0 va • r-O e e It r J.T. DEVELOPMENT LLC. o e � o N THUD BLOCK WEST V2M J� ��Ia A VIA �u PIN p Ilx �IIWhIU IN•,: xx'"I p MM�p i� I tlllll:n•. ...�IN6Nil IYJ . 01\�� IIIIIN I11Lm EE I IIIIN III I •• BUEDIING ELXVATIOM OLIVE AVENUE vVVJYU YY YL Mln:�i I h ,y• la A BRUNEI A A Eel .� i� � � �NI I11 II 1 • � 1 l i l l I�0 I I LI I I fT1 JJJ��44{ ��all ��7T7777 I I I 1 1 1 i 1 1 Z BUUDWG E"ATM ORANGE AVENUE w J.T. DEVEL.OPNO47 LLC THIRD BLOCK WEST z� RECEIVED J A N 2 71997 o REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 14352 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA r , PROPERTY OWNER VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE /�`��AP 5TH STREET THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF 4,t THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH i \\`a' S 41'36']7 W — 417.36_ — _ HUNTINGTON BESTRACH,CALIFORNIA 92648 p °� A (714)535-5901 [ W \ i $ 1 PROJECT S 41*36.30p W s' 349a LOT D DEVELOPER/APPLICANT LOCATION ORANE AIL 347.38 7 (n 4,t I6• 16• 35• 9' xr ^ 12. 12' 26• n 11 o J. T. DEVELOPMENT, INC. 6 PAUq OOA9T' - 5 F. ��=9P0D.ar IT=IOW P 15272 BOLSA CHID STREET AT R= I oo' 26•C1 � R=6.ar s LLJ HUNTINGTON BEACH.CALIFORNIA 92549 PACIFIC OCEAN L-11.01'.21F L= 12.57• (714)898-8665 z nl LOT 1 t 2LOT Cz "sal I w Q MAP PREPARED BY MAP DATA I.IJ - I. DATE PREPARED: NOVEMBER 15.1996 44• r HARK ENGINEERING, INC. Q ,J �p0 2. DATE REVISED: CALABALAI VENTURA BLVD..SUITE 210 ? 0.- ASAS,CALIF.91302 45- LOT B (81B)222-0301 ,. MAP SCALE: 1•-sOF "' — — ——— 1000' EMNA19/)V!O 4, TOTAL AREA: 1.929 ACRES GROSS,1.883 ACRES NET 30.00• 34' ALLEY(TO BE VACATED)�T 37.50' * S. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS.: 24-143-1,1,B.9, 10.It.12.17. — —— — — —————y— ——— — — —-40'— MARK D.HARDY,L.S.NO.5440 •pf CALjG� 10.20.23.24 k 25 1p• = REGISTRATION EXPIRATION DATE: 9-30-2000 6. TOTAL NUMBER OF PROPOSED LOTS: 57 10' 78' 97• n 7. EXISTING ZONWLG: DOMR4N SPECFIC PLNI(OTSO DISTRICT M COASTAL 701E n LEGAL DESCRIPTION W y Z 8. RNPOSM ZONING. DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC RNI(GIST)DISTRICT 5A COASTAL ZONE 'ai w Q LOTS I THROUGH 28.INCLUSIVE,OF BLOCK 304 OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 9. EXIS7WC LAND USE:VACANT J N '^ 2' HH TRACT,IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH,COUNTY OF ORANGE.STATE 0 - L OF CALLFORNN AS SHOWN ON A YAP FILED IN BOOK 3,PAGE 36 OF O 10. PROPOSED LAND USE:A MIXED USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF p'n LOT 2 T 3 SAM CO NEOS NAPS.W THE OFFICE Of THE COUNTY RECORDER Of COMMERCIAL/HEfNL/OfTtE BULLDNCS ON THE GROUND LEVEL AND 6 b SAO COIWTY, ON THE 2ND FLOOR.AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS OF VARYING J G 224361Y I HEICHI(LEVELS 2-4). PARKING WILL BE PROVIDED AT GROUND O=2]B57'01• R' I4,00' �^ LEVEL AND BY SUBTERRANEAN PARKING(1 LEVEL)CONSISTING OF R 1200' "5iB9 PROPOSED USE : LEVEL WILL BE`COYMERCIIAL%RETNL/OFFICE LEVELE PARKWOSUAR�RARM L-50.05• 3' 1 2ND LEVEL Of PARKING WILL BE DIVIDED INTO SECVRED RESIDENTIAL 1'� 42' TO' 9 I LOT A: SECURED RESIDENTIAL PARKING.COMMON AREA(LOWER LEVEL). PARKING AND RESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKING AREAS. 1 46' 1 23•� 4' to- It LOT B: COMMERCIAL PARKING,COMMON AREA(MARL LEVEL). I I. PUBLIC ACCESS PROPOSED:OLIVE SI.,5TH ST..AND ORANGE ST. aT37'37 E LOT B' x� 4ry PROPOSED DEgCATgN 519.B4' lDl C: RESIDENTIAL GUEST PARKING(NNN LEVEL k 2ND LEVEL). 12. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS ARE PROPOSED. 1 LOT B I L07 D: RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREA IMAN LEVEL). _ LOT E: COMMERCIAL PARKING.COMMON AREA(2ND LEVEL). UTILITY PURVEYORS16 f— N 41']T39"E 417.34' LOT F: COMMERCIAL OFFICE COMMON AREA(3RD LEVEL). ELECTRICAL POWER TELEPHONE MAIN STREET L07 C: RESgENTLLL COMMON AREA(]R0 LEVEL). SOUIMERN CALIFORNIA EDISON GENERA.TELEPHONE 7333 DOLSA AVENUE 7352 SLATER AVENUE GROUND LEVEL — COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/OFFICE AREA AND WESTWNISTER.CA 92683 HUNTING70N BEACH.CA 92547 RESIDENTIAL AREA PURPOSE STATEMENT LOT 1: COMMERC4AL/RETNL(MAN LEVEL 8 2ND LEVEL). NATURAL 1,A5 CABLE TELEVISION LOT 2: COMMERCIAL/RETAIL(MAIN LLKl!2ND LEVEL). 191I7HCRN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. L07 N0. DESCRIPTION LOWER VERTICAL UPPER VERTICAL $OWRE N47EM Of TENTATIVE FROG DAP N0, ION F I ARE PE. ME 1919 S:STATE COUCGE BLVD. PARAGON CABLE ELEVATION ELEVATION FOOTAGE HNC TO PREPARE A VERTICAL BOTH A COMM FOR,/HIS SIT RE Ah E. THE LOT J: COMMERCIAL/REfNI(WIN LEVEL 8 2ND LEVEL). TARO CHGROVE AVENUE PROPOSED ENT IS U AA BOTH A COM SANITARY S ER2803 & NCRC✓L/RE7M/OfFTLE CMOEN GROVE,G 92841 LOT B [OYNEILCNL COMMON AREA/[OYYERCML PARKING AND A RESIDENTIAL SUBdN$N)N. M[PURPOSE OF THE'VERTICAL lAl a: COYYEACIAL/OFFMS(3RD LEVEL). , SUBDIVISION IS TO SEPARATE THE NIKCD USE IL4.THE C01MER- SANITARY SEWER R LOT C: RESIDENTIAL PARKING CIAL/REWL/OFFN:E SITE WILL RE A SEPARATE L07 FROM THE LO7 5: COMMERCIAL/OfF1CC(SRO LEVEL). DOMESTIC HATER TRASH DISPOSAL RES"1Z SITE). THE FINAL TRACT MAP WILL INDICATE BOTH CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACH RAINBOW DISPOSAL CO. LOT 1: COMMERCIAL/RETML/OFfICE BUILDING (SEE ARCHITECT PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS AND SOUARE FEET) HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LIMITS OF THE PROPOSED LOTS. THE LOT 6-19;RESIDENTIAL(3RO!41N LEVEL). 1000 MAIN SIRECI 17121 NICHOLS STREET CREATON OF THIS VERTICAL SUBDIMSON WILL SEPARATE THE HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92647 LOT 2: COMMERCIAL/RE7NL/OFFICE BURRING CEOZRCML/RETAIL/OFFICE VENTURE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LOT 40-5D,RESIDENTML(STIR-5M LEVEL). rrVENfVRE AW WILL ENABLE SEPARATE FINANCING. lAl!: COYYERCINJRETAE/Ofi10E BUILDING ' LOT D: RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREA NOTES . PARKING STALL TABULATION RESIDENTIAL IOo 1. WE ASSUMED,FOR PURPOSES OF MIS MAP.AN ELEVATION OF 0.00 FOR GROUND LEVEL. /C�.. 2. ALL EXISTING ONSITE'MPROVEMENIS WILL BE REMOVED. COMMERCIAL I75 SHEET INDEX SHEET B� L AL E4S7WG UIILIIES(2'-.AS.d'WATERLINE,S SEWER SHEET I—GROUND LEVEL(LOTS I-S.B-0) 51KCf 4—THIRD FLOOR MOTS 6-11.F-G) AND POWER POLES)THAT•,..E WITHIN E'ISTING AL 171 WILL YAP DAIA MOTES IYPICAL SIRCE SECTIONS BE RELOCATED. SHEET 2—SU81ERRANEAN IEVELS tLOT A) SHEET 5—FOURM FLUOR(LOIS 40-50) N TOTAL is 3-DIYENSgNY1:CTAES TO ME BEST )F UIR n 'WLLU{,MERE IRE IN WELLS. ICE IRRIGATION LINES.•[SPOOLS. 'AWENY.•-UL'.ERIS.:FORM W SHEET 3—-CCOND fI WR ICI E) SHEET 6—BOUNDARY YAP DRAINS.SOLO A LOAD WASIf 16PYy SIIES.'M,MDER- SCCTNON A.-A GROIINO STRUCTURES nIHIN'H SUBDNIyON EICEPT S i SHEET 7—]DWENSgNAL UETNLS SHOWN ON THIS NAP. I REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 14352 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA nR° a 1 �GP 5TH STREET � s 4U6'3TT w 417.38 _ S 41.35'3r w 3E7JB 19 Y89' L LLJ w I I a Q I L------------J LOT A I I 30.00' 40.00- ID Is I 108, 138• I„ LLI LLJ C7 b b 30'm J „ O I i I I N 4I'371S E 347.31• I 8 - N 4I'37'J9'F MAIN STREET SUBTERRANEAN PARKING / STORAGE AREA LOT NO. DESCRIPTION LOWER VERTICAL UPPER VERTIGL SQUARE ELEVA12 ELEVATION TEE, LOT A: RESIDENTIAL PARKING/COMMON AREA (SEE ARCHITECT PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS AND SQUARE FEET) NOTES SHEET I, WE ASSUMED,TOR PURPOSES OF]HIS MAP.AN ELEVATION OF 0.00 FOR GROUND LEWL. W 7 SEE SHEET NO. 3 FOR SECTION A-A, O, SEE SHEET NO.4 FOR TYPICAL STREET SECIIONS. ..T �� . SEE SHEET NO. 7 TOR 3 DIMENSIONAL DET—S. 7 REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 14352 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 5TH STREET SECTION A—A S NOT TO SCALE S I1'36'30'W 347.36' 36," h 110' j. z)' ) .1 I to ,6 ^ , a 1 T = I6' o W Q " 1B• I r � �I LOT C " IR w a > a oos a a ^I 43 > I" SEE ARCHITECT PLANS FOR SECTION I 17 LOT E ID.W I WI 30.00' 39' '^ 0 43' n w I 7a 95• I c9 w b > H c o W g Q 0 UPPER PART UPPER PART Iry o lz• LOT 2 LOT 3 I ' II N.1'37'3y E 347.31' I MAIN STREET ' SECOND FLOOR - COMMERCIAL/RETAIL/OFFICE AREA AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS NOTES LOT NO. DESCRIPTION LOWER VERTICAL UPPER VE RtiCAL SOUARE 1. WE ASSUMED.FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MAP.AN ELEVATION ELEVATION ELEVATION FEEL OF 0,00 FOR GROUND LEVEL. . L07 C: RESIDENTIAL PARKING 2. SEE SKEET NO.2 FOR 3-DIMENSIONLL DEINLS. LOT I: COMMERCNL/RETAR/OFFICE AREA(IND FLOOR). (SEE ARCHITECT PLANS FOR ELEVAIIONS AND SQUARE FEET) 1 SEE SKEET NO,1 FOR TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS. LOT I: COMMJ3tCML/RETAIL/OFFICE AREA(IND FLOOR). 1. SEE SHEET NO. 7 FOR 3 DIMENSIONAL DETAILS. L07 3: COMAERCML/RETAIL/OFME,REA(IND FLOOR). SHEET LOT E: RESIDENTVL PAIXWG J OF I J a REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 14352 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS NOT TO SCALE ` 5TH STREET tC / S 11.38.3E w 12" w i VmEs I S 1 p F EASE y„pp 'YN S It'SB'W w g N7.36' ¢ MID I. �irtm -`EXIST i 1 l-� S PROP. _ CONE. LOT 11 N pl O N RO n m LOT 19 Wa EXIST.CR • RIOP.CLRR EXIST.AD. _ _ _ W wux !OUTICR !QITIEP PAM:YEN! r r r r o O O z j LOT 10 o 0 o J J LOT 20 I w MAIN STREET Z LOT C P1 Ld r > LOT n n 9 n LOT 21 Q Q n LOT 8 o O O o o o 0 LOT 22 � r 30' SO' w.tlo• LOT G ,� i0.ar i. 20• 10• In N I 20' 1. ro LOT 29 LOT 28 EAST KOP. i J n LD Lil LOT 30 0 Ls oJ LOT 27 Z $ m ;LOT 6 G LOT 24 !1 CAST LOT C CCHC LOT C �" Q CONE• `--' �EASTNO J h WAIN EAST.!PROP. LA.A."PE u H 0 CURB(Y LL 11EN) ARE,,OR OLIVE AVENUE CONE"A'I` LOT 4 LOT F LOT 5 LOT F N/1'37'39'E LOT F 317.31• 2401 W 27.3' 27.T� 12.7- 1 / . � H 11'3TW E 117.31' � —._ CE6t. I PROP. I IOORC. •. MAIN STREET EArsTOuRI -va s� 7 ®/-�• w 0AC. PRDP. C%51.J • `�`aC. PAVC.DI1 v-1A1T1[R ORm! COPS NUA THIRD FLOOR — OFFICE AREA AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS NOTES 5TH STREET LOT NO. DESCRIPTION LOWER VERTICAL UPPER VERTICAL SQUARE 1. WE ASSUMED.FOR PURPOSES JF THIS MAP,AN 7.5'onAu naN ELEVATION ELEVATION FOOTAGE ELEVATION OF 0.00 FOR CROIIND LEVEL. 3 LOT 1: OFFICE (SCE ARCHrtfOT PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS AND SQUARE FEET) 2. SEE 41ECT N0,7 FOR 3-OwCNSGNAL DETAILS. � � ' LOT 5: OFFICE J. SEE SHEET N0.3 FOR SC01011 A-A. ------ 37.5' --- 3 1. SEE SHEET NO,T FOR 3 DIMENSIOWN DETAILS. p —'�T� K LOT F: OFFICE C011110/1 AREA �vz - 0 OR��LOT L: RESIDENTIAL/COMMON AREA O LOT 6- 39: RESIDENTIAL CONOOMINAIMS EA T.CONE,°" IXIs1.CURBSHEET L'1w�'� EXIST.A.E. 1!M71IfP1 ' • CONE °RfW El.Sy. R `OIIr. OF I ( e! w1rtR ORANGE AVENUE - I REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 14352 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 1 ��' FOURTH FLOOR - RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS / gGP 5TH STREET LOT NO. DESCRIPTION LOWER VERTICAL UPPER VERTICAL SQUARE S 11'M•3?w _ 417.36_ _ ELEVATION ELEVATION FEET g 1 LOT 40-46: RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS (SEE ARCHITECT PLANS FOR ELEVATIONS AND SQUARE FEET) S 41'36'3(!W $ 347.36' i W al d la Ld Z h Q W Y, Q NOTES 1. WE ASSUMED.FOR PURPOSES OF THIS MAP.AN ELEVATION OF 0.00 FOR GROUND LEVEL. 4OW 30.00' I 2. SEE SHEET NO.7 CDR 3-DIMENSIONAL DETALS. 3. SEE SHEET NO.3 FOR SECTION A-A. L ry W t. SEE SHEET NO.4 FOR TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS. g b Q J 13. 13, 13, 13 13.II,13, I 13' 13' 13' N . tt• v . • tt.i'. n O 1 Y a • � 0 0 •fir 0 'o .o •o no o I 0 6• 1 16.„ n•10•m 1 1' 16' - N IP37.39'E p 347.34• 1 i ( N 41'37'39 EE 117.31' MAIN STREET ' rr SKEET ,c1 a1 0 I N41.37.29"E SIXTH ((41Z50')) STREC 13B' \ FOUNU SPIRE tr WASHER FOUND DEAR SPIKE h WASHER NO REF. STAMPED-Ft Cl 19402'1 PER _ BLOCK 305 1R.N0.129D0.Y.Y.62/42-47. 4 � N M NJ m FOUND MAR SPIKE t WASHER _ E m ? STAMPED'R.CE ID402 PER }g Z J-.. $ TR.NO.129K Y.Y.621/42-47, . N41'3670'E ((417.50')) c 417.36' —{ 29.99' I FIFTH - STREET I 37.51- _ FOUND 1/7 I.P.,NO TAG, I O I F7-1 ON.0.40',ACCEPTED AS `� c ' 1�1 INTERSECTION.NO REF. -- I c I N41'36'30'E 349.88' Nat 6'30'E 347.36 O O D m m 9 N N2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26� 28 m m _ a U N: 1 ffi 'f ,j f Z C 4E f -^•• a H. - p z L27 30.00' moo, r p 6D.00 A L L E Y 5(TO BE VACATED) w N N n v H I co Z �I O u Tr�c 7 z L.1JI s � ��, .p 4 z - 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 C 4 W m > � 37.50• w.00• D m u N STREE 77.50' n Z N41' N41'}7 39 E ]49.4 I I n LL MAIN (( ,�•)) STOEEJ I 37.50 V OC \ 1 417.34' N41'37'39'E O Z FOUND SPIKE k WASHER. <417.30'C.H.B.F.B.46D-6> PER TR NO.14133 a _SPY.674/46-48 Y:k N N48'19'02"W 317.56' `4F O <N49'OS7Ti 8"W 317.50'.TR 14133.M.M.674/45-48> BLOCK 303 •" (1 117.50')) N41'37'52'E <N4Y37'17'E 417.62'> 417.65' m u THIRD (("750')) STREET €.� z lv�l =z FOUND PK NAIL @ wASNER �S,�ra FOUND SPIKE t WASHER .°i,,I$-E S N STAMPED 7S 5037'.NO REF. �C�• STAMPING ILLEGIBLE.ACCEPTED �- r L) AS SPIKE k WASHER STAMPED CY1 LB 49W PER TR.NO.12268, � m ,5J�yb Y.M.593/27-29. ti0 FOUND SPIKE 6:WASHER W/ D O PUNCH MARK PER TR.NO. CPS 5019 r /12268,MY.593/27-29 2187438.17 -� 6030010.94 FOUND GEAR SPIKE AND 1 1/2-BRASS O - FIRST ST, TAG.STAMPED"LS 4955'. STATION IS ZJ LOCATED AT�WTERSECTION OF ORANGE A%E..FIRST ST.AND ATLANTA AVE. Z PER TR.NO.12268.M.M.593/27-29. I^� ' I day N m REVISED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO . 14352 IN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, COUNTY OF ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 3 DIMENSIONAL DETAILS ` NOT TO scut \may ley M� 10 y\ i\ / \1 ti M \ �r\a PARKING LEVEL 1 / �P\ LEVEL 2 LEVEL —1 \ SEE SHEET NO. 3 \ SEE SHEET NO, 4 \ SEE SHEET N0. 2 LOT E VARIES FROM -3.00 TO 7.00 AND 7.00 TO 18.00 LOTS F&G 18.00 TO NO UPPER UNIT LOT A VARIES FROM-13.00 TO-3.00 AND-18.50 TO -3.00 /\ (ENTRY TO LEVEL 1 FROM FIFTH STREET) /\ LOTS 4&5 18.00 TO 30.50 AND -17.50 TO-4.50 LOTS 6 TO 39 18.00 TO NO UPPER LIMIT (COMMERCIAL PARKING) µFA\ L+P O N y\ 44 \ 41 9 ots \i / V\ (ENTRY TO WUN LEVEL rROW ORANGE AVENUE PARKING LEVEL 1.5 '� / `� LEVEL 3 MAIN LEVEL AND OLIVE AVENUE) / SEE SHEET NO. 3 \/ SEE SHEET NO. 5 SEE 511EE7 N0. 1 LOT E 7.00 TO 18.00 LOTS 40 TO 48 18.00 TO NO UPPER LIMIT /\ LOT 8 VARIES FROM -3.00 TO 7.00 AND-13.00 TO -3.00 /\ \ (COMMERCIAL PARKING) LOT C -3.00 TO 7.00 (RESIDENTIAL PARKING) LOT 8 0.00 TO NO UPPER LIWT (COMMERCIAL COMMON AREA) L07 D 0.00 f0 NO UPPER LIMITSHEET (RESIDENTIAL COMMON AREA) LOiS 1,1& 3 0.00 TO 18.00 OF I 12-17-1996 A:52PM FROM ROBERT HIDEY ARCH 714 6aa 5602 P. 2 R O B E R T H 1 D E Y DEC 17 1996 THIRD BLOCK.WEST/PLAZA ALMERIA The proposed mixed-use project includes three major components: 41,000 square feet o_f commercial space.. 