Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBeach and Ellis Mixed Use Project - Site Plan Review 12-01 - City ® f Huntington Beach l 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 o www.huntingtonbeachea.gov fi£B,i� 1969 P'. Office of the City Clerk t Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF ACTION June 11, 2012 Ben Brosseau Consulting, Inc. 15149 Camarillo Street Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Subject: Appeal of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 (Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project) Request: SPR 12-01 analyzes a request for the development of the Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project to permit 274 residential units (six live work units), 8,500 square feet of retail space, associated private and public open space and parking on 2.74 acres located at the southeast corner of Beach Blvd and Ellis Avenue Applicant: Ben Brosseau Consulting, Inc. Appellant: Mayor Don Hansen Property Owner: Morrie Golchech, Progressive Property Mgmt., 10527 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 350, Los Angeles CA 90025 On Monday, June 4, 2012, the Huntington Beach City Council took action on your request and approved Site Plan Review No. 12-01 (Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project) with findings and conditions of approval, and CEQA Findings of Fact. If there are any further questions, please contact Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner at (714) 374-1684. Sincerely, Joan L. Flynn, CM City Clerk Att: Findings/Conditions of Approval for Site Plan Review No. 12-001 CEQA Findings of Fact Page 9, June 4, 2012 Action Agenda c: Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Morrie Golcheh, Progressive Property Management (NOA li:b�eea MsUWU#eW*ayere, New Zealand FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL — SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001: 1. Site Plan Review No. 12-001 for the construction of a mixed use development consisting of 274 multi-family residential units and 8,500 square feet of commercial area and associated improvements will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood as this development replaces a mostly vacant and underperforming commercial center. The mixed-use residential and commercial development, with the recommended conditions of approval, incorporates architectural and design elements that provide maximum compatibility of design with the existing and anticipated development surrounding the project site, promotes pedestrian accessibility, and promotes the image of the Huntington Beach envisioned within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). Structures on the project site are four to six stories in height and feature enhanced building materials and colors, building recesses and fagade offsets, and variation in massing composition. The neighborhood will benefit from the proposed 17,540 sf of publicly accessible open space. The project's conformance with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan further ensures that the form, height, and architectural design convey an overall high level of quality. 2. The proposed mixed use project will not adversely affect the Circulation Plan of the BECSP. The project will reduce the number of ingress/egress driveways at the site from six to two thereby reducing conflicts with through traffic and the potential for accidents. The proposed northerly garage entrance will be relocated to directly across from Patterson Lane to reduce peak hour traffic impacts of west bound traffic from the project site. The project will dedicate 2 ft along Beach Blvd and four ft along Ellis Ave to accommodate the Palm Tree Blvd and Neighborhood Street public right-of-way improvements consistent with the BECSP. No additional street improvements are required to improve capacity/efficiency on intersection operations; however, the project will pay fees commensurate with the project's contribution of traffic on the area-wide roadway system. 3. The project complies with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14) and other applicable regulations. The project complies with the development standards in terms of height, setbacks, minimum onsite parking, open space and architectural regulations. The project also ensures that the form and architectural design convey an overall high level of quality materials consistent with the vision of the Specific Plana ,- 4. The granting of the site plan review will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use — Specific Plan Overlay — Design Overlay on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Air Quality Element Goal AQ 1: Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. Policy AQ 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. B. Circulation Element Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Objective CE 3.2: Encourage new development that promotes and expands the use of transit services. Policy CE 6.1.6: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments, schools, and public facilities. C. Growth Management Element Policy GM 1.1.7: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize policing safety and security. Policy GM 2.1.4: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize fire safety and prevention. D. Hazardous Materials Element Goal HM 1: Reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Obiective HM 1.1: Promote the proper handling, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Policy HM 1.4.4: Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). E. Housing Element Goal H 2: Provide adequate housing sites to accommodate regional housing needs. Goal H 3: Assist in development of affordable housing. Policy H 2.2: Facilitate the development of mixed use projects in appropriate commercial areas, including stand-alone residential development (horizontal mixed use) and housing above ground floor commercial uses (vertical mixed use). Establish mixed use zoning regulations. Policy H 3.1: Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic segments of the community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households, to maintain a balanced community. F. Land Use Element Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Goal LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the principles discussed below: a. Not applicable b. Vary uses and densities along the City's extended commercial corridors, such as Beach Boulevard. c. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. e. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. f. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. g. Establish linkages among community areas, which may include pedestrian and vehicular paths, landscape, signage, other streetscape elements, open space, transitions, in form, scale, and density of development, and other elements. Goal LU 9: 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. Policy LU 9.1.4: Require that recreational and open space amenities be incorporated in new multi-family developments and that they be accessible to and of sufficient size to be usable by all residents. Goal LU 11: 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. Policy LU 11.1.2: Limit commercial uses in mixed use development projects to those uses that are compatible with the residences. Policy LU 11.1.4: Require the incorporation of adequate onsite open space and recreational facilities to serve the needs of the residents in mixed use development projects. Policy LU 11.1.5: Require that mixed use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access. Policy LU 11.1.6: Require that the ground floor of structures that horizontally integrate housing with commercial uses locate commercial uses along the street frontage (housing may be located to the rear and/or on upper floors). Policy LU 11.1.7: Require that mixed use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of the: a. Visual and physical integration among the commercial and residential uses (Plates LU-3 and LU-4); b. Architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts and residential units G. Noise Element Policy N 1.2.1: Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Ldn of 60 dB(A) and an interior Ldn of 45 dB(A), that all new development of "noise sensitive" land uses, such as housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, and religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits. Policy N 1.2.3: Require development, in all areas where the ambient noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dB(A), to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction, thereby, reducing interior noise levels to the 45 dB (A) Ldn level. Policy N 1.5.1: Require that commercial and residential mixed use structures minimize the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial land use to the residential land use. The design measures may include: (1) the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission; or (2) the configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and transmission. H. Recreation and Community Services Element Policy RCS 2.1.1: Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, which includes the beach in the calculation. I. Urban Design Element Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach. Objective UD 1.3: Strengthen the visual character of the City's street hierarchy in order to clarify the City's structure and improve Citywide identity. Policy UD 1.1.3: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City. J. Utilities Element Objective U 1.2: Ensure that existing and new development does not degrade the City's surface waters and groundwater basins. Objective U 1.3: Minimize water consumption rates through site design, use of efficient systems, and other techniques. Policy U 1.3.2: Continue to require the incorporation of water conservation features in the design of all new and existing uses such as the use of native plants, low flow toilets and water efficient appliances. The project would provide a mixed use, urban infill development with 274 rental units increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use of land resources. The area has a variety of complementary uses that are critical to any vibrant community such as the Five Point Shopping Center, several commercial centers, Senior Housing projects and its proximity to the beach at a distance of 0.75 miles. The proposed project maximizes the density contributing to one of the two most urbanized areas envisioned within the Specific Plan: Town Center Neighborhood. The project promotes walking between the various commercial uses and services reducing vehicular trips and pollution. The proposed project and unit mix was designed to provide new urban lifestyle being embraced by the younger population providing more technology, less space heeded not as dependent on their own individual automobile. The project is required to meet the City's affordable housing obligations providing 27 on-site affordable units. The proposed project will provide work force housing to the residents of Huntington Beach and Northern Orange County. The proposed project incorporates architectural and design principles to provide a pedestrian-oriented scale and ensure maximum design compatibility with the surrounding commercial, quasi-residential use and multiple family neighborhood. The project will be designed and certified to a Green Point Rated rating program for the residential portion of the project and LEED Silver Certified rating for the commercial portion of the project and will meet City noise requirements. Bicycle parking is located within the garage providing sufficient area to accommodate 70 spaces. Residential parking areas would be well-lit with parking for residents secured from public and commercial parking areas. Guest parking is located next to the commercial parking stalls and behind the secured gated residential parking area. The project would comply with the BECSP and other City codes to reduce water consumption and stormwater runoff. The project will incorporate sustainable site development strategies, utilize water savings features, emphasize recycling of resources and materials and maximize indoor environmental quality through design features and community policies. The project will result in remediation of the site. Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 ensure remediation of contaminated soils containing hazardous materials prior to development of the proposed project and provide supplemental procedures in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants during construction. As described in the EIR some site remediation has already occurred and is ongoing with regulatory protocols in place. If unknown contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk posed to human health. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001: 1. The site plan received May 7, 2012, floor plans and elevations received May 1, 2012 and revised colored elevations received May 2, 2012 for Site Plan Review No. 12-001, shall be the conceptually approved design except as amended by the conditions specified as follows: a) The north (Ellis) elevation shall be revised to reflect the relocation of the Ellis driveway per the site plan dated May 7, 2012. b) East elevation (west garage exterior wall) of Plaza, shall be enhanced through use of landscaping, upgraded materials, installation of public art or other design feature approved by the Planning Division. c) Rooflines of east and south elevations of Building 2 shall be designed at varied heights to create a visual break. d) Removable bollards shall be installed at both the north and south entrances of the Plaza. e) Existing surface and sub-surface utilities (electrical pullboxes/vaults/manholes/vent pipes/manholes/vent pipes/traffic signal control pullboxes/cabinets, etc.) located along Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave frontages of the project site shall be relocated to allow for construction of the street standards and specifications of BECSP and to allow for maximum visibility of the new commercial component of the mixed use project. All utility relocation shall be permitted through the appropriate agency or utility company and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department. 2. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with certified Environmental Impact Report No. 10-004. 3. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. 4. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit, the following shall be completed: a) The project site is located in close vicinity to Orange County Water Districts' Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Groundwater Replenishment System The applicant shall coordinate with, and obtain approval and permit from OCWD for the construction of the proposed underground parking structuretfoundation and shall satisfy all OCWD requirements to mitigate any impact to the said Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Groundwater Replenishment System A copy of the Permitlapproval shall be transmitted to the Public Works Department. b) If tie-backs or other method of horizontal anchoring systems are proposed for construction of any temporary and/or permanent earth retaining structure no encroachment of such anchor shall be allowed within the public right-of-way. c) Caltrans encroachment permits for work within the Caltrans right-of-way (for construction of sidewalks driveways utility connections drainage etc) shall be obtained by the applicant prior to City issuance of a grading permit Since Caltrans does not allow any increase in drainage above existing onto Beach Boulevard the applicant shall include a _Hydrology Study for Caltrans review and approval with the encroachment permit application. A copy of each submittal encroachment permit traffic control plans and/or other permission granted by Caltrans shall be transmitted to the Public Works Department 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a) One set of project plans and one 8 'h inch by 11 inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette, revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code.Requirements, shall be submitted for review, approval and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning Division. b) Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Fire and Public Works shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. c) Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the following shall be completed: a) The property owner/developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement to address the continuing maintenance and liability for all landscaping, irrigation furniture and enhanced hardscape that encroaches into the Beach Blvd and Ellis Avenue Rights-of-Way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as enhanced sidewalk cleaning trash cans disposal of trash signs tree or palm replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the development plan improvements proposed The agreement shall state that the property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the County, City and/or Caltrans. b) A Development Agreement shall be approved by the City Council and recorded. The Agreement shall provide for affordable dwelling units in accordance with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance as well as required traffic mitigation fees. The number and location of units and affordability terms shall be set forth in the Development Agreement. c) A public art element approved by the Design Review Board, Director of Planning and Building, and the Cultural Services Supervisor, shall be depicted on the plans. Public Art shall be innovative original and of artistic excellence; appropriate to the design of the proiect: and reflective of the community's cultural identity (ecology, history, or society). 7. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit and/or commercial tenant, the following shall be completed: a) A Parking Management Plan, approved by the property owner/developer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. Said plan shall depict designated (residents/ tenants / employees / guests / public/ customers / carpooling) parking space locations. b) The property owner/developer shall submit proof of registration with the GreenPoint Rated and LEED Silver program and a checklist of how certification is proposed to be achieved. Within 45 days of final building permit approval, the property owner/developer shall provide a final report by an accredited third party stating that the project has achieved LEED Silver for the retail portion of the development. The residential units shall receive a GreenPoint Rated certification that is equivalent of LEED Silver. The developer shall provide the City with evidence of said certification. c) Interior of parking structure shall be painted white to reflect natural light and increase illumination. Lighting shall be placed in a manner to illuminate the interior of vehicles allowing individuals approaching their vehicles to see inside prior to their entry. d) If complex will restrict entry to residents only by locked entry points, then those security systems shall be user friendly to the Police and Fire Departments. e) Addresses and unit numbers shall be painted on the roofs of the apartments. Unit number on interior shall be a minimum of 3' x 1 Y2". f) The existing power poles along the easterly side of the project property line shall be undergrounded. g) The property owner/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division showing compliance with the Acoustical Study dated April 26, 2012. 8. Operation and use of the project shall comply with the following: a) Live work units shall not be rented separately. b) Security gates shall be installed at the southern paseo at the east property line entrance and the area immediately east of the fire lane. This area shall be accessible to residents only after dark and shall remain open during daylight hours. 9. Signage is not approved as part of Site Plan No. 12-001 and shall not be installed prior to approval of a Planned Sign Program by the Planning Division. 10. The developer or developer's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project property owner/developer if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the property owner/developer of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. -EACH &ELLIS 1�! 'ED USE PI�OJEGT ENVIRONIV�NTAL ASSESSIVIEN'I' NO 12 001 INTRODUCTION This document presents the potential impacts that were identified in the Environmental Assessment for the currently proposed project as well as the previously approved EIR (EIR No. 10-004) and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR ("Finding 1"). (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency ("Finding 2"). (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3"). CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible, to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines �15091(a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [1990] 52 Cal.3d 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 410].) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record (State CEQA Guidelines �15091). Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Environmental Assessment for the currently proposed project as well as the previously approved EIR (EIR No. 10-004). Table 1 (CEQA Findings for the Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project Environmental Assessment) summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the currently proposed project in the Environmental Assessment that were reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation as well as the project-level and cumulative significant impacts. The currently proposed project would allow for development of 274 apartment dwelling units and 8,500 sf of commercial uses. able. IP ' o e o - - • • • - a o - • - • ' - Impactstatement Impactsummmy Fincghgs Aesthetics Impact XIII (d) Implementation of the currently The currently proposed project has heights that range from three to six stories. Buildings Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project would introduce new sources of generally three or more stories in height have the potential to include large building faces changes or alterations in the project,which would light and glare into the project vicinity that could that could introduce reflective surfaces that could increase existing levels of daytime reduce Impact XIII (d) to less-than-significant adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. glare.The currently proposed project could,therefore,serve as a new source of light and levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with implementation of mitigation glare in the area, and impacts would be potentially significant. However, implementation No additional mitigation measures are necessary measures, this impact is considered less than of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.1-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant with the implementation of mitigation measure significant. level. MM4.1-2. The provision of non-reflective fagade treatments for new structures would ensure that impacts related to daytime glare would be reduced to a less-than-significant level by reducing the reflective properties of the building materials employed, such as glass, metal,or finished concrete. Air Quality Impact V (a) Implementation of the currently Construction of the currently proposed project would generate emissions that exceed the Finding 3. The City finds that even with proposed project could violate an air quality thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC,a criteria pollutant. implementation of all feasible mitigation standard and contribute substantially to an existing Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 measures and compliance with applicable or projected air quality violation for criteria air would reduce construction-related emissions however, they may not reduce these requirements, construction emissions of the pollutants. Even with mitigation measures, this emissions to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds. No further feasible mitigation currently proposed project could result in an impact is considered significant and unavoidable. measures are available and this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. exceedance of established thresholds for daily construction emissions. No mitigation measures in addition to BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 are feasible to reduce construction air quality impacts. Impact V (b) Implementation of the currently For the purposes of this analysis,the nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could expose sensitive receptors site would be the existing SRO units along Ellis Avenue immediately adjacent and to the changes or alterations in the project,which would to substantial pollutant concentrations. With east of the project site,and the single-family properties along Ellis Avenue to the north of reduce Impact V (b) to less-than-significant incorporation of mitigation measures,this impact is the proposed project site, located approximately 75 feet from the project site's property levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. considered less than significant. line. No additional mitigation measures are necessary With the implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-11 and Project MM4.2-15, emissions will be reduced during construction. BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-11 and Therefore, with mitigation, impacts to localized sensitive receptors will be less than Project MM4.2-15. significant during construction. Impact V (e) Implementation of the currently Construction of the currently proposed project would generate emissions that would Finding 3. The City finds that even with proposed project would result in a cumulatively exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC.Because implementation of all feasible mitigation considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for 03(for which VOC and NOX measures and compliance with applicable which the proposed project region is in areprecursors) and PM10 under national and state standards, and is in nonattainment requirements, construction emissions of the • • - H • • o - - • • o - o - o - o - • - - Im statement Im summ Flnciin nonattainment under an applicable federal or state for CO under national standards, projects could cumulatively exceed an air quality currently proposed project would result in an ambient air quality standard. This impact is standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. exceedance of established thresholds for daily considered significant and unavoidable. emissions in the cumulative scenario.No feasible Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 mitigation measures in addition to mitigation would reduce VOC emissions, but not to a less than significant level. Therefore, even measures BECSP MM4ad through BECSP with mitigation emissions during construction will remain significant and unavoidable and measures are available. cumulatively considerable. Cumulative Air Quality The proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the pollutants and Finding 3. The City finds that even with precursors of ozone for which the Basin is in nonattainment. Therefore, the currently implementation of all feasible mitigation proposed project would make cumulatively considerable contributions of these pollutants measures, compliance with applicable during construction of the currently proposed project. Mitigation measures BECSP requirements, and changes to the project, MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 will be implemented during construction activities to construction and operational emissions of the reduce emissions to the extent feasible but the potential impact will not be reduced to a proposed project would result in an exceedance less-than-significant impact. Therefore, the currently proposed project would result in a of established thresholds for daily emissions in significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact. the cumulative scenario. No feasible mitigation measures in addition to mitigation measures MM4.2-1 through MM4.2-14 are available. Biological Resources Impact VII(a)Construction of the proposed project Vegetation on the project site is limited to trees and landscaping associated with the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified could have a substantial adverse effect, either existing commercial uses.Within the parking lot trees located on the project site,there is changes or alterations in the currently proposed directly or through habitat modifications, on birds the potential for birds protected under the MBTA to nest. Prior to any construction project, which would reduce Impact VII (a) to protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. activities occurring between February 15 and August 31 annually (breeding season), a less-than-significant levels, are hereby However, with mitigation measures, this impact is nesting bird survey would be conducted as required by mitigation measure BECSP incorporated into the currently proposed project. considered less than significant. MM4.3-1. No additional mitigation measures are necessary In the event that active nests are identified within 250 feet of the construction site,a 100- with the implementation of mitigation measure foot no work buffer would be maintained between the nest and construction activity. BECSP MM4.3-1. Consultation with the CDFG and USFWS is also encouraged. This survey would be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit.As such, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.3-1 would ensure protection of migratory bird species and habitat through focused surveys and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. Cultural Resources Impact XIV (b&d) Construction activities A records search was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center Finding 1. The City finds that the identified associated with implementation of the currently (SCCIC) of the BECSP area. This search indicated that archaeological resources are changes or alterations in the currently project, proposed project could cause a substantial present within the BECSP area, though not on the project site. These sites have likely which would reduce Impact XIV (b&d) to less- adverse change in the significance of an been destroyed or capped since they were first discovered. In addition, the NAHC than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated —archaeological resource or disturb human remains. identified the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate BECSP into the project. No additional mitigation • s - N • • • - - s • s - • - o - o - o ImpactSkdernent Impoctsummmy Rndn gs With incorporation of mitigation measures, this area and noted that the general area was considered sensitive for cultural resources. measures are necessary with implementation of impact is considered less than significant. Finally, representatives from the Gabrielino Tongva Nation contacted PBSU to express mitigation measure MM4.4-2(b). their concerns about the sensitivity of the BECSP area for Native American resources and burial grounds. Therefore, the BECSP area is considered to be sensitive for the presence of Native American cultural resources, including human remains. However, because the project site has been previously disturbed and is considered to be entirely developed, and the records search conducted by the SCCIC did not identify archeological resources on the project site,archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered as a result of the currently proposed project and mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-2(a)would not be applicable. However, earthmoving activities could result in the uncovering of previously unidentified resources. Incorporation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-2(b) would reduce any impacts from this occurrence to a less than significant level. Impact XIV (c) Construction activities associated According to a paleontological records search performed by the Natural History Museum Finding 1. The City finds that the identified with implementation of the currently proposed of Los Angeles County in September 2008 for the BECSP area, no previously recorded changes or alterations in the currently proposed project could result in the disturbance of paleontological resources are located within the BECSP area, including the proposed project, which would reduce Impact XIV (c) to paleontological resources. With incorporation of project site. However, the search did identify several paleontological resources in the less-than-significant levels, are hereby mitigation measures,this impact is considered less BECSP vicinity, as well as soils that often contain vertebrate and invertebrate fossils.As incorporated into the project. No additional than significant. such, the BECSP EIR concluded that the entire plan area, including the project site is mitigation measures are necessary with considered sensitive for paleontological resources. In compliance with mitigation implementation of mitigation measure measure BECSP MM4.4-3(a), a records search for the project site was conducted for MM4.4-3(b). EIR No. 10-004,and turned up negative for the presence of paleontological resources on the project site.However,because of the area's sensitivity,the currently proposed project is required to comply with mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-3(b) in the event that a previously unidentified unique paleontological resource or geological feature is discovered during ground disturbing activities. As such, the currently proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to paleontological resources. Geology and Soils Impact III (a) Future development under the According to the Liquefaction Potential map included as Figure EH-7 of the Huntington Finding 1. The City finds that the identified currently proposed project could expose people Beach General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, the project site is located in area changes or alterations in the currently proposed and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse identified as having a low potential for liquefaction. However, based on review of the project,which would reduce Impact III(a)to less- effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, California Seismic Hazard Zones Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle,which identifies than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated involving fault rupture, strong seismic the site as not being located within a liquefaction hazard zone, the Preliminary into the project. No additional mitigation groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure, Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the site concluded that the potential for measures are necessary with the implementation including liquefaction, and/or landslides. With liquefaction and seismic-induced settlement is expected to be very low. Regardless, of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1. implementation of mitigation measures and impacts associated with seismic hazards, including liquefaction, would be addressed compliance with applicable State and City through adherence to applicable regulations including the City of Huntington Beach regulations, this impact is considered less than Building Code,which has adopted the 2010 CBC,the Grading and Excavation Code,and IN III • s - !� ' • o o - - • e • • o - • - • tP Impad Statement Imi3crdSummary FincUngs significant. state requirements pertaining to geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. Additionally, as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1, a soils and geotechnical report would be prepared for the proposed project and submitted to the City with the first submittal of a grading plan for the project.The design,grading, and structural recommendations of the final soil and geotechnical report would be incorporated into the currently proposed project's grading plan. In light of the strict regulations in place to control development of structures in a seismically active region, and the incorporation of project-specific design recommendations into project plans, the currently proposed project's impact due to exposure to seismically induced groundshaking,and seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant. Impact III (b) Construction of the currently Grading and excavation would expose soil to erosional processes and could result in the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could result in substantial soil loss of topsoil during construction. As part of the project, a site-specific Stormwater changes or alterations in the currently proposed erosion, loss of top soil, changes in topography or Pollution Prevention Plan (mitigation measure PROJECT MM4.5-2), which is part of the project,which would reduce Impact III(b)to less- unstable soil conditions. However,with compliance NPDES Municipal General Permit, would be prepared. Implementation of Best than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated with slope stability, soil stability, and seismic- Management Practices during construction activities as required by the NPDES permit into the currently proposed project. No additional resistant design standards for structures proposed would reduce the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Unstable soil conditions mitigation measures are necessary with the for human occupancy required by the City of would be addressed through compliance with the Grading and Excavation Code and implementation mitigation measure BECSP Huntington Beach General Plan, Building Code, incorporation of the recommendations of the project-specific Geotechnical Engineering MM4.5-1. and Grading and Excavation Code and Feasibility Report into the currently proposed project's final grading plan, as required by implementation of code requirements and mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1. Compliance with applicable requirements would mitigation measures,this impact is considered less ensure that this impact remain less than significant. than significant. Impact III(c)The currently proposed project could Finding 1. The City finds that the identified According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation,the groundwater at the site ranges be located on a geologic unit that would become changes or alterations in the currently proposed unstable as a result of the project and potentially from approximately 30 to 59 feet below existing grades, which is consistent with the project, which would reduce Impact III (c) to a historical ground water data for the project that indicates groundwater depths in excess of result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, less-than-significant level, are hereby 30 feet. Based on this depth to groundwater, the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation subsidence,liquefaction or collapse.However,with incorporated into the currently proposed project. concluded that ground water is not likely to be encountered during foundation compliance with slope and soil stability standards construction; however, higher localized and seasonal perched ground water conditions No additional mitigation measures are necessary required by the City of Huntington Beach General may accumulate below the surface depending on numerous factors including seasonal with the implementation of code requirement Plan; Building Code, and Grading and Excavation BECSP CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure BECSP rainfall,local irrigation,and ground water pumping,among others.Due to the potential for Code, as well as implementation of code shallow groundwater, dewatering activities could be needed during the excavation MM4.5-1. requirements and mitigation measures, this impact (grading and shoring) and subgrade construction (for building foundation) stages of is considered less than significant. construction. Temporary shoring, dewatering wells, storage tanks, filters, and erosion control measures would be required to comply with the City's Grading Manual (Chapter 17.05.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code). Dewatering activities would be required in order to comply with the NPDES Permit for Groundwater Discharge from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, the currently proposed ro'ect would be designed according to the recommendations of the project-specific MEIJER Q� • o • - e s • - • NOON= • - e - Im Sk*rnent ►m aci Summ Hndn gs Geotechnical Report, required by code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1. The currently proposed project would be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable Soils) of the City's Municipal Code and Title 17 Excavation and Grading Code. The currently proposed project site is identified as having a very low potential for liquefaction to occur. In the event that liquefaction does occur, the primary effect is expected to be ground surface settlement due to the consolidation of the liquefied material. Settlement could also be caused by loads generated by large earthmoving equipment or occur as a result of the placement of new fill or structural loads above the existing grade.Potential impacts associated with settlement would be addressed through the incorporation of specific engineering recommendations to be included in the final soils and geology report prepared for the currently proposed project, as required by code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1, and included in the currently proposed project's final grading plans consistent with mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1. Additionally, the currently proposed structures would be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable Soils) of the 2010 CBC and Title 17 Excavation and Grading Code. As such, the currently proposed project would not be located on an unstable geologic unit or soil that could become unstable.Therefore,would be a less than significant impact. Impact III(d)The currently proposed project site is The currently proposed project site is identified as having a "low to moderate' potential Finding 1. The City finds that the identified identified as having a "low to moderate" potential for expansive soils on the Expansive Soils Distribution map, Figure EH-12 of the changes or alterations in the currently proposed for expansive soils. However,with compliance with Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. Risks associated with project, which would reduce Impact III (d) to a soil stability standards required by the City of expansive soil are addressed through adherence to Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable less-than-significant level, are hereby Huntington Beach General Plan, Building Code, Soils) from the 2010 CBC and Title 17 (Excavation and Grading Code), as well the incorporated into the currently proposed project. and Grading and Excavation Code, and incorporation of recommendations of the final soils and geology study, as required by No additional mitigation measures are necessary implementation of code requirements and code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1 into the currently proposed project's grading plans with the implementation of code requirement mitigation measures,this impact is considered less (Mitigation Measure BECSP MM4.5-1). As such, potential risks to life and property BECSP CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure BECSP than significant. associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. I MM4.5-1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact IX (b) Implementation of the currently In order to address the potential for encountering contamination within the project area,a Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could create a potential Phase I ESA report and a Phase II Investigation report were prepared, as required by changes or alterations in the currently proposed significant hazard to the public or the environment mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-1, to investigate potential contamination and require project,which would reduce Impact IX(b)to less- through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident remediation if necessary, prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. The Phase I, than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated conditions involving the release of hazardous completed in January 2007 by SCS, revealed that the active gas station is a LUST site into the currently proposed project. No additional materials into the environment. However, with with ongoing remediation of soil and quarterly groundwater monitoring under the mitigation measures are necessary with the compliance with existing regulations and oversight of the SARWQCB and OCHCA. To remediate any existing conditions at the implementation of mitigation measures BECSP implementation of mitigation measures,this impact— project site various work plans have been submitted to and were approved by OCHCA. MM4.6-1, BECSP MM4.6-2, and BECSP MM4.6- • • - Q • • o - - • • • - o - • - • - • - Im Skdemenf Impads6mmmy Findings is considered less than significant. These work plans include an Additional Site Assessment to address potential soil and 3. groundwater contamination,separate phase hydrocarbon removal,soil vapor survey,and the installation of a"deep zone"groundwater monitoring well. Remediation efforts would continue with implementation of the proposed project for an indeterminate time.As part of the proposed project, existing monitoring equipment that is currently located outside will be relocated within the proposed parking garage to allow for testing and treatment of the aquifer.Identification and remediation of known contamination on the project site was required by the previously certified EIR and is also required for the proposed project. Mitigation measures to be implemented include BECSP MM4.6-1 and BECSP MM4.6-2, which requires the preparation and implementation of a Risk Management Plan in the event that unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater is encountered would minimize the potential risk of contamination created by implementation of the proposed project. The currently proposed project site is located within a Methane Overlay District and is therefore subject to mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-3, which requires the project to comply with HBFD City Specification No. 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirement prior to issuance of a grading permit. Specifically, the Applicant would be required to submit a plan for the testing of soils for the presence of methane gas to determine if a problem exists and to rule methane out as a potential concern to the HBFD prior to commencement of sampling. In the event that methane gas is discovered, appropriate measures to reduce the potential impacts of methane gas to future occupants and visitors of the project site would be required as per City Specification No. 429 (Methane District Building Permit Requirements) and mitigation measures BECSP MM4.6-3. Implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-3 would reduce any impacts associated with methane gas by ensuring that appropriate testing and methods of gas detection are implemented.at the project site, as required by the HBFD.As such, the potential impacts associated with methane gas would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IX(g)The currently proposed project could Temporary short-term construction impacts on street traffic adjacent to the project site Finding 1. The City finds that the identified impair implementation of or physically interfere with due to roadway and infrastructure improvements and the potential extension of changes or alterations in the currently proposed an adopted emergency response plan or construction activities into the right-of-way could result in a reduction of the number of project,which would reduce Impact IX(g)to less- emergency evacuation plan. However, with lanes or temporary closure of segments of Beach Boulevard or Ellis Avenue. Similar to than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated implementation of mitigation measures,this impact the analysis in the previously certified EIR, any such impacts would be limited to the into the currently proposed project. No additional is considered less than significant construction period of the project and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. mitigation measures are necessary with the However, mitigation measure BECSP MM4.64 would ensure that emergency response implementation of mitigation measures BECSP teams for the City of Huntington Beach, including HBFD and Huntington Beach Police MM4.6-4. Department(HBPD)would be notified of any lane closures during construction activities on the project site and that a minimum one lane would remain open at all times to provide adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding neighborhoods. Implementation - ImpodStaternent ImpactSummyy Flndm gs of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-4 would ensure that proposed development would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles, and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact IV (a) Implementation of the currently The currently proposed project would be subject to all existing regulations associated Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could violate water quality with the protection of water quality. The applicable waste discharge requirements changes or alterations in the currently proposed standards or waste discharge requirements. (WDRs), the NPDES General Permit for construction activities, De Minimus Threat project,which would reduce Impact IV(a)to less- However, with implementation of mitigation General Permit, and Municipal NPDES Permit are considered protective of water quality than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated measures, this impact is considered less than during construction and would, therefore, prevent a substantial violation of water quality into the currently proposed project. No additional significant. standards and minimize the potential for contributing additional sources of polluted runoff mitigation measures are necessary with the during construction of the proposed project. These existing regulations, programs, and implementation of mitigation measure MM4.7-1. policies would ensure that the potential for discharge of polluted stormwater from construction sites to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters and water quality standards, where applicable, would not be substantial. Implementation of existing regulatory requirements would ensure that on-site erosion and siltation are minimized and that construction of the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of water quality standards.Compliance with the existing regulatory requirements described above, as well as implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-1, would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards.This impact would be less than significant. Impact IV (b) Implementation of the currently According to the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the currently proposed project site,the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could substantially deplete depth to groundwater at the site ranges from between 30 to 60 feet below the existing changes or alterations in the currently proposed groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with grade. In the event that permanent dewatering activities are necessary on the project project,which would reduce Impact IV(b)to less- groundwater recharge. However, with site,the proposed project would require coverage under the De Minimus Threat General than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated implementation of mitigation measures,this impact Permit or an individual WDR/ NPDES Permit, and consequently would be subject to into the currently proposed project. No additional is considered less than significant. discharge quantity limitations, groundwater dewatering, and surface drainage. mitigation measures are necessary with the Additionally,as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-2,a Hydrology Study was implementation of BMPs and mitigation measure prepared for the currently proposed project which includes recommended BMPs. BECSP MM4.7-2. Treatment control water quality BMPs (CDS units and Contech StormFilter) will pre- treat/treat urbanized runoff from the project site and protect local water resources to the maximum extent practicable. Volume-based BMPs are designed to capture and treat what is usually described as the"first flush"of runoff from a storm event. Volume-based BMPs include extended detention basins, wet detention basins, retention/infiltration systems and water quality treatment wetlands.The water quality capture volume may be included as part of the configuration of the detention basins(for example, in a forebay), or as a stand-alone water quality basin. Implementation of BMPs and compliance with existing regulatory requirements would ensure that permanent groundwater dewatering does not cause or contribute to a lowering of the local groundwater table that would affect o • ra • • o - o s • • - • - o o ' ' ImpadStafement ImpactSummary Fincrings nearby water supply wells,such that impacts would be less than significant.Although the project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area, as described under the Drainage and Downstream Conditions heading, runoff from the project site ultimately drains into Sully-Miller Lake, which has no discharge except for groundwater recharge. Therefore, the runoff from the project site would continue to contribute to groundwater recharge and would not affect City groundwater wells,resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact IV (c&d) Implementation of the currently Implementation of the currently proposed project would not alter the existing drainage Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could substantially alter the pattern of streams or rivers and would not result in off-site erosion hazards.The project changes or alterations in the currently proposed existing drainage pattern of the site or area or site is located within an entirely urbanized area and would discharge to the City streets, project, which would reduce Impact IV (c&d) to substantially increase the rate or amount or surface underground storm drain systems, and ultimately to Huntington Harbor. The project site less-than-significant levels, are hereby runoff in a manner which would result in flooding is currently approximately 95 percent impervious. With implementation of the currently incorporated into the currently proposed project. on or off-site. However, with implementation of proposed project, the amount of impervious surface area will remain similar to existing No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,this impact is considered less conditions, but would yield increased runoff compared to the existing condition of a 25- with the implementation of mitigation measure than significant. year storm event. However, incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system MM4.7-4. into project design,as recommended in the Hydrology Study and described in the WQMP prepared for the project site, would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff will conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system and would not result in flooding or erosion. To ensure that runoff from the site derived from the site does not result in flooding or erosion, mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-4 would be implemented,which requires adequate storm drain capacity to be demonstrated and if capacity is not sufficient, corrective action would be taken, so as to avoid off-site flooding or erosion. Accordingly, this impact is considered less than significant. Impact IV (e&f) Implementation of the currently According to the BECSP EIR,the storm drain system serving the project site is currently Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could create or contribute constrained for build out of the City's General Plan and may be constrained for existing changes or alterations in the currently proposed runoff water which would exceed the conditions.As such,the BECSP EIR concluded that future development in the vicinity of project, which would reduce Impact IV (e&f) to capacity of existing or planned stormwater the project site would have potentially significant impacts on both existing and planned less-than-significant levels, are hereby drainage systems or provide substantial storm drain systems. To address this, implementation of modified mitigation measures incorporated into the currently proposed project. BECSP MM4.7-3 and BECSP MM4.7-4 is required to assess the contribution of a project No additional mitigation measures are necessary additional sources of polluted runoff or to potential system capacity constraints and provide for construction of necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures otherwise substantially degrade water upgrades such that potential impacts to storm drain system capacities would not be MM4.7-1,BECSP MM4.7-3,and BECSP 4.7-4. quality. However, with implementation of substantial. As required by modified BECSP MM4.7-3, a site specific Hydrology Study mitigation measures,this impact is considered less was prepared to identify the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the site on the than significant. existing storm drain system and provides for site drainage design so as to not increase peak storm event flows over existing conditions for the design storm events.Additionally, BECSP MM4.7-4 requires that adequate capacity in the storm drain system is demonstrated to accommodate discharge from the proposed pnoject. According to the ImpodSkifement Impodsummaly hh&igs Preliminary Hydrology Study,implementation will maintain a similar amount of impervious 7area as compared to existing site condition but would yield an increased runoff compared to the existing condition of a 25-year storm event. However, incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system into project design, as described above and as recommended in the Hydrology Study, would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff will conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system. Implementation of treatment control water quality BMPs will pre-treat/treat urbanized runoff from the project site and minimize the project's pollution impact to levels acceptable to the state and local jurisdictions. With implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-1, which requires the submittal and approval of a site-specific WQMP prior to issuance of a Precise Grading or Building Permit, project site drainage will be designed so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. Implementation of modified mitigation measures BECSP MM4.7-3 and BECSP MM4.7-4 would ensure that the proposed project would not increase peak storm event flows over existing conditions and storm drain capacity is not exceeded as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to water quality,drainage, and runoff and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to water quality,drainage,or runoff. Noise Impact X (a) Implementation of the currently Demolition of all existing structures and construction of new mixed uses would occur with Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could generate noise levels in the currently proposed project. As analyzed in the certified EIR, the closest noise changes or alterations in the currently proposed excess of standards established by the City. sensitive receptors to the project site would be the uses located immediately east of the project,which would reduce Impact X(a)to less- However, with implementation of mitigation site along Ellis Avenue and the residential uses located to the north of the project site than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated measures, this impact is considered less than across from Ellis Avenue. These residential uses are approximately 75 feet from the into the currently proposed project. No additional significant. project site. Construction activity noise levels at these residential uses would be mitigation measures are necessary with the approximately 83 dBA during the excavation/grading and external finishing phases of the implementation of mitigation measures BECSP currently proposed project. While construction noise could be a nuisance to nearby MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3(construction) sensitive uses, compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance would ensure that and mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-4 and construction noise impacts remain less than significant. Implementation of identified BECSP MM4.9-5(operational). mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3 would reduce temporary construction noise impacts,and construction-related noise would be less than significant. Operational noise sources could include such stationary sources as rooftop HVAC systems which could result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA Leq at 50 feet from the equipment. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.94 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the proposed project would introduce new noise activity in the area as residences are constructed and people e e - N • • e • - - e o o - o - o - o - • • - ImportStatement Im summcffy Ancrings are attracted to the new mix of uses. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-5 would require an acoustical analysis of all new residences to ensure that noise levels in livable areas do not exceed established City criteria. Impact X(c)The currently proposed project could There would be operational noise impacts generated by residential uses such as Finding 1. The City finds that the identified cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient mechanical equipment(HVAC). Installation of shielding around HVAC systems would be changes or alterations in the currently proposed noise levels. With implementation of mitigation required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.9-4, which would further reduce HVAC project,which would reduce Impact X(c)to less- measures, this impact is considered less than noise levels. Mitigation measure BECSP MM4.9-5 would ensure that exterior living than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated significant. spaces,such as patios,are constructed in a manner so that noise levels, including noise into the currently proposed project. No additional from the occasional retail delivery, do not exceed the City`s noise standards. The mitigation measures are necessary with the currently proposed project would result in an intensification of human activity at the implementation of mitigation measures BECSP proposed project site with the introduction of a permanent, residential population. This MM4.94 and BECSP MM4.9-5. could increase noise levels at the identified off-site residential receptors. Similar to the project and Alternative 3, once operational, noise levels from residential and retail activities on the project site are not anticipated to be greater than the established 55 dBA limit for residential zones. With implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.94 and BECSP MM4.9-5,operational noise would remain less than significant Impact X (d) Implementation of the currently Construction activities would represent a substantial temporary or periodic increase in Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could result in a substantial ambient noise levels.As analyzed in the certified EIR, construction activities could reach changes or alterations in the currently proposed temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 83 dBA at 50 feet. As such, the noise generated by construction activities for the project,which would reduce Impact X(d)to less- levels. However, with implementation of mitigation currently proposed project could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels of than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated measures, these impacts are considered less than over 3 dBA at uses adjacent to the project site.However,the construction activities would into the currently proposed project. No additional significant. only occur during the permitted hours designated in the City of Huntington Beach mitigation measures are necessary with the Municipal Code, and thus would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences implementation of mitigation measures BECSP or on days that residents are most sensitive to exterior noise(Sundays and holidays).As MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3. such, while an increase in ambient noise levels could occur from the construction activities associated with the currently proposed project, an adverse effect on the nearby residents would not occur because construction noise is not restricted pursuant to the Municipal Code as long as it occurs during permitted hours. Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3 would further reduce this impact to less than significant. In addition,similar to the project analyzed in the certified EIR,there would be no temporary or periodic noise increases to on- or off-site receptors due to operation of the proposed project. Public Services Impact XI (a) Implementation of the currently Development of 274 residential units would result in a new residential population of Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project would increase the demand for approximately 732 persons at the site. All development plans prepared for the currently changes or alterations in the currently proposed fire protection services. With implementation of proposed project would be reviewed by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to project,which would reduce Impact XI(a)to less- mitigation measures,this impact is considered less construction to ensure that adequate fire flows would be maintained. Compliance with all than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated o • - N • e • - - • • a - o - s77mto Im SMtementFlndmgs than significant. required policies, rules,and regulations would ensure that the currently proposin the currently project. No additional mitigation would not require any new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain easures are necessary with the implementation response times and staffing, the construction of which could result in significant of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1. environmental impacts. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1 would ensure that the HBFD receives adequate staffing and/or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of service. Impact XI (b) Implementation of the currently The Huntington Beach Police Department has 235 sworn officers and currently employs Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project would increase the demand for a total of 215 sworn officers, currently protecting 203,484 residents in the City. The changes or alterations in the currently proposed police protection services. With implementation of currently proposed project could result in up to 732 new residents. As analyzed in the project,which would reduce Impact XI(b)to less- mitigation measures,this impact is considered less certified EIR, and using the worst-case population increase scenario, the additional 732 than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated than significant. residents generated by the currently proposed project is not expected to notably affect into the currently project. No additional mitigation Huntington Beach Police Department resources given that general fund monies from measures are necessary with the implementation increased property tax revenue associated with development as well as other fee of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1. revenues(i.e., building permit fees) may be used to augment equipment levels. Further, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1 would ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintained. Therefore, persons on site or elsewhere in the City would not be exposed to increased risks as a result of the currently proposed project. TransportationlTraffic Impact VI(a)The currently proposed project could All study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS in 2030 with the BECSP build Finding 1. The City finds that the identified conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy out with the exception of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue,which would operate with changes or alterations in the currently proposed establishing measures of effectiveness for the a PM deficiency(LOS E). Because the reduction in ADT with the proposed project is too project,which would reduce Impact VI(a)to less- performance of the circulation system, taking into small to result in a change,the anticipated LOS at these intersections would not change. than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated account all modes of transportation including mass Therefore, although the currently proposed project would result in an increase in into the currently project. No additional mitigation transit and non-motorized travel and relevant outbound vehicle trips in the AM peak hour,the proposed project would not contribute to measures are necessary with the implementation components of the circulation system. With the existing deficiency at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue as it of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-8 through implementation of mitigation measures,this impact would not contribute to vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Regardless, the currently BECSP MM4.2-10, BECSP MM4.13-13, and is considered less than significant. proposed project would be required to make a fair share contribution to the traffic BECSP MM4.13-14. improvements identified in mitigation measures BECSP MM4.13-13 and BECSP MM4.13-14 for the Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue intersection as part of the overall BECSP development. As such, the currently proposed project would not conflict with the City's acceptable LOS standard and a less than significant impact would occur. The currently proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-8 through BECSP MM4.2-10 which would ensure that construction traffic does not block the free flow of traffic. The currently proposed project would also be required to submit a traffic control plan during construction to ensure appropriate emergency access during construction.Accordingly,the proposed project would result in less than significant construction-related traffic impacts. • • 72Development • o - - •Im Skitemenf Im Summ FindnCumulative Traffic of thecurrently proposed project would result in following traffic related Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations ive impacts under 2030 conditions. Operation of the currently proposed project that could reduce the potential impact of the would cumulatively contribute to an unacceptable Level of Service at two City currently proposed project are within the intersections: Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Bolsa responsibility and jurisdiction of another public Avenue. Even with implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.13-3 through agency and not the agency making the findings. BECSP MM4.13-9 and BECSP MM4.13-12, the Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue Finding 3. The City finds that even with intersection would remain at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Beach Boulevard at implementation .of all feasible mitigation Bolsa Avenue intersection would remain at LOS F in the PM peak hour.At both of these measures (MM4.13-3 through MM4.13-19), the intersections,with the incorporation of mitigation measures,the impact to the intersection proposed project would result in a significant and would be mitigated to a less than significant level, even though the LOS would not be unavoidable cumulative traffic impact. No considered acceptable. However; while these intersections are located within the additional feasible mitigation measures are cumulative study area of the BECSP, they are outside City jurisdiction to ensure available. mitigation completion.Therefore,the impact would be potentially significant. Operation of the currently proposed project would cumulatively contribute to an increase in delay at two Caltrans intersections and would increase traffic to the 1-405 northbound loop ramp,which is currently deficient.The BECSP area would contribute traffic to the I- 405 northbound loop ramp from Beach Boulevard, as well as the regional freeway system, which are both projected to have deficiencies in 2030. For a deficient Caltrans intersection, any increase in delay due to the project is considered a significant impact. The 2030 results show two locations in the BECSP area with impacts,both of which were identified in the intersection capacity utilization analysis as part of the BECSP environmental analysis: Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Garfield Avenue.Therefore,the currently proposed project would contribute to a deficient system for which there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts. Further, as these are under Caltrans jurisdiction, the City does not have jurisdiction to ensure mitigation completion.Therefore,the impact would be potentially significant. Utilities and Service Systems Impact XII (d) Implementation of the currently Development of the currently proposed project would result in an increased demand for Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project would generate an additional municipal water services compared to existing conditions. The City would be able to changes or alterations in the currently project, demand for water. However, with the provide a reliable source of water to accommodate its existing users and the additional which would reduce Impact XII (d) to less-than- implementation of mitigation measures,this impact demand on water supplies created by the currently proposed project for the 20-year significant levels, are hereby incorporated into is considered less than significant. projection.The City's conservation programs coupled with increased groundwater would the currently proposed project. No additional improve water supply reliability. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure mitigation measures are necessary with the BECSP MM4.14-1 would serve to reduce the municipal water demand from the currently implementation of BECSP MM4.14-1. proposed project.Therefore this impact would be less than significant. Impact XII (e) Implementation of the currently The project developer would be responsible for constructing local mains and extensions Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could require new sewer to serve the currently proposed project. Prior to allowing additional connections to the changes or alterations in the currently proposed • • - 0 2TA • • • - - • o • - • - • - • - • � - - Im. Skitemer►i ImpadSurnimary MoYn gs connections, and could require or result in the sewer lines,the capacity of the existing sewers would need to be confirmed and a sewer project, which would reduce Impact XII (e) to construction of new or expanded wastewater study would be needed at the time of development to determine if the existing sewer less-than-significant levels, are hereby conveyance systems. However, with lines need to be upgraded to accommodate the currently proposed project's sewer flow. incorporated into the currently proposed project. implementation of code requirements and The currently proposed project would be required to implement code requirements No additional measures are necessary with the mitigation measures,this impact is considered less BECSP CR4.14-1 and BECSP CR4.14-2. In addition, any development connecting implementation of code requirements BECSP than significant. directly or indirectly to the OCSD sewer system is required to pay a connection fee in CR4.14-1 and BECSP CR4.14-2. accordance with the OCSD Connection Fee Master Ordinance. The Connection Fee Program ensures that all users pay their fair share of any necessary expansion of the system, including expansion to wastewater treatment facilities. These fees are considered full mitigation under CEQA for potential impacts resulting from project development. Construction of the wastewater collection systems for the currently proposed project would adhere to existing laws and regulations, and the infrastructure would be sized appropriately for the project. Individual water and wastewater connections would occur as part of the currently proposed project. In addition, code requirements BECSP CR4.14-1 and BECSP CR4.14-2 would ensure that proper sewer connections are provided for at the project site.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Impact XVII (a) Implementation of the currently Construction of the currently proposed project would result in GHG emissions due to the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could generate greenhouse gas operation of heavy construction equipment, worker commute trips, and building supply changes or alterations in the currently proposed emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may vendor vehicles. In addition, operation of the currently proposed project would result in project, which would reduce Impact XVII (a) to have a significant impact on the environment. GHG emissions as a result of direct sources such as motor vehicles, natural gas less-than-significant levels, are hereby However, with implementation of mitigation consumption, solid waste handling/treatment, and indirect sources such as electricity incorporated into the currently proposed project. measures, this impact is considered less than generation. No additional measures are necessary with the significant. Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.15-1 through BECSP MM4.15-9, implementation of mitigation measures BECSP which are consistent with strategies recommended by the CCAT, CAPCOA, and the MM4.15-1 through BECSP MM4.15-9 as well as California Attorney General,would reduce impacts associated with GHG emissions of the compliance with guidance provided by the CCAT, proposed project to less than significant levels. CAPCOA and the California Attorney General. 18. Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 (Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project) (Mayor Hansen's Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval) Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action: A) Approve CEQA Findings of Fact; and, B) Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with findings and conditions of approval. 10 Speakers Approved as amended correcting Attachment#1 on the amount of public open space, changing it from 23,145 square feet to 17,540 square feet Approved 5-1-1 (Boardman no, Shaw absent) ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 19. Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3948 amending Chapter 1.22 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to claims against the City by adding clarification to the City's claim of authority to regulate class actions and require exhaustion of administrative remedies Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3948, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 1.22 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Claims Against the City." Approved 6-0-1 (Shaw absent) 20. Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3952 amending Chapter 8.21 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to refuse management aligning the HBMC with the new State of California mandatory commercial recycling statue effective July 1, 2012 Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3952, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 8.21 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Refuse Management." Approved 6-0-1 (Shaw absent) the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMG) limiting the number 0 massage establishments to thifty (30) Recommended AGfion-., ee Item removed from agenda COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman reported City Council/PFA Meeting—Monday, June 04, 2012 Page 9 of 10 Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, and Establishing New and Revised Development Impact Fees For All Development Within the City" (Staff Recommendation -Attachment No. 1, Exhibit A); and, No Action Taken, item will be re-noticed for 6118112 City Council meeting B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3942, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.75 Relating to Development Impact Fees for Police Facilities" (Attachment No. 2); and, No Action Taken, item will be re-noticed for 6118112 City Council meeting C) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3943, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.74 Relating to Development Impact Fees for Fire Facilities" (Attachment No. 3); and, No Action Taken, item will be re-noticed for 6118112 City Council meeting D) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3944, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Impact Fees" (Attachment No. 4); and, No Action Taken, item will be re-noticed for 6118112 City Council meeting E) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3945, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Deleting Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Adding Chapter 17.67 Relating to Library Development Impact Fees" (Attachment No. 5); and, No Action Taken, item will be re-noticed for 6118112 City Council meeting F) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3946, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.76 Relating to Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees" (Attachment No. 6); and, No Action Taken, item will be re-noticed for 6118112 City Council meeting G) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3947, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.73 Relating to the General Provisions for Development Impact Fees" (Attachment No. 7). No Action Taken, item will be re-noticed for 6118112 City Council meeting (�8 CApprove-Site-P_lan_Review_No.12-01-(Beach-and-EIIis-Mixed-Use-Project)-� c(Mayor_Hansen's Appeal_of--Planning-Commission's-Approval) Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action: A) Approve CEQA Findings of Fact; and, B) Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with findings and conditions of approval. 10 Speakers CApproved_as_amended correcting_Attachment-#1-on--the-amount_of_public City Council/PFA Meeting—Monday, June 04, 2012 Page 8 of 10 open_space,—changing iffrom_23,-145 squar-e-feet_to 1-7,540-square-feed Approved_3=1=1(Boardman_no,_Shaw absent ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 19. Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3948 amending Chapter 1.22 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to claims against the City by adding clarification to the City's claim of authority to regulate class actions and require exhaustion of administrative remedies Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3948, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 1.22 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Claims Against the City." Approved 6-0-1 (Shaw absent) 20. Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3952 amending Chapter 8.21 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) relating to refuse management aligning the HBMC with the new State of California mandatory commercial recycling statue effective July 1, 2012 Recommended Action: Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3952, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 8.21 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Refuse Management." Approved 6-0-1 (Shaw absent) massage establishments to fhi fty (30) JaeGemmended AGtuen• • cc An OFdiRanGe of the Gity of Code RelatiRg to the Number of PeFmitted Massage Estab lush ff Item removed from agenda COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) Harper, Dwyer, Hansen, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman reported The meeting was adjourned in honor and in memory of Noble Waite. ADJOURNMENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY REGULAR MEETING AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY SPECIAL MEETING — 9:36 PM The next regularly scheduled meeting is Monday, June 18, 2012, at 4:00 PM in Room B-8, Civic Center, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. City Council/PFA Meeting—Monday, June 04, 2012 Page 9 of 10 c Council/Agency.Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: .415 9.A: proved ❑l Condition Approved ❑ De ied y ler s Sign ure Council Meeting Date: June 4, 2012 Department ID Number: PL 12-012 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 (Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project) (Mayor Hansen's Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is an appeal of the Planning Commission's action on Site Plan Review (SPR) No. 12-01. The Site Plan Review analyzes a request for the development of the Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project to permit 274 residential units (six live work units), 8,500 square feet of retail space, associated private and public open space and parking on 2.74 acres located at the southeast corner of Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave. Mayor Don Hansen filed an appeal to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project on its merits. The Planning Commission approved SPR No. 12-01 on May 15, 2012. The Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council approve SPR No. 12-01 because the proposed project implements the objectives of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) to improve the viability of the Beach Blvd corridor by providing a mixed use development that is consistent with the Specific Plan development code, includes LEED Silver and GreenPoint Rated Certifications, provides housing choice for residents within walking distance to work and services, and provides high quality architectural design. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Planning Commission and Staff Recommended Action: A) "Approve CEQA Findings of Fact (Attachment No. 1)," and, B) Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with findings and conditions of approval (Attachment No. 2). Item 18. - 1 HB -634- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 Planning Commission Action on May 15, 2012 The motion made by Ryan seconded by Delgleize.to approve.CEQA Findings of Fact and Site Plan Review No. 12-01 carried by the following vote: AYES: Mantini, Delgleize, Ryan NOES: Bixby, Farley ABSENT: Peterson, Sheir-Burnett ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Continue Site Plan Review No. 12-01 and direct staff accordingly." 2. "Deny Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with findings for denial." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: Ben Brosseau, Consulting, Inc., 15149 Camarillo Street, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 Property Owner: Morrie Golcheh, Progressive Property Management, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste. 350, Los Angeles, CA 90025 Location: The proposed project is located on a 2.74 acre site at the southeast corner of Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue Site Plan Review No. 12-01 represents a request to develop a mixed use project on a 2.74 acre site consisting of 274 apartment units, including six live work units, associated leasing space, parking, private and public open space and 8,500 square feet of commercial space pursuant to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific (BECSP), Town Center Neighborhood Segment (Attachment No. 3). The project includes two separate buildings ranging in height from four to six stories (43 ft to 63 ft) with one fronting Beach Boulevard (Building No. 1) and the other fronting Ellis Avenue (Building No. 2). Open space is provided in both public and private open space formats. Publicly accessible open space is in the form of a ground level plaza and paseo. Private open space consists of private balconies, patios, and a pool, spa, club room, and fitness center. Parking is provided in an internal parking structure. The project site consists of two parcels totaling 119,236 square feet of lot area. The existing 27,784 square feet of buildings, which includes gas station, commercial structure and restaurant, will be demolished. Under the new development, the commercial component will be in Building No. 1 fronting Beach Boulevard. It will have three levels of residential (18 units) above the commercial space for a total of four stories. Building No. 2 is oriented to the HB -635- Item 18. - 2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 east along Ellis Avenue and includes a 430 space three-level parking structure, four to six stories of residential development (256 units including the six live work units), the leasing area and a 14,499 square foot private courtyard that will contain the pool. An at grade public plaza separates the two buildings. The composition of residential units is summarized below: Residential Unit Type Number of Units Size Range Studio 26 533-569 sf One-Bedroom 6 live work 123 684 to 781 sf Two-Bedroom 119 992-1,145 sf All Units 274 The commercial portion of the project will be LEED Silver Certified incorporating the application of "Green Building" techniques such as those found in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System. The residential portion is proposed to be built pursuant to the Green Point Rated Program — Green Point Certified but designed to the LEED Silver equivalent standard. The proposed project is required to provide affordable housing in accordance with the BECSP. Of the 274 total units, the project proposes to provide 27 affordable units on-site meeting the affordability requirement of 10 percent. The specific affordability terms will be set forth in a Development Agreement as required by the BECSP. The Development Agreement must be adopted by ordinance and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed project will reduce the number of driveways from three to one along Beach Blvd and from three to one along Ellis Ave. The two driveways will serve as the ingress and egress from the site. The Beach Blvd driveway will be a right turn in and out only driveway and a full access in and out driveway is proposed along Ellis Avenue. The project includes site remediation, though some has already occurred and is ongoing with regulatory protocols in place. The remaining remediation will require excavation of the entire 2.74 acre site at a depth of 10 feet. A vapor extraction system will be required to fully remediate the site with the duration approved and monitored by Orange County Health Care Agency. The applicant has indicated that the project is proposed to provide needed housing and services in the City of Huntington Beach. The subject site was one of the catalyst sites selected by the City to spur reinvestment in the Beach Boulevard corridor when it began the BECSP process in 2007. As such, the City initiated the environmental review that contemplated redevelopment of the site. B. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on Tuesday, May 15, 2012. There were 11 speakers. A total of eight people spoke in support of the project. These included the applicant and his representative, the property owner and five business tenants and residents. The general consensus of those in support was that this is a great project because it would reduce crime in the area, improve the site allowing Huntington Beach to experience positive Item 18. - 3 HB -636- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 growth and provide an inviting atmosphere. Two people were opposed to the project due to concerns regarding traffic, height, continued proliferation of crime and ongoing remediation concerns. One speaker raised objection to the project on behalf of some of the existing tenants because the plan does not consider the relocation of existing businesses or provide some type of compensation for their relocation. Questions and issues discussed by the Planning Commission included hazardous remediation, open space types, compliance with the BECSP, and LEED and GreenPoint certification. These items are addressed in the analysis section of the report. C. APPEAL: An appeal was filed by Mayor Don Hansen on May 17, 2012 (Attachment No. 4) to provide the City Council with an opportunity to review the project on the merits of its proposal at a public hearing. D. STAFF ANALYSIS: A complete project analysis of SPR No. 12-01 is provided in the Planning Commission staff report (Attachment No. 5). The analysis below addresses the appeal filed by Mayor Don Hansen by providing an overview of the project and responds to issues raised by the Planning Commissioners. Site Plan Review No. 12-01 Overview The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Town Center - Neighborhood segment of the BECSP and overall objective of the BECSP to improve the viability of the Beach Boulevard corridor by implementing a project that transforms commercial development with multi-level mixed use development. The Specific Plan's form based code creates a deliberate physical environment by regulating height, setbacks, structural articulation and building massing. The proposed project is designed with two separate structures: Building No. 1, a four story structure fronts Beach Blvd; and Building No. 2, from four to six stories that fronts Ellis Avenue. Both buildings conform to the height, volume and articulation standards of the Specific Plan. Landscaping along the periphery of the development will enhance the aesthetics of the site including required landscaped parkways along Beach and Ellis. The pedestrian connections envisioned for the area are important to implementing a successful mix of residential and commercial uses that promote walkability. The plaza located between Buildings 1 and 2 is a focal pedestrian feature and serves to connect pedestrians from Beach Blvd to Ellis Avenue, providing pedestrian entry to the parking structure and residential lobbies of Buildings No. 1 and 2. A total of 430 parking stalls are provided through an at-grade podium parking structure with subterranean parking including an amenity of 45 parking spaces designed as extended stalls. The plaza will be used as a gathering area providing seating, tables, landscaping and accessibility to retailers and will incorporate enhanced pavers, landscaping and lighting. HB -637- Item 18. - 4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 Private open space is primarily provided in a second level 14,499 square foot courtyard accessible from Ellis Avenue through a paseo and from the main lobby entrance from the plaza. Residents will enjoy such amenities as pool, spa, and social gathering spaces. At the courtyard level, residents are provided with a fitness room overlooking the courtyard. Interior noise would be minimized through noise attenuation features required by the project's mitigation measures and conditions of approval. Architecture Staff has worked with the applicant to achieve a project that provides high quality and compatible architecture. The project's architecture is reflective of the intent of the Town Center — Neighborhood segment, which is envisioned to be an urban neighborhood with the widest range of contemporary housing types within the BECSP. The project's contemporary architectural style is consistent with the four predominant architectural styles indicated in the Specific Plan, providing a variety of building volumes, facade offsets and notches, expressed building entries and architectural base treatments that are required by the BECSP development code. The contemporary architectural style adds to the transitional architectural element of the Five Points District to revitalize the area. As required by the BECSP, the applicant has articulated the buildings' rooflines. In regards to Building No. 2, staff is recommending a suggested condition of approval that the south and east roofline of the building be more varied as required by Section 2.3.5 Building Massing. The applicant has achieved this variation on the north and west rooflines; however, the detail should be carried to the other two sides. The proposed project will create a landmark corner for this district as a result of the modern architecture. Traffic and Access As part of the Beach and Ellis EIR, a Traffic Analysis was conducted in July 2011 to further analyze a project specific development when compared to the analysis conducted as part of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Program EIR. As part of SPR No. 12-01, in April 2012, Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc. conducted a project specific traffic analysis. The traffic analysis was conducted to determine the estimated project trip generation, comparison to previous environmental work, updated operational analysis of the Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave intersection, driveway location analysis including driveway volumes, queues and available gaps in traffic on Ellis. In addition, an evaluation of the collision history along Ellis Ave between Beach Blvd and Goodwin Lane was conducted. The new traffic study concluded that under conservative assumptions, the project will create a net of 911 daily trips with 119 trips during the morning peak hour and 71 trips during the evening peak hour. This level of trip generation is similar to previous traffic analysis of the site with lower daily and PM peak hour trips and slightly higher AM peak hour trips. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to create or contribute significantly to any traffic impacts at the intersection of Beach Blvd and Ellis Avenue/Main Street. Moreover, with the elimination of four driveways at the site, it is expected that off-site circulation will improve in the immediate vicinity of the property. The traffic study also included a gap analysis to evaluate the opportunities for project related traffic on Ellis Ave to use the Ellis driveway. The analysis considered the potential on and off-site queues, potential street lane striping changes and the capacity of gaps in traffic to Item 18. - 5 xB -638- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 accommodate the various traffic movement. The traffic study concluded that there was significant potential for queues and delays for exiting vehicles at the originally proposed driveway location and recommends that the full access driveway on Ellis Ave be relocated approximately 347 feet east to line up with Patterson Lane to the north. This will reduce the potential of turning movement conflicts and will facilitate entry and exit from the parking garage. The applicant is in agreement with this recommendation and the site plan reflects the recommended driveway location along Ellis Ave. Sustainability The BECSP requires all projects to incorporate sustainable elements in the project design. The proposed project would provide a range of sustainable elements such as those found in Section 2.8 Architectural Regulations of the BECSP, which incorporate all stages of the project's lifecycle from recycling building materials during construction to a project-wide no smoking policy during operation of the project. The applicant proposes to exceed minimum requirements and design the commercial portion of the project as LEED Silver Certified and the residential portion as GreenPoint Rated but equivalent to the LEED Silver standard. Both programs serve the full range of new residential construction in California, which feature a points-based achievement system to evaluate compliance. Sustainable design features include Energy Star appliances, tankless hot water heaters, energy efficient heating and cooling systems, windows, and lights with sensor switches. The certification in the rating program will create the City's first LEED Silver Certified project. Planning Commission Discussion Issues During the public hearing a variety of questions were asked by the Planning Commission regarding open space and hazardous materials remediation. In addition, subsequent to the hearing Commissioner Bixby emailed staff to share his concerns with certain aspects of the project. The analysis below addresses substantive issues that were raised. Open Space The expressed open space concerns pertained to how open space along the southerly property line complies with the BECSP and the use of the plaza open space component between the two buildings. At the Planning Commission meeting staff indicated that the open space along the southern property line was a "paseo." Per the BECSP, these can have maximum width of 20 feet and must connect two or more public spaces. As designed in the proposed project this paseo open space area has a width of approximately 20 feet at the easterly end but widens to 28 feet. This wider portion is an extension of the plaza area and will have the same enhanced paving but is separated from it by the garage driveway opening. In addition, the wider portion contains part of the fire lane. The open space, which includes landscaping, will function as a paseo and thus was identified as such. However, the entire fire lane can be removed from the open space calculation and the project would still comply with minimum public open space requirements, including the maximum width of a paseo. The paseo also connects two public spaces: the public sidewalk on Beach Blvd. and a pedestrian easement xB -639- Item 18. - 6 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 at the easterly property line. Pursuant to a Grant of Easement recorded in 2002 between the subject site and the Beachview Investments (SRO) site to the east, an easement for pedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress across the SRO property exists and allows for access, which staff believes enables the proposed paseo to create a pedestrian linkage and fulfill the requirement of the specific plan. The other aspect of open space compliance pertained to the dual use of a portion of the plaza open space component for commercial loading and move-in move-out. The BECSP states that all service entrances and associated loading docks and storage areas be located to the side or rear of the building and shall be separated and architecturally screened from any pedestrian entrances. The commercial portion of this development does not have a loading dock or service doors. Because of the rather small commercial square footage of this project at 8,500 square feet and the dual shopfronts facing both Beach Blvd and the plaza, walk-in deliveries occur from the plaza entrances. Furthermore, the parking structure ceiling height is 12 feet, which can accommodate most of the delivery trucks expected for the business tenants. In terms of residents' loading needs, the applicant has stated that renters typically use the smaller U- Haul trucks, which can enter the garage. Also, major appliances (washer/dyers, stoves and refrigerators) are included in the units, thus reducing the need for large moving trucks. Mixed use projects often have a dual function of delivery area within an open space that would ultimately not interfere with the daily use of the open space because the area would have restricted delivery access as part of the project's parking management plan. Hazardous Remediation The issue of site remediation, occupancy of the project and consistency with the General Plan and EIR mitigation measures pertaining to hazardous material was also raised. EIR No. 10-004 concludes that with implementation of existing code requirements and Mitigation Measures MM4.6-1 through MM4.64 all hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 states: if remediation is required as identified by the oversight agency, it shall be accomplished in a manner that reduces risk to below acceptable standards and shall be completed prior to issuance of occupancy permits. Approval of a Human Health Risk Assessment performed by the project proponent may be required to ensure occupancy could occur safely. Thus, the project will not receive occupancy unless remediation is satisfactorily achieved. When that occurs, this particular mitigation measure would be met. With respect to General Plan conformance, Hazards and Hazardous Materials compliance was originally addressed in the EIR staff report. The project itself is consistent with the Hazardous Materials Element of the General Plan as follows: A. Hazardous Materials Element Goal HM 1: Reduce, to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Obiective HM 1.1: Promote the proper handling, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Item 18. - 7 HB -640- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 Policy HM 1.4.4: Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). The project will result in remediation of the site. Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 ensure remediation of contaminated soils containing hazardous materials prior to development of the proposed project and provide supplemental procedures in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants during construction. As described in the EIR some site remediation has already occurred and is ongoing with regulatory protocols in place. If unknown contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk posed to human health. E. SUMMARY Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 because the project: • Implements the objectives of the BECSP to improve the viability of the Beach Blvd corridor; ■ Provides a mixed use development that is consistent with the BECSP development code and compatible with the surrounding existing and anticipated land uses; • Facilitates development that produces an environment which is both attractive and sustainable by increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use of land resources; ■ Is consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of transforming the Beach Blvd Corridor by providing commercial uses with 274 residential units to support the new commercial uses as well as existing surrounding commercial uses; ■ Serves affordable housing needs of the community by providing on-site affordable housing units; ■ Includes LEED Silver and Green Point Rated Certifications; • Provides a housing choice for residents seeking to be within walking distance of work, services, reduce dependency on their automobile, have access to multiple amenities for an active and mobile lifestyle; and • Provides a high quality architectural design integrating design elements that promote a healthy and active lifestyle as an image for Huntington Beach. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in Certified EIR No. 10-004. The EIR was certified by City Council on February 6, 2012. The proposed project is very similar in scope and design to the Alternative No. 3 project that was analyzed in the EIR, and the impacts described as part of Alternative No. 3 would provide an accurate assessment of the project's potential environmental impacts. An Environmental Assessment (Initial Study Checklist) was prepared to document whether there are changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or an addendum to the HB -641- Item 18. - 8 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 EIR for the currently proposed project (Attachment No. 5). As analyzed in the Environmental Assessment, the currently proposed project, which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, none of the changes in the proposed project result in an increase in significance for any of the impacts that have been analyzed. Consequently, revisions to Certified EIR No. 10-004 are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project, previously certified EIR No. 10-004 is the appropriate level of analysis and no additional environmental review is required. EIR No. 10-004 determined that the majority of impacts could be mitigated to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigations measures and code requirements. However, construction related air quality impacts and Transportation/Traffic cumulative impacts could not be mitigated as identified within the BECSP Program EIR. Approval of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 is covered by the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) adopted in conjunction with the BECSP EIR pursuant to Section 21094(a)(2) of the CEQA Statute, which went into effect in January 2011. This Statute, which is in effect until January 2016, allows incorporation by reference of a SOC that was adopted for a plan (e.g. BECSP) in conjunction with a program EIR, when approving a project that is tiered from the Plan/EIR and meets certain criteria such as is acted on within three years of the EIR's certification (by Dec. 2012 for BECSP EIR) and does not result in greater or different impacts. Staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to Air Quality and Transportation/Traffic. Approval of the project results in a new mixed-use development that is consistent with the BECSP and General Plan and begins the transformation of the Beach Blvd Corridor as envisioned in the BECSP. In addition, the project would have the following benefits: • The project would promote new investment that supports the growth and success of Five Points District and other businesses in the vicinity. • The project would create pedestrian connectivity that encourages walking, and ultimately walking within the Five Points District and adjacent properties. • The project creates a development that is compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. • The project provides residential and commercial buildings that convey a high quality visual image, architectural character and a major intersection corridor image. 6 The project provides a mixed use community consistent with the policies and development framework of the BECSP to maximize land use opportunities. Y The project creates a community that enables residents to live in proximity to jobs, commercial services, and reduces the need for automobile use. • The commercial portion of the project will be designed to LEED Silver standards incorporating the application of Green Building techniques and the residential portion will be designed pursuant to the Green Point Program to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future for the City and region. Prior to acting on the project, the City Council is required to approve Findings of Fact as required by CEQA. (Attachment No. 1). Item 18. - 9 HB -642- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 6/4/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 12-012 Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance economic development Attachment(s): 1. CEQA Findings of Fact 2. Su gested Findings and Conditions of Approval 3. 1 Site Plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, and other site plan exhibits dated May 1, 2, and 7, 2012 4. Appeal Letter From Mayor Don Hansen 5. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated May 15, 2012 6. Power Point Presentation HB -643- Item 18. - 10 ATTACHMENT # 1 Item IN. - 11 nn .rvia. A _' & ELIIIS CLXED SSE PROJECT ° SITE PLAN .RETIE PTO 1� 01 INTRODUCTION This document presents the potential impacts that were identified in the Environmental Assessment/Initial Study Checklist (EA) for the currently proposed project as well as the previously approved EIR (EIR No. 10-004) for the project site and the findings that are required in accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines. The City prepared an EA to evaluate the proposed project and determine whether there are changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that -would req-aire preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or an addendum to the EIR and if the City-certified CEQA documents, including mitigation measures, ate still adequate for the currently-proposed project. According to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR is not required for the proposed project unless the City determines on the basis of substantial evidence that one or more of the following conditions are met 1. Substantial changes ate proposed in the Project that requite major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will requite major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows any of the following: a. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project,but the Ptoj ect proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives;or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR-would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163, if any of the conditions noted above are present but only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate to apply-to the proposed project in the changed situation, a supplemental EIR may be prepared. HB -645- Item 18. - 12 Section 15164 of State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared "if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred." Thus, if none of the above conditions are met, the City may,not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Rather, the City can decide that no further environmental documentation is necessary or can require that an Addendum be prepared. In this regard, the City, finds that no additional environmental documentation is necessary. The rationale and the facts for this finding are provided in the body of the EA. As analyzed in the EA, the currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, none of the changes in the proposed project result in an increase in significance for any of the impacts that have been analyzed. Consequently, revisions to Certified EIR No. 10-004 are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.Therefore,based on the analysis contained in EA,previously certified EIR No. 10-004 is the appropriate level of analysis for the proposed revisions to the project.This conclusion is based on the findings contained in the EA that have determined that the proposed project does not cause any additional environmental impacts beyond those disclosed and addressed in the previously certified EIR. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. The approval of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 is further covered by the Statement of Overriding Considerations adopted in conjunction with the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan and EIR pursuant to Section 21094(a)(2) of the CEQA Statute. Based on the environmental analysis for the project, the project's significant impacts on the environment are not greater than or different from those identified in the prior environmental impact report for the Specific Plan,which was certified less than three years ago. Indeed, the F-A documents that potentially significant and unavoidable impacts for the proposed project would be less than what was contemplated in the adopted Statement of Overriding Considerations. All applicable mitigation measures indentified by the prior environmental impact report have been incorporated into the currently proposed project and there are no changes to the feasibility of the previously identified mitigation measures or previously _ evaluated alternatives. Finally,the previously approved Statement of Overriding Considerations was not based on a determination that mitigation measures should be identified and approved in a subsequent environmental review. In accordance with Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines,the possible findings for each significant and/or potentially significant adverse impact as identified in the EA are as follows: (a) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the project which avoid, substantially lessen, or reduce the magnitude of the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR ("Finding 1'�. (b) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency ("Finding 2'�. (c) Specific economic, social, or other considerations snake infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives in the EIR ("Finding 3"). Item 18. - 13 HB -646- CEQA requires that the lead agency adopt mitigation measures or alternatives,where feasible,to avoid or substantially reduce significant environmental impacts that would otherwise occur as a result of a project. Project modification or alternatives are not required, however, where they are infeasible or where the responsibility for modifying the project lies with some other agency (CEQA Guidelines §15091(a)(3)). Public Resources Code Section 21061.1 defines "feasible" to mean "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors." (See also Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors [Goleta II] [19901 52 CaDd 553, 565 [276 Cal. Rptr. 4101.) This document presents the City of Huntington Beach findings as required by CEQA, cites substantial evidence in the record in support of each of the findings, and presents an explanation to supply the logical step between the finding and the facts in the record (State CEQA Guidelines §15091). Additional facts that support the findings are set forth in the Environmental Assessment for the currently proposed project as well as the previously approved EIR (EIR No. 10-004). Table 1 (CEQA Findings for the Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project Environmental Assessment) summarizes the potentially significant impacts of the currently proposed project in the Environmental Assessment that were reduced to less-than-significant levels with mitigation as well as the project-level and cumulative significant impacts. The currently proposed project would allow for development of 274 apartment.dwelling units and 8,500 sf of commercial.uses. HB -647- Item 18. - 14 Cl) 00 ' . o e� � . - - B . - o - - . - . - - (� Imp6d Stofement !m O'dSumm rindr Aesthetics Impact XIII (d) Implementation of the currently The currently proposed project has heights that range from three to six stories, Buildings Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project would Introduce new sources of generally three or more stories in height have the potential to include large building faces changes or alterations in the project,which would fight and glare Into the project vicinity that could that could introduce reflective surfaces that could increase existing levels of daytime reduce Impact XIII (d) to less-than-significant adversely affect day or nighttime views In the area. glare.The currently proposed project could,therefore,serve as a new source of light and levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. However, with implementation of mitigation glare in the area, and Impacts would be potentially significant, However,implementation No additional mitigation measures are necessary measures, this impact is considered less than of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.1-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant with the implementation of mitigation measure significant. level. MM4.1-2. The provision of non-reflective facade treatments for new structures would ensure that impacts related to daytime glare would be reduced to a less-than-slgnificant level by reducing the reflective properties of the building materials employed, such as glass, metal,or finished concrete. Air Quality ImpactV (a) Implementation of the currently Construction of the currently proposed project would generate emissions that exceed the Finding 3. The City finds that even with proposed_ project could violate an air quality thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC,a criteria pollutant. implementation of all feasible mitigation standard and contribute substantially loan existing implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 measures and compliance with applicable or projected air quality violation for criteria air would reduce construction-related emissions however, they may not reduce these requirements, construction emissions of the pollutants. Even with mitigation measures, this emissions to levels below the SCAQMD thresholds. No further feasible mitigation currently proposed project could result in an impact is considered significant and unavoidable. measures are available and this impact would be considered significant and unavoidable. ex,eedance of established thresholds for daily construction emissions. No mitigation measures in addition to BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 are feasible to reduce construction air quality impacts, ImpactV (b) implementation of the currently For the purposes of this analysis, the nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project Finding 1, The City finds that the identified proposed project could expose sensitive receptors site would be the existing SRO units along Ellis Avenue immediately adjacent and to the changes or alterations in the project,which would to substantial pollutant concentrations. With east of the project site,and the single-family propert#es along Ellis Avenue to the north of reduce ImpactV (b) to less-than-significant incorporation of mitigation measures,this impact is the proposed project site, located approximately 75 feet from the project site's property levels, are hereby incorporated into the project. considered less than slgnificant. line, No additional mitigation measures are necessary With the implementation of mitigation. measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP with the implementation of mitigation measure MM4.2-11 and Project MM4.2-15, emissions will be reduced during construction. BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-11 and Therefore, with mitigation, impacts to localized sensitive receptors will be less than Project MM4,2-15. significant during construction. impact V (e) Implementation of the currently Construction of the currently proposed project would generate emissions that would Finding 3. The City finds that even with proposed project would result In a cumulatively exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC.Because implementation of all feasible mitigation considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for the South Coast Air Basin Is currently in nonatta#nment for 03 (for which VOC and NOX measures and compliance with applicable which the proposed project re ion is in areprecursors) and PM10 under national and state standards, and is in nonattainment requirements, construction emissions of the • Beatha • ' e e •oe l e • !m adstatement ImpodsummaryFinder nonattainment under an applicable federal or state for CO under national standards, projects could cumulatively exceed an air quality currently proposed project would result in an ambient air quality standard, This impact is standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. exceedance of established thresholds for daily considered significant and unavoidable. emissions in the cumulative scenario.No feasible Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 mitigation measures in addition to mitigation would reduce VOC emissions, but not to a less than significant level, Therefore, even measures BECSP MM4ad through BECSP with mitigation emissions during construction will remain significant and unavoidable and measures are available. cumulatively considerable. Cumulative Air Quality The proposed project would exceed SCAQMD thresholds for the pollutants and Finding 3, The City finds that even with precursors of ozone for which the Basin Is in nonattainment. Therefore, the currently implementation of all feasible mitigation proposed project would make cumulatively considerable contributions of these pollutants measures, compliance with applicable during construction of the currently proposed project. Mitigation measures BECSP requirements, and changes to the project, MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 will be implemented during construction activities to construction and operational emissions of the reduce emissions to the extent feasible but the potential impact will not be reduced to a proposed project would result in an exceedance less-than-significant impact. Therefore, the currently proposed project would result In a of established thresholds for daily emissions in significant and unavoidable cumulative air quality impact. the cumulative scenario. No feasible mitigation measures In addition to mitigation measures MM4,2-1 through MM4.2-14 are available. Biological Resources Impact Vll(a)Construction of the proposed project Vegetation on the project site Is limited to trees and landscaping associated with the Finding 1. The City finds that the Identified could have a substantial adverse effect, either existing commercial uses.Within the parking lot trees located on the project site,there is changes or alterations in the currently proposed directly or through habitat modifications, on birds the potential for birds protected under the MBTA to nest, Prior to any construction project, which would reduce Impact Vll (a) to protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. activities occurring between February 15 and August 31 annually(breeding season), a less-than-significant levels, are hereby However, with mitigation measures, this impact is nesting bird survey would be conducted as required by mitigation measure BECSP incorporated into the currently proposed project. considered less than significant. MM4.3-1. No additional mitigation measures are necessary ' In the event that active nests are identified within 250 feet of the construction site,a 100- with the implementation of mitigation measure foot no work buffer would be maintained between the nest and construction activity. BECSP MM4.3-1, Consultation with the CDFG and.USFWS is also encouraged. This survey would be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach prior to Issuance of a grading permit.As such, Implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.3-1 would ensure protection of migratory bird species and habitat through focused surveys and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. Cultural Resources Impact XIV (b&d) Construction activities A records search was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center Finding 1. The City finds that the identified associated with implementation of the currently (SCCIC) of the BECSP area. This search indicated that archaeological resources are changes or alterations in the currently proposed proposed project could cause a substantial present within the BECSP area, though not on the project site. These sites have likely project, which would reduce Impact XIV (b&d) to adverse change In the significance of an been destroyed or capped since they were first discovered. In addition, the NAHC less-than-significant levels, are hereby archaeological resource or disturb human remains, identified the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate BECSP incorporated into the project. No additional 00 Ols N PC �l fm cFdStabement Impadsummary Finclings With incorporation of mitigation measures, this area and noted that the general area was considered sensitive for cultural resources. mitigation measures are necessary with impact is considered less than significant. Finally,representatives from the Gabrielino Tongva Nation contacted PBSU to express implementation of mitigation measure their concerns about the sensitivity of the BECSP area for Native American resources MM4.4-2(b), and burial grounds. Therefore, the BECSP area Is considered to be sensitive for the presence of Native American cultural resources, including human remains. However, because the project site has been previously disturbed and is considered to be entirely developed, and the records search conducted by the SCCIC did not identify archeological resources on the project site, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered as a result of the currently proposed project and mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-2(a)would not be applicable. However, earthmoving activities could result in the uncovering of previously unidentified resources. Incorporation .of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-2(b) would reduce any impacts from this occurrence to a less than significant level. Impact XIV (c) Construction activities associated According to a paleontological records search performed by the Natural History Museum Finding 1. The City finds that the identified with implementation of the currently proposed of Los Angeles County in September 2008 for the BECSP area,no previously recorded changes or alterations in the currently proposed project could result In the disturbance of paleontological resources are located within the BECSP area, including the proposed project, which would reduce ImpactXIV (c) to paleontological resources.. With incorporation of project site. However, the search did identify several paleontological resources in the less-than-significant levels, are hereby mitigation measures,this Impact is considered less BECSP vicinity, as well as soils that often contain vertebrate and invertebrate fossils.As incorporated into the project. No additional than significant. such, the BECSP EIR concluded that the entire plan area, including the project site is mitigation measures are necessary with considered sensitive for paleontological resources. In compliance with mitigation implementation of mitigation measure x measure BECSP MM4.4-3(a), a records search for the project site was conducted for MM4A-3(b). tz EIR No.10-004,and turned up negative for the presence of paleontological resources on the project site.However,because of the area's sensitivity,the currently proposed project o is required to comply with mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-3(b) in the event that a previously unidentified unique paleontological resource or geological feature is discovered during ground disturbing activities. As such, the currently proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to paleontological resources. Geology and Soils Impact Ili (a) Future development under the According to the liquefaction Potentiai map Included as Figure EH-7 of the Huntington Finding 1. The City finds that the identified currently proposed project could expose people Beach General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element,the project site Is located in area changes or alterations in the currently proposed and/or structures to potentially substantial adverse identified as having a low potential for liquefaction. However, based on review of the project,which would reduce Impact Ili(a)to less- effects, including the risk of loss, Injury, or death, California Seismic Hazard Zones Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle,which identifies than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated involving fault rupture, strong seismic the site as not being located within a liquefaction hazard zone, the Preliminary into the project. No additional mitigation groundshaking, seismic-related ground failure, Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the site concluded that the potential for measures are necessary with the implementation Including liquefaction, and/or landslides. With liquefaction and seismic-induced settlement is expected to be very low. Regardless, of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1. Implementation of mitigation measures and impacts associated with seismic hazards, Including liquefaction, would be addressed compliance with applicable State and City through adherence to applicable regulations including the City of Huntington Beach regulations, this impact is considered less than Building Code,which has adopted the 2010 CBC,the Grading and Excavation Code,and o • @� + • •sfdi,th6,,�Be.a ,a d:'Ellis�m*x6,d, P6• ome' titaill'As'sessmen Im odStafemenf Impactsummaly Finclings significant. state requirements pertaining to geologic, soil, and seismic hazards. Additionally, as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1, a soils and geotechnical report would be prepared for the proposed project and submitted to the City with the first submittal of a grading plan for the project.The design,grading, and structural recommendations of the final soil and geotechnical report would be incorporated into the currently proposed project's grading plan. In light of the strict regulations In place to control development of structures in a seismically active region, and the incorporation of project-specific design recommendations Into project plans, the currently proposed project's impact due to exposure to seismicaily induced groundshaking,and seismic-related ground failure would be loss than signlficant. Impact III (b) Construction of the currently Grading and excavation would expose soil to erosional processes and could result in the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could result in substantial soil loss of topsoil during construction. As part of the project, a site-specific Stormwater changes or alterations in the currently proposed erosion, loss of top soil, changes in topography or Pollution Prevention Plan (mitigation measure PROJECT MM4.5-2),which is part of the project,which would reduce Impact III(b)to less- unstable soil conditions.However,with compliance NPDES Municipal General Permit, would be prepared. Implementation of Best than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated with slope stability, soil stability, and seismic- Management Practices during construction activities as required by the NPDES permit into the currently proposed project. No additional resistant design standards for structures proposed would reduce the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Unstable soil conditions mitigation measures are necessary with the for human occupancy required by the City of would be addressed through compliance with the Grading and Excavation Code and implementation mitigation measure BECSP Huntington Beach General Plan, Building Code, incorporation of the recommendations of the project-specific Geotechnical Engineering MM4.5-1. and Grading and Excavation Code and Feasibility Report Into the currently proposed project's final grading plan, as required by Implementation of code requirements and mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1. Compliance with applicable requirements would x mitigation measures,this Impact is considered less ensure that this impact remain less than significant. than significant. o, Impact III (c)The currently proposed project could Finding 1. The City finds that the identified v, According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, the groundwater at the site ranges be located on a geologic unit that would become from approximately 30 to 59 feet below existing grades, which is consistent with the changes or alterations in the currently proposed unstable as a result of the project and potentially historical ground water data for the project that indicates groundwater depths in excess of project, which would reduce Impact III (c) to a result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, loss-than-significant level, are hereby subsidence liquefaction or collapse.However,with 30 feet. Based on this depth to groundwater, the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation q p concluded that ground water is not likely to be encountered during foundation Incorporated into the currently proposed project. compliance with slope and soil stability standards construction; however, higher localized and seasonal perched ground water conditions No additional mitigation measures are necessary required by the City of Huntington Beach General may accumulate below the surface depending on numerous factors including seasonal with the implementation of code requirement Plan, Building Code, and Grading and Excavation rainfall, local irrigation,and ground water pumping,among others.Due to the potentlal for BECSP CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure BECSP Code, as well as implementation of code shallow groundwater, dewatering activities could be needed during the excavation MM4.5-1. requirements and mitigation measures, this impact (grading and shoring) and subgrade construction (for building foundation) stages of is considered less than significant. construction, Temporary shoring, dewatering wells, storage tanks, filters, and erosion control measures would be required to comply with the City's Grading Manual(Chapter 17.05.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code). Dewatering activities would be required In order to comply with the NPDES Permit for Groundwater Discharge from the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board..Additionally, the currently proposed (p rot would be designed according to the recommendations of the project-specific 00 00 00 - - i - - ® e - �+ � . ® . - . . . - . . - \p tm Sfak-meat kn actSum Firtdm Geotechnical Report, required by code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1. The currently proposed project would be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable Soils) of the City's Municipal Code and Title 17 Excavation and Grading Code. The currently proposed project site is identified as having a very low potential for liquefaction to occur. In the event that liquefaction does occur, the primary effect is expected to be ground surface settlement due to the consolidation of the liquefied material. Settlement could also be caused by loads generated by large earthmoving equipment or occur as a result of the placement of new fill or structural loads above the existing grade.Potential impacts associated with settlement would be addressed through the incorporation of specific engineering recommendations to be included in the final soils and geology report prepared for the currently proposed project, as required by code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1, and included in the currently proposed project's final grading plans consistent with mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1. Additionally, the currently proposed structures would be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable Soils) of the 2010 CBC and Title 17 Excavation.and Grading Code. As such, the currently proposed project would not be located on an unstable geologic unit or soil that could become unstable.Therefore,would be a less than significant impact. Impact III(d)The currently proposed project site is The currently proposed project site is identified as having a 'low to moderate" potential Finding 1. The City finds that the identified identified as having a "low to moderate" potential for expansive soils on the Expansive Soils Distribution map, Figure EH-12 of the changes or alterations in the currently proposed for expansive soils. However,with compliance with Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Hazards Element, Risks associated with project, which would reduce Impact III (d) to a soil stability standards required by the City of expansive soil are addressed through adherence to Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable less-than-slgnificant level, are hereby Huntington Beach General Plan, Building Code, Soils) from the 2010 CBC and Title 17 (Excavation and Grading Code), as well the incorporated into the currently proposed project. and Grading and Excavation Code, and incorporation of recommendations of the final soils and geology study, as required by No additional mitigation measures are necessary implementation of code requirements and code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1 into the currently proposed project's grading plans with the implementation of code requirement mitigation measures,this impact is considered less (Mitigation Measure BECSP MM4.5-1). As such, potential risks to life and property BECSP CR4.5-1 and mitigation measure BECSP than significant, associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. MM4.5-1. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Impact IX (b) Implementation of the currently In order to address the potential for encountering contamination within the project area,a Finding 1, The City finds that the identified proposed project could create a potential Phase I ESA report and a Phase 11 Investigation report were prepared, as required by changes or alterations in the currently proposed significant hazard to the public or the environment mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-1, to investigate potential contamination and require project,which would reduce Impact IX(b)to less- through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident remediation if necessary, prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. The Phase 1, than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated conditions involving the release of hazardous completed in January 2007 by SCS, revealed that the active gas station is a LUST site into the currently proposed project. No additional materials into the environment. However, with with ongoing remediation of soil and quarterly groundwater monitoring under the mitigation measures are necessary with the compliance with existing regulations ' and oversight of the SARWQCB and OCHCA. To remediate any existing conditions at the implementation of mitigation measures BECSP implementation of mitigation measures, this impact project site various work plans have been submitted to and were approved by OCHCA. MM4.6-1 BECSP MM4.6-2, and BECSP MM4.6- im actskftmerd tm cr-t Sum mcity findings is considered less than significant. These work plans include an Additional Site Assessment to address�pot�entialsoll and 3, groundwater contamination,separate phase hydrocarbon removal,soil vapor survey,and the Installation of a"deep zone"groundwater monitoring well.Remediation efforts would continue with implementation of the proposed project for an indeterminate time. As part of the proposed project, existing monitoring equipment that is currently located outside will be relocated within the proposed parking garage to allow for testing and treatment of the aquifer.Identification and remediation of known contamination on the project site was required by the previously certified EIR and is also required for the proposed project. Mitigation measures to be implemented include BECSP MM4,6-1 and BECSP MM4,6-2, which requires the preparation and Implementation of a Risk Management Plan in the event that unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater is encountered would minimize the potential risk of contamination created by implementation of the proposed project. The currently proposed project site is located within a Methane Overlay District and is therefore subject to mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-3, which requires the project to comply with HBFD City Specification No. 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirement prior to issuance of a grading permit. Specifically, the Applicant would be required to submit a plan for the testing of soils for the presence of methane gas to determine if a problem exists and to rule methane out as a potential concern to the HBFD prior to commencement of sampling. In the event that methane gas is discovered, x appropriate measures to reduce the potential impacts of methane gas to future q� occupants and visitors of the project site would be required as per City Specification No. 429 (Methane District Building Permit Requirements) and mitigation measures BECSP MM4.6-3. Implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-3 would reduce any impacts associated with methane gas by ensuring that appropriate testing and methods of gas detection are implemented at the project site, as required by the HBFD. As such, the potential impacts associated with methane gas would be reduced to a less than significant level. Impact IX(g)The currently proposed project could Temporary short-term construction impacts on street traffic adjacent to the project site Finding 1. The City finds that the identified impair implementation of or physically interfere with due to roadway and infrastructure improvements and the potential extension of changes or alterations in the currently proposed an adopted emergency response plan or construction activities into the right-of-way could result in a reduction of the number of project,which would reduce Impact IX(g)to less- emergency evacuation plan. However, with lanes or temporary closure of segments of Beach Boulevard or Ellis Avenue. Similar to than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated implementation of mitigation measures,this impact the analysis in the previously certified EIR, any such impacts would be limited to the into the currently proposed project. No additional is considered less than significant. construction period of the project and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. mitigation measures are necessary with the However, mitigation measure BECSP MM4.64 would ensure that emergency response implementation of mitigation measures BECSP teams for the City of Huntington Beach, including HBFD and Huntington Beach Police MM4.6-4. Department(HBPD)would be notified of any lane closures during construction activities on the project site and that a minimum one lane would remain open at all times to provide adequate emer en access to the site and surrounding neighborhoods.Implementation 00 N O CD =Am 00 Impad SkMement ImpaciPSUMMMY F153ngs of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-4 would ensure that proposed development would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles,and the proposed project would result In a less than significant impact. Hydrology and Water Quality Impact IV (a) Implementation of the currently The currently proposed project would be subject to all existing regulations associated Finding 1, The City finds that the identified proposed project could violate water quality with the protection of water quality. The applicable waste discharge requirements changes or alterations in the currently proposed standards or waste discharge requirements. (WDRs), the NPDES General Permit for construction activities, De Minimus Threat project,which would reduce Impact IV(a)to less- However, with implementation of mitigation General Permit, and Municipal NPDES Permit are considered protective of water quality than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated measures, this impact is considered less than during construction and would, therefore, prevent a substantial violation of water quality into the currently proposed project. No additional significant standards and minimize the potential for contributing additional sources of polluted runoff mitigation measures are necessary with the during construction of the proposed project. These existing regulations, programs, and implementation of mitigation measure MM4.7-1. policies would ensure that the potential for discharge of polluted stormwater from construction sites to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters and water quality standards, where applicable, would not be substantial. Implementation of existing regulatory requirements would ensure that on-site erosion and siltation are minimized and that construction of the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of water qualitystandards.Compliance with the existing regulatory requirements described above, as well as implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-1, would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards.This impact would be less than significant. WImpact IV (b) Implementation of the currently According to the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the currently proposed project site,the Finding 1, The City finds that the identified ,:5,, proposed project could substantially deplete depth to groundwater at the site ranges from between 30 to 60 feet below the existing changes or alterations In the currently proposed U11 groundwater supplies or Interfere substantially with grade. In the event that permanent dewatering activities are necessary on the project project,which would reduce Impact IV(b)to less- groundwater recharge. However, with site,the proposed project would require coverage under the De Minimus Threat General than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated implementation of mitigation measures,this Impact Permit or an individual WDR/ NPDES Permit, and consequently would be subject to Into the currently proposed project. No additional is considered less than significant discharge quantity limitations, groundwater dewatering, and surface drainage. mitigation measures are necessary with the Additionally, as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-2,a Hydrology Study was implementation of BMPs and mitigation measure prepared for the currently proposed project which includes recommended BMPs. BECSP MM4.7-2. Treatment control water quality BMPs (CDS units and Contech StormFllter) will pre- treat/treat urbanized runoff from the project site and protect local water resources to the maximum extent practicable. Volume-based BMPs are designed to capture and treat what is usually described as the"fast flush"of runoff from a storm event. Volume-based BMPs include extended detention basins, wet detention basins, retention/infiltration systems and water quality treatment wetlands.The water quality capture volume may be included as part of the configuration of the detention basins (for example, in a forebay), or as a stand-alone water quality basin. Implementation of BMPs and compliance with existing regulatory requirements would ensure that permanent groundwater dewatering does not cause or contribute to a lowedng of the local groundwater table that would affect IrnpadSkdement ImpadSunimary Frncg nearby water supply wells,such that impacts would be less than significant.Although the project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area, as described under the Drainage and Downstream Conditions heading, runoff from the project site ultimately drains into Sully-Miller Lake, which has no discharge except for groundwater recharge. Therefore, the runoff from the project site would continue to contribute to groundwater recharge and would not affect City groundwater wells, resulting in a less than significant impact. Impact IV (c&d) Implementation of the currently Implementation of the currently proposed project would not alter the existing drainage Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could substantially alter the pattern of streams or rivers and would not result in off-site erosion hazards.The project changes or alterations in the currently proposed existing drainage pattern of the site or area or site is located within an entirely urbanized area and would discharge to the City streets, project, which would reduce Impact IV (c&d) to substantially increase the rate or amount or surface underground storm drain systems, and ultimately to Huntington Harbor. The projoct site less-than-significant levels, are hereby runoff in a manner which would result in flooding is currently approximately 95 percent impervious. With implementation of the currently incorporated into the currently proposed project, on or off-site. However, with implementation of proposed project, the amount of impervious surface area will remain similar to existing No additional mitigation measures are necessary mitigation measures,this impact is considered less conditions, but would yield increased runoff compared to the existing condition of a 25- with the implementation of mitigation measure than significant. year storm event. However, incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system MM4.7-4, into project design,as recommended in the Hydrology Study and described in the WQMP prepared for the project site, would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff wili conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system and would not result in flooding or erosion. To ensure that runoff from the site derived from the site does not result in flooding or erosion, mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-4 would be implemented, which requires adequate storm drain capacity to be demonstrated and if capacity is not sufficient, corrective action would be taken, so 8� as to avoid off-site flooding or erosion. Accordingly, this impact is considered less than �^ significant. Yl Impact IV (e&f) Implementation of the currently According to the BECSP EIR,the storm drain system serving the project site is currently Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could create or contribute runoff constrained for build out of the City's General Plan and may be constrained for existing changes or alterations in the currently proposed water which would exceed the capacity of existing conditions.As such,the BECSP EIR concluded that future development in the vicinity of project, which would reduce Impact IV (e&f) to or planned stormwater drainage systems or the project site would have potentially significant impacts on both existing and planned less-than-significant levels, are hereby provide substantial additional sources of polluted storm drain systems. To address this, implementation of modified mitigation measures incorporated into the currently proposed project. runoff or otherwise substantially degrade water BECSP MM4.7-3 and BECSP MM4.7-4 Is required to assess the contribution of a project No additional mitigation measures are necessary quality. However,with implementation of mitigation to potential system capacity constraints and provide for construction of necessary with the implementation of mitigation measures measures, this impact is considered less than upgrades such that potential impacts to storm drain system capacities would not be MM4.7-1,BECSP MM4.7-3,and BECSP 4.74. significant. substantial. As required by modified BECSP MM4.7-3, a site specific Hydrology Study was prepared to Identify the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the site on the existing storm drain system and provides for site drainage design so as to not increase peak storm event flows over existing conditions for the design storm events.Additionally, BECSP MM4.7-4 requires that adequate capacity in the storm drain system is demonstrated to accommodate discharge from the proposed project. Accordingto the CD 0 N N CD 00 able, !► • • o o - - • • • - e • - o • - N W Un 51c�ement Impactsummw finclings Preliminary Hydrology Study,implementation will maintain a similar amount of impervious area as compared to existing site condition but would yield an increased runoff compared to the existing condition of a 25-year storm event, However, incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system into project design, as described above and as recommended in the Hydrology Study, would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff will conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system. Implementation of treatment control water quality BMPs will pre-treaUtreat urbanized runoff from the project site and minimize the projects pollution impact to levels acceptable to the state and local jurisdictions. With implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-1, which requires the submittal and approval of a site-specific WQMP prior to issuance of a Precise Grading or Building Permit, project site drainage will be designed so as not to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality, Implementation of modified mitigation measures BECSP MM4.7-3 and BECSP MM4,74 would ensure that the proposed project would not increase peak storm event flows over existing conditions and storm drain capacity is not exceeded as a result of the proposed project. As such, the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to water quality,drainage, and runoff and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to water quality,drainage,or runoff. x Noise Impact X (a) Implementation of the currently Demolition of all existing structures and construction of new mixed uses would occur with Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could generate noise levels In the currently proposed project. As analyzed in the certified EIR, the closest noise changes or alterations in the currently proposed excess of standards established by the City, sensitive receptors to the project site would be the uses located immediately east of the project,which would reduce Impact X(a)to less- However, with implementation of mitigation site along Ellis Avenue and the residential uses located to the north of the project site than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated measures, this Impact is considered less than across from Ellis Avenue. These residential uses are approximately 75 feet from the into the currently proposed project. No additional significant. project site. Construction activity noise levels at these residential uses would be mitigation measures are necessary with the approximately 83 dBA during the excavation/grading and external finishing phases of the implementation of mitigation measures BECSP currently proposed project. While construction noise could be a nuisance to nearby MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3(construction) sensitive uses, compliance with the City's -Noise Ordinance would ensure that and mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-4 and construction noise impacts remain less than significant. Implementation of Identified BECSP MM4.9-5(operational). mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3 would reduce temporary construction noise impacts,and construction-related noise would be less than significant. Operational noise sources could include such stationary sources as rooftop HVAC systems which could result in noise levels that average between 50 and 65 dBA Laq at 50 feet from the equipment. Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-4 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Additionally, the proposed project would introduce new noise activity in the area as residences are constructed and people Im actStatement ErnpcfIctSummary Find) are attracted to the new mix of uses, Implementation of mitigation measure MM4.9-5 would require an acoustical analysis of all new residences to ensure that noise levels in livable areas do not exceed established City criteria. Impact (c)The currently proposed project could There would be operational noise impacts generated by residential uses such as Finding 1, The City finds that the identified cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient mechanical equipment(HVAC). Installation of shielding around HVAC systems would be changes or alterations in the currently proposed noise levels. With Implementation of mitigation required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.9-4, which would further reduce HVAC project,which would reduce Impact X(c)to less- measures, this impact is considered less than noise levels. Mitigation measure BECSP MM4.9-5 would ensure that exterior living than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated significant, spaces,such as patios, are constructed in a manner so that noise levels, including noise into the currently proposed project. No additional from the occasional retail delivery, do not exceed the City's noise standards. The mitigation measures are necessary with the currently proposed project would result in an intensification of human activity at the Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP proposed project site with the introduction of a permanent, residential population, This IvIM4.9-4 and BECSP MM4.9-5. could increase noise levels at the Identified off-site residential receptors. Similar to the project and Alternative 3, once operational, noise levels from residential and retail activities on the project site are not anticipated to be greater than the established 55 dBA limit for residential zones. With implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4,94 and BECSP MM4.9-5,operational noise would remain less than significant Impact (d) Implementation of the' currently Construction activities would represent a substantial temporary or periodic increase In Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could result in a substantial ambient noise levels.As analyzed in the certified EIR,construction activities could reach changes or alterations in the currently proposed temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 83 dBA at 50 feet. As such, the noise generated by construction activities for the project,which would reduce Impact X(d)to less- levels. However, with implementation of mitigation currently proposed project could result in a temporary Increase in ambient noise levels of than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated measures,these Impacts are considered less than over 3 d13A at uses adjacent to the project site.However,the construction activities would into the currently proposed project. No additional significant. only occur during the permitted hours designated in the City of Huntington Beach mitigation measures are necessary with the Municipal Code, and thus would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences implementation of mitigation measures BECSP or on days that residents are most sensitive to exterior noise(Sundays and holidays).As MM4,9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3. such, while an increase in ambient noise levels could occur from the construction activities associated with the currently proposed project, an adverse effect on the nearby residents would not occur because construction noise is not restricted pursuant to the Municipal Code as long as it occurs during permltted hours. Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3 would further reduce this impact to less than significant. In addition,similar to the project analyzed In the certified EIR,there would be no temporary or periodic noise increases to on- or off•slte receptors due to operation of the proposed project, Public Services ImpactX1 (a) Implementation of the currently Development of 274 residential units would result in a new residential population of Finding 1, The City finds that the identified proposed project would increase the demand for approximately 732 persons at the site, All development plans prepared for the currently changes or alterations in the currently proposed fire protection services. With implementation of proposed project would be reviewed by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to project,which would reduce Impact XI(a)to less- mitigation measures, this impact Is considered less construction to ensure that adequate fire flows would be maintained. Compliance with all than-sl nificant levels, are hereby incorporated CD 00 i N CD 00 N e • - l+ � • e • ^ • o • - • - an. rMlTIME 0 !m adSfafement im adsumma Frees than significant. required policies,rules, and regulations would ensure that the currently proposed project into the currently project.No additional mitigation would not require any new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain adequate measures are necessary with the Implementation response times and staffing, the construction of which could result in significant of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1. environmental impacts. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4,11-1 would ensure that the HBFD receives adequate staffing and/or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of service. ImpactXl (b) Implementation of the currently The Huntington Beach Police Department has 235 sworn officers and currently employs Finding 1, The City finds that the identified proposed project would increase the demand for a total of 215 sworn officers, currently protecting 203,484 residents in the City. The changes or alterations in the currently proposed police protection services. With implementation of currently proposed project could result In up to 732 new residents. As analyzed in the project,which would reduce Impact XI(b)to less- mitigation measures,this Impact Is considered less certified EIR, and using the worst-case population increase scenario, tho additional 732 than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated than significant residents generated by the currently proposed project is not expected to notably affect into the currently project. No additional mitigation Huntington Beach Police Department resources given that general fund monies from measures are necessary with the implementation increased property tax revenue associated with development as well as other fee of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1. revenues (i.e.,building pen-nit fees)may be used to augment equipment levels. Further, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1 would ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintained.Therefore,persons on site or elsewhere in the City would not be exposed to Increased risks as a result of the currently proposed project. Transportation/Traffic Impact VI (a)The currently proposed project could All study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS in 2030 with the BECSP build Finding 1, The City finds that the Identified x conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy out with the exception of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue,which would operate with changes or alterations in the currently proposed W establishing measures of effectiveness for the a PM deficiency(LOS E).Because the reduction In ADT with the proposed project is too project,which would reduce Impact VI(a)to less- performance of the circulation system, taking into small to result In a change,the anticipated LOS at these intersections would not change, than-significant levels, are hereby incorporated �^ account all modes of transportation including mass Therefore, although the currently proposed project would result in an increase in into the currently project. No additional mitigation 00 transit and non-motorized travel and relevant outbound vehicle trips In the AM peak hour,the proposed project would not contribute to measures are necessary with the implementation components of the circulation system. With the existing deficiency at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue as it of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-8 through Implementation of mitigation measures,this impact would not contribute to vehicle trips during the PM peak hour. Regardless, the currently BECSP MM4.2-10, BECSP MM4.13-13, and is considered less than significant. proposed project would be required to make a fair share contribution to the traffic BECSP MM4.13-14. Improvements identified in mitigation measures BECSP MM4.13-13 and BECSP MM4,13-14 for the Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue intersection as part of the overall BECSP development.As such, the currently proposed project would not conflict with the City's acceptable LOS standard and a less than significant impact would occur. The currently proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-8 through BECSP MM4.2-10 which would ensure that construction traffic does not block the free flow of traffic. The currently proposed project would also be required to submit a traffic control plan during construction to ensure appropriate emergency access during constructlon.Accordingly,the proposed project would result in . less than significant construction-related traffic impacts, Lm acfsfafemenf ImpactSummmy Hndings CumulatfveTraffic Development of the currently proposed project would result in following traffic related Finding 2. The City finds changes or alterations cumulative impacts under 2030 conditions. Operation of the currently proposed project that could reduce the potential impact of the would cumulatively contribute to an unacceptable Level of Service at two City currently proposed project are within the intersections: Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Bolsa responsibility and jurisdiction of another public Avenue. Even with implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.13-3 through agency and not the agency making the findings. BECSP MM4,13-9 and BECSP MM4.13-12, the Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue Finding 3. The City finds that even with intersection would remain at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Beach Boulevard at implementation of all feasible mitigation Bolsa Avenue intersection would remain at LOS F in the PM peak hour.At both of these measures (MM4.13-3 through MM4,13-19), the intersections,with the incorporation of mitigation measures,the impact to the intersection proposed project would result in a significant and would be mitigated to a less than significant level, even though the LOS would not be unavoidable cumulative traffic impact. No considered acceptable. However, whilo these intersections are located within the additional feasible mitigation measures are cumulative study area of the BECSP, they are outside City jurisdiction to ensure available. mitigation completion.Therefore,the impact would be potentially significant. Operation of the currently proposed project would cumulatively contribute to an Increase in delay at two Caltrans intersections and would increase traffic to the 1405 northbound loop ramp,which is currently deficient.The BECSP area would contribute traffic to the I- 405.northbound loop ramp from.Beach Boulevard, as well as the regional freeway system, which are both projected to have deficiencies in 2030. For a deficient Caltrans intersection, any increase in delay due to the project is considered a significant impact. The 2030 results show two locations in the BECSP area with impacts,both of which were identified in the intersection capacity utilization analysis as part of the BECSP environmental analysis: Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Garfield Avenue.Therefore,the currently proposed project would contribute to a deficient �^ system for which there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts. Further,as these are under Caltrans jurisdiction, the City does not have jurisdiction to ensure mitigation completion.Therefore,the impact would be potentially significant. Utilities and Service Systems lmpact XII (d) Implementation of the currently Development of the currently proposed project would result in an increased demand for Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project would generate an additional municipal water services compared to existing conditions. The City would be able to changes or alterations in the currently project, demand for water. However, with the provide a reliable source of water to accommodate its existing users and the additional which would reduce ImpactXll (d) to less-than- implementation of mitigation measures,this impact demand on water supplies created by the currently proposed project for the 20-year significant levels, are hereby incorporated Into Is considered less than significant. projection.The City's conservation programs coupled with increased groundwater would the currently proposed project. No additional improve water supply reliability. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure mitigation measures are necessary with the BECSP MM4.14-1 would serve to reduce the municipal water demand from the currently implementation of BECSP MM4.14-1. proposed project.Therefore this impact would be less than significant. Impact XII (a) Implementation of the currently The project developer would be responsible for constructing local mains and extensions Finding 1. The City finds that the identified (D proposed project could require new sewer to serve the currently proposed ro'ect. Prior to allowing additional connections to the changes or alterations in the currently proposed 00 N 01 c� it 00 N � - �l kn act Statement Impadsummory Find7bgs connections, and could require or result in the sewer lines,the capacity of the existing sewers would need to be confirmed and a sewer project, which would reduce Impact XII (e) to construction of new or expanded wastewater study would be needed at the time of development to determine if the existing sewer less-than-significant levels, are hereby conveyance systems. However, with lines need to be upgraded to accommodate the currently proposed projects sewer flow, incorporated into the currently proposed project, implementation of code requirements and The currently proposed project would be required to implement code requirements No additional measures are necessary with the mitigation measures,this Impact Is considered less BECSP CR4,14-1 and BECSP CR4.14-2. In addition, any development connecting implementation of code requirements BECSP than significant. directly or Indirectly to the OCSD sewer system is required to pay a connection fee in CR4.14-1 and BECSP CR4.14-2. accordance with the OCSD Connection Fee Master Ordinance. The Connection Fee Program ensures that all users pay their fair share of any necessary expansion of the system, including expansion to wastewater treatment facilities, These fees are considered full mitigation under CEQA for potential impacts resulting from project development. Construction of the wastewater collection systems for the currently proposed project would adhere to existing laws and regulations, and the infrastructure would be sized appropriately for the project_Individual water and wastewater connections would occur as part of the currently proposed project. In addition, code requirements BECSP CR4.14-1 and BECSP CR4,14-2 would ensure that proper sewer connections are provided for at the project site.Therefore,this impact is considered less than significant Greenhouse Gas Emisslons Impact XVII (a) Implementation of the currently Construction of the currently proposed project would result in GHG emissions due to the Finding 1. The City finds that the identified proposed project could generate greenhouse gas operation of heavy construction equipment, worker commute trips, and building supply changes or alterations in the currently proposed tZ emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may vendor vehicles. In addition, operation of the currently proposed project would result in project, which would reduce ImpactXVll (a) to have a significant Impact on the environment. GHG emissions as a result of direct sources such as motor vehicles, natural gas less-than-significant levels, are hereby o However, with implementation of mitigation consumption, solid waste hand lingitreatment, and indirect sources such as electricity incorporated into the currently proposed project. measures, thls impact is considered less than generation. No additional measures are necessary with the significant. Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4,15-1 through BECSP MM4.15-9, Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP which are consistent with strategies recommended by the CCAT, CAPCOA, and the MM4.15-1 through BECSP MM4.15-9 as well as California Attorney General,would reduce impacts associated with GHG emissions of the compliance with guidance provided by the CCAT, proposed project to less than significant levels. CAPCOA and the California Attorney General. ATTACHMENT #2 xu nroi . Item 18. - 28 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001: 1. Site Plan Review No. 12-001 for the construction of a mixed use development consisting of 274 multi-family residential units and 8,500 square feet of commercial area and associated improvements will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detrimental to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood as this development replaces a mostly vacant and underperforming commercial center. The mixed-use residential and commercial development, with the recommended conditions of approval, incorporates architectural and design elements that provide maximum compatibility of design with the existing and anticipated development surrounding the project site, promotes pedestrian accessibility, and promotes the image of the Huntington Beach envisioned within the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP). Structures on the project site are four to six stories in height and feature enhanced building materials and colors, building recesses and fagade offsets, and variation in massing composition. The neighborhood will benefit from the proposed 17,540 sf of publicly accessible open space. The project's conformance with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan further ensures that the form, height, and architectural design convey an overall high level of quality. 2. The proposed mixed use project will not adversely affect the Circulation Plan of the BECSP. The project will reduce the number of ingress/egress driveways at the site from six to two thereby reducing conflicts with through traffic and the potential for accidents. The proposed northerly garage entrance will be relocated to directly across from Patterson Lane to reduce peak hour traffic impacts of west bound traffic from the project site. The project will dedicate 2 ft along Beach Blvd and four ft along Ellis Ave to accommodate the Palm Tree Blvd and Neighborhood Street public right-of-way improvements consistent with the BECSP. No additional street improvements are required to improve capacity/efficiency on intersection operations; however, the project will pay fees commensurate with the project's contribution of traffic on the area-wide roadway system. 3. The project complies with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (SP14) and other applicable regulations. The project complies with the development standards in terms of height, setbacks, minimum onsite parking, open space and architectural regulations. The project also ensures that the form and architectural design convey an overall high level of quality materials consistent with the vision of the Specific Plan. 4. The granting of the site plan review will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use — Specific Plan Overlay — Design Overlay on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Air Quality Element Goal AQ 1: Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. 4. The granting of the site plan review will not adversely affect the General Plan. It is consistent with the Land Use Element designation of Mixed Use—Specific Plan Overlay — Design Overlay on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the following goals and policies of the,General Plan: A. Air Quality Element Goal AQ 1: Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs-housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. Policy AQ 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. B. Circulation Element Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Objective CE 3.2: Encourage new development that promotes and expands the use of transit services. Policy CE 6.1.6: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments, schools, and public facilities. C. Growth Management Element Policy GM 1.1.7: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize policing safety and security, Policy GM 2.1.4: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize fire safety and prevention. D. Hazardous Materials Element Goal HM 1: Reduce,to the greatest degree possible, the potential for harm to life, property and the environment from hazardous materials and hazardous waste. Objective HM 1.1: Promote the proper handling, treatment and disposal of hazardous materials and hazardous waste. (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 2 Attachment No. 1 xB -663- Item 18. - 30 Policy HM 1.4.4: Require that owners of contaminated sites develop a remediation plan with the assistance of the Orange County Environmental Management Agency (EMA). E. Housing Element Goal H 2: Provide adequate housing sites to accommodate regional housing needs. Goal H 3: Assist in development of affordable housing. Policy H 2.2: Facilitate the development of mixed use projects in appropriate commercial areas, including stand-alone residential development (horizontal mixed use) and housing above ground floor commercial uses (vertical mixed use). Establish mixed use zoning regulations. Policy H 3.1: Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic segments of the community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households,to maintain a balanced community. F. Land Use Element Goal L U 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Goal LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Goal LU 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the principles discussed below: a. Not applicable b. Vary uses and densities along the City's extended commercial corridors, such as Beach Boulevard. c. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. e. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 3 Attachment No. 1 Item 18. - 31 HB -664- f. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. g. Establish linkages among community areas,which may include pedestrian and vehicular paths, landscape, signage, other streetscape elements, open space,transitions, in form, scale, and density of development, and other elements. Goal LU 9: 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. Policy LU 9.1.4: Require that recreational and open space amenities be incorporated in new multi-family developments and that they be accessible to and of sufficient size to be usable by all residents. Goal LU 11: 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. Policy LU 11.1.2: Limit commercial uses in mixed use development projects to those uses that are compatible with the residences. Policy LU 11.1.4: Require the incorporation of adequate onsite open space and recreational facilities to serve the needs of the residents in mixed use development projects. Policy L U 11.1.S: Require that mixed use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access. Policy LU IL 1.6: Require that the ground floor of structures that horizontally integrate housing with commercial uses locate commercial uses along the street frontage(housing may be located to the rear and/or on upper floors). Policy LU 11.1.7: Require that mixed use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of the: a. Visual and physical integration among the commercial and residential uses (Plates LU-3 and LU-4); b. Architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts and residential units G. Noise Element Policy N 1.2.1: Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior Lan of 60 dB(A) and an interior Lan of 45 dB(A), that all new development of "noise (12sir23 SPR 12-001) 4 Attaclunent No. 1 HB -665- Item 18. - 32 sensitive" land uses, such as housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, and religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits. Policy N 1.2.3: Require development, in all areas where the ambient noise level exceeds an Lan of 60 dB(A), to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction, thereby, reducing interior noise levels to the 45 dB (A) Lan level. Policy N_1.5.1: Require that commercial and residential mixed use structures minimize the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial land use to the residential land use. The design measures may include: (1) the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission; or (2)the configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and transmission. H. Recreation and Community Services Element Policy RCS 2.1.1: Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, which includes the beach in the calculation. L Urban Design Element Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach. Objective UD 1.3: Strengthen the visual character of the City's street hierarchy in order to clarify the City's structure and improve Citywide identity. Policy UD 1.1.3: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City. J. Utilities Element Obiective U 1.2: Ensure that existing and new development does not degrade the City's surface waters and groundwater basins. Objective U 1.3: Minimize water consumption rates through site design,use of efficient systems, and other techniques. Policy U 1.3.2: Continue to require the incorporation of water conservation features in the design of all new and existing uses such as the use of native plants, low flow toilets and water efficient appliances. (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 5 Attachment No. 1 Item 18. - 33 HB -666- The project would provide a mixed use, urban infill development with 274 rental units increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use of land resources. The area has a variety of complementary uses that are critical to any vibrant community such as the Five Point Shopping Center, several commercial centers, Senior Housing projects and its proximity to the beach at a distance of 0.75 miles. The proposed project maximizes the density contributing to one of the two most urbanized areas envisioned within the Specific Plan: Town Center Neighborhood. The project promotes walking between the various commercial uses and services reducing vehicular trips and pollution. The proposed project and unit mix was designed to provide new urban lifestyle being embraced by the younger population providing more technology, less space needed not as dependent on their own individual automobile. The project is required to meet the City's affordable housing obligations providing 27 on-site affordable units. The proposed project will provide work force housing to the residents of Huntington Beach and Northern Orange County. The proposed project incorporates architectural and design principles to provide a pedestrian- oriented scale and ensure maximum design compatibility with the surrounding commercial, quasi-residential use and multiple family neighborhood. The project will be designed and certified to a Green Point Rated rating program for the residential portion of the project and LEED Silver Certified rating for the commercial portion of the project and will meet City noise requirements. Bicycle parking is located within the garage providing sufficient area to accommodate 70 spaces. Residential parking areas would be well-lit with parking for residents secured from public and commercial parking areas. Guest parking is located next to the commercial parking stalls and behind the secured gated residential parking area. The project would comply with the BECSP and other City codes to reduce water consumption and stormwater runoff. The project will incorporate sustainable site development strategies, utilize water savings features, emphasize recycling of resources and materials and maximize indoor environmental quality through design features and community policies. The project will result in remediation of the site. Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 ensure remediation of contaminated soils containing hazardous materials prior to development of the proposed project and provide supplemental procedures in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants during construction. As described in the EIR some site remediation has already occurred and is ongoing with regulatory protocols in place. If unknown contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk posed to human health. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001: 1. The site plan received May 7, 2012, floor plans and elevations received May 1, 2012 and revised colored elevations received May 2, 2012 for Site Plan Review No. 12- 001, shall be the conceptually approved design except as amended by the conditions specified as follows: (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 6 Attachment No. 1 HB -667- Item 18. - 34 a) The north (Ellis) elevation shall be revised to reflect the relocation of the Ellis driveway per the site plan dated May 7, 2012. b) East elevation (west garage exterior wall) of Plaza, shall be enhanced through use of landscaping, upgraded materials, installation of public art or other design feature approved by the Planning Division. c) Rooflines of east and south elevations of Building 2 shall be designed at varied heights to create a visual break. d) Removable bollards shall be installed at both the north and south entrances of the Plaza. e) Existing surface and sub-surface utilities (electrical pullboxes/vaults/manholeslvent pipes/manholes/vent pipes/traffic signal control pullboxes/cabinets, etc.) located along Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave frontages of the project site shall be relocated to allow for construction of the street standards and specifications of BECSP and to allow for maximum visibility of the new commercial component of the nixed use project. All utility relocation shall be permitted through the appropriate agency or utility company and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department. 2. Comply with all mitigation measures adopted for the project in conjunction with certified Environmental Impact Report No. 10-004. 3. At least 14 days prior to any grading activity, the property owner/developer shall provide notice in writing to property owners of record and tenants of properties within a 500-foot radius of the project site as noticed for the public hearing. The notice shall include a general description of planned grading activities and an estimated timeline for commencement and completion of work and a contact person name with phone number. Prior to issuance of the grading permit, a copy of the notice and list of recipients shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department. 4. Prior to issuance of a precise grading permit,the following shall be completed: (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 7 Attachment No. 1 Item 18. - 35 HB -668- a) The project site is located in close vicinity to Orange County Water Districts' Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Groundwater Replenishment System. The applicant shall coordinate with, and obtain approval and permit from OCWD, for the construction of the proposed underground parking structure/foundation, and shall satisfy all OCWD requirements to mitigate any impact to the said Seawater Intrusion Barrier and Groundwater Replenishment System. A copy of the permit/approval shall be transmitted to the Public Works Department. b) If tie-backs or other method of horizontal anchoring systems are proposed for construction of any temporary and/or permanent earth retaining structure, no encroachment of such anchor shall be allowed within the public right-of-way. c) Caltrans encroachment permits for work within the Caltrans right-of-way (for construction of sidewalks, driveways, utility connections, drainage etc.) shall be obtained by the applicant prior to City issuance of a grading permit. Since Caltrans does not allow any increase in drainage above existing onto Beach Boulevard, the applicant shall include a Hydrology Study for Caltrans review and approval with the encroachment permit application. A copy of each submittal, encroachment permit, traffic control plans and/or other permission granted by Caltrans shall be transmitted to the Public Works Department. 5. Prior to submittal for building permits, the following shall be completed: a) One set of project plans and one 8 1/z inch by 11 inch set of all colored renderings, elevations, and materials sample and color palette, revised pursuant to Condition of Approvals and Code Requirements, shall be submitted for review, approval and inclusion in the entitlement file, to the Planning Division. b) Zoning entitlement conditions of approval, code requirements identified herein and code requirements identified in separately transmitted memorandum from the Departments of Fire and Public Works shall be printed verbatim on one of the first three pages of all the working drawing sets used for issuance of building permits (architectural, structural, electrical, mechanical and plumbing) and shall be referenced in the sheet index. The minimum font size utilized for printed text shall be 12 point. c) Contact the United States Postal Service for approval of mailbox location(s). 6. Prior to issuance of a building permit the following shall be completed: a) The property owner/developer shall provide a Landscape Maintenance License Agreement to address the continuing maintenance and liability for all landscaping, irrigation, furniture and enhanced hardscape that encroaches into the Beach Blvd and Ellis Avenue Rights-of-Way. The agreement shall describe all aspects of maintenance such as enhanced sidewalk cleaning, trash cans, disposal of trash, signs, tree or palm replacement and any other aspect of maintenance that is warranted by the development plan improvements (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 8 Attachment No. 1 HB -669- Item 18. - 36 proposed. The agreement shall state that the property ownership shall be responsible for all costs associated with maintenance, repair, replacement, liability and fees imposed by the County, City and/or Caltrans. b) A Development Agreement shall be approved by the City Council and recorded. The Agreement shall provide for affordable dwelling units in accordance with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance as well as required traffic mitigation fees. The number and location of units and affordability terms shall be set forth in the Development Agreement. c) A public art element, approved by the Design Review Board, Director of Planning and Building, and the Cultural Services Supervisor, shall be depicted on the plans. Public Art shall be innovative, original, and of artistic excellence; appropriate to the design of the project; and reflective of the community's cultural identity(ecology,history, or society). 7. Prior to occupancy of the first dwelling unit and/or commercial tenant, the following shall be completed: a) A Parking Management Plan, approved by the property owner/developer shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Division. Said plan shall depict designated (residents/ tenants /.employees / guests / public/ customers / carpooling)parking space locations. b) The property owner/developer shall submit proof of registration with the GreenPoint Rated and LEED Silver program and a checklist of how certification is proposed to be achieved. Within 45 days of final building permit approval, the property owner/developer shall provide a final report by an accredited third party stating that the project has achieved LEED Silver for the retail portion of the development. The residential units shall receive a GreenPoint Rated certification that is equivalent of LEED Silver. The developer shall provide the City with evidence of said certification. c) Interior of parking structure shall be painted white to reflect natural light and increase illumination. Lighting shall be placed in a manner to illuminate the interior of vehicles allowing individuals approaching their vehicles to see inside prior to their entry. d) If complex will restrict entry to residents only by locked entry points,then those security systems shall be user friendly to the Police and Fire Departments. e) Addresses and unit numbers shall be painted on the roofs of the apartments. Unit number on interior shall be a minimum of 3' x 1 1/2". f) The existing power poles along the easterly side of the project property line shall be undergrounded. (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 9 Attachment No. 1 Item 18. - 37 HB -670- g) The property owner/developer shall submit documentation to the Planning Division showing compliance with the Acoustical Study dated April 26, 2012, 8. Operation and use of the project shall comply with the following: a. Live work units shall not be rented separately. b. Security gates shall be installed at the southern paseo at the east property line entrance and the area immediately east of the fire lane. This area shall be accessible to residents only after dark and shall remain open during daylight hours. 9. Signage is not approved as part of Site Plan No. 12-001 and shall not be installed prior to approval of a Planned Sign Program by the Planning Division. 10. The developer or developer's representative shall be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of all plans and information submitted to the City for review and approval. INDEMNIFICATION AND HOLD HARMLESS CONDITION: The owner of the property which is the subject of this project and the project property owner/developer if different from the property owner, and each of their heirs, successors and assigns, shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Huntington Beach and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action or proceedings, liability cost, including attorney's fees and costs against the City or its agents, officers or employees, to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval of the City, including but not limited to any approval granted by the City Council, Planning Commission, or Design Review Board concerning this project. The City shall promptly notify the property owner/developer of any claim, action or proceeding and should cooperate fully in the defense thereof. (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 10 Attachment No. 1 HB -671- Item 18. - 38 ATTACHMENT #3 Item 18. - 39 iie -672- 1C'n fi,.,... F. ,'�' 1 +`-.,. .r 4, t":... o.....,, i`. ..a), Y;�- .. .,tl-lt§. _..,�: I _ .. .,- � r•,,. h",. ,"�i. -„.c-�:,. s �. r x ;r" •;z - ... .t.. _ �- .. - .:_,.�. r #:..�..� .-_ n. t„Yh. �. 4 •,-., .�.. ...t. t ..3 �f� a..m'� ,.. ,,• ^.:. :. ➢"'f-,}3; .J4. 1 r>t. � ....44,. l3 .:.;�0;-�1,. F,f�.t .,r + u ;h� a: ......f. ..- .,.c�:_ � ..� ��. _.�,: ,9-�-k ,.�t -� !": y�, �y, .ram ,•,�.r..;zy"3' '`F. � _.`�• Z'r -�•m=.e k � <.17a.., e .?r�., c�.vt."�.' _ k-3.,> ^. .a •:>.; .s"" f :,.4. T.�''F _"•i- .c,:'� nx, �! �t'ir •S'�e_: .r SS�.,(.e� v`'r' ,., € ,.kfr.,..[!.-'� ,. ....:... � ,�q1„4.��$ {<F. 3,+, f.• !' ..r. ,.. �',, ,h., ti,a 3! ,,.�r�>� ..rn+�,e; ..r r3. 3 _ k.. nt Y � *.. n'i tx- gar-k. r! •r c .� .v- .. t a.h- .[} a. ..x--.,�: Y: -SS: �•E'k`.e,:.L Mtr is 'l. t,. .}:>I 'u s5. Y' -k i. 4 stv rv; .�.11. .- f� �'.d '�� l�.rr ,o:� .i: .<41 e 'c 55 ,n. �:zY. •tr�. .zv ..q# ,'r '4^':.1 a��, � � s'' - l ro- 't:t•i". `{h -{,�4", t 7�- ..! a.�r .,rP',. 'L.: .s,�. ��,: �_ f' t,�... I �F .>� !r... ��-�_" r -'r-:�'t-`:�. .� .a c.t c t.a...r.:...7 ��. e �;� r�c,,- !_ �s;� �a�a t.-.�, •��v�� n �:: {,��f". �'�tt `�lr.x��i :-,{,• ,x ,d � t 4 -'".:. ..--" ae ,. h""li.,•:. :"i.. .. �- !.'. t;,.-4!• N ,,,�� ....:-.-. ,• .. _.__I �-._zti �"* .{ .I �.1.", �,. -: �t 1,n :z,, 4i,. -�_� _, r tJ .rr'u ft`h.-. --:: ::. .t. ��,a�[:.,,.���'r ::� -.s. ,�;+,�...:_ "6-v..�.nx��;o. : w' :, ,�i`fr ,r r�,tar_, t.•. .. a a -r._. " � L?:,fM1>cr .tk.., x4.,�iv fi l-.. ,s+.., '�iL�`V€N,�9.':. s..�t ,� :.'1'�.c-. •`j <,.t�,�dL+.�- V 3,. , i.tfo �. �" �f.-,>f :! ..e.: �t�S� .. 3. .?'t�. 3trc .f<•x als k. f,.f -�tf ,: ..s. -.t,� _.," i. Y�"�':. 1�7` ..t- ,. ,.�1 �Ott,;,.� kr-'�,tr�•�+:.,-��•.,..r :fit e in+«o, a= .r:4� Sd l.:�iii`. �.,fi., �[ r ,xrzo-1 ,�.-:.t...�t5 Y `r�,�,, t v d s f o- .,;p s,,• •r"-°-M. ?,' �r 9, br ,ey, '�r�.. . L .. m-:.1. :rr-•� ._..3aA...�,. �... 5. v 7` �4�r�:.<,,,,.v L rc e � � 'tlt,tr rN I'. rh��� C'5: S.b f c ti f ,+ I .".a t 4 -i,';, rY; Sa?no' �. +ry`."ya S�,.- a�.r .:�' -,.4 - -.,'r ��� {�'tl� �k-.� ..:t�-- ct iT c.; �C•Y-. D - .. r. -ir : , 4. ;, :.kH,..,± ,.. �f�,•.,{. -. r b .-,:.., pia u:7 ..t, tF' -:.. ', sa..� T 'r��.- astii�� , �:... f -�'J 4 �`"".,v 1 �.#s%t°. ..,.. e..l. s_. :.. --.,_ ... _� .!_ .tl�k4• t._M .$ •.,- _ ... �< 3� {, .: }?2 -�<< r .� .--' ,* 'L`S@ .. }{ t, k .'n.`f�i P v.>-i'. s ',k f .. :. ,' ,. ..a,.4 k ;-•, '!g`�..,�__:.. {._,4�a.�}r ,..�,�r, -�, '.,��g(,.. �.4 is� t:..d',_.. .rt c v f �}, f.�-: .h:�: •,o..m .,t '1ti..4'S. f v.__.v �.� ..5.C�✓. .. -_ � ........- r ,'I.J.�: ..°�1..1#.,.. 7 eY§. :Y 1, :, 't ,: ,.;_k �E � �Z�'t ,tc � i��?=E -.;,x {� "j�!t:;N t F .. ?h.. ..:, kYt� t S-i ..... } ar.,�, 5.r,.. „�`,.,;, :!7,. i. _�... .. is -a: k�#..:{ Y.y a., �f s t :... �, z e;..{Y J -A .r �, L•a.;z. -{ 3. �i u :K ,.:t�4. •,!.,- .4r �y b:. :,... s..: -r74..cs' - .#5. �r.. #�.b,, �+> �'t k aR. :.1 �3 I v � <.�x4;.. ,.<- i >. 4 ar- 5.. ., ,,, !- rrr G�.. { . ;d,. .�{,r" ,�R;»�� .y.,, _.s� - .r �y�r,.-'.• `'�`: ,w y ,ir .,r. �... ,h.,,,.,.,:a ,r _Il,.,,, !�,. .,..�4. ,1.: i.,�.r.. .� x .. .. L ... ..: �I l"1.,../ ,:•.t Y � \'.� ,>.,. .,:t )., �p f s" ...... t .n� t< r,--. t.,.n. .. ,.. .�!¢. -... ,.--. ".r... r grs:�r 4, ..'R r� •.,(5�, .:.;,. s• E,., }5...,,. -t �vAr ) 11.� ,} ,.,�7y a ,, Y'F�>.\5 } A S.<! itv..i. ll .s-t.( 3rS: 3`'< i'l, �t VQE;"�f"N)tb' 4. + ( ils: k:r. ji .R .r.s-5. .S ..,,.;w: .. .t ! _p, r.:,.. �::x-3 f v".F ':,.:,,yh';.-"1,�Yt3;:r.i. ..5, ` .Y"-)!:- ..rY '.. t � ,rc r'7--_.4 .: �,�-.� .{,r.,•,§r w ,S r",,. ,.. - u. 7. +�x a£ �igx-1- t�,f y,41 �n -+5M ., t,' 't 5 t •,'�, a:.:'-•le .ac ,f, . .., ... r .- „ .[ f, .t., ,fir•.- ,� ? �a.- ?�"- s`,f.r Y -'�:r Y ,..7q;.P 'r Fr , .•-��?', - :.a,;r : .„ k...'!ss l:. >d r f 'dd`. ' -n r,r`�,." •� ,r _. .'. ui° + +'iUra7 �r a !w �{7Yrn tr' �t•r; C. r� � �a ; �`Y- !{ { a P; 117 fk :--a t " + _ ' :� ; 1 t!,y..„ 7x5 '._�"d; }+� r-.:gt��� f�A�z F,�11atY'� ,4 k_-: i Y� {!i^,hWar �;'.-i{n r,,, 3 �i r•_F r�1.�1 �4ti t�s.fi.,� � 'ti '�,�* �',! 4Yar S"; stA ' it +' n { : f - f f ! t M r r z v �a ! w i�c��5t��9£ � I �-u3�4'• u� .w,{1,!� ��rr ti 'Vill +i r, c- a PERSPECTIVE VIEW SOUTH ALONG BEACH BOULEVARD AT ELLIS AVENUE „-z„ MayO,,pp1Y j 7 S ' BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA = *� �p SuSIlTrr �00,,_. T REVISED pxwnaS 0/.n, {_ - 4 REVISED WBMfiTAL 0.4,_O.11 (D ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NOR(ff0a4NaEST..OMWE.GIGFQMrdA 92M f714)63""00 ~� O CD ------- J it � ���'7("+fi f'�r >p�kA' a�i��� t' e`-'Us.'�`tx��ti �`t�✓;. Yz,. -� :`�.}:�tr 1.�F.�F:..�h des, r F# aJxr;t +�.. .r. }c�S��1 w rv,.: -��r.J }/ x -,,3 f^� ,�.i,.,-�.:,��.i,as�-31..li s;..�,,�-S 1..t;:'t'..i>.a.s uf�:;�5...p.-;�..�t,v,,�j.�i b- ,�_�Ci`�r'3it_^..,'5#�r,j§dq,=.L:t�_J�'�-,.,.�h��';x%,,..lr`i�ht t,-z::�'Y(4.,!....�;:.��.�7r r��r kxrr Ff,F5�:,,"r.:,S,f.q•,r ii},Y,�u.,:�-Y�"�?k��ia:�'°'^f";7�1c�'1�?tex.!far?.`:y-"`�''3�.,1.Zl t"e��R�i+r•'.::'1z�ti�r-�k>:7':+J•�iJ��:ttc 1 r.ni.g:,.r3��•1c'-"tt�y,�4 6 1° .ar.}r yr�t , Sd3'* i' 1 i--' y -.-s ,,,#t.3' U + SiLt ..k4i }.`s .�Lk�.` � �.,,,'Y,e+.: ,, sfa• � f `z a.�e4 1t�--{'f""'Sf3� '-s :':x �:-:�'--.f,'g�:- � f�.--_t'S ,•�.:1ea�,�`Htt ,-,vt t--.. �F-r i��l' ..i Z'�'rt�a'�`�`�'i i.''�i3k`'��-'!gfit Gtif:'� t'4 4 ks ..'� :..!.c�= '.�. +:,�a,;t �t�tw•:-• 4r'� d, '' i' tt.�F+u#'y-i, +. d��;.TM` - _-:s�v`M.� k� .T•.,.,r��S�.v(r`T �y sx ,1'. t -'�,l���ir'Cr. _fin lrr-�,o,:.. _ �+ rs, ��l��it :��r�v �,�: t � ,�I "'1�4e���fita- ir .°"5y�.l.,"�� ��(#� rS�.� °.-��� ?' �4':f."yX'�'tntf5 �l s �,�'fy���',�. �w?;. t�fikf"t� � � -.:UiAL\ � �� r 1!.:$� 4�7 �1_._ ���{.7r•�C?� �� 'A ''k ht .c� r, -}., -�.,'z"f'1� .�•.,: �' + +..,,r.� �:e.r -�t e �.,; r`f� -.a$ +.�•, _1 3 ' fi'nry r ¢�c `i .`� rl{ .�asi { a' tHr�ie ir�.t r r Jt a r�eirfSi4vt• fs� �'Ti.tfi tr7�v �pY.�` •ei a C'S 3'6ta� i I.. C•s .rNtii� � �` � I a" r i 14' `�7 v -�s� �-� _ h. m. •sr �!"��i t y+: 4 2 r r'3'�k�f, OF tarp x•` f �vlBe Alt 39 n.,a frss'p/1tS�'s t+ r f�,gS( ih� 1 �rt�s, 41�'Y� s+ tRr Fi���'ya"�'��. {.k t�r8��� Q},: r I d r y{ a Ai Ohl}r 4 r ri � } <s#� _,.ijR °•:ta r'. s+,'rr ' ray !�^ A -.i.. ; �r}. j X$�iI4l i� A { 1`. {} A f� 37 le # '1,•,,r Fr) y a } A M •`-s Kt M'f�`�M iTVI a3;•' r F1� } 61 u�:,• a. . .- :� ,.. �17.4.T..; r �fieti r !<�sr fa4 t fu,S}4"i�?}�y t�#`�fui i+t( t PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM BEACH BOULEVARD ENTRY DRIVE 1f.214 Mayef.zon wo I1EM TE HUNTINGTQN BEACH CA ` °ATREVIEV! �Al'' BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT f � �a®exwe�rs a.sa,ta k ..d.p{yjgi=p ell9MkTYAL 06 U1,tf a ARCHITECTS ORANGE - 144N0RMa`lMNOESr...0RWGE_MIFORW 928M(7f4)6.78•sl9G8 w BEx' x K L..........._—......................_ -1 0-3" 97'-0 I1'-10, 24,-0, si'-O" P2 01 WAL BEL BUILDING. ASEO-FIRE DM I STAIR ACCESS TO ABIN CE EKIRY ----4-r- ARM-T- r—u-- UP 41 of c T. EM 1 ASSONM w 7 etuRt Om tO) TALU 23'-3" 1 a�au UNIT 5 Ails) RETAJL 4,173 SIF STEEL ORATE I> MR REMUDIAMIN COMLTURD .......... IRA514 COLLECTION I R m#I <<4 �Ss 5>><3 OD 33 STO RESMEML STALLS RD CATE 11 M4 (6 OF WHICH ARE EXTENDED) c 1'> 20 G G <<<AMC PTA7'A <<AC DELIVERY ACCESS 0 TO LEASE SPACES. I.O."AROUND AREA ()El.rVEnf DOOR 12 T )OL AUUYE STWFRONT DOOR) i RAMP 5% MAX SLOPE QQ.... ...... :Do I't 1\ -ml /—UMTS ABOVE <I Im w 9M za'— Y, SIF . IGO I I I ELEY OR il ELEVATOR#2 G G G G G G PAR1KGj KM : + Mkk/LOSBY I I I I 55 STD 5 .'GUEST I BOX CuEsr STALL IT _X AND'LR��FMUND AREA m DEC G OAFIAOr ENTRYCLx AB IS G IS G G G WRY ARCHWAY ABOVE PZ CARAGE WALL BELOW ---------- 00 WITH RELOCATION OF Fl LIS A 'E. DRIVEWAY t� (D 00 W � { ELLIS AVENUE i I � i { 17,1 I � NORTH SITE PLAN-SECOND FLOOR(MAIN RESIDENTIAL.PODIUM LEVEL) � 0' 30' 60• 90' SCALE: 1'=30' 11-2f4 Marof M12 SUE PLAN ��-� � L2RESID LEVEL BEACH BL VD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA =�� z ors 9uRMmx t�ae. REV & MRRMIT6 NAM2 REVl9fi09V8MRTRL 99A1.71 � ARCHITECTS ORANGE . a"�r. p F/LE XVM9ER9: iH NORTH ORANGE ST.,ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92886 (7f9)559-"W ...,�ti ^^•,��,�A, x x DOES NOT REFLECT RELOCATION OF ELLIS AVE. DRIVEWAY ULOpen Space Calculations LANDSWED Public Open Space=17,540 s.I aALCONY-- COURTYARD ABOWE ELLIS AVENUE 3-5srCV4rRESlOENrAL sued ^r°� Pmtded OVER PODIUM AARXrNG I II IEE 3STORYRESlOFN7L7L , a+ _ @ PtAate Open Space=31,006s.f. OVERRETAX :I;; I Subject We Regaled Provided I` .... Cf tLlb 4aA W. ' PRfYATEOPEN I I�r :� � it I .a•e.r.anNly see""�" +mil: xvnsr. PED GROUN EVEL E. I ATORDf/ND LEVEL + ! I w PEDE5IRI4NPLA2A a J U¢ � ul 'I AljSLl�6AE7J� • I i m 3PAGf tip o NDFrFH OPEN SPACE EXHIBIT 4) °a 30r so' 91Y --- SCALE. P=3Q' rr-ara nayo�,xu OPEN SPACE .. EXfA®fT A 1.4 g l!o.eex onrF BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA z RMS-R ! sAAAs 3 a rzevlsEo�+wlerts aaze.0 � C REYICIF➢JVHMfTAL ,o1.1z Ty ARCHITECTS ORANGE pEfIEAdM1b6q W W NWWaW;W Sr,ORANGE:CAUFORNM MW p14la% '".t:`:„.��.m• caserllswnaer+s y ,.,.ww...,...ar. x x 1� T 00 1 CD I� 00 � c BEACH BLVD. 286'-2' AFTER FINAL DEDICATIQN. 274.58 FT. OF BLDG. WITHIN FRONT YARD SETBACK j 286.17 FT = 96% � Y PROPERTY LINE AT FINAL DEDICATION .—j_ _ � 212.83 I,N. Ff. a u 0•TO 10'•-0,FRONT Vj YARD SETBACK AT BEACH BLVD. Lu NORTH FRONTAGE COVERAGE DIAGRAM ALONG BEACH BLVD. ELLIS AVE. 400'-4' AFTER FINAL DEDICATION _ 30' 365.41 FT. OF BLDG. WITHIN FRONT YARD SETDACK / 400,33 F1 = 91% EASEMENT PROPERTY LINE AT FlNAL DEDICATION _j J m 4 1 U _ J Y TO 15'-0'FRONT LIN. LINB IT 4 � Lu YARD SETHACK AT I m Om"JVD. qouo u n Ad / go A NOITITH FRONTAGE COVERAGE DIAGRAM ALONG ELLIS AVE. o, o' ao' so' SCALE:1"=20' ft-21e May0t Mt-1 FRONTAGE GOVERAGE Al.5 _ rem N ITEM IMTE BEACH BLVD. MIXED—USE DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA z=� aRauataRr UK au 11pa,11 RENBEOa q %Z o5D1.1] ARCHITECTS ORANGE t44 nlovtrx orraNCE sr oranr✓cF,cacrFotrntu 926Be pra/639-seso DOES NOT REFLECT RELOCATION OF ELLIS AVE, DRIVEWAY .� l-- + —_ d' 1' as � 317 STANDARD RESIDENTIAL STALLS � '7 I �I- 36 OF WHICH ARE EXTENDED STALLS •r - + L as LEVE 9 Pa LEYa 40 STM4DARD REMS1 IW STN.LS -t d-C I HIM -Q _ I 4 ? vrtm or'�aeE°W I � � ^.HP:':Ilf-! :`5'�E:e= a I q ! ]Tr I IG I IY1YI'ii I.. M I I Hill IIIEWIl n y/ _ r R,iw fl r I JF GAR4GE PLAN-LEVEL P3(SUBTERRANEAN) SCALE.,f°=M=ou 14 I I � — Y�Q!lm AIIC ME/9W[ 6 del IDEA µIs IXE Wrt eE _GA_R4GE PLAN-LEVEL P2(SUBTERRANEAN) SNOnTH CALE:1" 20'=0" (D Ir-2214 n+ror,zotz BufLoING FLOOR PLAN LEVEL AZ. 1 P7 o W RFAi DATe HUNTINGTON BEACH CA _ ' °"'O"�' °""' BEACH BLVD. MIXED—USE DEVELOPMENT x DRsu DDEMM fa REvwEOExwerrs rlllill�21!3-421 �, REVISED SVDMMAL s rr ARCHITECTS ORANGE m np 3 144fYORTHCRANGEST.,0RANCZ,CALIFORNIA 92966 14 839-WOO 00 1 CD 00 J �g N S2 Al B1 Al Al 4 8 Al Al Al 5 ° A3 A2 Al R A2 B2 51 S1 B1 A2 4 B1 ro ; Al a—.. B2 �A3 RJA B2 — B1 Mai v 82 A2A2 A2 Q 61 B2 B1 S1 S1 62 y� Al 2 W 05 A3 00 _ B4 c = A2 A3 A3 A3 B1 A3 A3 Al 83 Q B2-A 241'-5' L 28'-4' 19�- 33'-8' o NORf}i FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL 3(LEVEL 4 SIMILAR) 0" 20' 40' 60' SCALE: 9°=20' 11-214 May oi,2012 BUfLOA'!O N --` � L FLAN A2.4 MM 3&4 N.F1SM1 0.4iE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA °"'R�` BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT _ ] RMSEDMIMS 042Al2 REM9EDSUSWrrAL M01.11 ARCHITECTS ORANGE ®m71 144N0RTN0R4NGEST.,ORANGE, C40rGRN&4 92M 714 09-06o •.�r�w.u•—M1ew�•,x p�mx CABE C 9' DOES NOT REFLECT RELOCATION OF ELLIS AVE. DRIVEWAY ld ROOF 34 52 Al B1 Al Al Al Al B3 R� RRRR AT TIR LM r� LD A3 A2 At PA2 B2 S1 S1 B1 A2 4 Raor"W& 81 _ _ couamno 6Y_e. �I Al 39'- • r B2 gag A3 I O 82 _ A2 B 1 A2 Q B 1 ' A2 S1 Sf 82 5_ 83 82 Bi Al A2 Cl xI VERA3 t A3 A3 A3 B1 A3 A3 Al A2 1 B3 a B2 A 28' 4' II._T. 33 $_ e K0rTrH 0' 20' $0' 60' FLOOR PLAN-LEVELS SCALE 1'=20' 18214 M yo1,2812 BU1L0lNQ n FLOORPLAN A2.5 LEVEL 5 s B I DAT _ BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA =,,� - E°'E"' ll't'1ae MSLF susrnrtTu tt .tt � S2 ort RMISEOE1l STS 140J2 k 1 RH/d6p 9UBAIR'fAL OS➢1.12 ARCHITECTS 77ANGE 144 NORTH ORANGES2:,ORANSE,CAUFORNIA 92866 p 8 14)06.9 9 Mr.Fa.�RI+InRets: X x F� ICES NOT REFLECT RELOCATION ELLIS AVE. DRIVEWAY CD 00 c eaw � S2 84 Al Bl HIM Roov eaar a N SIXe1NEl u ate LEVEL •1 A3 A Al �A2 B2 Sl Sl B1 AZ Q PEN cwm Al Bl ROOF Ht9Yl •_R 82 USRA3 62 - $' A2 - B 1 B2 - A2 Bi A2 A2 E2 B3 B2 of S1 S1 Al A3 b� 139,11 11, fl I, G1 B4J L A2 O° A3 A3 A3 Bl N q3 A3 Al 1 d19.B2-A 28—,• I a NORTH FLOOR PLAN-LEVEL 6 T 20 40 80 SCALE: 1'=2D' if-2f4 May of,2012 BUJLDING FLOOR PLRN A2.6 LEVEL 6 we FTe W1re BEACH BL VD. MIXED-USE DEVEL OPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH CA ' pATRCNU 40.1t.11 _� 2 OR OUWIITfAL 11.08.11 J O RM,mvwmiff 10.15 2. � RevlecnanewlinAl. M.4ia 2. ARCHITECTS ORANGE f44 NORTH ORANGEST.,ORANGF_CALLMMM MW(Tf4)69"W ��.^.�'°�'. ` w: I^ ' DOES NOT REFLECT RELOCATION OF ELLIS AVE. DRIVEWAY 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL OVER I LEVEL RETAIL OVER SUBTERRANEAN PARKING PROVIDES ROOF—TOP STAIR ACCESS LOW ° ROOF ( W 13 ® Ee Q+ 41 LOW ROOF MFCFANI"AI FQJIPIM'NT RA SCD PA2APC- � z 1 s M COURTYARD OPEN TO SKY UNIT.INFkIGF TYPICAL ROOF SECTION - EOUIPMENT SCREEN MTS I y C1J s STORY RGSIOFNTIAL OVER 2 I�93 []Q LEVELS POOiUM PARKING , ---- ROOFTOP MECHANICAL LOUIPMENT CONCEALED FROM EXTERIOR VIEW SY PERIMETER PARAPET WALLS(T1P.) NORTH PROVIDE PROVIDE ROOF—TOP STAIR ACCESS ROOF PLAN 0' 20' 40' 60' SCALE.9"=20' f1224 Mmiy0f,2012 BwDflVO n� ROOFPAN /lL 7 a BEACH BLVD. MIXED—USE DEVELOPMENT A _ � 9�T� HUNTINGTON BEACH C DAT"� °°'`" 2 D96REVI AL �IAt." ftEVIUBMI T9 "I'm �� ! R 9Fo9 MITT/L OS.°5.17 tV rr ARCHITECTS GRANGE >ure G 144AURTNORANOEST.,O"rE,CAUPORaVM 92WIF00 DOES NOT REFLECT RELOCATIrAl OF ELLISAVE2 DRIVEWAY 0 � o _ ■_-s °..--" r .; .` ~- - III 1 1� ia31 ,I�-�. =+rm ..... 1 I 1CFO _ ®.� �I!� --. ■�� .-. � �11 !I. ' : ,!1 11 II �. "�� _� _... 11� .,l Miami= -- ; Ell :.... LIMINIMM MIN _ r u � _III � "—�� ���■ 1�■ � II11 vim' _ i.�■.■—#il�I� Nil ®�a� �a�r. ■ rm ff n iali nil �11 ��'`■ era®� _��11 o� In'"�II��1� �i� mr - i l'll , iiHA . ,�, lmma7ele - ...i �'I�.: _r_- —gyp I rr� _.—� — ;� .�rr IOC �; !�i 11�����1■ ` ii � ��i�Ig • " • AF � , S I 1■I■11. LWion NO 11 .■11 11■■ 11 ei rc ii II�Ii� r■ r■ ■i I[Irn; 4 11 .,_ I!1 11� 1l. ��:■. C: :' r ■ �I rrra �I ` ■■i ■ ■ I-� '- ■ ., II NMI �. I��J— ■ ■�i 11 I I �� !1 1! .r.I hrrl 11 11 ..I 1 11■f 11� �;'ll 11 �s�■■■ riw r 11'I iCi = 11 C C 11 �-.!`• 11 AI Il hn1 11�'I r■ I I' AI AI �1 I �`�:■i .I. 1 �k ■I Ir■1 �_ 11 i i i _ s - r 1 ITi 11 M . 111 •xis claim ■ �� _ R ■ I- 1141 t. 11 11� r yl'f '— 11�� �� ��-. r, �l � a � aw _-9—��I� IfR■ AKam I^ ■��IIIIIIIIIIIIIII��_ tl= 11 1l�-i�r �J�I a'��;���_�- I�����;�����L�'�����■�iL��,����dt��`��: dd ;�"�� "�i; �Ii�J�a�J�i� i ��1�311��!.I �� � ilrr��•'�■��■!I'_ "�• !! 11ni ii w .® 11 ■ is ■■ .: 1 Iwr 'C i Al ■■!!tl Ti■ �. ■ ��l I I �--,coee>a,�- le��reevi�-I-' -..® 11 I�I,':rn fl � '� iii�l■rr ��■■"�— ■�■�r.��������■■�■i1 r arm■�� � — - �r !! !! �,1 1 7jir=i !! R-- ii ■■ rr'il Iiu hllili IA I' t 11 I= l � �I �, Imo• ■-- we.+rt I -K- �I I--,en® `` a aaattal- - inie� nee aP- en® ..- / r� ' Il ��I '�,wry � rr■ � �■■ o � r��l��l�ii rr■���!! rfrrr ri � u wwir■fr•1 � i ■I r�� i'r 1 11 �J J R� �■�■. .�■! - 1! WI ■■■ ■■ f Irr l9•■_■_ r ■ 14 ,ter'■- MI ewes uo.w � w■ .rrrar■�--�I� mi�■e r�i=1 I ��rw�lr eo®•11 rIN ■.I ii52 ■:, AA■AI` —11 11 11 .,� ■■ 'i}r .., I �.r.�7I ;�. __ _ ■ 1�=!�■■I Il��i� 1�1a � 'l��rllrr[I Iu- l•1' �eeefa!''.� � �i ■ - - - — - 1 AA liil i■ �.... ■.■ ■rR s — �w .I bills -WA� � u• �} Mil it'.- I. lal, �.f f;c:��l y�;{�ii}.t� ■�■■ • u �r r Elm 14wi ■®f 1,6nl r � I �� rya} ®I �® rmo ® ;; aaaf! I sea. n�al ac�a t ate seal "I MHz Atice, - �aay. lea 1L $8v I gpl, I IZ!s'll .1 " f=`o"! - 77]� '�v'iF 1}� ���`�'!��H �h _�t h 3i f�f}{. tSraYil!I-i _ �I -`� �dsrv• � ��Ib �5� e� S 111 '�� �g € -.� �a; � ,�w v Q✓' ..::..,I»:.... :!aaa71 �G [...N _ :;I �i - _ ._�xr G :s r�_�,+ 2i� � Y �-s 4 I � F 'yam ',. , �. ■, � JJ v i f I' } �.��'i #Cal! I n Tea�i i��"i 1 �1 ®.➢BEA 203 ! ua�ay—■1 ■ f FS�I6p{� � `Fa�I � � ■ ■4 S��� I Ir r J.�a�3a+ �i` ��'.- i §! ;� 1�•B °'. r�, li �� - i.{.�.'" ,;xst r Lam .E` k n 1 tll � - 0 _ A 1 �� ,r 65 IT,MAK OULOING HEIGHT MIN. NI,N. 65 FL SPE BUILDING (12'—V MAX.FIN.FLOOR TO HEIGHT LIMIT SETBACK ALONG CEIINC)ALLOWED PER BEACH elVD.PER DEVELOPMENT er.o DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 9.3.1 STANDARDS 9.3.2 POSSIBLE FUTURE (4)STORIES MAk ALONG REACH- r COMMERCIAL HEIGHT NIP",-"T 7 8 SITANDARDS 2,12 SO.PER DEVELOPMENT UNIT Nl MIN,GROUND FLOOR RETAIL Or 14'-0 FLOOR TO CEILING PER COURTYARD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 2,11 UNI W7 17, 1: '�,. POOL LEVAE H 221, k,4 r. ALLEY SECTION-A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT EXIST. S-R-O POSSIBLE FUTURE COMMERCIAL HEIGHT .4 B C D COURTYARD EXIST,RETAIL OFFICE ------ _jA -B EX15T.PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SECTION RETAIL DEVELOPkENT LIQUOR STORE KDO BEYOND RACK OF_qDCNAUK IVa -z' J7 i IL 77 P: /aLk DEYOK) ...... .... ELLIS AVE. 15 ELUs AVE G' 20' 40' 60' SCALE: I"=20' SECTION-C EASTING PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SFC TM RETAIL DEVELOPMENT SECTION-D EMSFING, "' JA4, 1 WATER UTILITY RESIDENTAI,LOT A MASSING JAY ill ml BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA -T D�IAFAFVY R�IMD�MIRITS ARCHITECTS ORANGE f44 NOATTT10174AIGESr,OAANGF_CAUFOW14 a2866 (714)639-9560 CD 00 & 212'-W PASEO Required: 1 L:3H to 3L:I H Required: 31-:21d to 5L:2H 1.25L:1 H 2L:I H 21_:I H 51-:2,5H 5L:2.5H IF] CONCEPTUAL BUILDING MASSING-ELLIS A VE. CONCEPTUAL BUILDING MASSING-BEACH BLVD PRIMARY VOLUME PROPORTIONS., 9L.-3H TO 3L:M PRIMARY VOLUME PROPORTIONS-3L'2H TO 5L.2H UNff C. UNIT PL PL I akc.. UNIT UNF[ C. UNIT UNIT I. 8&c. UNIT UNff C. UNtT ohLc. m UNIT C. 7 UNrT C. UNITolxeAaenl UNIT p --- UNIT 'pa �wm m1f xmo�W HAW. C. 000 0 UNIT UVE Al U NIT PLAZA t-C, UNIT UNIT UNIT P1 PARKING WORK:] RE-FAIL T PI PARKING aauE used P2 PARKING IFT P2 PARKING 7 7ZF on. PARKING T PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT SIETAILS ALONG ELLISAVE. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DETAILS ALONG BE4CHBL VD. SCALE.,I"=10'-0" SCALE.-1'=IT-O' fl-214 "..v D f,_vlz BUILDM MqSSfiVG& lmpf?VWT.51 JA4.2 DR 6U6MITFAI 11A.11 BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT .HUNTINGTONBE,4CH, CA _T_ ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 NORTH OMWE ST.,ORANGF,CAUFMM 8280 ffflf)878-00 Y .\bk lbk. y.� VM 94 cbe. lbl., tt �� F1 9�E�4.'M f��� ,:���� ■..a•.x tld.�` 'r.L°f ������®c � � I��,prli 9 tls I SPIN rl W { aml F .�Il�' � �9E'•- rlF db",4 7 � 1}��• ;li S.'- fd l� r r .I �flt - ,y}'•�:35- .I, a°J 3'`r�'�> Ai`. �i♦� XJ� pi�. � .4 tT�K�V[ { �; I�I�`4 •dieQel tl���� t ,s�� �. Otllell tl - {�' { Ii:ssiix EitA>1{r{ ';it } 4� LJSOI f1e�—itigl 9 �tri4 eb a�tlep TWIN e�eae�lAf �. Err m ., �� buy, ®�q{kbyw�IRCI.Eeta�s.s� �Oa': R � FFes" -Ir® :1'�e �I gg Is .. •• � f�j's I tse S. �}•kd-i �. • �+•� R 9- _[� 'fie • r _.! eel IrJ wLr�._ ©3x * I,i,, E �t g ♦ d OOPo ,� ..:- - rrl , �a�'mtts5 w I E • o tihs'i#� e r e. •-..,..-�,. � .Oe {rI y 4•" 14 .....:, ., '•R7: �i .ts'� `r•♦...�0, • •••moo- EiP•.h.�.��tl • •R I5 O 3�'{:: U -..- a ♦h a•'E O Fr' •• ••i •Oi eoA.• P {{ � ;4 �� ewavasar��eaeYl� mplop, IM 00 42'-3' nrl Do Lin 0 El o UNIT Sl UNIT S2 UNIT Al LINITA2 STUDIO-I BATH STWO-i RATH I REDR0 M-I_aATtj LIVABLE AREA: 560 80,FT. LIVABLE AREA: 533SO-FT. LIVABLE AREA:684 SQ.FT, LIVABLE AREA:748 SQ.FT. PATIOIBALCONY:60 SQ.FT. PATIOfBALCONY;60 6Q.FT. PATIO/BALCONY.65 SQ.FT. PATIOMALGONY:60 SQ.FT. ------------ r Cmu BE] L MIM UNIT LINITA5 I 8rzllM,,A,3, I PRIDROOM-I BATH LIVABLE AREA 781 SQ.FT. LIVABLE AREA'.767 SQ.FT. PATIMALCONY:61 SQ.FT. PATIO/BALCONY:6180.FF. SCALE 31W=i�-O" uLN4N 5 rS I A . I ITU �T�sw MIMI HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 13-, BEACHBLVD MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT REM�D�mws 04.23,13 ARCHITECTS ORANGE 144 muRTHO IVGEST,OR4NGF,CALIFORWA MW(714;e39.99M Ll • raa Liu on UNIT BI UNIT 82 UNIT 112, . x- 2DROV-2 MJH 2 KDROOM-28ATJ 2 am.._ LIVABLE AREA: 1,145 SQ.FT. LIVABLE AREA:10213 SQ.FT. LIVABLE AREA:992 TO.FT. PATIO/BALCONY:61 SO.FT. PATM/BALCONY:61 SQ.FT. PATIGIBALCONY:61 M FT. 54'-7' 12'-4* 31'-4 mm 0 N ° � ❑ I � I bo 4- UNIT 2-B UNIT 83 21.1.QUM2.ATt 2SEDRO -20ATH LIVABLE AREA:1028 SQ.FT. LIVABLE AREA:1,097 SQ.FT, PATIOMALCONY."51 SQ.M PATIOIBALCONY:60 SC.FT. SCALE.,3116"= 1-0" it-M MayW,2012 uxlr N.IrEm I ..I.I BEACH BLVD. MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA f FR 4 ve m I-U& Ti 00-1, 7--RFVMF P�EXJB� N.-Mil CD ARCHITECTS ORANGE ® WNORWOW OES7%OF-WGE;GAL"RW AaW 1714)MOMW 00 00 ATTACHMENT #4 City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street * Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov Office of the City Clerk ' Joan L.Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Public Works Commission Decision or Police Department Decision/Action Date: May 17,2012. , To: Planning and Building Department City Attorney City Council office Administration Public Works Department Police department(only if Police related item) Filed by: Mayor Don Hansen Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 (Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project) Date for Public Hearing: •i�- �,. Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: none Completed by: Rebecca Ross,Senior Deputy City Clerk IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE-HEARING ADVERTISING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE `FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEYS OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ♦ Waitakere,New Zealand HB -693- Item 18. - 60 CITY OF HUN 1 INGTO ® BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication 4 : Q TO: Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk FROM: Don Hansen, May - DATE: May 17, 2012 •• co SUBJECT., APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-01 (BEACH AND ELLIS MIXED USE PROJECT) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's approval of the Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project Site Plan Review No. 12-01. On May 15, 2012, the Planning Commission approved SPR No. 12-01 with a 3-2 vote. The: primary reason for my appeal is to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project on the merits of its proposal. I Pursuant to Section 248.18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. SH:MBB.rm cc: City Council Members Chair and Planning Commission Fred A Wilson,City Manager Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Kim De Coite, Administrative Assistant E g:admnitr120121051712nn 1 Item 18. - 61 HB -694- ATTACHMENT #5 xo -695- Item 18. - 62 IE City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department STAFF REPORT NOWINOON BEACH TO: Planning Commission FROM: Scott Hess,AICP,Director of Planning and Building BY: Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner DATE: May 15, 2012 SUBJECT: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-01 (BEACH.AND ELLIS MIXED USE PROJECT) APPLICANT: Ben Brosseau Consulting, Inc., 15149 Camarillo Street, Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 PROPERTY OWNER: Morrie Golcheh, 10537 Santa Monica Blvd.,Los Angeles, CA 90025 LOCATION: 18502-18552 Beach Blvd, Huntington Beach, CA 92646 (southeast corner of Beach and Ellis- Shell Gas Station and Town& Country Plaza) STATEMENT OF ISSUE: ® Site Plan Review No. 12-01 represents a request for the following: - Develop 274 multi-family residential apartment units including six live-work units - Develop 8,500 square feet of ground floor commercial area - Develop 14,976 square feet of public open space plaza, 8,169 square feet of public access paseo and a 14,499 square foot second level private courtyard - Demolish all existing structures on-site o Staff s Recommendation: Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with modifications based upon the following: -- Facilitates the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan (BECSP) Town Center Neighborhood segments by providing a mixed use development of commercial and residential uses envisioned within the Specific Plan. - Facilitates the transformation of the visual character of Beach Blvd from "anywhere strip" to its proper role as the iconic gateway to and from the beach, and as the city's most visible north-south thoroughfare. - Facilitates to make the most of each increment of new development to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future city and region. - Facilitates mixed use development that produces an environment which is both attractive and sustainable by providing pedestrian-scaled blocks with building massing and architecture that emphasizes a variety and visual interest, pedestrian connectivity between Five Points Shopping District and community re-investment with new and upgraded infrastructure. - Enhances development intensity to ensure the emergence of a vital urban district (Five Points District). - Consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of the BECSP while conforming to the standards and regulations set forth in the development code. Item 18. - 63 HB -696- -� - Compatible with existing surrounding commercial, residential, transportation uses, and anticipated mixed land uses. - Serves affordable housing needs of the community by providing 27 on-site affordable housing units. - Incorporates sustainable building practices and provides a LEED Silver Rated Certified project for the commercial portion and Green Point Rated - LEED Silver Equivalent for the residential portion.. a Staff Suggested Modifications: - The north (Ellis) elevation shall be revised to reflect the relocation of the Ellis driveway per the site plan dated May 7, 2012. - East elevation (west garage exterior wall) of Plaza, shall be enhanced through use of landscaping, upgraded materials, installation of public art or other design feature approved by the Planning Division. - Rooflines of east and south elevations of Building 2 shall be designed at varied heights to create a visual break. Removable bollards shall be installed at both the north and south entrances of the Plaza. - Existing surface and sub-surface utilities (electrical pullboxes/vaults/manholes/vent pipes/manholes/vent pipes/traffic signal control pullboxes/cabinets, etc.) located along Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave frontages of the project site shall be relocated to allow for construction of the street standards and specifications of BECSP and to allow for maximum visibility of the new commercial component of the mixed use project. All utility relocation shall be permitted through the appropriate agency or utility company and coordinated with the City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department, RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: A. "Approve CEQA Findings of Fact(Attachment No. 6)." B. "Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with the suggested findings and conditions for approval (Attachment No. l)." ALTERNATIVE ACTIONN: The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Continue Site Plan Review No. 12-01 and direct staff accordingly." B. "Deny Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with findings for denial." PC Staff Report--5/1512012 HB-697- (12sr23 Item 18. - 64 ONE ISMS - FEE WOMEN M � i „e � e - Oa.t �-7 ' A #:'� � I III �� d�• - ¢kjj( i • PROJECT PROPOSAL: Site Plan Review No. 12-01 represents a request to develop a mixed use project on a 2.74 acre site consisting of 274 apartment units, including six live work units, associated leasing space, private and public open space and 8,500 square feet of commercial space pursuant to the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific (BECSP), Town Center Neighborhood Segment (Attachment No. 2). The project includes two separate buildings ranging in height from four to six stories (43 ft to 63 ft) with one fronting Beach Boulevard (Building No. 1) and the other fronting Ellis Avenue (Building No. 2). Open space is provided in both public and private open space formats. Publicly accessible open space is in the form of a ground level plaza and paseo. Private open space consists of private balconies, patios, and a pool, spa, club room, and fitness center. Parking is provided in an internal parking structure. The project site consists of two parcels totaling 119,236 square feet of lot area. The existing 27,784 square feet of buildings, which includes gas station, commercial structure and restaurant, will be demolished. Under the new development, the commercial component will be in Building No. 1 fronting Beach Boulevard. It will have three levels of residential (18 units) above the commercial space for a total of four stories. Building No. 2 is oriented to the east along Ellis Avenue and includes a 430 space three level parking structure, four to six stories of residential development (256 units including the six live work units), the leasing area and a 14,499 square foot private courtyard that will contain the pool. An at grade public plaza separates the two buildings. The composition of residential units is summarized below: TABLE 1 Residential Unit Type Number of Units Size Range Studio 26 533-569 sf One-Bedroom 6 live work) 123 684 to 781 sf Two-Bedroom 119 992-1 145 sf All Units 274 The commercial portion of the project will be LEED Silver Certified incorporating the application of "Green Building" techniques such as those found in the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System: The residential portion is proposed to be built pursuant to the Green Point Rated Program—Green Point Certified but designed to the LEED Silver equivalent standard. The proposed project is required to provide affordable housing in accordance with the BECSP. Of the 274 total units, the project proposes to provide 27 affordable units on-site meeting the affordability requirement of 10 percent. The specific affordability terms will be set forth in a Development Agreement as required by the BECSP. The Development Agreement must be adopted by ordinance and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. The proposed project will reduce the number of driveways from three to one along Beach Blvd and from three to one along Ellis Ave. The two remaining driveways will serve as the ingress and egress from the site. The Beach Blvd driveway will be a right turn in and out only driveway and a full access in and out driveway is proposed along Ellis Avenue. The project includes site remediation, though some has already occurred and is ongoing with regulatory protocols in place. The remaining remediation will require excavation of the entire site at a depth of 10 PC Staff Report-5/15/2012 HB -699- (12sr23Item 18. - 66 feet. A vapor extraction system will be required to fully remediate the site with the duration approved and monitored by Orange County Health Care Agency. The Applicant has indicated that the project is proposed to provide needed housing and services in the City of Huntington Beach (Attachment No. 3). The subject site was one of the catalyst sites selected by the City to spur reinvestment in the Beach Boulevard corridor when it began the BECSP process in 2007. As such, the City initiated the environmental review that contemplated redevelopment of the site. Study Session On Tuesday, April 24, 2012, a study session was held with the Planning Commission to introduce the project_ Staff provided an overview of the project and the project architect provided the design concept. The Commission asked that staff provide the height of the Single Room Occupancy project located east of the project. The height is three stories at 38'4". The Commission requested that staff provide the number of parking stalls that will be available for the commercial component of the project, which is 31. The final question pertained to the proposed extended parking stalls. These are designed as an amenity and are not part of the required parking for the development. Tenants may park another vehicle there or use the extra space for bikes, surfboards, or other items. Since the Study Session, the applicant has revised the site plan in response to staff comments. The changes reflect moving Building No. 1 two feet east at certain portions in order to move building projections and awnings behind the property line and eliminate the need for an encroachment permit from Caltrans. Most notably, the driveway on Ellis Avenue of Building No. 2 has been moved further east. This is discussed in the Analysis section of this report under Traffic and Access. ISSUES: Subject Property Land Use,Zoning, and General Plan Designations: LOCA,'Tl<ON GE1�YtAL PLAN �. �QNII�IG ' 1LA1\T1D SSE Subject Property: M-sp-d(Mixed Use— SP-14 (Beach and Edinger Service Station, Specific Plan Overlay— Corridors Specific Plan) Commercial Center and Design Overlay) Restaurant North of Subject M-sp-d,Residential SP-14, RM Commercial, Water Property: (across Medium Density(RM- District pumping site Ellis Ave.) 15) and Residential East of Subject CG CG Single Room Property Occupancy(SRO) South of Subject M-sp-d SP-14 General Commercial Property West of Subject M-sp-d SP 14 General Commercial Property (across Beach Blvd): Item 18. - 67'ort—5/15/2012 HB` 700 (12sr23SPR 12-001) General Plan Conformance: The project site is located within the Town Center Neighborhood segments of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, The General Plan land use designation is Mixed Use - Specific Plan Overlay - Design Overlay (M-sp-d). The project is consistent with the following General Plan goals, policies and objectives: A. Air Quality Element Goal AQ 1: Improve regional air quality by a) decreasing reliance on single occupancy vehicular trips, b) increasing efficiency of transit, c) shortening vehicle trips through a more efficient jobs- housing balance and a more efficient land use pattern, and d) increasing energy efficiency. Policy AQ 1.10.1: Continue to require the utilization and installation of energy conservation features in all new construction. B. Circulation Element Goal CE 2: Provide a circulation system which supports existing, approved and planned land uses throughout the City while maintaining a desired level of service on all streets and at all intersections. Objective CE 3.2: Encourage new development that promotes and expands the use of transit services. Policy CE 6.1.6: Maintain existing pedestrian facilities and require new development to provide pedestrian walkways and bicycle routes between developments, schools, and public facilities. C. Growth Management Element Policy GM 1.1.7: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize policing safety and security. Policy GM 2.1.4: Ensure that new development site design incorporates measures to maximize fire safety and prevention. D. Housing Element Goal H 2: Provide adequate housing sites to accommodate regional housing needs. Goal H 3: Assist in development of affordable housing. Policy H 2.2: Facilitate the development of mixed use projects in appropriate commercial areas, including stand-alone residential development (horizontal mixed use) and housing above ground floor commercial uses (vertical mixed use). Establish mixed use zoning regulations. PC Staff Report—5/1 5/20I2 HB-701- (12sr23 Item 18. - 68 Policy H 3.1: Encourage the production of housing that meets all economic segments of the community, including lower, moderate, and upper income households, to maintain a balanced community. E. Land Use Element Goal LU 4: Achieve and maintain high quality architecture, landscape, and public open spaces in the City. Goal LU 4.2.4: Require that all development be designed to provide adequate space for access, parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements. Goal LU 7: Achieve a diversity of land uses that sustain the City's economic viability, while maintaining the City's environmental resources and scale and character. Goal L U 8: Achieve a pattern of land uses that preserves, enhances, and establishes a.distinct identity for the City's neighborhoods, corridors, and centers. Policy LU 8.1.1: Accommodate land use development in accordance with the patterns and distribution of use and density depicted on the Land Use Plan Map, in accordance with the principles discussed below: a. Not applicable b. Vary uses and densities along the City's extended commercial corridors, such as Beach Boulevard. c. Increase diversification of community and local commercial nodes to serve adjacent residential neighborhoods. d. Not applicable . e. Intermix uses and densities in large-scale development projects. f. Site development to capitalize upon potential long-term transit improvements. g. Establish linkages among community areas, which may include pedestrian and vehicular paths,landscape, signage, other streetscape elements, open space,transitions, in form, scale, and density of development, and other elements. Goal LU 9: 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. Policy LU 9.1.4: Require that recreational and open space amenities be incorporated in new multi- family developments and that they be accessible to and of sufficient size to be usable by all residents. Goal LU 11: 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. Policy LU 11.1.2: Limit commercial uses in mixed use development projects to those uses that are compatible with the residences. Policy LU 11.1.4: Require the incorporation of adequate onsite open space and recreational facilities to serve the needs of the residents in mixed use development projects. Item 18. - 69'°r'-1i15r2012 HB -702- (12sr23SPR 12-001) Policy LU 11.1.5: Require that mixed use developments be designed to mitigate potential conflicts between the commercial and residential uses, considering such issues as noise, lighting, security, and truck and automobile access. Policv LU 11.1.7: Require that mixed use development projects be designed to achieve a consistent and high quality character, including the consideration of the: a. Visual and physical integration among the commercial and residential uses (Plates LU- 3 and LU-4); b. Architectural treatment of building elevations to convey the visual character of multiple building volumes and individual storefronts and residential units F. Noise Element Policy N 1.2.1: Require, in areas where noise levels exceed an exterior La of 60 dB(A) and an interior L& of 45 dB(A), that all new development of"noise sensitive" land uses, such as housing, health care facilities, schools, libraries, and religious facilities, include appropriate buffering and/or construction mitigation measures that will reduce noise exposure to levels within acceptable limits. Policy N 1.2.3: Require development, in all areas where the ambient noise level exceeds an Ldn of 60 dB(A), to conduct an acoustical analysis and incorporate special design measures in their construction, thereby, reducing interior noise levels to the 45 dB (A)L&level. Policy N 1.5.1: Require that commercial and residential mixed use structures minimize the transfer or transmission of noise and vibration from the commercial land use to the residential land use. The design measures may include: (1)the use of materials which mitigate sound transmission; or (2)the configuration of interior spaces to minimize sound amplification and transmission. G. Recreation and Community Services Element Policy RCS 2.1.1: Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons, which includes the beach in the calculation. H. Urban Design Element Goal UD 1: Enhance the visual image of the City of Huntington Beach. Objective UD 1.3: Strengthen the visual character of the City's street hierarchy in order to clarify the City's structure and improve Citywide identity. Policy UD 1.1.3: Require a consistent design theme and/or landscape design character along the community's corridors that reflects the unique qualities of each district. Ensure that streetscape standards for the major commercial corridors, the residential corridors, and primary and secondary image corridors provide each corridor with its own identity while promoting visual continuity throughout the City. PC Staff Report—5/15/2012 HB -703- (12Sr23 Item 18. - 70 I. Utilities Element Objective U 1.2: Ensure that existing and new development does not degrade the City's surface waters and groundwater basins. Objective U 1.3:Minimize water consumption rates through site design., use of efficient systems, and other techniques. Policy U 1.3.2: Continue to require the incorporation of water conservation features in the design of all new and existing uses such as the use of native plants, low flow toilets and water efficient appliances. The Town Center Neighborhood District features the City's widest range of contemporary housing types and a wide mixture of uses. The project's adjacency to the Five Point Center allows for the opportunity to expand upon housing options by providing 274 apartment units all concentrated within walking distance of the Five Points Shopping Center. A total of 27 affordable units will be developed onsite. The convenience of shopping and accessible transportation options contributes to the urban lifestyle envisioned in the Specific Plan. The design colors and materials of the proposed project will appeal to those seeking a more contemporary urban lifestyle. Storefronts face Beach Blvd but also face the interior of the plaza activating this public open space. The plaza connects to the paseo through enhanced paving, landscaping and lighting. The open space component exceeds the required square footage of the BECSP and is designed to enhance the gathering experience for residents as well as residents and shoppers from adjacent developments. The public open space plaza also serves to connect pedestrians from. Beach Blvd to Ellis Avenue and to provide pedestrian access to the parking structure and the lobbies of the two residential structures. Staff believes that the pedestrian connections envisioned for this area are important to implementing a successful mix of residential and retail uses that promote walkability and public gathering. The second level courtyard offers a private open space courtyard, and private amenities include indoor laundry,bicycle storage, fitness center and club facility. The project has been designed to comply with the development standards of the BECSP through building articulation, use of materials and a color palette, which enhances the details of the buildings. Adding varying building rooflines relating to the top of the structure and creating a strong base of the structures through use of stone veneer and wood create a strong visual anchor. The building along Ellis complies with the development standards across from residential by reducing the height and graduating overall height from four to five stories and ultimately to the maximum permitted height of six stories across from the commercial edge of.Ellis Avenue adjacent to the plaza, The project exceeds parking requirements. The residential portion of the parking garage will be well lit and secure from the general parking area as well as appropriately lighting the guest and commercial sections. The project will eliminate four existing driveways to the site, which will reduce conflicts with traffic flow on Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave. The project would comply with the BECSP and other City codes to comply with noise requirements, reduce water consumption and stormwater runoff and be sustainably designed. The project will incorporate a mechanical ventilation system and upgraded windows and doors to ensure that noise Item 18. - 7 1?ort—5/15/2012 HB -704- (12sr23SPR12-001) standards are met. A preliminary Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been reviewed by Public Works staff demonstrating that the project can comply with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System requirements. A final WQMP is required to be submitted for review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Finally, the project will incorporate sustainable site development strategies, utilize water savings features, emphasize recycling of resources and materials and maximize indoor environmental quality through design features and community policies. Zoning Compliance: This project is located within Specific Plan No. 14 Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and complies with the requirements of the Town Center—Neighborhood segment. The table below provides an overview of the project's conformance to the significant development standards of the BECSP. In addition, a list of City Code Requirements of the applicable provisions of the BECSP and the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (HBZSO) and Municipal Code has been provided to the applicant and attached to this report(Attachment No. 4) for informational purposes only. Provision. Town Center- Neighborhood Proposed Project 22 Use Regulatrans'- Residential and various commercial Commercial; Multi-family Residential permitted Apartments; Live Work 12 2 S} cral Retail n/a n/a Configucabon,` 22 3 Affbrtlatle Hoiasrrag + 10% Required for 3 or more units 27 units (10%) 23 & 2 3 2 Hergh#=& Min. 2 Stories; Max. 6 stories S:peaal:8ldg Fteight, Beach Blvd 4 stories max. Beach Blvd.4 Stories Ellis Ave. 4-6 stories max. Ellis Ave. 4 to 6 stories 2 3 3 Length = Max. 300' along a street or open 2077' ft space Complies with use of paseo to break - - building volumes 2 3 4 Sec+al Build+rig Limited Corner Building 120 ft max Max 207'2"ft Length length along Ellis Ave unless a Use of paseo allows exception to building break. exceed building length. 2 3 5 8u1. Ing.massEl g Beach Blvd. 3L:2H to 5L:2H Beach Blvd. 3L:2H {volume Prop_ortio�s) All other streets 1L:3H to 3L:1H Ellis Ave.1L:3H to 3L:1H (Ratio of Length to Height) 2:41 Burldrng Orientation to street or open space Buildings are oriented to Beach and Cr�entatron to Streets required Ellis; complies 24 2 Shopfronts, arcade, forecourt, grand Common Lobby entries and a Prrvate Frontage portico, common lobby, stoop, shopfronts applied; } terraced flush permitted Complies 24 3 Front,:Setback Beach Blvd. 0' min/10' max Beach Blvd.0'-2' Ellis Ave. 0' min/15' max Ellis Ave. 0'-4' 2 A 4 Srde Yard Setback Min w/living space windows 10' RY with window Min w/out living space windows—0' (applies to South side; complies) 2 4 5 dear Setback Min. 10' 10' on East side 6.....A lley setback Min 5' 10' at East private alley PC Staff Report—5/15/20 121 HB -705- (12sr23Item 18. - 72 Provision Town Center- Neighborhood Proposed Project 2 4 7 Frontage`,icoverage Beach Blvd. 90% Min. Beach Blvd 90% Ellis Ave. 90% Min. Ellis Ave 90% 2.4 8 Space btvun bldgs Min. 20' 20'—40' 24 9.Buld to corner ` Required for Bldg 1 Building No, 1 complies 251 imprbverrients to 4) Beach Blvd.—Palm Tree Blvd. Complies existing streets; _ (typical configuration) 4'parkway-6'sidewalk 7} EIIisAve.— Neighborhood Street 6' parkway—6'sidewalk Z 5 2 P n/a n/a 2 5 3 max Blt� k'sk�e:' 2,400 linear feet max n/a; No new block created 2,5 4 Street Connectivity n/a n/a 2.. 