45 dwelling units and parking for 80 cars. The street level consists of commercial space which will include 4,00 S.F. of"resraurant ..pace. The commercial portion will front Alain Street and Olive Avenue with a parking entrance at mid--block on Olive Avenue and a mamned booth at the entry,'exit on Orange. Avenue. The street level parking area it self will provide parking for 90 cars at approximately three feet below street level. Ae two entry drives will have ramps with a slope of 10%or less that access the Garage. Patrons using this parking level will enter the commercial area either-by exiting the Garage and walking around to the commercial entrance of their choice or by awing the corridor leading from the Garage to Alain Street and then circulating along Alain Street to their destination. Both Garage entrances will have controlled access by means of-gates with roken dispensers. When exiting the project. the patrons will turn in their tokens and pav for parking or receive free validated parking. These gates will be left open gfterr hours. The main level will have two elevator lobbies along the central corridor. One elevator will serve the second floor commercial space and the ether one will serve- the two levels of residential parking as well as the Plaza Level that has the residential units. A short flight of stairs and a ramp will connect the Garage area to Main Street. .There will be two commercial and two residential trash collection areas on the main level. The residential trash bins will each hmYe a chine that.serves the residents at the Plaza Level The larger commercial trash collection area;will have doors from the exit corridors. These doors will lead to a raised platform that will be approximately three feet above the Garage floor, This height difference will_facilitate dumping trash from the platform into the bins. The trash bins at these locations will be pushed up the drive ramps to street level and moved to trash trucks at collection time. The collections will be scheduled to avoid conflicting with other operations wirhin the project. Rainbow Disposal Service has reviewed and approved this arrangement. Delivery trucks and moving vans will use loading areas on Olive or Orange Avenues to deliver items to the project_ They could access the two elevators along Fifth Street to reach the residential plaza or enter the retail space service corridors fi-om Olive or Orange Avenues. The level ofparking below the street level will be fur cumnzercial patrons and guests of the residents. This Level-1 will have access to two elevators along the Alain Street side. One of these elevators will have access controlled by the residentsf orn their units. The 130newportcenterdrive - suite210 •newportbeachceL92660 - 714/644-4636 -fax714/634.5602 /�'1-- ATTACHMENT NO. �.� 12-17-1996 4:52PM FROM ROBERT HiDEY ARCH 714 Gad 5602 P. 3 DEC 17 1996 ✓'.:i.;it lJ�: ::. -. other elevator will serve both levels of commercial use and will be available to all patrons. Access to the residential parking levels will he by means of'an entry/exit ramp from Fifth Street. The first level of residential parking- it'll begin approximately 3 feet below street level and ramp up past the entry/exit to the upper parking level at 7'above the street level. The entry/exit drive ramp will have a gate controlled by remote devices issued to the residents. There will also be a turnout aisle with a callbox for the guests to use in order to gain access to the parking Garage. Once inside the structure. residents will have access to the two elevators along Fifth Street. These will take them up to the residential Plana Level fi-orn which point they could lvalk to their individual units. Guests will be directed to Elevator Two in the central corridor. This elevator will have access controlled by the residents from their units. The two elevators along Fifth.Street will also have a street level access limited to residents and guests only. These elevators will have gates that could be opened by the resident using a touch pad at the gate or by the resident from their unit by telephone control The stairways ut the corner of Olive and Fifth or Orange and Fifth will be gated and used by residents only. The first ramp of'residential parking will have two (2) trash collection areas located by elevators three and four along Fifth Street. These trash containers will be filled by a chute which starts at Plaza Level. The containers will be wheeled down the drive ramp and then taken to trash trucks on..Fifth Street The upper level of residential parking will have »stalls as well as storage lockers and a czar washing area f r residents. The Playa Level will have both rental office apace and 45 residential units. The two uses will be structurally separated and will not share circulation space. The of free space along?gain Street will be served by an elevator and stair in the central corridor and external stairs at either end of'the exterior corridor. The individual office spaces will all be entered fi-onn the exterior-corridor along Alain Strut Residents will have separate access to this level by means of secure elevators or stairs from street level. Once on the Plaza Level. residents walk within a clearly defined pathway through landscaped courtyards furnished with seating, raised planters,potted plants and secluded conversation areas. The front door of each residence will be separated fi-om adjacent fi-ont doors to increase sense Of privaCv. The majority of'the dwelling units have views outward from the project. The internal units all have landscaped courtyard views and a large rear "patio"yard. Each dwelling unit will have a minimum of 120 S.F. of private open space as well as having access to the pleasantly landvcaped common open area. 12-17-1996 a:53PM FROM ROBERT HiDEY ARCH 714 64A. 5602 P_ 4 DEC 17 1996 Levels 3 and 4 will contain the second and third floors of dwelling units. The unit.,along Main Street will be partial4,stackecl above the once space. but will not be directly accessible to the office space. All of the dwelling units u-471 be townhouse style. This concept will avoid the problems of stacking units above each other and long'acce.ss corridors. Alfany of'the units will have views ofthe ocean and rnauntain_.. The project is designed to serve the retail need,of local residents while providing highly upgraded living accommodations in the downtown area_ The Mediterranean schemed exteriors are designed to harmonize with the surrounding structures while presenting a pleasing addition to downtown Huntington Beach. �T� �` LENT N0. 1 /1! t F i i ty V�-3.v��.. ,4' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH V" INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINCTON BEACH TO: Melanie Fallon, Director of Community Development FROM: David C. Biggs, Director of Economic Development DATE: December 12, 1996 SUBJECT: Third Block West-- Parking and Housing Requirements As you know, the Agency is responsible for the provision of eighteen parking spaces as a condition of approval for the Town Square commercial space. Previously the Agency had intended to purchase these spaces in the subterranean garage of the Third Block West project in voluntary compliance with the condition. Because the nature and scope of this project has changed, the Agency no longer wishes to pursue this option and I propose the following alternatives. • The Agency will conduct a study to determine if the eighteen spaces are still truly needed in light of the experience gained since the condition was approved. If a study shows that the spaces are unnecessary, the Agency will apply for removal of the condition. • The Agency may chose to provide the spaces at another location within the downtown. • The Agency may chose to pay a parking in-lieu fee to discharge its responsibility. Whichever course is chosen, the Agency understands and acknowledges its responsibility to provide the spaces unless the condition is removed. Therefore there is no need to place a condition requiring the spaces in this project as part of your entitlement review. This memo will also confirm that the affordable housing requirement created by the development of this project is triggered by the "production" requirement of the California Health and Safety Code and will total fifteen percent of the 45 units to be produced or seven units. The Agency will fulfill this requirement at �5 ATTACHMENT NO. s.t another location within the project area using its own resources. Therefore, no condition upon the developer will be required as part of your entitlement review. hope this information helps to clarify these issues surrounding the Third Block West project. If you have questions, please call. xc: Stephen V. Kohler Herb Fauland Jane Madera ��6 ATTACHMENT NO. Z MICHAEL C. ADAMS ASSOCIATES 19771 Sea Canyon Circle Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 February 5, 1997 Ms. Jane Madera, Associate Planners G E'V E D Department of Community Development City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 'g97 Huntington Beach, CA. 92648 WN1.nF�frj_ SUBJECT: PLAZA ALMERIA Dear Jane: Thank you for your patience and understanding throughout this long and ever changing entitlement process. The Project Plan is continuing to evolve and becoming aesthetically better and economically stronger. The plan has been designed to be flexible enough to accommodate a number of commercial tenants and be responsive to their needs. In order to assure that additional future restaurants can be accommodated within the project, parking has been provided for a total of 15,000 square feet of total restaurant activity. We realize that any proposed restaurant use will be subject to separate conditional use permit applications, however, parking should not be an issue. In addition, the overall commercial parking proposes sharing space for guest residential parking in an amount equivalent to the office parking requirements. Due to the differing hours of demand for both activities, this should prove to be compatible. Also, the expanded public parking supply on Fifth Street should easily provide for any unanticipated residential parking demand. I hope this clarifies the project intent. Attached to this letter is a copy of the initial request for special permits with an expanded narrative and justification. We look forward to the Planning Commission meeting and will be prepared to respond to any comments and/or adjust the project to address all specific concerns. The plans submitted provide the outline and ornamentation for a very complex, multifaceted, private development, redevelopment, community improvement project. We are always open to suggested ways for making the project better. We hope you concur that the project as presented or conditionally approved will be a model for future cooperative public/private planning. Thank you again for your efforts. Sincerely, Mike Adam Consultant to the Plaza Almeria Team 147 ATACHMENT NO. j"-09-1997 2:07PM FROM ROBERT H I DEY ARCH. 714 644 5602 P. 3 January 9, 1997 _ SUBJECT: Plaza Almeria Special Permit Requests REQUIREMENT: 1. 4.7.01 Permitted uses (d)iii Residential "Up to one-half of the floor area may be devoted to residential uses." Reou.% -up to two-thirds residential. 2. 4.7.04 Maximum building height. "Maximum building height shall be four(4)stories/45 feet. 42.04-"An additional ten feet will be allowed for roof line treatment." Regues -An additional 20 feet for unique roof line. 3. 4.7.07 Setback(side yard) "The minimum side yard requirement shall be five feet from public right-of-way for exterior side yards." RIQUest-Allow zero side'yard setback in select locations. 4. 4.7.09 Setback(Upper story) "The covered portion of all stories above the second shall be set back an average of an additional ten feet from the second story facade." Request-Allow no upper story setback in select locations. 5. 4.7.10 Open space • "Hill block developments on Main Street require a minimum public plaza excluding public right-of- way of 1,000 square feet. Reouesi-Allow for public plaza to be within the public right-of-way. 6. 4.2.11 Open space (d) Common open space(multi-family residential) "All multi-family residential developments shall provide a minimum common open space equal to 25%of the floor area of each unit with a minimum dimension of 20 feet." RcgUest-Allow for 18%of the floor area with a minimum dimension of 10 feet. ATACHMENT:NO:_ � SUBJECT: PLAZA ALMERIA SPECIAL PERMIT REQUESTS 1 , Permitted Uses Residential to Commercial Ratio The on-site ratio of project square footage proposes a greater percentage of residential (66%) compared to commercial (33%), seemingly contrary to current code. However, historically, the Redevelopment Agency has initiated projects that are 2/3 residential and 1/3 commercial, By applying a district-wide calculation of residential to commercial activity, the project will comply with the code regulations of one half (1/2) residential to one half (1/2) commercial. That interpretation of the code was sustained in a court challenge on the previous entitlement. A better rational for the current entitlement request is that the project, with a smaller number of residential units, but with a greater amount of total residential square footage, will be catering to a higher income buyer with a greater percentage of discretionary income to patronize the downtown commercial tenants. The project has been designed with an upscale resident in mind and the potential for a positive impact on the downtown economy. 2. Maximum Building Height The project is requesting additional building height to accommodate a unique architectural design and to allow for the commercial, office and residential suites to be designed competitively with other state-of-the-art projects, Commercial tenants are demanding greater floor to ceiling height in order to both create an aesthetic environment and mechanically functional space. In turn, office and residential units will provide greater volumes demand higher rents and resale values. The current code of 45 feet cannot accommodate four stories of current market driven activities and demands. The special permit for an extension of the building height was originally intended to accommodate select architectural elements; however, the request has been expanded to address the living area of the residential units over the commercial and office activities. The buildings tower elements will require 20 additional feet, the living areas will only require ten additional feet, By allowing these considerations, the project will be able to achieve a higher value and will still be compatible with surrounding new developments, 147 ATTACHMENT NO. . 3. Sideyard Setback In order to maintain a commercial frontage effect on the Olive and Orange Avenue elevations, the building wall should be designed in a similar fashion to the Main Street elevation. By designing to a zero setback, this intention can be better achieved, in addition, allowing a zero setback along these streets Will provide the project an opportunity to create additional movement in the building wall between the street level commercial areas and the office and residential units above. 4. Upper Story Setback In order to achieve a greater variety in building design, select portions of the building facade have been pulled forward while others have been set back. This design deviates from a strict interpretation of the upper story setback provision, but allows for a more creative interpretation of the code's intent. The large building surface created will be adorned with artistically designed doorways and window openings with decorative surrounds and awnings. 5. Public Open Space Typically projects of a full block should provide for a special public plaza area. However, this project is very unique and intends to create a public plaza along the entire block fronting on Main Street. In order to achieve this all on-street parking, adjacent to Main Street will be relocated to a reconfigured Fifth Street. The resulting expanded sidewalk area will accommodate enhanced landscaping, commercial opportunities and public areas. However, because this area is within the public right-of-way, it technically does not count as meeting the code provision. Therefore, the project will design and enhance the private portions of the Main Street frontage to provide for a public arts component within a linear public plaza from Orange to Olive Avenues, including a wrap-around at each corner. 6. Common Residential Open Space In order to create the intended effect of a European Village, the common open space amenities have been designed on a smaller, more intimate scale. A central open space area has been designed and will include the potential of a barbecue area, an outdoor fireplace, seating areas, and a shade structure. In addition, a number of smaller open space areas have been designed adjacent to select units. While the common recreation areas have been designed somewhat less than code requirements, the private recreational/open space areas for each unit have been designed in excess of code requirements. This balance creates a greater value for the future home buyer and will appeal to a more affluent buyer. /�'o ATTACHMENT NO. G.y ::. :'. ::. : :::::::::: I .. .' ...........:............... ..... ...:...:H �:...:IST..F'OR�I ........ .......... ..:::........ ` i11111B '` FI .. ................. ........... .......... ................ . ... .. �....1 ........ ......... .... 1. PROJECT TITLE: Plaza Almeria Concurrent Entitlements: Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39 (R) with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30 (R)/Design Review Board No. 95-59/Tentative Tract 14352(R) 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Jane Madera,Associate Planner Phone: (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Full Block bounded by Main Street, Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: JT Development,John Tillotson, 15272 Bolsa Chica Rd., Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Co-Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Robert Hidey,Robert Hidey Architects Phone: (714) 644-4636 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Mixed Use Vertical/176-25-SP-PD ZONING: Downtown Specific Plan District 5-Coastal Zone 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject site is a 1.88 net acre parcel that is currently vacant,and generally flat. A bank building and small office building.have recently been demolished and removed from the site. There is an approved mixed use project for the site consisting of 68 condominium units and 28,000 square feet of commercial uses,in one 4-story building with subterranean parking. 1.�� ATTACHMENT NO. �t. � The applicant is requesting revisions to the approved project which will reduce the residential density on the site and provide for 45 attached townhomes and increase the commercial component to 41,000 square feet. The commercial is broken down into 25,500 square feet of retail, 4,500 square feet of restaurant,and 11,000 square feet of office. Retail and restaurant uses are proposed on the ground level.of the project and are concentrated facing Main Street but also proposed on the southwest corner of the project facing Olive Street. The remainder of the ground floor on the west side of the project is parking. Parking will also be provided in a subterranean level,on the ground level,and on a secured second level for residential parking only. Offices are proposed on the second level above the commercial space facing Main Street. Because the retail portions of the project have vaulted ceilings,the top plate of the retail on the ground floor is the same height as the top plate of the secured residential parking on the second floor of the parking structure. The top plate of these two levels forms the "podium" level and is important in determining. proper acoustical,occupancy,and use separations. Although the offices facing Main Street and the townhomes are both proposed on the podium level, no access from the retail and office components to residential is proposed except for residents and their guests. The project density is approximately 24 units per acre. Most of the units are two story with access from the podium level directly into the living area. Eleven of the 45 units gain access from the podium level behind the office space to two story units over the offices facing Main Street. The remainder of the units are clustered around open space pockets,walkways,and view vantage points on the podium level. All of the residential units are accessible through a secured gate, stairs,and elevator system from all sides of the project as well as from within the parking garage. Guests of residents and other visitors to the residential portion of the site will be required to utilize a telephone access system for entry. There are three vehicle entry points to the project;one each at Olive, Orange, and 5th Street. Each entrance will be gated and will include a ticket dispenser for entry. A staffed gate will be provided at Orange Avenue for exiting by commercial customers and a exit gate at 5th Street will be provided for residential exiting. No exit is proposed on Olive Street. The proposed homes are all 2 story townhomes with assigned parking on a private upper level of the parking garage. The townhomes are all 2 bedrooms and range in size from 1,570 square feet to 2,900 square feet. The affordable housing requirement generated by this project (15% or 7 units) is proposed to be satisfied off-site by the co-applicant,the Redevelopment Agency. The Agency will rehabilitate 7 apartment units in the Oakview neighborhood. The previously approved project was reviewed for environmental impacts under Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 90-41 which was approved for the project by the City Council on March 4, 1991. It was determined that a new environmental assessment was appropriate for the project because of the additional 13,000 square feet of commercial square feet and also because the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration relied on conclusions reached in EIR No. 82-2 which was approved for the Downtown Specific Plan in 1982. Staff felt it was appropriate to update the environmental analysis for this major project at this time rather than rely on the previous documents._In addition,the recently certified EIR No. 94-1 for the update of the City's General Plan contains important relevant information for the review of potential environmental impacts of this project. �5z ATTACHMENT NO. 12 This project includes the following proposed actions: Tentative Tract to subdivide the 1.88 acre parcel into 50 commercial/residential lots and 7 lettered lots. Conditional Use Permit with Special Permits/Coastal Development Permit to permit the development of a mixed use project including 41,000 square feet of retail, restaurant,and office and 45 townhomes with special permits for upper story setbacks,public plaza open space,and common residential open space. ` Design Review Board to review the colors, materials,and elevations of the proposed project for consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines and forward the Board's recommendations to the Planning Commission. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): None /5,3 ATACHM NT N0, �,� ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Land Use& Planning ❑ Transportation/Circulation ❑ Public Services ❑ Population &Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities& Service Systems ❑ Geological Problems ❑ Energy&Mineral ❑ Aesthetics Resources 0 Water ❑ Hazards ❑ Cultural Resources Air Quality 19 Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on ❑ an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be X prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s)on the environment,but that at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a"potentially significant impact"or is"potentially significant unless mitigated. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ It a YV(,D (Z - 14 R. I� SI TURE Date JANE MADERA ASSOCIATE PLANNER Printed Name Title �5� ATTACHMENT NO. �t .' • i EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except"No Impact"answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact"answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No Impact"answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off-site as well as on-site,cumulative as well as project-level,indirect as well as direct,and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact"is appropriate,if an effect is significant or potentially significant, or if the lead agency lacks information to make a finding of insignificance. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact"entries when the determination is made,preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is warranted. 4. Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigated"applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from"Potentially Significant Impact"to a"Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures,and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section XVII,"Earlier Analyses,"may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering,program EIR,or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section XVII at the end of the checklist. 6. References to information sources for potential impacts (e.g.,general plans,zoning ordinances) have been incorporated into the checklist. A source list has been provided in Section XVII. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted after Appendix I of Chapter 3,Title 14,California Code of Regulations,but has been augmented to reflect the City of Huntington Beach's requirements. (Note: Standard Conditions of Approval - The City imposes standard conditions of approval on projects which are considered to be components of or modifications to the project,some of these standard conditions also result in reducing or minimizing environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. However,because they are considered part of the project,they have not been identified as mitigation measures. For the readers'information,a list of applicable standard conditions identified in the discussions has been provided as Attachment No. S. SAMPLE QUESTION.- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources: 1, 6) ❑ ❑ 19 Discussion: The attached source list explains that 1 is the Huntington Beach General Plan and 6 is a topographical map of the area which show that the area is located in a flat area. (Note: This response probably would not require further explanation). /55 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the Proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x (Sources: 3, 4) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (Sources: 3) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the ❑ ❑ ❑x vicinity? (Sources: 1) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g., ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible uses)? (Sources: 3) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3) Discussion: The proposed mixed use project is consistent with the Downtown Specific Plan District 5- Coastal Zone zoning and Mixed Use Vertical General Plan designation which allow for a combination of commercial and residential development on the site. The project is also consistent with existing and planned land uses in the vicinity. The project proposes to locate commercial office, retail, and restaurant uses between Main Street and the former alley location and along Olive Avenue. The commercial component consists of ground floor retail/restaurant uses with offices on a second level facing Main Street. Existing uses along these property lines consist of a compatible mix of commercial retail and restaurant uses across Main Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue. Residential units and parking will be located across from existing residential on Orange Avenue and are identified in greater detail below. Residential units are proposed above the ground level on top of the parking structure and are located on all sides of the project including some units above the office level facing Main Street. Existing uses across 5th Street and the remaining half of Orange Avenue (between 5th Street and the former alley) are a mix of small individual commercial and residential uses and the townhomes at Townsquare. Existing residences along 5th Street will be separated from the project by an 80 foot wide right-of-way which includes sidewalk, landscaping, and on-street parking. The proposed project includes requests for reduction of common open space requirements; reduction in required upper story setbacks along Main and 5th Streets, and to exceed the maximum ramp slope in the parking garage. These deviations are all permissible under the provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan subject to Special Permit approval. The actual extent of proposed deviations will be determined as Environmental Assessment 96-16 1 12/11/96 I56 A :.�CH ,fi ENT N . �,_� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact more refined plans are received from the applicant. These deviations do not constitute variances pursuant to the Downtown Specific Plan, rather the Planning Commission may approve the deviations by approving a special permit. The proposed development complies with the other provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan District 5, Coastal Zone. There are no agricultural operations or resources that would be adversely affected by the project. The project proposes land use in a configuration that is consistent with the exiting surrounding mix of uses and does not proposed any elements that would disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of the surrounding community. The project will not conflict with any environmental plans or policies of the City of Huntington Beach. No significant adverse land use impacts are anticipated. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x population projections? (Sources: 3, 5) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (Sources: 3, 5) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x housing? (Sources: 2, 5) Discussion: The project consists of a reduction in the planned number of units on the site from a maximum of 68 units as currently approved, to the proposed 45 units, or a 34%reduction in number of units. However, since the approved units were never constructed, the reduction in the number of units does not constitute a loss of actual residential units and therefore will not have a significant impact on the City's housing stock. The population increase associated with the project is consistent with the General Plan, and will not result in a substantial increase in the growth rate of the City. The project will not induce additional growth in the area because major infrastructure is currently available at or adjacent to the site. The site is currently vacant as two commercial buildings have recently been demolished; no residential units were present on-site. The co-applicant, the Redevelopment Agency, will be providing 7 affordable rehabilitated apartment units off site to meet the 15% (7 units) of affordable housing that is required by State Redevelopment Law for this project. Environmental Assessment 96-16 2 12/11/96 /5'7 ATTACHMENT NO. ad Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III.GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x b) Seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ p ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x (Sources: 7, 8) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Sources: 7, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 8) e) Landslides or Mudflows? (Sources: 7) ❑ ❑ ❑ p f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (Sources: 7,8) g) Subsidence of the land? (Sources: 8) ❑ ❑ p ❑ h) Expansive soils? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ p ❑ i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Sources: 7, ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x 8) Discussion: The project does not include any activities that will impact the stability of geologic substructures. The site is primarily flat, and does not contain any unique physical or geologic features. Construction of the proposed mixed use project will require grading of the site for the new structures, however, the project does not propose any significant change in grade. There will be approximately 40,000 cubic yards of grading with a maximum cut and fill slope ratio of 2:1 and a maximum cut and fill slope height of 3 feet. The project includes grading and excavation for subterranean parking, excess soil will be disposed of off-site. There will be substantial export of soil as part of the grading operations, which are expected to last 2 months. Grading and site preparation during development may result in short term wind and water erosion impacts. Standard conditions of approval will be required to insure that all building spoils are disposed at off-site facilities equipped to handle the material. (See Standard Condition No. 9). The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of a grading plan, vehicle control plan, and dust control measures. (See Standard Condition No.'s 2, 3 and 4). No significant impacts are anticipated. Environmental Assessment 96-16 3 12/11/96 159 ATTACHll ,ENT NO. I Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The project site is not located within the Alquist-Priolo Special Hazards Zone and is located approximately 1/4 mile from the suspected trace of the Newport Inglewood fault. However, in the event of an earthquake in the Huntington Beach area,the site may be subject to ground shaking. Structures built in California are required to comply with standards set forth in the Uniform Building Code to minimize the structural risks from groundshaking. Based upon the City's Geotechnical Inputs Study (prepared by Leighton-Yen& Associates, 1974) the project site is located in an area of low clay content which is usually not indicative of expansive soils and can be built on with compliance with standard construction and soil compaction methods. In any case, a soil study is required as a standard condition of approval (see Standard Condition No. 7), to verify site specific/project specific soils factors and appropriate construction measures; therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated. IV.WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ the rate and amount of surface runoff? (Sources: 2) b) Exposure of people or property to water related ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ hazards such as flooding? (Sources: 9) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (Sources: 1,7) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x water body? (Sources: 1,7) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x water movement? .(Sources: 1,7) f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either ❑ ❑ ❑ p through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (Sources: 3,7) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources: 7, 8) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (Sources: 7, 8) ❑ ❑ ❑ p Environmental Assessment 96-16 4 12/11/96 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x otherwise available for public water supplies? .(Sources: 5, 7) Discussion:. The proposed project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces (concrete, asphalt, etc.) on the property as the-entire site is currently 100%paved. However,the tract has been designed to collect runoff on site and direct it to streets and storm drains. The Department of Public Works has indicated the storm drain system will require improvements to adequately accommodate runoff from the project. A mitigation measure is suggested to require the necessary upgrades to the storm drains in Main Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue. (See Mitigation Measure No. 1). No runoff will drain toward any other properties, and no significant impacts to drainage resulting from the project are anticipated. The project site is located in Flood Zone X and is not within the 100 year floodplain. The project does propose excavation and related grading activities below the current grade, however, the project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of a grading plan, soils study, and hydrology study to adequately prepare the site for construction. (See Standard Condition of Approval No. 7). The site does not drain directly into any natural body of water. The project is projected to use 20,000 gallons of water per day which will require upgrades to the water system serving the site. Separate water service for fire protection capable of providing 4,000 gallons/minute will also be required for the project. A mitigation measure is recommended to require the proper sizing and location of water mains, as well as abandonment of the existing water main within the alley between Main and 5th Street (See Mitigation Measure No. 2). The applicant will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring payment of Public Works fees (see Standard Condition No. 8). With the proposed mitigation and standard condition of approval, no significant adverse impacts to the existing water supply are anticipated. V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 5, 10, 16) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (Sources: ❑ ❑ O ❑ 5, 1, 16) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x (Sources: 6) d) Create objectionable odors? (Sources: 6) ❑ ❑x ❑ ❑ Environmental Assessment 96-16 5 12/11/96 160 ATTACHMENT NO. �1.10 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The project will result in an increase in pollutant emissions in the area due to additional vehicular trips generated by the development. However, the estimated emissions for the specific project were analyzed using the Urbemis5 Model and compared against thresholds for significant pollutant emissions established by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. The model determined that the project will not exceed any emission thresholds (carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, particulates, and hydrocarbons), and therefore, no significant impact to air quality is anticipated. Short-term deterioration of local ambient air quality may occur during construction as a result of construction equipment emissions and dust. Emissions are expected from gasoline and diesel-powered grading and paving equipment and fugitive dust generation associated with earth moving activities. Grading activities are expected to last approximately 2 months. However, with the implementation of conditions of approval minimizing dust and emissions resulting from construction equipment, no significant adverse short-term air quality impacts are anticipated. (See Standard Condition No. 3). The project will potentially emit objectionable food preparation odors related from the proposed restaurant. Although the restaurant is proposed on the ground floor at the furthest possible distance from the residential units, the venting system required for proper air circulation and to meet the Uniform Plumbing Code and Health Department requirements may bring the odors in close proximity to the residential units. Restaurants are usually vented through the top of the roof above the tenant's suite. In this case, offices are proposed above the commercial and residential is proposed above the office making it difficult to design a typical venting system through the roof above the restaurant. In order to mitigate possible odor impacts to the residential units to a less than significant level, the necessary vents and mechanical systems should all be above the highest residential unit. A mitigation measure to require all restaurants to be vented above the residential units is recommended. (See Mitigation Measure No. 3). The project will not alter ambient temperatures, moisture or airflow. No impacts to temperature or airflow are anticipated. VI.TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ (Sources: 5, 6, 7, 11) b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g., sharp ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 2) c) Inadequate emergency access or inadequate access ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x to nearby uses? (Sources: 1, 2) Environmental Assessment 96-16 6 12/11/96 �b ATTACHMENT NO. �t.t Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources: 2, 4). e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ (Sources: 2) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting ❑ ❑ ❑ p alternative transportation(e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 2) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (Sources: 1) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x Discussion: Since the previous buildings have been demolished, there are currently no trips generated from the site. The proposed project will generate approximately 2,256 trips per day according to a trip generation report prepared for the applicant by Paul Cook on January 26, 1996. The report estimates the number of vehicle trips based on the square footage proposed and the average daily trips for different land uses as specified in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Manual. The City of Huntington Beach Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed the report by Mr. Cook and has stated that the methodology used and the conclusions reached are acceptable to estimate the number of vehicle trips generated by the project. The existing roadway segment immediately adjacent to the project on Main Street is currently operating within the City's standards for acceptable levels of service, LOS C or better. LOS data is available for Main Street between PCH and Walnut, Main Street between Walnut and Orange, and Main Street between Orange and 6th Street;these segments are operating at LOS A, B, and B, respectively. In addition, Orange Avenue between 6th Street and 1st Street is operating at LOS A. LOS data for other road segments surrounding the project on Olive and 5th Street is not available. Traffic trips to the site are expected to be distributed around the block at the three access points with the residential access occurring only from 5th Street. Surrounding streets such as 6th Street and 1 st Street are designated as primary arterials with traffic capacities of 30,000 average daily trips each. Main Street and Orange Avenue are considered secondary arterials with current street capacities of 5,000 as 2-lane streets. The Street capacities of Main and Orange would increase to 20,000 if the street widths increase to ultimate right-of-way of 4 lanes. Although the project will be dedicating land for street widening on both Main Street and Orange Avenue, the timing of the build out to 4 lanes is unknown at this time. Pacific Coast Highway is designated as a major arterial highway with 45,000 trips generated on an average daily basis. All of the arterials combine to feed the downtown core of which this project is a vital part. It is assumed that traffic trips to the site will occur from all three sides with access points as well as from Main Street. Conversations with Public Works Traffic Engineering Department confirm that when analyzing the project as part of the entire downtown project area, the project's overall contribution to vehicle trips is not expected to result in a drop in the level of service, and is not considered significant.. Therefore, no project related modifications to the traffic system other than dedication for street widening purposes are Environmental Assessment 96-16 7 12/11/96 !�z- ATTACHMENT NO.'1•t Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact required. In addition, the project's contribution to area wide traffic impacts is expected to be offset by the project's payment of its share of the traffic impact fees, which are utilized to fund area wide traffic improvements. (See Standard Condition No. 6) The project does propose to re-stripe off-site parking spaces on the streets surrounding the project, Main Street, 5th Street, Olive Avenue, and Orange Avenue. However, the project proposes to replace the existing parking with an equal or greater number of parking stalls. The re-striping plan will be subject to approval of the City Traffic Engineer. Construction traffic resulting from development of the project may result in short-term interruptions to traffic circulation, including pedestrian and bicycle flow. These potential impacts can be reduced through implementation of conditions of approval requiring Department of Public Works approval of a construction vehicle control plan. (See Standard Condition No. 4). The project site is identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan as a Landscape Corridor area and as a Character Node in the Urban Design Element. Specific project elements proposed to comply with these elements of the General Plan will be refined through the conditional use permit analysis of the project. Upon build-out,the project will provide on site parking in accordance with the shared parking concept and reduced parking ratios of the Downtown Parking Master Plan. The parking stall sizes, design, and circulation pattern are proposed in compliance with the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The access points to the project will be from Olive, Orange, and 5th Streets. With implementation of standard conditions of approval, including conformance of the proposed street systems to City standards, review and approval of street improvement plans and payment of traffic impact fees, no significant traffic impacts are anticipated. (See Standard Conditions of Approval No.'s 4, 6, and 8). VII.BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their ❑ ❑ ❑ p habitats (including but not limited to: plants,fish, insects, animals, and birds)? (Sources: 5) b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage trees)? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources: 5) Environmental Assessment 96-16 8 12/11/96 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g., oak ❑ ❑ ❑ p forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Sources: 5) d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and vernal ❑ p ❑ ❑x pool)? (Sources: 5) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ (Sources: 5) Discussion: The project site is currently vacant and paved and does not support any rare, unique or endangered plant or animal species, or any mature trees. Grading and construction activities are not expected to result in any adverse impacts to possible sensitive plant or animal species. The project will also be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring submittal of an erosion control plan to insure that runoff during"the construction/site preparation phases will not drain towards adjacent properties (see Standard Condition No. 2). No significant impacts are anticipated. VIII.ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x (Source: 3) b) Use non-renewable resource in a wasteful and ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ inefficient manner? (Sources: 3, 7) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (Sources: 3, 7) Discussion: The project will result in increased fuel and energy consumption within the City. However, the level of development proposed by the project is less than what the existing General Plan and zoning would allow, and the anticipated energy demands created by the project are within parameters of overall projected demand which is planned to be met for the area. The project will be subject to standard conditions of approval requiring provision of natural gas for clothes dryers, cooking facilities, water heaters, and central heating (see Standard Condition of Approval No. 11). No significant adverse impacts to natural resources are anticipated. The development of the site will not result in the loss of a known mineral resource. IX.HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of ❑ ❑ p ❑ hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: Environmental Assessment 96-16 9 12/11/96 ll�� ATTACHMENT NO. ,t .l Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (Sources: 6, 7) b) Possible interference with an emergency response ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 3, 7) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ hazards? (Sources: 6) d) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x brush, grass, or trees? (Sources: 2, 6) Discussion: The proposed mixed use, commercial and residential development will not involve the use of any hazardous materials and will not result in any impediments to emergency response or evacuation plans. The project site is currently contaminated from underground tank leaks of a former gas station. Soil remediation is underway at the site and will be conducted in conformance with requirements of the Orange County Health Department. The project is not located in the.vicinity of oil pipelines and oil operations. The applicant will be required to provide fire protection measures in accordance with City Fire codes, including fire hydrants and sprinklers where necessary. No significant impacts resulting from hazardous or flammable materials are anticipated (see Standard Condition No. 1). The project is located in the methane overlay district, and construction of the new project may expose occupants to fire/explosion hazards. However, compliance with city codes requires monitoring and testing, and no significant impacts are anticipated(see Standard Condition No. 1). X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (Sources: 2,7, ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ 12) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ x❑ ❑ ❑ (Sources: 1, 2, 7, 12) Discussion: The project will generate short-term noise impacts during construction with the use of heavy construction equipment. All construction will be required to comply with Chapter 8.40 NaisLe of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and through the implementation of standard conditions of approval, no significant noise impacts during construction are anticipated(see Standard Condition No. Environmental Assessment 96-16 10 12/11/96 A5 ATTACHRMENT NO. •�5 • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact 1). The project will result in higher noise levels on the.site than currently_exist,.and long-term noise impacts may occur as a result of the increase in trip-ends and associated vehicular noise generated by the development. Due to the existing and projected level of traffic on Main Street, Olive and Orange Avenues, and 5th Streets and the ambient noise from the surrounding developed uses,the project generated noise levels are considered negligible. No significant long-term noise impacts are anticipated. The project does have the potential for noise impacts from the proposed new commercial to the proposed new residential units. Residential units may be impacted by noise generated from trash chutes within the complex, vehicle noise in the parking structure, elevators, venting/shafts required for the retail and restaurant uses, refuse collection, and from delivery activities. Refuse collection and delivery activities are proposed to occur in designated zones surrounding the site on Orange and Olive Avenues. Residential units are proposed on the third and fourth floor above and adjacent to the refuse collection/delivery areas. In order to mitigate these potential impacts to a less than significant level, a mitigation measure to require submittal of a noise study with recommendations for construction will be required. The noise study should be conducted by an acoustical engineer and include recommendations for sound attenuation, provision of adequate construction to buffer these noise impacts and reduce levels of noise to 45 dB or less and 60 dB or less for interior and exterior noise standards, respectively. Also, compliance.with standard building codes will ensure compliance with the interior noise requirements. The applicant will be required to submit a noise study analyzing the potential noise impacts identified above, prior to issuance of building permits (see proposed Mitigation Measure No. 4) to insure compliance with minimum noise standards in this unique building design. XI.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach Fire ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ Dept.) b) Police Protection? (Sources: Huntington Beach ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ Police Dept.) c) Schools? (Sources: School Districts) ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (Sources: City of Huntington Beach) ❑ ❑ p ❑ e) Other governmental services? (Sources: City of ❑ ❑ p ❑ Huntington Beach) Environmental Assessment 96-16 11 12/11/96 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project has initially been reviewed by various City Departments, including Public Works, Fire and Police, for compliance with all applicable City codes. With implementation of standard conditions of approval, and compliance with City specifications,no significant adverse impacts to public services are anticipated (refer-to Standard Condition No. 1). Pursuant to Policy LU 2.1.7 of the Huntington Beach General Plan, the applicant will be required to negotiate with the affected school districts in order to mitigate any impacts on school services prior to project approval. XII.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ b) Communication systems? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ facilities? (Sources: 5, 7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (Sources: 5,7) ❑ ❑ x❑ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ !] ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ p ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? (Sources: 5, 7) ❑ ❑ p ❑ Discussion: The project will require incremental extensions and replacement of public services and utilities on the site, which will be provided by the respective governmental agencies and utility companies. These connections are considered minor improvements, and existing systems in conjunction with upgrades, by the applicant, can accommodate the projected use. Water utilized by the development would be approximately 20,000 gallons per day. The project will generate approximately 16,000 gallons of sewage per day. Solid waste will be collected by the Rainbow Disposal Company, which can accommodate the demand. The project will be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination Standards for discharge into storm drains. (See Standard Condition No. 12). No adverse impacts to the City's utilities are anticipated. XIII.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (Sources: ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ 1,3) b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ p ❑ Environmental Assessment 96-16 12 12/11/96 147 ATTACHMENT NO. .n Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (Sources: 1,2) c) Create light or glare? (Sources: 2) ❑ ❑ 19 ❑ Discussion: The project will be constructed on currently vacant land in the Downtown Specific Plan. In order to ensure that the project is aesthetically pleasing, compatible with the design guidelines adopted for the downtown, and compatible with the Character Node and Landscape Corridor designations of the General Plan, the staff and Design Review Board will review building elevations, colors, and materials for the project. The project will introduce new light sources on the project site that are typical of commercial and residential development. Given the scale of existing development in the area, along with street lighting on the surrounding streets,the incremental increase in ambient light due to the new buildings is not expected to be significant. With implementation of standard conditions of approval (See Standard Condition No. 5) requiring the directing of lights in a manner to prevent spillage onto adjacent properties, no adverse impacts are anticipated. XIV.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (Sources: 14) ❑ ❑ ❑ p b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Sources: 14) ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑x c) Affect historical resources? (Sources: 15) ❑ ❑ ❑ Q d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which ❑ ❑ ❑ p would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (Sources: 5) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the ❑ ❑ ❑ p potential impact area? (Sources: 5) Discussion: Although the project is located within a historic district, the site is currently vacant, and is not located within the vicinity of any identified archaeological sites, paleontological sites, or cultural resources. No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. XV.RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional ❑ ❑ p ❑ parks or other recreational facilities? (Sources: 1, 2) Environmental Assessment 96-16 13 12/11/96 /fig ATTACHMENT NO. n ,N Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ p (Sources: 1) Discussion: Impacts to demand for recreational facilities are typically generated by introduction of additional users associated with residential development, or due to loss of recreational facilities or recreation designated property. The proposed project will add to the demand for local park use through the addition of new residents. There are minimal recreational facilities proposed as part of the project, and the applicant is requesting a special permit for reduction of common recreation area for the residential component._ Through provisions of the Downtown Specific Plan, the Planning Commission may grant approval of a special permit if the request results in a better project by creating an aesthetically pleasing appearance, enhancing the living environment, and facilitating innovative architectural design and adaptation of the development to the unique surrounding environment. However,the applicant expects to provide private recreation area in the form of yards and balconies that exceed minimum standards. The project will be subject to code requirements for payment of Park and Recreation fees in-lieu of dedicating land for park development. (See Standard Condition of Approval No. 10). XVI.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the ❑ ❑ ❑ x❑ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 2, 7) Discussion: There are no significant wildlife or biological resource on the site, and the project will therefore not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, or reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. No significant adverse impacts are anticipated. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short- ❑ ❑ p ❑ term, to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goats? (Sources: 3) Environmental Assessment 96-16 14 12/11/96 1(v q ATTACHivK.NT NO. 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. It does not represent a significant negative impact to the environment or goals of the City. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) (Sources: 3 and 5) Discussion: See discussion of items No. I through XV above. d) Does the project have environmental effects which ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 2, ,3, 5, and 6) Discussion: See discussion of items No. I through XV above. Environmental Assessment 96-16 15 12/11/96 �7� XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to tiering, program EIR,or other CEQA process,one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c)(3)(D). Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis Reference # Document Title Available for Review at: 1 Project Vicinity Map See Attachment#1 2 Reduced Site Plan See Attachment#2 City of Huntington Beach Community 3 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 4 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance " 5 City of Huntington Beach Environmental Impact it Report for General Plan Update 6 Project Narrative " 7 City of Huntington Beach General Plan Technical " Background Report for General Plan Update S Geotechnical Inputs " for City of Huntington Beach 9 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (April, 1996) " 10 Air Quality Handbook, South Coast Air Quality " Management District 11 Trip Generation, 4th Edition Institute of Transportation Engineers 12 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach Community Development Dept.,Planning/Zoning Information Counter,3rd Floor 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 13 City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedures Handbook " 14 City of Huntington Beach Archaeological Site Vicinity " Map 15 City of Huntington Beach Historic District Location it Map 16 3rd Block West Air Quality Emissions Model Run Data " Environmental Assessment 96-16 16 12/11/96 !71 ATTACHMEENT N0. n .,. • u E r / +I o o �eoo 20021 0 eo:u ARGOSY < v Or_, t r = ul g � SACri.EN o u ; q [O:NG[t � N[u WAk.jt WAtN(t r- 4 E a 3 ;-"'"0 O`er A ZA.+S a �O mil CA / eAMFi� VICINITY MAP HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING DIVISION /7 L ATTACHMENT NO. E.01 1-f C iC�7 r iri��yK DEC 121996 --JI L rARTMEi ...i' 1 ® FIFTH ST TREE a '�I aslocm.l �i 1 , LMRT.L V T 4 - b b I b I . . w ♦ lvrnn dt-A- 1-1-1 fy 1 1 1 b a4000 SP. Tl au 1 , I • IW I ' _ =1IT ]OF. > F • \ • ^ Iw . Wf 1 • • �1 O __ I• (r�(RGUI rrRlcnay � .� w�..r1® 1 tl A LNTAT _.._~•_ `� p+ T rl ♦ illl� l}s • ♦ • T r S_ -' IIT�T TIW uT I I = IM /•N rN M X N I \ w 1 1 D � , ►} b- � �� I o I 10 1 I YM♦ ` J i � �f�• NESTMIbW► � 1 (.0►M1Cull taKRCu1L t f— _} i S 6E I UPD Sr. 1 OGOd Sl. ► "I.L ___1 1 D100 Sl. r YS n• �. ' � A. Ilf I •.i• r •• ,n.� 1 1 r♦ 1 1 1 Ow V ' - ------ ---- - � -------- ---- �!� -----I----- .ifi ---- --- ( ��= S ! — Q® MAIN STREET ®- `!�� e 1 ------; .-------------------- ---- ---- 1 I 1 ` MAIN LEVEL C0"'IERCIAL 1ST AREA 50DO0 Sr. CO"-TRCIAL PARKIN5(ON SITE) 40 SPACES ONCLLM5 a SNARED RE5IOENnAL CUE5T) STREET ON PARKINS 44 SPACES I.T. DEVEIAPMFNT [.LC. 1 \ i RE rvllr v f 4F, a DEC 121996 FIFTH STREET I DEPARTM NTOF uy OMMUNITY DEVrLCPw .NTEj _ .e orM • pr Ir Q s , M . i I • e i w W B n c c w ' n oel • • � I'- `_ .` I ... t b ► I I W J W, M 11 - w t iv _ -� of I _ �, _ I— to I I ° � c c -- � � I I ab • Y A A K O K A A ! b I I )> 1 L ... i ' 1 m �i ---------- I --- I Z ( MAIN 5TREET I O I I I LEVEL 2 � r.r J.T. DEVELOPMENT THIRD ni Ocx WM Attachment No. 3 Standard Conditions of Arproval 1. The development shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, Building Division, and Fire Department as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances,and standards. 2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, an erosion control plan shall be submitted to Public Works Department. 