5 East West Street n/a n/a COnnect on 2.5 Residential n/a n/a Transition Boundary Z�5 7 Streettypes new `: n/a n/a street des�gnl 261 ProvIsiono#public 50 sf/1000 sf retail Total Required: 14,551 sf open space 100 sf/1000 sf office Total Provided: 14,976sf 50 sf/residential unit 2 5 Special Public Open " n/a n/a Space 2 6 3 Provis-1ori_of P Equivalent of 60 sf per unit Total Required: 16,440 sf Qpen Space Total Provided: 31,006 sf 2 6 4 public Open Space Park, Linear Green, Square, Plaza, Plaza Provided, Types Courtyard, Passage, Paseo Complies Permitted 2.6 5 Private Open Space Courtyard Provided-complies with Courtyard Types Private Yard design 26 6.Storrnwat�r rt�gmt Source control and site design Provided—WQMP r required Required to ensure compliance 2 5 7 Stormvtrater 13�VIP Required Provided -WQMP types 2`5 8 Open Space Required Provided Landscaping ,4 26 9 Setback; Required Complies with setback landscaping Landscape Types and perimeter landscaping 2: 2 PrkmgTypeS Surface lot rear, wrapped ground Provided - Podium designed level, wrapped all levels, partially wrapped parking structure with submerged/structure permitted; submerged parking component Farrade Height Top/Base required Provided 281-Arch Elements, Required Provided Regulations Item 18. - 73'on—5/15/2012 HB -706- (12sr23SPR 12-001) Urban Desizn Guidelines Conformance: The project is required to comply with the architectural regulations and guidelines of the BECSP. A detailed discussion of the project's design is provided in the Analysis section of this staff report. Environmental Status: Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is within the scope of development analyzed in Certified EIR No. 10-004. The EIR was certified by City Council on February 6, 2012. The proposed project is very similar in scope and design to the Alternative No. 3 project that was analyzed in the EIR, and the impacts described as part of Alternative No. 3 would provide an accurate assessment of the project's potential environmental impacts. An Environmental Assessment (Initial Study Checklist) was prepared to document whether there are changes in circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or an addendum to the EIR for the currently proposed project (Attachment No. 5). As analyzed in the Environmental Assessment, the currently proposed project, which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, none of the changes in the proposed project result in an increase in significance for any of the impacts that have been analyzed. Consequently, revisions to Certified EIR No. 10-004 are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) of the CEQA Guidelines that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, based on the analysis for the project, previously certified EIR No. 10-004 is the appropriate level of analysis and no additional environmental review is required. EIR No. 10-004 determined that the majority of impacts could be mitigated to be less than significant with incorporation of mitigations measures (see MMRP Attachment No. 7) and code requirements. However, construction related air quality impacts and Transportation/Traffic cumulative impacts could not be mitigated as identified within the BECSP Program EIR. Approval of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 is covered by the Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC) adopted in conjunction with the BECSP EIR pursuant to Section 21094(a)(2) of the CEQA Statute, which went into effect in January 2011. This Statute, which is in effect until January 2016, allows incorporation by reference of a SOC that was adopted for a plan (e.g. BECSP) in conjunction with a program EIR, when approving a project that is tiered from the Plan/EIR and meets certain criteria such as is acted on within three years of the EIR's certification(by Dec. 2012 for BECSP EIR) and does not result in greater or different impacts. Staff believes the economic and social benefits of the proposed project outweigh the adverse impact to Air Quality and Transportation/Traffic. Approval of the project results in a new mixed-use development that is consistent with the BECSP and General Plan and begins the transformation of the Beach Blvd Corridor as envisioned in the BECSP. In addition, the project would have the following benefits: • The project would promote new investment that supports the growth and success of Five Points District and other businesses in the vicinity. • The project would create pedestrian connectivity that encourages walking, and ultimately walking,within the Five Points District and adjacent properties. • The project creates a development that is compatible with and sensitive to the existing land uses in the project area. • The project provides residential and commercial buildings that convey a high quality visual image, architectural character and a major intersection corridor image. PC Staff Report—5/15/2012 xl 1 n 707- {12sr23 Item 18. - 74 • The project provides a mixed use community consistent with the policies and development framework of the BECSP to maximize land use opportunities. • The project creates a community that enables residents to live in proximity to jobs, commercial services, and reduces the need for automobile use. • The commercial portion of the project will be designed to LEED Silver standards incorporating the application of Green Building techniques and the residential portion will be designed pursuant to the Green Point Program to build toward a more environmentally sustainable future for the City and region. Prior to acting on the project, the Planning Commission is required to approve Findings of Fact as required by CEQA. (Attachment No. 6). Environmental Board: The Environmental Board provided comments on EIR No. 10-004 and these were responded to prior to EIR certification. Coastal Status: Not applicable Redevelopment Status: Not applicable Design Review Board: Not applicable Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Other Departments Concerns and Requirements: The Departments of Public Works, Fire, Community Services, Police and Planning and Building have reviewed the proposed project and provided comments and recommendations. Any recommended conditions of approval are incorporated into the suggested conditions provided in Attachment No. 1. In addition, the identified departments were actively involved in the formulation of the BECSP development code with which the proposed project fully complies. Public NQtitieation: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Independent on May 3, 2012, and notices were sent to property owners of record and occupants within a 500 ft. radius of the project site, interested parties, and individuals/organizations that commented on EIR No. 10-004. As of May 8, 2012, no communications on Site Plan Review No. 12-01 have been received. Application Processing Dates: DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION_ MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): April 10, 2012 Within 180 days of certification of EIR, September 10, 2012 (based on EIR public hearing date of February 6, 2012) Item 18. - 75101t—5/15/2012 HB -708- (12sr23SPR 12-001) ANALYSIS: The BECSP was adopted in March 2010 to enhance the overall economic performance, physical beauty and functionality of the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue Corridors. The BECSP is intended to guide future development and initiate the transformation of the corridors from commercial strip, in many cases underutilized and underperforming, to a pattern of centers and segments with development standards and regulations that reflect the vision of a particular area. As previously mentioned,the project site is located within the Town Center - Neighborhood segment of the BECSP. The project is at a premiere intersection as it is the gateway to the Five Points District envisioned as a high density, up to six stories, district visually connecting to the existing multi-story development of the Pacifica Community area south of Main Street across from Five Points, where the buildings range in height from one to 14 stories height. The project will transform the under-performing and underutilized commercial center to become a landmark development in one of the Specific Plan's most urbanized core districts. During the EIR process the issues of discussion related to height, traffic impacts and onsite circulation and hazardous materials remediation. These issues are discussed below. BECSP Conformance The proposed project is consistent with the intent of the Town Center - Neighborhood segment of the BECSP as stated above and overall objective of the BECSP to improve the viability of the Beach Blvd corridor by implementing a project that provides a high quality designed multi-level mixed use development. The project offers 274 residential units, adding to the population base of the Five Points District, and includes new commercial development that will serve the project and surrounding axea. The Specific Plan's form based code creates a deliberate physical environment by regulating height, setbacks, structural articulation and building massing. As mentioned, the proposed project is designed with two separate structures: Building No. 1, a four story structure fronts Beach Blvd; and Building No. 2, from four to six stories that fronts Ellis Avenue. Both buildings conform to the height, volume and articulation standards of the Specific Plan. Development regulations require that the height of structures be restricted when across the street from a residential structure or residential zone,which is the case for a portion of Ellis Avenue to the north of the site. In this District, the regulation allows a maximum permitted height equal to the number of permitted stories in the residential zone plus two stories. Therefore, maximum height on the subject site is limited to five stories directly across from the residential zone on Ellis Avenue. The majority of this area is owned by the Orange County Water District(OCWD) and is used as a site for injection wells for the seawater barrier to push back saltwater from groundwater. The applicant has proposed four stories immediately across from the existing residential structures on Ellis Avenue adjacent to the OCWD property, with the building increasing in height to five stories across from the well site. The portion of the building across from the commercial development on Ellis is six stories. The proposed height is in compliance with the BECSP. The proposed Ellis elevation incorporates a paseo design and significant modulation in the facade, which provides articulation of building volume to break up the massing at various incremental sections as permitted and in compliance with the BECSP. During the Study Session Commissioner Sheir Burnett asked staff to confirm the finished height of the adjacent Single Room Occupancy (SRO) development. The construction drawings for the SRO show a height of 38'4". The maximum height permitted in this zone (Commercial General) is fifty feet. The proposed mixed use project is not required to have height limitations adjacent to commercial property and the proposed project complies with the maximum height along the east property line, which is six stories. PC Staff Report—5/15/2012 xB -709- (12sr23 Item 18. - 76 As proposed, the height of the building is 43' (four stories) for a distance of 65' south from the Ellis property line then increases to 63'6" (six stories). The proposed project also complies with building length standards and utilizes an allowed exception to increase the maximum building length along Ellis Ave. This exception, which would allow a building length greater than 120 feet, is permitted if certain design features are incorporated to visually separate a building. The building along Ellis incorporates a paseo to achieve this objective but also has a recessed lobby entrance. Thus, even though the length of the building is 207'2" the pedestrian will experience lengths of 110'2", 97'and 95'5" along Ellis Avenue when taking into account these features and the garage entrance. The pedestrian scale experience as one views the project from across the street or walking adjacent to the project will be further improved because the second story will be setback 10 ft from the first floor facade. In response to staff s recommendation,Building No. 1 has been moved two feet east at certain portions of the westerly property line in order to move building projections and awnings behind the property line. The additional setback will result in a wider sidewalk at a range of seven to 10 feet in certain areas and will allow for overhead projections and doors to swing out on private property. This negates the need for the applicant to obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans. This is a change in the plans since the April 24th Study Session. Land Use Compatibility The commercial uses surrounding the project site include general commercial, multiple family and quasi- residential (designated commercial) uses. The existing commercial uses would benefit from the influx of residential. Residents would benefit from the pedestrian-friendly improvements required as part of the Specific Plan. Landscaping along the periphery of the development will improve the aesthetics of the site including required landscaped parkways along Beach and Ellis. Interior noise would be minimized through noise attenuation features required by the projects mitigation measures and conditions of approval. The project site is an appropriate location to combine housing and economic activity to provide both living and employment options for a wide range of people. Not only would the proposed project be compatible with the surrounding land uses, it would contribute to the synergistic mix of uses and people in creating a vibrant urban atmosphere within the Five Points District. Architecture The project proposes a contemporary architectural style consistent with the guidelines set forth in the BECSP_ The project provides primary building volumes, facade offsets and notches, expressed building entries and architectural base treatments that are required by the BECSP development code. The contemporary architectural style will add to the transitional architectural element of the Five Points District to revitalize the area. Enhanced materials and facade treatments including variation in massing and stone veneers at the base add to the visual aesthetic of the structures. The buildings are further articulated with the proposed colored palette. As required by the BECSP, the applicant has articulated the buildings' rooflines. In regards to Building No. 2, staff is recommending a suggested condition of approval that the south and east roofline of the building be more varied as required by Section 23.5 Building Massing. The applicant has achieved this variation on the north and west rooflines, but staff thinks the detail should be carried to the other two sides. Item 18. - 77Porr-5115/2012 HB -710- (12sr23 SPR 12-00 1) Staff has worked with the applicant to achieve a project that provides high quality and compatible architecture. The project's architecture is reflective of the intent of the Town Center — Neighborhood segment, which is envisioned to be an urban neighborhood with the widest range of contemporary housing types within the BECSP. Traffic and Access As part of the Beach and Ellis EIR, a Traffic Analysis was conducted in July 2011 to further analyze a project specific development when compared to the analysis conducted as part of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Program EIR. The analysis concluded that the analyzed project would reduce average daily trips from those identified in the Program EIR and that of Alternative 3, while demonstrating a slightly higher peak hour volume of trips, would still be lower than what was estimated under the Program EIR. During the public hearing process for the Beach and Ellis EIR, the Planning Commission expressed concern that additional traffic circulation analysis should be conducted when an actual project is proposed. As part of Site Plan Review No. 12-01, in April 2012, Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc. conducted a project specific traffic analysis. The traffic analysis has been conducted to determine the estimated project trip generation, comparison to previous environmental work, updated operational analysis of the Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave intersection, driveway location analysis including driveway volumes, queues and available gaps in traffic on Ellis. In addition, an evaluation of the collision history along Ellis Ave between Beach Blvd and Goodwin Lane has been conducted. The new traffic study concluded that under conservative assumptions, the project will create a net of 911 daily trips with 119 trips during the morning peak hour and 71 trips during the evening peak hour. This level of trip generation is similar to previous traffic analysis of the site with lower daily and PM peak hour trips and slightly higher AM peak hour trips. Therefore, the project is not anticipated to create or contribute significantly to any traffic impacts at the intersection of Beach Blvd and Ellis Avenue/Main Street. The traffic study also included a gap analysis to evaluate the opportunities for project related traffic on Ellis Ave to use the Ellis driveway. The analysis considered the potential on and off-site queues,potential street lane striping changes and the capacity of gaps in traffic to accommodate the various traffic movement. The traffic study concluded that there was significant potential for queues and delays for exiting vehicles at the originally proposed driveway location and recommends that the full access driveway on Ellis Ave be relocated approximately 347 feet east to line up with Patterson Lane to the north. This will reduce the potential of turning movement conflicts and will facilitate entry and exit from the parking garage. The applicant is in agreement with this recommendation and has revised the site plan to reflect the new location. A review of the past five years of accident history indicates an average of two accidents per year. A review of these accidents indicates the potential that the existing six driveways may have contributed to the accidents. The project eliminates two driveways on both Beach Blvd and Ellis Avenue. Only two driveways will be constructed: one at the south end of the Beach Blvd frontage and one at the Ellis Avenue frontage aligning with Patterson Lane. With the reduction in the number of driveways and relocating the Ellis driveway to the east end of the project site, it is expected that off-site circulation will be improved. Having only two driveways will reduce traffic congestion during peak hours for left turns from the Ellis driveway and the driveway on Beach Blvd near the point where a fourth through lane is PC Staff Report-5/15/2012 HB -711- (12sr231 IteM 18. - 78 provided for northbound traffic, thus minimizing conflicts and operating efficiently and effectively, It is anticipated that the recommended driveway configuration will not result in any significant increase in accident potential and is likely to reduced accident potential near the project. Finally, deliveries to the site will be accommodated at the south portion of the plaza providing a temporary loading and unloading area for commercial deliveries as well as move-in/move-out for renters. The majority of businesses are expected to be able to receive deliveries from trucks that can enter the garage. However, for those instances when the trucks are too tall or large, this area will provide a safe temporary loading and unloading area. The required parking management plan, which must be approved by the Planning Division, will regulate days and times for the limited use of the loading area. Additionally, bollards will be installed to ensure the safety of people using the open space should an unscheduled delivery occur. Emergency vehicles will be able to access the plaza and exit on Ellis via a rolled curb. A fire lane is designed along the south property line east of the garage entrance and adjacent to the paseo in compliance with Huntington Beach Fire Department regulations. Pedestrian Connectivity The pedestrian connections envisioned for the area are important to implementing a successful mix of residential and commercial uses that promote walkability. The plaza is a focal pedestrian feature and serves to connect pedestrians from Beach Blvd to Ellis Avenue, providing pedestrian entry to the parking structure and residential lobbies of Buildings No. 1 and 2. A pedestrian passage in the middle of Building No. 1 provides access from the sidewalk to the plaza. Along Ellis, the pedestrian will experience a six foot wide parkway and a six foot wide sidewalk with landscaping and trees separating pedestrians from the traffic flow. The six live work units will have shopfront entrances with planters providing opportunities for landscaping and an enhanced public space, and will help to activate the street along this frontage. A paseo at the east end of Building No. 2 will provide access from Ellis to the second level courtyard and units. Finally, an enhanced landscape and paved pathway will be provided along the south property line. During daylight hours, the pathway area will be open to the public but access will be restricted to the project's residents after dark with security gates. Parking Parking for the project is provided through an at-grade podium parking structure with subterranean parking. A total of 430 parking spaces are proposed, which exceeds the minimum. Parking for the project is provided as follows: Use Required Par (min.),. Provided Residential 389 Residential spaces 347 Gated spaces studio units - 26 spaces(26 units- 1 per unit) 334 Residents one-bedroom units - 123 spaces(123 units- 1 per unit) 3 Guests/Leasing Employees two-bedroom units - 179 spaces(119 units- 1.5 per unit) 10 Extra six live-work units - 6 spaces(6 units—1 per unit) 83 Non-gated spaces guest parking - 55 spaces(2 spaces per 10 units) 29 Commercial** 54 Guests Commercial 31 Commercial Spaces *"`(Assumes 2 commercial required spaces 8,500 sf retail - 26 spaces(3 spaces per.1,000 sf) will be in gated area for leasing office 1,100 sf lease office - 5 spaces(2.5 spaces per 1,000 s emplo ees Total 420 spaces 430 s aces *Project provides 45 extended parking spaces not included in the overall parking supply as an amenity for tenants Item 18. - 79)ort—5/15/2012 HB -712- (12sr23SPR 12-001) The majority of the residential parking is provided at the subterranean level behind secured gates. The majority of the guest and commercial spaces will be non-gated on the main level. All of the on-site parking spaces will comply with the minimum dimensions required by the BECSP and Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. The project provides bicycle parking for residents, employees and guests in accordance with the requirements of the HBZSO. The project is required to provide a parking management plan to ensure that all of the parking spaces within the project site are adequately utilized and sufficiently serve the project's uses. Open Space The BECSP establishes minimum requirements for the square footage of public open space, requiring pedestrian circulation, walkability and consistent accessibility. The minimum required square footage is 14,551 square feet based on the proposed uses. Required open space is provided in the form of an interior open-to-the-sky plaza located between the two proposed buildings. With the recommendation to move Building No. 1 to the east by two feet, there was a decrease of the plaza open space by 180 sq ft, but the project still is in compliance with the BECSP. The plaza is activated with shopfronts on the west elevation. The plaza will be used as a gathering area providing seating, tables, landscaping and accessibility to retailers and will incorporate enhanced pavers, landscaping and lighting. Pursuant to a recommended condition, the plaza will be further enhanced by closing a portion of the west wail of the parking structure in order to allow for the opportunity for this area to be used to either provide vertical landscaping, additional seating and/or public art. Staff believes this will help to activate the plaza. Private open space is primarily provided in a second level 14,499 square foot courtyard accessible from Ellis Avenue through a paseo and from the main lobby entrance from the plaza. Residents will enjoy such amenities as pool, spa, and social gathering spaces. At the courtyard level, residents are provided with a fitness room overlooking the courtyard. The open space elements of the project are consistent with the objectives of the Specific Plan and will benefit the residents, business tenants and the community. Sustainability The BECSP requires all projects to incorporate sustainable elements in the project design. The proposed project would provide a range of sustainable elements such as those found in Section 2.8 Architectural Regulations of the BECSP, which incorporate all stages of the project's lifecycle from recycling building materials during construction to a project-wide no smoking policy during operation of the project. The applicant proposes to exceed minimum requirements and design the commercial portion of the project as LEED Silver Certified and the residential portion as GreenPoint Rated but equivalent to the LEED Silver standard. Both programs serve the full range of new residential construction in California, which feature a points-based achievement system to evaluate compliance. GreenPoint Rated is intended to serve newly constructed or remodeled homes in California that perform beyond standard practice whereas under the LEED rating system, the use of specific green building practices or design elements, in addition to certain prerequisite practices, accrue "points" on a checklist. Projects which meet the minimum number of points are "Certified." Projects which accrue more than the minimum are rated Bronze, Silver, Gold or Platinum according to the number of points earned. The GreenPoint brand is intended to inform consumers about how well their homes perform above California Building codes and is only used for residential development. It is not unusual to design a project using the "Dual Branding" method of incorporating both LEED and GreenPoint rating standards. Sustainable design features include PC Staff Report-5/15/2012 HB -713- (1211 Item 18. - 80 Energy Star appliances, tankless hot water heaters, energy efficient heating and cooling systems, windows, and lights with sensor switches. The certification in the rating program will create the City's first LEED Silver Certified project. Landscaping would comply with the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance and implement water efficient techniques such as grouping plant materials by hydrozoning methods, applying thicker mulch coverage to planters and utilizing weather-based irrigation controllers to avoid overwatering during rainy and wet weather conditions. The project also proposes other strategies to promote indoor air quality and recycling through both project design features and education/policy implementation. Affordable Housing The proposed project is required to provide affordable housing in accordance with the BECSP. Of the 274 total units, the project proposes to provide 27 affordable units on-site meeting the affordability requirement for 10 percent. The applicant is proposing that the affordable units be all moderate income level units. Staff has indicated support for the proposal because the applicant is proposing to do a LEED Silver Certified and GreenPoint Rated project, which would be the first in the City. The specific affordability terms will be set forth in a Development Agreement as required by the BECSP. The Development Agreement must be adopted by ordinance and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. The provision of on-site affordable units furthers the intent of the Town Center - Neighborhood segment envisioning a wide range of housing types. In addition, the affordable units, and the project in general, would provided needed housing for fulfilling the City's share of the Regional Housing Need for the 2008-2014 planning period. Hazards and Hazardous Materials During the EIR certification process the Planning Commission expressed concern regarding the remediation of the site prior to occupancy as stated in the Mitigation Monitoring Program for the BECSP Program EIR. Mitigation Measures 4.6-1 through 4.6-3 ensure remediation of contaminated soils containing hazardous materials prior to development of the proposed project and by providing supplemental procedures in the event of unanticipated discoveries of contaminants during construction. As described in the EIR some site remediation has already occurred and is ongoing with regulatory protocols in place. If unknown contamination is encountered, a Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk posed to human health. Excavation of the entire site will be at a depth of 10 feet thus removing contaminants at the former cleaner's location. Because the site is located within a Methane Overlay District, mitigation measure MM4.6-3 requires that the project comply with HBFD City Specification No, 429, Methane Building Permit Requirement prior to issuance of a grading permit to reduce the potential impacts of methane gas to future occupants and visitors of the project site. Implementation of this mitigation measure would also reduce any impacts associated with methane testing and methods of gas detection as required by the Huntington Beach Fire Department(HBFD). SUNLVLA.RY: Staff recommends approval of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 because the project: • Implements the objectives of the BECSP to improve the viability of the Beach Blvd and Ellis Avenue; • Provides a mixed use development that is consistent with the BECSP development code and ---- port—5/15/2012 10 (12sr23SPR 12-001) Item 18. - 81 HB -714- compatible with the surrounding existing and anticipated land uses; • Facilitates development that produces an environment which is both attractive and sustainable by increasing housing options for diverse household types, promoting alternative modes of transportation, creating a local sense of place, reducing infrastructure and maintenance costs, and allowing for more efficient use of land resources; • Is consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of transforming the Beach Blvd Corridor by providing commercial uses with 274 residential units to support the new commercial uses as well as existing surrounding commercial uses; • Serves affordable housing needs of the community by providing on-site affordable housing units; • Includes LEED Silver and Green Point Rated Certifications; • Provides a housing choice for residents seeking to be within walking distance of work, services, reduce dependency on their automobile, have access to multiple amenities for an active and mobile lifestyle; and • Provides a high quality architectural design integrating design elements that promote a healthy and active lifestyle as an image for Huntington Beach. ATTACW4ENTS: a .2...`y 3. Project Narrative dated February 10, 2012 4. Code Requirements Letter dated March 20, 2012 (for information purposes only) 5. Environmental Assessment 7. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program SH:HF:MBB:rm XatC- 6&WaX��-7 A_ PC Staff Report—5/15/2012 HB -715- (12sr2'Item l& - 82 RE'EIV=D LFEB U�� 0 Pt.Qt riu!;liilf� Q R 18502-10 BEACH BOULEVARD PROJECT DESCRIPTION-RESIDENTIAL MIXED-USE Project Site The Project site is located at 18502-10 Beach Boulevard in the City of Huntington Beach. The Project site is generally bounded by Beach Boulevard to the west,Ellis Avenue to the north, commercial uses to the south, and multifamily residences to the east. The entire Project site is approximately 2.74 acres, or approximately 119,354 square feet,in area. (and,approximately 2.69 acres after dedication) Overview of Proposed Project Ben Brosseau Consulting, Inc 'BBC" intends to develop the Project site with a mixed-use building comprised of 274 units (100 DUA), including six live work units on the ground floor fronting Ellis Avenue, and 8,500 square feet of commercial space fronting Beach Boulevard (the "Project"). It is contemplated the Project will set aside ten percent (10%) of units, or 28 units, for affordable housing at moderate income levels. The units in the Project will range in size from 550 to 1400 square feet, with the following approximate unit mix and parking provided: • Studio—26 units x 1.0 spacestunit=26 spaces • 1-Bed-123 units x 1.0 spaces/unit= 123 spaces • 2-Bed- 119 units x 1.5 spaces/unit=179 spaces • 6-Live/Work-6 units x 1.0 spaceshmit=6 spaces S Guest- 274 units 2/10 units=55 spaces • 8,500 sf commercial space x 3.0 spaces/thousand sf=26 spaces • Total:268 units +6 live/work} 8500sf commercial with=415 parking spaces The Project intends to comply with the architectural guidelines and sustainability requirements governing the Project site. Pursuant to the Beach&Edinger Corridors Specific Plan, the building will range 4 to 6 stories in height and will seek to accommodate the public open space requirement on site, in part by incorporating a 24-foot wide pedestrian only Paseo linking Ellis Avenue to rear parking and courtyard areas. The 8,500 sf retail portion of the project will be designed to achieve LEED Silver Certification and the residential portion will be GreenPoint Rated designed to the LEED Silver equivalent. The proposed project goes beyond the state requirements of CALGreen in incorporating environmentally-conscious strategies and materials. The project incorporates retail and work/live spaces to create a more community- Beach&Ellis Project Residential Mixed-Use Project Description Project Description Page I Item 18. - 83 HB -716- I TACHI E T 0, 2_7�, - I City of Huntington Beach February 2012 focused building. The project is located within many community services and within walking distance of multiple bus lines,It also offers a large community courtyard with pool fox the residents. The project will meet or exceed minimum CALGreen code requirements by diverting over 65% of all construction and demolition debris generated during construction (compared to 50%), protecting all HVAC from dust and dirt throughout construction, reducing irrigation water consumption by at least 30%,reducing indoor water consumption by at least 20%,and exceeding Title-24,2008 energy code by at least 15%. All units will be provided with an active ventilation system, further improving the indoor air quality environment already created by using low-VOC paints, coatings, sealants, adhesives, composite wood, carpets and resilient flooring. Beach&Ellis Project Description Project Description Page 2 Cary of Huntington Beach February 1011 PROJECT NARRATn'E Description ofproject and Services (Use,SF, hours and days ofoperation, number ofemployees, etc): The existing site currently has a gas station at the SE corner of Beach&Ellis; a restaurant/bar at the SW corner of the property and a 1-sotry strip-mall retail center and parking lot for the remainder of the subject property. The proposed use would contemplate a mixed-use project consisting of 274 dwelling units with a variety of unit types to serve residents through a broad range of income levels, including studio units, one and two-bedroom units, and 6 live-work units. The Retail portion of the proposed project will have approximately 8,500 s.f. of general retail;actual tenants (use)and number of employees to be determined with market analysis up to time of occupancy. Reasons for initiating application: To provide necessary housing and services needed in the City of Huntington Beach Description of surrounding uses(NSETP): North(across Ellis Avenue): Fast-food restaurant;Liquor Store,Electric Utility Yard; North-east(across Ellis Avenue): Single-Family residential East: Existing 3-story SRO South: Existing strip-mall retail center West: (across Beach Blvd.)Gas Station Description ofpopulation served by proposed project: The proposed project will provide work force housing to the greater residents of Huntington Beach and Northern.Orange County. The demographic make-up of the population is late twenties to early thirty year olds. The unit mix was feared to the new urban lifestyle being embraced by the younger population i.e.: more technology, less space needed and not as dependent on their own individual automobile. The proximity of the site to the beach and being on a major transportation corridor all were considered when making these decisions. Beach&Ellis Project Description Project Description Page 3 Item 18. - 85 HB -718- Al TACHMENT O. Citv of Huntington Beach 2000 MAIN STREET CALIFORNIA4264$ _.. L- DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING www.hurtngtonbeac ca g Planning Division Building Division 714.536.S271 714.S36.S241 March 20, 2012 Ben Brosseau Consulting 15149 Camarillo Street Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 SUBJECT: PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS (SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. 12- 001 BEACH AND ELLIS MIXED USE) i Dear Mr. Brosseau: Attached please find applicable code requirements and comments for the subject project. These conditions and comments are based on the initial submittal dated February 10, 2012. The applicable city policies, standard plans, and the BECSP development and use requirements are incorporated, excerpted from the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan and. Municipal Codes. This list is intended to help you through the permitting process and various stages of I prq�ect implementation. It should be noted that this requirement list is in addition to any"conditions of approval'adopted by the Planning Commission. Please note that if the design of your project or site conditions change, the list may also change. If you would like a clarification of any of these requirements, an explanation of the BECSP and Municipal Codes, or believe some of the items listed do not apply to your project, and/or you would like to discuss them in further detail, please contact me at rmedel@surfedy-hb.org or 714- 374-1684 and/or the respec;Cve source department (contact person below). Sin rely, Rosemary Vedel, Associate Planner Enclosure(s) Planning Division Requirements 714 374-1684 Herb Fauland,Planning Manager Sulicfing Division Requirements 714 374-1792 Jason Kelley,Planning Division Fire Department Joe Morelli 714 536-5564 Mark Carnahan,Building Division Steve Bogart--Public Works Dept 714 374-1692 xB -719- j TTACH ENT N'Item 18. - 86 i J� HUNTINOTON BEACH PLANNING AND BUILDING DEPARTMENT HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS DATE: March 16, 2012 PROJECT NAME: BEACH AND ELLIS MIXED USE PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 12-019 ENTITLEMENTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW 12-001 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 12-001 DATE OF PLANS: February 10, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 18502-52 BEACH BLVD PLAN REVIEWER: ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 374-1684 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: To permit the construction of a four to six story mixed use building comprised of 274 residential units (100 DUA), including six live work units on the ground floor fronting Ellis Avenue, and 8,500 square feet of commercial space fronting Beach Boulevard. Ten percent of the units will be affordable (28 units). The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. The Planning and Building Department has reviewed the proposed project submittal and has the following Specific Plan Code Requirements comments or concerns. Planning Division Code Requirements 1. The development shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as all applicable local, State and Federal Codes, Ordinances and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter, Article V) 2. Construction shall be limited to Monday — Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Construction shall be prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) Item 18. - 87 xB -720- 4 1ACHM T NO., � � Page 2 of 6 3. The applicant shall submit a check in the amount of $50 for the posting of a 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 Planning Department within two (2) days of the Planning Commission's action. (The fee of $50 is not required for projects where the City is the applicant) (California Code Section 16094) 4. All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission/Zoning Administrator. (HBZSO Section 232.04) SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001: 1. The site plan, floor plans, and elevations approved by the Planning Commission shall be the conceptually approved design (with the following modifications). a. Parking garage striping shall comply with Chapter 231 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Title 24, California Administrative Code. (HBZSO Chapter 231) b. The site plan shall include all utility apparatus, such as but not limited to, backflow devices and Edison transformers. Utility meters shall be screened from view from public right-of-ways. Electric transformers in a required front or street side yard shall be enclosed in subsurface vaults. Back-Flow prevention devices shall be not be located in the front yard setback and shall be screened from view. (BECCP Section 2.6 Open Space) c. All exterior mechanical equipment shall be screened from view on all sides. Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be setback a minimum of 10 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 proposed screening must be submitted for review and approval with the application for building permft(s). (BECSP Section 2.6 Open Space) d. The site plan and elevations shall include the location of all gas meters, water meters, electrical panels, air conditioning units, mailboxes (as approved by the United States Postal Service), and similar items. If located on a building, they shall be architecturally integrated with the design of the building, non-obtrusive, not interfere with sidewalk areas and comply with required setbacks. (BECSP Section 2.6.8) e. All parking area lighting shall be energy efficient and designed so as not to produce glare on adjacent residential properties. Security lighting shall be provided in areas accessible to the public during nighttime hours, and such lighting shall be on a time-clock or photo-sensor system. (HBZSO 231.18.C) f. Bicycle parking facilities shall be provided in accordance with the provision of the Huntington Beach Zoning Code. (HBZSO Section 231.20) 2. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the following shall be completed: HB -721- ATTAC MEN"Item 1� 8..88 Page 3 of 6 a. The applicant shall follow all procedural requirements and regulations of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and any other local, state, or federal law regarding the removal and disposal of any hazardous material including asbestos, lead, and PCB's. These requirements include but are not limited to: survey, identification of removal methods, containment measures, use and treatment of water, proper truck hauling, disposal procedures, and proper notification to any and all involved agencies. (AQMD Rule 1403) b. Pursuant to the requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, an asbestos survey shall be completed. (AQMD Rule 1403) c. The applicant shall complete all Notification requirements of the South Coast Air Quality Management District. (AQMD Rule 1403) d. The City of Huntington Beach shall receive written verification from the South Coast Air Quality Management District that the Notification procedures have been completed. (AQMD Rule 1403) e. All asbestos shall be removed from al[ buildings prior to demolition of any portion of any building. (optional—include only if necessary) (AQMD Rule 1403) f. All facets of the project related to historic preservation shall be reviewed and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. The applicant shall provide written notice of any proposed demolition to the Planning Department, for review by the City of Huntington Beach Historic Resources Board, a minimum of 45 days in advance of permit issuance. The HRB may relocate, fully document and/or preserve significant architectural elements. The applicant/property owner shall not incur any costs associated with moving or documenting the structure by the Board. (Policy Memo PP- 71) g. The applicant shall provide a consulting arbor ist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (Resolution No. 4545) h. Existing mature trees that are to be removed must be replaced at a 2 for 1 ratio with a 36" box tree or palm equivalent (13'-14' of trunk height for Queen Palms and 8'-9' of brown trunk). (CEQA Categorical Exemption Section 15304 and HBMC Chapter 13.50). 3. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the following shall be completed: a. Prior to submittal of a landscape plan, the applicant shall provide a Consulting Arborist report on all the existing trees. Said report shall quantify, identify, size and analyze the health of the existing trees. The report shall also recommend how the existing trees that are to remain (if any) shall be protected and how far construction/grading shall be kept from the trunk. (Resolution No. 4545) b. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Planning and Building Department for review and approval. (HBZSO Section 232.04) c. A Landscape and Irrigation Plan, prepared by a Licensed Landscape Architect shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (HBZSO Section 232.04) Item 18. - 89 xB -722- ATTACHMENT NO. Page 4of6 d. "Smart irrigation controllers" and/or other innovative means to reduce the quantity of runoff shall be installed. (HBZSO Section 232.04.13) e. Standard landscape code requirements apply. (HBZSO Chapter 232 and BECSP) f. All landscape planting, irrigation and maintenance shall comply with the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. (HBZSO Section 232.04.13) g. Landscaping plans should utilize native, drought-tolerant landscape materials where appropriate and feasible. (HBZSO Section 232.06.A) 4. Prior to issuance of building permits, the following shall be completed: a. An Affordable Housing Agreement in accord with Section 2.2.3 Affordable Housing Requirements of the BECSP. (BECSP Section 2.2.3) b. A gated entryway (access control devices) plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department. The gated entryway shall comply with Fire Department Standard No. 403. In addition, the gated entryway plan shall be reviewed by the United States Postal Service. Prior to the installation of any gates, such plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning, Fire and Public Works Departments. (BECSP Section 2.6.8) c. A planned sign program for all signage shall be submitted to the Planning Department. Said program shall be approved prior to the first sign request. (BECSP 2.9 Signage Regulations) d. The Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan fee shall be paid. (Resolution No. 2010-80) e. All new commercial and industrial development and all new residential development not covered by Chapter 254 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, except for mobile home parks, shall pay a park fee, pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 230.20 -- Payment of Park Fee. The fees shall be paid and calculated according to a schedule adopted by City Council resolution. 5. During demolition, grading, site development, and/or construction, the following shall be adhered to: a. Existing street tree(s) to be inspected by the City Inspector during removal of concrete and prior to replacement thereof. Tree replacement or rootitree protection, will be specified upon the inspection of the root system. (Resolution No. 4545) b. Ali Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance and Municipal Cade requirements including the Noise Ordinance. All activities including truck deliveries associated with construction, grading, remodeling, or repair shall be limited to Monday- Saturday 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM. Such activities are prohibited Sundays and Federal holidays. (HBMC 8.40.090) 6. The structure(s) cannot be occupied, the final building permit(s) cannot be approved, and utilities cannot be released (for the first residential unit) (and commencement of use) (and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy) until the following has been completed: a. The applicant shall stripe the parking lot to conform to provisions of Chapter 231 of the Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance. (HBZSO Chapter 231) HB -723- Al TA HME T NN,Item 18. - 90 Page 5 of 6 b. A Certificate of Occupancy must be approved by the Planning Department and issued by the Building and Safety Department. (HBMC 17.04.036) c. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading, landscape and improvement plans. (HBMC 17.05) d. All trees shall be maintained or planted in accordance to the requirements of Chapter 232. (HBZSO Chapter 232) e. All landscape irrigation and planting installation shall be certified to be in conformance to the City approved landscape plans by the Landscape Architect of record in written form to the City Landscape Architect. (HBZSO Section 232.04:D) f. An onsite 36" box tree or the palm equivalent shall be provided in the front yard, and a 24" box tree shall be provided in the parkway to meet the Huntington Beach; Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications, and the Municipal Code. (HBZSO Section 232.08, Resolution 4545, HBMC 13.50) g. The provisions of the Water Efficient Landscape Requirements shall be implemented. (HBMC 14.52) 7. The use shall comply with the following: a. Outdoor storage and display of merchandise, materials, or equipment, including display of merchandise, materials, and equipment for customer pick-up, shall be subject to approval of Conditional Use Permit. (HBZSO Section 230.74) S. The Development Services Departments (Building & Safety, Fire, Planning and Public Works) shall be responsible for ensuring compliance with all applicable code requirements and conditions of approval. The Director of Planning may approve minor amendments to plans and/or conditions of approval as appropriate based on changed circumstances, new information or other relevant factors. Any proposed plan/project revisions shall be called out on the plan sets submitted for building permits. Permits shall not be issued until the Development Services Departments have reviewed and approved the proposed changes for conformance with the intent of the Planning Commission's /Zoning Administrator's action. If the proposed changes are of a substantial nature, an amendment to the original entitlement reviewed by the Planning Commission /Zoning Administrator may be required pursuant to the provisions of HBZSO Section 241.18. (HBZSO Section 241.18) 9. Site Plan Review No. 12-001 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 Planning Department a minimum 30 days prior to the expiration date. (HBZSO Section 241.16.A) 10. The project shall comply with all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code, Building & Safety Department and Fire Department, as well as applicable local, State and Federal Fire Codes, Ordinances, and standards, except as noted herein. (City Charter, Article V) 11.All landscaping shall be maintained in a neat and clean manner, and in conformance with the HBZSO. Prior to removing or replacing any landscaped areas, check with the Departments of Planning and Public Works for Code requirements. Substantial changes may require approval by the Planning Commission. (HBZSO Section 232.04) Item 18. - 91 xB -724 AT TA CH MENT NO - Page 6of6 12.All permanent, temporary, or promotional signs shall conform to Chapter 233 of the HBZSO and BECSP. Prior to installing any new signs, changing sign faces, or installing promotional signs, applicable permit(s) shall be obtained from the Planning Department. Violations of this ordinance requirement may result in permit revocation, recovery of code enforcement costs, and removal of installed signs. (BECSP 2.9 Sign Regulations) 13. Alcoholic beverage sales shall be prohibited unless a conditional use permit to the Planning Commission for this particular use is reviewed and approved. (BECSP 2.2 Building Use Regulations) HB -725- ATTACH M10Item 18. - 92 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE. REQUIREMENTS DATE: APRIL 24, 2012 PROJECT NAME: BEACH-ELLIS MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ENTITLEMENTS: SPR 12-01 PLNG APPLICATION NO: 2012-0019 DATE OF PLANS: FEBRUARY 12, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 18502-18510 BEACH BLVD. PROJECT PLANNER: ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-374-1694 / RMEDEL(a-SURFCITY-HB.ORG PLAN REVIEWER: BOB MILANI, SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: 714-375-1735 / BOB.MILANI(d-)_SURFCITY-HB.ORG PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE DEVELOPMENT OF 6-STORY MIXED-USE BUILDING CONSISTING OF 274 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SIX LIVE WORK UNITS, AND 8,500 SQ. FT. OF COMMERCIAL SPACE. ATTACHED: SITE PLAN The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans as stated above. The items below are to meet the City of Huntington Beach's Municipal Code (HBMC), Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO), Department of Public Works Standard Plans (Civil, Water and Landscaping) and the American Public Works Association (APWA) Standards Specifications for Public Works Construction (Green Book), the Orange County Drainage Area management Plan (DAMP), and the City Arboricuitural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which shall be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting, implementation and construction. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer or Project Planner. Item 18. - 93 HB -726- ATTACHMENT ���. �- Page 2 of 7 THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT: 1. A Legal Description and Plot Plan of the dedications to City to be prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer and submitted to Public Works for review and approval. The dedication shall be recorded prior to issuance of a grading permit. 2. The following dedications to the City of Huntington Beach shall be shown on the Precise Grading Plan. (ZSO 230.084A) a. Right-of-way dedication along the Ellis Avenue frontage for a total curb to property line width of 12 feet. (ZSO 230.84, BECSP) b. Right-of-way dedication along the Beach Boulevard frontage for a total curb to property line width of 10.5 feet. (ZSO 230.84, BECSP) c. A 20-foot radius right-of-way dedication which transitions to a 22-foot radius at the southeast comer curb return per Public Works Standard Plan No. 207. (ZSO 230.84) 3. A Precise Grading Plan, prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for review and approval. (MC 17.05/ZSO 230.84) Improvements within Caltrans Right-of-Way shall also be reviewed and approved by Caltrans. The plans shall comply with Public Works plan preparation guidelines and include the following improvements on the plan: a. Curb, gutter and sidewalk along the Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue frontages shall be removed and replaced per Caltrans Standard Plan (2012) and Public Works Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207 respectively. (ZSO 230.84, Caltrans) b. All frontage improvements shall be per the City Standard codes and street configuration and specifications of the Beach Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. The frontage along Beach Boulevard shall comply with the "Palm Tree Boulevard" configuration and the frontage along Ellis Avenue shall comply with the "Neighborhood Street" configuration. c. The proposed driveway approach on Ellis Avenue shall be installed per Public Works Standard Plan No. 211. (ZSO 230.84) d. The proposed driveway approach on Beach Boulevard shall be installed per Caltrans Standard Plan (2012) A87A. (ZSO 230.84, Caltrans) e. The existing driveway approaches on Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue shall be removed and replaced with curb, gutter, and sidewalk per Caltrans and Public Works Standard Plan Nos. 202 and 207 respectively. New curb installed along Ellis Avenue shall be painted red, consistent with Caltrans Standard Specifications (2012). (ZSO 230.84) f. Curb ramps on the southeast corner of the intersection of Beach Boulevard at Ellis Avenue shall be removed and replaced with ADA compliant curb ramps per Caltrans Standard Plan (2012) A88A. (ZSO 230.84, Caltrans) g. Pavement rehabilitation along Ellis Avenue frontage to centerline of street, consisting of 2" asphalt grind and overlay. (ZSO 230.84) h. A new sewer lateral shall be installed connecting to the main in Beach Boulevard or Ellis Avenue. All existing laterals serving the site shall be severed and capped at the main or chimney as applicable. (ZSO 230,84) i. New domestic water service(s) and a minimum of 2 master meters shall be installed per Water Division Standards, and sized to meet the minimum requirements set by the xB -727- i TACHMENTItem 18. - 94 Page 3 of 7 California Plumbing Code (CPC) and Uniform Fire Code (UFC). (ZSO 255.04) (MC 14.08.020) j. A separate irrigation water service and meter shall be installed per Water Division Standards. (ZSO 232) (MC 14.52) k. Separate backflow protection devices shall be installed per Water Division Standards for domestic, irrigation, and fire water services. (Resolution 5921 and Title 17) I. The existing domestic water service(s) and meter(s) shall be abandoned per Wafter Division Standards. (ZSO 255.04) m. if fire sprinklers are required by the Fire Department for the proposed development, a separate dedicated fire service line shall be installed. (ZSO 230.84) 4. The developer shall submit for approval by the Fire Department and Water Division, a hydraulic water analyses to ensure that fire service connection from the point of connection to City water main to the backflow protection device satisfies Water Division standard requirements, and also to verify that onsite pipeline diameter is adequately sized to satisfy fire flow requirements. 5. The City has adopted the Beach / Edinger Corridor Specific Plan, which will ultimately require the existing 8-inch waterline in Beach Boulevard to be upsized to a 12-inch waterline. While the existing 8-inch waterline may provide adequate water service and fire flows to the property at this time, the ultimate upsizing of the public waterline will be the responsibility of the property owner and shall be constructed across the property frontage for the proposed development. In lieu of construction of the 12-inch waterline, development impact fees may be paid by the property owner at the time of issuance of the Grading Permit providing the City has adopted a Fee Ordinance at that time. (BECSP) 6. Hydrology and Hydraulic analysis shall be submitted for Public Works review and approval (10, 25, and 100-year storms shall be analyzed as applicable). The drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due to development, or deficient, downstream systems. Design of all necessary drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event frequencies up to a 100-year frequency. Runoff shall be limited to existing 25-year flows, which must be established in the hydrology study. If the analyses shows that the City's current drainage system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the developer shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the existing 25-year storm as determined by the hydrology study. As an option, the developer may choose to explore low-flow design alternatives, onsite attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's storm drain system to accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. (ZSO 230.84) 7. A sewer study to verify capacity within the City's sanitary sewer system shall be prepared and submitted to Public Works for review and approval. A fourteen (14)-day or longer flow test data shall be included in the study. The location and number of monitoring sites shall be determined by the Public Works Department. (ZSO 230.84/MC 14.36.010) 8. The developer shall be required to pay a fair-share fee for mitigation of the impacts to the public sanitary sewer system resulting from the increase in flow anticipated as a result of the increase in development density allowed under the Beach-Edinger Corridor Specific Plan (BECSP Mitigation Measure 4.14-2). 9. Prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for projects that will result in soil disturbance of one or more acres of land, the applicant shall demonstrate that coverage has been obtained under the Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order No. 2009-0009- Item 18. - 95 HB -728- ATTACHMENT NO._`(f�-� Page 4 of 7 DWQ) [General Construction Permit] by providing a copy of the Notice of Intent (NOI) submitted to the State of California Water Resources Control Board and a copy of the subsequent notification of the issuance of a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID) Number. Projects subject to this requirement shall prepare and implement a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) conforming to the current National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. A copy of the current SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and another copy to be submitted to the City. (DAMP) 10. A Project Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) conforming to the current Waste Discharge Requirements Permit for the County of Orange (Order No. R8-2009-0030) [MS4 Permit[ prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to the Department of Public Works for review and acceptance. The WQMP shall address Section XII of the MS4 Permit and all current surface water quality issues. 11. The project WQMP shall include the following: a. Low Impact Development. b. Discusses regional or watershed programs (if applicable). c. Addresses Site Design BMPs (as applicable) such as minimizing impervious areas, maximizing permeability, minimizing directly connected impervious areas, creating reduced or"zero discharge" areas, and conserving natural areas. d. Incorporates the applicable Routine Source Control BMPs as defined in the Drainage Area Management Plan. (DAMP) e. Incorporates Treatment Control BMPs as defined in the DAMP. f. Generally describes the long-term operation and maintenance requirements for the Treatment Control BMPs. g. Identifies the entity that will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. h. Describes the mechanism for funding the long-term operation and maintenance of the Treatment Control BMPs. i. Includes an Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for all structural BMPs. j. After incorporating plan check comments of Public Works, three final WQMPs (signed by the owner and the Registered Civil Engineer of record) shall be submitted to Public Works for acceptance. After acceptance, two copies of the final report shall be returned to applicant for the production of a single complete electronic copy of the accepted version of the WQMP on CD media that includes: i. The 11" by 17" Site Plan in .TIFF format (400 by 400 dpi minimum). ii. The remainder of the complete WQMP in .PDF format including the signed and stamped title sheet, owner's certification sheet, Inspection/Maintenance Responsibility sheet, appendices, attachments and all educational material. k. The applicant shall return one CD media to Public Works for the project record file. 12. Indicate the type and location of Water Quality Treatment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the Grading Plan. consistent with the Project WQMP. The WQMP shall follow the City of Huntington Beach; Project Wafter Quality Management Plan Preparation Guidance Manual dated June 2006. The WQMP shall be submitted with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. xB -729- ; rH E T t Item 18. 96 Page 5of7 13. In complexes larger than 100 dwelling units where car washing is allowed, a designated car wash area that does not drain to a storm drain system shall be provided for common usage. Wash water from this area may be directed to the sanitary sewer (upon approval by the Orange County Sanitation District), to an engineered infiltration system, or to an equally effective alternative. Pre-treatment may also be required. (DAMP) 14. A suitable location, as approved by the City, shall be depicted on the grading plan for the necessary trash enclosure(s). The area shall be paved with an impervious surface, designed not to allow run-on from adjoining areas, designed to divert drainage from adjoining roofs and pavements diverted around the area, and screened or walled to prevent off-site transport of trash. The trash enclosure area shall be covered or roofed with a solid, impervious material. Connection of trash area drains into the storm drain system is prohibited. If feasible, the trash enclosure area shall be connected into the sanitary sewer. (DAMP) 15. A detailed soils and geological/seismic analysis shall be prepared by a registered engineer. This analysis shall include on-site soil sampling and laboratory testing of materials to provide detailed recommendations for grading, over excavation, engineered fill, dewatering, settlement, protection of adjacent structures, chemical and fill properties, liquefaction, retaining walls, streets, and utilities. (MC 17.05.150) 16. The applicant's grading/erosion control plan shall abide by the provisions of AQMD's Rule 403 as related to fugitive dust control. (AQMD Rule 403) 17. The name and phone number of an on-site field supervisor hired by the developer shall be submitted to the Planning and Public Works Departments. In addition, clearly visible signs shall be posted on the perimeter of the site every 250 feet indicating who shall be contacted for information regarding this development and any construction/grading-related concerns. This contact person shall be available immediately to address any concerns or issues raised by adjacent property owners during the construction activity. He/She will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the conditions herein, specifically, grading activities, truck routes, construction hours, noise, etc. Signs shall include the applicant's contact number, regarding grading and construction activities, and "1-800-CUTSMOG" in the event there are concerns regarding fugitive dust and compliance with AQMD Rule No. 403. 18. The applicant shall notify all property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the perimeter of the property of a tentative grading schedule at least 30 days prior to such grading. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLIED WITH DURING GRADING OPERATIONS: 19. An Encroachment Permit is required for all work within the City's right-of-way. (MC 12.38.0101MC 14.36.030) 20. A Caltrans Encroachment Permit is required for all work within Caltrans' right-of-way. 21. The developer shall coordinate the development of a track haul route with the Department of Public Works if the import or export of material in excess of 5000 cubic yards is required. This plan shall include the approximate number of truck trips and the proposed truck haul routes. It shall specify the hours in which transport activities can occur and methods to mitigate construction-related impacts to adjacent residents. These plans must be submitted for approval to the Department of Public Works. (MC 17.05.210) 22. Water trucks will be utilized on the site and shall be available to be used throughout the day during site grading to keep the soil damp enough,to prevent dust being raised by the operations. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Wind Erosion WEA) Item 18. - 97 HB -730- Ar[ACHMENT NO, Page 6 of 7 23. All haul trucks shall arrive at the site no earlier than 8:00 a.m. or leave the site no later than 5:00 p.m., and shall be limited to Monday through Friday only. (MC 17.05) 24. Wet down the areas that are to be graded or that is being graded, in the late morning and after work is completed for the day. (WE-11MC 17.05) 25. The construction disturbance area shall be kept as small as possible. (California Stormwater BMP Handbook, Construction Erosion Control EC-1) (DAMP) 26. All haul trucks shall be covered or have water applied to the exposed surface prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas. (DAMP) 27, Prior to leaving the site, all haul trucks shall be washed off on-site on a gravel surface to prevent dirt and dust from leaving the site and impacting public streets. (DAMP) 28. Comply with appropriate sections of AQMD Rule 403, particularly to minimize fugitive dust and noise to surrounding areas. (AQMD Rule 403) 29. Wind barriers shall be installed along the perimeter of the site. (DAMP) 30. All construction materials, wastes, grading or demolition debris and stockpiles of soils, aggregates, soil amendments, etc. shall be properly covered, stored and secured to prevent transport into surface or ground waters by wind, rain, tracking, tidal erosion or dispersion. (DAMP) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT: 31. A Precise Grading Permit shall be issued. (MC 17.05) 32. A drainage fee for the subject development shall be paid at the rate applicable at the time of Building Permit issuance. The current rate of $13,880 per gross acre is subject to periodic adjustments. This project consists of 3.59 gross acres (including its tributary area portions along the half street frontages) for a total required drainage fee of $49,829. City records indicate the previous use on this property never paid this required fee. Per provisions of the City Municipal Code, this one-time fee shall be paid for all subdivisions or development of land. (MC 14.48) 33. The applicable Orange County Sanitation District Capital Facility Capacity Charge shall be paid to the City Department of Public Works. (Ordinance OCSD-40) 34. A Lot Line Adjustment shall be submitted to the City and County for review and approval and recorded with the County of Orange and copies submitted to the Departments of Public Works and Planning and Building. THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: 35. Traffic Control Plans, prepared by a Licensed Civil or Traffic Engineer, shall be prepared in accordance with the latest edition of the City of Huntington Beach Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines and submitted for review and approval by the Public Works Department. (Construction Traffic Control Plan Preparation Guidelines) THE FOLLOWING DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE COMPLETED PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION OR OCCUPANCY: HB -731- T sCHMPNT NO.Item 18. - 98 Page 7 of 7 36. Complete all improvements as shown on the approved grading and/or improvement plans. (MC 17.05) 37. All new utilities shall be undergrounded. (MC 17.64) 38. Fair share contributions shall be provided towards the intersection improvements identified in the BECSP (Mitigation Measures 4.13-1 to 4.13-18) where applicable. The contributions shall be determined based on an approved traffic impact analysis for the project. 39. All applicable Public Works fees shall be paid at the current rate unless otherwise stated, per the Public Works Fee Schedule adopted by the City Council and available on the city web site at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/files/users/public works/fee schedule.pdf, (ZSO 240.06/ZSO 250.16) 40. Prior to grading or building permit close-out and/or the issuance of a certificate of use or a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: a. Demonstrate that all structural Best Management Practices (BMPs) described in the Project WQMP have been constructed and installed in conformance with approved plans and specifications. b. Demonstrate all drainage courses, pipes, gutters, basins, etc. are clean and properly constructed. c. Demonstrate that applicant is prepared to implement all non-structural BMPs described in the Project WQMP. d. Demonstrate that an adequate number of copies of the approved Project WQMP are available for the future occupiers. Item 18. - 99 HB -732- , TTACH M E N T N0. i 2/29/2012 PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 2012-019 PROJECT LOCATION: 18502—'18510 BEACH BLVD f PROJECT PLANNER: ROSEMARY MEDEL PLAN REVIEWER: KHOA DUONG, P.E TELEPHONE/EMAIL ADDRESS (714)872-6123/KHOA@CSCENGR.COM i I. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 1. None it. CODE ISSUES BASED ON PLANS&DRAWINGS SUBMITTED: 1. Project shall comply with the current state building codes adapted by the City at the time of i permit application submittal. Currently they are 2010 California Building Code (CBC),2010 California Mechanical Code(CMC), 2010 California Plumbing Cade.(CPC),2010 California Electrical Code(CEC),2010 California Energy Code, 2010 California Green Building Standards and The Huntington Beach Municipal Code(HBMC), Compliance to all applicable state and local codes is required prior to issuance of building permit. 2. Provide building code analysis including type ofconstraction,allowable area and height, j occupancy group requirements and means of egress per the CBC. a. Submit building analyses to ascertain building sizes,construction types,set back,and frontage issues to be used in justifying building areas. All submittals to date do not have this information which is critical for project of this magnitude. b. For parking garages please see section 406 for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. c. For openings in exterior walls,please comply with Table 705.8_ d. For elevators please see Section 708.14 and Chapter 30. 3. For mixed use and occupancy,please see Sections 508 and 509 for specific code parameters in addition to those applicable sections found elsewhere in the code. a. Please review the separation between parking garage and living-work area. 4. Egress—Chapter 10— i a. Submit exit analysis, b. Review the number of required exits to comply with section 1015. c. Review the exit system serving the parking levels. d. Identify on Egress plans location of all fire rated corridors,exit passageways,exit enclosures,etc.... HB -733- ATTACHMENT Item - 100 i e. Sheet A2.2—The stairway shafts/exit enclosures small teat[directly to the exterior of the I building. Stairway adjacent to Elevator#4 did not comply. f. Show the distances of travel from all areas to the egress system. i S. Provide compliance to disabled accessibility requirements of Chapter 11A and 11B of cBC. I 6. Provide building code analysis for all buildings. a. The open yard and fire separation distance requirements maybe affected. 1 7. Sheets A2.1 and A2.2— ' a. Provide truncated domes to separate between sidewalk and driving area. b. The accessible paths of travel from accessible parking stalls cannot locate behind the parked cars. Section 11293.3. 8. Please contact me or our office to review preliminary code analyses to examine any possible building code issue that may arise. t **** `Planning and Building Department encourage the use of pre submittal zoning applications and building plan check meetings* �* l i ATTACHMENT NO. 1 I I I i i i I E i i Item 18. - 101 HB -734- _%1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH .}-- PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTTNCTGN BEACH I. MATE: February 15, 2012 PROJECT NAME: Beach Mixed Use Development. (Southeast cornier Beach&Ellis) PLANNING APPLICATION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 12-019 ; ENTITLEMENTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001 I DATE OF PLANS: February 10, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 18502-18510 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT PLANNER: ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: LUIS GOMEZ, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 374-1684/rmedel•�surfcity-hb.o[g PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT FROM FOUR TO A MAXIMUM OF SIX STORIES CONSISTING OF 274 UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES SIX LIVE WORK UNITS ALONG ELLIS AVENUE, 8,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FRONTING BEACH BLVD. PARKING is PROVIDED IN A THREE LEVEL PODIUM PARKING STRUCTURE INCLUDES AT GRADE PARKING AND TWO SUBTERRANEAN LEVELS. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above. The fist is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, MI also be. provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. l i The Economic Development Department has reviewed Planning Application Number 12-019 j and has the following comment: 1. Applicant will be required to meet the applicable provisions of Zoning Code 230.26— Affordable Housing. 2. Retail parking shall be readably accessible to proposed shop space. 1413 -735- ATTACHMENT N Item 18. - 102 � I HUNTINGTON BEACH FIRE DEPARTMENT � r PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON BEACH i DATE: MARCH 8, 2012 PROJECT NAME: BEACH MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT i ENTITLEMENTS: DAT PROJECT LOCATION: 18502— 18510 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA PLANNER; ROSEMARY MEDEL, ASSOCIATE PLANNER TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714)374-16841 rmedeMsurfcity-hb_om PLAN REVIEWER-FIRE: JOE MORELLI, FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 536-55311 Joe.Morelii@surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT FROM FOUR TO A MAXIMUM OF SIX STORIES CONSISTING OF 274 UNITS,WHICH INCLUDES SIX LIVE-WORK UNITS ALONG ELI_IS AVENUE, 8,500 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FRONT BEACH BLVD. PARKING IS PROVIDED IN A THREE LEVEL PODIUM PARKING STRUCTURE INCLUDES AT GRADE PARKING AND TWO SUBTERRANEAN LEVELS. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans dated February 10, 2012. The list is intended to assist the applicant by idenWng requirements which must be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, 1 will also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer- Fire: JOE MORELLI, FIRE PROTECTION ANALYST. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, GRADING, SITE DEVELOPMENT, ISSUANCE OF GRADING PERMITS, BUILDING PERMITS, ANDIOR CONSTRUCTION,THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE REQUIRED: Environmental FORMER GAS STATION OR UST SITE (Underground Storage Tanks) i a. FORMER GAS STATION OR UST SITE(Underground Storage Tanks) Based on site characteristics, suspected soil contamination, hydraulic hoists, or proAmity ! to former gas station, or underground storage tanks, the following is required: i i "Soil Testing". � C. Item 18. - 103 xB -736 TTACHMENT ° Page 3 of 7 If SCRWQCB requires on-going remediation and co-existence with the proposed i development is permissible, a copy of the approved SCRWQCB plan and written permission for co-existence must be submitted in order to obtain Huntington Beach Fire Department approval. Each site will be evaluated on an individual basis. I Fire Apparatus Access Fire Access Roads shall be provided and maintained in compliance with City Specification # 401, Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access. Driving area shall be capable of supporting a fire apparatus (75,000 Ibs and 12,000 lb point load). Minimum fire access road width is twenty- four feet (24') wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6") vertical clearance. Fire access roads fronting commercial buildings shall be a minimum width of twenty-six feet(26')wide, with thirteen feet six inches (13' 6' vertical clearance. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus i Access on the plans. (FD) Fire Lanes, as determined by the Fire Department, shall be posh, marked, and maintained per City Specification#415, Fire Lames Signage and Markings on Private, Residential, Commercial and Industrial Properfies. The site plan shall clearly identify all red fire lane curbs, both in location and length of run. The location of fire lane signs shall be depicted. No parking shall be allowed in the designated 24 foot wide fire apparatus access road or supplemental fire access per City Specification #415. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with City Specification#401 Minimum Standards for Fire Apparatus Access on the plans. (FD) 1 Fire Suppression Systems Fire Alarms Fire Alarm System is required. For Fire Department approval, shop drawings shall be i submitted to the Fire Department as separate plans for permits and approval. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance with IBC 305.9 on the plans. A C- 10 electrical contractor, certified in fire alarm systems, must certify the system is operational annually. (FD) Fire Sprinklers Autorrrai c Fire Sprinklers are required. NFPA13 Automatic fire sprinkler systems are required per Huntington Beach Fire Code for new buildings with 'fire areas' 5000 square feet or more or for buildings 10,000 square feet or more. An addition of square footage to an existing building also triggers this requirement. i Separate plans (three sets) shall be submitted to the Fire Department for permits and approval. The system shall provide water flow,tamper and trouble alarms, manual pull stations, interior and exterior horns and strobes, and 24-hoar central station monitodrig. HB -737- . TTAC ENT �Item 18. - 104 Pap 5of71 feet 6 inches(42) wide right or left side opening. Center opening doors require a 4 feet 6 inches (54")width. For Fire Department approval, reference and demonstrate compliance on the building plans. HBBC 3002.4 (FD) High Rise Buildings High Rise Buildings. Buildings classified as being 55 feet or more in height must comply with the requirements of the State Fire Marshall for a high-rise building. Also, all building three stories or taller must have the sprinkler system installed and operable on the first floor before combustible construction starts on the third floor. This applies to each and any subsequent floor, such that there cannot be more than one unprotected floor at anytime during the construction of any structure that is three or more stones high. (FD) Subterranean Parking Garage- Ventilation Systems must have emergency smoke evacuation capability. A zoned, mechanical smoke and combustible products removal system, with manual controls for firefighters located in the fire control room shall be provided. This shall include an emergency power source, System shall also comply with Building Code and be adequate to exhaust carbon monoxide (CO). (FD) Enhanced Communication Systems are required for Fire Department and Police Department communications in Subterranean Parking Garages. Repeater type radio systems as specified by the Fire and Police Departments shall provide adequate communication inside the parking garages, from inside the garages to the exterior, and to/from the fire control rooms. Above- grade areas or floors found to have with poor radio reception may also require repeating systems. (FD) Class I Standpipes(2 Y?" NFH connections) are required at each stairway. The standpipe system in stairwells cannot protrude into or compromise the H.B.B.C. "Fycit Width' requirements. For Fire Department approval, reference and portray Class 1 standpipes at each stairway in the plan notes. (FD) Stairwell Required Minimum Widths. Standpipe systems in stairwell areas shall not impede code required minimum widths. (FD) Fire Control Room required. Provide a dedicated room for the Fire Department to observe and monitor all systems operations from an integrated annunciator panel. They shall be located in an exterior location that is at grade level and has clear-to-the sky access. (FD) Building Construction 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. Reference compliance in the plan notes. (FD) Egress Illumination/Emergency Exit Lighting with emergency back-up power is required. Provide means of egress illumination per HBFC 604.2.4 and UBC 1003.2.9. (FD) i Item 18. - 105 HB -738- A-r-rA r WkAr-NT NO. 4..e-�C) Page 7 of 7 SiPreventionll-Developmentl1-Planning Department- Planning Applications, CUPs12Ut1 CUP's\Beach 18582(Tcywn Center Neighborhood) 08-24-11 DNLdoc i• S S- i• l; 3 i f t I HB -739- ATT,�CH ON'T No. Item l 8. - 106 v CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH I PROJECT iMPLEMENTATION CODE REQUIREMENTS HUNTINGTON SFACH j DATE: February 15, 2012 PROJECT NAME: Beach Mixed Use Development. (southeast corner Beach & Ellis) PLANNING APPLIGA'TION NO. PLANNING APPLICATION NO. 12-019 ENTITLEMENTS: SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001 i i t 4 DATE OF PLANS: February 10, 2012 PROJECT LOCATION: 18502-1B510 BEACH BLVD, HUNTINGTON BEACH PROJECT PLANNER: ROSEMARY MEDEL,ASSOCIATE PLANNER PLAN REVIEWER: TELEPHONEIE-MAIL: (714) 374-1684/rrnede1 surfcity-hb.org PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT FROM FOUR TO A MAXIMUM OF SIX STORIES CONSISTING OF 274 UNITS, WHICH INCLUDES SIX LIVE-WORK UNITS ALONG ELLIS AVENUE, 8,5Do SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL FRONTING BEACH BLVD. PARKING IS PROVIDED IN A THREE LEVEL PODIUM PARKING STRUCTURE INCLUDES AT GRADE PARKING AND TWO SUBTERRANEAN LEVELS. The following is a list of code requirements deemed applicable to the proposed project based on plans stated above_ The list is intended to assist the applicant by identifying requrements.which roust be satisfied during the various stages of project permitting and implementation. A list of conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission in conjunction with the requested entitlement(s), if any, W11 also be provided upon final project approval. If you have any questions regarding these requirements, please contact the Plan Reviewer. CrSt U it�' � tleers { 1 � ' • 1 Item 18. - 107 HB -740- ATTACH MENT NO'z-1,�� t t. ct i cKL STY .. R !