3. During construction,the applicant shall: a. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in all areas where vehicles travel to keep damp enough to prevent dust raised when leaving the site: b. Wet down areas in the late morning and after work is completed for the day, c. Use low sulfur fuel (.05%) by weight for construction equipment; d. Attempt to phase and schedule construction activities to avoid high ozone days (first stage smog alerts); e. Discontinue construction during second stage smog alerts. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, submit a construction vehicle control plan to Public Works for review and approval. 5. If outdoor lighting is included, energy savings lamps shall be used. All outside lighting shall be directed to prevent "spillage" onto adjacent properties and shall be noted on the site plan and elevations. 6. Prior to issuance of building permit (or Certificate of Occupancy, if determined appropriate by the Traffic Division and Planning Division) of the first phase of development,a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) shall be submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department,Traffic Engineering Division. The study shall be used to determine the project's Traffic Impact Fee. The traffic impact fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. 7. A detailed soils analysis shall be prepared by a registered Soils Engineer. This analysis shall include on- site sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations regarding grading, chemical and fill properties, foundations, retaining walls, streets,and utilities. 8. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid. 9. All building spoils,such as,unusable lumber,wire,pipe,and other surplus or unusable material shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. 10.Park and Recreation fees shall be paid prior to issuance of building permits. 11.Floor plans shall depict natural gas and 220V electrical shall be stubbed in at the location of clothes dryers;natural gas shall be stubbed in at the locations of cooking facilities,water heaters and central heating units. Environmental Assessment#96-16 Attachment No.3 / 75 ATTACHMENT NO. 12.Prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant will be required to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Industrial Stormwater Permit from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. Proyosed Mitigation Measures 1. The existing storm drain in Olive Avenue shall be extended from Main Street to Fifth Street, removing the half round drain pipe. The existing storm drain in Main Street shall be extended to the north side of Orange Avenue,removing the half round drain pipe. 2. Fire protection shall include a separate fire service and shall be capable of providing 4,000 gallons/minute above the domestic water service. The developer shall abandon the existing eight inch water main within the alley between Main and Fifth Street,from the connection points at Orange Avenue to the north and Olive Avenue to the south. The developer shall design and construct water mains within Olive Avenue and Fifth Street. The water main within Fifth-Street shall be twelve inches in diameter. The water main within Olive Avenue shall be eight inches in diameter from the existing point of connection at Main Street to approximately the (existing) alley between Main and Fifth Streets,increasing to twelve inches in diameter to the proposed twelve inch water main within Fifth Street. The twelve inch portion of the proposed water main within Olive Avenue shall connect to the existing twelve inch tap in the existing twenty inch water transmission main at approximately the location where the alley between Main and Fifth Streets intersect with Olive Avenue. 3. All venting and mechanical systems for any restaurants shall be designed and constructed no lower than the highest residential unit to minimize potential odor impacts to the townhomes. 4. An acoustical analysis report,prepared under the supervision of a person experienced in the field of acoustical engineering, shall be completed prior to submittal of building permits. The noise study shall address potential noise impacts to the residential units from adjacent commercial and restaurant uses, refuse collection,parking garage,trash chutes,delivery, restaurant venting/shafts, and other project related noise sources. The acoustical analysis shall include recommendations for building materials and design of the units to reduce exterior noise standards to below 60 dB (A) and interior noise standards to below 45 dB (A). Environmental Assessment#96-16 Attachment No. 3 i 16 ATTACHMENT NO. -D a�0 01/10/1997 18:06 7146467716 GALLOCCIO MD PAGE 01 VED JAN 13 1997 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT loth. 1997 The Environmental Board reviewed Negative Dec No. 96-9 at our regular meeting held January: 9th 1997 . It was felt that the changes would have a greater impact than what currently seems to be acknowledged. The issues :of most concern are: the cumulative effect of traffic, safety, :parking, noise, and the loss of open space. The committee felt that these issues were not adequately dealt with. we request that: the project be changed and reduced in scope so that the existing; open space is not diminished; that traffic effects be diminished in consideration of the reality of the present and the future effects (PCH for example is already terrible) --that._ the land not just be mitigated by money payment (which will not solve the issue) and that the noise, which will increase as a result of developing this vacant land, be addressed presently so the mitigation can be addressed and reviewed before acceptance of the plan and aot just left open for later analysis. We do not feel that city codes should be relaxed, especially, as this project will have significant effects on an acute and long term basis--aesthetics, noise, pollution, traffic, safety, etc. (Of interest is that one lohg term resident on the board stated that people in the communityhad thought that this particular area was designated to be a park, 'and now already having lost their park for a parking lot, would rattier have that than a large, obstructive building. ) One way of solving these problems would be to decrease the commercial, by about 25� which, might bring the plan into code requirements and come closer to meeting community expectations . Respectfully submitted by, Fred James Galluccio, M.D. , F.A.A.F:P_ Associate Clinical Professor; U.C.I . Environmental Board Member, Huntington Beach TINY I� � W1 # `B 1 Pla g ecto 23 James Jones 30 OC County Harbors,Beach 35 city/of Se YBea Ocean View Elementary and Parks Dept. 2 Eig 3 St. School district P. O. Box 4048 eal Beach, A '0740 17200 Pinehurst Lane Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach CA 92647 CA Coastal Commission 24 Ron Frazier 31 K771 Br ing 36 Theresa Henry Westminster School District wl k Ar a 245 W.Broadway,Ste 380 14121 Cedarwood Avenue oosev t Lane Long Bch,CA 90802 Westminster.CA 92683 gton each,CA 92649 California Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 Sally aham/ 36 South District Office HB Union High School Disrict Me aowlar /Area/ 245 W.Broadway No. 380 10251 Yorktown Avenue 71 Gel ng Ci�rcle Long Beach,CA 92802-4458 Huntington Beach,CA 92646 Huntin on BefLch,CA 92649 RobgA Joseph 25 r.1frans Kol omp ny 37 01 Pu man ££ 4.43 Vo Karja Santa,�Ana2 C 2705 Newpo Beach2666. Director 26 Hunti,gton Beach Mall 33 LocafSolid Waste E .Agy. Attn at Roge s Laud O . Healt bare enc 77 7 Edin eAve. 00 g Y .O.Box 5 Hunhngto Beac A 92647 Santa A�a,C 92702 New Growth Coordinator 27 CSA 33 Huntington Beach Post Office 730 El Camino Way#200 6771 Warner Ave. Tustin,CA 9680 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Marc Ecker 28 Goldennwest College 34 Fountain Valley Attp.Fred O�vens� VSeliff etzel 16 Elementary School District 15744 Gol�denwest St. H17210 Oak Street �iuntingfon Beach CA 92647 1 lady rbor Circle Fountain Valley CA 92708 ington Beach,CA 92648 Dr. Duane Dishno 29 Cou rf y View states CAA 35 John oe 16 HB City Elementary School Dist. Cae Tho as Sea iff HO PO Box 71 / 642 Trer Driv 19�382 S��jj fdale ne Huntington Beach,CA 92626 Huntington Beach CA 92648 �lunting4on Be ch.CA 92648 Jerry Buchanan 29 Coun View E�tites HOX 35 HB City Elementary School Dist. Ge Chapman Loua iff Hone 16 20451 Craimer Lane 6342 Shire Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 untingtodBeach A 92648 1�9 i t an BcV 92 untington Beac CA 92648 g:lables\phnlbls g:lables\phnlbls C u P ion vq r. C • • 024-144-14 024-146-02 X.H. Sun Scott, Ruby 16721 Carousel Ln 7821 Talbert Ave Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024-146-06 024-146-07,15 James Briggs 14312 Willow Ln Max Grossman Tustin CA 92680 421 Rolling Hills PI Anaheim CA 92807 024-146-14 024-147-03 Choong Rhee Max Grossman & Donald Galitz 16861 Stonehaven Cr 9770 James River Cr Huntington Beach CA 92649 Fountain Valley CA 92708 024-147-14 024-147-15 Douglas Langevin Lovi Pico Partnership 8196 Pawtucket Dr 347 N La Jolla Ave Huntington Beach CA 92646 Los Angeles CA 90048 624-147-23 024-147-25 Pauline Huggins&Timothy Turner Richard Harlow 18052 Freshwater Cr 1742 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92647 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024-147-35 024-147-36 Taylor Family Trust John RoWa 220 Via San Remo 633 E Chapman Ave Newport Beach CA 92663 Orange CA 92666 937-191-59 937-191-60 Andrew Migliaccio Kerry Pendegrast 8691 Salt Lake Dr 7175 Orozco Dr Huntington Beach CA 92646 Riverside CA 92506 937-191-61 937-191-64 Carlene Anderson Robert Castro 17901 Fernpoint Cr 17300 Flametree Cr Huntington Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708-3522 937-191-67 937-191-68 Edward Brown B. Parikh 4519 Lawrence Dr 6872 Rook Dr Castro Vallcy CA 94546 Huntington Beach CA 92647 937-191-69 937-191-72 Rubin Richard Riggle 1908 Lake St 513 N Chalbuin Huntington Beach CA 92648 West Covina CA 91790 Cue qo - -A � 024-134-16, 17 Rcsbert&Connie Mandic Andrew Orens 1361 Parkside Dr 207 Appletree Av Riverside CA 92506 Camarillo CA 93012 024-134-19 024-134-20 Thomas Wickstrom Faye Ogden 20522 Salt Air Cr 1211 Montego St Huntington Beach CA 92646 Arroyo Grande CA 93420 024-142-01 024-142-05 Larry Bailey Marlene Miller 21282 Antigua Ln 215 Elmwood Dr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Council Bluffs IA 51503 024-142-06 024-142-08 Ronald Wood Thomas Battaglia 19681 Quiet Bay Ln 326 Ledroit St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Laguna Beach CA 92651 024-142-09 024-142-10, 21 P.B. Nguyen Ahmad Abdelmuti 325 Fifth St 322 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024-142-12 & 024-146-03 024-142-13, 14 Michael G. Tater Ahmad Abdelmuti 16136 Twinkle Cr 101 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92649 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024-142-16, 17 024-142-18 Mike Ali Max& Marian Grossman 19105-C Beach Crest Ln 421 Rolling Hills PI Huntington Beach CA 92646 Anaheim CA 92807 024-144-01, 10 024-144-02, 03 Alice Parnakian Robert Bolen 205 15'St 1818 Pine St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024-144-11 024-144-12 Leon Dubov Ben Trainer 20222 Peervale Ln 2364 Third St Huntington Beach CA 92646 San Francisco CA 94107-310 937-191-95 937-191-96 Larry Frende Richard Deen 12925 E Arabella PI 929 Golden Prados Cerritos CA 90701 Diamond Bar CA 91765 Cu. P 9v - 3a1P, j 937-191-74 937-191-79 G. & M. Dispalatro Timothy O'Brien 512 Pierside Cr 6262 Sierra Palos Huntington Beach CA 92648 Irvine CA 92715 937-191-82 937-191-85 William Frei;k Elmer Phibbs 9464 S Henderson Way 15642 Sunburst Ln Villa Park CA 92667 Huntington Beach CA 92647 937-191-86 937-191-88 Gerald Holombo Fred Shafer 201 Thatcher Ln 8262 Snowbird Dr Foster City CA 94404 Huntington Beach CA 92646 937-191-89 937-19-218 Joseph Fazio Resident 918 Main St 415 Townsquare Ln 319 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-19-219 937-19-220 Resident Resident 415 Townsquare Ln 320 415 Townsquare Ln 321 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-19-221 937-19-222 Peter J & Nancy Crowley John P Murray 415 Townsquare Ln 322 415 Townsquare Ln 323 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-19-223 937-19-224 Resident Arthur R Nichols 415 Townsquare Ln 324 415 Townsquare Ln 325 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-19-226 937-19-233 Arlene E Schneider Robert J Koury 415 Townsquare Ln 327 200 Main St Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024-133-22 024-133-24 Campbell, Douglas McCarthy, Michael 507 Pierside Cr 503 Pierside Cr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 024-133-41 024-134-06, 07, 08 501 Main Inc Branko Cavic c/o Shaoul J Levy 8940 El Presidente Av 100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1230 Fountain Valley CA 92708 Santa Monica CA 90401 937-191-99 937-192-01 Alan Kessler Rita Richardson 18890 Santa Madrina Cr 16974 Canyon Creek Cr Fountain Valley CA 92708 Riverside CA 92503-6557 937-192-04 937-192-09 Norman Branyan Surjit Kalsi 18352 Osboro Ln 17202 Argo Cr Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92647 937-192-14 937-192-16 Jerry Kaufman David Marin 15432 Maryknoll St 19202 Quiet Sands Cr Westminster CA 92683 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-192-18 937-192-19 Sante Campanile Ted Szuba 24556 Kings Rd 320 6ch St Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-192-20 937-192-23 Sheldon Pinchuk Roger Anderson 4440 Vanceboro Ct 419 Main St#88 Woodland Hills CA 91364 Huntington Beach CA 92648 John Tillotson Gordon Randall 15272 Bolsa Chica Rd Robert Hidey Architects Huntington Beach CA 92649 130 Newport Center Dr#210 Newport Beach CA 92660 Mike Adams 937-19-225 Langdon Wilson Architects Beverly A Mendes 1401 Quail St, Suite 100 415 Townsquare Ln 326 Newport Beach CA 92660 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-191-91 937-191-93 Franco Galanti Joseph Weber 19 Lark Field 22272 Kittery Cr Laguna Niguel CA 92677 Huntington Beach CA 92647 AYv1-�c—, D` 1�ov:,VtEv�v� }20VxVy P�CI� �1 , kE—a- Po Sox ((?°l l UL�IYID� 1 21 i,�1, O-A 9 2v`t`d �,U P t POC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLISO" MAILING LABELS - 3/11/97 President 1 Hun ton on HarborZ0742 10 Edna Littlebury 17 H.B. Chamber of Commerce P. O ox 79 Golden St.Mob. Hm. Owners Leag. 2210 Main Street,Suite 200 S nset Bed ,CA 11021 Magnolia Blvd.. Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Garden Grove,CA 92642 Judy Legan 2 Pacific C ast Archaeol gical 18 H.B./F.V.Board of Realtors Socie ,Inc. 8101 Slater Ave. P.O"fox 10 26 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 C sta Me/ ,CA 227 Attn:Jane Goth d President 3 William D. Holman 11 County of Orange/EMA 19 Amigos De Bolsa Chica PLC Michael M. Ruane,Dir. P.O. Box 3748 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 P.O. Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92605 Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Mr.Tom Zanic 12 Planning Department 19 New Urban West Orange County EMA 520 Broadway Ste. 100 P. O. Box 4048 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 President 5 Pres.,H.B. Hist.Society 13 County of Orange/EMA 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow C/O Newland House Museum Thomas Mathews 411 6th St. 19820 Beach Blvd. P. O. Box 4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 JYE ' ost 6 Chairperson 14 County of Orange/EMA 19 B Historical Resources Bd. Bob Fisher,Dir. cle #100 Comm. Services Dept. P.O.Box 4048 I14-6734 2000 Main St. Santa Ana,CA 92702-4048 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Richard Spicer 7 Couil on A g 15 Pla g D' . 