� t 'L Y [ram ]" A((�'�� -`� 0 f��l 1 !mP 4 j IDINGr D EP; 11WE _t j t � FTR03�TITAL �4SSE5SI� EN' ' Q yl r0a, r 1. PROJECT TITLE: BEACH&ELLIS MIXED USE PROJECT Concurrent Entitlements: Site Plan Review No_ 12-001 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Contact: Rosemary Medel,Associate Planner Phone: (714) 536-5271 3. PROJECT LOCATION: 18502 and 18508-18552 Beach Boulevard 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Ben Brousseau Consulting, Inc. (BBC) Contact Person: Steve Sheldon Phone: (949) 777-9400 5. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Mixed Use-Specific Plan-Design Overlay (M-sp-d). The M-sp-d designation permits a range of commercial and multi-family residential uses. The exact density, location and Unix of uses permitted in this designation is governed by a Specific Plan("sp"), allowing for greater design flexibility and to address the uniqueness of a particular area. 6. ZONING: The project site is zoned as Specific Plan 14 or SP-14, which is the BECSP adopted in March 2010. The project site is designated as Town Center-Neighborhood located within the Five Points District segment of the BECSP. Development would be subject to the BECSP`s Development Code for the Town Center Neighborhood designation, as applicable. HB -741- T AC 1 �Item 18_- 108 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION(Describe the whole action involved,including,but not limited to,later phases of the project,and secondary support, or off-site features necessary for implementation): The proposed project site consists of two parcels totaling 119,236 square feet(sf) of lot area (approximately 2.74 acres). At the immediate corner of Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue,the site is occupied by a Shell Gas Station that includes a 1,678 sf building and two bays. The remainder of the project site is occupied by approximately 22,080 sf retail and restaurant uses and approximately 4,026 sf of office uses. Office, retail and some restaurant uses are located within the Town and Country Plaza, a two-story,L-shaped,multi-tenant shopping center, set back into the southeast corner of the project site. The Town and Country Plaza contains a dental office, dry cleaner,bar/lounge,and other retail uses. A stand-alone,restaurant located on Beach Boulevard contains the remainder of the existing restaurant uses_ The proposed project at Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue(proposed project) would result in a six- story mixed-use development consisting of residential and retail uses, as shown in Figure 2 (Project Site Plan). The proposed project includes development of a mixed-use project consisting of two buildings comprised of 274 apartment dwelling units and 8,500 sf of commercial uses, as well as a 430-space, parking garage_Development along Beach Boulevard would be four stories in height.In addition, directly across from residential along Ellis the proposed project would be limited to four stories in height, graduating to a maximum height of six stories. Residential development would include 6 live-work units, accessed directly from Ellis Avenue, as well as 26 studio units, 123 one-bedroom units, and 119 two-bedroom units. Commercial uses would be located on the ground floor fronting Beach Boulevard. Parking would be provided in a 430-space parking garage,including 26 at-grade parking spaces for retail.Access to the parking garage would be provided directly from Ellis Avenue and from an alley accessed from Beach Boulevard. The proposed project would also include 1,356 sf of public open space for the retail uses and 26,075 sf of public open space for the residential uses.Additionally,the proposed project would include 16,507 sf of private open space and courtyards,including dwelling unit balconies and patios.Figure 3 (Project Elevations), illustrates the proposed elevations of the building facade including the Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue frontages. The proposed project goes beyond the state requirements of CALGreen in incorporating environmentally-conscious strategies and materials. The 8,500 sf retail portion of the project will be LEED Silver Certifier)and the residential portion will be GreenPoint Rated. 8. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The proposed project site is located approximately two and half miles south of 1-405, approximately half way down.the Beach Boulevard corridor of the BECSP area.The project site is surrounded to the north by commercial and residential uses, to the west and south by commercial uses and to the east by quasi-residential and residential uses.Adjacent surrounding uses include the following: • North (across Ellis Avenue}--Jack in the Box fast food restaurant, D-K Liquor, Orange County Water District water well facility,and single-family residential uses. • West (across Beach Boulevard)—Chevron gas station and a strip mall with several retail and Item 18. - 109 HB -742- ATTACHMENT ,, restaurant uses • South Procare Work Injury Center and other commercial uses • East A private alleyway and SRO building 9. OTHER PREVIOUS RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION: The City of Huntington Beach adopted Program EIR No. 08-008 (SCH No. 2008071143) in 2009 in conjunction with its subsequent approval of the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(BECSP) in 2010. The Program EIR identified mitigation measures that would be applicable to individual projects within the Specific Plan area and provided an environmental framework for analysis of these projects. The City of Huntington Beach certified a project level EIR for the Beach&Ellis Mixed Use project in November 2011 (EIR No. 10-004). This EIR is tiered from the BECSP Program EIR. The project analyzed in EIR No. 10-004 consisted of up to 105 residential units and 37,000 square feet of commercial space. It also analyzed project alternatives, including one alternative that is nearly identical in intensity and use to the currently proposed project, Alternative 3. Similar to the proposed project, this alternative included 274 residential units and 8,500 square feet of commercial space. There is a slight difference in the unit mix. The currently proposed project has 25 studio units, 123 one-bedroom units, 119 two-bedroom units, and 6 live-work units; whereas Alternative 3 has a unit mix of 25 studio units, 117 one-bedroom units, 125 two-bedroom units, and 7 live-work units. In addition, building heights along Ellis have been reduced for the proposed project. Project Comparison Currently Proposed Project previous Project(EIR No.10- Alternative 3(EIR No.10- 004 04 Studio 25 du 25 du One-bedroom 123 du 117 du Two-bedroom 119 du 105 residential du 125 du Live-work 6 units 7 units Retail 8,500 sf 37,000 sf 8,500 sf The City has prepared this Environmental Assessment Checklist to document whether there are changes iw circumstances or new information of substantial importance that would require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR or an addendum to the EIR for the currently proposed project. It is the City's intent to prepare this IS with analysis that demonstrates if the City-certified CEQA documents, including mitigation measures, are still adequate for the currently proposed project and any new City polices and requirements that have been adopted since the certification of EIR No. 10- 004. According to Section 21166 of CEQA and Section 15162 of the State CEQA Guidelines, a subsequent EIR is not required for the proposed project unless the City determines on the basis of substantial evidence that one or more of the following conditions are met: I. Substantial changes are proposed in the Project that require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in severity of previously identified significant effects; 2. Substantial changes have occurred with respect to circumstances under which the Project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previous EIR due to the involvement of new HB -743- ATTAC ME Item 18. - 110- significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; 3. New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous EIR was certified, shows any of the following: a. The Project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR; b. Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than identified in the previous EIR; c. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact be feasible, and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the Project, but the Project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives; or d. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those analyzed in the previous EIR would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on the environment, but the Project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measures or alternatives. According to the State CEQA Guidelines, Section 15163, if any of the conditions noted above are present but only minor additions or changes would be necessary to make the previous EIR adequate to apply to the proposed project in the changed situation, a supplemental EIR may be prepared. Section 15164 of State CEQA Guidelines states that an Addendum to an EIR shall be prepared. "if some changes or additions are necessary, but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred_" Thus, if none of the above conditions are met, the City may not require preparation of a subsequent or supplemental EIR. Rather, the City can decide that no .further environmental documentation is necessary or can require that an Addendum be prepared. In this regard, the City finds that no additional environmental documentation is necessary. The rationale and the facts for this finding are provided in the body of this IS. As analyzed in this document, the currently proposed project, which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10- 004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects. In addition, none of the changes in the proposed project result in an increase in significance for any of the impacts that have been analyzed. Consequently, revisions to Certified EIR No. 10-004 are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Therefore, based on the analysis contained in this IS, previously certified EIR No. 10-004 is the appropriate level of analysis for the proposed revisions to the project. This conclusion is based on the findings contained in the IS that have determined that the proposed project does not cause any additional environmental impacts beyond those disclosed and addressed in the previously certified EIR. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. 10. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED) (i.e. permits,financing approval, or participating agreement): Item 18. - 111 HB -744- A. ..F r %-M MENT NO Responsible and Reviewing Agencies A Responsible Agency is a public agency, other than the lead agency, that has discretionary approval authority over a project. The Responsible Agencies, and their corresponding approvals, for this project include, but are not necessarily limited to,the following: • California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Permit for dewatering during construction; and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System [NPDES]permit) • State Water Resources Control Board(General Construction Activity Storrmwater Permit) Reviewing Agencies Reviewing Agencies include those agencies that do not have discretionary powers,but may issue permits for the project. Potential Reviewing Agencies include the following: State of California • Department of Transportation(Caltrans) Regional Agencies • Orange County Sanitation District • South Coast Air Quality Management District HB -745- , ACH ME Item 18. - 112- 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/Traffic ❑ Public Services ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ❑ Cultural Resources 0 Air Quality Noise ❑ Recreation ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Greenhouse Gas Emissions 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 proj ect. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be 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"potentially significant impact"or a"potentially significant unless mitigated impact"on the environment,but at least one impact(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. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and(b)have been avoided 0 or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is r red. Signature Date k_ A::�� Printed Name Title Item 18. - 113 HB -746- 9TACHNIAENT NO. EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EM PACTS: i. 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 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 XIX 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 XIX. Other sources used or individuals contacted have been cited in the respective discussions. 7. The following checklist has been formatted.after Appendix G 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. SAMPLE Q UESTION.• Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sig-niftcant Mitigation Signicant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact )could the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: Landslides? (Sources_- 1, 6) ❑ El 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). HB -747- � .:; Item 18. - 114 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 proj ect: a) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?(Sources: 4, 15,16) Discussion: With the currently proposed project, development along Beach Boulevard and the northeastern corner along Ellis would be four stories in height; increasing in height to six stories, while the remainder of development on the site would be six stories in height. Building heights would be consistent with BECSP Section 2.3.1 (Building Height), which establishes a minimum building height of two stories and maximum building height of six stories on the site. Building heights would also be consistent with BECSP Section 2.3.2 (Special Building Height Limits), which establishes special building height limits for development along Beach Boulevard or located adjacent to, or across from,housing. To ensure that the currently proposed project is consistent with the BECSP, it would undergo a Site Plan Review. In order for the Site Plan Review application to be approved,the Director of Planning and Building must make the following findings: L The project is consistent with the City`s General Plan and all applicable requirements of the Municipal Code 2. The project will not be detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity nor detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood 3. The project will not adversely affect the Circulation Plan of this Specific Plan 4. The project complies with the applicable provisions of the BECSP and other applicable regulations Land Use and Planning were analyzed in section 4.8 of EIR No. 10-004. The project in the certified EIR has a smaller residential component and a larger commercial component. However, a similar level of new land uses and land use intensification would occur on-site. The currently proposed project would result in impacts similar to the project and Alternative 3 analyzed in the certified EIR. Unlike Alternative 3,the currently proposed project is consistent with BECSP Section 2.3.1 and therefore would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects that would conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. b) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan 0 0 or natural community conservation plan?(Sources: 15, 16) Discussion: There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans within the BECSP area, including the currently proposed project site. No impact would occur and no additional environmental review is required Item 18. - 115 HB -748- AT T C MEENT . 5-i Potentially Signficant Potentially Unless Tess Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and.Supporting Information Sources): impact incorporated impact No impact c) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: El 3, 15, 16) Discussion: The currently proposed project site, which is identical to the site analyzed in the certified EIR, is currently fully developed and is surrounded by established roadways to the north and west, and development to the south and east. The proposed project would not extend past these existing property boundaries. Land uses adjacent to the project site include commercial to the north, west and south; and quasi-residential and residential uses to the east and northeast. Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of a wed-use residential and retail project that would replace the existing retail,restaurant, and gas station uses on the project site. As such, the introduction of residential uses on the project site would create an extension of the established neighborhood located to the east and northeast of the project site and would support this neighborhood by providing neighborhood-serving retail uses. As the currently proposed project would not encroach on the existing residential neighborhood and would be an extension of the existing residential neighborhood, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the division of an established community. This is considered a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to the physical division of an established community.Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. H. POPULATION AND]ROUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either Q ❑ 0 El directly(e.g.,by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(e.g.,through extensions of roads or other infrastructure)? (Sources:4, 15, 16) Discussion: Population and Housing were analyzed in section 4.10 of EIR No. 10-004. The currently proposed project would result in a maximum of 274 dwelling units and 8,500 sf of commercial uses,resulting in a direct increase in population growth due to the residential units. Alternative 3, as analyzed in EIR No. 10- 004, also has 274 residential units, which is an increase of 169 units compared to the project analyzed in the certified EIR. The currently proposed project is located on a site not planned for residential development prior to the approval of the BECSP. As such local and regional population growth projections had not anticipated population increases associated with residential development on the proposed project site. However, the regional population plans and projections are updated approximately every five years and on the next cycle, the BECSP projections will be incorporated into the regional plans, including the currently proposed project site. BECSP Section 2.1.1 establishes the maximum amount of net new development (MAND) of residential and commercial development permitted in the BECSP, which ultimately included 4,500 residential dwelling unit- and associated commercial uses. Residential development on the project site was accounted for in the overa population growth analysis performed in the BECSP EK which assumed a maximum residential build out of 4,500 new dwelling units in the BECSP area. HB -749- VI Item 18. - 116 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Section 4.10 (Population/Housing) of the BECSP EIR concluded that full build out of residential uses (4,500 dwelling units) in the BECSP area would not exceed the City`s General Plan policy of limiting growth, but would exceed SCAG 2030 household projections. However, the exceedance of such projections is an existing condition and is not a direct result of the BECSP. The BECSP would not exceed SCAG 2030 population projections,though it would represent approximately 56 percent of the remaining growth that is anticipated in the City through 2030. Once fully occupied, the population increase as a result of the currently proposed project, similar to Alternative 3, would ;result in a new residential population of approximately 732 persons, an estimated increase of 452 persons from the project analyzed in the certified EIR. This estimate of 732 persons is based on the existing average household size of 2.67 persons for the City of Huntington Beach, as noted in the certified EIR. The currently proposed project (274 residential units) accounts for approximately 6 percent of the 4,500 dwelling units ultimately approved for full build-out of the BECSP.When the MAND is reached,no further development may be permitted without an amendment to the MAND provisions and environmental review. As currently proposed, the project is consistent with the established MAND for the BECSP, and BECSP EIR Section 4.10 (Population/Housing) concluded that population growth induced by implementation of the BECSP, which is greater than what was ultimately approved, would not result in significant impacts. Therefore, population growth associated with the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EM No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to the population growth in the area. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, 0 necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:N/A) ]Discussion: No residential uses currently exist on the currently proposed project site. Therefore, no displacement of existing housing or people would occur with implementation of the currently proposed project.No impact would occur and no additional environmental review is required. c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating 11Q 11 Q the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources:N/A) Discussion: See b)above. M.GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated El 0 ❑ ❑ Item 18. - 117 HB -750- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?(Sources: 1, 15) Discussion: Geology and Soils were analyzed in section 4.5 of EIR No. 10-004. The currently proposed project is located on the same site as the project analyzed in the certified EIR, which is not located within a designated Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zone. No known active faults are mapped on the site. As such, the potential for surface fault rupture is considered to be low at the site. However,the project site is located in the seismically active Southern California region, and will likely be subject to strong groundshaking in the event of an earthquake on one of the many active Southern California faults. The estimated peak horizontal ground acceleration for the project site is 0.44 g. Potential effects associated with strong seismic ground shaking include ground failure, including liquefaction, and landslide. Seismically induced landslides are not considered to be a potential seismic hazard for the proposed project site due to the lack of significant ground slopes in the vicinity of the project site. According to the Liquefaction Potential map included as Figure EH-7 of the Huntington Beach General Plan, Environmental Hazards Element, the project site is located in area identified as having a low potential for liquefaction. However, based on review of the California Seismic Hazard Zones Newport Beach 7.5-Minute Quadrangle, which identifies the site as not being located within a liquefaction hazard zone, the Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation prepared for the site concluded that the potential for liquefaction and seismi( induced settlement is expected to be very low. Regardless, impacts associated with seismic hazards, includinb liquefaction, would be addressed through adherence to applicable regulations including the City of Huntington Beach Building Code, which has adopted the 2010 CBC, the Grading and Excavation Code, and state requirements pertaining to geologic, soil, and seismic hazards.Additionally,as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1, a soils and geotechnical report would be prepared for the proposed project and submitted to the City with the first submittal of a grading plan for the project. The design, grading, and structural recommendations of the final soil and geotechnical report would be incorporated into the currently proposed projects grading plan. In light of the strict regulations in place to control development of structures in a seismically active region, and the incorporation of project-specific design recommendations into project plans, the currently proposed projects impact due to exposure to seismically induced groundshakin& and seismic- related ground failure would be less than significant. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to rupture of a known earthquake fault, strong seismic ground shaking, seismic-related ground failure, or landslides. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?(Sources: see El El above) Discussion: See i)above. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including El liquefaction? (Sources: see above) T I HB -751- tem 18. - 118. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: See i)above. iv) Landslides? (Sources: see above) Q Discussion: See i)above. b) Result in substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or 0 QEl changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading,or fill? (Sources: 14, 15) Discussion: The currently proposed development would require earth-moving activities, including excavation below the existing ground surface. Similar to Alternative 3, the currently proposed project would require a greater amount of earth-moving activities compared to the project analyzed in the certified EIR. due to the subterranean parking. Grading and excavation would expose soil to erosional processes and could result in the loss of topsoi.1 during construction. As part of the project, a site-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (mitigation measure PROJECT MM4.5-2), which is part of the NPDES Municipal General Permit, would be prepared. Implementation of Best Management Practices during construction activities as required by the NPDES permit would reduce the potential for soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Unstable soil conditions would be addressed through compliance with the Grading and Excavation Code and incorporation of the recommendations of the project-specific Geotechnical Engineering Feasibility Report into the currently proposed projects final grading plan, as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.5-1. Compliance with applicable requirements would ensure that this impact remain less than significant,but slightly greater than the project analyzed in the certified EIR. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to substantial soil erosion, loss of topsoil, or changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or 0 011 ❑ that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 15) Discussion: According to the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation, as analyzed in the certified EIR, the groundwater at the site ranges from approximately 30 to 59 feet below existing grades, which is consistent with the historical ground water data for the project site that indicates groundwater depths in excess of 30 feet. Based on this depth to groundwater, the Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation concluded that ground water is not likely to be encountered during foundation construction; however, higher localized and seasonal perched ground water conditions may accumulate below the surface depending on numerous factors including seasonal rainfall, local irrigation, and ground water pumping, among others. Due to the potential for shallow groundwater, dewatering activities could be needed during the excavation(grading and shoring) and subgrade construction (for building foundation)stages of construction. Similar to Alternative 3, the currently proposed project would require a greater amount of earth-moving activities compared to the project as analyzed in the -P*'-�ied EIR due to the subterranean parking level. Temporary shoring, dewatering wells, storage tanks, Item 18. - 119 HB -752- Potentially significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sigriificant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting lnforin.ation Sources). Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact filters, and erosion control measures would be required to comply with the City`s Grading Manual (Chapter 17.05.030 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code). Dewatering activities would be required in order to comply with the NPDES Permit for Groundwater Discharge from the Santa .Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Additionally, the currently proposed project would be designed according to the recommendations of the project-specific Geotechnical Report, required by code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1. The currently proposed project would be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable Soils)of the City`s Municipal Code and Title 17 Excavation and Grading Code. The currently proposed project site is identified as having a very low potential for liquefaction to occur. In the event that liquefactionn does occur, the primary effect is expected to be ground surface settlement due to the consolidation of the liquefied material. Settlement could also be caused by loads generated by large earthmoving equipment or occur as a result of the placement of new fill or structural loads above the existing grade. Potential impacts associated with settlement would be addressed through the incorporation of specific engineering recommendations to be included in the final soils and geology report prepared for the currently proposed project, as required by code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1, and included in the currently proposed projects final grading plans consistent with mitigation measure BECSP A9M4.5-1. Additionally, the currently proposed structures would be designed, constructed, and operated in conformance with Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable Sods) of the 2010 CBC and Title 17 Excavation and Grading Code. As such, the currently proposed project would not be located on an unstable geologic unit or soil that could become unstable. Therefore, would be a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related on or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B ❑ 0 ❑ El of the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 15) Discussion: The currently proposed project site,which is the same site as the project analyzed in the certified EIR, is identified as having a "low to moderate" potential for expansive soils on the Expansive Soils Distribution map,Figure EH-12 of the Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Hazards Element. Risks associated with expansive soil are addressed through adherence to Section 1802.2.1 (Questionable Soils) from the 2010 CBC and Title 17(Excavation and Grading Code), as well the incorporation of recommendations of the final soils and geology study, as required by code requirement BECSP CR4.5-1 into the currently proposed projects grading plans. As such, potential risks to life and property associated with expansive soils would be less than significant and there have been no changes in the site location since certification of the EIR that would necessitate further environmental review with respect to the location of the site on expansive soil. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of El septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater(Sources: 15) HB -753- AT Item 18. - 120 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES Supporting and Su o Significant Mitigation Significant ( pp Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: As noted in the certified EIR, the currently proposed project site is currently served by sanitary sewer service maintained by the City of Huntington Beach. The City would continue to provide these services to the project. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are proposed.No impact would occur and no additional environmental review is required. TV.HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste dischargeEl 0 11 ❑ requirements? (Sources: 15, 17, 18) Discussion: A Preliminary WQMP was prepared for the currently proposed project site for the purpose of effectively mitigating impacts on downstream water quality and quantity through site design, source control, and treatment control BMPs in conjunction with operation and maintenance procedures. The WQMP was written to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)Municipal NPDES Storm.Water Permit, SARQCB`s Order No. R8-2009-0030 as amended by Order No. R8-2010-0062, County of Orange Drainage Area Management Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach's Storm Water and Urban Runoff Management Ordinance. Hydrology and Water Quality were analyzed in section 4.7 of EIR No. 10-004. Similar to the project analyzed in the certified EIR and pursuant to the BECSP, the currently proposed project is defined as a priority project and would be required to include both source control and treatment control BMPs, as well as Site Design BMPs, where applicable and feasible. Review and acceptance of the WQMP prior to issuance of a Precise Grading or Building permit for the proposed project would insure that operation of project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,or otherwise degrade water quality. The currently proposed project would be subject to all existing regulations associated with the protection of water quality. The applicable waste discharge requirements (WDRs), the NPDES General Permit for construction activities, De Minimus Threat General Permit, and Municipal NPDES Permit are considered protective of water quality during construction and would, therefore, prevent a substantial violation of water quality standards and minimize the potential for contributing additional sources of polluted runoff during construction of the proposed project. These existing regulations, programs, and policies would ensure that the potential for discharge of polluted stormwater from construction sites to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters and water quality standards, where applicable, would not be substantial. Implementation of existing regulatory requirements would ensure that on-site erosion and siltation are minimized and that construction of the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of water quality standards. Compliance with the existing regulatory requirements described above, as well as implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-1, would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards.This impact would be less than significant. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. Item 18. - 121 HBo7- - ATTACHMENTNO-5-Lf Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ❑ ❑X ❑ ❑ substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted? (Sources: 15, 17, 18) Discussion: According to the Preliminary WQMP prepared for the currently proposed project site, the depth to groundwater at the site ranges from between 30 to 60 feet below the existing grade. In the event that permanent dewatering activities are necessary on the project site,the proposed project would require coverage under the De Minimus Threat General Permit or an individual WDRI NPDES Permit, and consequently would be subject to discharge quantity limitations, groundwater dewatering, and surface drainage. Additionally, as required by mitigation measure BECSP N M4.7-2, a Hydrology Study was prepared for the currently proposed project which includes recommended BN1Ps. Treatment control water quality BMPs (CDS units and Contech StormFilter) will pre-treat/treat urbanized runoff from the project site and protect local water resources to the maximum extent practicable. Volume-based BMPs are designed to capture and treat what is usually described as the "first flush" of runoff from a storm event. Volume-based BMPs include extended detention basins,wet detention basins,retention/infiltration systems and water quality treatment wetlands. The water quality capture volume may be included as part of the configuration of the detention basins (for example,in a forebay), or as stand-alone water quality basin. Implementation of BMPs and compliance with existing regulator requirements would ensure that permanent groundwater dewatering does not cause or contribute to a lowering of the local groundwater table that would affect nearby water supply wells, such that impacts would be less than significant. Although the project site is not a designated groundwater recharge area, as described under the Drainage and Downstream Conditions heading, runoff from the project site ultimately drains into Sully- Miller Lake, which has no discharge except for groundwater recharge. Therefore, the runoff from the project site would continue to contribute to groundwater recharge and would not affect City groundwater wells, resulting in a less than significant impact. Compared with the original project and Alternative 3, there are no changes in construction or project design for the currently proposed project that would result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to groundwater supplies or groundwater recharge. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the ❑ 0 ❑ ❑ site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site? (Sources: 15, 17, 18) Discussion: Similar to the project analyzed in the certified EIR, implementation of the currently propose.' project would not alter the existing drainage pattern of streams or rivers and would not result in off-si, erosion hazards. The project site is located within an entirely urbanized area and would discharge to the City streets, underground storm drain systems, and ultimately to Huntington.Harbour. The project site is currently approximately 95 percent impervious. With implementation of the currently proposed project, the amount of xB -755- A 122- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact impervious surface area will remain similar to existing conditions, but would yield increased runoff compared to the existing condition of a 25-year storm event.However, incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system into project design, as recommended in the Hydrology Study and described in the WQMP prepared for the project site,would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff will conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system and would not result in flooding or erosion. To ensure that runoff from the site does not result in flooding or erosion,mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-4 would be implemented, which requires adequate storm drain capacity to be demonstrated and if capacity is not sufficient, corrective action would be taken, so as to avoid off-site flooding or erosion. Accordingly,this impact is considered less than significant. Compared with the original project and Alternative 3, there are no changes in construction or project design for the currently proposed project that would result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent E1R have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount or surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off-site? (Sources: see above) Discussion: See c)above. e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed ❑ El El El the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? (Sources:l5, 17, 18,20) Discussion: The project site is relatively flat with no distinct changes in elevation. The site is currently 95 percent impervious, with the remaining 5 percent consisting of landscaped areas. The entire project site is developed with a clear means of drainage. No substructure drainage facilities are present on the project site. The majority of the site drains via sheet flow over asphalt pavement towards eight outlet points and into Beach Boulevard or Ellis Avenue. A portion of the site drains to a ribbon gutter that flows southerly, adjacent to the eastern property line and then westerly along the southern property line until discharging to a driveway into Beach Boulevard_ Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue are developed streets with concrete curbs and gutter that help facilitate drainage towards catch basins located 70 feet south of and at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue. Stormwater is then routed through the Ellis Storm which drains in Sully-Miller Lake, within Huntington Central Park. Sully-Miller Lake is about 0.75 mile away from the project site and typically retains water year round_ The lake has no discharge except for groundwater recharge. According to the WQMP prepared for the currently proposed project site, with implementation of the proposed project, on- site stormwater will be collected within area drainages and discharged to flow-through planters in landscaped areas where pollutants of concern will be treated. Flow-through planters and the overflows will drain to an underground storage tank, and a pump will discharge the storage tank to curb face within Beach Boulevard at a rate equal to or less than the existing 25-year flow.This will eventually sheet flow to the catch basin just south of the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue,flowing easterly to Sully Miller Lake. Item 18. - 123 HB -756- vrvr g n 0 _ (/� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact According to the BECSP EM,the storm drain system serving the project site is currently constrained for build out of the City`s General Plan and may be constrained for existing conditions. As such, the BECSP EIR concluded that future development in the vicinity of the project site would have potentially significant impacts on both existing and planned storm drain systems. To address this, implementation of modified mitigation measures BECSP MM4.7-3 and BECSP MM4.7-4 is required to assess the contribution of a project to potential system capacity constraints and provide for construction of necessary upgrades such that potential impacts to storm drain system capacities would not be substantial. As required by modified BECSP MM4.7-3, a site specific Hydrology Study was prepared to identify the potential effects of stormwater runoff from the site on the existing storm drain system and provides for site drainage design so as to not increase peals storm event flows over existing conditions for the design storm events. Additionally, BECSP MM4.7-4 requires that adequate capacity in the storm drain system is demonstrated to accommodate discharge from the proposed project. According to the Preliminary Hydrology Study, implementation will maintain a similar amount of impervious area as compared to existing site condition but would yield an increased runoff compared to the existing condition of a 25-year storm event. However, incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system into project design, as described above and as recommended in the Hydrology Study, would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff will conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system. Implementation of treatment control water quality BMPs will pre- treat/treat urbanized runoff from the project site and minimize the projects pollution impact to levels acceptable to the state and local jurisdictions. With implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.7-1, which requires the submittal and approval of a site-specific WQMP prior to issuance of a Precise Grading or Building Permit, project site drainage will be designed so as not to violate any water quality 'standards or waste discharge requirements, or otherwise degrade water quality. Implementation of modified mitigation measures BECSP MM4.7-3 anal BECSP MM4.7-4 would ensure that the proposed project would not increase peak storm event flows over existing conditions and storm drain capacity is not exceeded as a result of the proposed project. As such,the proposed project would result in less than significant impacts relating to water quality, drainage, and runoff and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to water quality, drainage, or runoff. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ FRI El (Sources: see above) Discussion: See e)above. g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as El n mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 15) Discussion: As noted in the certified Ell,, the currently proposed project site is not located within a 100-yea- flood hazard area. As such, no impact associated with risks to people or structures from placement of housin, or structures within a flood hazard area would occur and no additional environmental review is required. h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures ElF1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: see above) Discussion: See g)above. i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, Q injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 15) Discussion: The City of Huntington Beach is located in the lower basin of the Santa Ana River Basin. The lower basin is protected from flooding by Prado Dam, which is located 27 miles northeast of the City in Riverside County. The northern portion of the Corridor is located within the inundation area of the Prado Dam. Recently completed channel modifications along the Santa Ana River from Prado Dam to the Pacific Ocean would provide protection from inundation in the event of dam failure. Therefore, the possibility of significant risk of loss, injury, or death from flooding would be negligible and impacts would be less than significant and no additional environmental review is required. j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? (Sources: 15) Q [j El El Discussion: Tsunamis are large sea waves generated by submarine earthquakes, or similar large-scale, short- duration phenomena, such as volcanic eruptions, that can cause considerable damage to low-lying coastal areas.The currently proposed project site,which is identical to the project site analyzed in the certified EIR., is not located in an identified tsunami run-up area. Seiches are waves, also caused by large-scale, short-duration phenomena, that result from the oscillation of confined bodies of water (such as reservoirs and lakes) that also may damage low-lying adjacent areas, although not as severely as a tsunami. Due to the lack of the presence of enclosed bodies of water in the vicinity of the subject site, seiches are not considered to be a seismic hazard to the project site. Mudflow hazards typically occur where unstable hillslopes are located above gradient, where site soils are unstable and subject to liquefaction,and when substantial rainfall saturates soils causing failure.The currently proposed project has no potential for slope instability. The surrounding area is relatively flat with no pronounced slopes, and there are no known landslides near the project site nor is the project site in the path of any known or potential landslides. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact due to seiche,tsunami,or mudflow and no additional environmental review is required. k) Potentially impact storrnwater runoff from construction ElEl 11 El activities? (Sources: see above) Item 18. - 125 HB -758- .1 1 J-1 x �3-' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Refer to discussion under item a) above. As stated previously, similar to the project analyzed in the certified EM, the currently proposed project would be subject to all existing regulations associated with .the protection of water quality. These existing regulations, programs, and policies would ensure that the potential for discharge of polluted stormwater from construction sites to affect beneficial uses of receiving waters and water quality standards, where applicable, would not be substantial. Implementation of existing regulatory requirements would ensure that on-site erosion and siltation are minimized and that construction of the proposed project would not result in the exceedance of water quality standards during construction and a less than significant impact would occur. Compliance with the existing regulatory requirements described above,as well as implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MAI4.7-1, would ensure that construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in the violation of water quality standards. This impact would be less than significant. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to violation of any water quality standards. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. 1) Potentially impact stormwater runoff from post- El ❑ construction activities? (Sources: 1, 15, 18) Discussion: Refer to discussion under item a)above.As stated previously, compliance with existing regulations for the prevention of pollutants in stormwater runoff during construction and operation of the proposed project would reduce the potential for erosion within the currently project site,consistent with General Plan Objective U3.3. Incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system into project design, as described above and as recommended in the Hydrology Study,would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff will conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system.Implementation of treatment control water qualities BMPs will pre-treat/treat urbanized runoff from the project site and minimize the projects pollution impact to levels acceptable to the state and local jurisdictions and a less than significant impact would occur and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to stormwater runoff. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. m) Result in a potential for discharge of stormwater 0 pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste handling,hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas,loading docks or other outdoor work areas? (Sources: 15, 17) Discussion: As discussed above, a Preliminary WQMP was prepared for the site for the purpose of effectivel, mitigating impacts on downstream water quality and quantity through site design, source control,and treatment control BMPs in conjunction with operation and maintenance procedures.Implementation of modified mitigation measures BECSP MM4.7-3 and BECSP MM4.7-4 would ensure that the currently tirrq i4 HB -759- �1 N�a� Item 18. - 126a Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No impact proposed project would not increase potential for discharge of stormwater pollutants from areas of material storage,vehicle or equipment fueling,vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing),waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage,delivery areas,loading docks or other outdoor work areas and would result in less than significant impacts and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to stormwater runoff. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required_ n) Result in the potential for discharge of stormwater to 110 El Q affect the beneficial uses of the receiving waters? (Sources: see above) Discussion: Refer to discussion under item a) and k)through m) above. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to stormwater runoff.Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. o) Create or contribute significant increases in the flow Q 11 El velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm? (Sources: see above) Discussion: Refer to discussion under items c)-e)above. Compared with the original project and Alternative 3,there are no changes in construction or project design for the currently proposed project that would result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent E1R have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. p) Create or contribute significant increases in erosion of El Q ❑ the project site or surrounding areas? (Sources: see above) Discussion: Refer to discussion under item a)above. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to violation of any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. V. AIR QUALITY. The city has identified the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district as appropriate to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute El 11 El substantially to an existing or projected air quality Item 18. - 127 HB -760- ATTACHMENT Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact violation? (Sources: 15) Discussion: Air Quality was analyzed in section 4.2 of FIR No. 10-004. Because of the construction time frame, and the normal day-to-day variability in construction activities, and the on-site mobility of certain construction vehicles, it is difficult to precisely quantify the daily emissions associated with each phase of the currently proposed construction activities. Nonetheless, construction emissions associated with development of Alternative 3, which are identical to the currently proposed project, are estimated using the CalEEMod 2011.1 emissions model. Table AQ-1 (Estimated Daily Peak Construction Emissions in Pounds per Day) identifies daily emissions that are estimated to occur on peak construction days. These calculations assume that mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MN44.2-14 have been implemented to reduce construction related emissions; the emission reduction calculations for BESSP MM4.2-1 assume that the engine catalysts will achieve a reduction of 15 percent for NOX. Therefore, the daily emissions presented in Table AQ-1 account for the maximum daily emissions of potential construction activities that would occur during any given construction stage. Table AQ-1 Daily Peak Construction Emissions Peak Day Emissions in Pounds Per Day Emissions Source I VOC NOX CO I SOX P910 PM2.5 2016(DEMOLMON/EXCAVATION!GRADING/TRUNCHING/PAVIlVG/ BUILDING CONSTRUCTION) Maximum Daily 8.28 73.60 49.16 0.13 129.81 6.75 Emissions SCAQN D Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0 Significant Impact? No No No No No No 2017 03UEL1}ING CONSTRUCTION/ARCHrUCTURAL COATINGS) Maximum Daily 170.83 28.66 35.85 0.08 4.72 1.82 Emissions SCAQNID Thresholds 75.0 100.0 550.0 150.0 150.0 55.0 Significant Impact? Yes No No No No No Source:Beach&Ellis Mixed Used ED,2011 Mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14, identified in the BECSP FIR, shall be implemented (and complied with prior to issuance of any grading permit) as part of the currently proposed project to improve air quality emissions generated by construction activities associated with the currently proposed project.As shown in Table AQ-1, the construction impacts of the currently proposed project, similar to Alternative 3 and the project analyzed in the certified FIR,would exceed the established threshold for VOC, a criteria pollutant. Compliance with the BECSP Ea mitigation measures would reduce emissions of criteria pollutants, but not to the extent that the proposed project would result in emissions below the SCAQMD threshold of significance for VOC. Therefore, construction activities would exceed the SCAQMD emission thresholds for criteria pollutants during construction and this impact would be significant and unavoidable. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to FIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, would not result any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identifie, significant effects related to the violation of any air quality standard. Consequently, revisions to the Certified FIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent Elk have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. xB -761- � Item_18. - 128 ruge/,x ATTAI("P i FNT Nu. GJ -raf Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 00 ❑ concentrations? (Sources: 15) Discussion: Emissions from construction activities were estimated using the CaIEEMod emissions model. Construction emissions related to development of the currently proposed project are shown in Table AQ-1, which are identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3. For the purposes of this analysis, all emissions shown in Table AQ-1 are assumed to originate from the currently proposed project site,including use of diesel-powered construction equipment. Localized concentrations were estimated and assume implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-11. For the purposes of this analysis,the nearest existing sensitive receptors to the project site would be the existing SRO units along Ellis Avenue immediately adjacent and to the east of the project site, and the single-family properties along Ellis Avenue to the north of the proposed project site, located approximately 75 feet from the project site's property line. Because construction activities would take place in an area of less than five acres, consistent with SCAQMD LST recommendations, the LST Screening Tables were determined appropriate for determining if the LST threshold would be exceeded.Emissions would not exceed SCAQMD thresholds during the proposed projects construction at any of the identified sensitive receptors for CO,NO2 PM10,and PM2.5. With the implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-11 and Project MM4.2-15, emissions will be reduced during construction. Therefore, with mitigation, impacts to localized sensitive receptors will be less than significant during construction. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. c) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial ❑ Q 0 number of people? (Sources: 15) Discussion: The currently proposed project would not implement or facilitate uses that are significant sources of objectionable odors. Similar to Alternative 3 and the project analyzed in the certified EK potential sources of odor associated with the currently proposed project may result from construction equipment exhaust and application of asphalt and architectural coatings during construction activities,the temporary storage of typical household solid waste (refuse) associated with residential (long-term operational) uses, as well as odors produced from the various commercial uses, including restaurants. Standard construction requirements would be imposed to minimize odors from construction. Any construction-related odor emissions would be temporary, short-term, and intermittent in nature, and impacts associated with construction-related odors are expected to be less than significant.It is expected that any project-generated refuse would be stored in covered containers and removed at regular intervals in compliance with the City`s solid waste regulations. Therefore, odors associated with construction and operation of the proposed project would be less than significant The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to objectionable odors. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required, Item 18. - 129 xB -762- T�NCH IPO INT O-_4a= "- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ 11 Q 11 applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 15, 21, 22) Discussion: The 2007 AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, and to attain clean air within the region. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment, because this growth is included in the projections used to formulate the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumptions used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP, even if they exceed the SCAQMD`s recommended daily emissions thresholds. Projects that are consistent with the projections of population forecasts identified in the Growth Management chapter of SCAG`s Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide (RCPG) are considered consistent with the AQMP growth projections. This is because the Growth Management chapter of the RCPG forms the basis of the land use and transportation control portions of the 2007 AQMP. The BECSP EIR identified that full build- out of the BECSP would result in a total population increase of 12,015 residents,which was within the SCAG population projection for 2030 increase of approximately 22,795 residents. Implementation of the currently proposed project would result in the construction of up to 274 dwelling units and 8,500 sf of commercial and retail uses. As implementation of the currently proposed project would result in increased population that i- within that projected for the BECSP, similar to FIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, the proposed residentiG development would not be expected to result in an exceedance of SCAG population.projections. Therefore, as the AQN4P is based on SCAG growth projections,the currently proposed project would be consistent with the 2007 AQMP population growth projections. Based on the consistency of the approved BECSP with current SCAG projections and AQMP forecasts, the currently proposed project would not impair implementation of the AQMP, and this impact would be less than significant. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to implementation of the AQMP. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of 0 ❑ 11 El any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 15) Discussion: Similar to Alternative 3 and the project analyzed in the certified ETR, operational emissions generated by both stationary and mobile sources would result from normal day-to-day activities in the currently proposed project area after build-out. Stationary area source emissions would be generated by space and water heating devices, and the operation of landscape maintenance equipment.Mobile emissions would I generated by motor vehicles traveling to and from the project site. The analysis of daily operational emissions from the currently proposed project has been prepared utilizing the CalEEMod computer model recommended by the SCAQMD. The results of the CalEEMod calculations for HB -763- a Item 18. - 130 1 UgG LJ ATTAtt FFHFYiEN"I NUJ. �•�� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the daily operational emissions of the currently proposed project are presented in Table AQ-2 (Proposed Project Net Daily Operational Emissions). The emissions shown below are identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3 and reflect the net increase in emissions. Table AQ-2 Net Daily Operational Emissions Emissions in Pounds perAay Emissions Source VOC NOx CO Sox PM10 PM2s Water and Space Heating(Natural 0.10 0.83 0.36 0.01 0.07 0.07 gas) Landscape Maintenance 0.70 0.27 22.99 0.00 0.13 0.13 Consumer Products 8.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Architectural Coatings 1.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Motor Vehicles 20.13 1253 62.35 0.15 17.23 0.85 Maximum Daily Emissions 31.01 13.63 85.7 0.16 17.43 1.05 SCAQMD Thresholds(lb/day) 55.00 55.00 550.00 150.00 150.00 55.00 Significant Impact No No No No No No Source;Beach&Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIE,20I1 Because the currently proposed project would replace existing land uses, the emissions would increase for some pollutants and decrease for others. The currently proposed project would contribute higher levels of VOCs, SOX, and PM10 while it would produce lower emissions of NO), CO, and PM2.5 compared to the existing site development. As shown,operation of the currently proposed project would not generate emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutants. As the currently proposed project would not generate daily emissions that exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD this impact would be less than significant. However, as noted in item a) above,construction of the currently proposed project would generate emissions that would exceed the thresholds of significance recommended by the SCAQMD for VOC. Because the South Coast Air Basin is currently in nonattainment for 03(for which VOC and NOx are precursors) and PM10 under national and state standards, and is in norlattainment for CO under national standards,projects could cumulatively exceed an air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality exceedance. Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-1 through BECSP MM4.2-14 would reduce VOC emissions,but not to a less than significant level.Therefore, even with mitigation emissions during construction will remain significant and unavoidable and cumulatively considerable. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent Ea have occurred. Thus, no additional Item 18. - 131 xBo764- Al T ACHME T (n Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact environmental review is required. VI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan,ordinance or policy 0 FX_1 11 El establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system,taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets,highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths,and mass transit? (Sources: 15,29) Discussion: Transportation and Trade were analyzed in section 4.13 of EIR No. 10-004. As part of the analysis of project-related traffic impacts, Austin Foust Associates, Inc. prepared both a peer review and analysis of the traffic impacts of the project and Alternative 3, which were analyzed in the certified EIR. In addition, Overland Traffic Consultants, Inc. prepared a Supplemental Traffic Evaluation for a Mixed-Use Development at Beach & Ellis (May 3, 2012). Similar to Alternative 3, the currently proposed project is anticipated to result in a 30 percent reduction in ADT, a 22 percent reduction in the PM peak hour and a 19 percent increase in AM peal:hour compared to the approved BECSP land uses for the project site. This wF confirmed by the Supplemental Traffic Evaluation. Table T-1 (Trip Generation Comparison) provides u summary of the estimated trip generation for Alternative 3 and the currently proposed project and the approved BECSP land uses for the project site. However,these increases are minimal enough that they will not alter the operating conditions of the intersections. Table T-1 Trip Generation Comparison Peak Hour AM PM Project Description Amount 1. Out Total 1 Ia Out Total ADT Proposed Project Apartments 274 DU 28 112 140 110 59 169 1,822 Retail Center 8,500 6 4 10 10 13 23 377 Internal Capture* -1 -1 -2 -8 -8 -16 -76 Pass-by Reduction" -1 0 -1 -6 -6 -12 -29 Trip Generation Total 32 115 147 1 106 58 165 1 2,094 Approved BECSP Land Uses for the Project Site Mixed-Use Residential 120 du 12 49 61 48 26 74 806 General Commercial 71,000 43 28 71 130 135 265 3,049 Internal Capture* -4 -4 4 -8 -24 -22 -46 Pass-by Reduction** 1 -40 -42 -82 Approved BECSP Land Uses Trip Generation 51 73 124 114 97 211 2,971 Total HB -765- A'TTACHME Item g18. - 132" Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Net Change from Approved BECSP -19 1 42 23 -8 -39 -46 1 -877 %Difference from Approved BECSP -37% 58°% 19% 1 -7% 1 -40% -22% 1 -30% Existing Uses Shopping Center 27,540 17 11 28 50 52 102 1,183 Existing Land Uses Trip Generation Total 17 11 28 50 52 102 1,183 Net Change 15 104 119 56 6 63 911 from Existing %Di$erence 47% 90% 81% 53% 100/0 M% 44% from Existing Source:Austin-Foust Associates,Inc.,Traffic Impact Analysis,July 2011. Table T-2 (2030 ADT Volume Summary) summarizes the change in ADT volumes associated with the Alternative 3 and the currently proposed project, compared to the BECSP in 2030.As shown in Table T-2,all roadway segments are projected to have decreases in daily traffic volumes compared to those projected for the BECSP in 2030. Based on this reduction in ADT,the currently proposed project would not exceed anticipated daily traffic volumes identified for the BECSP, which were determined to be less than significant in the BECSP EIIL Table T-2 2030 ADT Volume Summary 2030 ADT Volume with Location 2030 BECSP ADT Volume Proposed Ppiect %Change Beach Boulevard north of Ellis 62,000 61,737 -1% Avenue Beach Boulevard south of Ellis 51,000 50,711 <-1% Avenue Beach Boulevard south of Garfield 45,000 44,711 <-I% Avenue Ellis Avenue(Main Street)west of Beach 7,000 6,947 <-1% Boulevard Ellis Avenue east of Beach 22,000 21,728 -1.2% Boulevard Source:Austin Foust Associates,Inc.,Traffic hapact Anafysis,July 2011. Table T-3 (2030 ICU Summary)shows that all study intersections would operate at an acceptable LOS in 2030 with the BECSP build out with the exception of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue, which would operate with a PM deficiency(LOS E). Because the reduction in ADT with the proposed project is too small to result in a change, the anticipated LOS at these intersections would not change. Therefore, although the currently proposed project would result in an increase in outbound vehicle trips in the AM peak hour, the proposed project would not contribute to the existing deficiency at the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue as it would not contribute to vehicle trips during the PM peak hour.Regardless,the currently proposed project would be required to make a fair share contribution to the traffic improvements identified in mitigation measures BECSP MM4.13-13 and BECSP MM4.13-14 for the Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue intersection as part of the overall BECSP development. As such, the currently proposed project would not conflict with the City`s acceptable LOS standard and a less than significant impact would occur. Item 18. - 133 HB -766- HATTACHM T O' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Table T-3 2030 ICU Summary AM Peak Hours PM Peak Hours Intersection ICU LOS ICU LOS Beach Boulevard and Talbert 85 D I.44 E Avenue Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue .64 B .78 C Main Street and Ellis Avenue 32 A .45 A Sourcc:Austin-Foust Associates,Jnc.,Traffic Impact Analysis,July 2011. Although the currently proposed project would not conflict with the City`s acceptable LOS standard under 2030 conditions, similar to Alternative 3, it could result in a conflict under existing year (2009) conditions based on existing land uses on the site (as required for the Existing plus Project condition analysis).As shown in T-1, the currently proposed project would result in a net increase of 911 daily trips, 119 trips in the AM peak hour and 71 trips in the PM peak hour compared to existing conditions. In consideration of this increase in vehicle trips generated by the currently proposed project, a potentially significant impact could occur based on existing roadway conditions surrounding the site.However,it should be noted that the Existing plus Project analysis is hypothetical because the actual build out and occupancy of the proposed project is year 2019. The Supplemental Traffic & Access Analysis prepared by Overland Traffic Consultants with updated operational analysis of the Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue intersection indicate that no significant impacts are anticipated with the currently proposed project. The traffic and transportation section of the previously approved EIR and the Austin Foust Traffic Impact Analysis indicates a project trip generation of 1,693 daily trips with 87 trips during the AM Peak Hour and 133 trips during the PM Peak Hour for a 105 unit residential and 37,000 square foot commercial project. This currently proposed project's trip generation is 43% fewer daily trips with 3011'0 fewer A1VI Peak Hour trips and 37%fewer PM Peak Hour trips than approved for the site in the Beach-Edinger Corridor Specific Plan. As previously noted, the currently proposed 274 unit residential and 8,500 square foot retail project was evaluated as Alternative 3 in the previously approved EIR The EIR indicates that this alternative generates 19% more traffic than the approved project during the AM Peak Hour but 22% less traffic during the PM Peak Hour and 30% less than the daily traffic. It has also been determined that the 22% increase during the AM Peak Hour will not create any new significant impacts. The project trip generation, as noted in the Supplemental Traffic Analysis, reduces the amount of pass by trips froze. 80% to 20% during the PM Peak Hour. Two driveways are suggested for the currently proposed project. One driveway on Beach Boulevard approximately 270 feet south of Ellis Avenue and one driveway on. Ellis Avenue aligned with Patterson Lane east of Beach Boulevard. The difference between the two projects in terms of access comes in the use of the shared access alley at the east end of the site off of Ellis Avenue. The proposed project anticipates using this access way for emergencies only,with no use by daily traffic.However, the EIR project evaluated using this access way as a standard access for daily use. The Supplemental Traffic Analysis analyzed the elimination of the alley access with primary access via the Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue driveways. The study concluded that adequate access is provided with sufficient gaps and minimal queues developing with the two proposed driveways. The currently proposed project would be required to implement mitigation measures BECSP MM4.2-a through BECSP MM4.2-10 which would ensure that construction traffic does not block the free flow of traffic. The currently proposed project would also be required to submit a traffic control plan during construction to ensure appropriate emergency access during construction. Accordingly, the proposed project would result in HB -767- Item 18. - 134 s� �, APLAP4\1 i Nn Potentially Significant P otentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact less than significant construction-related traffic impacts. The currently proposed project, which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to conflicting with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management FX-1 program, including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 15,20) Discussion: With regard to the applicable Congestion Management Plan (CMP), similar to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, the proposed project would not result in impacts to CMP intersections.As the proposed project will generate 30 percent fewer average daily trips(AM) compared to the approved BECSP land uses for the project site, the currently proposed project's contribution to CMP intersections would be less than identified in the BECSP EIR, which resulted in a less than significant impact. Therefore, a less than significant impact to CMP intersections would occur as a result of the currently proposed project and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to a congestion management program. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required_ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either FX-1 an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 15,29) Discussion: The project area is not located within 2 miles of a public or private airstrip. However, a private helipad is located 1.5 miles north of the project site on the rooftop of the office tower located at the southwest comer of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. Similar to Alternative 3 and the project analyzed in the certified EIR, the currently proposed project would not result in a change to the air traffic patterns of this helipad. The project does not propose any structures of substantial height that would interfere with existing airspace or flight patterns.No impact would occur and no additional environmental review is required. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature 11 ❑ 0 11 (e.g_, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses? (Sources: 15) Discussion: Similar to the proj ect and Alternative 3 analyzed in the certified EIR,the currently proposed prof ect would not substantially increase hazards due to design features or incompatible uses nor would the currently proposed project result in inadequate emergency access.Field observations were conducted on April 25,2012 to determine the available traffic gaps on Ellis Avenue at approximately 200 feet east of Beach Boulevard.The proposed project driveway volumes and locations were evaluated for sufficient gaps for exiting and entering,potential on and off-site queues,potential street lane striping changes,and turn Item 18. - 135 xB -768- ATTAR` MENT NO 5 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact restrictions.The proposed 28 foot right turn in and right turn out driveway on Beach Boulevard will operate efficiently and effectively without changes. The proposed 24 foot full access driveway on Ellis Avenue approximately 200 feet off Beach Boulevard may create queues during the PM Peak Hour.It is recommended that the driveway instead be aligned with Patterson Lane to operate efficiently with clear right-of-way assignment and the greatest opportunity to make turning movements with sufficient gaps in traffic.In addition, a review of five years of accident data history indicates an average of two accidents per year potentially created by the driveways along the project site.The number of driveways will be reduced with the proposed project with the current driveways closest to the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue,which potentially create the greatest conflicts,no longer in use. Plans for the currently proposed project would also be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach Fire Department for review and approval to ensure that adequate emergency access is provided. Further, the currently proposed project will be required to prepare a traffic control plan for its construction; this would ensure adequate emergency access would be maintained during construction. As such, impacts related to design hazards and emergency access have been determined to be less than significant with compliance of existing regulations and no additional environmental review is required Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur as a result of the currently proposed project and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to design hazards and emergency access. Consequently, revisions to the Certified E1R are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: see ❑ ❑ 0 El above) Discussion: See d) above. f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 15) El El El El Discussion: The amount of parking provided on the currently proposed project site would be designed to comply with the Parking Regulations established in BECSP Section 2.1.4 for the Town Center Neighborhood designation.All parking is proposed in a parking structure internal to the site, accessible from driveways on Beach Boulevard,Warmer Avenue and the existing private alleyway. Compliance with city requirements and the site plan review process would ensure impacts related to parking are less than significant and no additional environmental review is required. g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs El Q El regarding public transit,bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (Sources: 15) Discussion: As the currently proposed project would be located in close proximity to public transportation, is easily walkable to the Five Points shopping center, and is subject to the same design requirements included in the BECSP, the currently proposed project would promote and allows for the use of alternative transportatic modes. Accordingly, like the project and Alternative 3 analyzed in the certified EIR, the currently proposea project is compatible with adopted policies, plans and programs regarding alternative transportation; and this impact would be less than significant and no additional environmental review is required. HB -769- qt �9 �Item 18. - 136 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or El0 El through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S,Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: IS) Discussion.