20 SCAG 17 f Oran e Ave. Ci oY to Me a 818 West 7th, 12th Floor ItZntingt n Beac ,CA 92648 P. O. 120 Los Angeles,CA 90017 l ostaa, A 92628-1200 E.T. Corr 17dC 8 Dominick Tomaino 16 Plan g Dir. 21 M ry Be Seacliff Ho Bvcr�e s Assoc. City f Fou ain Va 292 astw ir. 681 me Bay Lane 1 00 Sl er Ave. un ' gton�each,CA 92646 tington Beach,CA 92648 F unta' Valley CA 92708 Allen Macenski, 9 Plan g Dire for 22 Environmental Board Chairman City f Wes nster 20021 Lawson Lane 8 0 Wes stern vd. Huntington Beach,CA 92646 estmi�ter,CA492683 g:lables\phnlbls G�1 40-- 3 � �. ,937-19-188 937-19-189 937-19-190 Fred L Shafer Joseph-M-F-az-io QLF,6'J-vt• Paul E Liguori 415 Townsquare Ln 215 415 Townsquare Ln 216 415 Townsquare Ln 217 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington BeachOA92648 •937-19-191 937-19-192 937-19-193 'r-aneo-Gai:an-t-i Keith B Bohr Joseph--P—&-F reda--Weber 415 Townsquare Ln 218 415 Townsquare Ln 219 415 Townsquare Ln 220 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach(A92648 f Huntington BeachcA 92648 i 937-19-194 937-19-195 937-19-196 David W Burnett R-:cherd-T.— �G� Imo-&. -Xt,IA 415 Townsquare Ln 221 i 415 Townsquare Ln 222 415 Townsquare Ln 223 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 937-19-198 937-19-199 r Robert G & Susan Bruce A?-_^_ Kes-s� ALL 415 Townsquare Ln Un225 415 Townsquare Ln 226 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach (�A92648 937-19-201 0iC�L v - 937-19-202 5VVTVt I.e2 LtI�A� V 1\i'VTPCil,.L r7Vn 415 Townsquare Ln 301 415 Townsquare Ln 302 j Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 937-19-204 937-19-205 nyan Peter O Paxson 415 Townsquare Ln 304 415 Townsquare Ln 305 Huntington Beacha92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 937-19-207 937-19-208 Lee S Burke Malcolm P Albrecht 415 Townsquare Ln 307 415 Townsquare Ln 308 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 937-19-210 937-19-211 Susan B Levine Sabine Wromar 4 41 Townsquare Ln 312 15 Townsquare Ln 310 5 q q Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 937-19-213 937-19-214 Gary J Brawley J-er--r-y--S- Dj an 415 Townsquare Ln 314 415 Townsquare Ln 315 Huntington Beach M 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 937-19-216 937-19-217 David A Mar-i-n Rae A Foster 415 Townsquare Ln 317 415 Townsquare Ln 318 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach`02648 Cu P 90 - 31 9- ,937-19-158 937-19-159 937-19-160 V , . ,yLt Gerald D' Shultz rn e—W—Mig3iacc=io 0 -x �- Pendergast 415 Townsquare Ln 105 415 Townsquare Ln 106 415 Townsquare Ln 107 Huntington Beach CA, 92648 Huntington Beach�A92648 Huntington Beach&,� 9264E 937-19-161a.t-fie 937-19-162 937-19-163 C arson James M & Jodi Horist Donald C Thompson 415 Townsquare Ln 108 415 Townsquare Ln 109 415 Townsquare Ln 110 Huntington Beach M 92648 Huntington Beachcg92648 Huntington Beach eA92648 937-19-164 937-19-165 937-19-166 AFL--^ '- � � William Barr Ross G Harvey 415 Townsquare Ln 111 415 Townsquare Ln 112 415 Townsquare Ln 113 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 937-19-167 937-19-168 937-19-169 � �� -R..w W r u -4W,..wn 'ti B#ter t-i Y-�-a�i-lcb, 12t��-tiJ' 415 Townsquare Ln 114 415 Townsquare Ln 122 415 Townsquare Ln 123 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachLA92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 i i 937-19-170 937-19-171 937-19-172 p � ,ttt H G Jones Lynn M Tetraultie#� -&- n �gg�a 415 Townsquare Ln 124 415 Townsquare Ln 125 415 Townsquare Ln 126 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 937-19-173 937-19-174 937-19-175 Dawn M Walker Allan Schwartz 415 Townsquare Ln 127 415 Townsquare Ln 201 415 Townsquare Ln 202 Huntington Beachc,92648 Huntington Beachl, 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 937-19-176 937-19-177 937-19-178 John & Carla Hooker Allison Hargrave Richard Otto 415 Townsquare Ln 203 415 Townsquare Ln 204 415 Townsquare Ln 205 Huntington BeachCrk92648 i Huntington . Beachch92648 Huntington BeachC492648 937-19-179 937-19-180 937-19-181 n VJ- Akemi Sawada Roger A Hiles 415 Townsquare Ln 206 415 Townsquare Ln 207 415 Townsquare Ln 208 i Huntington BeachC4A92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington BeacN,492648 937-19-182 937-19-183 937-19-184 Mark A Miller Thomas A Sauer 415 Townsquare Ln 209 415 Townsquare Ln 210 415 Townsquare Ln 211 Huntington Beacho; 92648 Huntington Beach�A92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 937-19-185 937-19-186 ti�t 937-19-187 =•��a .t"L Ge-r-ald-V-H-o ombe Gregory P Ziemba 415 Townsquare Ln 212 415 Townsquare Ln 213 415 Townsquare Ln 214 Huntington Beachcj92648 Huntington BeachcA,92648 Huntington Beachbk92648 024�144-01 024-144-02 024-144-03 John I Parnakian • Robert D Bolen • Robert D Bolen 328 Main St 320 Main St 316 Main St Huntington Beach CR92648 Huntington Beach, 92648 Huntington Beach, 92648 • 024-144-04 024-144-10 .024-144-11 United States Of Americ John I Parnakian Leon E Dubov 316 Olive Ave 300 3rd St 305 Orange Ave Huntington Beach cA 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 I Huntington Beach 92648 024-144-12 024-144-14 024-146-02 Ben Trainer Y H Sun Ruby Scott 303 3rd St 315 3rd St 220 6th St Huntington Beach , 92648 Huntington Beachdn 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 CA �=/t 024-146-03 024-146-06 024-146-07 41G = z� j Res—.M—Br-iggs 4(A-A VI-t Andrew Stupin 216 6th St 217 5th St 215 5th St Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 024-146-14 024-146-15 024-147 01 Zh y i; R4ee S ilk-�L� Andrew Stupin untingt Beac Redeye 209 5th St 211 5th St 4 1 Olive ve Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach , 92648 Hu ington B ach 92648 024-147-03 024-147-05 024-147-14 Andrew Stupin William G Gallegos Douglas M Langevin 218 5th St 210 5th St 217 Main St Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach 92648 024-147-15 ;, ��- 024-147-23 024-147-25 rshzp Pauline M Huggins Richard A Harlow 215 Main St 213 Main St 211 Main St Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach c�92648 Huntington Beach 92648 024-14 31 ' 4-1 7-33 24-14 .-34 'ty Of nt '�non Beac C1 y 0 Huntington Beac de pme Agency Of S tus Pen 'n 212 5th t 21 5th t Hu ington 92648 Huntingto Beachot92648 Hun ingto Beach 92648 024-147-35 024-147-36 937-19-154 Taylor John H Rohm Sa,",1 224 5th St 222 5th St 415 Townsquare Ln 101 Huntington Beachc.A92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington BeachC492648 937-19-155 937-19-156 937-19-157 Robert S Fisher Harry R & Kay Dunne Edward R Hutchison 415 Townsquare Ln 102 415 Townsquare Ln 103 415 Townsquare Ln 104 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beacho492648 C � P ct �. ,024-142-01 024-142-03 024-142-04 Larry T Bailey • Ted L & Carol Szuba • Thomas J Geiger 328 6th St 320 6th St 318 6th St Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach C492648 024--142-05 L'�( {- 024-142-06 024-142-08 ►2��,tz(�•�tir M a *,til 1 r T lJ.x�"V�\ DQ-n a 1� T7 T.7ee l�'pv:, -VL� 'I�'ICY��SJ vT--Rim+mot-agiia 'i'Y�e�zc. a a .a,.a.� 'xcv'rau'scc—rt-r� 314 6th St . 310 6th. St 3p2 6th'\ St Huntington Beach,,,, 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach 92648 024-142-09 i�sC�V\k 024-142-10 j_ s,C&- -v 024-142-12 -P'aIA Halt-i-n-gs-&-•Walker---Pau3 Michael G Tater ov �xstZ vt� 325 5th St 300 5th St 317 5th St Huntington Beach C-pr92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachC492648 024-142-13 �SCZ�Ly1k 024-142-14 024-142-16 r-Wa-I-Mr-Paul Mike Ali ov I �•v 313 5th St 311 5th St 301 5th St Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 CA 024-142-17 ov 1 ,4,.zLc-V6- 024-142-18 4�,L- UVLC 024-142-19 Pecos Portfolio Partner v athleen A Kulijmff Gerald D Barnes 305 5th St 309 5th St 308 6th St Huntington Beach(-'A92648 Huntington Beach(A 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 024-142-20 024-142-21 024-142-23 6a a�-& no��m.► _r^cv r- - "--'-`�' • l ar -eer Terrance J Scheffer f 306 6th St 321 5th St 324 6th St Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach, 92648 Huntington Beachc,492648 024,-142-24 \eevelop�ien��gency 4 01 I 0 4-14J 04 Charles A Gangitano CiR velop ent Agency Ci 322 6th St 300 thSHuntington Beach�92648 ton each 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 024- 3- 24-5 3-10 0 -.4 43 11 de, e p nt Agency Ci H tin on Be h Redeve Re evelo ent �ency Ci 3 Main St 30 Main t 305 ain Hun ingto Beach 92648 Hunt gto Beach 92648 Hunti gton Beach 92648 4-1 -1 24-143-1 0.24-143 19 L ro Gau an L ro Ga ano R� evelo en Agency Ci 303 Main t 30 5th t � 310 th S Hunt gton Bea h 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Hunti" gton' eac 92648 4�1 -20 24-141 -23 02 -143-� J es & Jo n Koller R ment Agency Ci Red velo0 nt gency Ci 314 5th t 32\devel ain St 320 th St�,Hunt ngto Bea h 92648 Hungtorn Beac 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 C e q 4-319- •024-133-09 024-133-10 024-133-12 Manfred Lengsfeld 40 League H Assistance • Robert J Koury 419 Main St 417 Main St 401 Main St Huntington Beachcik92648 Huntington Beach C/I 92648 Huntington Beach CA92648 024-133-14 024-133-15 1 024-133-16 Daniel Salerno Richard R Amadril Richard F Moran 504 Pierside Cir 506 Pierside Cir 508 Pierside Cir Huntington Beach CA92648 I Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 I 024-133-17 024-133-19 024-133-20 Frank Dispalatro Gregory Walsh Antonio L Caselini 512 Pierside Cir 515 Pierside Cir 513 Pierside Cir Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachCA92648 Huntington Beach CA92648 024-133-21 24-133 22 024-133-23 John A Wood R ssell Fie 'ger s � ° Alt 511 Pierside Cir 50 Piersi a Ci 1505 Pierside Cir Huntington Beach 92648 Hunt' Eton each 92648 I Huntington Beach CA 92648 I 4-13 24 024-133-25 024-133-34 H ong & Mi Park Steve S Golgolab Mark A Najera 503 Pierside . 'r 501 Pierside Cir 410 Townsquare Ln Hunt' gton Beac 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington BeachC4.92648 024-133-35 024-133-36 024-133-37 i-antes- R—F ebri-g£r Arthur L Hopkins 408 Townsquare Ln 406 Townsquare Ln 404 Townsquare Ln Huntington Beach C} 92648 Huntington Beach u} 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 024-133-38 024-134-04 _ Robert J Koury Diana Kantola 411 Main St 424 Main St Huntington Beachcjj-92648 Huntington BeachcA,92648 I I Cue io- 3qoe Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach • • Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I ' 024-134'-07 Branko & Louise Cavic -OTINGTpy 410 Main st CA \` \MGONPOgIlFo ��9� Huntington Beach 92648 C-j cppNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING -- r.v. oux i tyu Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-134-16 . Andrew L Orens ��NTINGTpy 400 Lake Sir CA \%,.ORP044 . Huntinaton Beach 92648 o ,9� r . 9y Q2 . cUUNTY LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING City of Huntington Beacn Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-134-19 Thomas L Wickstrom 405 Lake St CA TINGTpN� Hiintinaton Beach 92648 O ,MOON POqlFO �7 _ Q Q cFpUUYT CPS\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Office of the City Clerk T . P.O. Box 190 � • Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-134-18 Andrew L Orens ,NZINGTpy� 407 Lake St CA o \MCORPOq,1F F Nnnt-innf-.nn RAarh 47t^it1R � y 9 � 0 LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ---------- ._P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-134-05 Robert P Mandic ��pNZINGTpy� 414 Main St CA ,M�9Roogq,�o F-� Huntington Beach 92648 Q 9� o oe FcpGN `\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 937-19-215 Shelley L Johnson ��NTINGTp�Y 415 Townsquare Ln 316 o� CORiOq Huntington Beacham 92648 coi � Q 9y ,. C�. `FQyI 1909.►� �\`OQ cppNTY CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk • P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937-19-212 Eleanor T Michelson 415 Townsquare Ln 313 INGTpy 04"F9� Huntington Beach�92648 `O�_`N�ORIOR /�O e pppNTY Cap LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING — vun" Ic of wnway,vny vice n City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937-19-209 �NTINGTp 415 Townsquare Ln 309 0� `M`OR/ORR H� Huntington Beach 9264.8 PFG F�A C.3 - y Q p FppUNTY Ca LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937-19-203 Michael P Delaney 415 Townsquare Ln 303 oklINGTph Huntington Beach 92648 O _,c RPORA, / V y 0 CF �f9 I1 1909 F \ cppNTY �P` , rani nin-rinr Di ioi 10 ucnolnlr Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937-19-200 �NTINGTD Darin Bradley y 415 Townsquare Ln 227 `MOORP0441Fo 9� Huntington Beach92648 9 CF `fe 17,19p9•F6 �\� NTY CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 937-19-197 Michael R Hagemeister 415 Townsquare Ln 224 INGT�y Huntington BeachCA 92648 NCORP044rre p^ , C/ `FB 17 1909. NTY CP` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach • Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937-19-206 Myra F Michelson 415 Townsquare Ln 306 �pNTINGTpy Huntington Beach 92648 � - y a C `FB 17 1909.a� F�pUNTY Cad\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-134-20 Faye E Ogden 401 Lake St �pNTINGTpy Huntington Beach 92648 `O�_ MCORPOR ,,O �FA� Q C' cpUN T Y CPS'\ LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 024-134-17 Andrew L Orens 409 Lake St ��CNTINGTpy� Huntington Beach 92648 �O—`NORPONRFO FA� Q A Q cFcpUN-T CP`�� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach tr 0A, Office of the City Clerk �. -> V.S. L P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 .L •�r _ 9 024-134'-07 Branko & Louise _ r pNTINGTp 410 Main St CAa J • ��``M�ORPON�r�y�F Huntington Beach 4: , _ AED LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 12648-5 i.S2 26 II+IISI,I.IP III,III, lj.1L ...._.__ Connie Brockway,City Clerk :=t City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk t'✓'' , `� P.O. Box 190 i.= Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Al ;. .-.::. .._.:' iw• .:: •:• :i:i:•. .i:i is _ .�i.:, �i.� 024-134-19 Thomas L Wickstrom +' NTINGT 405 Lake St / Oy Hn Bacntinaton h %926 ►�� '`,,� \iMCORPON.I IFG vFA I S '7 Ab LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk \ P.O. Box 190 r. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 .i•,} l!-rj;r�"r,'.i_�— '�ti:��sys T 'i r.:iy�r �'i': �{. �iY r•.iL'i�t i� r� 024-134-20 i lJ / Faye E Ogden % 401 Lake St INGTpy Huntinctton Beach'�'9264 Q� tNCOR/OR�)fO v °uNTY �a� LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ` '32648—S221 65 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 ,,� ' Id;•,': '.• :'' ' /� � �..�. tS;: -:r~^;if _ir��.ir•i tr_,+�l.r•' trr•'•r _. ......�I• •f 'y:= .•l LJ /024-1 4-10 o I Parnakian 0 3rd St ��NT I NGTpy Huntington Beacht, 9�2�6�48 FORWARD eXpInl� c40NTY CP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING 1 2 6 4 8 s 1 1 2 06 Ilili�i�Iil�Iliiiletll�el��ltl�in ll�iill�illlll n�Ilii��l�i!I Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach i..� Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 . Huntington Beach, CA 92648 d'%r it i:' - 'rr'-tom -.t..;;fs i t1ti s!r�! r-.. �?•-r.,'• _ .� —'1 L 937-192-09 117202 Argo Cr 9� g,V,y TING yHuntington Beach CA 92647 �A"/l�1/�`y ��►" /Z ISO o y QZ (' l'pUN TY ca` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING ' II�I��I�I�II��I��II„�I��I�II I�I��II��I�I�I�►II��II��IIII��I�I�I�I�I ' i I Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk ''• �;" - -�`�^ P.O. Box 190 r ,.