- Biological Resources were analyzed in section 4.3 of EIR No. 10-004. As analyzed in the certified ERR, according to the Generalized Habitat Area map,Figure ERC-2 of the Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element, no riparian habitat, sensitive habitats, or natural communities are located within the project site. As a result,no suitable habitat for sensitive mammal, reptile, amphibian, or fish species exists within the project site. Furthermore, the BECSP EIR concluded that no endangered, rare, threatened, or special-status plant or wildlife species, or their associated habitats designated by the USFWS Endangered and Threatened Species List, California Department of Fish and Games (CDFG), or CNPS are known to occur within the BECSP area.As the currently proposed project site is included within the BECSP area,this condition would apply to the project site. Vegetations on the project site is limited to trees and landscaping associated with the existing commercial uses. Within the parking lot trees located on the project site, there is the potential for birds protected under the MBTA to nest. Prior to any construction activities occurring between February 15 and August 31 annually (breeding season), a nesting bird survey would be conducted as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.3-1. In the event that active nests are identified within 250 feet of the construction site, a 100-foot no work buffer would be maintained between the nest and construction activity. Consultation with the CDFG and USFWS is also encouraged. This survey would be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit.As such,implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.3-1 would ensure protection of migratory bird species and habitat through focused surveys and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S, Fish. and Wildlife Service. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent ERR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat 0 or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 15) Discussion: According to the Generalized Habitat Area map,Figure ERC-2 of the Huntington Beach General Plan Environmental Resources/Conservation Element, no sensitive natural communities are located in the BECSP area. No riparian habitat exists within the BECSP area, including the currently proposed project site. Further, the project site is developed and could not support riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. As such, the currently proposed project would not have a direct effect upon any riparian habitat Item 18. - 137 HB -770- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated impact No Impact or other sensitive natural communities.This is considered a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Consequently, revisions to the Certified E1R are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent E1R have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected 11 El El wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool, coastal, etc.)through direct removal,filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? (Sources: 15) Discussion: There are no wetlands within the project site, as defined by the Clean Water Act or the Fish and Game Code of California. The currently proposed project would result in no impact to federally protected wetlands and no additional environmental review is required. d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native 0 11 El resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 15, 16) Discussion; The BECSP area does not function as an important regional wildlife corridor because it has been developed, paved, landscaped, and/or graded. This is true of the proposed project site. The project site and areas immediately surrounding the project site are highly urbanized, and are considered to be fully built out with commercial and residential development. As such, with the possible exception of migratory birds, the BECSP area and the currently proposed project site do not fit into an identified wildlife movement category (travel route,wildlife corridor, or wildlife crossing). Within the parking lot trees located on the project site, there is the potential for birds protected under the MBTA to nest. Prior to any construction activities occurring between February 15 and August 31 annually (breeding season), a nesting bird survey would be conducted as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.3-1. In the event that active nests are identified within 250 feet of the construction site, a 100-foot no work buffer would be maintained between the nest and construction activity. Consultation with the CDFG and USFWS is also encouraged. This survey would be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit. As such, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.3-1 would ensure protection of migratory bird species and habitat through focused surveys and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substanti increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the movement of any native, resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or native wildlife nursery sites. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EM are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have HB -771- Item 18. - 138 r ug s✓a A T',rA r --1 R I P KIT K!() -� / Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting El biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources:14, 15) Discussion: Biological resources on the project site are limited to trees and landscaping. The City of Huntington Beach Tree Ordinance (Chapter 13.50 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code) requires the applicant to obtain a permit from.the Public Works Department for any activity that may disturb trees of any kind.The City`s Tree Ordinance:requires submittal of a landscape plan demonstrating compliance with current code requirements and the replacement of existing mature healthy trees to be removed at a minimum of 2:1 ratio with 36-inch box or palm.equivalent. Approval of tramming, removing, or replacing trees by the Director of Public Works in association with replacement requirements would ensure that the proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The proposed project would result in a less than significant impact and no additional environmental review is required. f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted HabitatEl Q ❑ El Conservation Plan.,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 15, 16) Discussion: No habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan is applicable to the BECSP area, including the currently proposed project site, and no impact would occur due to conflict with a plan and no additional environmental review is required. VIM MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral El El resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: 15,23) Discussion: Mineral Resources were analyzed in section 4.10 of EIR No. 10-004. As discussed in the certified EIR., the City of Huntington Beach General Plan does not indicate that there are any mineral resources in or near the project site. The California Geological Survey (CGS) did not map any mineral resources in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site or within the immediate vicinity of the currently proposed project site. The currently proposed project would not involve the extraction of mineral resources that would result in loss of availability of any mineral resource that would be of value to the region. In addition, the project site is not designated as an important mineral resource recovery site in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan or any other land use plan. The currently proposed project would not involve the extraction of mineral resources that would result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resources recovery site. There would be no impact and no additional environmental review is required. b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important11 Q ❑ FX_1 mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan,or other land use plan? (Sources: see above) Discussion: See a)above. Item 18. - 139 HB -772- 1 CHM1E` T 0-..-_. .2` Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): lmpact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX.E AZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the ❑ ❑ 21 El environment through the routine transport,use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 15,24,25) Discussion: Hazards and Hazardous Materials were analyzed in section 4.6 of FIR No. 10-004. That analysis stated that exposure of the public or the environment to hazardous materials could occur in the following manner as a result of the project: improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes particularly by untrained personnel; transportation accident; environmentally unsound disposal methods; or fire, explosion or other emergencies. The severity of potential effects varies with the activity conducted, the concentration and type of hazardous material or wastes present, and the proximity of sensitive receptors. The types and amounts of hazardous materials would vary according to the nature of the activity at the project site. Hazardous materials regulations were established at the state level to ensure compliance with federal regulations intended to reduce the risk to human health and the environment from the routine use of hazardous substances. To ensure that workers and others at the project site are not exposed to unacceptable levels of risk associated with the use and handling of hazardous materials,employers and businesses are required to implement existir hazardous materials regulations, with compliance monitored by state (e.g., OSHA in the workplace or DTS(- for hazardous waste) and local jurisdictions (e.g., the HBFD). Adherence to existing hazardous materials regulations would ensure compliance with existing safety standards related to the handling, use and storage of hazardous materials, and compliance with the safety procedures mandated by applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations (Resource Conservation Recovery Act [RCRA], California Hazardous Waste Control Law, and principles prescribed by the California Department of Health Services [DHS], Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and National Institutes of Health). The currently proposed project includes residential and commercial uses, and, similar to the project and Alternative 3 analyzed in the certified EIR, does not include a component that would traditionally introduce hazards or hazardous materials to the project site. Hazardous materials associated with the occupancy of the residential component of the proposed project would include typical household cleaning products-as well as typical maintenance supplies. Hazardous materials associated with operation of the proposed retail uses of the proposed project could include typical maintenance products as well as maintenance products for upkeep of the grounds and landscape formulated with hazardous substances, including fuels, cleaners and degreasers, solvents, paints, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. The United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) Office of Hazardous Materials Safety prescribes strict regulations for the safe transportation of hazardous materials, as described in Titles 40, 42, 45, and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), and implemented by Titles 17, 19, and 27 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR). The transportation of hazardous materials can result in accidental spills, leaks, toxic releases, fire, or explosion. Adherence to these regulations, which requires compliance with all applicable federal and state laws related to the transportation of hazardous materials, would reduce the likelihood and severity of accidents that might occur during transit. Similar to the analysis in the certified EIR(No. 10-004), operation of the proposed project would not require the handling of hazardous or other materials that would result in the production of large amounts of hazardous waste. The construction phase of the proposed project may generate hazardous and/or toxic waste. federal, HB -773- TIACHME Item 18 140 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact incorporated Impact No Impact state, and local regulations govern the disposal of wastes identified as hazardous which could be produced in the course of demolition and construction. Asbestos, lead, or other hazardous materials encountered during demolition or construction activities would be disposed of in compliance with all applicable regulations for the handling of such waste. Should the use and/or storage of hazardous materials at the project site rise to a level subject to regulation, those uses would be required to comply with federal and state laws to eliminate or reduce the consequence of hazardous material accidents resulting from routine use, disposal and storage of hazardous materials on the project site during both the construction and operation phases of the project to a less than significant level. The currently proposed project, which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR.are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. b) Create a s ignif cant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 15, 24,25, 26,27) Discussion: Demolition, grading and limited excavation activities for development of the proposed project could result in the exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances in the soil. Exposure to hazardous substances could occur from soil contamination caused by historic uses(gas station and dry cleaner) on the site,migrating contaminants originating at nearby listed sites, or from construction-related soil contamination caused by spillage and/or mixing of construction trash and debris into the soil. If any unidentified sources of contamination are encountered during demolition, grading, or excavation, the removal activities required could pose health and safety risks capable of resulting in various short-term or long-term adverse health effects in exposed persons. In order to address the potential for encountering contamination within the project area, a Phase I ESA report and a Phase H Investigation report were prepared for the previously certified EIR, as required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-1 to investigate potential contamination and require remediation if necessary, prior to issuance of any occupancy permits. The Phase I, completed in January 2007 by SCS, revealed that the active gas station is a LUST site with ongoing remediation of soil and quarterly groundwater monitoring under the oversight of the SARWQCB and OCHCA. To remediate any existing conditions at the project site various work plans have been submitted to and were approved by OCHCA. These work plans include an Additional Site Assessment to address potential soil and groundwater contamination, separate phase hydrocarbon removal, soil vapor survey, and the installation of a "deep zone" groundwater monitoring well. Remediation efforts would continue with implementation of the proposed project for an indeterminate time.As part of the proposed project, existing monitoring equipment that is currently located outside will be relocated within the proposed parking garage to allow for testing and treatment of the aquifer. Identification and remediation of known contamination on the project site was required by the previously certified EIR and is also required for the proposed project.Mitigation measures to be implemented 'include BECSP MM4.6-1 and BECSP MM4.6-2, which requires the preparation and implementation of a Risk Management Plan in the event that unknown or unidentified soil and/or groundwater is encountered would minimize the potential risk of contamination created by implementation of the proposed project. Item 18. - 141 HB -774- A lTACh ENT O& ,��.. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact As analyzed in the certified EIR, demolition of existing structures could result in exposure of construction personnel and the public to hazardous substances such as asbestos or lead-based paints. Federal and state regulations govern the renovation and demolition of structures where materials containing lead and asbestos are present. These requirements include: South Coast Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD)Rules and Regulations pertaining to asbestos abatement (including Rule 1403); Construction Safety Orders 1529 (pertaining to asbestos) and 1532.1 (pertaining to lead) from Title S of the CCR; Part 61, Subpart M, of the CFR(pertaining to asbestos); and lead exposure guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Asbestos and lead abatement roust be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certifications from the state Department of Health Services. In addition, California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal-OSHA)has regulations concerning the use of hazardous materials, including requirements for safety training, availability of safety equipment, hazardous materials exposure warnings, and emergency action and fire prevention plan preparation. While it is anticipated that operation of the proposed project, similar to that analyzed in the certified EIR, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment, this operational analysis presents the potential possibilities of such a risk. Development of the proposed project would include the use of and storage of common hazardous materials such as paints, solvents, and cleaning products. Additionally, grounds and landscape maintenance could also use a vaziety of products formulated with hazardous materials, including fuels, cleaners, lubricants, adhesives, sealers, and pesticides/herbicides. The properties and heap effects of different chemicals are unique to each chemical and depend on the extent to which an individual is exposed. The extent and exposure of individuals to hazardous materials would be limited by the relatively small quantities of these materials that would be stored and used on the project site. As common maintenance products and chemicals would be used in conformance with warning labels and storage recommendations from the individual manufacturers, these hazardous materials would not pose any greater risk than at any other similar development. Through development of the proposed project, hazardous materials could be stored within the project site, but the materials would generally be in the form of routinely used common chemicals. Further, as described above, ongoing remediation efforts at the project site would continue with implementation of the proposed project. Accordingly, as with the previously certified EIR, groundwater contamination that could potentially occur with operation of the proposed project, but would not be likely, could be detected through groundwater monitoring. Therefore, the probability of a major hazardous materials incident would be remote, and this impact would be less than significant. The previously approved EIR identifies that the proposed project site is located within a Methane Overlay District and is therefore subject to mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-3,which requires the project to comply with HBFD City Specification No. 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirement prior to issuance of a grading permit. Specifically, the Applicant would be required to submit a plan for the testing of soils for the presence of methane gas to determine if a problem exists and to rule methane out as a potential concern to the HBFD prior to commencement of sampling. In the event that methane gas is discovered,appropriate measures to reduce the potential impacts of methane gas to future occupants and visitors of the project site would be required as per City Specification No. 429 (Methane District Building Permit Requirements) and mitigation measures BECSP NRA4.6-3. Implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-3 would reduce any impacts associated with methane gas by ensuring that appropriate testing and methods of gas detection ar implemented at the project site, as required by the HBFD. As such, the potential impacts associated wit, methane gas would be reduced to a less than significant level. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial HB -775- aer Item -s.�,g2 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact hrcorporated Impact No Impact increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred.. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or El El 0 Q acutely hazardous material, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources: 15) Discussion: As identified in the previously certified EIR,the project site is located 0.13 mile west of Child of Faith Preschool. Construction activities would involve the utilization of diesel-powered trucks and equipment, which would result in temporary diesel emissions that have been determined to be a health hazard. Similar to the project and Alternative 3 analyzed in the certified EIR, operation of retail and residential uses of the proposed project would include the handling and/or storage of potentially hazardous materials typical of these uses on the project site; however, the types of hazardous materials anticipated would be limited to regulated types and quantities (i.e., household cleaners, landscaping chemicals, etc.). Compliance with existing regulations would minimize the risks associated with the exposure of sensitive receptors,including schools,to hazardous materials. Therefore, the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact related to the emissions or handling of hazardous materials within the vicinity of schools and would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to hazardous emissions or waste within a quarter mile of a school. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent Ea have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of 0 hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 13, 15) AT Item 18. - 143 HB -776- = T H ME T NO. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)_ Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: According to the Phase I, which was prepared for the previously certified EM, the existing gas station is a Leaking Underground Storage Tank CUM) site with on-going remediation of soil and quarterly groundwater monitoring under the oversight of the SARWQCB and. OCHCA. Subsequently, various work plans have been submitted to and approved by OCHCA to continue remediation efforts at the existing gas station. In addition, the dry cleaning facility operations used PCE on site since at least 1981. A Phase R investigation was conducted in February 2008 for the previously certified EIR. The Phase R analyzed the dry cleaning facility and determined that there were levels of PCE and TCE above the residential and industrial CHHSL.However, a no further action letter was submitted to the OCHCA on July 16, 2010 for the dry cleaner facility after a vapor extraction system successfully remediated the site to a below detectable concentration in the extracted vapor. According to the previously certified EIR, the proposed project site is not included on the U-S. Environmental Protection Agency's CERCLIS database and Department of Toxic and Substances Controls EnviroStor. Based on review of the SWRCB`s GeoTracker website, as discussed in the previously approved ERR,the proposed project site is included on the environmental databases as a LUST site,as noted in the Phase R. As required by mitigation. measure BECSP MM4.6-1, and discussed above, a Phase I and Phase II were prepared for the project site to determine if the site has a record of hazardous material contamination and is included on a list of hazardous materials sites. Mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-1 also required that in the event that contamination is found, the ESA would identify the nature and extent of contamination, and determine the need for further investigation and/or remediation of the soils conditions on the project site. p identified above, studies prepared for the project site, including the Phase L Phase RI, and Additional Site Assessment (Appendices B1, B2, and B3 in EIR 10-004) have identified the extent of contamination and subsequently, work plans to remediate identified contamination have been submitted to and approved by OCHCA_ This impact is less than significant and there have been no changes in the site since certification of the EIR that would necessitate further environmental review with respect to the listing of the site on State databases and the identification of potential environmental impacts. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 11 El where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or pubic use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 15) xB -777- ��TACH s Item 18. - 144- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Signif taut Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No impact Discussion: Similar to the previously certified EIR, the proposed project would not interfere with airport or aircraft operations as the nearest airport to the project site is the Joint Forces Training Center Los Alamitos located at least five miles to the northwest_ There are no private airstrips in the nearby vicinity; however, as identified in the previously certified EIR, there is an existing helipad 1.47 miles north of the proposed project site on the rooftop of the sixteen-story office tower at the southwest corner of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. A helipad is a designated area, including buildings or facilities, intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. Safety issues include hazards posed to aircraft from structures located within navigable airspace and crash hazards posed by helicopters to people and property on the ground.However,the existence of such a facility does not necessarily represent an impending impact for residents. Further, according to the previously approved EK the existing helipad has not been used in over three years. In addition,the proposed project would not alter the helipad use. Implementation of the proposed project would increase the number of residents potentially exposed to helipad safety hazards; however, as discussed above (Section 11. Population and Housing), the number of new residents is the same as anticipated in Alternative 3.In addition,helipads also represent a safety feature on tall buildings in that they can be used during emergencies, such as a fire in the building. Operation of the existing helipad is required to comply with requirements of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) for Orange County, and CaltranslDivision of Aeronautics, in addition to any other local requirements.As such,this impact would be less than significant. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to air traffic or airport land use plans. Consequently, revisions to the Certified E1R are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent ElR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: see above) Discussion: See e)above. g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an El El El El adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 15) Item 18. - 145 HB -778- TTA C HIM EE N T N 0z,3 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Sigpificant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: As required by law, the proposed project would be required to provide adequate access for emergency vehicles. Additionally, development would be required to regulate the storage of flammable and explosive materials and their transport within the project site, and would comply with applicable Uniform Fire Code regulations for issues including fire protection systems and equipment, general safety precautions, and distances of structures to fire hydrants. As discussed in the previously approved EK temporary short-term construction impacts on street traffic adjacent to the project site due to roadway and infrastructure improvements and the potential extension of construction activities into the right-of-way could result in a reduction of the number of lanes or temporary closure of segments of Beach Boulevard or Ellis Avenue. Similar to the analysis in the previously certified EIR, any such impacts would be limited to the construction period of the project and would affect only adjacent streets or intersections. However, mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-4 would ensure that emergency response teams for the City of Huntington Beach, including HBFD and Huntington Beach Police Department (HBPD) would be notified of any lane closures during construction activities on the project site and that a minimum one lane would remain open at all times to provide adequate emergency access to the site and surrounding neighborhoods. Implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.6-4 would ensure that proposed development would provide adequate access for emergency vehicles,and the proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. Compared with the original project and Alternative 3, there are no changes in construction or project design for the currently proposed project that mould result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to emergency response ( evacuation plans. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, El El injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 15) Discussion: The project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of the urban landscape and include commercial uses. As discussed in the previously certified EIR, no wildlands exist within the immediate vicinity of the proposed project site. Consequently,development of the proposed project would not result in an impact due to the exposure of people or structures to hazards associated with wildland fires. There would be no impact and no additional environmental review is required. X. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels inEl N excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 14, 15, 30) Discussion: Noise was analyzed is section 4.9 of EIR No. 10-004. Similar to the project analyzed in th, certified EIR, demolition of all existing structures and construction of new mixed uses would occur with the currently proposed project. As analyzed in the certified EIR,the closest noise sensitive receptors to the project site would be the uses located immediately east of the site along Ellis Avenue and the residential uses located HB -779- Item 18. - 146 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact to the north of the project site across from Ellis Avenue. These residential uses are approximately 75 feet from the project site. Construction activity noise levels at these residential uses would be approximately 83 dBA during the excavation/grading and external finishing phases of the currently proposed project. While construction noise could be a nuisance to nearby sensitive uses, compliance with the City`s Noise Ordinance would ensure that construction noise impacts remain less than. significant. Implementation of identified mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3 would reduce temporary construction noise impacts,and construction-related noise would be less than significant. In addition, Veneklasen Associates (VA) performed noise measurements at three locations on the project site on Thursday February 2, 2012 for a Noise Study (dated April 26, 2012) pursuant to BECSP MM 4.9-5. The measured noise level varied from 66-73 dBA. VA calculated the existing and fixture Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise levels at various locations within the project site based on the existing measurements and future traffic projections.To simplify the analysis and presentation of their results, VA has separated the site into Zones based on the sound exposure(Figure N). Figure N:Noise Exposure Zones Lone l4 E $d L S L W L #r✓ Lr B1 B4 l , ql kI ' Al TIMi j iiZone A Zone C 82 ___ — ------VX A ucx. A2 Al Alt B7 � .45 � St S7 � ' t ; Al zone D 64 j At fi5 A3 Al Zee 8 Zone G Zesne R ` ! f nG131f{ FLOOR PLAV-LEVEL 2 �- Item 18. - 147 HB -780 ATMCHMPIT NO. - P otentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The noise study concluded the residential units located on the interior courtyard will be exposed to sound pressure levels below acceptable thresholds given the shielding that is provided by the building. In these areas, no extra acoustical requirements are applicable. The residential units in Zones A, B and C will require upgraded glazing for windows and patio/balcony doors to comply with the interior noise criteria of 45 dBA and because the windows and doors must be kept closed to meet the noise requirements at some locations, mechanical ventilation is required in these zones. The residential units located in Zone D will also require mechanical ventilation, though upgraded glazing is not required. The mechanical ventilation shall meet all Code requirements, including the capability to provide sufficient fresh air exchanges, without depending on open windows or leakage through windows and doors. The ventilation system shall not compromise the sound insulation capability of the exterior fagade assembly. The noise levels for exterior balconies(Zones A through D) range from 63 to 75 CNEL. Disclosure notices will be provided to all future tenants regarding potential ambient noise. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive El El El groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 15) Discussion: As analyzed in the certified EIR, vibration levels could reach approximately 78 VdB within 75 feet of the project site. As such, sensitive receptors would not experience vibration levels that would exceed the FTA`s vibration impact threshold of 85 VdB for human annoyance and this impact would be less than significant and no additional environmental review is required. c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise F1 El levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 15,30) HB -781- , Item 18. - 148 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR, there would be operational noise impacts generated by residential uses such as mechanical equipment(HVAC).Installation of shielding around HVAC systems would be required by mitigation measure BECSP MM4.9-4, which would further reduce HVAC noise levels. The currently proposed project would result in an intensification of human activity at the proposed project site with the introduction of a permanent, residential population. This could increase noise levels at the identified off-site residential receptors. Similar to the project and Alternative 3, once operational,noise levels from residential and retail activities on the project site are not anticipated to be greater than the established 55 dBA limit for residential zones. With implementation of mitigation.measures BECSP MN44.9-4 and BECSP MM4.9-5, operational noise would remain less than significant. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to ambient noise levels in the proj ect vicinity. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient ❑ FRI El El noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 15, 30) Discussion: Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR, construction activities would represent a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels. As analyzed in the certified EIR, construction activities could reach 83 dBA at 50 feet. As such, the noise generated by construction activities for the currently proposed project could result in a temporary increase in ambient noise levels of over 3 dBA at uses adjacent to the project site.However,the construction activities would only occur during the permitted hours designated in the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code, and thus would not occur during recognized sleep hours for residences or on days that residents are most sensitive to exterior noise (Sundays and holidays). As such, while an increase in ambient noise levels could occur from the construction activities associated with the currently proposed project, an adverse effect on the nearby residents would not occur because construction noise is not restricted pursuant to the Municipal Code as long as it occurs during permitted hours. Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.9-1 through BECSP MM4.9-3 would further reduce this impact to less than significant.In addition, similar to the project analyzed in the certified EIR,there would be no temporary or periodic noise increases to on or off-site receptors due to operation of the proposed project. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two ❑ El ❑ 0 miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources:3, 15) Item 18. - 149 HB -782- TACHIMENT O, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated impact No Impact Discussion: As identified in the certified EIR, the project site is not located within 2 miles of a public airport, public use airport, or private airstrip. There are no private airstrips in the nearby vicinity; however there is an existing helipad 1.47 miles north of the proposed project site on the rooftop of the fifteen-story office tower at the southwest comer of Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue. A helipad is a designated area, including buildings or facilities, intended to be used for the landing and takeoff of helicopters. However,the existence of such a facility does not necessarily represent an impending impact for residents. Further, the existing helipad has not been used in over three years and the currently proposed project for that site would not alter the helipad use. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not expose people to excessive noise from airports.No impact would occur and no additional environmental review is required. f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, El 11 would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: see above) Discussion: See e)above. M.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? (Sources: 15) El 0 El 11 Discussion: Public Services were analyzed in section 4.11 of EIR No. 10-004. As noted above (Section II. Population and Housing), development of 274 residential units would result in a new residential population of approximately 732 persons at the site. All development plans prepared for the currently proposed project would be reviewed by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to construction to ensure that adequate fire flows would be maintained. Compliance with all required policies, rules,and regulations would ensure that the currently proposed project would not require any new or physically altered fire facilities to maintain adequate response times and staffing, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1 would ensure that the HBFD receives adequate staffing and/or equipment to maintain acceptable levels of service. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to acceptable levels of HBFD service in the project vicinity. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. b) Police Protection? (Sources: 15) 11 0 El ❑, Discussion: As noted in the certified EIR, the Huntington Beach Police Department has 235 sworn officers HB -783- Item 18. - 150 ,4TT. C �E1N t N U-. -Y= Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact and currently employs a total of 215 sworn officers, currently protecting 203,484 residents in the City. The currently proposed project could result in up to 732 new residents.As analyzed in the certified Elk and using the worst-case population increase scenario, the additional 732 residents generated by the currently proposed project is not expected to notably affect Huntington Beach Police Department resources given that general fund monies from increased property tax revenue associated with development as well as other fee revenues (Le., building permit fees) may be used to augment equipment levels. Further, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.11-1 would ensure that adequate staffing levels are maintain(,-d. Therefore, persons on site or elsewhere in the City would not be exposed to increased risks as a result of the currently proposed project. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to acceptable levels of Huntington Beach Police Department service in the project vicinity. Consequently, revisions to the Certified E1R are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. c) Schools? (Sources: 15) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Discussion: As discussed in the certified EIR, the project site would be served by the HBUHSD and the HBCSD. Based on a student generation rate of 0.1624 students per housing unit for elementary school students, 0.0812 students per housing unit for middle school students, and 0.1367 students per housing unit for high school student, as noted in the analysis of Alternative 3, the currently proposed project would generate approximately 46 elementary school students, 22 middle school students, and 38 high school students for a total of 106 students. As such, direct population growth resulting from the currently proposed project would not have an impact on the capacity of Huntington Beach Nigh School and Perry Elementary School, as these schools are not currently overcrowded and could accommodate students generated by this currently proposed project but would contribute to existing overcrowded conditions at Dwyer Middle School. This impact would be addressed through with implementation of code requirement CR4.11-1 and CR4.11-3, which requires the payment of school impact fees. Accordingly, development of the currently proposed project would not require any new or physically altered school facilities to serve the currently proposed project, the construction of which could result in significant environmental impacts. This impact would be less_than significant and no additional environmental review is required. d) Parks? (Sources: 1, 15) ❑ ❑ 0 ❑ Discussion: As noted in the certified M policy RCS 2.1.1 of the City`s General Plan requires that the City`s park to population ratio is maintained at 5 acres of public parks(which includes beaches).Based on the DOF`s 2010 population estimate for the City of Huntington Beach of 203,484 residents, the City currently has a ratio of approximately 4.9 acres of parkland per 1,000 persons, which is slightly under the established park standard. With implementation of the currently proposed project,the City`s estimated 2010 population would be increased by 732 residents,for a total of 204,216 residents.Although the currently proposed project, similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR,would result in direct population growth, the City`s existing parkland to population ratio would not be significantly reduced and would remain at 4.9 acres per 1,000 residents.Additionally,compliance with BECSP Section 2.6 and compliance with Chapter 254.08 of the City`s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (BECSP CR4.12-1), would reduce potential impacts to recreation and would ensure that requirements of the BECSP and the General Plan are satisfied.Therefore,the currently proposed project would not result in the increased use of existing parks such that substantial physical Item 18. - 151 HB -784- ATTACHMENT O. 5 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact deterioration would occur or be accelerated. This impact is considered less than significant and no additional environmental review is required. e) Other public facilities or governmental services? ❑ (Sources: 15) Discussion: The currently proposed project would place a higher demand on services provided by the Huntington Beach Library System, similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified Ea The currently proposed project would contribute to the current condition of the City`s library system being severely under staffed and staffmg would need to be increased to meet current professional service standards for both current and new residents. Implementation of code requirement CR4.11-3 would be required to ensure that these additional residents would not notably affect the current ratio of staff per resident. Library service impacts would be less than significant and no additional environmental review is required. Xfl. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of theEl 11 FX-1 applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 15) Discussion: Utilities and Service Systems were analyzed in section 4.14 of EM No. 10-004. The NPDES permit system requires that all existing and future municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters within the City be subject to specific discharge requirements. Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR,the currently proposed project would not result in the discharge of wastewater to any surface water. instead, operational discharges will be sent to the projects sewer system, which would ultimately be treated at one or more of the OCSD wastewater treatment plants. The OCSD wastewater treatment plants are rewired to comply with their associated waste discharge requirements (WDRs). WDRs set the levels of pollutants allowable in water discharged from a facility. Compliance with any applicable WDRs, as monitored and enforced by the OCSD,would ensure that the currently proposed project would not exceed the applicable wastewater treatment requirements of the SARWQCB with respect to discharges to the sewer system. This would result in a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to wastewater treatment requirements. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. b) Require or result in the construction of new water or El ❑ 0 wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 15, 18) Discussion: The currently proposed project, similar to Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EM,woui, result in a water demand of 56,075 gallons per day(gpd), as shown in Table U-1 (Water Demand for Proposed Project), an increase compared to the project analyzed in the certified EIR, which generates 29,525 gpd. As noted in the certified EIR,the Diemer Filtration Plant has an operating capacity of 520 million gallons per day HB -785- A]-TACK EIt em 1 8, -1 52 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact (mgd) and treats approximately 213 mgd, while the Jensen Filtration Plant currently has an operating capacity of 750 mgd and treats approximately 420 mgd. If the imported water demand of the currently proposed project was treated solely at either Filtration Plant, this increase would represent less than 1 percent of the remaining capacities of either facility. The development of the currently proposed project would not directly result in the construction of new treatment facilities or expanded water treatment facilities. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required_ Table U-1. Water Demand for Currently Proposed Project Currently Proposed Project Land Use Generation Rates Chits Total Remand Residential 200 gpd/du 274 units 0.084 afy(54,800 gpd) Retail 0.15 gpd/sf 8,500 sf 0.008 afy(1,275 gpd) Total _ 156,075 gpd(0.056mgd)(62.81 afy) Source:PBS&J,Water Supply Assessment,August 2DD9 c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water El ❑ El ❑ drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 15,.18) Discussion: Incorporation of on-site attenuation and detention system into project design, as described above and as recommended in the Hydrology Study prepared for the currently proposed project, would mitigate the increased runoff and subsequently the proposed site runoff will conform to the current capacity of the existing downstream storm drain system. As a result, the currently proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities.This would be a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred_ Thus,no additional environmental review is required. d) have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Q 0 El El project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 15) Item 18. - 153 HB -786- AT TAG HNAENT NO. X-agu'tv Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than ISSUES and Supporting Information Sources): Significant Mitigation Significant upP g ) Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: As discussed in the certified EK development of the currently proposed project would result in an increased demand for municipal water services compared to existing conditions. The City would be able to provide a reliable source of water to accommodate its existing users and the additional demand on water supplies created by the currently proposed project for the 20-year projection. The City`s conservation programs coupled with increased groundwater would improve water supply reliability. In addition, implementation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.14-1 would serve to reduce the municipal water demand from the currently proposed project. Therefore this impact would be less than significant. The project Applicant shall submit building plans for approval to the City of Huntington Beach to incorporate the project conditions to ensure that conservation and efficient water use practices are implemented.. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to adequate wastewater treatment capacity. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identifier' significant effects related to available water supplies. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are ni required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required- e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment FX-J provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? (Sources: 15) Discussion: The currently proposed project would include the development of 274 residential units and approximately 8,500 sf of commercial space. As shown in Table U-2 (Wastewater Generated from Currently Proposed Project), originally analyzed for Alternative 3 in the certified EM, the currently proposed project would generate approximately 70,200 gpd(0.07 mgd) of wastewater that would be transported by the City`s sewer system. Table U-2 Wastewater Generated by Currently Proposed Project Land use Quantity Duty Factor Estimated Flow Residential 274 du 250 gpd/du 68,500 gpd Commercial 8,500 sf 02 gpd/sf 1,700 gpd Total — — 70,200 gpd(0.07mgd)(78.63 afy) Source:City of Huntington Beach,Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan M-,Section 4.14,2009. The project developer would be responsible for constructing local mains and extensions to serve the currently proposed project. Prior to allowing additional connections to the sewer lines, the capacity of the existing sewers would need to be confirmed and a sewer study would be needed at the time of development to determine if the existing sewer lines need to be upgraded to accommodate the currently proposed proiect`s HB -787- Item 18. - 154 . _b ATTArl A F-EM i N() `D -7 1 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact sewer flow. The currently proposed project would be required to implement code requirements BECSP CR4.14-1 and BECSP CR4.14-2. In addition, any development connecting directly or indirectly to the OCSD sewer system is required to pay a connection fee in accordance with the OCSD Connection Fee Master Ordinance. The Connection Fee Program ensures that all users pay their fair share of any necessary expansion of the system, including expansion to wastewater treatment facilities.These fees are considered full Mitigation under CEQA for potential impacts resulting from project development. Construction of the wastewater collection systems for the currently proposed project would adhere to existing laws and regulations, and the infrastructure would be sized appropriately for the project. Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR, individual water and wastewater connections would occur as part of the currently proposed project. Th addition, code requirements BECSP CR4.14-1 and BECSP CR4.14-2 would ensure that proper sewer connections are provided for at the project site. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted 0 0 capacity to accommodate the proj ecf s solid waste disposal needs? (Sources_ 15) Discussion: The currently proposed project would increase the overall amount of solid waste generated at the project site. Similar to Alternative 3 in the certified EK the currently proposed project is estimated to produce approximately 1,147 pounds per day and approximately 418,655 pounds per year of solid waste. As noted in the analysis of Alternative 3, this translates to a generation rate of approximately 0.57 ton of solid waste per day and 209.33 tons of solid waste per year as shown in Table U-3 (Waste Generated from Proposed Project). Rainbow Disposal is the exclusive hauler of all solid waste for the City of Huntington Beach. Rainbow Disposal's Transfer Station has a design capacity of 2,800 tons per day,and current utilization ranges between 53 and 71 percent. For purposes of this analysis, and assuming a worst-case scenario of 71 percent current utilization, the daily solid waste contribution to this transfer station would be less than 0.1 percent at approximately 0.0001 percent of its entire design capacity, similar to Alternative 3. Utilization of the transfer station would remain at 71 percent. Table U-3 Waste Generated from Currently Proposed Project Soiid Wage Proposed Project Land Use Generation};fates(lbslnnit/da units Waste Generated(Ibs/day) Residential(medium-high 4 lbs/dwelling unit/day 274 du 1,0961bs/day demsity) Commercial 0.006 lWsf7day 8,500 sf 51 lbs/day Total 1,147 lbs/day(057 tons/day) 418,655 lbs/yr(20933 tons/yr) Source:California Integrated Waste Management Board,Estimated Solid Waste Generation Mates. As discussed in the certified EK there are three landfills (Frank R. Bowerman Landfill in Irvine; Olinda Alpha Landfill in Brea; and Prima Deshecha Landfill in San Juan Capistrano)that could serve the project site, which have a design capacity of 8,500, 4,000, and 8,000 tons per day,respectively. Based on landfill capacity, the solid waste contribution of 0.57 tons per day to any of the three landfills that serve the project site is less than I percent of their allowed daily capacity. This would result in a less than significant impact. 'r k- ;uurently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in Item 18. - 155 HB -788- T,IACHIME T O. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to landfill capacity. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. g) Comply with federal,state, and local statutes and El ❑ El [91 regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 15) Discussion: The City is required by state law to recycle at least 50 percent of all trash generated..As noted in the certified EIR, Huntington Beach recycled over 71 percent of its residential waste stream in 2006, which represents the most recent data available that has been approved by the C1WMB. Both residential and commercial refuse is sorted for recyclables. Additionally,construction and demolition projects generate a high volume of recyclable material that is recycled to the greatest extent feasible. The currently proposed project would be in compliance with federal, state, and local statures and regulation regulated to solid waste and would result in no impact and no additional environmental review is required. h) Include a new or retrofitted storm water treatment ❑ 0 0 ❑ control Best Management Practice(BMP), (e.g.water quality treatment basin,constructed treatment wetlands?) (Sources: see above) Discussion: Refer to Section IV item a) above. Implementation of treatment control water qualities BMPs wii, pre-treat/treat urbanized runoff from the project site and minimi the currently proposed projects pollution impact to levels acceptable to the state and local jurisdictions. A less than significant impact would occur and no additional environmental review is required. XIH. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 0 El [91 ❑ (Sources: 2,3, 15) HB -789- € TACHNIEN Item 18. - 156 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant RTitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: Aesthetics were analyzed in section 4.1 of EIR No. 10-004. The project site is currently developed with the Town and Country Plaza, a restaurant and a gas station in a highly urbanized portion of the City. As noted in the certified EK no scenic resources are located on the project site. As such, development of the currently proposed project would not result in the removal, alteration, or demolition of a scenic resource that contributes to the quality of a scenic vista. Due to the flat topography of the project site and surrounding area, and the distance of the project site from the coast(2.4 miles),there are no scenic vistas visible from the project site or from public vantage points in the vicinity of the project site. As such, development of the currently proposed project, similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR,would not obstruct views of a scenic resource and would therefore not result in changes to a scenic vista. Therefore, implementation of the currently proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. This impact is considered less than significant. Compared with the original project and Alternative 3, there are no changes in construction or project design for the currently proposed project that would result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to scenic vistas. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but M ❑ not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 3, 15) Discussion: The California Department of Transportation designates scenic highway corridors. As noted in the certified EIR, the project site is not located within a state scenic highway, nor is the project site visible from any (officially designated or eligible) scenic highway. The nearest eligible scenic highway is Pacific Coast Highway, located approximately 2.4 miles southwest of the site.However,Pacific Coast Highway is not designated in this area at this time. It should be noted that Beach Blvd. is identified within the Huntington Beach General Plan, Urban Design Element, as an Image Corridor. In addition, in the Circulation Element identifies Beach Blvd.at this location as a Major Urban Scenic Corridor.However,the project site is currently developed, does not contain rock outcroppings or historic buildings. A less than impact would occur and no additional environmental review is required. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or 0 El quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 4, 15, 16) Discussion: Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR, the currently proposed project would be designed in compliance with Town Center Neighborhood development standards included in BECSP Section 2.1.4 (Town Center Neighborhood).Development standards relating to the visual quality and character of the currently proposed project would include regulations for building scale, frontage and building placement,streets,open space,architecture and signage. Development under the currently proposed project, and Alternative 3, would be more substantial as seen from both Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue, compared to the project analyzed in the certified EIR. Development along Beach Boulevard and the northeastern corner along Ellis would be four stories in height, while the Item 18. - 157 HB -790- ATTACHMENT O.,5-. 5-0 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (anal Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact remainder of development on the site would be six stories in height. Building heights would be consistent with BECSP Section 2.3.1 (Building Height), which establishes a minimum building height of two stories and maximum building height of six stories on the site. In addition, the building height is limited to 4 stories directly across from residential, graduating to a maximum height of six stories in order to be consistent with BECSP Section 2.3.2 (Special Building Height Limits), which establishes special building height limits for development along Ellis Avenue or located adjacent to, or across from, housing. This differs from Alternative 3,which is not compliant with BECSP Section 2.3.2.Under Alternative 3,the height of the building would not be limited for a distance of 65 feet from the back of sidewalk where development is located across from housing on Ellis Avenue and would exceed the maximum permitted height where development is adjacent to housing. The currently proposed project would include an internal open space area that would be covered in shadow for a large portion of the day due to orientation of the buildings.However, these shadows would not decrease the utility of the public open space. All buildings would be built to the back of the sidewalk with uses along Beach Boulevard and Ellis Avenue fronting these roadways, as required by BECSP Section 2.4 (Frontage and Building Placement Regulations) and building frontages would be designed in compliance with BECSP Section 2.4.2 (Private Frontage Types). Compliance with BECSP Section 2.5 (Street Regulations)would ensure that adjacent streets are improved to enhance the connectivity of the community and create a safe and attractive streetscape environment. Compliance with these development standards would ensure that the currently proposed project would I visually consistent with the BECSP`s vision for the Five Points District and would be visually compatible wits, adjacent residential and commercial uses. Any inconsistencies between the design of the currently proposed project and the BECSP Development Code would be addressed during the site plan review process, and revisions to the design of the currently proposed project may be made in an effort to achieve consistency with the BECSP guidelines. As such, approval of the currently proposed projects site plan review would ensure that implementation of the currently proposed project would not degrade the existing visual character and quality of the project site and the surrounding area. Rather, implementation of the currently proposed project would help to.achieve the transformation of the underutilized character of the site to a vibrant, aesthetically pleasing mixed use project, consistent with:the BECSP vision for the Town Center Neighborhood.. Therefore, the currently proposed project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and this impact would be less than significant. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to the existing visual character. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which ❑ 0 11 El would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (Sources: 4, 15, 16) Discussion: As discussed in the certified EM, due to the urbanized nature of the surrounding area, a significant amount of ambient nighttime light currently exists, reducing the views of stars and affecting views of the nighttime sky. Streetlights and headlights along adjacent roadways, including Beach Boulevard and Ellis HB -791- TA J�M Item 18. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No lmpact Avenue, provide a significant amount of existing ambient light surrounding the project site. Nearby commercial uses on Beach Boulevard also provide substantial amounts of exterior lighting for security and way finding. Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified ED?, the currently proposed project would introduce additional nighttime lighting sources directly onto the proj ect site and the immediately surrounding area, including exterior building lighting for security and way finding, vehicle headlights entering and exiting the project site, and interior building illumination. Consequently, surrounding uses could be exposed to exterior lighting associated with the proposed buildings, streets, and open space.However,BECSP Section 2.6.8(5)(a) requires that lighting fixtures are directed downward from the horizontal plane of the light source to preserve a dark sky and prevent unnecessary light pollution, and requires that lighting and planting plans for public and private frontage areas be visually and aesthetically coordinated. Furthermore, BECSP Section 2.6.8(5)(d) requires specific lummaire types that would prevent light spill-over, and provide for an efficient distribution of lighting. Conformance with the BECSP would ensure that nighttime light produced by required exterior lighting would be consistent with nighttime lighting conditions of the project area and would not result in impacts to adjacent light-sensitive receptors. The currently proposed building would be a maximum of six stories.Generally, buildings three or more stories in height have the potential to include large building faces with reflective surfaces (e.g., brightly colored building fagades, reflective glass) that could create daytime glare. However, mitigation measure BECSP MM4.1-2 requires that new structures are designed to maximize the use of non-reflective facade treatments, and BECSP Section 2.82(2)(c) requires that buildings utilize light colored roofs to reduce glare. As such, compliance with mitigation measure BECSP MM4.1-2 would ensure that impacts related to daytime glare would be reduced by managing the reflective properties of the building materials employed, such as glass, metal, or finished.concrete, Impacts from light and glare would be less than significant. Compared with the original project and Alternative 3, there are no changes in construction or project design for the currently proposed project that would result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to light or glare. Consequently,revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. MY. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance Q of a historical resource as defined in S 15064.5? (Sources: 15, 19) Discussion: Cultural Resources were analyzed in section 4.4 of EIR No. 10-004. According to the historic resources study prepared for the BECSP area, as discussed in the certified EIR, of which the project site is a part,there are no recorded historic resources on the prof ect site or in the immediate vicinity. In addition, since all three structures occupying the project site were built in 1965, making them at least 45 years in age, a cultural resource professional who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History was retained to determine if the currently proposed project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. The Historic Resource Assessment determined that the currently proposed project would not result in a significant impact to historic resources.There would be no impact and no additional environmental review is required. Item 18. - 159 HB -792- ATTACHMENT O. -, Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance 0 ❑ of an archaeological resource pursuant to 515064.5? (Sources: 15) Discussion: As part of the analysis prepared for the BECSP ElF, and discussed in EIR No. 10-004, with respect to archaeological resources, a records search was conducted by the South Central Coastal Information Center(SCCIC) of the BECSP area. This search indicated that archaeological resources are present within the BECSP area, though not on the project site. These sites have likely been destroyed or capped since they were first discovered. In addition, the NAHC identified the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate BECSP area and noted that the general area was considered sensitive for cultural resources.Finally, representatives from the Gabrieliiio Tongva Nation contacted PBS&J to express their concerns about the sensitivity of the BECSP area for Native American resources and burial grounds. Therefore, the BECSP area is considered to be sensitive for the presence of Native American cultural resources, including human remains. However, because the project site has been previously disturbed and is considered to be entirely developed, and the records search conducted by the SCCIC did not identity archeological resources on the project site, archaeological resources are not likely to be encountered as a result of the currently proposed project and mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-2(a) would not be applicable. However, earthxnoving activities could result in the uncovering of previously unidentified resources. Incorporation of mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-2(b)would reduce any impacts from this occurrence to a less than significant level. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to archaeological resources. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not:required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologicalEl 0 El resource or site unique geologic feature? (Sources: 15) Discussion: As noted in the certified EIR, according to a paleontological records search performed by the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County in September 2008 for the BECSP area, no previously recorded paleontological resources are located within the BECSP area, including the proposed project site. However,the search did identify several paleontological resources in the BECSP vicinity, as well as soils that often contain vertebrate and invertebrate fossils.As such, the BECSP EIR concluded that the entire playa area, including the project site is considered sensitive for paleontological resources. In compliance with mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-3(a), a records search for the project site was conducted for EIR No. 10-004, and turned up negative for the presence of paleontological resources on the project site. However, because of the area's sensitivity, the currently proposed project is required to comply with mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-3(b)in the event that a previously unidentified unique paleontological resource or geological feature is discovered during ground disturbing activities. As such, the currently proposed project would result in a less than significant impact to paleontological resources. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substanti, increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to paleontological resources. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. HB - -- ���sk��� EN Item 18. - 160 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact d) Disturb any human remains,including those interred ❑ El El El outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 15) Discussion: As mentioned above, and as discussed in EIR No. 10-004, the BECSP area is considered to be sensitive for the presence of Native American cultural resources, including human remains.However,because the proposed project site has been previously disturbed and is considered to be entirely developed, human remains are not likely to be encountered as a result of the currently proposed project. However, mitigation measure BECSP MM4.4-2(b) will be implemented_ As such, the currently proposed project would result in a less than significant impact. The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to human remains. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section. 15162(a)that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Tons, no additional environmental review is required. XV. RRCREATION- Would the project: a) Would the project increase the use of existing ❑ IJ FX-1 El neighborhood,community and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources:15, 16) Discussion: Recreation was analyzed in section 4.12 of EIR No. 10-004. Similar to Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EK the currently proposed project would result in 274 residential units, generating an estimated population of 732 persons.BECSP Section 2.6.1 (Provision of Open Space)requires that open space is provided on the site at a rate 50 sf per 1,000 sf of retail use and dwelling unit. As such, the currently proposed project would be required to provide a total of 14,125 sf of public open space. The currently proposed project would include 27,431 sf of public open space, which exceeds BECSP open space requirements. Public open space would be designed in conformance with BECSP Section 2.6.4, which identifies guidelines for design of the various types of public open space. The currently proposed project would also include 16,507 sf of private open space in the form residential dwelling unit balconies and patios, which exceed the requirement of 16,440 sf In addition to the provision of open space on the site, the currently proposed project would be subject to code requirement BECSP CR4.12-1 which requires the payment of a park fee pursuant to Chapter 23 0.20 of the City`s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Compliance with code requirement BECSP CR4.12-1 and the BECSP would ensure that recreational impacts would be less than significant. The currently proposed project,which is nearly identical to ElR No. 10-004 Alternative 3,would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified less than significant effects related to the use of existing neighborhood, community and regional parks or other recreational facilities. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus, no additional environmental review is required. b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require ❑ El 0 11 Item 18. - 161 HB -794- N _ _,/ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation. Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: see above) Discussion: See a)above. c) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (Sources: 15, Q Q 16) Discussion: See a)above. In addition, implementation of the currently proposed project would not directly impact an existing recreation opportunity. Compliance with code requirement BECSP CR4.12-1 and the BECSP would ensure that recreational impacts would be Iess than significant and no additional environmental review is required- XVI.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the prof ect: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland, or FarmlandEl ❑ El 0 of Statewide Importance(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 28) Discussion: The project site is designated as Mixed Use-Specific Plan-Design Overlay by the City of Huntington Beach General Plan. No agricultural activities presently occur on site. The site is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance; and there is no farmland in the immediate vicinity of the project site (FMMP, 2011). Therefore, the currently proposed project would not convert Farmland to non-agricultural use. No impact would result and no additional environmental review is required. b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a El El Williamson Act contract? (Sources:28) Discussion: The currently proposed project would not conflict with agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract. There are no Williamson Act contracts applicable to the currently proposed project site; the site is zoned Open Space and contains no agricultural uses. No impact would result and no additional environmental review is required. c) Involve other changes in the existing environment 11 El El0 which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? (Sources:28) HB -795- , I�",�° �- M Item 18. -162 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Discussion: The currently proposed project site does not contain any forest land or timberland. The site is zoned for Open Space; and although it contains trees and other vegetation, it is not designated as forest land. No impact world result and no additional environmental review is required. XVIL GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS.Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or ❑ 191 ❑ ❑ indirectly,that may have a significant impact on the environment?(Sources: 15) Discussion: Climate Change was analyzed in section 4.15 of EIR No. 10-004. Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EK construction of the currently proposed project would result in GHG emissions due to the operation of heavy construction equipment, worker commute trips, and building supply vendor vehicles. In addition, operation of the currently proposed project would result in GHG emissions as a result of direct sources such as motor vehicles, natural gas consumption, solid waste handling/treatment,and indirect sources such as electricity generation. As analyzed in Alternative 3, Table GHG-1 (Estimated Annual Emissions) summarizes the estimated annual GHG emissions for the currently proposed project. In order to calculate service population, employment was estimated using SCAG`s value for retail employment density, 325 sf/employee, and resident population was estimated using the 2.67 persons./household estimate from the City. This amounts to 26 retail employees and 732 residents for a total service population of 758. Table GHG-1 Estimated Annual Emissions for Currently Proposed Project Emission Source Metric Tons CO2e Amortized Construction 57.29 Area Source 7.0 Energy 382,E Mobile 1,843.7 Solid Waste 30.7 Water Use 73.4 Total 2,394.6 Service Population(SP) 758 Operational MT CO2e/SP 3.16 SCAQMD Draft Threshold MT CO2e/SP 4.80 Significant? No Source:CaIEEMod 2011.1.1 was used to determine all emissions Implementation of mitigation measures BECSP NIM4.15-1 through BECSP MM4.15-9, which are consistent with strategies recommended by the CCAT, CAPCOA, and the California Attorney General, would reduce impacts associated with GHG emissions of the proposed project to less than significant levels. Item 18. - 163 HB -796- o' 4 HNI T O. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact The currently proposed project, which is nearly identical to EIR No. 10-004 Alternative 3, would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to greenhouse gas emissions. Consequently, revisions to the Certified Elk are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent E1R have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. b) Conflict with an applicable plan,policy or regulation ❑ ❑ ❑x ❑ adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?(Sources: 15) Discussion: Since the estimated emissions per service population would be below the SCAQMD draft threshold for GHG emissions, this impact would be considered less than significant and no additional environmental review is required. XVIIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the 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: see above) Discussion: Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIl2,the currently proposed project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment; reduce habitat of fish or wildlife, species; threaten plant or animal communities; or reduce the number or restrict range of rare plants or animals. The project site is in a highly developed urban area that does not contain habitat for any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site is dominated by ruderal vegetation. There would be no impact and no additional environmental review is required. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually 0 ❑ ❑ ❑ limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("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: see above) Discussion: Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified ElR, development of the currently proposed project would result in the following traffic related cumulative impacts under 20? conditions: 1. Operation of the currently proposed project would cumulatively contribute to an unacceptable Level of Service at two City intersections: Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Bolsa HB -797- r- HM Item 18. - 164_ 41- - Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant N itigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated impact No Impact Avenue. Even with implementation of mitigation measures BECSP MM4.13-3 through BECSP MM4.13-9 and BECSP MM4.13-12, the Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue intersection would remain at LOS E in the AM peak hour and the Beach Boulevard at Bolsa Avenue intersection would remain at LOS F in the PM peak hour. At both of these intersections, with the incorporation of mitigation measures, the impact to the intersection would be mitigated to a less than significant level, even though the LOS would not be considered acceptable. However, while these intersections are located within the cumulative study area of the BECSP, they are outside City jurisdiction to ensure mitigation completion.Therefore,the impact would be potentially significant The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section 15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required 2. Operation of the currently proposed project would cumulatively contribute to an increase in delay at two Caltrans intersections and would increase traffic to the I-405 northbound loop ramp, which is currently deficient. The BECSP area would contribute traffic to the 1-405 northbound loop ramp from Beach Boulevard, as well as the regional freeway system, which are both projected to have deficiencies in 2030. For a deficient Caltrans intersection, any increase in delay due to the project is considered a significant impact. The 2030 results show two locations in the BECSP area with impacts, both of which were identified in the intersection capacity utilization analysis as part of the BECSP environmental analysis: Beach Boulevard at warner Avenue and Beach Boulevard at Garfield Avenue. Therefore, the currently proposed project would contribute to a deficient system for which there is no feasible mitigation to reduce impacts. Further, as these are under Caltrans jurisdiction, the City does not have jurisdiction to ensure mitigation completion. Therefore, the impact would be potentially significant The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section -15162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required c) Does the project have environmental effects which will EX-1 11 El cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? (Sources: see above) Discussion: Similar to the project and Alternative 3 as analyzed in the certified EIR, the currently proposed project could potentially result in environmental effects that may cause adverse effects on human beings with regard to the environmental areas discussed in this Environmental Assessment Checklist.However,all of these impacts, except Air Quality, would be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of the Mitigation Measures included in this Environmental Assessment Checklist. Construction of the currently proposed project would violate an air quality standard as it would result in emissions that exceed the SCAQMD threshold of significance for VOC. This is a potentially significant impact The currently proposed project would not result in any new significant environmental effects or substantial increases in the severity of previously identified significant effects related to environmental effects which will ATTACHMENT NO-6 -5-S7 Item 18. - 165 HB -798- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources)_ hnpact Incorporated Impact No Impact cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. Consequently, revisions to the Certified EIR are not required and none of the other conditions listed in Section I5162(a) that would require the preparation of a subsequent EJR have occurred. Thus,no additional environmental review is required. HBge 99- s TTMIIH E Item 18. -- 166 XIX. EARLIER ANALYSIS/SOURCE LIST. 