- ", _...-- Huntington Beach, CA 92648 r. W, ' ........✓,. 024-144-0I John I Parnakian 328 Main St Huntington Beach -' 9264lka � 1NGTpy Ry q ° F�puNrY �P`� LEGAL NOTICE - NWIC HEARING 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 If 11 Ili 110i1111111 VA.' G' Connie Brockway,City Clerk rr" City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 -- .y.:. -i it-- _ ,i;=��• _:L��'•`S L• :��•s''= _� _'�J _ r— ,�— — 937-192-09 117202 Argo Cr 9� 4,-fi j`3,��{ �pHTINGjp Huntington Beach CA 92647 ��9f��t,' R. ► 2 92 1 Q cp�NTY Ca` LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING, II�I��I�I�II��I„II��I��I�II I�I��II��I�1�1�►il��ll��llll��<<1�1�1�1�1 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk t ) P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _t —'t�'��t�� '��t�i't i•t.11�'i •�' i I�^.i i t� ' �+V•.' S��,i':��I —�.:1.•,�t_. TST....; L -•.e'::?:�3•',Lit.:{_ . ^.Y• �, �_ � �: a`: ;.. .art:�,•`.:t t _Yt_:::. .- r President g Huntington Beach Tomorrow 411 Gth St. �\ INcroy�AQ Huntington Beach,CA 48 Ca _ k\" .. �o�NTy cP LEGAL NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARI;NC lilt, „i�1�►1;11,�11t,«sll�►t�1tt��1l��ii�{ �y Connie Brockway,City Clerk _ Wof Huntington Beach e of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 937-19-157 1 pi umber pNiINGTp Edward R Hutchison 4 .; tAddress Ot `•+pro++,vyd 415 Townsquare.Ln Ordor FXplred �a �q Huntington Beach6 9 y y NTI _ y'Z LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING 92648-4623 01 II I+ I I II„I.,IIF If l 1111.01 +II 11.111 11 1 Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk - c - / P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 926484. ' Jlu El r ❑ fir. 1'a ❑ ` J, Vacant j667-19-172 �z%CtiiZL' ; T;outa MAzq-f-_ •-':'y---- ,.�3�.�z�T 4-��t3aa R}g9�e•..��; �pHTINGTpy 415 Townsquare Ln 12 of 6� Huntington Beach 92 CA LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING -- -- . 4 Connie Brockway,City Clerk •`. City of Huntington Beach - -� Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 `Tj ` \�q ` .�:.nknown ruing 01jur vacant ��r Y-2 n024-142-10 "tee lhvtt f;cute No i,,.;c_ llast-tn alker-Paula."1_ TINGTpy 'arrier!nt �( — - 300 5 St..•r. w O ,.�•ro++.,, dF �\ Huntington. Be 9 6,4"r. ;.1117 .r c�. '�•,,.,�•'`\roe �ti pUNTV �p LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk `J City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 <.,•_ 1 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Such i, 024-142-05 i � '-,•r -jr!ieientAu,.._ t(nr-,Ipnp Mi I I cr N- TINGT di❑9 Ordor L..,..- EO�N pq 314 6th St / o _•"'7" Bey Huntington Seach�97,7i4k.. y�� Da to �pUNTY LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING g2648-4602 0t Connie Brockway,City Clerk - City of Huntington Beach Hice of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190. �' `Ir ,CA' _^ ' I Huntington Beach -92M d t '1f tiOWn ❑ I'1:-ili]f n ryV .i,.,j Order Expirnd ❑ - <., ':-; z- -19-223 ` ricr im Resident 415 Townsquare.Ln 324 �OtaTINGTOy Huntington Beach CA 926480. 8` CFCpUNTV 6P\F LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 % Huntington Beach,CA 92648XX In. ::7 - -..e i�.. 0tiWr... ml 937-19-217 Rae A Poster Tp 415 Townsquare Ln 318 TING Huntington Beach�A92648 _ FOST415 92b48 5 000 114'46 04/01/`+-� c, - FORWARD TINE EYP RTN TO SEND C FOSTER'RAE A ST 14 HIGNLANDSGR ANCF°,'WCO"00126-3001 RETURN TO SENDER FOOUNTV CP`�� LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk 'City o1 Huntington Beach •...;•` /'��, Office of the City Clerk -- P.O.Box 190 - Huntington Beach,CA 92648 " fi✓p �� ` -/ 1 t 024-146=14 / :+ _ -,,;icrnptod U+: 209 Sth St a..,ich tlumr_r pNTINGTp Huntington Beach 9264:8"1> �~ttyntAddre rdarExpitu •Or --Date �OUNTV LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING 1 Il�ir��rlrl�llrrrlrrll��irrl�lrrrrllr��lll�rrlllr�ri,Irrl��irl Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach h Office Of the City Clerk `':•� — - P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 J ; �.,. ::.u:1T ,r O.; 937-19-160 � AaEc . \+:t Unk'nown 415 Townsquare Lif In o��NwINGTOyCC Huntington.Beach(q 92 , .ss E y T I N. d ❑ ''O—�L Date Yam. C. NTV `P� LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING ' 12648-4623 0i II.I...,1.I.11rr it trl..irll ...l.ir ll.,, ll.l.l,ll .l Lonnie brockway,City Clerk Huntington Beach of the City Clerk P.O. 0 7 Box 190 27 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 VIC- x" 9:37-19-171 Lynn M Tetrau t'Ln 125 �pNIING 415 Townsquay Huntington e 26_ch*p I ,gton Beach �pU CP N T1 LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING Man Q Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach I c Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 'IT11 024-147-36 John H Rohm 222 5th.St Huntington Beach�926�8 �pUN T LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 . . . ,937-12 Fred L Shaf' r 415 Townsquar n 2 1 ING Huntington Beac %?.6 48 410 ppU NTI LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING 12648-4676 01 11..1 if.1 1.11...I Connie Brockway.City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Office of the City Clerk P.O.Box 190 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 xx 41 F IvG,,,ozql4, SA 024-133-09 ma Tengsfeld ��NTINGTpy 19 fj;�" Rec.. 'r"vedW4p 8 n unt. Punt eac P`ost 0 Mgtor, z 41ail RLtuse ffice 8"ch Al"i/Rec'ivi o'a j1p "'vate n9A Gent, �pUNTI LEGAL NOTICE-PUBLIC HEARING 02 - ._.. -----� / _ .1 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO PLANNING COMMISSIOVACTION OF 2/25/97 Date of Planning Commission Action TO: Planning Dept (2 copies) DATE: 3/7/97 City Attorney (1 copy) FILED BY Robert Bolen P. O. Box 69 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REGARDING: Planning Commission's approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 90-39(R)/Coastal Development No. 90-30(R),Tentative Tract Map No. 14352(R),Negative Declaration No. 96-16(Plaza Almeria-Third Block West) Tentative Date for Public Hearing: 5/5/97 Copy of Appeal Letter attached. LEGAL NOTICE AND A.P. MAILING LIST MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 15 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE Connie Brockway City Clerk x5227 T n CASH RECEIPT CITY OF buNTINC,TON MAO 2000 MAIN STREET '. HUNTINGTON BEACH,CA 92648 • - I HUNTINGTON BEACH I r- DATE 7 _ ISSUING DEPT. �,f. /i �.�C� '� �C �-t-tom TELE.# S 3"7n 7 RECEIVED FROM ADDRESS r) Llo FOR /?��S/ T kt'Y•rY rt' t/� /YYtG 1 sr` /1 t�2 i ��-"�-c_ AMOUNTAECEIVED��`"�� QQ CASH.��„�� `❑CHECK � ��' $ /y n � _ _ r .1 RECEIVED BY �f 4F/ - of d4 1 - A� s .gs a -7 of Wo , a M l - . f - ;I FINANCE APPROVAL iINITIAL - TOTAL$:ff /// / ,aa 85°906 ISSUING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 7, 1997, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: ❑ APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39(R)WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.90-30(R)/ TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352(R)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.96-16(THIRD BLOCK WEST-PLAZA ALMERIA): Appellant: Amigos de Downtown(Robert Bolen, et. al.) Applicants: Robert Hidey and City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Request: To permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development project. The project includes the following: CUP with Special Permits/CDP: To permit the construction of a mixed use project consisting of a total of 41,000 square feet of leaseable floor area. The components of the project consist of approximately 15,000 square feet of retail,approximately 15,000 square feet of restaurant,approximately 11,000 square feet of office, and 45 two-story,two-bedroom townhomes. The project includes a request to permit shared residential guest and office parking spaces and as previously approved,to allow the residential square footage to exceed 50%of the commercial square footage. The project includes the following six special permit requests: 1. To permit portions of the 4 story structure at a height of 54 feet to the midpoint of the roof in lieu of the maximum 45 feet allowed by code and to permit a height of 65 feet for roofline architectural treatment in lieu of the maximum of 55 feet. 2. To permit portions of the ground floor building setbacks on Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue between zero(0)and five(5)feet in lieu of the minimum code required five(5)foot setback. 3. To permit portions of the upper story setback along Main Street,Olive Avenue, 5th Street,and Orange Avenue between zero(0)and ten(10)feet in lieu of the code required average of an additional ten (10)foot setback from the second story facade. 4. To permit 3,235 square feet of public open space within the net site area in lieu of providing the code required 4,092 square feet of public open space within the net site area. 5. To permit 3,235 square feet of public open space in a linear pattern along the street frontages in lieu of the minimum code required 1,000 square foot plaza within one centralized plaza area. 6. To permit 15,600 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in lieu of the code required 20,735 squar6 feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimensioh of 20 feet. ' Tentative Tract:to permit a one lot subdivision of a 1.88 acre parcel for condominium purposes and review the condominium plan for 50 commercial/residential lots and 7 lettered lots. Negative Declaration: to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts associated with the development project described above. Location: Downtown Huntington Beach on a full block bounded by Main Street,Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue Project Planner Jane Madera NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R),filed on December 28, 1995, in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report,public hearing,City Council discussion and action. The above item is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that the above item,with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the appeal,the City Council must review and act on the negative declaration. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street, and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department, or by telephoning(714)536-5271. (97eC407) c ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office after April 3, 1997. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)536-5227 (97C-C407) 3/a71 7 4 3 a 7 ` NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING0'� Paz 9 7 BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on April 7, 1997,at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following planning and zoning item: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 90-39(R)WITH SPECIAL PERMITS/COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT NO.90-30(�R / TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 14352(R)/NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO.96-16 THIRD BLOCK WEST-PLAZA ALMERIA): Appellant: Amigos de Downtown(Robert Bolen,et.al.) Applicants: Robert Hidey and City of Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency Request: To permit a revision to a previously approved plan for development of a mixed use commercial and residential development project. The project includes the following: CUP with Special Permits/CDP: To permit the construction of a mixed use project consisting of a total of 41,000 square feet of leaseable floor area. The components of the project consist of approximately 15,000 square feet of retail,.approximately 15,000 square feet of restaurant,approximately 11,000 square feet of office,and 45 two-story,two-bedroom townhomes. The project includes a request to permit shared residential guest and office parking spaces and as previously approved,to allow the residential square footage to exceed 50%of the commercial square footage. The project includes the following six special permit requests: 1. To permit portions of the 4 story structure at a height of 54 feet to the midpoint of the roof in lieu of the maximum 45 feet allowed by code and to permit a height of 65 feet for roofline architectural treatment in lieu of the maximum of 55 feet. 2. To permit portions of the ground floor building setbacks on Olive Avenue,5th Street,and Orange Avenue between zero(0)and five(5)feet in lieu of the minimum code required five(5)foot setback. 3. To permit portions of the upper story setback along Main Street,Olive Avenue,5th Street, and Orange Avenue between zero(0)and ten(10)feet in lieu of the code required average of an additional ten (10)foot setback from the second story facade. 4. To permit 3,235 square feet of public open space within the net site area in lieu of providing the code required 4,092 square feet of public open space within the net site area. 5. To permit 3,235 square feet of public open space in a linear pattern along the street frontages in lieu of the minimum code required 1,000 square foot plaza within one centralized plaza area. 6. To permit 15,600 square feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimension of 10 feet in lieu of the code required 20,735 squar6 feet of common residential open space with a minimum dimensio'h of 20 feet. Tentative Tract:to permit a one lot subdivision of a 1.88 acre parcel for condominium purposes and review the condominium plan for 50 commercial/residential lots and 7 lettered lots. Negative Declaration: to analyze and mitigate the potential environmental impacts associated with the development project described above. Location: Downtown Huntington Beach on a full block bounded by Main Street,Olive Avenue, 5th Street, and Orange Avenue Prot Planner: Jane Madera i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above item is located in the non-appealable jurisdiction of the Coastal Zone and includes Coastal Development Permit No. 90-30(R),filed on December 28, 1995,in conjunction with the above request. The Coastal Development Permit hearing consists of a staff report,public hearing,City Council discussion and action. The above item is not appealable to the California Coastal Commission. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that an initial environmental assessment for the above item was processed and completed in accordance with the California Quality Act. It was determined that the above item,with mitigation, would not have any significant environmental effects and that a mitigated negative declaration is warranted. Prior to acting on the appeal,the City Council must review and act on the negative declaration. This environmental assessment is on file at the City of Huntington Beach Community Development Department,2000 Main Street,and is available for public inspection and comment by contacting the Community Development Department,or by telephoning(714)536-5271. (97CC4o7) F N FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the City Clerk's Office,2000 Main Street,Huntington Beach,California 92648,for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested ` parties at the City Clerk's Office after April 3, 1997. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court,you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice,or in written correspondence delivered to the City at,or prior to,the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Division at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,California 92648 (714)536-5227 (97CC407)