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,as well as sources of information are as follows: Earlier Documents Prepared and Utilized in this Analysis: Reference# Document Title Available for Review at: 1 City of Huntington Beach General Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept.,2000 Main St. Huntington Beach and at htti)://www.hunfinzwnbeachea.aov/Govem mendDepartments/Planninglgp/mdex.cfm 2 City of Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Ordinance Office,2000 Main St.,Huntington Beach and at http://www.huntingtc)nbeachca.gov/govem ment/elected officials/city clerk/zonkg c ode/index.cfm 3 Project Vicinity Map City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept.,2000 Main St. 4 Site Plan " 5 Elevations 6 City of Huntington Beach Geotechnical Inputs Report City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept.,2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 7 FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map(2004) " g CEQA Air Quality Handbook " South Coast Air Quality Management District(1993) g City of Huntington Beach CEQA Procedure Handbook " 10 Trip Generation Handbook, 7`s Edition,Institute of Traffic " Engineers 11 Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Joint Forces Training " Base Los Alamitos(Oct. 17,2002) 12 State Seismic Hazard Zones Map " 13 Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List www.cgleRa_gov/sitecleM/cortese 14 City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code City of Huntington Beach City Clerk's Office,2000 Main St.,Huntington Beach Item 18. - 167 HB -800- TTACH °��E ��' Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant ISSUES (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact Office,2000 Main St.,Huntington Beach and at http://www-htmtingtonbeachca.gcv/ o� vern ment/charter codes/municipal code.cfm 15 Beach&Ellis Mixed Use Project EIR No. 10-004 bgp://www.huntingtonbeachca.aov/tovem (November,2011) meat/denartments/PlanninernajozBeach U lis.cfm 16 Beach&Edinger Corridors Specific Plan(Mar.2010) bttp://www.huntingtonbeachea.trov/Govern mentlDUa—ztments/planning major/beach Edinger.cftn 17 Preliminary Water Quality Management Plan City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept.,2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 18 Preliminary Hydrology Report City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Dept., 2000 Main St Huntington Beach 19 Historic Resource Assessment for 18502 and 18510 to 18552 City of Huntington Beach Planning and (Jan.-Feb.2012) Building Dept.,2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 20 Beach&Edinger Corridors Specific Plan EIR(Nov. 2009) !=://www.himtinggnbeachca-gov/Go ment/Departments/planning/ma:or/bear', Edincer.cfin 21 SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan (2007) lt42://www-anmd..zoy/N=/07aQmn/ii,--c .html 22 SLAG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide(2008) http://www.scag_ca-goy/rmlindemhtm 23 California Geological Survey www.consrv.ca.gov/cgsl 24 Code of Federal Regulations www.guoaccess.LYov/cfr/ 25 California Code of Regulations haL//government.westlaw.conylivkedslice /default.asp?Action=TOC&RS=GVT 1.0& VR=2.0&SP=CCR-1000 26 Phase I Environmental Assessment for 18502 and 18510 to City of Huntington Beach Planning and 18552 Beach Blvd. (Jan.2007) Building Dept_,2000 Mahn St Huntington Beach 27 Phase II Investigation Report for 18510 Beach Blvd. (Feb. City of Huntington Beach Planning and 2008) Building Dept.,2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 28 Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program ftp•1/ftp consry ca gov/bub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf /2008/ 29 Supplemental Traffic&Access Analysis For a Mixed-Use City of Huntington Beach Planning and Project(May 2012) Building Dept,2000 Main St. Huntington Beach 30 Beach Blvd.Mixed Use Development Noise Analysis (Apr. City of Huntington Beach Planning and 2012) Building Dept.,2000 Main St Huntington Beach HB -801- ` it s °b� N � Item 18. - 168 �I- -- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH BEACH AND ELLIS MIXEDmUSE PROJECT Environmental impact Report EIR No. 10-004 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Prepared for City of Huntington Beach Planning and Building Department 2000 Main Street, Third Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 Prepared by Atkins 12301 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 430 Los Angeles, California 90025 February 2012 Item 18. - 169 xB -802- AT,TAMMENT INTRODUCTION The Final Environmental Impact Report for Beach and Ellis Mixed--Use Project (State Clearinghouse # 2011091022) identified mitigation measures to reduce the adverse effects of the project in the areas of: aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water duality, noise, public services, transportation/traffic, utilities and service systems, and greenhouse gases. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that agencies adopting environmental impact reports ascertain that feasible mitigation measures are implemented, subsequent to project approval. Specifically, the lead or responsible agency must adopt a reporting or monitoring program for mitigation measures incorporated into a project or imposed as conditions of approvaL The program must be designed to ensure compliance during applicable project timing, e.g. design, construction, or operation (Public Resource Code Section 21081.6). Code Requirements (CRs) that were identified in the Draft EIR are required to be implemented as a result of existing City code and are not considered mitigation measures. Therefore, CRs would be implemented for the Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project but these do not require monitoring activity, and are not included in this Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program "MRP). The NINW shall be used by City of Huntington Beach staff responsible for ensuring compliance with mitigation measures associated with the Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project Monitoring shall consist of review of appropriate documentation, such as plans or reports prepared by the party responsible for implementation or by field observation of the mitigation measure during implementation. The following table identifies the mitigation measures by resource area. The table also provides the specific mitigation monitoring requirements, including implementation documentation, monitoring activity, timing and responsible monitoring party. Verification of compliance with each measure is to be indicated by signature of the mitigation monitor, together with date of verification. The Project Applicant and the Applicant's Contractor shall be responsible for implementation of all mitigation measures,unless otherwise noted in the table. City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-HB -803-EIR Item 18. - 170 t _ r-r CD 0 1 • • s o • • o o - • • • s s o J Compliance ~ lmplemenfaiion Responsible Verification MilfgatfonMeasure Documentation MongodngAcflvily Timing Monitor Signature Dale ,,5.a'r�.: •' 4 c.:.�::: if".:K' : '' -./ 1 .._lu Ts+ �,. r' � f�i"���u.:ey,'t ll ,. �4� 54'*t.1""i.�.�§. `�`'.'T.u..i� .�?1 �L.-i`- ���'iF„r3�1� l'?-�':�.�s� f °�%��� •�r `:"}, i`� BECSP MWA-2 Proposed new structures shall be designed to maximize Building plans Review and Plan check prior to Planning the use of non-reflective facade treatments, such as matte paint or glass approve building issuance of coatings.Prior to issuance of building permits for the proposed project, the plans for inclusion building permit Applicant shall indicate provision of these materials on the building plans. Y,,. - -t: r.�' :; . :. 4.•iF_ -:>.-, it 1- - r f.. s `�'_ .:5.. ..a'�- 3:1;+- `�, ._._.: .. .3A.f�.,.,..1. ,s?i...:..,. .„.,, - qf„r ,. _�:.. i_1� ., .,,, .. �r„ L: ., ..,. ,. :r. _. - --.Y ;,�f.+.> fG�rk�r, --r, �.'�,,.;t.t:Y: <i-ki -t13Z; '33�tr-�.• ;x._ ;•:� ., s T-h•�._ +iS=,..:r.f��r x1`, ,- >4 .. k.:.} _, 4+s ,>:`�arc. -.�'.4 -3-�'.if,.',�,� 7"., �. �3 �7 fl ��t�A4 +sue 1 .A�jy n. - ,+9 ,,i,S k' ,+ � .�i 7i ;:`��.. �'�`�`. E-f�� ..� �. „ix. bKS Fes`,n _h'fb' 2. �.. ipecy,q,i E ?!•. d t e� � F C '-r Rt a.M,:hi. {.�.i._ � � yr.. �' k 7 •:;,: � ::ri_,�{"aL 'r/w�`'^ �+-5,'7; ts.+��.r�" �:t � .. }�.: fin, -k �c '.�' # C.,`h`>, 4�'i3.: =�,_:a.'lu�`�..--�:t;'', - I- 3, ,.1._,... t. .i�'�:rs..{a_-" .�... . :�.. s,.,. ,_,�., _ :. .F.. � ,..� mot.., •�, BECSP MM4.2.1 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that all diesel-powered equipment used will be retrofitted with after- notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a treatment products(e.g.,engine catalysts).Contract specifications shall be specifications and grading permit included in project construction documents,which shall be reviewed by the grading plans for City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit, inclusion BECSP MM4.2-2 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that all heavy-duty diesel-powered equipment operating and refueling at notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a the project site use low-NOx diesel fuel to the extent that it is readily specifications and grading permit available and cost effective (up to 125 percent of the cost of California Air grading plans for Resources Board diesel)in the South Coast Air Basin (this does not apply inclusion to diesel-powered trucks traveling to and from the project site). Contract specifications shall be included in project construction documents, which 0o shall be reviewed by the City of Huntington Beach prior to issuance of a P grading permit. BECSP MM4.2-3 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that construction equipment engines be maintained in good condition and notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a in proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of specifications and grading permit construction. Contract specifications shall be included in project grading plans for construction documents,which shall be reviewed by the City of Huntington inclusion Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit. BECSP MM4.2-4 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that construction operations rely on the electricity infrastructure notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a rn surrounding the construction site rather than electrical generators powered specifications and grading permit by internal combustion engines,Contract specifications shall be included in grading plans for project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City of inclusion Huntington Beach prior to issuance of a grading permit. 0 V 2 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR Compliance Implementation Responsible VerEcatlon MiligafionMeasure Documentafion Monitoring Activity 'fiming Monitor Signature Date BECSP MM4.2-5 As required by South Coast Air Quality Management Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning District Rule 403—Fugitive Dust,all construction activities that are capable notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a of generating fugitive dust are required to implement dust control measures specifications and grading permit during each phase of project development to reduce the amount of grading plans for particulate matter entrained in the ambient air.These measures include the inclusion following: • Application of soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas • Quick replacement of ground cover in disturbed areas • Watering of exposed surfaces three times daily ■ Watering of all unpaved haul roads three times daily • Covering all stock piles with tarp • Reduction of vehicle speed on unpaved roads ■ Post signs on-site limiting traffic to 15 miles per hour or less • Sweep streets adjacent to the project site at the end of the day if x visible soil material is carded over to adjacent roads W • Cover or have water applied to the exposed surface of all trucks hauling dirt,sand,soil,or other loose materials prior to leaving the site to prevent dust from impacting the surrounding areas • Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved roads to wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site each trip BECSP MM4.2-6 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a motor vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in and construction plans specifications and grading permit ?rb use for more than 30 minutes. Diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles grading plans and with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be construction plans - turned off when not in use for more than 5 minutes.Contract specifications for inclusion shall be included in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. CD i 00 , City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 3 J , IN CD •• a a s o m • s• • v• • 1 • • o • e o 0 0 - • • o •• • J Compriance W lmptementaiion Responsible Veriftc a Bon Mitigation Measure DocurnentaHon MonitodngActtviTy Timing Monitor Signature D ote BECSP MM4.2.7 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that construction parking be configured to minimize traffic interference notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a during the construction period and, therefore, reduce idling .of traffic, and construction plans specifications and grading permit Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project grading plans and construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington construction plans Beach. for inclusion BECSP MM4.2-8 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that temporary traffic controls are provided,such as a flag person, during notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a all phases of construction to facilitate smooth traffic flow. Contract and construction plans specifications and grading permit specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction grading plans and documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. construction plans for inclusion BECSP MM4.2-9 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning that construction activities that would affect traffic flow on the arterial notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a system be scheduled to off-peak hours (10:00 Ain to 4:00 PM). Contract and construction plans specifications and grading permit specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction grading plans and documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. construction plans x for inclusion BECSP MM4.2.10 Project applicants shall require by contract Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning specifications that dedicated on-site and off-site left-turn lanes on truck notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a hauling routes be utilized for movement of construction trucks and and construction plans specifications and grading permit equipment on site and off site to the extent feasible during construction grading plans and activities.Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction plans construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington for inclusion Beach. �q X, In 0 4 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR Ul • • • s • o • • - • m e m • e Compliance Implementation Responsible VerfficaBon Mfft dionMeasure Documentation MonitodngActivily 71ming Monitor Signature Date BECSP MM4.2-11 Upon issuance of building or grading permits, Mail to owners and Obtain confirmation Plan check prior to Planning whichever is issued earlier, notification shall be mailed to owners and occupants within 300 that mailing to issuance of a occupants of all developed land uses within 300 feet of a project site within feet of project site a owners and grading or building the Specific Plan providing a schedule for major construction activities that notice regarding major occupants took permits,which will occur through the duration of the construction period. In addition, the construction activities place occur earlier notification will include the identification and contact number for a community liaison and designated construction manager that would be available on site to monitor construction activities. The construction manager shall be responsible for complying with all project requirements related to PMio generation.The construction manager will be located at the do-site construction office during construction hours for the duration of all construction activities. Contract information for the community liaison and construction manager will be located at the construction office, City Hall, the police department,and a sign on site. BECSP MM4.2-12 Project applicants shall require by contract Contract language and Review and Plan check prior.to Planning specifications that the architectural coating (paint and primer) products notes on construction approve contract issuance of a used would have a VOC rating of 125 grams per liter or less. Contract plans specifications and building permit specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction construction plans documents, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City of for inclusion b� Huntington Beach. o BECSP MM4.2.13 Project applicants shall require by contract Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning specifications that materials that do not require painting be used during notes on construction approve contract issuance of a construction to the extent feasible. Contract specifications shall be included plans specifications and building permit in the proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed construction plans and approved by the City of Huntington Beach. for inclusion BECSP MM4.2-14 Project applicants shall require by contract Contract language and Review and Plan chock prior to Planning specifications that pre-painted construction materials be used to the extent notes on construction approve contract issuance of a feasible. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project plans specifications and building permit construction documents,which shall be reviewed and approved by the City construction plans - of Huntington Beach, for inclusion ' :ity of Huntinaton Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 5 J -P CDsum•e • e e m • a --e• e •e 0 H� 00 7SIgnature fmplementafion Respons►Ve MfffgaBonMeasure Documenfaffon MonfforingAcfiAty 77ming Mondor Date Project MM4.2-15 Project applicants shall require by contract Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning specifications that all paving be completed as soon as possible to reduce notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a fugitive dust emissions.. and construction plans specifications and grading permit grading plans and construction plans for inclusion -.._,. >.. ,,. -«' - x..'«.,::_ g''r -M� ;i .•, w' 'iu +l:Q',f'1S!:4 rp x#r r:<<i-'?--°Y' .'y5j. i q '-y' "� rs .r`_i11`zt�i3 T�' dr..?¢� .:. fi: F'.',•_.:'A a ., v . . ::.t...r:'3. _ ,A- ,.,_ ,._ ,.. ...i ,, .-.., ) t' yp.. 1 - --w.; r nc„� ..r.,.k -�6 dfs,,. Ir-.,�`'.�:'�'' ?��,?t r. ;F�,., E..bb'4.'.'- fin,5•.x t r .�.C i =-', r- YF:��:'� � � i-s�' '�G�+y `:� '., � a.;S,..4L .W.; � :.^'K'. �7�f_ 'H�,�7: ..SS'.,.•._ i .f;. .�.�..�i .!� BECSP MM4.3.1 Nesting avian species protected by the MBTA: Developer shall submit Review grading Plan check prior to Planning a. Prior to an construction or vegetation removal between February 15 construction schedule plans for inclusion issuance of a and August 31,a nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified (including grading grading permit biologist of all habitats within 250 feet of the construction area. activities)as evidence Surveys shall be conducted no less than 14 days and no more than of construction overlap 30 days prior to commencement of construction activities and surveys with breeding season. will be conducted in accordance with CDFG protocol as applicable.If . If construction occurs Review field survey, During Planning no active nests are identified on or within 250 feet of the construction during relevant if necessary construction site,no further mitigation is necessary.A copy of the pre-construction breeding,developer survey shall be submitted to the City of Huntington Beach.If an active shall present a survey As necessary nest of a MBTA protected species is identified on site(per established report(prepared by a pursuant to field thresholds)a 100-foot no-work buffer shall be maintained between the consultant approved survey,review and nest and construction activity.This buffer can be reduced in by the City)to the City approve oho consultation with CDFG and/or USFWS.Completion of the nesting prior to issuance of a recommendations cycle shall be determined by qualified ornithologist or biologist, grading permit. If and any other b. Completion of the nesting cycle shall be determined by qualified nests are found, relevant document ornithologist or biologist. developer shall submit per this mitigation plans identifying nest locations and limits of . construction activities, 6 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR WON Compliance Implementation Responsible Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring activity riming Monitor Signature Date W 13ECSP MM4A•1 Prior to development activities that would demolish or Proof of retention of Verify retention of Plan check iflor to Planning otherwise physically affect buildings or structures 45 years old or older ar an historical resource qualified historical issuance of affect their historic setting, the project applicant shalt retain a cultural professional to resource demolition or resource pro ess ona who meets the Secretary of the Interior's determine potential professional grading permit, Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural History to determine significance of whichever occurs 9 the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance structure 45 years old earlier of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the CEQA or older Guidelines. The investigation shall include, as determined appropriate by the cultural resource professional and the City of Huntington Beach, the Preparation of a Review and appropriate archival research, including, if necessary, an updated records technical report or approve technical search of the South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) of the memorandum report or California Historical Resources Information System and a pedestrian survey of the proposed development area to determine if any significant documenting the result memorandum. historic-period resources would be adversely affected by the proposed of historical resources If determined development. The results of the investigation shall be documented in a investigation. necessary,verify technical report or memorandum that idkifies and evaluates any historical that project resources within the development area and includes recommendations and applicant has methods for eliminating or reducing'impacts on historical resources. The implemented technical report or memorandum shall be submitted to the City of methods identified oHuntington Beach for approval. As determined necessary by the City, in the technical environmental documentation (e.g., CEQA documentation) prepared for report or future development within the project site shall reference or incorporate the memorandum for findings and recommendations of the technical report or memorandum, reducing impacts on The project applicant shall be responsible for implementing methods for historical resources eliminating or reducing impacts on historical resources identified in the technical report or memorandum. fD 00 City of H,,ti,,I,, Beach, Beach ,d Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 7 Cr CD 00 M-� Compliance �l Implemenkdion 7Pianning Verircaffon NINgation Measure Documentaffon Monitodng AcflvBy Timing Signature Date BECSP MM4.4-2(b) If evidence of an archaeological site or other Proof of retention of Verify retention of Throughout suspected historical resource as defined by CEQA Guidelines archaeological qualified ground disturbing Section 15064.5, including darkened soil representing past human activity professional to archaeological activities ("midden'l, that could conceal material remains (e.g., worked stone, fired determine if a professional,if clay vessels, faunal bone, hearths, storage pits,or burials)are discovered substantial adverse necessary,and during any project-related earth-disturbing activities(including projects that change would occur to complete would not encounter undisturbed soils), all earth-disturbing activity within an archaeological documentation 100 feet of the find shall be halted and the City of Huntington Beach shall resource be noted.The project applicant shall retain an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology to assess the significance of the find. Impacts to any significant resources shall be mitigated to a less-than-significant level through data recovery or other methods determined adequate by the archaeologist and that are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeological Documentation, Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on the appropriate DPR 523 (A-L) form and filed with the appropriate Information Center. BECSP MM4.4.3(b)Should paleontological resources(i.e.,fossil remains) Proof of retention of Verify retention of Throughout Planning x be identified at a particular site during project construction,the construction paleontological qualified ground disturbing foreman shall cease construction within 100 feet of the find until a qualified professional to paleontological activities oc professional can provide an evaluation. Mitigation of resource impacts shall determine if a professional, if o be implemented and funded by the project applicant and shall be substantial adverse necessary ' conducted as follows: change would occur to 1. Identify and evaluate paleontological resources by intense field survey e paleontological r where impacts are considered high resource _ 2. Assess effects on identified sites > 3. Consult with the institutional/academic paleontologists conducting I—) research investigations within the geological formations that are slated F;� to be impacted 4. Obtain comments from the researchers 5. Comply with researchers'recommendations to address any significant adverse effects where determined by the City to be feasible In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting paleontologist,the City of Huntington Beach staff shall determine whether J 8 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR Compllance implementation Responsible Ver cation Mfflgcdion Measure Documentollon MonNoringActivily 71ming Monitor Signature Dale avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, applicable policies and land use assumptions, and other considerations. If avoidance is unnecessary or Infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) shall be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project site while mitigation for paleontological resources is carried out. r .- 4�� . .. -.. .. -'„ Y,'3i a :Y.� ,�' '�, � ,.r:r:>h BECSP MM4.5-9 Future development in the Beach Boulevard and Edinger Soils and geotechnical Review and Plan check prior to Public Works Avenue Corridors Specific Plan area shall prepare a grading plan to analysis and notes on approve grading issuance of a contain the recommendations of the final soils and geotechnical report, grading plan and and building plans grading permit Building and Safety These recommendations shall be implemented in the design of the project, building plans for inclusion of final including but not limited to measures associated with site preparation, fill soils and placement, temporary shoring and permanent dewatering, groundwater geotechnical seismic design features,excavation stability,foundations, soil stabilization, recommendations establishment of deep foundations,concrete slabs and pavements,surface drainage, cement type and corrosion measures, erosion control, shoring and internal bracing,and plan review. b� 80 Coo :Nty of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 9 J C� (D •• • o e • • • — o• • o• aIN Fes+ 00 � s • o • • • o e - a s • • • • Compliance `O Date lmplementafion Responsr�le Ver�icafion MitigoflonMeasure Documentation MonlioringActrvity T#Mng Monr7or Signature w, r:- Rr— , .,. — = y •: e. aex �r- F?3=� „x; N.,t,4 x �. {:. .i,::_- . r r ,srr,3• ..,e.'N r;., �,.'+=•. ,. s, Ihi� L+, '6� .t A•�" ::d._. [. ++-:. � .r �t.'p:�tEl i •s t c .a. rr� i ` r:•,:=,,..=;.•r.., •� 1 t�'. ,, 1 ra:- x,., ,�,- � ..3vv .4. ��.h:, -.rh".-:-,>r .3. 4: � ;�,f'<.=� - �;+4..,' .� �;:.?r•,.� r S col,�. �,�. ,[ 1,1y-!-., '?-�.�`�,"r�...>yl yr J 7- r�' 3 �n.x r. .•� .s .Jst' �- _ �`. - Ri• r � u-,� .��':: Vgc,.��- �`__r_i,.:. �,r r1 i i'u-`K a.s.o.. ., -_. ti, Yr`:_.. 4 .q5.,.,.yv,r ...,,`_i_ 4�2':��i.��;��7!2 �. :S•�3-' i�`�a'>�'�3��iP3 �- F, •.rF+:,,v1#•��;5 i.:tYs,�f.,„'�,v -�':�7;.: �p,+:,.:;_.* :a:ca.,v � +c�' ;,t�f;�v,�.�i,�r4€r,.-4�Y.lf�"li,.. '� ;r J,.�..- ,-,:,C�',.� .:.I _ BECSP MM4.6-1 Prior to the Issuance of grading permits on any project Preparation of Review technical Plan check prior to Fire site,the site developer(s)shall: technical documentations, issuance of A Investigate the project site to determine whether it or immediately documentation to and,as necessary, demolition or adjacent areas have a record of hazardous material contamination via address site-specific review and approve grading permits, the preparation of a preliminary environmental site assessment(ESA), hazards;Risk closure reports whichever occurs which shall be submitted to the City for review.If contamination is Management Plan and earlier found the report shall characterize the site according to the nature and Site Health and Safety extent of contamination that is present before development activities Plan precede at that site. u If contamination is determined to be on site,the City,in accordance with appropriate regulatory agencies,shall determine the need for further investigation andlor remediation of the soils conditions on the contaminated site.If further investigation or remediation is required,it shall be the responsibility of the site developer(s)to complete such Investigation and/or remedlation prior to construction of the project. x a If remediation is required as identified by the local oversight agency,it tZ shall be accomplished in a manner that reduces risk to below applicable standards and shall be completed prior to issuance of any N occupancy permits.Approval of a Human Health Risk Assessment performed by the project proponent may be required to ensure occupancy could occur safely: a Closure reports or other reports acceptable to the Huntington Beach Fire Department that document the successful completion of required remediation activities,or an approved active on site remediation i system that has been approved by Orange County Environmental `° Health Care Agency,for contaminated soils,in accordance with City Specification 431-92,shall be submitted and approved by the Huntington Beach Fire Department prior to the issuance of grading permits for site development.No construction shall occur in the in affected area until reports have been accepted by the City. p 10 City of Huntington Beach, Beach-and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR V e s o m o o m a e m s o e e • s 7Docu=m7entoffon TSIgnakire cemplaffon Responsible nWigationMeasu►e Monlo►ingActivrMy 7iming Monitor Date BECSP MM4.6-2 In the event that previously unknown or unidentified sell Risk Management Review and Plan check prior to Fire and/or groundwater contamination that could present a threat to human Plan approve any issuance of any health or the environment is encountered during construction of the and grading plans for grading permit and proposed project, construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the Site Health and Safety inclusion during contamination shall cease immediately. If contamination is encountered, a Plan construction Risk Management Plan shall be prepared and implemented that (1)identifies the contaminants of concern and the potential risk each contaminant would pose to human health and the environment during construction and post-development and (2)describes measures to be taken to protect workers, and the public from exposure to potential site hazards, Such measures could include a range of options, including, but not limited to, physical site controls during construction, remediation, long- term monitoring, post-development maintenance or access limitations, or some combination thereof. Depending on the nature of contamination, if any, appropriate agencies shall be notified (e,g., City of Huntington Beach Fire Department). If needed, a Site Health and Safety Plan that meets Occupational Safety and Health Administration requirements shall be prepared and In place prior to commencement of work in any contaminated x area. BECSP MM4.6-3 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, future Methane Testing Plan Review and Prior to Fire 0o development in the Specific Plan shall comply with HBFD City approval of testing commencement of Specification No, 429, Methane District Building Permit Requirements. A plan sampling plan for the testing of soils for the presence of methane gas shall be Notes on building and Review and Prior to Issuance Fire prepared and submitted by the Applicant to the HBFD for review and methane plans approve building of any grading approval, prior to the commencement of sampling. If significant levels of and methane gas permit and during methane gas are discovered in the soil on the future development project plans for construction site, the Applicant's grading, building and methane plans shall reference that a sub-slab methane barrier and vent system will be installed at the appropriate project site per City Specification No. 429, prior to plan approval. if documentation required by the HBFD, additional methane mitigation measures to reduce the level of methane gas to acceptable levels shall be implemented. M Z -0 i Z:ity of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR » iOc O CD 00 Fes+ pp Compliance implemenfaffon Responsible Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Signatm Date BECSP MM4.6-4 To ensure adequate access for emergency vehicles Prepare construction Plan check prior to Prior to approval Fire, Police when construction activities would result in temporary lane or roadway roadway plans grading or building of grading or closures, the developer shall consult with the City of Huntington Beach permits,whichever building permits, Police and Fire Departments to disclose temporary lane or roadway occurs earlier whichever occurs closures and alternative travel routes: The developer shall be required to earlier keep a minimum of one lane in each direction free from encumbrances at all times on perimeter streets accessing the project site.At any time only a single lane is available, the developer shall provide a temporary traffic signal,signal carriers(i.e„flagpersons),or other appropriate traffic controls to allow travel in both directions. If construction activities require the complete closure of a roadway segment, the developer shall coordinate with the City of Huntington Beach Police and Fire Departments to designate proper detour routes and signage indicating alternative routes. >. V.'-.rt .r:� r.>.r7.: S ;r"- -.n..'v+ .. �,,,, i- ''� � 1 .-_:.. :.- r,:.t :'N h. , �... .'_: 'T"',4"•n- ;. $, ?.. i.r?_r: �i�k�i� „ .Yi.: .:. - w,ry :.. ,_ 4�'Y t ,,, or rt w ...;'� 't � ?�: -.,g:s,. h,,� ,:,,.. ,:-.�u .,.; . .-. `>>•, ;,{..s,,�:,v,�s, ��� sifi.. .:�lt t.t...� ..,.•f ....?.,.,. .. . BECSP MM4.7-1 City of Huntington Beach shall require Applicants for new Water Quality Review and Prior to receiving a Public Works development and significant redevelopment projects within the Specific Management Plan approve WQMP precise grading Plan area, including the proposed project, to prepare a project Water permit x Quality Management Plan (WQMP) in accordance with the DAMP requirements and measures described below and with all current adopted permits.The WQMP shall be prepared by a Licensed Civil Engineer and submitted for review and acceptance prior to issuance of a Precise t Grading or Building permit. BMPs in the WQMP shall be designed in accordance with the Municipal NPDES Permit, Model WQMP, Technical Guidance Documents, DAMP, and City of Huntington Beach LIP. As noted in the Specific Plan, all development projects shall include site design and source control BMPs in the project WQMP. Additionally, new development or significant i4r redevelopment projects and priority projects shall include LID principles to reduce runoff to a level consistent with the maximum extent practicable and treatment control BMPs in the WQMP. If permanent dewatering is required and allowed by the City,the developer shall submit an application to RWQCB and follow the procedures as stated in Order No RB-2009-0003.The Applicant shall include a description of the dewatering technique, discharge location, discharge quantities, chemical o characteristics of discharged water, operations and maintenance plan, and 12 City of Huntington Beach,Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR O e o • o 0 0 0 • '-s o e o e • Compliance Implementation Responsible VedCrcafion Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activily Timing Monifor Signafwe We WDID number for proof of coverage under the De Minimis Threat General Permit or copy of the individual WDR In the WQMP. Additionally, the WQMP shall incorporate any additional BMPs as required by the City Public Works Department. The WQMP shall include the following additional requirements; Project and Site Characterization Requirements ■ Entitlement Application numbers and site address shall be included on the title sheet of the WQMP a In the project description section,explain whether proposed use includes on-site food preparation,eating areas(if not please state), outdoor activities to be expected,vehicle maintenance,service, washing cleaning(if prohibited on site,please state) e All potential pollutants of concern for the proposed project land use type as per Table 7,11-1 of the Orange County Model Water Quality Management Plan shall be identified a A narrative describing how all potential pollutants of concern will be x addressed through the implementation of BMPs and describing how site design BMP concepts will be considered and incorporated into the °O project design shall be included e Existing soil types and estimated percentages of perviousness for existing and proposed conditions shall be identified ■ In Section I of the WQMP,state verbatim the Development G t Requirements from the Planning Department's letter to the Applicant ' m A site plan showing the location of the selected treatment control BMPs and drainage areas shall be included in the WQMP ® A Geotechnical Report shall be submitted to address site conditions for determination of infiltration limitations and other pertinent characteristics. Proiect-Based Treatment Control BMPs ® Infiltration-type BMPs shall not be used unless the Geotechnical Report states otherwise.Depth to seasonal high groundwater is � zCity of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 13 N r+ fD •o a o 0 0 o e '^ e a o s a a I� LM Compilance W 'Implementation Responsible VerEcatfon mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity 'riming Monitor Signature Date determined to provide at feast a 10-foot clearance between the bottom of the BMP and top of the water table. m Wet swales and grassed channels shall not be used because of the slow infiltration rates of project site soils,the potentially shallow depth to groundwater,and water conservation needs ■ If proprietary Structural Treatment Control devices are used,they shall be sited and designed in compliance with the manufacturers design criteria ■ Surface exposed treatment control BMPs shall be selected such that standing water drains or evaporates within 24 hours or as required by the County's vector control ■ Excess stormwater runoff shall bypass the treatment control BMPs unless they are designed to handle the flow rate or volume from a 100- year storm event without reducing effectiveness.Effectiveness of any treatment control BMP for removing the pollutants of concern shall be documented via analytical models or existing studies on effectiveness. x ■ The project WQMP shall incorporate water efficient landscaping using tZ drought tolerant,native plants in accordance with Landscape and Irrigation Plans as set forth by the Applicant(see below) ?, ® Pet waste stations(stations that provide waste pick-up bags and a convenient disposal container protected from precipitation)shall be provided and maintained ® Building materials shall minimize exposure of bare metals to s stormwater.Copper or Zinc roofing materials,including downspouts, _s shall be prohibited. Bane metal surfaces shall be painted with non-lead- -_4 containing paint The following BMPs shall not be used because they have not been shown to be effective in many situations. Therefore, unless sufficient objective studies and review are available and supplied with the WQMP to correctly size devices and to document expected pollutant removal rates the WQMP shall not include: 14 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR s e s e s a o a e o 0 o e a Compliance imptementaHon Responsible Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity Timing Monitor Signature Date n Hydrodynamic separator type devices as a BMP for removing any pollutant except trash and gross particulates ■ Oil and Grit separators Any Applicant proposing development in the Specific Plan Area is encouraged to consider the following BMPs: o Sand filters or other filters(including media filters)for rooftop runoff a Dry swales.A dry swale treatment system could be used if sufficient area,slope gradient,and length of swale could be incorporated into the project design.Dry swales could remove substantial amounts of nutrients,suspended solids, metals,and petroleum hydrocarbons a Other proprietary treatment devices(if supporting documentation is provided) Nonstructural BMPs The WQMP shall include the following operations and maintenance BMPs under the management of an applicant or property manager, where x applicable. The Applicant shall fund and implement an operational and maintenance program that includes the following: 00 ■ The Applicant shall dictate minimum landscape maintenance standards and tree trimming requirements for the total project site. Landscape maintenance shall be performed by a qualified landscape maintenance company or individual in accordance with a Chemical Management Plan detailing chemical application methods,chemical handling procedures,and worker training.Pesticide application shall be performed by a certified applicator. No chemicals shall be stored on-site unless in a covered and contained area and in accordance with an approved Materials Management Plan.Application rates shall not exceed labeled rates for pesticides,and shall not exceed soil test rates for nutrients.Slow release fertilizers shall be used to prevent excessive nutrients in stormwater or irrigation runoff. a The Applicant or property manager shall have the power and duty to establish,oversee,guide,and require proper maintenance and tree trimming procedures per the ANSI A-300 Standards as established b 00 •� City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 15 00 -(P CD m s e • • e a • e e s •m e 1� 0 ME 1� pp Complance Implementation Responsible Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity riming Monitor Signature Date the International Society of Arborist.The Applicant or property manager shall require that all trees be trimmed by or under the direct observation/direction of a licensed/certified Arborist for the entire area. The Applicant shall establish minimum standards for maintenance for the total community,and establish enforcement thereof for the total community.The property manager shall rectify problems arising from incorrect tree trimming,chemical applications,and other maintenance within the total community. ® Landscape irrigation shall be performed in accordance with an Irrigation Management Plan to minimize excess irrigation contributing to dry-and wet-weather runoff.Automated sprinklers shall be used and be inspected at least quarterly and adjusted yearly to minimize potential excess irrigation flows.Landscape irrigation maintenance shall be performed in accordance with the approved irrigation plans, the City Water Ordinance and per the City Arboricultural and Landscape Standards and Specifications. ■ Proprietary storrnwater treatment systems maintenance shall be in accordance with the manufacturers recommendations.if a x nonproprietary treatment system is used,maintenance shall be in accordance with standard practices as identified in the current CASQA °C (2003)handbooks,operations and maintenance procedures outlined in 00 the approved WQMP,City BMP guidelines,or other City-accepted guidance. • Signage,enforcement of pet waste controls,and public education would improve use and compliance,and therefore,effectiveness of the program,and reduce the potential for hazardous materials and other pollution in stormwater runoff.The Applicant shall prepare and install ,, appropriate sgnage,disseminate information to residents and retail businesses,and include pet waste controls(e.g.,requirements for pet _ waste cleanup,pet activity area restrictions,pet waste disposal restrictions)in the any agreement,tenant lease(regarding rental property)or Conditions,Covenants,and Restrictions(regarding for- rn safe property). "'i ■ Street sweeping shall be performed at an adequate frequency to m prevent build up of pollutants see 0 16 City of Huntington Beach,Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR t e a m e • e o • -o o a e e e • s e • o • s s - • • • • • e Compliance implementation Responsible Verification Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity riming Monitor Signature Date http:llwww.fhwa.dot.govlenvironmenUultraurbluubmp3p7.htm!for street sweeping effectiveness). ■ The Applicant shall develop a maintenance plan for BMPs and facilities identifying responsible parties and maintenance schedules and appropriate BMPs to minimize discharges of contaminants to storm drain systems during maintenance operations. e Reporting requirements:the Applicant or property manager shall prepare an annual report and submit the annual report to the City of Huntington Beach documenting the BMPs operations and maintenance conducted that year.The annual report shall also address the potential system deficiencies and corrective actions taken or planned. Site Design BMPs Any Applicant proposing development in the Specific Plan Area is required to incorporate LID principles as defined in the Municipal NPDES Permit and is encouraged to consider the following BMPs, if allowed in accordance with the Geotechnical Report and limitations on infittration BMPs: ■ Use of porous concrete or asphalt(if acceptable to the Geotechnical IF Engineer and where infiltration will not adversely affect groundwater) or other pervious pavement for driveways,paths,sidewalks, and courtyards/open space areas,to the maximum extent practicable, would reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff as well as provide some detention within the material void'space.If porous paver blocks are used,they shall be adequately maintained to provide continued porosity(effectiveness) a Incorporation of rain gardens or cisterns to reuse runoff for landscape " irrigation n Green roofs to reduce runoff and treat roof pollutants rn ■ Site design and landscape planning to group water use requirements for efficlent irrigation .CD Void space is the empty space between individual particles. 00 •1 �ity of Huntinryton Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EiR 17 00 1 Cn r+ r • • • • • a a a -a® • e• s 00 I ~00 CompBance -A lmplemenWon ResponsiVe Vedficofion Mitigation Measure77 DocumentaBon MonifortngActivily Timing Monitor signature [dote BECSP MM43-2 The City of Huntington Beach shall require that any Groundwater Review and Prior to issuance Public Works Applicant prepare a Groundwater Hydrology Study to determine the lateral Hydrology Study approve of a precise transmissivity of area soils and a safe pumping yield such that dewatering Groundwater grading permit activities do not interfere with nearby water supplies. The Groundwater Hydrology Study Hydrology Study shall make recommendations on whether permanent groundwater dewatering is feasible within the constraints of a safe pumping level. The Applicant's engineer of record shall incorporate the Hydrology Study designs and recommendations into project plans. If groundwater dewatering is determined allowable by the City,the Applicant shall submit an application to the RWQCB for dewatering purposes, per the De Minimis Permit Number R8-2009-0003. If safe groundwater dewatering is determined to not be feasible, permanent groundwater dewatering shall not be implemented. The City Director of Public Works, OCWD, and other regulatory agencies shall approve or disapprove any permanent groundwater dewatering based on the Groundwater Hydrology Study and qualified Engineers'recommendations. oc N O is City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR a s s 0 o e e o - o• a s e Compliance Implementation Responsible Ve►hicotfon MifigofionMeasure Documentation MonttoringAdh*y riming Manttor Signature Dote BECSP MM4.7-3 The City of Huntington Beach shall require that the Hydrology and Review and Prior to issuance Public Works Applicant's Licensed Civil Engineer for each site-specific development Hydraulics Study approve study of a precise prepare a Hydrology and Hydraulic Study to identify the effects of potential grading permit stormwater runoff from the specific development on .the existing storm drain flows for the 10-, 25-, and 100-year design storm events. The Precise final grading Inspect project site; Following grading, Public Works drainage improvements shall be designed and constructed as required by and street verify that drainage excavation,and the Department of Public Works to mitigate impact of increased runoff due improvement plans is in accordance installation of to development,or deficient,downstream systems. Design of all necessary and studies with approved plans utilities drainage improvements shall provide mitigation for all rainfall event and that required frequencies up to a 100-year frequency The Applicant shall design site detention/storm drainage and document that the proposed development would not increase drain system peak storm event flows over pre-1986 Qs, which must be established by improvements have the hydrology study, if the analyses shows that the City's current drainage been implemented. system cannot meet the volume needs of the project runoff, the applicant shall be required to attenuate site runoff to an amount not to exceed the 25-year storm as determined using pre-1986 criteria. As an option, the applicant may choose to explore low-flow design altematives,downstream attenuation or detention, or upgrade the City's stormwater system to x accommodate the impacts of the new development, at no cost to the City. The Hydrology and Hydraulic Study shall also incorporate all current adopted Municipal NPDES Permit and City requirements for stormwater O0 flow calculafions and retention/detention features in effect at the time of N review. BECSP MM4.7-4 The City of Huntington Beach shall require that adequate Hydrology and Review and Prior to issuance Public Works capacity in the storm drain system is demonstrated from the specific Hydraulics Study approve study of a precise > development site discharge location to the nearest main channel to grading permit - accommodate discharges from the specific development. if capacity is demonstrated as adequate, no upgrades will be required. If capacity is not adequate, the City of Huntington Beach shall identify corrective action(s) required by the specific development Applicant to ensure adequate capacity.Corrective action could include,but is not limited to; ■ Construction of new storm drains,as identified in the MPD or based on the Hydrology and Hydraulic Study,if the Hydrology and Hydraulic Study identifies greater impacts than the MPD (D 00 •1 City of Hunfington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EiR 19 00 ) 00 c� •e • • s • • a -•o a •• e F—� 00 1 ~ Compliance Cb %C lmplementaRon Responsible Verillcallon Mithplion Measure Documentation MonBoringAciivily Timing Monitor Signature Date • Improvement of existing storm drains,as identified in the MPD or based on the Hydrology and Hydraulic Study,if the Hydrology and Hydraulic Study identifies greater impacts than the MPD • In-lieu fees to implement systemwide storm drain infrastructure improvements ■ Other mechanisms as determined by the City Department of Public Works ■ Eor nonresidential areas,if redevelopment would result in an impervious fraction of less than 0.9 and does not increase the directly connected impervious area compared to existing conditions,runoff is expected to remain the same or less than as assessed in the MPD and only MPD improvements would be required Because some storm drain system constraints may be located far downgradient from the actual development site, several properties may serve to contribute to system capacity constraints. Therefore, the City Department of Public Works shall assess each site development and x system characteristics to identify the best method for achieving adequate tZ capacity in the storm drain system. Drainage assessment feesldisthots to improve/implement storm drains at downstream locations or where Ncontributing areas are large are enforced through Municipal Code (Section 14,20). The City Department of Public Works shall review the Hydrology and Hydraulic Study and determine required corrective action(s)or if a waiver of corrective action is applicable. The site-specific development Applicant shall incorporate required corrective actions into their project design and/or ' plan. Prior to receiving a Certificate of Occupancy or final inspection, the City Department of Public Works shall ensure that required corrective action has been implemented. -_...... -' .. .• -'- --- ..:.: _n. ::r. +.::.;.-. ." v.,<: ;�..:a4 <s:;s'.,-„L, a.:1 .C.�°- �.�P7-.-: ,.:q ye,�i- s'.f P 33 �,;4". ::: .•-tr.._�- -_- _ :c-• :. .- -Fti-.. :;., .-.:5 '- vr:.i'�=ur f .r. .&:, t i..,(..��, -.r... _ _ .-:fit fm�r• 2 �c:- =d:: � r+",7`y. t�,- .T- - � 'a. _"rr .�t. .:� M. i4. ,.d.,.r.•. n.l-u - '. -A !r.r...' 4 c!. t--r. a`1 ..a t ,.d,1" .'fit '. `/, .,.�`,- $ y1 a. n .,:'t' y9U ar _••e" n.�.r .,,.r r._<,.� +� t'�,.,us".:l,J-. t -n-4 W.xk -# -?s .�E7;. �Y141' �'�1 - Y'�` �Y S �!.��i. :.. (=w -� :A:..�'��.-kA.Y,..i C ��.�,�,_ '.S'. � � -t`9:�.: -��l'4 ". 1 PY --� j: :TM�_. - :.:Y 4: .,, ,�.'- �A�r -iK�- �� 7>n � �,=r� �r..$'�i�i �1•'''� (' 1 ...]X,...�. None — — z 0 -Use Project EiR .1 20 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed WIN illl.l!l.11lols Sm Ce BECSP MM4.9-1 Project applicants shall require by contract specgications Contract language and Review and Plan chock prior to Planning that the following construction best management practices (BMPs) be notes on grading and approve contract issuance of a implemented by contractors to reduce construction noise levels: building plans specifications, grading permit w Two weeks prior to the commencement of construction,notification grading and building must be provided to surrounding land uses within 300 feet of a project plans for inclusion site disclosing the construction schedule,including the various types of activities that would be occurring throughout the duration of the Periodic field check During Planning construction period construction a Ensure that construction equipment is properly muffled according to industry standards and be in good working condition m Place noise-generating construction equipment and locate construction stagingareas_away,fromsensitive_uses,where feasible w Schedule high-nolse-producing activities between the hours of 8:00 Am and 5:00 Pm to minimize disruption on sensitive uses,Monday through Saturday;schedule pile-drivingactivities—between the_hours- -__ W :00 AM ~~-~`'~~'~~^'`�°"""°o '' '�", �'v c�c u Implement noise attenuation measures,which may include,but are not limited to,temporary noise barriers or noise blankets around stationary construction noise sources n Use electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment,where feasible a Construction-related equipment,including heavy-duty equipment, motor vehicles, and portable equipment,shall be turned off when not in n Construction hours,allowable workdays,and the phone number of the job superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow for surrounding owners and residents to contact the job superintendent;if the City or the job superintendent receives a complaint,the superintendent shall investigate,take appropriate corrective action,and report the action taken to the reporting party Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed project 100 / City ofHonf[nqhcn Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project BK 21 +� (D o• o o e s o e '- a• e e s I—+ Fes+ Compliance Implementation Responsible VenScoffon WigationMeasure Documentotion MonitodingActivity Timing Monffor signature Dade construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit_ BECSP MM4.9-2 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Prior to issuance Planning that construction staging areas along with the operation of earthmoving notes on grading plans approve grading of a grading permit equipment within the project area would be located as far away from and building plans plans and building vibration and noise sensitive sites as possible.Contract specifications shall plans for inclusion be included in the proposed project construction documents,which shall be reviewed by the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. BECSP MM4.9-3 Project applicants shall require by contract specifications Contract language and Review and Prior to issuance Building and that heavily loaded trucks used during construction would be routed away notes on grading and approve grading of a grading permit Safety from residential streets. Contract specifications shall be included in the building plans and building plans proposed project construction documents, which shall be reviewed by the for inclusion City prior to issuance of a grading permit. BECSP MM4.9.4 Project applicants shall provide proper shielding for all Contract language and Review and Prior to issuance Planning new HVAC systems used by the proposed residential and mixed-use notes on building approve building of a building buildings to achieve a noise attenuation of 15 dBA at 50 feet from the plans plans for inclusion permit equipment. x BECSP MM4.9.5 Prior to issuance of building permits, project applicants Acoustical Study Review and Prior to issuance Planning shall submit an acoustical study for each development, prepared by a approval of study of building permits certified acoustical engineer. Should the results of the acoustical study and building plans indicate that that exterior (e.g., patios and balconies) and interior noise for inclusion any levels would exceed the standards set forth in the City of Huntington Beach special design Municipal Code Sections 8,40.050 through 8.40.070, the project applicant measures shall include design measures that may include acoustical paneling or walls to ensure that noise levels do not exceed City standards. Final project design shall incorporate special design measures in the construction of the residential units,if necessary. �. c_ ds,f !iW'Q�l�'6 t�.i�;:�'`., dr"+t•-•r�r,-i".- -,a .,5-'�' �ri :y A, - �� �n4. :.�;.�.-.,�.!�� 'y it:�. ,.{�; `1F1 i r�.!-=is��'�:FSd 3.. n '���SG 44 r:Y � .!r �'? r �.� � �4!' ��._ � d �J a '� �•r�,�i F:y�sy�;r swr �;v p" ��s+•=�P�': .)-� Y. �. �.�,-'i, y. � ,,,�. _ .5. - - a,#s---,... � .k:,, 1. et;n �" � $ '�4C a_ •c,.tvy- •!if„ .G. s - �5_ 1• t — TT 0 22 City of Huntington Beach,Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR V4 Compliance implementation Responsible Veriffccd1on Mitigation Measure Documentation Monitoring AcffvjYy riming Monitor Signature Dote BECSP M11114.1111-11 Subject to the City's annual budgetary process, which Budget sufficiently to Review at annual Prior to issuance Planning considers available funding and the staffing levels needed to provide maintain standard budgetary of building permits acceptable response time for fire and police services,the City shall provide level of fire and police discussions;Review sufficient funding to maintain the City's standard, average level of service protection currently standard through the use of General Fund monies, levels Iffl it BECSP MM4.13-1 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fairshare Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a separate westbound right turn.lane to the intersection of occupancy Beach Boulevard at Warner Avenue, Implementation of this Improvement would require Caltrans approval. BECSP M111114.13-2 For future projectprojects— -- -- within-- the Specific_ _ lan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the � ~rr~~' shall~ "~^" " fair share contribution= for the payment of certificate of addition of dual northbound and southbound left turn lanes to the occupancy intersection of Beach Boulevard at Garfield Avenue.Implementation of this improvement would require Caltrans approval, BECSP MM4.13-3 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of a ition of a fourth northbound through lane to the interseGtion of occupancy rookhurst Street at Adams Avenue. BECSP MM4.13-4 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a separate northbound right turn lane to the intersection of occupancy Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue. ITI 2! 13ECSP MM4.13-5 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of ce!rtificate of . addition of - fourth _ —_ through lan_' to the intersection of CD Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue. 00 ' / City ofHunfinqton Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project BR 23 �+^ �� . ' — fD Compliance W Implementation Responsible Venicalfon M1llgalfonMeaswe Documentaflon MonffonfngAc6vity liming Monitor Signature Date BECSP MM4.13-6 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a fourth eastbound through lane to the intersection of occupancy Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue, BECSP MM4.13-7 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to Issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a fourth westbound through lane to the Intersection of occupancy Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue. BECSP MM4.13-8 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area,the project applicant(s)shall make a fair share contribution to allow a payment of certificate of right turn overlap for a westbound right turn at the intersection of occupancy Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue. BECSP MM4.13.9 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area,the project applicant(s)shall make a fair share contribution to allow a payment of certificate of right turn overlap for a northbound right turn at the intersection of occupancy Brookhurst Street at Adams Avenue. x BECSP MM4.13.10 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works tZ area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a fourth northbound through lane to the intersection of Beach occupancy Boulevard at Edinger Avenue. Implementation of this improvement would require Caltrans approval. BECSP MM4.13.11 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works _. area, the project applicant(s)shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a third westbound through lane to the intersection of Beach occupancy Boulevard at Edinger Avenue. Implementation of this improvement would require Caltrans approval. = BECSP MM4.13.12 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works - q area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a separate southbound right-tum lane to the intersection of occupancy Beach Boulevard at Balsa Avenue. Implementation of this improvement would require Caltrans approval, P 124 City of Huntingfon Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR s s • • • e • • -e e • •s • Compliance Implementation Responsible VedkaBon Mltigotion Measure Documentation Monitoring Activity riming Monitor Signature Date BECSP MM4.13.13 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a second westbound left-turn lane to the intersection of Beach occupancy Boulevard at Talbert Avenue. Implementation of this improvement would require Caltrans approval, BECSP MM4.13-14 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a de facto westbound right-turn lane to the intersection of Beach occupancy Boulevard at Talbert Avenue. Implementation of this improvement would require Caltrans approval. BECSP MM4.13-15 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of conversion of a separate westbound right-turn lane to a de facto right-turn occupancy lane at the intersection of Newland Street at Warner Avenue. BECSP MM4.13.16 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a third westbound through lane to the Intersection of Newland occupancy x Street at Warner Avenue. bo BECSP MM4.13.17 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to issuance Public Works 00 area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a separate southbound right-turn lane to the intersection of occupancy Beach Boulevard at McFadden Avenue. Implementation of this improvement would require Caltrans and City of Westminster approvals. BECSP MM4.13-18 For future projects that occur within the Specific Plan Proof of fair share Confirm payment Prior to Issuance Public Works _a. area, the project applicant(s) shall make a fair share contribution for the payment of certificate of addition of a separate northbound right-tum lane to the intersection of occupancy .: Beach Boulevard at McFadden Avenue. Implementation of this _a improvement would require Caltrans and City of Westminster approvals. M Z (D g -, City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 25 -P 00 Compliance U) Implementation Responsible Vermccifion Millgation Measure Documentation Mon1foringAc1tvily Tkning Monitor Signature Date I.R.6 K. N A-10 W. Ngg�,g 'g, NMI@ N, AIF.�O 0 R k, .0" M", BECSP MM4.14-1 The components of future projects in the Specific Plan Notes on construction Review construction Prior to issuance Public Works area shall incorporate the following measures to ensure that conservation plans and conditions, plans prior to of building permits; and efficient water use practices are implemented per project. Project covenants and issuance of building Prior to final proponents, as applicable,shall: restrictions(CC&Rs), permits;Review inspection ® Require employees to report leaks and water losses immediately and as applicable CC&Rs prior to final shall provide information and training as required to allow for efficient inspection reporting and follow up w Educate employees about the importance and benefits of water conservation ® Create water conservation suggestion boxes,and place them in prominent areas w Install signs in restrooms and cafeterias that encourage water conservation m Assign an employee to evaluate water conservation opportunities and effectiveness m Develop and implement a water management plan for its facilities that 00 includes methods for reducing overall water use 00 a Conduct a water use survey to update current water use needs (processes and equipment are constantly upgrading,thus changing the need for water in some areas) m Repair leaks;check the water supply system for leaks and turn off unnecessary flows E Utilize water-efficient irrigation systems and drought tolerant plant palette and insure that sprinklers are directing water to landscape areas,and not to parking lots,sidewalks or other paved areas m Adjust the irrigation schedule for seasonal changes ® Install low-flow or waterless fixtures in public and employee restrooms m Instruct cleaning crews to use water efficiently for mopping Z C) 26 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR • e a a o e s • s e a s e • a o e s e • • • - • o 0 0 0 • Comprionce Implementation Responsible Veri6ccWon Mitigation Measure Documentation Moni oring A04y Timing Monitor Signature Date ■ Use brooms,squeegees,and wetldry vacuums to clean surfaces before washing with water;do not use hoses as brooms;sweep or blow paved areas to clean,rather than hosing off(applies outside,not inside) ■ Avoid washing building exteriors or other outside structures = Sweep and vacuum parking lots/sidewalks/window surfaces rather than washing with water e Switch from"wet"carpet cleaning methods,such as steam,to"dry," powder methods;change window-cleaning schedule from"periodic"to °as required' ■ Set automatic optic sensors on icemakers to minimum fill levels to provide lowest possible daily requirement;ensure units are air-cooled and not water-cooled it Control the flow of water to the garbage disposal ra Install and maintain spray rinsers for pot washing and reduce flow of x spray rinsers for prewash ■ Turn off dishwashers when not in use—wash only full loads 00 � a Scrape rather than rinse dishes before washing a Operate steam tables to minimize excess water use m Discontinue use of water softening systems where possible a Ensure water pressure and flows to dishwashers are set a minimum required setting ° ■ Install electric eye sensors for conveyer dishwashers ■ Install flushometer(tankless)toilets with water-saving diaphragms and T coordinate automatic systems with work hours so that they don't run continuously ■ Use a shut-off nozzle on all hoses that can be adjusted down to a fine { spray so that water flows only when needed a a Install automatic rain shutoff device on sprinkler systems •' 27 :ity of Huntir~+on Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR O� r+ fD H� 00 1 e p e e � e e e - e • o - 0 O • H� `p Compliance �1 tmplementoffon ResponsRNe Venfrcallon MiifgafionMeasure Documentation Montto►ingAcfivtfy 11m1ng Monl7or signature Date •'sw. t _,,t' ", - - - r y,.,,t lPf t$F �.I;l', [.'`WSJ: J"•NT` q A' tip rs% :F WI>.ra r` asuiy.�ar .r •-6:;3»_ 4{ Exct`Ki,r.S`.,-,- �3.;: r=+- ,a - + •L 1 •: xv :k Y#- sa.+r .,.� �$. t yy� f,y,�•{7, a�`{�,'�° <� - -g - �� r x` { s. taa�:� ��Yr t (�� �,.,,, �, .'J:..,7 '�l'l- {L ;:f+ ).. 4 F'aikS `'!$}. - S.A.,i [I .,•1> � 'Gt.�r '.N �.'XI � M1. .T,)3i.-3J �iF- ..J.i'IF. -�- a� � e T4•e�. k .w$.'.� i:c-._ C'. ..x�ik.- .N �' ;��'-�.�.Y,1„.'�tl :� ..,wknx. n.7�. - -�k4:•.�n:t!9�'3�� H:. BECSP MM4.15-1 The City shall require by contract specifications that all Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning diesel-powered equipment used would be retrofitted with after-treatment notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a products (e.g., engine catalysts and other technologies available at the and construction plans specifications and grading permit time construction commences)to the extent that they are readily available grading plans and and cost effective when construction activities commence. Contract construction plans specifications shall be included in the proposed project construction for inclusion documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. BECSP MM4.15.2 The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning alternative fuel construction equipment(i.e.,compressed natural gas,liquid notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a petroleum gas, and unleaded gasoline) would be utilized to the extent and construction plans specifications and grading permit feasible at the time construction activities commence. Contract grading plans and specifications shall be Included in the proposed project construction construction plans documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach, for inclusion BECSP MM4.15-3 The City shall require that developers within the project Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning site use locally available building materials,such as concrete, stucco,and notes on construction approve contract issuance of a interior finishes, for construction of the project and associated plans specifications and building permit infrastructure. construction plans for inclusion oc oBECSP MM4.15-4 The City shall require developers within the project site Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning to establish a construction management plan with Rainbow Disposal to notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a divert a target of 50 percent of construction, demolition, and site clearing and construction plans specifications and grading or building waste, grading plans and permit,which 1127 construction plans occurs earlier -- for inclusion `r BECSP MM4.15-5 The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning construction equipment engines will be maintained in good condition and in notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a proper tune per manufacturer's specification for the duration of and construction plans specifications and grading permit construction. Contract specifications shall be included in the proposed grading plans and -^ project construction documents, which shall be approved by the City of construction plans - Huntington Beach. for inclusion z 28 City of Huntington Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR • e e • • e s • o 0 0 o• o Y O O O • O O 0 � 0 0 • - Y • O Compliance Implementation Responsible Verification Aftation Measure Documentaflon Mondoring Activity liming Monitor Signafure Rafe BECSP MM4.15-6 The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning construction-related equipment, including heavy-duty equipment, motor notes on grading plans approve contract issuance of a vehicles, and portable equipment, shall be turned off when not in use for and construction plans specifications and grading permit more than five minutes. Diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with grading plans and gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds shall be construction plans turned off when not in use for more than five minutes. Contract for inclusion specifications shall be included In the proposed project construction documents,which shall be approved by the City of Huntington Beach. BECSP MM4.15.7 The Clty shall require that any new development within Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning the Specific Plan area provide signs within loading dock areas clearly notes on construction approve contract issuance of a visible to truck drivers. These signs shall state that trucks cannot idle in plans specifications and building permit excess of five minutes per trip. construction plans for inclusion BECSP MM4.15.8 The City shall require by contract specifications that Contract language and Review and Plan check prior to Planning electrical outlets are included in the building design of future loading docks notes on construction approve contract issuance of a to allow use by refrigerated delivery trucks. Future project-specific plans specifications and building permit Applicants shall require that all delivery trucks do not idle for more than five construction plans x minutes. If loading and/or unloading of perishable goods would occur for for inclusion W more than five minutes, and confinual refrigeration is required, all refrigerated delivery trucks shall use the electrical outlets to continue w powering the truck refrigeration units when the delivery truck engine is turned off. BECSP MM4.15-9 The City shall require that any new development within Contract language and Review construction Plan check prior to Planning the project site provide a bulletin board or kiosk in the lobby of each notes on construction plans for inclusion issuance of proposed structure that identifies the locations and schedules of nearby plans certificate of > transit opportunities. occupancy M 171 CD ' City of Hunti—ifon Beach, Beach and Ellis Mixed-Use Project EIR 29 00 M CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION COMMUNICATION TO: Chair and Planning Commissioners VIA: Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Buildi 6k\-, FROM: Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Site Plan Review No. 12-01 (Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project) DATE: May 14, 2012 Attached is a revision to the Open Space exhibit included in the staff report dated May 15, 2012 (Attachment No. 2.18). The revised exhibit clarifies which areas are included for the Public Open Space calculation. This new exhibit should replace Attachment No. 2.18. Also attached are three pages that were inadvertently omitted from the Fire Department Code Requirements during the printing of the reports. These pages . should be inserted after Attachment Nos 4.18, 4.19 and 4.20. Cc: Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Item 18. - 199 HB -832-LATE COMMUNICATION B-1 PC MTG 5-15-12 Page 2 of 7 • A soil testing plan conforming to City Specification#431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards shall be submitted and approved by the Fire Department. • All soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards, and testing results must be submitted, and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. • Reference that all soils shall be in compliance with City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards in the plan notes. (FD) "Remediation Action Plan" If contamination is identified, provide a Fire Department approved Remediation Action Plan (RAP) based on requirements found in Huntington Beach City Specification #431-92, Soil Cleanup Standard. Upon remediation action plan approval, a rough grading permit may be issued. (FD) a. Proof of OCHCA Site Closure or Corrective Action Plan. Removal of flammable or combustible liquid underground storage tanks (UST) requires the applicant to submit one of the following to the Huntington Beach Fire Department: • An approved Orange County Health Care Agency UST Site Closure Letter, or • Provide an Orange County Health Care Agency UST Corrective Action Plan and written permission for co-existence. If OCHCA requires on-going remediation and co-existence with the proposed development is permissible, a copy of the approved Orange County Health Care Agency plan and written permission for co-existence must be submitted in order to obtain Huntington Beach Fire Department approval. Each site will be evaluated on an individual basis. Prior to building construction, all soils shall conform to City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards, and testing results must be submitted, and approved by the Fire Department prior to issuance of a grading permit. (FD) b. Proof of South Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Site Closure or Corrective Action Plan. Removal of flammable or combustible liquid underground storage tanks (UST) requires the applicant to submit one of the following to the Huntington Beach Fire Department_ • An approved South Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board UST Site Closure Letter, or • Provide a South Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board UST Corrective Action Plan and written permission for co-existence. ATTACHMENT O. JJ 15'A- HB -833- 'Item 18. - 200 Page 6 of 7 Exit Ways and Aisles Plan is required for this project. HBFC section 408.2.1.Plans shall be submitted indicating the seating arrangement, location and width of exit ways and aisles for approval and an approved copy of the plan shall be kept on display on the premises. (FD) THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED DURING CONSTRUCTION: a. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with HBFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction And Demolition. (FD) b. Fire/Emergency Access And Site Safety shall be maintained during project construction phases in compliance with City Specification#426, Fire Safety Requirements for Construction Sites. (FD) OTHER: a. Discovery of additional soil contamination or underground pipelines, etc., must be reported to the Fire Department immediately and the approved work plan modified accordingly in compliance with City Specification #431-92 Soil Clean-Up Standards. (FD) b. Outside City Consultants The Fire Department review of this project and subsequent plans may require the use of City consultants. The Huntington Beach City Council approved fee schedule allows the Fire Department to recover consultant fees from the applicant, developer or other responsible party. (FD) Fire Department City Specifications may be obtained at: Huntington Beach Fire Department Administrative Office City Hall 2000 Main Street, 5t'floor Huntington Beach, CA 92648 or through the City's website at www.surfeity-hlb.org If you have any questions, please contact the Fire Prevention Division at (714) 536-5411. A T TA H M T Item 18. - 201 xB -834- � ATTACHMENT #6) 5/22/2012 SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-01 Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project City Council Meeting June 4, 2012 Applicant: Ben Brosseau Consulting, Inc. Appellant: Mayor Don Hansen • SPR No.la-or:Reviews and analyzes the mixed use project proposed for the southeast corner of Beach Blvd and EIlis Ave: ® 274 Residential Units • 8,500 sf of Commercial Uses 17,540 sf of Public Open Space ■ 3i,006 sf of Residential Private Open Space • LEED Silver Certified-GreenPoint Rated/LEED Silver Equivalent • 27 Onsite Affordable Housing Units • 43o Parking Spaces(plus 45 extended stalls as amenity) • 2.74 acre site fl _ 1 y j �, Cmmpvtl EhMl(0n•KtgjMen B BuNdl q2 —_ 1 Item 18. - 203 HB -836- 5/22/2012 SP + The Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project is located within the p� BECSP,SP 14,Town Center ` Neighborhood Segment_ • Features the City's widest range of contemporary housing types. • Permits aide mixture of uses. `�- • Emphasizes the pedestrian experience providing public spaces and connectivity .. within walking distance of ` , the Five Points,Town Center {- Core. r • Existing structures in this District range from one story to 14 stories. a. n �X ti :T n r 29 N HB -837- Item 18. - 204 5/22/2012 ecture =k .. • Designed with two buildings:Building No.1,is four stories and fronts Beach Blvd., Building No.a is four to six stories fronting Ellis Avenue. • Conforms to the height,volume,length and articulation standards of the Specific Plan. • Designed in Contemporary Architecture and incorporates enhanced materials and facade treatments to emphasize the variation in massing with stone veneers at the base adding to the aesthetic of the structures. • Color palette and rooflines contribute to the visual quality of the development. • Reflective of the envisioned urban Town Center-Neighborhood C i enderings � y F I i u �} Erq-Raa EhraYw-B1a�&7...__... 11i1117 "ma's gr r-3 i-. � '�°e'� 3 Item 18. - 205 HB -838- 1 �a _-;;C_ r`<.sqy r.�"..�.:a� I -..7.r.r r a b�'.�-Y.�I.s�,3,u r;��-•"-s'v�:- � � �; "^�St�4� � s�:f.7 ■ Wl� � rcc��IaI-a� r■� w :a x: -�- ■ ref 2 Y F' 5/22/2012 Planning Commission Action • The Planning Commission approved SPR No. is-oi on May 15, 2012. • There were a total of eleven speakers. • Three people were opposed to the project due to traffic, height, crime, remediation or relocation of tenants concerns. • A total of eight people spoke in support of the project. • General consensus of support: • Project could reduce crime, improves the site, and allows Huntington Beach to experience positive growth. 7- Appeal of Planning Commission Action • One appeal was filed: Mayor Don Hansen • Reason for Appeal • To allow the City Council an opportunity to review and discuss the merits and adequacy of the Site Plan Review application based on the BECSP and goals of the City. 5 Item 18. - 207 HB -840- 5/22/2012 Iowa MOO ..y Site Plan Review No. 12-01 Overview • Project is consistent with the Town Center-Neighborhood segment of the BECSP. • Improves viability of the Beach Blvd Corridor. • Creates a deliberate, physical environment by regulating height, setbacks,structural articulation and building massing. • Designed with two separate structures: Building No. 1 four stories fronting Beach Blvd.;Building No.a four to six stories fronting Ellis Avenue. • Creates the pedestrian connections envisioned for the area as important to implementing a successful mix of residential and commercial uses that promote walkability. • Results in the envisioned urban neighborhood,where the widest range of contemporary housing types are located within the BECSP. - c ~' a Ian Review No. 12-01 Overvieriv cont'd} • As part of this Site Plan Review, Overland Traffic Consultants conducted a special Traffic Analysis in April 2012. • Analysis confirmed that significant impacts would not result. • Study included gap analysis to evaluate opportunities for project related traffic on Ellis Ave.,to use Ellis driveway. • Results in the relocation of the originally proposed driveway on Ellis Ave. to align with Patterson Lane-347 ft east of Beach Blvd. • BECSP requires all projects to incorporate sustainable elements in project design,such as those listed in the Architectural Regulations. • Applicant proposes to exceed minimum sustainability requirements with LEED and GreenPoint Rated programs. HB -841- Item 18. - 208 5/22/2012 - w,J Planning Commission Discussion Issues • Open Space:Expressed a concern on how the southerly property line paseo complies with the BECSP, as well as the use of the plaza open space component between the two buildings. • Paseo is ao ft-28 ft wide and has same enhanced paving as the plaza and is landscaped. • Project would still comply with minimum open space requirement, including maximum width of a paseo, if wider portion is not included • Paseo provides a linkage between recorded Grant of Easement forpedestrian and vehicular ingress and egress to the east(SRO site/alley)and Beach BIvd. estrian Connectivity ace • The Plaza feature serves to connect pedestrians from Beach Blvd to Ellis Ave, ,! providing entry to parking garage, residential lobbies and retail 'i shops. PERSPECTIVE VIEW FROM MACH MUtEYARD ENTRY DRIVE ..... 7 Item 18. - 209 HB -842- 5/22/2012 _ , w, anning Commission Discussion Issues (cont'd) • The other aspect of the open space compliance pertained to dual use of a portion of the plaza open space as loading& move-in/move-out area. • BECSP states services entrances and loading docks be located to the side or rear of building and screened. • No loading docks or service doors are designed because of the small commercial square footage(8,500)and the dual shopfronts facing both Beach Blvd and plaza. Allwalk-in deliveries will be from the plaza entrances. • Move-in/Move-out:Major appliances are included, thus reducing the need for large moving trucks. • Those trucks too tall to enter the iz ft high garage, will use the special loading area and be regulated by a parking management plan. ..:;:i'; :��+, tsar r. anning Commission Discussion Issues (cont'd) • Hazardous Remediation: Issues of site remediation, occupancy of the project and consistency with the General Plan and EIR mitigation measures pertaining to hazardous material were also raised. • EIR concludes that with implementation of the existing code requirements and Mitigation Measures MM4.6-1 through MM4.6-4 all hazardous materials impacts would be less than significant. • The project will not receive occupancy unless remediation is satisfactorily achieved. • General Plan conformance,Hazards and Hazardous Materials compliance was originally addressed in the EIR staff report. The project itself is consistent with Hazardous Materials Element of the General Plan. 8 HB -843- Item 18. - 210 5/22/2012 NO • IT lements objectives of the BECSP to improve the viability of Beach Blvd and Ellis Ave; • Provides mixed use development consistent with the BECSP development code and is compatible with the existing surrounding and anticipated land uses; • Facilitates development that produces an environment, which is both attractive and sustainable by, increasing housing options for diverse household types; • Consistent with good zoning practice and implements the goals of transforming the Beach Blvd Corridor by providing 274 units; • Includes LEED Silver and GreenPoint Rated Certifications; • Provides residents with multiple amenities for an active and mobile lifestyle; and Provides a high quality of architectural design, integrating elements that promote a healthy and active-lifestyle. i z R-1.IN S1.1 RECOMMENDATION • Planning Commission and staff recommend that the City Council: • Approve CEQA Findings of Fact • Approve Site Plan Review No. 12-01 with suggested findings and conditions of approval 9 Item 18. - 211 HB -844- 5/22/2012 END 10 xB -845- Item 18. - 212 � 1 ® City Of Huntington Beach # � 2000 Main Street ♦ Huntington Beach, CA 92648 (714) 536-5227 ♦ www.huntingtonbeachca.gov F ` Q Office of the City Clerk g 17 k949A�� � Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk NOTICE OF APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL Appeal of Planning Commission Decision, Public Works Commission Decision or Police Department Decision/Action Date: May 17, 2012 To: Planning and Building Department City Attorney City Council Office Administration Public Works Department Police Department(only if Police related item) Filed by: Mayor Don Hansen Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission's Approval of Site Plan Review No. 12-01 (Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Prom :t Date for Public Hearing: - Copy of appeal letter attached: Yes Fee collected: none Completed by: Rebecca Ross, Senior Deputy City Clerk IN ORDER TO MEET A 10-DAY PRE-HEARING ADVERTISING DEADLINE, OUR AGENDA SCHEDULE STATES LEGAL NOTICE AND MAILING LABELS MUST BE RECEIVED IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 18 DAYS PRIOR TO PUBLIC HEARING DATE *FOR ITEMS THAT REQUIRED EXPANDED ADVERTISING, PLEASE CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE Sister Cities: Anjo,Japan ♦ Waitakere, New Zealand CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication TO: Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk -® FROM: Don Hansen, May DATE: May 17, 2012 CA) SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-01 (BEACH AND ELLIS MIXED USE PROJECT) I hereby appeal the Planning Commission's approval of the Beach and Ellis Mixed Use Project Site Plan Review No. 12-01. On May 15, 2012, the Planning Commission approved SPR No. 12-01 with a 3-2 vote. The primary reason for my appeal is to allow the City Council an opportunity to review the project on the merits of its proposal. Pursuant to Section 248.18 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance, the City Council shall hear an appeal from the decision of the Planning Commission. SH:MBB:rm cc: City Council Members Chair and Planning Commission Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Bob Hall, Deputy City Administrator Scott Hess, Director of Planning and Building Travis Hopkins, Director of Public Works Herb Fauland, Planning Manager Mary Beth Broeren, Planning Manager Robin Lugar, Deputy City Clerk Rosemary Medel, Associate Planner Kim De Coite, Administrative Assistant g:admnitr\2012\051712rm 1 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 4, 2012, at 6:00 p.m�. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following : 1.APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-01 (BEACH AND ELLIS MIXED USE PROJECT): Appellant: Mayor Don Hansen. Applicant: Ben Brosseau Consulting Inc. Property Owner: Morrie Golcheh, Progressive Property Management.Request: SPR: Represents a request to develop a mixed use project consisting of 274 residential units including 6 live-work units, 8,500 square feet (sf) of commercial space, an internal 430 space parking garage and 54,861 sf of private and public open space on a 2.74 acre site. The project ranges in height from four to six stories and is designed as proposed LEED Silver rated for the commercial portion of the project and Green Point Rated for the residential portion. All existing improvements on the site would be demolished. Location: 18502-18552 Beach Blvd, 92648 (2.74-acre site at the southeast corner of Beach and Ellis) Proiect Planner: Rosemary Medel NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Item #1 was previously analyzed under EIR No. 10-004 in compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request and supporting materials is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 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 on Thursday, May 31, 2012. 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 and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2"d Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ "M DailmO t� t � Dail Plot ; -�PdMntedby:OS02 Patricia Gamino May21,2612,10:23 am ��•�• Salesperson: �ll! Phone: Ad#35015020 'Ps a' fr5227 r y S; -Aft OS 2412 (714)531 x 117.340 City Of Huntington Beach(Parent) 05-24-12 Bilteds)Ze 11.50 TCN Inds r f?O Box 784 E mom 1 old Huntington Beac,CA 926481 4 "cxade &Lega1 Huntington Beach type` Liner TBlket�t* 0622 Daniel Arretche 4 Cx0.�.0.a,00 70-4�r79 13000-Legal Notices r $92.0.0 TCNHBI $92.00�, ' City of Huntington Beach-Planning 1ntDur3� $92 00 ` ra of a�A17+ieTa r w (714)3741557 rb?+ktltrctta Ad Copy: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCK OF THE CITY Of HUNTINGTON BEACII NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, June 4, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following: 0 1. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12- 01 (BEACH AND ELLIS MIXED USE PROJECT): Appellant: Mayor Don Hansen. Applicant: Ben Brosseau Consulting Inc. Property Owner.Morrie Golcheh, Progressive Property Management. Request: SPR: Repre- sents a request to develop a mixed use project consisting of 274 residential units includ- ing 6 live-work units, 8,500 square feet (sf) of commercial space,an internal 430 space parking garage and 54,861 sf of private and public open space on a 2.74 acre site- The project ranges in height from four to six stories and is designed as proposed L£ED Silver rated for the commercial portion of the project and Green Point Rated for the residential portion. Alf existing improvements on the site would be demol- ished. Location: 18502- 18552 Beach Blvd,92648 (2.74-acre site at the southeast corner of Beach and Ellis)Project Planner: Rosemary Medel NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that item ill was previously analyzed under EIR No. 10.004 in --- ad proof pg.1 --- e1V ��G�L�A:zS�FI ED �� r�� r �'��' � .�� D`dllJ Pilot �x pa,.n.�' 5�7.T.t S'1 lz`�Grr 3r` r s r ' �. ` - Daily Pilot . I vj Printed by0602 Patricia Gamin* May21,2012,10:23arn '; T t Salesperson: HIBI1. a Phone: AdC350t5020 F,�,-,:�� .r�`t'-¢;s��.nE;-:.+;. compliance with Califor- nia Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request and supporting materials is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Hun- tington 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 on Thursday,May 31,2012. ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS 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 Coun- cil'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 correspon- dence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 http:// huntingtonbeachca.gov/ HBPublicComments/ Published H.B.Indepen- dent May 24,2012 ad proof pg.2 --- CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: S / -;Wsl� DI DEPARTMENT: P).ACHHme, MEETING DATE: 6 �-- CONTACT: K- PHONE: V ((o N/A YES NO Is the notice attached? ( ) ( ) ( ) Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council(and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? ( ) ( ) Are the date,day and time of the public hearing correct? ( ) ( ) ( ) If an appeal,is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? ( ) ( ) (t)""" Is there an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? Is a map attached for publication? Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing list? ( ) ( ) Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? ( ) ( ) ( ) Are the appecant's name and address part of the mailing labels? {v}f ( ) ( ) If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,are the Resident labels attached? ( ) ( ) Is the33343 report attached? (Economic Development Dept. items only) Please complete the following: I. Minimum days from publication to hearing date 2. Number of times to be published / 3. Number of days between publications Easy Peel@ Labels i ♦ Bend along tine to 1 AVERY@ 6241"m Use Avery(D Template 5160® j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTm j 157-471-04,05 1 157-341-04 2 157-341-05 3 MAIN BEACH LLC LISA MARIE REINCKE P A POON&SON INC 10537 SANTA MONICA BLVD 350 PO BOX 34056 2950 HARBOR BLVD LOS ANGELES CA 90025 LAS VEGAS NV 89133 COSTA MESA CA 92626 157-341-06 4 157-341-07 5 ./" 157-341-08 6 P A POON&SON INC LISA MARIE RED Yc� LISA MARIE REJ 18822 BEACH BLVD 103 PO BO f156 PO BOX�3U56 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 L GAS NV 89133 DEGAS NV 89133 157-341-11 7 157-341-12 8 _ 157-341-13 9 SWANNA 0 NEWMAN JOSE A SANTANA " `Y ANTHONY&KEELY ANN DIEN 1915 MARINERS DR 6426 FORESTER DR 10263 ORIOLE AVE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 157-341-14 10 157-341-15 11 157-341-21 12 TAMIO KANEKO MIA RAE&MICHAEL ANTHONY ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT 6561 VESPER CIR HERNANDEZ PO BOX 8300 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 18391 PATTERSON LN FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92728 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-341-22 13 _.,�--'j`` 157-343-13 14 157-343-14 15 BEACH HUNTING,TON SHIRLEY J REALEY LISA SHEPHERD 2000 MAIN-STr 18431 GOODWIN LN 18441 GOODWIN LN H�NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-15 16 157-343-16 17 157-343-17 18 THANH QUOC NGUYEN TOM T TERAOKA HUNTINGTON BEACH BAPTIST 18461 GOODWIN LN 17171 MARINA VIEW PL CHURCH HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 8121 IN AVE HUNTINGTGT ON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-21 19 157-343-22 20 157-343-23 21 JOSE A SANTANA GUSTAVO&BLANCA GALLARDO CELESTINO&PATRICIA PEREZ 6426 FORESTER DR 8092 LA PALMA 8102 LA PALMA DR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-24 22 HOME SWEET HOMES REAL ESTATE 157-343-25 23 °�° 157-343-26 24 LLC THOMAS DAO _� WALTER D SCHROEDER 6476 SURREY DR 9134 EDINGBR AVE 8101 LA-PALMA AVE LONG BEACH CA 90815 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-27 25 157-343-28 26 157-343-29 27 STEPHEN ANDRADA VITO E ANTIFORA KEVIN FIGLEWICZ 8081 LA PALMA 6129 CAPRI CT 8091 ELLIS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 LONG BEACH CA 90803 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-31 28 157-343-32 29 157-471-06 30 JOHN CRANEY ALBERT LAMB - JQTW 8101 ELLIS AVE 8071 ELLIS AVE PO BOX 5697 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91413 Etiquettes faciles.a peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.averycom I ei:r I _�I- :a AVCnW@ G7G/1® I Sens de n_ .. nAt i_stnn_r,0_AVFRV Easy Peel@ L-abels i ♦ Bend along line to 1 Q AVER®6241Tm Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM i i 157-471-12 31 157-471-13 32 157-471-14 33 NADINE SANCHEZ HUE KHANH THI NGUYEN MASAYOSHI G SETO 18661 LIBRA CIR 11391 BLUEBELL AVE 38 TIDAL SURF HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 NEWPORT COAST CA 92657 157-471-15 34 157-471-16 35 �--'� 157-471-17 36 LOURDES JACINTO&STEVEN TODD�- ROBERT F CRONK JITSUAN LLC, ��� HARSHE 18312 HARTLUND LN 4009VIA RGAVISTA 5276 CHADWICK DR � HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 PA VERDES ESTA CA 90274 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 157-471-31 37 157-471-32 38 157-501-01 39 UMC LLC HUNTINGTON BEACH HOUSING CHURCH,FAITH LUTHERAN OF 18700 BEACH BLVD 255 ASSOCIATES HUNTINGTON BEACH HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 8102 ELLIS AVE 8200 ELLIS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-02 40 _ - " 157-501-05 41 157-501-06 42 CITY OF HUNT -G-T-0- BEACH JUDY C RICHONNE NORBERTO P TORRES PO BOX,190 4226 MARYLAND ST 12 SHASTA HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 SAN DIEGO CA 92103 IRVINE CA 92612 157-501-07 43 157-501-08 44 157-501-09 45 SPIRO&SUSAN TAMS GERALD LONG ROWLAND STANLEY HODGE 18532 DEMION LN 0 3536 SUNGLOW DR 17032 LOWELL CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 REDDING CA 96001 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92649 157-501-10 46 157-501-11 47 157-501-12 48 TIMOTHY TAKESHI SUGIYAMA KATSUJI KAWAI KATSUJI KAWAI. 307 N TORRENS ST 9687 LA GRANADA AVE 9687 LA GRA"IADA AVE ANAHEIM CA 92807 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 FGLWTA:N VALLEY CA 92708 151-501-13 49 157-501-14 50 157-501-15 51 DONALD R ZANETTA JEFFREY SCOTT FREEMAN BDS&PARTNERS LLC 25 THUNDER TRAIL 119 LOMA AVE 1209 MANHATTAN AVE 130 IRVINE CA 92614 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 157-502-01 52 157-502-02 53 157-502-03 54 FIERRO J ANTHONY MARC DORIAN&JUDY F RICHONNE KEVIN M BOETHLING PO BOX 11283 1744 PALOMA DR 1931 ROBERT LANE NEWPORT BEACH CA 92658 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ANAHEIM CA 92802 157-502-04 55 157-502-05 56 157-502-06 57 DADY PROPERTIES LLC DONALD T&CHRISTINA S KUO KEVIN M BOETHLING PO BOX 24187 12337 PALM ST 1931 ROBERT IN LOS ANGELES CA 90024 CERRITOS CA 90703 ANAHEIM'CA 92802 157-502-07 58 157-502-08 59 157-502-09 60 DEMION RE HOLDINGS LLC YU-WEN CHANG PRAFULL J SURTI 20322 LIGHTHOUSE LN 30136 AVENIDA DE CALMA 8853 MOCKINGBIRD CIR HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 RANCHO PALOS VERD CA 90275 FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 Etiquettes faciles,h peter ; A Replieza la hachure afin del' www.averycom ; Sens de „ ! i_Rnn_r.n_AvFRv Easy Peel@ Labels i A Bend along line to INwVE O 6241'rm ; Use AveryO "" Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edger 157-502-10 61 157-502-11 62 157-502-12 63 DONALD L&ROBERTA GAIL LOMA FAMILY LIMITED LOMA FAMILY LIMITED- `"u JENKINS PARTNERSHIP PARTNERSHIP--- ' 16563 REDWOD CIR 19182 HAMDEN LN 19182- I•JAAMDEN LN FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 159-031-08 64 159-031-10 65 159-031-12 66 JOSEPH A TURNER SUNNY INVESTMENTS LLC DAVID M ECKHOUSE 18427 BEACH BLVD 15 CORPORATE PLAZA 240 903 79TH ST S HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 ST PETERSBURG FL 33707 159-031-16 67 "" 159-031-17 68 159-031-18 69 CITY OF HUNT-INGTON BEACH RONALD P BEARD FIVE POINT PLAZA LLC PO BOX 190 15 CORPORATE PLAZA 240 10537 SANTA MONICA BLVD UNIT 3 HUI� TTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 LOS ANGELES CA 90025 159-091-04 70 159-101-01 71 159-101-03 72 SARM FIVE POINTS PLAZA LLC CITY OF HUNTING,3GN-BEACH SARM FIVE POINTS PLAZA LLC. 10500 NE 8TH 850 PO BOX 190,_-__ 10500 NE 8TH ST 850 BELLEVUE WA 98004 HU�LTI•N'6ON BEACH CA 92648 BELLEVUE WA 98004 159-102-01 73 159-102-06 74 159-10243 75 G&M OIL CO LLC KAREN S BRISTOW BEACH CENTER PARTNERS LLC 16868 A ST 18651 BEACH BLVD 2301 DUPONT DRX* HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92647 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 IRVINEE CA 92612 159-102-44 76 930-03-435 77 930-03-436 78 RICHARD ALAN GRAHAM HUNTINGTON MONTEREY OWNERS PHILIP BOODMAN P O BOX 206 ASSOCIATIONASEO REAL 7284 AINSLEY DR 25871 P SUNSET BEACH CA 90742 25871 P EY CA AL HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MON930-03-437 79 930-03-438 80 930-03-439 81 HUNTINGTON MONTEREY OWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTERE OWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTEREY '%ERS ASSOCIATION___--' ASSOCIATION- ��- �"' ASSOCIATION 25871 PASEUREAL 25871 PASEO REAL 25871 P REAL MONTEREY CA 93940 MQN.TEREY CA 93940 M.9 REY CA 93940 930-03-440 82 930-03-441 83 930-03-442 84 HUNTINGTON_�IONTEREY OWNERS HUNTINGTON MON_TEREYOWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTE -0VNERS ASSOCj.A-F10I9 ASSOCIATION' Y� ASSOCIA 1QN- T 2�,8-7' PASEO REAL 2587-1-0/ 0 REAL 258 ASEO REAL MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 930-03-443 85 930-03-444 86 x---' 930-03-445 87 HUNTINGTON NITEREY OWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTEREY--OWNERS ASSOC. N ASSOCIAT ONE" __, HB OFFICE LLC 25.8-7ASEO REAL 258V�P'ASEO REAL 13924 SEAL BEACH BLVD 0 MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 SEAL BEACH CA 90740 930-03-446 88 930-03-448 90 930-03-447 89 HUNTINGTON MONTERE-Y UWNERS KEITH THOMAS IUNTINGTON F1'REY OWNERS ASSOCIATION---' 9834 OSCAR CIR ASSOC>TIO 25871-PAgE'O REAL FOUNTAIN VALLEY CA 92708 2587-r PASEO REAL MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 Etiquettes faciles.a peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de; www avery com ; .:c_--1_ __L_-a wrnv0 r+enG I Sens de ,_ _.—Mc ! 1_stnn_r. l_A\/FRY I easy Peel®Labels I ♦ Bend along line to i S AVERY0 6241TM Jse Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM i 930-03-449 91 930-03450 92 930-03-451 93 HUNTINGTON MONTEREY-OWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTEREYOWNERS HUNTINGTON MON.TERRY ERS ASSOCIATION- "' r ASSOCIATION ASSOCIA 25871-PASEO REAL 25871,PA'SEO REAL 258 ASEO REAL MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 930-03-452 94 930-03-453 95 930-03-454 96 HUNTINGTON MONTEREY-OWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTEREY•OVWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTERRY"OWNERS ASSOCIATT ON--- ASSOCIATION- - - ASSOCIATION..- 25�1-~ ASEO REAL 258711PA5EO REAL 25871:PASEO REAL MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 930-03-455 97 _"' 930-03-456 98 930-03-457 99 HUNTINGTON lXONT`EREY OWNERS HUNTINGTON MON'TER.YY eV�ERS ADAM VAN DYKE ASSOCIA_710N ASSOCIATION' 18377 BEACH BLVD 326 2587T'PASEO REAL 25871'` ASEO REAL HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 930-03-458 100 930-03-459 101 930-03-460 102 HUNTINGTON MONTEREY OWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTEREY OWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTEREY OWNERS ASSOCIATION— ASSOCIATION ASSOCIATION 25871 JPASEO REAL 25871 PASEOREALf 25871 PASEO RE.AL..--: ---- _ MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 MONTEREY CA 93940 930-03-461 103 --- 930-03-463 105 930-03-462 104 HUNTINGTON MONTEREY SOWNERS HUNTINGTON MONTEREY.OW.NERS ASSOCIATION VIEFHAUS&SCHNEIDER LLP ASSOCIATION- -s= 18377 BEACH BLVD 331 25871 PASEO REAL 2587.1-PASEO REAL MONTEREY CA 93940 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 MONTEREY CA 93940 Etiquettes faciles.a peler I A Repliez a la hachure afin de I www.averycom I Sens de 1-M-GO-AVERY 0918/09t9®Aaany oane alq!jPdwoo ww L9 x ww gz Iawaoi ap 91janbIT3 0918/09158 A]GAV qj!m alg ludwoo„8/S Z x„G ezls lagel Occupant Occupant Occupant 18661 Main St. 18597 Main St. 18691 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ben Brosseau 15149 Camarillo St. Steve Sheldon Morrie Golcheh Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 901 Dove St. Ste 140 10537 Santa Monica Blvd St 350 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Los Angeles, CA 90025 � I i I ' i i I i i I . ' ' I i label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 85160/8160 ' Ftimip.ttp.rip.fnrmat 75 mm x R7 mm cmmnatihle avar.AVP.ry©51R(URiR0 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18544 Beach Blvd#101 18544 Beach Blvd#102 18581 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18585 Beach Blvd 18583 Beach Blvd 18531 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18607 Beach Blvd 18595 Beach Blvd 18635 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18639 Beach Blvd 18645 Beach Blvd 18637 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18575 Beach Blvd 18584 Beach Blvd 18685 Main St. # 101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18685 Main St. # 103 18685 Main St. # 104 18685 Main St. # 102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18685 Main St. # 107 18685 Main St. # 105 18685 Main St. # 106 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18641 Main St. 18681 Main St. #101 18681 Main St. #102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18681 Main St. #103 18687 Main St. #103 18687 Main St. #102 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18687 Main St. #101 18959 Main St. 18603 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18661 Main St. 18597 Main St. 18691 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 09!2/09!go,AJany pane alclpedwoo ww Lq x ww 5Z}ewjoj ap allanblj3 09�8/09!gG)Ajany gjim aigljedwoo.,9/9 Z x j azls lagel 159-031-08 159-102-06 159-102-43 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18429 Beach Blvd 18649 Beach Blvd 18561 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18337 Beach Blvd Unit 100 18337 Beach Blvd Unit 102 18337 Beach Blvd Unit 212 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18337 Beach Blvd Unit 214 18337 Beach Blvd Unit 326 18337 Beach Blvd Unit 327 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Occupant 159-091-04 159-091-04 18337 Beach Blvd Unit 331 Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA 92648 18543 Main St. 18545 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18551 Main St. 18591 Main St. 18591 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-091-04- 159-091-04 Occupant 159-091-04 Occupant 18569 Main St. Occupant 18585 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 18581 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18589 Main St. 18573 Main St. 18575 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18577 Main St. 18579 Main St. 18557 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 159-091-04 159-091-04 159-091-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18567 Main St. 18583 Main St. 18587 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-04 157-471-04 157-471-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18530 Beach Blvd# 204 18530 Beach Blvd# 205 18530 Beach Blvd# 206 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 05160/8160 09 G8/0919©haaAV 39Ae algljeduaoo ww[9 x ww 9Z lewaoj ap ajjanbl13 M 09 G9/0919®k@AV u11M algljedwoo„2/5 Z x„G azls lagel 157-471-04 157-471-04 157-471-04 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18530 Beach Blvd# 207 18530 Beach Blvd#208 18530 Beach Blvd#209 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-04 157-471-05 157-471-05 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18526 Beach Blvd 18502 Beach Blvd 18502 Beach Blvd# 101 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-341-12 157-343-21 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18421 Patterson Ln 8072 La Palma Dr 18582 Beach Blvd# lA Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 1B 18582 Beach Blvd# 8B 18582 Beach Blvd#26 I Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 200 18582 Beach Blvd#201 18582 Beach Blvd#202 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant ; Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd#204 18582 Beach Blvd#205 18582 Beach Blvd#206 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd#208 18582 Beach Blvd#209 18582 Beach Blvd#210 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd#211 18582 Beach Blvd#212 18582 Beach Blvd#213 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 . I 157-471-06 : ! 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd #214 ! 18582 Beach Blvd#215 18582 Beach Blvd#216 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd#217 18582 Beach Blvd#218 18582 Beach Blvd# 1C Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery @15160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery°5160/8160 09G8/09190(zany oaAe aIggedwoo ww Lq x ww gZ jewjoj ap a4ianblj3 091.8/091.5®AAAy gllnn algljedwoo„8/9 Z x„l azls label , 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 223 18582 Beach Blvd#224 18582 Beach Blvd# 225 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 226 18582 Beach Blvd# 229 18582 Beach Blvd# 230 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 231 18582 Beach Blvd# 232 18582 Beach Blvd# 233 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 l Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 ! 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant ! Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 235 18582 Beach Blvd# 239 18582 Beach Blvd# 240 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-501-01 j 157-501-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 121 8200 Ellis Ave #70 8200 Ellis Ave# 74 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 157-501-01 157-501-01 157-501-01 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8200 Ellis Ave# 71 8200 Ellis Ave# 72 8200 Ellis Ave# 73 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ! Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-501-07 157-501-07 157-501-07 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18532 Demion Ln Unit A 18532 Demion Ln Unit B 18532 Demion Ln Unit C Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 ; (Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-501-07 157-501-08 157-501-08 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18532 Demion Ln Unit D 18542 Demion Ln Unit A 18542 Demion Ln Unit B Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 l . , 157-501-08 157-501-08 157-502-10 Occupant j Occupant Occupant 18542 Demion Ln Unit C 18542 Demion Ln Unit D 18621 Demion Ln Unit A Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-502-10 157-502-10 157-502-10 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18621 Demion Ln Unit B 18621 Demion Ln Unit C 18621 Demion Ln Unit D Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery @5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery @5160/8160 0K8/09�9e(zany Gene eigljedwoo ww Lq x ww 5Z jewjo�ap ajjanblj3 0918/0m@,Ajeny qm alglledwoo„9/5 Z x<j azls lagel 157-341-12 157-341-21 157-341-12 Occupant Occupant Occupant 8072 La Palma Dr. 18431 Patterson Ln Huntington Beach CA 92646 18432 Patterson Ln , Huntington Beach, CA 92646-1660 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-343-25 157-471-31 Occupant Occupant 157-471-31 8121 La Palma Dr Unit A 18632 Beach Blvd# 100 Occupant Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 18632 Beach Blvd#230 . % Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-471-31 157-471-31 1 157-471-31 Occupant Occupant i Occupant 18632 Beach Blvd# 240 ! : 1 18682 Beach Blvd# 110 18682 Beach Blvd# 150 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 I Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-471-31 157-471-31 930-03-437 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18682 Beach Blvd# 160 18682 Beach Blvd# 165 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 103 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 j Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach CA 92648 930-03-438 ' � i .030-03-439 HO-03-440 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 104 �18377 Beach Blvd Unit 105 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 106 Huntington Beach CA 92648 (Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ' 930-03-442 930-03-441 930-03-443 Occupant Dccu ant Occupant p 118377 Beach Blvd Unit 208 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 108 ! i18377 Beach Blvd Unit 209 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach CA 92648 930-03-444 930-03-446iOccu ant � 930-03-448 ' Occupant Occupant ;18377 Beach Blvd Unit 211 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 210 118377 Beach Blvd Unit 215 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 930-03-449 930-03-450 ;930-03-451 Occupant Occupant !Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 216 118377 Beach Blvd Unit 219 �18377 Beach Blvd Unit 220 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 930-03-452 !930-03-453 1 : 1930-03-454 Occupant lOccupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 222 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 322 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 323 Huntington Beach CA 92648 'Huntington Beach CA 92648 ! Huntington Beach CA 92648 930-03-455 930-03-456 930-03-459 Occupant Occupant 'Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 324 ! 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 325 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 328 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 Huntington Beach 92648 label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery(55160/8160 09t9/09<goA]9Ad pane 91glledwoo WW L9 x WW SE}eWa01 ap 0119nb113 09009G7�A19AV qj!m 91glledwoo<,9/9 Z x„G azls Pagel )30-03-460 930-03-461 930-03-463 occupant jl 'Occupant Occupant 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 329 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 330 18377 Beach Blvd Unit 333 3untington Beach CA 92648 ,Huntington Beach CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 jl. 157-502-12 I 157-502-12 157-502-12 j Occupant Occupant Occupant ! 18641 Demion Ln Unit B 18641 Demion Ln Unit C 18641 Demion Ln Unit A Huntington Beach, CA 92646 j Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-502-12 j 157-031-12 157-031-12 Occupant j 18641 Demion Ln Unit D Occupant Occupant Huntington Beach, CA 92646 7901 Ellis Ave#1 7901 Ellis Ave#2 j Huntington Beach, CA 92648 1 ;Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j 157-031-12 157-031-12 159-102-44 Occupant Occupant Occupant 7901 Ellis Ave#3 7901 Ellis Ave#4 18584 Main St luntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-31 157-471-31 157-471-31 Occupant Occupant Occupant 18632 Beach Blvd#235 18682 Beach Blvd# 100 18682 Beach Blvd# 125 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 157-471-31 157-471-06 j157-471-06 Occupant Occupant 18682 Beach Blvd# 145 18582 Beach Blvd# 8C Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 23B Huntington Beach, CA 92646 1 1 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 157-471-06 157-471-06 157-471-06 Occupant Occupant 1 Occupant 18582 Beach Blvd# 203 18582 Beach Blvd# 207 18582 Beach Blvd# 241 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 j � I 1 i 1 is i label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery 05160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 65160/8160 Easy Peels Labels i A Bend along line to i AVERYO 6241"m Use Avee Template 51601D Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM 157-471-04,05 1 15 7-471-04,05 1 15 7-471-04,05 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18510 BEACH BLVD 1851.2 BEACH BLVD 18514 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-4 71-04,05 1 15 7-471-04,05 1 15 7-471-04,05 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18516 BEACH BLVD 18518 BEACH BLVD 18520 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-4 71-04,05 1 15 7-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18522 BEACH BLVD 18524 BEACH BLVD 18528 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18530 BEA LVD 18532 BEACH BLVD 18534 BEACH BLVD HUN To BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18536 BEACH BLVD 18538 BEACH BLVD 18540 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18542 BEACH BLVD 18544 BEACH BLVD 18546 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 157-471-04,05 1 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18548 BEACH BLVD 18550 B BLVD 18552 BEA D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 GTON BEACH CA 92648 GTON BEACH CA 92648 157-341-05 3 157-341-06 4 157-341-07 5 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18400 BEACH BLVD 18462 BEACH BLVD 8031 ELLIS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-341-07 5 157-341-07 5 157-341-07 5 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPA 8033 ELLIS AVE 803 AVE 8037 LIS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HTN55 TINGTON BEACH CA 92646 H NTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-341-07 5 157-341-08 6 157-341-11 7 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8039E E 8041 ELLIS AVE 18441 PATTERSON LN#A TIN BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles-a peter ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.averycom ; Utilisez le abarit AVERY@ 51600 Sens de reveler le rebord Pop-up- � 1-800-GO-AVERY 9 t charaement 1 t Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to 1 o /I VERY®6241TM Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM j 157-341-11 7 157-341-11 7 157-341-12 8 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18441 PATTERSON LN#B 18441 PATTERSON LN#C 18431 PATTERSON LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-341-13 9 157-341-14 10 157-341-14 10 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18409 PATTERSON LN un-vt A 18401 PATTERSON LN#1 18401 PATTERSON LN#2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-341-15 11 157-341-15, 11 157-343-13 14 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18391 PATTERSON LN#101 18391 PATTERSON LN#102 18431 GOODWIN LN HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-14 15 157-343-15 16 157-343-16 17 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18441 GOODWIN LN 18461 GOODWIN LN 8161 ELLIS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-17 18 157-343-21 19 157-343-22 20 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8121 ELLIS AVE 18442 PA ON LN 8092 LA PALMA AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 GTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-23 21 157-343-24 22 157-343-24 22 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 LA PALMA AVE 8131 LA PALMA AVE#A 8131 LA PALMA AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-24 22 157-343-24 22 157-343-24 22 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8131 LA PALMA AVE#C 8131 LMA AVE#D 8131 LL MA AVE#E HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 H INGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-24 22 157-343-25 23 157-343-26 24 �CJU CPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 13 LMA AVE#F 8121 LA PALMA AVE unN�A 8101 LA PALMA AVE TINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-27 25 157-343-28 26 157-343-28 26 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8081 LA PALMA AVE 18412 PATTERSON LN#A 18412 PATTERSON LN#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-343-28 26 157-343-28 26 157-343-29 27 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18422 PATTERSON LN#A 18422 PATTERSON LN#B 8091 ELLIS AVE HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles.a peter ; A Replieza la hachure afin de; www.averycom Sens de Utilisez le gabarit AVERY@ 51600 i champ-mant reveler le rebord Poo-uo"" i 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peer Labels It A Bend along line to AVERY0 6241'rm Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeT"� j 157-343-31 28 157-343-32 29 157-471-06 30 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8101 ELLIS AVE 8071 ELLIS AVE '/-L 18582 BEACH BLVD#1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 , OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 BEACH BLVD#2 18582 BEACH BLVD#3 18582 P BLVD#4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 OCCUPANT OCCUPANTY OCCUPANT 18582_B_E�A BLVD#5 18582` EJEA BLVD#6 18582 B-- ? �H BLVD#7 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 BEACH BLVD#8A 18582 BEACH BLVD#9 18582 BEACH BLVD#10 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 BEACH BLVD#11 18582 BEACH BLVD#12 18582 BEACH BLVD#13 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 BEACH BLVD#14 18582 BEACH BLVD#15 18582 BEACH BLVD#16 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 BEACH BLVD#17 18582 BEACH BLVD#18 18582 BEACH BLVD#19 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 157-471-06 30 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 BEACH BLVD#20 18582 BEACH BLVD#21 18582 BEACH BLVD#22 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-06 30 157-471-12 31 157-471-12 31 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 BEACH BLVD#23A 18661 LIBRA CIR#1 18661 LIBRA CIR#2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-12 31 157-471-12 31 157-471-13 32 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18661 LIBRA CIR#3 18661 LIBRA CIR#4 18651 LIBRA CIR#1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles.h peter ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de; ww avery com ; Utilisez le aabarit AVERYO 51600 1 Sensrhmma de wte+ reveler le rebord Pop-uo"dC i 1-800-GO-AVERY i, :asy PeelO Labels i e Bend along line to AVERY0 6241TM Jse AveryO Template 51600 j Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM j V 157-471-13 32 157-471-13 32 157-471-13 32 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18651 LIBRA CIR#2 18651 LIBRA CIR#3 18651 LIBRA CIR#4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-14 33 157-471-14 33 157-471-14 33 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18641 LIBRA CIR#1 18641 LIBRA CIR#2 18641 LIBRA CIR#3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-14 33 157-471-15 34 157-471-15 34 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18641 LIBRA CIR#4 18642 LIBRA CIR#1 18642 LIBRA CIR#2 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-15 34 157-471-15 34 157471-16 35 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18642 LIBRA CIR#3 18642 LIBRA CIR#4 18652 LIBRA CIR#1 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-16 35 157-471-16 35 157-471-16 35 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18652 LIBRA CIR#2 18652 LIBRA CIR#3 18652 LIBRA CIR#4 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-17 36 157-471-17 36 157-471-17 36 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18662 LIBRA CIR#1 18662 LIBRA CIR#2 18662 LIBRA CIR#3 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-17 36 157-471-31 .37 157471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18662 LIBRA CIR#4 18632 BE VD#105 18632 BEACH BLVD#115 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18632 BEACH BLVD#205 18632 BEACH BLVD#210 18632 BEACH BLVD#215 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18632 BEACH BLVD#220 18632 BEACH BLVD#225 18632 BEACH BLVD#235 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 3 7 157-471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18682 BEACH BLVD#105 18682 BEACH BLVD#115 18682 BEACH BLVD#120 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Etiquettes faciles.b peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com Utilisez le aabarit AVERYO 51600 lh5ens de� w^* reveler le rebord Pon-uo"c i 1-800-GO-AVERY i Easy Peels Labels i ♦ Bend along line to 11, AVERVO 6241TM ; Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18682 BEACH BLVD#130 18682 BEACH BLVD 9140 18682 BEACH BLVD 9200 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18682 BEACH BLVD 9205 18682 BEACH BLVD.#210 18682 BEACH BLVD 9215 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18682 BEACH BLVD 9220 18682 BEACH BLVD 9225 18682 BEACH BLVD 9230 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 157-471-31 37 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18682 BEACH BLVD 9235 18682 BEACH BLVD 9245 18682 BEACH BLVD 9250 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 157-471-31 37 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18682 BEACH BLVD 9255 8102 ELLIS AVE# 101 8102 ELLIS AVE# 102 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 103 8102 ELLIS AVE# 104 8102 ELLIS AVE# 105 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 106 8102 ELLIS AVE# 107 8102 ELLIS AVE# 108 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#109 8102 ELLIS AVE# 110 8102 ELLIS AVE# I I I HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#112 8102 ELLIS AVE# 113 8102 ELLIS AVE# 114 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 115 8102 ELLIS AVE# 116 8102 ELLIS AVE# 117 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles h peter `f' Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com Iltilisa7 la naharit AVFRYO 51600 ;! —Sens dery rAw41ar 10 mhnrrl Pnn-nnMC ! 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel(D Labels i A Send along line to Q AVERY0 6241Tm Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper "" I expose Pop-up Edger 1 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 118 8102 ELLIS AVE# 119 8102 ELLIS AVE# 120 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 121 8102 ELLIS AVE# 122 8102 ELLIS AVE# 123 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 124 8102 ELLIS AVE# 125 8102 ELLIS AVE# 126 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 127 8102 ELLIS AVE# 128 8102 ELLIS AVE# 129 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 130 8102 ELLIS AVE# 131 8102 ELLIS AVE# 132 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 133 8102 ELLIS AVE# 134 8102 ELLIS AVE# 135 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 136 8102 ELLIS AVE# 137 8102 ELLIS AVE# 138 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 E�S f-VE# 139 8102 ELLI 9140 8102 ELLIS'AVE# 141 Ht>TNGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUN-? GTON BEACH CA 92646 IBC TINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT .�-- y=..t.3 OCCUPANTS..- --�8102 ELLJI VE# 142 8102 ELLI.S.AV-E#-T43 8102,E-)✓I'S AVE# 144 HUUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 K.,. w,_" 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT —r OCCUPANT _—.- OCCUPANT-.--_ 8102 ELLIS AVE# 145 8102 ELLIS AVE# 146 8102 E LIS AVE# 147 HUNfINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles-a peter ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com ; ® ® , Sens de me I 1-800-GO-AVERY Lftilisez le aabarit AVERY 5 160 �4 �..........a riavialar Ica mhnrrl Pnn-tcn Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to i Q ���j�p 6241TM Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 - - 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT �" OCCUPANT 8102 ELLI E# 148 8102 ELLIS.AVEG 149 8102E E# 150 GTON BEACH CA 92646 HU T-111GTON BEACH CA 92646 TINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT ^� OCCUPANT .,� " "�J OCCUPANT _ a- 8102 ELL1S-XVE# 151 8102 ELIIS AVID# 152 8102-ELLf VE# 153 fwTq"TINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT _. . - OCCUPANT ::— OCCUPANT_ 8102_ELILIS AVE# 154 8102 ELLrS AWE# 155 8102-lT I AVE# 156 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUP,ANT --=---.-- 8102 ELLIIS AVE# 157 8102 ELLIS-AVE#158 8102 ELLIS AVE# 159 RUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT.-_--• OCCULT — ----"°'—" OCCUPANT _ ---a 8142—ELLIS AVE# 160 8102 ELLIS AVE# 161 8102-ELLIS AVE# 162 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT --�- '� OCCUPANT---------- OCCUPANT­` 8102-.EL SLR AVE# 163 8102 9LLIS AVE# 164 8102 6LIS AVE# 165 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT, - OCCUPANTT =n__ OCCUPANT 8142-ELLIS AVE#166 8I62 ELLIS AVE# 167 8102==ELLIS-AVE#='168-. HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT.-,-- - --- OCCUPANT OCCUPANT _ 8102 ELLIS AVE# 169 8102 ELLIS AVE# 170 8102 �ELLIS AVE# 171 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUP,A,,�N -�- __ OCCUPANT 8102�I�ISr-A�F�17-2- 8102 E LII S AVE# 173 8102 ELLIS AVE# 174 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT' ` - OCCUPANT 810>2 E-MS A'VE#fT75--`- 8102 ELLIS AVE# 176 8102 ELLIS AVE# 177 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles.a peler ; A Repliez a la hachure afin de; www averycom ® ® Sens de me 1-800-GO-AVERY l)tilisPz la aaharit AVERY 516� �t--�.....,�... ro�i6lar IA rahnrrl Pnn-nn Pasy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to a AVERW 6241Tm i Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge TM 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT --� OCCUPAN --W----` 8102 LLIS AVE# 178 8102 ELLff AVE# 179 8102 E IS AVE# 180 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 .�,a.- 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT `'� OCCUPANT_� OCCUPANT---------------- 8102--ELLIS AVE# 181 8102 ELLIS AVE# 182 8102 ELKS AVE# 183 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT -y ' OCCU -' OCCUPANT 8102,-1LLIS AVE# 184 8102 ELLIS AVE# 185 8142`"ELLIS AVE# 186 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 -�= OCCUPANT OCCUPANT-OCCUPANT:»�="" OCCUPANT 8102 ALL'IS AVE# 187 8102 ELLIS AVE# 188 8102E # 189 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUN IN EACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT , " OCCUPANT.- —---- ''- 8102 ELL ..A r 1 81Q2-ELI IS AVE# 191 81©2-ftI IS AVE# 192 GTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT. _ r OCCUPANT OCCUPANT rd� 8102,E.LEIS AVE# 193 8102 EI L--I-S AVE# 194 8102 ELLIS AVE# 195 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38.- --_' 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT- OCCUPANT - "' OCCUPANT_ 8102 ELLIS AVE# 196 8102 ELLIS'AVE# 197 8102 ELLIS AVE# 198 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT--_.--.-----=- OCCUPANT_ -= OCCUPANT 8102--ELLIS AVE# 199 8102 ELL AVE#200 8102 ELLIS AVE#201 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#202 8102 ELLIS AVE#203 8102 ELLIS AVE#204 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT- OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#205 8102 ELLIS AVE#206 8102 ELLIS A"dE#207 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles-6 peter ; A Repliez a la hathure afin de; www.avery.com ltilica7 is naharit AVFRYO SOSO i -L.Sens de- r4wAlnr la rahmM Pnn-iinmc 1, 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to n ��/��$1(®62417A" I Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up Edger"" 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#208 8102 ELLIS AVE#209 8102 ELLIS AVE#210 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#211 8102 ELLIS AVE#212 8102 ELLIS AVE#213 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#214 8102 ELLIS AVE#215 8102 ELLIS AVE#216 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#217 8102 ELLIS AVE#218 8102 ELLIS AVE#219 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#220 8102 ELLIS AVE#221 8102 ELLIS AVE#222 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#223 8102 ELLIS AVE#224 8102 ELLIS AVE#225 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#226 8102 ELLIS AVE#227 8102 ELLIS AVE#228 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT— - -- — 8102 ELLIS AVE#229 8102 ELLIS AVE#230 8102 ELLIS AVE#231 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#232 8102 ELLIS AVE#233 8102 ELLIS AVE#234 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#235 8102 ELLIS AVE#236 8102 ELLIS AVE#237 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles.a peter A Repliez a la hachure afin de www.averycom I ItMCC7 Ia naharit QVFRV0 RIA00 -`Sens de-, rnvnlar la rahnrri Pnn-unMc 1-800-GO-AVERY i Easy PeelO Labels i A Bend along line to 1 S AVERYO 6241Tm Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTm i 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#238 8102 ELLIS AVE#239 8102 ELLIS AVE#240 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#241 8102 ELLIS AVE#242 8102 ELLIS AVE#243 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT - 8102 #244 8102,L"trS AVE#245 8102 ELLIS AVE#246 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT _ OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS ACVE#247 8102 ELLIS,AVE#-248" 8102 ELLIS'AVE#249 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT""' OCCUPANTS OCCUPANT�=_ - 8102 ELLIS AVE#250 8102 ELLIS AVE#251 8102 ELLIS AVE#252 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 _.,;, 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT- OCCUPANT OCCUPANT' ` 8102 ELLIS AVE#253 8102 ELLIS AVE#254 8102 ELLIS AVE#255 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT---___ OCCUPm�I`I° OCCUPANT.---—-'° 8102 ELLIS AVE#256 8102 ELLIS AVE#257 8102 ELLIS AVE#258 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT _ -OCCUPANT:-: �_�- -- - -OCCUPANT _ - -_ - - - 8102 ELLIS AVE#259 8102 $LL1S AVE#260 8102 ELLIS AVE#261 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCC )TANT— OCCUPANT- OCCUPANT; ­- 8102 ELLIS AVE#262 8102 ELLIS AVE#263 8102 ELLIS AVE#264 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT y� � -- OCCUPANT 8102 E-bhtS`A,EW`265K 8102 EIjLI AVE#266 8102 ELL') � b7- HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles.a peler ; d de Repliez a la hachure afln de; www.averycom ; I It�lim�ID n�h�ri4 B.1/ARV®41rn® I -,Sens----- 1-800-GO-AVERY i Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to 11 © � ��® 6241TM Use AveryO Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up Edgerm j 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT _�.- � OCCUPANT .� OCCUPANT 810022 LLJS"A-VE#268 8102,iI�,I�9 A`�E;#Z69 8102 ELL AVE4 270 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 }_ OCCUPANT---" OCCUPANT OCCUPANT------- 8102 ELLIS AVE4 271 8102 ELLIS AVE4 272 8102 ELLIS AVE4 273 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT..- -:° - OCCUPANT OCCUPANT-- 8102 ELLIS AVE4 274 8102 ELO _AVE4 275 8102 ELLIS AVE4 276 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157471-32 38 157471-32 38 OCCUPA T OCCUPAN;T -- OCCUPANT_ 8102 ELLIS AVE4 277 8102 ELLIS AVE4 278 8102 ELLIS AVE4 279 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPA OCCUPANT OCCUPANT _..F_� 8102 E�LIS AVE4 280 8102 ELLIS AVE4 281 8102 ELLIS AVE#282 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPAN OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE4 283 8102 ELi_v- VE 2284 8102 ELLI A' #2'85 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT _ OCCUPANT. _ OCCUPANT_ 8102 EL" S AV&' 286 8102 ELLIS AVE4 287 8102 EL ILL E#288 f HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT _ OCCUPANT - OCCUPANT _ 8102 EI;LIS AVE4 289 8102 ELLIS A1V-E#-2-90 - •---- 8102 ELLIS ,VE4 291 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 RnMMMM# §2 8102 ELLI&AVE#2,93--- m-- 8102 ELLIS AVE4 294 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT _ 0 CCU PANT-_� OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE4 295 8102 ELLIS AVE4 296 8102 ELLIS AVE4 297 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes fadles.a peler ; A Repliez a la hachure afire de; www.avery.com ; evFuvO c-tanO i .Sens de _ .. . ...i o .._....m� ! 1-RO0-GO-AVERY ! Easy PeelO Labels i A MEM Bend along line to AVERY®6241TM S Use AveryO Template 51600 j Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM i 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUUPANX---- "' OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 81 Of-ELLIS AVE#298 8102 EL, .IS E'E 9"" 8102E � 00 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157471-32 38 157471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#301 8102 ELLIS AVE#302 8102 ELLIS AVE#303 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#304 8102 ELLIS AVE#305 8102 ELLIS AVE#306 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#307 8102 ELLIS AVE#308 8102 ELLIS AVE#309 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#310 8102 ELLIS AVE#311 8102 ELLIS AVE#312 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#313 8102 ELLIS AVE#314 8102 ELLIS AVE#315 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#316 8102 ELLIS AVE#317 8102 ELLIS AVE#318 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#319 8102 ELLIS AVE#320 8102 ELLIS AVE#321 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#322 8102 ELLIS AVE#323 8102 ELLIS AVE#324 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#325 8102 ELLIS AVE#326 8102 ELLIS AVE#327 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles-a peter ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de; www avery corn Sens de y �,.,���'�e����o�„�.��,� ' 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to n AVERY0 6241Tm ; Use Avery®Template 51600 1 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up Edger"' IJ 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#328 8102 ELLIS AVE#329 8102 ELLIS AVE#330 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#331 8102 ELLIS AVE#332 8102 ELLIS AVE#333 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#334 8102 ELLIS AVE#335 8102 ELLIS AVE#336 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE# 337 8102 ELLIS AVE#338 8102 ELLIS AVE#339 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 157-471-32 38 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT . 8102 ELLIS AVE#340 8102 ELLIS AVE#341 8102 ELLIS AVE#342 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-471-32 38 157-501-01 39 157-501-05 41 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8102 ELLIS AVE#343 8200 AVE 8182 ELLIS AVE#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HL—NTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-05 41 157-501-05 41 157-501-05 41 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8182 ELLIS AVE#B 8182 ELLIS AVE#C 8182 ELLIS AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-06 42 157-501-06 42 157-501-06 42 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8172 ELLIS AVE#A 8172 ELLIS AVE#B 8172 ELLIS AVE#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-06 42 157-501-07 43 157-501-08 44 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8172 ELLIS AVE#D 1853�DENIION LN 18542 D�d, N HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUN-TINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-09 45 157-501-09 45 157-501-09 45 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18552 DEMION LN#A 18552 DEMION LN#B 18552 DEMION LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles,a peter ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com ; I F+ificc7 In n-Ak=A+A\/FRY®S1t+n® t Sens de 1 .�., Dn.._...Mc ! 1-800-GO-"ERY Easy Peels Labels i ♦ MMM Bend atong line to AVERY0 6241'rm Jse Avery15 Template 51600 Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeT"' j S 1 157-501-09 45 157-501-10 46 157-501-10 46 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18552 DEMION LN#D 18572 DEMION LN#A 18572 DEMION LN#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-10 46 157-501-10 46 157-501-11 47 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18572 DEMION LN#C 18572 DEMION LN#D 18582 DEMION LN#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-11 47 157-501-11 47 157-501-11 47 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18582 DEMION LN#B 18582 DEMION LN#C 18582 DEMION LN#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-12 48 157-501-12 48 157-501-12 48 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18602 DEMION LN#A 18602 DEMION LN#B 18602 DEMION LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-12 48 157-501-13 49 157-501-13 49 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18602 DEMION LN#D 18612 DEMION LN#A 18612 DEMION LN#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-13 49 157-501-13 49 157-501-14 50 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18612 DEMION LN#C 18612 DEMION LN#D 18622 DEMION LN#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-14 50 157-501-14 50 157-501-14 50 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18622 DEMION LN#B 18622 DEMION LN#C 18622 DEMION LN#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-15 51 157-501-15 51 157-501-15 51 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18632 DEMION LN#A 18632 DEMION LN#B 18632 DEMION LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-501-15 51 157-502-01 52 157-502-01 52 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18632 DEMION LN#D 8142 ELLIS AVE#A 8142 ELLIS AVE#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-01 52 157-502-01 52 157-502-02 53 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8142 ELLIS AVE#C 8142 ELLIS AVE#D 8132 ELLIS AVE#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Eti uettes faciles-a eler ' A Repliez a la hathure afin de; www.avery.com q P ! . 1—;+ Avrov®Kirn® i Sens de , w.Mn.d Dn.._n:.MC ! 1-800-GO-AVERY Easy Peeler Labels i A Bend along line to 1 S AVERVO 6241Tm ; Use Avery@ Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM j i 157-502-02 53 157-502-02 53 157-502-02 53 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 8132 ELLIS AVE#B 8132 ELLIS AVE#C 8132 ELLIS AVE#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-03 54 157-502-03 54 157-502-03 54 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18531 DEMION LN#A 18531 DEMION LN#B 18531 DEMION LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-03 54 157-502-04 55 157-502-04 55 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18531 DEMION LN#D 18541 DEMION LN#A 18541 DEMION LN#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-04 55 157-502-04 55 157-502-05 56 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18541 DEMION LN#C 18541 DEMION LN#D 18551 DEMION LN#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-05 56 157-502-05 56 157-502-05 56 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18551 DEMION LN#B 18551 DEMION LN#C 18551 DEMION LN#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-06 57 157-502-06 57 157-502-06 57 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18571 DEMION LN#A 18571 DEMION LN#B 18571 DEMION LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-06 57 157-502-07 58 157-502-07 58 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18571 DEMION LN#D 18581 DEMION LN#A 18581 DEMION LN#B HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-07 58 157-502-07 58 157-502-08 59 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18581 DEMION LN#C 18581 DEMION LN#D 18601 DEMION LN#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-08 59 157-502-08 59 157-502-08 59 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18601 DEMION LN#B 18601 DEMION LN#C 18601 DEMION LN#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-09 60 157-502-09 60 157-502-09 60 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18611 DEMION LN#A 18611 DEMION LN #B 18611 DEMION LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 Etiquettes faciles,a peter ® Repliez a la hachure afin de www averycom i Itilica7 la naharit®VERY@ R!An@ ! LSens de _` �A.Ale 1e ro1—A Dnn_n Mc ! 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy Pee10 Labels i A Bend along line to a ����®6241TM i Use Avery®Template 51600 j Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up Edge'rm 1 157-502-09 60 157-502-10 61 157-502-11 62 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT _ �'�— OCCUPANT 18611 DEMION LN#D 18621 D LN 18631 DEMION LN#A HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 INGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-11 62 157-502-11 62 157-502-11 62 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18631 DEMION LN#B 18631 DEMION LN#C 18631 DEMION LN#D HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-11 62 157-502-11 62 157-502-11 62 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18633 ION LN#A 18633 ON LN#B 18633-D�'1 ION LN#C HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUN INGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 157-502-11 62 157-502-12 63 159-031-08 64 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18633 D� N#D 18641 ON LN 18423 B-EAC LVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUN"TINNGTON BEACH CA 92646 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-031-10 65 159-031-12 66 159-031-12 66 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18477 BEACH BLVD 7901 ELLIS E_'1 7901 �I AVE#'3'- HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HJJNT- GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-031-12 66 159-031-12 66 159-031-17 68 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 790 # 7901E #. x. 18455 BEACH BLVD HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HU1QI'INGT ON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-031-18 69 159-091-04 70 159-091-04 70 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18431 BEACH BLVD 18593 M " ST#543 18593 �1IN ST#545 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUI`l I GTON BEACH CA 92648 TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-091-04 70 -- 159-091-04 70 159-091-04 70 OCCUPANT -'' OCCUPANT - OCCUPANT------- — 18593 MAIN S-TW 547 18593 MAIN'ST#549 18593-'MAIN ST#551 HUNTIN_G_TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 i 159-091-04 70-,---' 159-091-04 70 _-_._ 159-091-04 70 OCCUPANTri OCCUPAN -` OCCUPANT 18593�MATN ST# 553 18593'MAIN ST#555 18593 IN ST# 557 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-091-04 70. - ""� 159-091-04 70 159-091-04 70 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT.._ 18593 .MAIN ST# 559 18593 MAIN ST#561 18593 MAIN ST# 563 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Etiquettes faciles-a peler ; AL Repliez a la hachure afin de; wwwaveiycom i ltmca7 la nnhnrit AVFRYO SIM@ i -`Sens de Mc Ye�fe1o�io.o{,nr.1 Pnr�.tnMc ! 1-800-GO-AVERY ! Easy Peel®Labels i A Bend along line to A1ERY0 6241— ; Use Avery®Template 51600 Feed Paper ® expose Pop-up EdgeTM j V 159-091-04 70 159-091-04 70 - 159-091-04 0 - OCCUPAA OCCUP I' OCCUPANT 185�IN ST#565 18593 MAIN ST# 567 18593 MAIN ST# 569 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-091-04 _70-' 159-091-04 70 — - 159-091-04 70 OCCUPANT- OCCUPA�1�� OCCUPAN-T`"_ ._ 18593 MAIN ST#571 18593 MAIN ST# 573 18593 MAIN ST# 575 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-091-04 70 ,:..• 159-091-04 70 159-091-04 70 OCCUPANT---`_ OCCUPANT L� OCCUPA T�'�`" 18593,--MAIN ST#577 18593 ST# 579 18593 MAIN ST#581 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-091-04 .70 159-091-04 70 ^ 159-091-04 �_,70..-: -- OCCUPANT"' OCCUPANT-: OCCUPANT 18593,,-MAIN ST#583 18593-"MAIN ST# 585 18593 MAIN ST#587 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-091-04 70 159-091-04 70 _-r=- �~--= 159-091-04 70 OCCUPANT... --- OCCUPANT OCCUPANT---, 18593-MAIN ST#589 185/933 MAIN ST# 591 185`0_3' 4AIN ST#593 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HL�NTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-101-01 71 159-101-03 72 159-102-01 73 OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT 18501 MA 18501 MAIN ST 18501 BEACH BLVD WM GTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 159-102-06 74 159-102-43 159-102-44 76 OCCUPANT OCCUPA OCCUPANT 18651 BEAC 186 EACH BLVD 1858 IN ST HU TON BEACH CA 92648 HUNTINGTON BEACH CA 92648 TINGTON BEACH CA 92648 Etiqueftes faciles,a peter ; ® Repliez a la hachure afin de; www.avery.com 11tMCP7 IP naharit AVFRYO 51600 i -`Sens de^F rovSlcr In rohnrd Pnn-unmc 1 1-800-GO-AVERY ;. 1 2 5 HB Chamber of Commerce Orange County Assoc. of Realtors Huntington Beach Tomorrow President Dave Stefanides President 2134 Main St. Ste. 100 25552 La Paz Road PO Box 865 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 29 29 30 Fountain Valley Elem. School Dist. Fountain Valley Elem. School Dist. HB City Elementary School Dist. Marc Ecker Rina Lucchese, Executive Assistant Gregg Haulk, Superintendent 10055 Slater Avenue 10055 Slater Avenue 20451 Craimer Lane Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Fountain Valley, CA 92708 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 30 31 33 HB City Elementary School Dist. Ocean View Elem. School Dist. HB Union High School District John Archiald Attn: Cindy Pulfer, Admin. Services Greg Plutko, Superintendent 20451 Craimer Lane 17200 Pinehurst Lane 5832 Bolsa Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 31 32 32 Ocean View Elem. School Dist. Westminster School District Westminster School District William Loose, Superintendent Clark Hampton Richard Tauer, Superintendent 17200 Pinehurst Lane 14121 Cedarwood Avenue 14121 Cedarwood Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Westminster, CA 92683 Westminster, CA 92683 33 HB Union High School District Mr. & Mrs. Boskovich Mr. Stephen Knight Stephen Ritter 18341 Springtime 18342 Patterson Ln. #1 5832 Bolsa Avenue Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 09 G9/09GSo laaAd 39A2 algljzdwoo ww L9 x ww 9Z Imiol ap a;janbl13 09 G9/091So laaAd q;!m algljedwoo„g/5 Z x„G ozls lagei Occupant Occupant j Occupant 18661 Main St. 18597 Main St. 18691 Main St. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Ben Brosseau 15149 Camarillo St. Steve Sheldon Morrie Golcheh CA 91403 901 Dove St. Ste 140 I 10537 Santa Monica Blvd St 350 Sherman Oaks, Newport Beach, CA 92660 j Los Angeles, CA 90025 Barbara Boskovich Richard Bowman Joe Ronchetti 18341 Springtime Ln 8102 Ellis Ave,#238 16682 Algonquin Huntington Beach, CA 92646 i ! Huntington Beach, CA'92646 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 I Nina Tropea Monique Tran George Mesiha 20181 Cattail Circle 18520 Beach Blvd 18502 Beach Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach,CA•92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 i . I i � I j I i it I ii I i ' i I l i I I II II I i i I i Ii label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery @5160/8160 Etiquette de format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery O'5160/8160 PROOF OF PUBLICATION ❑ 1. APPEAL OF SITE and Building. Depart- PLAN//�� PLAN REVIEW NO. 12- ment,2000 Main Street, STATE OF CAL'FORNIA) 01 (BEACH AND ELLIS Huntington Beach, Cali- MIXED USE PROJECT): fornia 92648, for in- Appellant: Mayor .Don spection by the public. ' eg�� �/ we/°� ) SS. Hansen.:Applicant.. Ben A copy of the staff ®VOV� I ®� ®��IVVI� ) Brosseo Consulting report will be available Inc. Property Owner: to interested parties at Morrie Golcheh, Pro- the City Clerk's Office gressive Property Man- on Thursday, May 31, agement.Request:SPR: 2012. Represents a request to ALL INTERESTED PER- am a citizen of the United States and a develop a mixed use SONS are invited to at- project consisting of tend "said hearing and resident of the County of Los Angeles; 1 274 residential units in- express opinions or cluding 6 live-work submit evidence for or am over the age of eighteen years, and units, 8,500 square feet against the application (sf) of commercial as outlined above. If not a party to or interested in the notice space, an. internal 430 you challenge the City space parking garage Council's action in published. I am a principal clerk of the and 54,861 sf of private court, you may be and public open space limited to raising 'only on a 2.74 acre site.The those issues you or HUNTINGTON BEACH project ranges in height someone else raised at 'INDEPENDENT, which was adjudged a. from four to six stories the public hearing de and is designed as pro- scribed in this notice, news a er of eneral circulation On posed LEED Silver rated or in written corre- p p g for the commercial por- spondence delivered to Se tember 29 1961 case A6214 and tion of the project and the City at, or prior to, p > > > Green Point Rated for the public hearing. If June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the the residential portion. there are'any further A l l existing i m- questions please call Cityof. Huntington Beach Count of provements on the site the Planning and g Y would be demolished. Building Department,at Orange ;,and the State of California. Lecatlen: '18502-18552 (714) 536-5271 and re- NOTI(EOFPUBU(HEARING-Beach Blvd, 92648 fer to the above items. Attached to this Affidavit is a true and NTICEO PUBLIC COUNCIL (2.74-acre site at the Direct. your written southeast• corner of communications to the complete co as was printed and OFTHE Beach and Ellis)Pmary City Clerk p copy p Planner: Rosemary loan L.Flynn,City Clerk • published on the following date(s): CITY OFHUNTINGTON Medel City of Huntington BEACH NOTICE'IS HEREBY GIV- Beach i NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- EN that Item #1 was 2000 Main Street,2nd Thursday, May 24, 20 12 der Eusly-analyzed uin FloorHunti is 92 Beach, @N that on Monday, der EIR'No. 10-004 in California 92648 ' June 4, 2012, at 6:00 compliance with Califor- 714-536-5227 , p.m. in the City Council nia Environmental Qual- http:// Chambers, 2000 Main ity Act. huntingtonbeachca.gov/ Street, Huntington ON FILE: A copy of the HBPublicComments/ Beach, the City Council proposed request and Published H.B. Indepen will hold a public hear- supporting materials is. dent May 24,2012 certify (or declare) under penalty ingon the following: on file in the Planning of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 1 , 2012 at Los Angeles, California Signature PROOF OF PUBLICATION ❑ 1. APPEAL OF SITE and Building Depart- PLAN REVIEW NO. 12- ment,2000 Main Street, 01 (BEACH AND ELLIS Huntington Beach,Cali- ST'AT'E OF CALIFORNIA) MIXED USE PROJECT fornia 92648, for in- Appellant: Mayor Donn spection by the public. Hansen. Applicant. Ben A copy 'of the staff Brosseau Consulting report will be available ��� Inc. Property Owner: to interested parties at 1 e �/ Morrie Golcheh, Pro- the City Clerk's Office COUNTY O F ORANGE ) a e men Property Man- Thursday, May 31, agement.Request:SPR: 2012. Represents a request to ALL INTERESTED PER- develop a mixed use SONS are invited to at- project consisting of tend said hearing and am a citizen of the United States and a cludi e rgdential units in- express .opinions or lu 6 live-work submit evidence for or units, 8,500 square feet against the application resident of the County of Los Angeles; I (sf) of commercial as outlined above. If. space, an internal 430 you challenge the City am over the age of eighteen years, and space parking garage Councils action in and 54,861 sf of private court, you may be not a party to or interested in the notice and public open space limited to raising 'only on a 2.74 acre site.The those issues you or published. I am a principal clerk of the project.ranges in height someone else raised at HUNTINGTON BEACH from four six stories the public hearing de- and is designed as pro- scribed in this notice, INDEPENDENT;..which was adjudged a posed LEED silver rated or in written corre- : for the commercial por- spondence delivered to - newspaper of general circulation on Green of the project and the City public h prior to, Green ,Point Rated for the public hearing. If September 29, 1961, case A6214, and the residential 'portion- there are any further All existing i m- questions please call provements on the site the ' Planning. a n d June 11, 1963, case A24831, for the would be., demolished. Building Department at Location: 18502-18552 (714) 536-5271 and re- City of Huntington Beach, County of NOMEOFPUBLI(HEARING Beach Blvd, 92648 Der to the above items. (2.74-acre site at the Direct your .written Orange, and the State of California. BEFORE THE(ITY(OUN(IL southeast corner of communications to the OFTHE Beach and Ellis)Project City Clerk Attached to this' Affidavit is a true and Planner: Rosemary Joan L.Flynn,City Clerk complete copy as was printed and (m(OF EA`HNGTON ' MOdel City of Huntington NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- Beach EN that Item.#1 was "2000 Main Street,2nd published on the following date(s): @NTlth that on Monday ,y previously analyzed u Floor Huntington Beach, Y� in der EIR'No. 10-004 in California 92648 June 4, 2012, at 6:00, compliance with Califor- 714-536-5227 p.m. in the City Council ny Environmental Qual- hta Thursday, May 24, 2012 Chambers, 2000 Main it Act. hunting tonbebeachca.g ov/ Street, Huntington ON FILE: A copy of the HBPublicComments/ Beach, the City Council proposed request and Published H.B. Indepen- will hold a public hear- supporting materials is dent May 24,2012 ing on the following: on file in the Planning I certify (or declare) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on June 1 , 2012 at Los Angeles, California Signature ATTACBENIENT NO. I FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 12-001 FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL—SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. U 01: 1 Site Plan Review No. 12-001 for the construction of mixed use development consisting of 274 multi-family residential units and 8,5 square feet of commercial area and associated improvements will not be detrirmn tal to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicinity or detr=' I to the value of property and improvements in the neighborhood as this develop ent replaces a mostly vacant and underperforming commercial center. The i d-use residential and commercial development, with the recommended co itions, of approval, incorporates architectural and design elements that provid maximum compatibility of design with the existing and anticipated development surrounding the project site, promotes pedestrian accessibility, and promotes the age of the Huntington Beach envisioned within the Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific S ifi Plan (BECSP). Structures on the / project site are four to six stories in eight and feature enhanced building materials and colors, building recesses fagade offsets, and vari4itin—in massing composition. The neighborhood ' I benefit from the proposed(r3 145 O)f publicly accessible open space. The p ect's conformance with the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan further nsurcs that the form, height, and architectural design convey an overall high level quality. 2. The proposed mixed use oject will not adversely affect the Circulation Plan of the BECSP. The project ' reduce the number of ingress/egress driveways at the site from six to eb,two ther reducing conflicts with through traffic and the potential for two re-W accidents. The pitpropoi ed northerly garage entrance will be relocated to directly across from Patterson L to reduce peak hour traffic impacts of west bound traffic from the project site he project will dedicate 2 ft along Beach Blvd and four ft along Ellis Ave to act odate the Palm Tree Blvd and Neighborhood Street public right- of-way improy_�ments consistent with the BECSP. No additional street improvements are required 7improve capacity/efficiency on intersection operations; however, the project will ay fees commensurate with the project's contribution of traffic on the ar pr oject 0j r e e q t u will e 'd 1 /area-wide oadway system. T 3. The pr Jett complies with the applicable provisions of the Beach and Edinger C rri _ s e project orri rs Specific Plan (SP14) and other applicable regulations. Th r Sp tomc com ies with the development standards in terms of height setbacks, minimum ies with on t r j on to parking, open space and architectural regulations. The project also ensures that parking, E formn and architectural design convey an overall high level of quality materials I o.nsjst nt with onsistent with the vision of the Specific Plan, (12sr23 SPR 12-001) 1 Aftac)unent No. I Item 18. - 29 HB -662-